[sci]Good news --- we can pass the Speed of Light!

Y

yun-qi

Guest
=== This is an interesting open message. Since it is extremely controversial with today's understandings, you may treat it with open mind, and use your own judgement.===


!!! We can pass the Speed of Light for sure !!!

1. Today's physics assumes that the forces a particle receives from the fixed field sources are constant during its moving.

Unfortunately, this prior assumption is totally WRONG! The force that a particle receives from the fixed field source is NOT CONSTANT. It will vary with the moving speed v of this particle. The formula will be:

F = (1-v^2/c^2)Fo

Where Fo is the force which a particle receives at its rest state, and the c is the speed of light;

2. From point 1, if a particle's velocity approaches to the speed of light c, this particle then will receive NO force. Therefore, this particle will have NO acceleration at that time, OF COURSE this particle can not pass the speed of light;

3. If we use other force sources, for example imaging if this particle like a jet, then we can broken the speed of light c easily. In one word:

!!! There is NO speed limit, and we can pass the speed of light just like we pass the speed of sound !!!

4. The mass of a particle will NOT change during its moving. The formula:

m = m0 / (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

is wrong;

5. The time will definitely NOT change during its moving. The formula:

t = t0 * (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

is also wrong;

6. Actually, point 4 and 5 are come from the following:

F = m0 dv/d(t0)

(1-v^2/c^2)Fo = m0 dv/d(t0)

Fo = [m0 dv/d(t0)] / (1-v^2/c^2)

Fo = [m0/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)] * {dv/d [t0 (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)]}

Comparing with the general form:

Fo = m dv/dt

Then we get these two funny formulas:

m = m0 / (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and

t = t0 * (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

They are only the mathematical terms and no real physical meanings. --- How can we use them as our principles ?!

7. In one word ----

There exists NO relativity, and the whole theories of the relativity are totally artificially man-made.

One may ask that why most of the past and today's experiments have strongly supported the relativity?

=Answer=: There really exist some "relativity" results, BUT they are NOT coming from the relativity, they indeed comes from the following force's FACTOR:

1-v^2/c^2

You may go to the following website to get the details:
www.yun-qi.com

=== EXPERIMENTS HINTS ===

If we set S = eBR/(mc), where e is the electron charge, R is the cyclotron radius that a charged particle bending in the magnetic field B, m is the rest mass of this particle, and c is the speed of light.

For the fixed magnetic field force, say Lorentz force, we have:

Today's Theory:

F = evB

S = (v/c) / (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

v/c = 1 / (1+1/S^2)^(1/2)

Yun-Qi Theory:

F = (1-v^2/c^2) (Lorentz Force) = (1-v^2/c^2) evB

S = (v/c) / (1-v^2/c^2)

v/c = [1+1/(4S^2)]^(1/2) - 1/(2S)

These two theories will give the totally different data of the real speeds for the certain S, and will give the huge differences of the velocity changes for the different S.

For example, if we set the cyclotron radius is equal to one (1), the relativity theory will teach us that the particle's velocity is 0.707106781c, BUT Yun-Qi theory will predict that its real velocity will actually be 0.618033988c --- the exact Golden Number. The net difference is 0.089072793c. See, there exists a big difference here.

If you are interested, you can check --- www.yun-qi.com --- for the detailed data of the huge differences.

== The following is the interesting abstract from the article which includes the above theory ==

This article will give the totally new views from any aspects we know today, so it's better to treat it with open mind. In this paper, I have derived from ``non--nothing" --- to the following most astounding results:

1. Ohitor Algebra;
2. Integration;
3. Differentiation;
4. Ohitor Bexl;
5. V-Space;
6. A-Space;
7. Most of Mechanics Laws;
8. Gravity Law --- is not clearly shown, but in it;
9. Many New Laws, like spin, mota, ......

All in a 41-page article. Here are some new concepts: ohitor, bexl, mota, ... I just can't use today's words to express them.

If you are interested, you can get this paper from above website, or you can download it directly from the followings:

1. For "Acrobat Reader": --- www.yun-qi.com/Yq01.pdf
2. For "DVI File": --------- www.yun-qi.com/Yq01.dvi
3. For "PostScript File": -- www.yun-qi.com/Yq01.ps


(Edited to add a category :) )

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Vipper ]
 
CeeBee

CeeBee

Inactive
Originally posted by Ron:
<STRONG>I will await your publication in Physics Today with bated breath.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Ron ]</STRONG>
Click to expand...

How sad. He knows he's not going to be published, so he's publishing himself by spamming various newsgroups, including ones that obviously having nothing to do with his subject matter. These mathematics are way too arcane for a general-discussion group, and he knows it. But at least he's "in print." Yun-qui has done this before in the old TB2K, and has been booted out for it.
 
R

RKBA

Membership Revoked
CeeBee,

The main reason that Ki-wi's assertion's and equation's aren't worthy of consideration, is that the time dilation and mass increase with speed predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity have been verified many times over empirically (ie; by observation).
 
CeeBee

CeeBee

Inactive
Originally posted by Ron:
<STRONG>CeeBee,

The main reason that Ki-wi's assertion's and equation's aren't worthy of consideration, is that the time dilation and mass increase with speed predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity have been verified many times over empirically (ie; by observation).</STRONG>
Click to expand...


Oh, I don't dispute it, but yun-qi does:


There exists NO relativity, and the whole theories of the relativity are totally artificially man-made.

One may ask that why most of the past and today's experiments have strongly supported the relativity?

=Answer=: There really exist some "relativity" results, BUT they are NOT coming from the relativity, they indeed comes from the following force's FACTOR:

1-v^2/c^2
Click to expand...

He invites us to come to his web site for more details. Did you have the stomach to wade in deeper?

My instinct told me that this is just crank science prettied up with fancy formulas. But when I went to the web site, I saw that it is more about bizarre metaphysics than a new physics.

I wonder if this is the work of a once-brilliant, now schizophrenic student.
 
B

brkthr

Deceased
yun-qi;
Continue with your shouts from the roof tops.
The inability of your detractors to think outside the box of their limited perception has resulted in the world of lack we live in today.
A.E.was the one who stated that the result of any experiment resides in the imagination of the beholder.
Limited imaginative ability,equals limited perception,equals limited reality.

James
 
Jesse

Jesse

Membership Revoked
I wish I could comment intelligently on the hypothesis here, but I quit math when they gave me a slide rule. I *still* believe that pi should be served with ice cream! :rolleyes: - Jesse.
 
W

Warren Bone

Guest
"Cake R Square...Pie R Round." :D

So he must be right!

warren.

:p
 
D

Darth Michael

Membership Revoked
So...if I let go of a ball from my hand, will gravity, take over and cause the ball to drop?

And if I THROW the ball, will it remain in inertia until it either changes direction or loses velocity?

Furthermore, no two objects (let's say...balls, for example) can occupy the same space at the same time. Is this true?

If you answered "YES" to all of the above questions, you are correct! And if you were to have answered "YES" to the above questions 300 years ago...guess what!...you would have been correct !

MORALE:

The laws of physics have not changed.
 
B

brkthr

Deceased
Rocks are hard,
Water is wet,
Buses will kill you if you get in their way.

All realities have a ground of being.


You ,on the other hand,are the "laws of physics".

James

P.S. You are also the spoon.

edit for P.S.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: brkthru ]
 
S

SmartAZ

Membership Revoked
I have seen such arguments before, and I even bought a book explaining one well-supported theory. I didn't understand a word of it. However, here is a very simple example of FTL that anybdy with high school math can follow:

It takes 8 minutes for light to travel from the sun to the earth. That means we see the sun, not where it is, but where it was 8 minutes ago. The difference between the two positions is 20 arc seconds. That angle means that the pressure of light is not entirely radial; some of the pressure acts to slow things down, and dust particles in orbit will be slowed and eventually fall into the sun because of that small angle.

But the force of gravity has no such error! The force of gravity acts exactly in line with where the sun is, not where it was 8 minutes ago. If the force of gravity were to travel at light speed, the error angle would cause the earth to speed up in its orbit (just as the pressure of light causes things to slow down), and the size of the orbit would double in 1200 years.

So gravity has no measurable speed: it acts instantly over any distance. All we need to do now is to invent a way to generate and detect gravity, and we can have instant communication anywhere in the universe! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top