- 44

- 0

Petar Bosnic Petrus

Langova 35 , 10430 Samobor, Croatia

HOW THE SPEED OF LIGHT CAN BE EXCEEDED ? PACS 03. 3O + P

This article summarizes one of the topics covered in my book Prilog razumijevanju i kritici teorije relativnosti (Contributions To the Understanding and Criticism Of the Theory of Relativity), presenting an analysis of various interpretations of relativistic phenomena and of attempts to conceive an experiment that would make it possible to achieve supra-light velocity.

That book is the result of studing Theory of relativity in the last 30 years.

For more, at http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

Interpretations of experience to date

Many experiments have already been carried out which have shown that a wave or, generally speaking, an electromagnetic impulse, can in no way exceed c, i.e. the speed of light.

At this point it is very important to stress something usually overlooked in papers like this one: those same experiments have also shown that an electromagnetic impulse is quite unable to move at a velocity that is lower than the speed of light.

Even if the source of the impulse moves at a velocity close to the speed of light, neither is the speed of the impulse increased if emited in the direction the source itself is moving, nor reduced if emited in the opposite direction; instead, the Doppler effect appears.

This experience demonstrates in the most direct way that the speed of light c need not be regarded as a property of light itself, or of an electromagnetic impulse, but as the property of the medium which transfers them, i.e. as its TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT. If the speed of light c were a property of electromagnetic impulses or waves of light themselves, or photons, it would be impossible for the Doppler effect to take place.

By TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT I understand the specific speed of transfering signals, information, impulses, waves, force, etc. No medium is capable of transfering electromagnetic impulses at a speed that is either lower or higher than c, since c is its TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT which could be changed only if other properties of the medium itself are changed beforehand.

The above should, I believe, suffice to demonstrate why it cannot be expected that light waves, electromagnetic impulses, or information travel at a speed higher or lower than c.

But what is the situation with mass particles?

These are not carried by the medium; instead, they move through it and are fully independent of its TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT. Consequently, they should supposedly be capable of moving both slower and faster than the value of the TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT of medium.

Effecting, observing and measuring motions at speeds below c offers no problem. However, as far as movement at speeds greater than c is concerned, experience has demonstrated that powerful electromagnetic impulses emitted by big accelerators are unable to accelerate mass particles even close to the speed of light, even if the electromagnetic waves used possess enormously high energy values.

Why?

The answer offered by the Theory of Relativity suggests the following: with an increase in particle velocity, its inertia (mass, or impulse) also increases, and it would take infinite amounts of energy to achieve velocity c. This quite clearly follows from the following Einsteinfs equation:

Transferse mass = m/ (1-v2/ c2)h Eq (1)*

----------------

*A. Einstein: gOn the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodiesh, Ch. 10: Dynamics of Slowly Accelerated Electron.

-----------------------

The experimental proof presented in support of the assertion of mass increase is the enormous quantity of energy released when an accelerated particle collides with the target.

However, the very assertion related to mass increase, and its experimental proof, are in fact ... relative.

In order to demonstrate this, let us use the above Einsteinfs formula. In the text from which the equation has been taken, he suggests incorporating the gtransverse massh value into the Newtonfs equation:.F = m a This move is completely justifiable, since it renders the equation suitable for interpretation. Here are the results of that move:

m = F/a,

m/ (1-v2/ c2) = F/a, Eq (2)

m = (F (1-v2 / c2)) / a Eq (3)

where F is the force acting upon the particle.

In interpreting the events occurring with the acceleration of particles on the basis of equation (3), we must arrive at the conclusion that the increase in velocity of a particle reduces its mass (inertia), but only the manifested one, F /a, while the inherent one, E / c2, remains the same. (E = energy exclusivelly in non-inertial form -- form of waves.)

By inherent inertia I understand the total inertia contained by a particle, or body, even when not manifested at all.

Why, then, does the reduction of manifested inertia occur?

Equation (3) suggests the following answer:

The closer particle velocity approaches velocity c, the lower (in relation to the particle) is the relative velocity at which force F -- the force which accelerates the particle -- affects it, and at which force F is transfered by the medium (from source to a particle), not at infinite velocity but at the TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT, i.e. at velocity c.

A motionless particle is acted upon by force at velocity c, which (in the time, t zero) makes the manifested inertia of the particle total and equal to the inherent inertia, E / c2. However, the expansion velocity of force supposed to accelerate a particle, if the particle already moves at velocity v = c, equals zero. Therefore force, as great as it may be, cannot act upon the particle, which in turn, for that precise reason, cannot grespondh with inertia to its gactingh. Newtonfs law: F = -F. And if F= 0, than -F = 0 Force.

-F is manifestation of inertia.

Consequently, the suggestion made by equation (3), i.e. the inability of a particle to accelerate to velocity c, and above, does not result from the enormous increase of its inertia (mass), but rather from the fact that impulses emitted by the accelerator are unable to catch up with it and transfer their energy (supposed to accelerate it) onto it. This manifests in the same way as an illusion that the mass of the particle were, m = ‡, infinite.

For the same reason, a magnetic field deflects, to a slighter degree, the motion direction of very fast particles.

But if the above assertion is correct, there is a question to be answered: why does a particle, at colliding with a target, manifest a much larger quantity of energy than should correspond to its velocity?

This increased quantity of energy may also be the result of the very electromagnetic impulses, emitted in order to accelerate the particle, hitting the target practically simultaneously with the particles they were supposed to accelerate. For that matter, the value of that energy corresponds to the energy invested in particle acceleration. However, the Theory of Relativity has interpreted this phenomenon, as we have already said, as the consequence of the increased mass of the particle.

Both equations, (1) and (3), suggest clearly and non-relatively that a particle can never be accelerated to velocity c.

Is that suggestion well founded?

The physical logic of these phenomena enables us to speculate in the following manner:

If a particle cannot be accelerated even to velocity c by means of impulses emitted from somewhere outside the particle and directed at it, it is not illogical to suppose that one could accelerate it to a velocity exceeding velocity c by impulses emitted from the particle itself.

How could this be achieved?

IF YOU HAVE SOME INTEREST, PLEASE CONTINUE AT FOLLOEING THREAD:

"HOW TO EXCEED THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT 2"

.

Langova 35 , 10430 Samobor, Croatia

HOW THE SPEED OF LIGHT CAN BE EXCEEDED ? PACS 03. 3O + P

This article summarizes one of the topics covered in my book Prilog razumijevanju i kritici teorije relativnosti (Contributions To the Understanding and Criticism Of the Theory of Relativity), presenting an analysis of various interpretations of relativistic phenomena and of attempts to conceive an experiment that would make it possible to achieve supra-light velocity.

That book is the result of studing Theory of relativity in the last 30 years.

For more, at http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

Interpretations of experience to date

Many experiments have already been carried out which have shown that a wave or, generally speaking, an electromagnetic impulse, can in no way exceed c, i.e. the speed of light.

At this point it is very important to stress something usually overlooked in papers like this one: those same experiments have also shown that an electromagnetic impulse is quite unable to move at a velocity that is lower than the speed of light.

Even if the source of the impulse moves at a velocity close to the speed of light, neither is the speed of the impulse increased if emited in the direction the source itself is moving, nor reduced if emited in the opposite direction; instead, the Doppler effect appears.

This experience demonstrates in the most direct way that the speed of light c need not be regarded as a property of light itself, or of an electromagnetic impulse, but as the property of the medium which transfers them, i.e. as its TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT. If the speed of light c were a property of electromagnetic impulses or waves of light themselves, or photons, it would be impossible for the Doppler effect to take place.

By TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT I understand the specific speed of transfering signals, information, impulses, waves, force, etc. No medium is capable of transfering electromagnetic impulses at a speed that is either lower or higher than c, since c is its TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT which could be changed only if other properties of the medium itself are changed beforehand.

The above should, I believe, suffice to demonstrate why it cannot be expected that light waves, electromagnetic impulses, or information travel at a speed higher or lower than c.

But what is the situation with mass particles?

These are not carried by the medium; instead, they move through it and are fully independent of its TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT. Consequently, they should supposedly be capable of moving both slower and faster than the value of the TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT of medium.

Effecting, observing and measuring motions at speeds below c offers no problem. However, as far as movement at speeds greater than c is concerned, experience has demonstrated that powerful electromagnetic impulses emitted by big accelerators are unable to accelerate mass particles even close to the speed of light, even if the electromagnetic waves used possess enormously high energy values.

Why?

The answer offered by the Theory of Relativity suggests the following: with an increase in particle velocity, its inertia (mass, or impulse) also increases, and it would take infinite amounts of energy to achieve velocity c. This quite clearly follows from the following Einsteinfs equation:

Transferse mass = m/ (1-v2/ c2)h Eq (1)*

----------------

*A. Einstein: gOn the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodiesh, Ch. 10: Dynamics of Slowly Accelerated Electron.

-----------------------

The experimental proof presented in support of the assertion of mass increase is the enormous quantity of energy released when an accelerated particle collides with the target.

However, the very assertion related to mass increase, and its experimental proof, are in fact ... relative.

In order to demonstrate this, let us use the above Einsteinfs formula. In the text from which the equation has been taken, he suggests incorporating the gtransverse massh value into the Newtonfs equation:.F = m a This move is completely justifiable, since it renders the equation suitable for interpretation. Here are the results of that move:

m = F/a,

m/ (1-v2/ c2) = F/a, Eq (2)

m = (F (1-v2 / c2)) / a Eq (3)

where F is the force acting upon the particle.

In interpreting the events occurring with the acceleration of particles on the basis of equation (3), we must arrive at the conclusion that the increase in velocity of a particle reduces its mass (inertia), but only the manifested one, F /a, while the inherent one, E / c2, remains the same. (E = energy exclusivelly in non-inertial form -- form of waves.)

By inherent inertia I understand the total inertia contained by a particle, or body, even when not manifested at all.

Why, then, does the reduction of manifested inertia occur?

Equation (3) suggests the following answer:

The closer particle velocity approaches velocity c, the lower (in relation to the particle) is the relative velocity at which force F -- the force which accelerates the particle -- affects it, and at which force F is transfered by the medium (from source to a particle), not at infinite velocity but at the TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT, i.e. at velocity c.

A motionless particle is acted upon by force at velocity c, which (in the time, t zero) makes the manifested inertia of the particle total and equal to the inherent inertia, E / c2. However, the expansion velocity of force supposed to accelerate a particle, if the particle already moves at velocity v = c, equals zero. Therefore force, as great as it may be, cannot act upon the particle, which in turn, for that precise reason, cannot grespondh with inertia to its gactingh. Newtonfs law: F = -F. And if F= 0, than -F = 0 Force.

-F is manifestation of inertia.

Consequently, the suggestion made by equation (3), i.e. the inability of a particle to accelerate to velocity c, and above, does not result from the enormous increase of its inertia (mass), but rather from the fact that impulses emitted by the accelerator are unable to catch up with it and transfer their energy (supposed to accelerate it) onto it. This manifests in the same way as an illusion that the mass of the particle were, m = ‡, infinite.

For the same reason, a magnetic field deflects, to a slighter degree, the motion direction of very fast particles.

But if the above assertion is correct, there is a question to be answered: why does a particle, at colliding with a target, manifest a much larger quantity of energy than should correspond to its velocity?

This increased quantity of energy may also be the result of the very electromagnetic impulses, emitted in order to accelerate the particle, hitting the target practically simultaneously with the particles they were supposed to accelerate. For that matter, the value of that energy corresponds to the energy invested in particle acceleration. However, the Theory of Relativity has interpreted this phenomenon, as we have already said, as the consequence of the increased mass of the particle.

Both equations, (1) and (3), suggest clearly and non-relatively that a particle can never be accelerated to velocity c.

Is that suggestion well founded?

The physical logic of these phenomena enables us to speculate in the following manner:

If a particle cannot be accelerated even to velocity c by means of impulses emitted from somewhere outside the particle and directed at it, it is not illogical to suppose that one could accelerate it to a velocity exceeding velocity c by impulses emitted from the particle itself.

How could this be achieved?

IF YOU HAVE SOME INTEREST, PLEASE CONTINUE AT FOLLOEING THREAD:

"HOW TO EXCEED THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT 2"

.

Last edited: