How is c the speed limit???

[crawler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhVgIW4_-AQ Trying to go faster than the speed of light -- Physics videos by Eugene Khutoryanski – May 18 2015 – 3:59 -- 67020 views – 270 comments.
This was interesting. David is travelling at a little less than c in a spaceship, & he throws a ball forward. Sarah a stationary outside observer sees that time is going very slowly in the spaceship & she sees that the spaceship is short & that the ball speed is very small relative to the spaceship & the result is that the ball speed remains shy of c. So here Eugene has not directly invoked infinite mass or energy.

Other videos i have watched are as follows. I might comment on these later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2c0P2CEU9A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv3R8WuWIqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI3Zw17vBVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlpiV4suBNA

[crawler]

QUESTION. Can we use length contraction alone to show that a body can't reach c ???
Sarah sees that David's spaceship gets shorter as it approaches c, & ultimately it has nearnuff zero length but is still always shy of c km/s.

ANSWER. YES. NeoEinsteinists might agree that that shows that a body can't reach c, hence the answer is yes.

Pre 1906 dogma & post 1906 dogma would agree too.

(1-zero length) In other words a spaceship travelling at c would have to have zero length. Impossible. I reckon that that is a good argument.

(2-infinite energy). From David's point of view it would take forever (crudely put), which would require him to find & apply an infinite amount of energy (crudely put). That too is a good additional argument.

(3-infinite mass). There is no need to invoke infinite mass.

(4-infinite mass equivalence). There is no need to claim that the extra kinetic energy has a mass equivalence which results in a need for an infinite equivalent mass.

There is a possible problem. If zero length is not impossible, then negative length might be acceptable, in which case a body could exceed c. However its difficult to explore STR & GTR because they are only math models, not reality, & the numbers that fall out are simply apparent stuff or observed stuff or measured stuff or something, not reality. Hence when i said above that a spaceship travelling at c must have zero length & that this was impossible it is impossible for a real spaceship but u can't apply the notion of impossibility to a model of apparent zero length. STR & GTR are themselves one big gedanken, & anything is possible in a gedanken, alltho the most ridiculous impossibilities are of course never mentioned. For example they say that Sarah observes something. No. Nothing is ever observed in STR & GTR, it is always measured. Length contraction in STR is not observed it is measured, & their measuring needs clocks. STR length contraction can't exist without their time dilation. And their time dilation is based on their method of synchronizing their clocks. The most ridiculous aspect of STR is that their silly tickings are then raised to the status of being an actual time. Here again the notion of an observed time must depend on Sarah's mental processes, ie what she sees & feels. Observed time is not what Sarah sees on the clocks, what the clocks show is measured time. So i come back to what i said earlier, that length contraction in STR is not real, & it is not observed. Strictly speaking even if it were real it would not be observed, because observing is facilitated by photons & em radiation which travel at c. Hence once relative speeds approach c any talk of observed length shape size or speed etc is nonsense.

But forgetting all of that, i reckon that length contraction (1-zero length) does the trick.

[crawler]

QUESTION. Can we use length contraction alone to show that a body can't reach c ???
Previously i said that all Einsteinists would answer yes. Sarah sees that David's spaceship gets shorter as it approaches c, & ultimately it has nearnuff zero length but is still always shy of c km/s. (1-zero length) In other words a spaceship travelling at c would have to have zero length, which is impossible. (2-infinite energy). From David's point of view it would take forever (crudely put), which would require him to find & apply an infinite amount of energy (crudely put), which is also impossible.

But what would Aetherists say??? I reckon that Aetherists fall into at least 3 groups, Lorentzists, neoLorentzists, & neoAetherists (like myself).

Lorentzists believed that the aether is static & that the Earth slides throo it (possibly involving some dragging of the aether). Bodies moving throo the aether suffer a length contraction due to the affect of speed on the electric forces holding molecules together, & due to the effect of speed on the shape of electrons & their orbits. The LC is described by the Lorentz equation for gamma, where v is the speed throo the static aether. There is no such thing as time, what we have is ticking & ticking dilation. Molecular & electronic processes (eg electron orbits) in a body slow down as a body's speed increases, & this slowing is also described exactly by the same equation & the same gamma (Larmor).

neoLorentzists believe that there is a background aetherwind blowing south to north throo the solar system, & the Earth slides throo it (with zero dragging). Bodies suffer length contraction & ticking dilation as per Lorentzist theory, including the same equations for gamma, but the speed v in the equations is not the simple speed throo a static aether it is the speed of the aetherwind blowing throo the body (ie v is the vector sum of the background aetherwind & the velocity of the body). And here the electric forces for LC & TD relate to the modern nuclear atom (not important)(it doesn't change the equations).

neoAetherists agree with neoLorentzists except that we reckon that the standard equation for the Lorentz gamma for LC is not correct, & likewise the equation for the ticking dilation of atomic processes is not correct.

Lorentzists & neoLorentzists agree with Einsteinists that LC is sufficient to show that bodies can't ever attain a speed of c, because all three believe that lengths contract to zero at c. All three use the same equation for gamma for LC. Except that each of the three have a different definition of the speed v of the body in that equation, but nonetheless they all agree that lengths contract to zero at c.

What about neoAetherists (like myself)??? We don’t believe that a body's length approaches zero as the aetherwind approaches c, hence we can't use that there LC argument to show that a body can never attain a speed of c (relative to the aether). neoAetherists need to use a different argument, & i will look at that nextly.

[crawler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kssYDb6Rev4&t=4s
Ed Friedman – 1999 Relativity lecture – May 2 2017 – 1:39:47 (actually 1:13:00)(questions after 54:20) -- 10 views – 0 comments.
This has some good stuff re measured & observed values. And re relativistic mass & rest mass. A must see.
32:15 Marion 1965 says that objects dont contract they rotate. A moving ellipsoid appears as a sphere.
J Terrell 1959 says Lorentz contraction is invizible (thats what i say).
Giancoli 1988 says that LC is measured not observed (thats what i said).
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... pdf&page=6

[crawler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU_O9yrgwhk https://www.youtube.com/user/EugeneKhutoryansky/videos
Eugene Khutoryanski – Relativistic mass & energy- 5:18- May 26 2015- 68289 views- 220 comments.
I like this comment by Jon Bain. Jon Bain 2 years ago If a photon departs my nose then relatively speaking my nose departs the photon at lightspeed. Thus my nose should have infinite mass relative to the photon. Which would make it a black hole at least. Then the photon could not depart my nose at all. But hey. Do'nt let me stop you worshipping idols.

2:08. (1) One way is to say that as an object approaches the speed of light, it changes the way in which it reacts to an applied force, (2) but that its mass never changes. Another way to describe this phenomena is to (3) introduce the concept of relativistic mass, & to say that (4) the relativistic mass of the object increases.
My comments. All of this is krapp, but (2) might be okish.
Re (1), how might it change the way the object reacts?? N0, baloney. However almost all of STR is not intelligible, because there is usually not enough info re the observers etc.

Anyhow slightly off topic i wish to point out again that we only need one application of gamma to show that an object can never attain the speed of light. And the gamma for length contraction will do the trick for Einsteinists & Lorentzists & neoLorentzists (but not for neoAetherists like myself). And no-one needs to invoke any additional gammas for ticking dilation or relativistic mass or relativistic energy or transverse mass or longitudinal mass (3 gammas here, sweet).

And re neoEinsteinian concepts of mass, most of us know that neoEinsteinists prefer the term mass, they dont like the term rest mass because that implies that there is some other kind of mass, & of course they detest relativistic mass (including transverse mass & longitudinal mass i suppose).

[crawler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM
Fermilab – Is relativistic mass real -- (by Dr Don Lincoln) –9:02 – Sept 6 2017 –396322 views – 2043 comments.
Dr Don says that there is no such thing as relativistic mass, & we should just use the term mass not rest mass.
(1) But no mention that this contradicts what Einstein wrote pre 1906.
(2) And no mention that Einstein never went back & admitted that he was wrong in 1905.

(3) In addition Dr Don pulls the same trick as about 90% of Einsteinists that i see on youtube, he steers clear of mentioning that an object can't ever attain the speed of light, he is careful to always say that an object can't go faster than light.

(4) Dr Don says that inertia is the property of matter which resists changes in motion. That is not an a good explanation. It is little more than a postulate. How can a gedanken for forked lightning hitting an embankment near a railway station tell us that mass has inertia??
Aetherists have a mechanical explanation for inertial mass & gravitational mass, which involves a body's acceleration in the aether & the aether's acceleration throo a body (2 sides of the same coin). But Einsteinists have no physical or mechanical explanation for anything in STR or GTR

[crawler]

Further to above...........
(5) Dr Don starts off by saying that Einstein's STR says that (due to a change in speed) clocks run at different rates, & objects shrink. And things can't go faster than light. My neoAether theory says the same things. But i reckon that STR doesn't say any of that.

CLOCKS. Einstein was talking about conventional clocks, in particular balance wheel clocks. To date we have no evidence that balance wheel clocks are affected by speed. Depalma & also Podkletnov noticed changes in the tickings of tuning fork clocks – but these were not speed tests, they were stationary tests done close to spinning objects. Modern speed tests were done with atomic clocks, which didn’t exist in 1905 -- & Kelly pointed out that Hafele & Keating's raw data showed that STR was not true. Elevation tests have also been done with atomic clocks, & these show that GTR (or parts of GTR) might be true. Dr Don failed to remind us that STR demands that clocks run at different rates because STR says that time dilates at different rates (due to speed) – however i would like to point out that there has never been any proof that there is such a thing as time, nor that it is affected by speed etc. What we have is ticking, not time.

OBJECTS SHRINK. Every relativity theory that i have ever seen (FitzGerald, Voigt, Cohn, Poincare, Lorentz, Larmor, Einstein, Ranzan, Cahill, crawler etc) all agree that speed affects size or shape etc. Einstein's STR is the only one (i think) that says that shrinking is not real, it is apparent only, & when i say apparent i don’t mean observed, i mean apparent by measuring, & Einstein's measuring required clocks, not just any clocks, Einstein required clocks that had been synchronised by using Einstein's silly patented mirror method that was based on Einstein's silly patented postulate that the speed of light was constant for all observers.

FASTER THAN LIGHT. I don’t remember Einstein saying that things can't go faster than light. I do remember him saying that if an object went faster than light then it would take an infinite amount of energy to slow that object to the speed of light. And i do remember him saying that if an object was going at less than the speed of light then it would be impossible for it to attain the speed of light. But he did not rule out that an object could somehow find itself going faster than the speed of light.

[crawler]

Slightly off topic.
How can we have Einsteinian blackholes??
STR says that an observer on the surface of a supermassive body sees incoming light travelling at c, & outgoing light travelling at c -- hence the SMB is not a blackhole. Add 1 kg to that SMB -- same difference. Add 1 kg -- ditto. Add 1 kg -- ditto -- ad infinitum. Incoming light has the same speed as outgoing light -- hence the SMB never becomes a blackhole.
Hence there can be no such thing as an Einsteinian blackhole.

In addition Ranzan says that in 1939 Einstein published a paper in which he showed that matter could not be so condensed that the Schwarzschild radius would fall outside the physical gravitating body.

How can we have Aetheric blackholes??
If light cant travel at more than c throo the aether, & if particles (ie matter) cant travel at c throo the aether, then aether flowing into the surface of a body (to replace aether annihilated in matter) cant ever reach c km/s (ie that speed limit works both ways). Hence light (travelling at c in the aether) can always escape the surface of a body (koz the aether inflow is always less than c).
Hence there can be no such thing as an Aetheric blackhole, ie a real blackhole, ie in our real universe.

Escape of light from a supermassive body is made easier because there is always a background aetherwind blowing throo every such body, & the wind will tend to carry photons (& possibly matter) away in that direction (ie it gives a preferred escape route).

Escape of light is made easier because a spinning body must centrifuge aether due to inertia, aether is sucked in near equator, & is spat out near the two poles. So here are two more escape routes for light (& possibly matter).

[Brent72]

Escape of light is made easier because a spinning body must centrifuge aether due to inertia, aether is sucked in near equator, & is spat out near the two poles. So here are two more escape routes for light (& possibly matter).

Off topic question which has probably been covered elsewhere: Crawler do you think your aether could be 'Zero Point Energy'?
e.g. https://www.universeofparticles.com/an- ... particles/

[crawler]

Escape of light is made easier because a spinning body must centrifuge aether due to inertia, aether is sucked in near equator, & is spat out near the two poles. So here are two more escape routes for light (& possibly matter).

Off topic question which has probably been covered elsewhere: Crawler do you think your aether could be 'Zero Point Energy'?
e.g. https://www.universeofparticles.com/an- ... particles/

I had a read of your link to Fredrik Nygaard, very interesting. There are many similarities tween my praether-aether-photon-photaeno theory & zero point energy theories. In particular Nygaard's pilot waves are almost identical to my photaenos. I will give more details of some of my postulates (must be over 100) in my next posting. Nygaard gives the following explanation for why c is the speed limit.

https://www.universeofparticles.com/aet ... -kinetics/
Speed limit of inertial matter.
Sustained forward acceleration by impulse requires a sustained force. The object under acceleration must be continuously distorted in such a way that its centre of mass is continuously moved forward relative to its former self. It grows over time. However, it will never grow by much. It will hit quite a different problem long before it becomes significantly bigger than its original self.

As an object speeds up, the forward pressure wave of an energy impulse slows down. When an object is close to the speed of light, the forward impulse is reduced to almost a standstill. This is because the pressure wave moves with the aether. The forward motion of the object must be subtracted from the speed of the aether to arrive at the speed of the pressure wave. This is the same calculation that we do in order to calculate the speed of the aether inside the object.

At speeds very close to the speed of light, the time required to transport energy onto the object under acceleration goes to infinity. No matter how hard we push, the object never reaches light speed, because the final energy transfer required will never complete. This can be calculated as follows: [Dia called "Time required to push energy onto a particle" is not shown here]

The time required to push energy onto a particle is the sum of the time required to produce the forward pressure wave and the time required to produce the returning pressure wave. Only when this whole process is completed do we have a complete transfer of energy.

This process involves the speed of the aether relative to the particle, which is calculated by subtracting the speed of the particle for the forward pressure wave, and adding the speed of the particle to the return pressure wave. The time required for the forward pressure wave to complete will tend towards infinity as the speed of the particle gets closer to light speed.

This applies to all particles of inertial matter, including the electron. Observed from outside, the unit time of a speeding electron is more sluggish than our local time. Furthermore, time inside the electron is equally slow.

Scaling this up to a spaceship moving close to the speed of light relative to its outside reference frame, we will notice a dramatic slow down of all activities inside the spaceship as we look in. However, astronauts on the inside see no change in anything. When they check their clocks and rulers, everything is as it has always been. One unit time is still the time it takes a photon to move around the circumference of an electron. What they cannot in any way detect inside their spaceship is the fact that the aether has slowed down. It is only when they look out into the surrounding space that they see that something dramatic has happened. Everything outside their local reference frame moves about at a frantic pace.

Here & elsewhere Nygaard introduces a kind of gamma, but he never uses that term.

[crawler]

I need to compose my Aetheric real-world answer re how is c the speed limit for electrons & atoms & molecules & objects.
But firstly its best if i explain some of my Aetheric postulates.

LIGHT. Photons have a helical core of aether annihilation propagating at more than c along a helix (perhaps propagating at say 100c for gamma rays) but the helix always propagates at exactly c measured along its axis (i say helix but it might be a double helix). Hence a photon is a helical hole in the aether. And the annihilation in the helix is static, the leading end of the annihilation moves along, & the trailing end moves along, which gives an illusion of a movement & speed of sorts, but in between the annihilation is static, no aether is moving along, nothing is moving along (at least longitudinally)(but there is radial aether movement)(see later).

PHOTAENOS. Photons include a part outside the helix that i call photaenos which radiate out from the helix. Photaenos are an excitation of aether, possibly including an annihilation of aether (if including an annihilation then photaenos too are helical). Photaenos possible propagate out at say 5c in the nearfield. Photaenos give us charge & electric forces & magnetic forces.

ELECTRONS. Light consists of free photons. Elementary particles such as electrons consist of a confined photon, ie a free photon that has formed a loop of some kind (perhaps a figure 8)(perhaps a Mobius strip). Some elementary particles (eg quarks) might consist of several photons, perhaps intertwined like chain links, or perhaps joined head to tail to form long loops. The spin of an electron might be a combination of the circulation of the photon along its loop (which might be a figure 8)(however earlier i said that the circulation along its loop was not a circulation it was static, & i repeat that later) together with the spin of the loop (eg if the loop spins about an axis).

LOOP SPEED. A confined photon can be spoken of as circulating along its loop at c. On the other hand talk of a circulation speed is naïve, if the photon has bitten its own tail then there is no longer a front or a rear, & hence the circulation speed is in effect zero km/s, & there is no circulation to be seen. Hence a loop consists of a continuous static tube of static annihilation (static in the longitudinal sense), aether flowing in radially & being annihilated (hence the loop is not static in the radial sense). And loops almost certainly spin about at least one axis, hence there is always that rotational kind of spin speed. In addition the loop (ie the electron or quark) might move as a whole throo the aether in some direction (sideways)(longitudinally)(upwards)(downwards)(what's the difference).

ETERNITY. At a given point along a free photon the aether inflow & annihilation happens just the once so to speak (for a short time), ie the annihilation starts once the front of the photon passes & then the annihilation stops when the end of the photon passes. But at a given point along a confined photon the aether inflow & annihilation continue for ever (if the tube/loop remains fixed).

INERTIA. A body moving at constant velocity in the aether slips throo the aether without any resistance, but aether resists acceleration. Hence the acceleration of a body needs a force, & we call this inertia.

AETHER DRAG. I don’t know whether an accelerating body fully drags aether, or partially drags aether, or whether drag is zero (still thinking).

INERTIAL MASS. Because of inertial resistance we say that a body has inertial mass.

GRAVITY. Aether flows into matter to replace aether that is annihilated in matter, the acceleration of the inflow into 2 nearby bodies giving what we call a gravitational force of attraction. And we say that a body has a gravitational mass. Gravitational mass can't be measured, what we measure is inertial mass.

QUASI MASS. Near a free photon the aether inflow streamlines converge in 2 dimensions, towards a temporary (moving) line (a 1/R thing). This short term 1/R relationship gives a weakish acceleration, hence a free photon has a smallish quasi-mass (some say a photon has mass equivalence).

PROPER (GRAVITATIONAL) MASS. Near a confined photon the streamlines converge in 3 dimensions, towards a permanent (stationary) point (a 1/RR thing). This eternal 1/RR relationship gives a strongish acceleration, hence a confined photon has a comparatively giant proper mass (gravitational mass)(perhaps a billion times greater than the mass of a free photon).

PHOTAENO DRAG. Photons propagate straight ahead, except that their traject can bend due to the nearness of mass on one side, due to photaeno drag on the near side. Photaeno drag is due to photaenos fighting for the limited use of the aether, the photaenos emitted by a photon fighting with photaenos emitted by other photons or emitted by confined photons. Such photaeno congestion slows photaenos, & the slowing is communicated back to the helical body of the parent photon, which itself then slows, & if the slowing is greater on one side then the photon's traject will bend (a kind of refraction). Slowing can be due to being in mass (air water glass), in which case c becomes c', & slowing can be due to the nearness of mass (eg the Sun), in which case c becomes c". Or if we have both kinds of slowing (they are no different actually) then c becomes c'".

GRAVITY. Photons propagate straight ahead, except that their traject can veer due to the nearness of mass on one side, due to the acceleration of aether flowing into the mass (this acceleration gives us gravity). The combination of the aether annihilated in the mass & the aether annihilated in the photon results in a conventional ballistic traject (ie the photon veers)(Newtonian bending).

DOUBLED BENDING. The bending due to photaeno drag & the veering due to gravity add to give us a doubled bending of light passing the Sun (double the accepted naïve ballistic bending). Neither bending nor veering requires a photon to skid sideways in the aether, ie to skid perpendicularly to the photon's axis.

SKIDDING. An electron (or an atom molecule or object) moving throo the aether almost certainly requires a photon or photons (forming the electron) to skid sideways. Standard science (which denies aether) has nothing to say here.

SPEED LIMIT. But the possible need for sideways skidding & the physical limitations of sideways skidding are likely to be the crux of my answer re the maximum possible speed of an electron or an atom or a molecule or a solid/body/object. Still thinking.

[crawler]

Ok what is the maximum possible speed of a free electron or orbital electron or atom or molecule or object??

FREE (NON ORBITING) ELECTRONS consist of a confined photon (ie a loop), & the loop spins & precesses about one or more axes.

SIDEWAYS SKID. If an electron moves throo the aether (in a straight line) then the photon/loop has to skid throo the aether sideways, either sideways to the spin axis, or longitudinally to the axis (or a combination). If the photon is circulating around in its loop at c km/s then any sideways skidding will require a total vector speed of more than c (probly impossible). However yesterday i explained that a photon's circulation speed inside a loop was zero, hence some amount of skidding is possible.

SPIN SKID. But, Wikileaks says that electrons spin, & that this spin can have a tangential speed of at least 0.046c, ie a spin skid of 0.046c. If so then i reckon the sideways skidding can't approach 1.00c, it can only approach say 0.95c (ie so that the total vector of sideways skid & spin skid can approach 1.00c).

LARGE ELECTRON POSITRON COLLIDER. Yet Wikileaks says that the LEP has achieved an electron speed of 299 792 457.9964 m/s (ie 0.0036 m/s less than c). This is of course baloney, because Einstein said that light is slowed by the nearness of mass (as shown by Shapiro Delay), hence the LEP's atomic clocks must tick slowly (they are near Earth). Hence their claimed speed might be correct as a % of c, or nearly correct expressed as a relative m/s (ie relative to c m/s), but it aint correct when expressed as m/s (because the measured speed is not the true speed)(because their clocks are slow).

LIMIT OF 0.95c. Anyhow it shows that my reckoning that the limit is 0.95c is wrong. Skidding sideways due to straight line speed must according to the LEP have a limit of a little less than 1.00c, in which case skidding sideways due to spin speed must have no effect on that limit. Or perhaps my ideas re electron spin (loop spin) are wrong. Anyhow the mechanics for the speed limit throo the aether for a free (non orbital) electron are a mystery to me.

AETHER DRAG. Perhaps skidding partially drags aether, in which case the total vector speed of a portion of the photon (loop) throo the aether doesn't actually violate the c limit when measured in the micro environment of the electron.

CENTRIFUGING OF AETHER. Perhaps the spinning loop centrifuges aether, aether is sucked in at equator & aether is spat out at the 2 poles. I believe in the centrifuging of aether, however it is unlikely that such an inflow could be fast enough to offset the tangential spin speed.

FLATTENING OF HELIX. Perhaps the helical main body of the photon circulating in the loop suffers a flattening to become elliptical rather than circular. Yes that would do the trick (ie keep the total vector speed of a portion of the looping photon below the illegal 1.00c). And we are only looking for about 0.05c of ellipticity, no big deal.

GAMMA PHOTONS. Actually as i pointed out yesterday the helical speed of annihilation along a helix itself has no real upper limit & can easily be say 100c for free gamma rays (gamma photons), it is the photonic speed along the axis of the helix that is limited to 1.00c. Hence flattening of the helix can potentially accommodate a lot of skidding, & 0.05 of ellipticity might be no big deal.

CONFINED ELECTRON PHOTON. But an electron is not a confined gamma ray. Apparently all electrons are identical, ie they consist of identical confined photons, & i don’t know what kind of photons these are, it is unlikely that they are gamma photons. Hence i don’t know what the frequency of that confined electron photon is or isn’t, & hence i don’t know how tight that helical spiral is or isn’t, but perhaps its no big deal, perhaps any frequency can do the trick (ie flatten)(i don’t mean that the electron photon can be any frequency or that it can vary, obviously there can be only one frequency)(i think)(let me know).
Still thinking, i might return.

[crawler]

FLATTENING. In my previous posting i looked at possible limits for the speed of a free (non-orbital) electron based on the permissible speed of sideways skidding of the confined photon that forms an electron (ignoring quarks etc for now). I said that we don’t know what mechanics etc might be involved re skidding, & we don’t know what is or isn’t illegal re skidding speed (throo the aether)(ie relative to the aether). I suggested 3 ways that an apparently illegal vector of more than c could exist – drag, centrifuging, & flattening (particularly flattening).

PUSHER. All of that involved the pushee -- today i want to look at the pusher. There are 3 possible push forces – electric, magnetic, & gravity.

INERTIA. Gravity acts at at least 20 billion c, but we will ignore the gravity force, it is very weak. In any case gravity is not a push force, it is a pull force (ie attraction only). Actually gravity includes inertia (inertial force), which here is a braking force (it resists acceleration). But we will also ignore inertia, we are interested in the maximum possible speed of a free electron, & we need not waste time on the smell of the equations that apply along the way.

THE LIMIT IS C. If electric push (& pull) forces acting on a free electron act at up to c, & if magnetic push forces act at up to c, then c is immediately the upper limit for the possible speed of a free electron -- more exactly, c can never be attained.

EINSTEINIAN DARK AGE. I don’t remember ever seeing the speed limit explained like that, yet it is the simplest explanation possible. The reason that we don’t ever see it explained like that is because it is a mechanical argument, & in this Einsteinian Dark Age of science real mechanics is never allowed.

CYCLOTRON. An electron can be accelerated in a cyclotron by taking advantage of the lighthouse effect, ie there is almost no upper limit to the speed (timing) of the pulses programmed to act around the cyclotron. But if u think about it at every node the push force is nonetheless electric or magnetic, & acts at c, hence c remains the upper non-attainable speed limit for a free electron.
Still thinking.

[crawler]

But do electric & magnetic forces act at c km/s??
http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.html
Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation.
Superluminal information transfer confirmed by simple experiment.
Wolfgang G. Gasser (May, 2016).
Abstract:
A simple experiment has been performed in order to measure propagation speed of the electric field. The results show that the Coulomb interaction propagates substantially faster than at speed of light c.
Fig. 1: Schematic of the experiment. [not shown]
The experiment uses a spark gap between two conducting spheres acting as capacitors of opposite electric charge. After spark-formation, this rapidly collapsing dipole field is measured by an oscilloscope connected via probes to conducting detector-spheres. Whereas the mutual distance between the detector spheres connected to the oscilloscope remains at Δx = 1.65 m (from left probe tip to right probe tip), different distances from the spark-gap have been measured.
Table. 1 [not shown]
The measured propagation speeds v = Δx/Δt from the left to the right detector sphere, with Δt averaged over each five measurements, range from around 1.4 c to 5 c, and show a dependence on the distance from the spark gap.

The by far simplest explanation of the experiment is the hypothesis that the Coulomb interaction conforms to Coulomb, who assumed instantaneous interaction at a distance. The dependence of the measured propagation speed on the distance of the measurement setup from the spark gap is explained by dissipative losses and "image charge" complication, leading to electric currents in the ground and the walls.


https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums ... on.168813/
https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1661
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601084
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0601084.pdf
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics ... ylQ1obbHkJ
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.astro/c ... gNsSfHcA0J
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/e ... ode50.html
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics ... 2rncLkKttU

[crawler]

SPEED LIMIT FOR AN OBJECT. Plus a few points of clarification.

PUSH FORCES. In my previous posting i explained that the speed limit for a free electron must be less than the speed of light c km/s, because the electric & magnetic push forces act at no more than c.

SPEED C. Actually when i say the speed of light i mean the speed of electric & magnetic forces whose speeds we usually assume are equivalent to the speed of light. And the speed of light is slowed by the nearness of mass (air water glass)(the Sun), & we must assume that the speed of electric & magnetic forces are likewise slowed. Anyhow we need to be mindful that c can mean 299792458 m/s or it can mean the speed of light, they are not necessarily the same thing.

REAL PROPERTIES. There was no need for me to invoke any kind of relativistic effects to help to explain the speed limit of c. Relativistic effects can involve many kinds of real properties, eg length mass inertia.
APPARENT PROPERTIES. Relativistic effects can involve a process, eg the rate of ticking of a clock, or the rate of seeing & feeling & thinking of an animal. These processes do not affect real properties, but they can affect our measurements, ie they can affect apparent properties.

GAMMA. Each such property or process will have its own equation for its own gamma. The present commonly accepted gammas (eg for length contraction & ticking dilation) will be found to be slightly wrong or a lot wrong.

AETHERIC SPEED. The speed limit of c for a free electron is the speed throo the aether, ie relative to the aether. If the aether is blowing throo an observer at v km/s then an electron can have a speed of c+v or c-v relative to the observer.
ALMOST 2c. If the aether is blowing throo an observer at almost c km/s then an electron can have a speed of almost zero km/s relative to the observer, or it can have a speed of almost 2c km/s relative to the observer.

SPEED LIMIT FOR AN OBJECT. I reckon that we can assume that the electric & magnetic push forces act on objects in the same way that they act on free electrons, & that the speed limit for an object is likewise almost c throo the aether.
ALMOST 2c. Likewise an object can have a speed of almost 2c relative to an observer.

HOW IS c THE SPEED LIMIT?? So, c is not the speed limit for an object, it is only the speed limit of the aetherwind blowing throo an object.
HOW IS 2c THE SPEED LIMIT?? The question should have been -- how is 2c the speed limit??

LOCAL SPEED LIMIT. The above speed limit of up to 2c is what i call a local speed limit, ie where the observer & object are near.
COSMIC SPEED LIMIT. But if the observer & the object are in different zones in the cosmos then there might be no speed limit for an object. If an aetherwind is blowing at almost c throo the observer, & if an aetherwind is blowing at almost c throo the object, & if these 2 aetherwinds are blowing in different directions with a relative velocity of say V km/s, then the relative speed can be almost c+V+c. And there is no good reason to believe that V has a limit of any kind, ie V can be say 1000c km/s.

RANZAN. However Conrad Ranzan in his Dynamic Steady State Universe theory reckons that the relative cosmic aetherwinds have a general relative limit of about 6000 km/s, ie about c/50. But this doesnt include possible explosive aether velocities that might be found near some exploding stars etc.