# How To Exceed The Velocity Of Light 2

#### agravity

part: HOW TO EXCEED THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT 1,
and after it foloowing:

HOW TO EXCEED THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT 2
Proposal
Let a heavy nucleus be accelerated to a velocity close to velocity c, and let at this speed a nuclear reaction be generated within it, which will break it apart. The energy released by nuclear reaction will be sufficient to provide some particle with an initial velocity of 1.3 c in relation both to the target and the space of the accelerator tube.
On what hypotheses this proposal is based?
The space “enclosed” within the mass of the accelerated nucleus is physically separated from the surrounding motionless space of the accelerator tube, and is moving together with the nucleus in relation to the motionless evacuated space of the tube. Before the nucleus breaks up its inner “enclosed” space retains the unchanged TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT and transports, at velocity c, all the electromagnetic impulses resulting from the nuclear reaction within the nucleus in exactly the same way as if the nucleus were motionless. The relative velocity (in relation to the motionless evacuated space of the accelerator tube and in relation to the motionless target) of those electromagnetic impulses that travel from the centre of the nucleus out in the direction the nucleus is moving will be 2c.
The contraction of lengths in the direction the nucleus is moving can have no influence on the velocity value of those impulses.
Before the break up of the nucleus the electromagnetic impulses which break it up can lend some of the particles a velocity exceeding velocity c in relation to the motionless tube space and the motionless target. Once the nucleus does break up this is no longer possible, because the inner space of the nucleus has merged with the motionless surrounding space of the tube, and the transfer speed of electromagnetic impulse, in relation to the tube and the target, has become equal to value of TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT c in all directions regardless of the fact that the nucleus from which the impulses emanated had been moving at a velocity very close to velocity c. This is something that has already been confirmed by experiments many times.
Those familiar with experimental evidence proving that the Theory of Relativity is correct will oppose the presented assertion with the results of the Fizeau experiment, stating that it was expected that the space “enclosed” within a fast jet of water would transfer light at a relative velocity exceeding velocity c by the value of the water jet velocity. However, since that did not happen, and that exactly the opposite did happen, it is logical to conclude that the space “enclosed” within a fast nucleus will not be able to transfer the electromagnetic impulse at a relative velocity exceeding velocity c.
The above objection need not be soundly based and its error, as well as the error of the Fizeau experiment itself, may lie in the following:
The space within the fast jet of water is not “bonded” to the water molecules of the jet and does not move along with them. It is, in fact, motionless since it is “bonded” to a mass of much higher density, i.e. to the wall of the glass or metal tube through which the water jet is travelling. Although the ray of light moves through the very fast jet, it is transferred by a space (medium) that is motionless in relation to the walls of the tube. Consequently, the measured speed of light equaled velocity c – just as the Theory of Relativity assumed.
However, if such a jet of water were to move freely through the hard vacuum of interstellar space, far distant from any solid mass, the space within the jet and in its immediate vicinity could be “bonded” to the water molecules of the jet and could therefore move together with them. And if a ray of light were to be released through such a jet, then the relative velocity of that light, within the jet, would be c + v (v being the velocity of the water jet).
This possibility is suggested by the theories of “pulling the ether along”, suggested by some interpretations of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In accordance with those theories, and results of the M&M interference experiment, Earth can be regarded as motionless within a large shell or disc of empty space (“ether”) revolving around the Sun -- just as Copernicus believed.
Scientific experience proved Maxwell’s theory on existence of “luminiferous ether” to be correct.. Him error in regard to understanding of this phenomenon laid only in the claim that Earth is moving through motionless “ether”. I have stated above that it is monionless in moving “ether”, or space, or field.
However, experiments carried out by Fizeau, Zeeman and others, were, it can be quite safely assumed, performed in inadequate physical conditions.
The mass of a nucleus possesses a much higher density than the mass of water and is capable of separating its inner space and isolating it physically from the space of the accelerator tube, and creating physical conditions that would exist in that hypothetical jet of water that is moving freely through interstellar space.
Let us now go back to our problem of methodology.
It is not difficult to accelerate a nucleus to a velocity close to c. The problem lies in causing its break-up at a desired time and at a desired place. Modern methods of provoking the break-up of a nucleus, i.e. a nuclear reaction, guarantee a certain degree of exactness only statistically in a large number of unstable nuclei. The only method that can satisfy us, however, is the one which ensures a nuclear reaction at the exactly defined place and at the exactly defined and known time. In other words, we not only have to use a different method of provoking a nuclear reaction, but also to do it in a different type of nuclei.
How, then, can we deliver energy to a very fast nucleus which would cause its controlled fission or spallation?
We can immediately discard neutron bombardment, since it does not enable us to know sufficiently precisely when, in such circumstances, shall a neutron strike a nucleus, or if a nucleus would absorb its impulse.
We could, however, use the following method:
An accelerated nucleus is directed through a tube supplied with a revolving electromagnetic field of a very high frequency. While the nucleus is travelling through the tube, the revolving field will continue to increase its spin to a value at which the nucleofugal force provokes its break up.
When talking about a nucleofugal force, I actually mean the centrifugal force which results from the rotation of the nucleus mass, in which nuclear force has the function of centripetal force.
If, for the sake of this experiment, we use any one of the heavy, but stable, nuclei such as lead, bismuth or mercury, and if we know the velocity of the nucleus, and the density and frequency of the revolving electromagnetic field, we shall be able to determine both the place and time of the break-up of every individual nucleus with to a great degree of precision.
The velocity of particles created by the break-up of the accelerated nucleus will remain to be measured or calculated. I believe this can be done through one of the classic methods.
A possible positive result would not refute the Theory of Relativity but would clarify it, eliminate faulty interpretations and unfounded speculations, and limit its significance to one specific area in which it is indispensable. Speed of light, c will remain a constant, but as the TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT of “luminiferous ether” or medium in general.

For more, clearer, and easier to understand, please see at site:

http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

Petrus1

Last edited:
Related Other Physics Topics News on Phys.org

But that's not what happens. At RHIC they accelerate heavy nuclei to high velocities and cause nuclear reactions. Everything stays subluminal exactly as relativity predicts it should.

#### agravity

Have you some additional information regard those experiments:
Petrus

If you are referring to the ones at RHIC, or other heavy ion colliders, a visit to their website should help

http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/

#### agravity

That is quite different kind of experiments.

However, than you again for your contribution.
Petrus

Not entirely: the same mechanism occurs--that being a reaction involving two or more high energy nuclei. Not to mention countless other high energy particle accelerators that engage in a wide variety of experiments, all of which observe relativity to be true.

#### agravity

The experiment I proposed is not possible to conduct by colision, neither such device as heavy ions colider at Brookhaven is.
Heavy nuclei have to be destroyed without decreasing velocity or energy of nuclei itself.
Petrus

LOL, good thing you haven't ventured into some of the threads in Astronomy and Cosmology!

#### agravity

One which do not want to understand believes the dumb is other one who try to explaine (Trick of subconscious - projection).

At "HOW TO EXCEED..." is a clear explanation of that new experiment

We need not the experimental (physical) situation in which the velocity or energy could (and, also, have to) be calculated by Lorentz transformation.That is why I have projected nucleospinal reactor. That is also why this experiment is not possible conduct out by method of colision or any similar method.

Last edited:

Even then, physics still holds and you are still wrong.

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving