what if we broke the light barrier with a star ship?

(Black hole)
Any object approaching the speed of light will become a black hole before the speed of light is reached. It happens to photons and other high speed particles.

I’m not a physicist so don’t know how much mass a human would need to become a black hole, or how to calculate it.
I’m sure the experience would be very strange, as your mass increases things will start to get attracted to you, soon your body will simply collapse on its self forming a ball which will continually reduce in size (assuming constant acceleration force being applied).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Photons are black holes???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A photon can become a black hole if pushed really fast (I assume a photon has some mass?). This is something I read and of course I could always be wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

aaah photons are light... perhaps you mean "protons"?

 

All right after a little reading.. and somewhat of subject.

A photon can have a relativistic mass but no rest mass.

So many questions.
Is relativistic mass the same as normal mass (rest mass).?
Does relativistic mass have a gravity field?
Can a photon rest? (have no motion)
Can photons travel at the speed of light?

 

To the best of my knowledge no it is not the same, a photon is massless in a matter seens and has not gravity or so little it beyond detection. Think of a photon as a elector magnetic wave, even though a photon is both a wave and particle (don’t ask!). Its mass only exist kinetically. Photons though cannot rest but can be converted into other forms of energy.

 

Actually, it was recently proven just a few years ago that photons can in fact be at rest. Basically a cloud of sodium atoms is trapped in a magnetic field and cooled to nearly -459.7 deg F, or..roughly absolute zero. This cloud is then illuminated with a laser beam, which alters its optical properties. Light pulses can then be sent into the cloud, slowed and spatially compressed.
These light pulses can be slowed, and then captured, and their basic idea is to use stopped light pulses to store information. When the light is stopped, it's original characteristics are transferred into the atoms in the cloud.


Photons can have what is called "relativistic mass", because that mass is proportional only to the amount of energy(m=([1-(v/c)^2]^1/2)*E/c^2), and is velocity/wavelength dependent.

I may not have a triple PHD(bahahaha), but in about 8 weeks I will have my Bachelors in Physics and Mathematics......and I don't need to have a PHD in English to spell "triple".

 

Helical Particle Wave Theory suggests that photons are the most basic building blocks of the entire universe. All electromagnetic radiation consists of helical wave photons, and electric currents consist of helical wave electrons. Basically, all elementary particles would be considered interlocking structures of orbital photons. This theory implies that gravitons, which would be emitted by the particles in objects in the direction of lowest resistance, thereby pushing itself toward a gravitational source, are simply photons, but with the highest possible energy level in the EMS.

In this theory, there are not 4 fundamental forces, but 5. The 4 accepted ones are the gravitational force, coulomb force, and strong and weak nuclear forces. The 5th force(Gaasenbeek Force) is the force which binds photons in these locked orbital structures(particles), and implies gravitons travelling through a particle can overcome this force by unlocking one of its inner orbits, and then the immediate surrounding orbits, resulting in the particle disintegrating/being emitted as photons/energy.

I find this theory interesting because it can explain some things that modern relativistic physics cannot, mainly the explanation of the duality of light(Einstein and Bohr disagreed on the complementary principle)...although as with modern relativistic physics, it doesn't explain everything. I have read some of Gaasenbeek's papers, and thought they were fascinating. I wish he would write a huge book and put all of his stuff into it.

 

One more thing, to explain what it means by saying helical wave, it basically is the idea that for moving particles to form wave in a vacuum(light travels best in a vacuum), they follow helical paths, 3D sine waves.

 

All this talk of time is useless!! One may say that time slos down or go backwards, but it wouldn't really!! One would not suddenly begin to de-age, and if one travelled faster than the speed of light, one would not end up a baby. Who would fly the ship??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Must I say it again?? Time is a measurement for recording the configuration of space at each moment. Time may change for us, as it does at different altitudes because, one day:the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on it's own axis so that the sun meets the same points on the Earth again. This is then divided, by twenty four (God knows why) to create hours (horus is a Sun god, I beleive, or Spanish for Sun), then by sixty again (to give minutes), and then by sixty again (to give seconds). Further subdivisions are concluded but the involve divisions of one hundred. I would like to explain how time doesn't exist but skinny men will just laugh (despite their idiocy).

This means that time is subjective, but I don't know if it possible to travel faster than light. I imagine it's possible, and if one could travel faster then light, the lots of answers would be given to us. We would be able to travel out into space, and catch up with light rays that have left the earth, during the time the Dinosaurs inhabited it, and look back (through a very powerful telescope) and see what it was really like.

Maybe these diagrams will help some people (however one must understand that in reality it is 3 dimensional (in theory).

 

Here is the configuration of space a a day later.

Even Einstein himself said that time was relative.

(Sorry about the diagrams,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Time does indeed slow down relative to a fixed observer.

 

Thank you Siddhartha!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While I think about it 'Hora' is Spanish for time!! I think in light of this it would be quite interesting to look at continental European's Historical Contribution to 'science'.

What nationality was Einstein?

 

"All this talk of time is useless!! One may say that time slos down or go backwards, but it wouldn't really!!"

Actually, modern theory certainly implies that time does in fact run slower for objects moving at high velocities. Experiments done with mu-mesons over 60 years ago by Rossi and Hall contribute significant evidence to suggest this theory is correct.

If you believe Gaasenbeek, and his Helical Wave Theory, where he suggests that time dilation is false, and that Rossi and Hall's experiment was wrong because they made the assumption that the rate at which slowed muons decay is the same as for muons that have not been slowed down. Instead, it is suggested that if a muon is considered a helical wave electron that the rate at which it is slowed adds a large dependence on its survival because it decays into a linear spinning electron when its speed becomes a fraction of that of the speed of light. He says this explains why more muons than expected were detected at sea level, because that the atmosphere slows them down slower than layers of iron/plastic/etc, and therefore muons that travel through the atmosphere will survive longer than muons stopped in a detector(which allows recording of their rest decay times), because muons are helical wave electrons which decay into ordinary electrons when they are slowed to non-relativistic velocities. This therefore provides an explanation that particles traveling at very high velocities do not in fact age slower than particles that are at rest.

However, it is generally accepted today that you are in fact wrong, along with Gaasenbeek. Although at least Gaasenbeek comes up with a possible explanation for why time doesn't run slower for objects traveling at high velocities, instead of just stating that as a fact followed by exclamation points.


"Even Einstein himself said that time was relative."

Well thats great that you know what Einstein said, but unfortunately you don't have the slightest clue what it means, since his very statement that time is relative is pretty much the exact opposite of what I quoted you as saying above, since time will slow down relative to a fixed observation point.


I in fact think that talking about time is very important, since we have only a finite amount of it, and it at least makes me want to know more about it.

 

"What nationality was Einstein?"

He was born March 14, 1879 in Ulm, Württemberg, Germany. So, German.

 

he was also a jew

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Helical wave???

This is a new thought.. I was taught that light traveled as a 2D wave in distinct orientations (polarized). We take advantage of this in all our LCD displays.

How could a helical wave make it through a polarized filter???

 

2D wave? I learnt it was a 3D helical wave in high school physics, although I seem to remember it be described as a rotating 2D wave, which end up with the same pattern, am I right?, anyway that description should explain why polarising light works.

So far I like this Gaasenbeek, and his Helical Wave Theory, I have never heard of it before Lorentz post, but I shall read more and get more opionated later.

Que hora son, mi corazon. he he. the only spanish words i know. thnx manu choa.

 

(Folk law or science.)
Along time ago some scientist found a way to measure the speed of light. Cleaver people, this was over a hundred years ago. So with this logic they thought. We can measure the precise speed of earth through the "Ether of space" (as it was perceived at the time). SO they sent teams to the opposite sides of the earth and measured the speed of light hoping to use the difference to calculate our velocity. But try as they might they recorded the same speed for light no matter which way it was going and no matter how fast we appeared to move. This was a big problem. How can light come to us at the same speed no matter how fast we move.

Then a rather clever and i think lucky man mulled this over in his head and came up with General relativity.

 

This is something you said on the previous page Blindman:
"As I understand the problem... As you increase your speed your mass increases exponentially. As your mass increases you require more energy to accelerate at the same pace. At some point approaching the speed of light the object will become so massive that it will become a black hole. Destroying the spaceship.. (or creating a black hole missile)."

I just thought I would point out something that I found particularly intriguing that Gaasenbeek said in one of his papers..and it relates somewhat to what you were talking about..about mass increasing with speed.

He starts off talking about how experiments previously done had shown conclusively that the linear speed of electrons will never exceed C and that Einstein had shown that energy can be converted into mass and vice versa via e = mc^2, and that the conclusion that was then reached was that somehow the inertial mass of the electrons increased as they approached the speed of light C

Mv=(Gamma)*M0

and he then says:

"Exactly how a "relativistic particle" increases its mass when it is speeded up, only to lose it again, when it is slowed down, has never been satisfactorily explained. Moreover, the relativistic electrons, similar to photons, behave both as particles and as waves. They also emit synchroton radiation, which is the "back e.m.f.", which prevents the accelerator from further accelerating the particles once they have attained a given maximum speed.

Again, "the difficulty, of course, is that the two concepts, waves and particles, are so very different that they seem to exclude each other". (4) Eventually, Niels Bohr "resolved" the problem by means of his "complementary principle", which states that: "The wave and particle natures of either matter or radiation complement each other. It is not possible to demonstrate an exclusive wave or particle nature of either matter or radiation. Both models are required".(4) Or, to paraphrase Niels Bohr and others: the very nature of quantum mechanics is illogical and consequently, one should not even try to find a rational explanation. So much for science! Interestingly, Einstein never agreed with Bohr's complementary principle, a dispute which remains unresolved until this day."

*then, the interesting part...

"The square of the helical speed of a relativistic particle is equal to the square of its linear velocity component, plus the square of its peripheral velocity component, or:

|Vh|^2 = |Vl|^2 + |Vp|^2

The direction in which the helical wave particle travels changes continuously, i.e. the helical wave velocity of the particle changes continuously, whereas its speed and angular velocity remain constant. Not only does the helical particle wave concept explain all the characteristics of light, etc., by means of a single model, but it allows one to calculate the exact position, velocity and spin of any relativistic particle without the need for such dubious concepts as:
- Einstein's time dilation and relativistic mass,
- Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or
- Bohr's complimentary principle.
It next occurred to me that there must be a simple relationship that exists between the helical speed (Vh) of a helical wave particle, its peripheral speed (Vp) and its linear speed (Vl) in relation to the speed of light (C).

Based on the experimental fact that the helical speed of a relativistic particle tends to become infinitely large as its linear speed approaches C, assuming that the mass of the particle remains constant, the following formula suggests itself:

(|Vh|/|Vp|)*|Vl|=C [3]

If we equate formula [2] with [3], we get a most surprising and encouraging result as follows:

(|Vh|^2 - |Vl|^2)^1/2 = (|Vl|*|Vh|)/C

Since we are only dealing with the absolute values of Vp, Vh and Vl, we can dispense with the vector and numerical symbols.

V^2*Vh^2 = C^2*Vh^2 - C^2*V^2

Vh^2 = C^2*V^2/(C^2 - V^2)

Vh = C*V/(C^2 - V^2)^1/2

Vh = V/(1-(V/C)^2)^1/2
or
Vh= (Gamma)*V

In other words, it is not the mass of a relativistic particle that increases by a factor of (Gamma) but its helical speed!

That is to say, the momentum P of a (relativistic) helical wave particle is equal to:

P=M0*Vh, where Vh=(Gamma)*V ...... instead of: P=Mv*V, where Mv=(Gamma)*M0

This explains why physicists were able to calculate the correct answer, even though their understanding of the physical phenomenon was incorrect."


*He goes on to talk about kinetic energy and then gives an explanation on why relativistic particles will follow a helical path.


"At low velocities Newton's law F = ma [8] applies. However, once the speed of the particle that is being accelerated approaches the speed of light, equation [8] no longer applies for two reasons:
(l) The electromagnetic or electrostatic fields used to accelerate the particle can only travel at the speed of light C; i.e. you cannot carry a stone faster than you can run, but you can swing it around by a string as you run.
(2) The h.w. particle cannot travel faster than the electromagnetic radiation it emits in a given electromagnetic frame (or field) of reference (EFORS will be discussed in a future paper); i.e. you cannot cross the light barrier.
Consequently, when a particle is being accelerated, the only way in which it can increase its kinetic energy, once it reaches a relativistic speed, is to increase its helical velocity and/or its temperature or spin velocity. Accordingly, once it becomes a helical wave particle, it will have:
-a linear momentum
-a peripheral or orbital momentum
-a spin momentum
-and a spinaxis angular momentum.
Consequently, the h.w. electron will continue to follow a helical trajectory, as it travels through a vacuum after it leaves the particle accelerator, because it cannot convert its peripheral, spin and spinaxis angular momentum into an increased linear momentum, because it is already traveling at a speed which approaches its maximum possible speed of C.

As a result, the gyroscopic (sideways) force, generated by the precessing spin axis of the particle,(6) will continue to act upon the particle causing it to maintain its helical path. The same holds for any h.w. particle, whether it carries an electrical charge or not.

That is to say, in case of a helical wave electron, we may alter its helical wave frequency, wave length, amplitude and spin velocity by means of a magnetic lens, but it will remain a helical wave electron whose total energy stays substantially the same. Only if we slow the h.w. electron down to the point where it travels at a fraction of the speed of light, will it decay into a linear spinning electron, in which instance its dying peripheral momentum is converted into additional spin. Or, to put it in baseball terms: were a pitcher able to throw a baseball at a relativistic speed while standing on the moon, the ball would follow a helical trajectory, even though the moon has no atmosphere."


*I am not sure what to believe really. His theory is definitely very interesting, and he says that one of the fundamental principles of physics is that a simple logical explanation for physical phenomenons is preferred over a complex and convoluted one. Also, that if a complex explanation that is well established is to be overcome by a new and simpler explanation that it must not simply include greater sense, but must also show where the old theory falls short.

This is what he says in reference to why his theory is continually dismissed:

"As a case in point, my proposed helical particle wave theorem explains various relativistic phenomena in a straight forward manner, including some for which no explanation exists as of now such as the duality of light, yet my theorem has been repeatedly dismissed on the basis that time dilation is a proven experimental fact. That is to say, rather than consider the fact that my proposed theorem does not have to resort to time dilation to explain certain physical phenomena a point in its favour, it is considered a drawback."

My main problem with his point on time dilation is that recently atomic clocks have been able to be synchronized, and then one of them is taken and transported at high speed, and then when stopped, the clocks were shown to differ slightly in time by fractions of a second. Obviously, if relativistic speeds were used, than the difference would be more than miniscule. But I believe just that the slight difference was shown is proof that time dilation indeed does happen.

Some of his other theories seem just as believable to me as the things I have been taught in my classes.