Why Nothing Can Move Faster than the Speed of Light

Homepage | Forums | Topics In Depth | Science and Environment | Why Nothing Can Move Faster than the Speed of Light

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #487681
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 11,969

      https://medium.com/@RebelScience/why-nothing-can-move-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-a83edd71e941

      This will be short but get ready for a shock. Forget about everything you may have heard about causality, time dilation, infinite mass, relativity, etc. The reason is that the speed of light is the only possible speed. Nothing can move faster or slower, period. How can this be? The universe is discrete and, as explained below, a time dimension is impossible. This means that motion consists of a series of extremely minute discrete jumps (quantum jumps, if you like), each of which happens at the speed of light over a minute fundamental distance. If a body is observed to move slower than light, it is because it is at rest part of the time, that is to say, it has rest periods between the jumps. At the speed of light, it is all jumps with no rest periods. At half the speed of light, a body is at rest half the time. At ordinary speeds, it is at rest almost all the time with only a few jumps sprinkled in.

      Why is there only one speed in the universe? It is because there is no time dimension. Therefore nature cannot calculate durations. But why is there no time dimension? The short answer is that motion in time is self-referential and thus time cannot change. The slightly longer and more technical answer is that moving in time implies a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt = 1, which is nonsense. That is it. A time dimension would make motion impossible. Nothing can move in spacetime for this reason. We live in the continually changing present always. And no, we are not moving in time from the past toward the future.

      Do not let time travel believers and relativists trick you with talk of time dilation and the like. Yes, clocks can be observed to slow down and speed up but it is not because time dilates or shrinks. It is only because of underlying phenomena having to do with energy conservation. By the way, the impossibility of a time dimension is the reason that famous science philosopher Sir Karl Popper wrote in Conjectures and Refutations [pdf] that spacetime was “Einstein’s block universe in which nothing happens.”

      Nontemporality has many other consequences for physics and science in general. For example, it explains why the decay of subatomic particles is necessarily probabilistic. Of course, time travel is pure nerd nonsense. We are working on an article about the cause of gravity. The speed of light is a major part of our hypothesis. However, it is impossible to understand gravity without first understanding why things move. Yes, even inertial motion is an effect in need of a cause. This will be the subject of our next article.

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #487727
      HassleCat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 9,177

      Achilles is still trying to catch that tortoise.

    • #487874
      Voltairine
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,567

      has no hope of comprehending time. Sure, time is not a dimension. Time is not any kind of abstract, mathematical object. Empirical time is when thinking occurs, ceases and begins. Our best philosopher of time, Bergson, who had a famous debate with Einstein, explain that empirical, experiental time – duration – is neither unity nor multiplicity.

      We have “working” concept for questions that make any kind of numerical presupposition, but cannot be answered in any numerical terms: undecidable. The Halting Problem is fundamentally a question about empirical time, and cannot be given a numerical answerm, or any other type of static modelling. Chaitin in his classic criticism of “real numbers” notes that Halting problem is more general and Gödels incompleteness theorems are special cases of the Halting problem.

      Of course in empirical reality Achilleus beats the tortoise, more and less are more fundamental relations than metaphysical postulation of an abstract measuring unit aka number aka “existential quantifier”. Even in the field of pure mathematics and computation theory, formal languages and continuous geometry are more general – and intuitively interesting – than number theory.

      The OP article is just yet another example of the general sillyness and absurdity of physicalism in the form of contemporary mathematical physics – which as utterly static project fails miserably at empirism, confusing empirical reality with numerical measuring.

      Aloha!

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.