[Physics] Cubic Atomic Model + Theory

Fri May 8 11:35:17 CEST 2020

Mike, you may have missed a very important point here. Your analogy with the skydiver is flawed, he does not have his own motive force, therefore his speed stabilises at the point where air 
friction balances gravity. A jet plane however, can and does travel a lot faster through the same friction. My example is not really an analogy either, as rockets can and do travel faster than the speed of the rocket exhaust. The challenge still has not been answered. Using SRT and the Lorentz transformations, please explain why that rocket cannot go faster than light.

Tom Hollings.

> On 07 May 2020 at 13:36 mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
> 
> 
> Tom,
> 
> It's a good analogy, but I would interpret the inability to exceed light 
> speed the other way round. The background viscosity (call it friction of 
> the aether if you prefer) imposes a maximm speed of travel through it 
> exactly like a skydiver reaching maximum velocity in the air. This means 
> that where the viscosity is greatest, the maximum velocity will be zero 
> metres per second - even though that will be the local light speed. Your 
> analogy does not cover this usually gravitationally-based explanation 
> for black hole photon non-emission (although I do think that photons can 
> escape, just). However, it would do so if you limited the speed of your 
> E/M motive force to be the same as its gravitatonally-limited speed.
> 
> Cheers
> Mike
> 
> 
> On 2020-05-07 12:09, Tom Hollings wrote:
> > Sorenta, I am with Ilja here. I have for many years been saying that
> > Einstein's SRT is wrong. The mainstream scientists ( including one who
> > worked at Cern, and whom I started a face to face discussion with,
> > before he went back to Cern and continued our discussion by email),
> > are at first convinced that they can show me the error of my ways, but
> > when they discover that they cannot do that, quite simply because I am
> > correct, the conversation just stops, or the emails stop coming.
> > 
> > I will give you two good examples. The particle accelerator at Cern is
> > said to prove that nothing can travel faster than light. They have
> > accelerated many particles with it, but can get none of them past
> > light speed. The answer is simple. They are trying to accelerate
> > something past light speed by using electro magnetism as the motive
> > force. The accelerator producing this force is stationary WRT the
> > laboratory and the ground et al, therefore cannot possibly push
> > anything faster than light speed. As the particle is being pushed (or
> > pulled, but I will stick with pushed) to a higher and higher speed,
> > the force gets less and less, until at light speed there is no push at
> > all. The analogy here is a hockey player, who hits the puck with
> > enough force to accelerate it to 50 mph. This is because as he swings
> > the hockey stick, the tip is moving at 50 mph. The player he has
> > passed the puck to can only swing his stick at 50 mph, and as he
> > swings his stick to help the puck along, he finds he cannot make it
> > move any faster. This applies to all players in a line hitting the
> > puck in the same direction, so it would appear that the puck has a
> > maximum speed of 50 mph. Contrast that to a space rocket which carries
> > its own engine (motive force). Put briefly, the rocket exhaust (motive
> > force) is ejected at 3,000 meters per second, yet the rocket can
> > achieve a velocity vastly in excess of that figure.  See
> > http://problemswithrelativity.com/#lorentz paragraph four starting
> > with "Imagine now a space rocket..."
> > 
> > I have posted that link on here previously, but got no reply. I wonder
> > why.
> > 
> > Tom Hollings
> > 
> >> I must say that your reply has left me completely flabbergasted and
> >> in dismay Ilja. I don't understand how anyone could take that
> >> approach in life and at any stage of life. 😫
> >> 
> >> I believe there are various options for coming to the truth
> >> personally for any researcher. One thing that became clear to me
> >> with a survey and study of these various and many experimenters is
> >> that there are tests that can be performed by people with smaller or
> >> even shoestring budgets to validate or invalidate the null or
> >> non-null results (depending on which side of the fence you are on)
> >> and ultimately come to the truth without relying on anyone else from
> >> any camp. I believe in being as being as free from bias and
> >> unshackled by preconceptions as possible (although I realize that as
> >> a human and with cultures the way they are it's never possible to
> >> completely succeed in this) and I have devised some of my own
> >> experiments based around this information and data that I think can
> >> provide further insight into the situation.
> >> 
> >> A sever problem always arises when we place our trust, somewhat
> >> blindly, into so-called research that appears now to have had
> >> scientifically impure motivations. I don't want to use the term evil
> >> as you did (perhaps even facetiously?), but I suppose it ultimately
> >> depends on your personal connotations of this word.
> >> 
> >> Whenever there is clear evidence of such things it is, or should be,
> >> our personal and societal imperative to change things if we hope to
> >> leave the world in an improved state, even if it threatens our
> >> livelihood.
> >> 
> >> For some this presents a moral dilemma, perhaps akin to the
> >> professional clergyman that has realized that his faith is no longer
> >> correct and another option is, such as an unpaid lay ministry
> >> religion, and now must chose to reeducate themself and then place in
> >> jeopardy their ability to put food on the table for their family. I
> >> realize that this is all difficult, but it is an important
> >> crossroads that is personally revelatory and ultimately avails an
> >> opportunity to grow if one choses to go down this path of deciding
> >> to find the truth no matter the cost and insomuch that this pursuit
> >> is indeed guided by factual data and truth.
> >> 
> >> The book is a small cost to pay and if the cost is too much for you,
> >> I would be willing to order and send you a copy if you decide
> >> otherwise. A keen mind that discovers truth after it has been hidden
> >> from them has an enormity of useful perspective and counsel to offer
> >> if not action to take that will evoke much good.
> >> 
> >> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:44 AM Ilja Schmelzer <
> >> ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 2020-05-06 14:19 GMT+06:30, Soretna < illumination00 at gmail.com>:
> >>>> Ilja there are many, many non-null results with superior tooling
> >>> all the
> >>>> way up into this century / millennium. I think you would
> >>> seriously
> >>>> reconsider your thought process if you would review this
> >>> expansive study of
> >>>> history from back then until now.
> >>> 
> >>> No, simply because I have made this bet from the start:  I will
> >>> accept
> >>> experimental and observational evidence as presented and accepted
> >>> by
> >>> the mainstream.
> >>> 
> >>> Of course, with some probability this will be the wrong bet.  Such
> >>> is
> >>> life.  Anyway, as an outsider I have no chance to win in that
> >>> playing
> >>> field.
> >>> 
> >>> And if these evil mainstream scientists conspire to suppress the
> >>> results of true experiments, my chances are even lower, close to
> >>> complete zero.
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Physics mailing list
> >>> Physics at tuks.nl
> >>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Physics mailing list
> >> Physics at tuks.nl
> >> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> > _______________________________________________
> > Physics mailing list
> > Physics at tuks.nl
> > http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>