## Are superluminal speeds possible?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

### Are superluminal speeds possible?

Light propagates at c kmps in the aether. An object can travel at almost c kmps in the aether. And two objects travelling at almost c in opposite directions can have a relative speed of almost 2c kmps.

A different form of this question is -- can an object catch up to light?
The answer is no, not if they are travelling on the same line.
crawler

Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

### Re: Are superluminal speeds possible?

Define distance (the only true and fundamental quantity of the three - time, distance, velocity):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance
Distance is a numerical measurement of how far apart objects are. In physics or everyday usage, distance may refer to a physical length

Then, define "meter":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second.

Meaning: meter = velocity * time. But - what is velocity? Velocity = distance/time.If distance (meter) depends on a velocity and the velocity depends on distance, what can we obtain?...

Define time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads".[6][15][16] See Units of Time. Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units and International System of Quantities. Time is used to define other quantities – such as velocity

Then, define "second":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
"the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K

What to they use to measure the duration for 9192631770 periods? Another clock of course. How to they know if the clock they use to measure has errors - or is it the caesium atom that is not quite precise? They can't. Time = measuring cyclic events. We cannot obtain a fixed reference like the platinum meter or kilogram.

Define speed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed
The average speed of an object in an interval of time is the distance travelled by the object divided by the duration of the interval;

The problem is - the unit of the fundamental quantity for distance (meters) - is defined in terms of the derived quantity speed - see above. And nobody sees any problem with circular references - because c is constant. How can it not be constant if we defined it to be constant?...
Same thing with the caesium atom. We defined it to be the constant rate. It cannot vary, because that's what the definition says - and definition trumps reality, do you think anyone who wants a career in physics will start an investigation about these "holy thruths"?
This means - velocity, not distance is the fundamental unit, not quite a smart definition I say.
Roshi

Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

### Re: Are superluminal speeds possible?

Roshi wrote:Define distance (the only true and fundamental quantity of the three - time, distance, velocity):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance
Distance is a numerical measurement of how far apart objects are. In physics or everyday usage, distance may refer to a physical length
Then, define "meter":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second.
Meaning: meter = velocity * time. But - what is velocity? Velocity = distance/time.If distance (meter) depends on a velocity and the velocity depends on distance, what can we obtain?...
Define time:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads".[6][15][16] See Units of Time. Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units and International System of Quantities. Time is used to define other quantities – such as velocity
Then, define "second":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
"the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K
What to they use to measure the duration for 9192631770 periods? Another clock of course. How to they know if the clock they use to measure has errors - or is it the caesium atom that is not quite precise? They can't. Time = measuring cyclic events. We cannot obtain a fixed reference like the platinum meter or kilogram.
Define speed:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed
The average speed of an object in an interval of time is the distance travelled by the object divided by the duration of the interval;
The problem is - the unit of the fundamental quantity for distance (meters) - is defined in terms of the derived quantity speed - see above. And nobody sees any problem with circular references - because c is constant. How can it not be constant if we defined it to be constant?...
Same thing with the caesium atom. We defined it to be the constant rate. It cannot vary, because that's what the definition says - and definition trumps reality, do you think anyone who wants a career in physics will start an investigation about these "holy truths"?
This means - velocity, not distance is the fundamental unit, not quite a smart definition I say.
Yes, that sounds about right. And, we can add that lengths are contracted due to the aetherwind kmps in the lab, hencely apparent c kmps appears greater than true c. And we can add that caesium clocks suffer ticking dilation due to the aetherwind kmps in the lab, hencely apparent c appears greater than true c. And we can add that c is reduced to c' kmps near mass (Shapiro Delay). hencely apparent c kmps appears slower than true c -- except that we must insert c' in the Lorentz equation for gamma, instead of c, hencely our lab metre is shorter, hencely apparent c is greater. That all adds to three greaters & one slower. So we can add one more "holy truth". But i am sure to have overlooked a few things here. Its late.
crawler

Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

### Re: Are superluminal speeds possible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity- ... relativity

If we have 2 objects starting from one point, traveling in opposite sense, the rule is to use the formula above, so that the speed between them cannot exceed c.

Problem: speed is distance/time. It can't be anything else. If each object reaches a certain destination, and we calculate it's individual speed with the distance/time formula, let's say we obtain 0.9c for each object. Meaning 1.8 c between them. Those objects reached certain destinations in a certain amount of time. If the speed between them is any less (because we use the velocity addition formula) - it means they did not reach those destinations, and this is a contradiction.

I mean - each object can reach individually its' destination, obeying the rules of relativity at 0.9 c. Then if we add the velocities using the special formula they are suddenly traveling slower. Meaning they did not in fact reach their destinations...

But they did reach their destinations, because that was the hypothesis, and there was nothing wrong with the hypothesis - regarding breaking any laws of physics. Well, it's just a "paradox". Maybe some "dark speed" is involved or something, who knows.
Roshi

Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

### Re: Are superluminal speeds possible?

Roshi wrote:The rule of adding speeds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity- ... relativity
If we have 2 objects starting from one point, traveling in opposite sense, the rule is to use the formula above, so that the speed between them cannot exceed c.

Problem: speed is distance/time. It can't be anything else. If each object reaches a certain destination, and we calculate it's individual speed with the distance/time formula, let's say we obtain 0.9c for each object. Meaning 1.8 c between them. Those objects reached certain destinations in a certain amount of time. If the speed between them is any less (because we use the velocity addition formula) - it means they did not reach those destinations, and this is a contradiction.

I mean - each object can reach individually its' destination, obeying the rules of relativity at 0.9 c. Then if we add the velocities using the special formula they are suddenly traveling slower. Meaning they did not in fact reach their destinations...

But they did reach their destinations, because that was the hypothesis, and there was nothing wrong with the hypothesis - regarding breaking any laws of physics. Well, it's just a "paradox". Maybe some "dark speed" is involved or something, who knows.
Nope, all of that is Einsteinian krapp. My OP is the reality.
crawler

Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

### Re: Are superluminal speeds possible?

Yes, of course.

Light travels through particles
https://etherealmatters.org/article/lig ... -particles
ja7tdo

Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

### Re: Are superluminal speeds possible?

ja7tdo wrote:Yes, of course. Light travels through particles
https://etherealmatters.org/article/lig ... -particles
I suppose that light cant propagate faster than c. But if we are going at nearly c in the opposite direction then we might see the light receding at almost 2c, depending on how we do the measuring, & depending on definitions re true-speed absolute-speed real-speed relative-speed etc.

And em radiation (photaenos) might be able to propagate much faster than c, at least in the nearfield.

Light does of course propagate throo particles (much of the time), & light also travels throo particles (there is a difference). Likewize em radiation.
crawler

Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

### Re: Are superluminal speeds possible?

ja7tdo wrote:Yes, of course. Light travels through particles
https://etherealmatters.org/article/lig ... -particles
I suppose that light cant propagate faster than c. But if we are going at nearly c in the opposite direction then we might see the light receding at almost 2c, depending on how we do the measuring, & depending on definitions re true-speed absolute-speed real-speed relative-speed etc.

And em radiation (photaenos) might be able to propagate much faster than c, at least in the nearfield.

Light does of course propagate throo particles (much of the time), & light also travels throo particles (there is a difference). Likewize em radiation.
crawler

Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am