41

**New Theories / Re: Could mass reach the speed of light ?**

« **on:**12/12/2019 21:59:21 »

"Frozen mass" sounds like something you made up.Energy in form of a solid entity " mass"

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

41

"Frozen mass" sounds like something you made up.Energy in form of a solid entity " mass"

42

E=mc², this the energy an object contain ,at small speeds K.E=1/2* mv² This is the amount of kinetic energy the object moves with , E=mv² the mount of mass lost is close to the amount of object moves with"1/2*mv² .

43

E=mv², when v=0 the a mount of frozen mass converts to energy is 0.The whole mass will convert to energy " when the mass moves at the speed of light v²=c² .A photon doesn't have frozen mass because it moves at the speed c, my argument is as the mass increase in its speed close to c it starts to vanish "converts to energy according to E=mc² " and it vanishes at the speed c .The energy of the mass adding to its kinetic energy will behave like a photon moving at the speed c.My equation of the decrements in mass is:m=m0 * √(1-v²/c²) However this doesn't affect the equation of kinetic energy , because energy and mass are equivalent ,

m0 = E0/c² the mass still exists in form of energy, the difference is instead of mass increasing , the whole energy " kinetic energy and m0 energy" will increase .In such case the mass m0 could be represented by E0/c² , E0/c² is in fact the rest mass and the Kinetic energy equation could be :K.E=E0/√(1-v²/c²) +E0, whether the mass increases or decreases E0 is conserved , which is m0=E0/c²

When an object gets faster it is supposed that its mass increases, however its mass doesn't, in fact its energy increases, its energy consists of its energy represented by E0 and increments due to its motion.The idea of increments in its frozen mass is mysterious. however the idea of mass decreases into energy " E=mc²."is obvious.

m0 = E0/c² the mass still exists in form of energy, the difference is instead of mass increasing , the whole energy " kinetic energy and m0 energy" will increase .In such case the mass m0 could be represented by E0/c² , E0/c² is in fact the rest mass and the Kinetic energy equation could be :K.E=E0/√(1-v²/c²) +E0, whether the mass increases or decreases E0 is conserved , which is m0=E0/c²

When an object gets faster it is supposed that its mass increases, however its mass doesn't, in fact its energy increases, its energy consists of its energy represented by E0 and increments due to its motion.The idea of increments in its frozen mass is mysterious. however the idea of mass decreases into energy " E=mc²."is obvious.

44

Mass isn't converted into energy. That's a common misconception. Instead, energy has an associated mass and mass an associated energy. The total mass and total energy of a system remains unchanged. If mass really could be destroyed by turning it into energy, that would allow for violation of conservation of momentum.A photon doesn't have a frozen mass " massless" even if it has contained energy.The thing which decreases here is the frozen mass turning into zero mass convert into energy.

45

A mass at stationary relapse distance equals zero , time is zero, time is frozen .According to special theory of relativity , as the mass gets faster the distance it travels decrease " A mass at stationary relapse distance equals zero , time is zero, time is frozen .

According to special theory of relativity , as the mass gets faster the distance it travels decrease " length contraction" and time delays, if the object reach in its speed the speed of light it will in fact stops " the decrement in length will reach its minimum which is zero, time stops, doesn't that means the mass at stationary is this case?What I mean is as the mass velocity increases its kinetic energy increase and at its smallest length contraction the length will equal zero.

L=L0√(1-v²/c²) by substituting v=c ,we could actually obtain a zero contracted length.The object in the number line moving from 2 to 3 will reach the 3 even if it covers infinite fractions.What I A mass at stationary relapse distance equals zero , time is zero, time is frozen .According to special theory of relativity , as the mass gets faster the distance it travels decrease " length contraction" and time delays, if the object reach in its speed the speed of light it will in fact stops " the descerment in length will reach its minimum which is zero and time stops, doesn't that means the mass at stationary is this case?What I mean is as the mass velocity increase its kinetic energy increase and at its smallest length contraction the length will equal zero.L=L0√(1-v²/c²) by substituting v=c ,we could actually obtain a zero contracted length.The object in the number line moving from 2 to 3 will reach the 3 even if it covers infinite fractions.What I propose here is the mass of an object "the frozen mass" will decrease as the kinetic energy increase , it will reach zero at a time " without energy conservative violation" at the time the mass reaches zero the kinetic energy will behave as a photon and will move at the speed of light. The idea of zero mass is obvious when mass converts to energy " E=mcc²"However the idea of increment in mass is mysterious .The mass decreases and its contained energy is lost to be added to the total energy of the kinetic energy.Light is massless and travels at the speed c if we substitute m=0 and v=c:

m=m0/√(1-v²/c²) , v=c , m=0,

0=0/0 the equation can't be applied to a photon , if the kinetic energy of a mass increases and the mass disappeared the equation also can't be applied to such case.It is for sure that if the above equation doesn't apply for a photon and doesn't apply to the cases I mentioned, then we can't be sure if the mass will move at the speed of light or not by using the equation .A photon is massless and moves at speed c, an object loses its mass when moving close to c, and its mass disappears becoming a photon when it moves at the speed of c.

My equation for the decrements in mass is :

**m=m0 * √(1-v²/c²)**

At the time v=0 " stationary " m= m0 , the mass doesn't decrease .

At the time v=c ,then m=0 the mass vanish into energy and the whole energy " energy due to motion and energy of the rest mass " will move at the speed of light c.

The equation doesn't affect the general relativity kinetic energy equation:

K.E=m0c²/√(1-v²/c²) +mc², It could be :E0/√(1-v²/c²) +E0 , E0 is the energy of the rest mass which doesn't change even if the mass decrease" m0 will convert to E0"

According to special theory of relativity , as the mass gets faster the distance it travels decrease " length contraction" and time delays, if the object reach in its speed the speed of light it will in fact stops " the decrement in length will reach its minimum which is zero, time stops, doesn't that means the mass at stationary is this case?What I mean is as the mass velocity increases its kinetic energy increase and at its smallest length contraction the length will equal zero.

L=L0√(1-v²/c²) by substituting v=c ,we could actually obtain a zero contracted length.The object in the number line moving from 2 to 3 will reach the 3 even if it covers infinite fractions.What I A mass at stationary relapse distance equals zero , time is zero, time is frozen .According to special theory of relativity , as the mass gets faster the distance it travels decrease " length contraction" and time delays, if the object reach in its speed the speed of light it will in fact stops " the descerment in length will reach its minimum which is zero and time stops, doesn't that means the mass at stationary is this case?What I mean is as the mass velocity increase its kinetic energy increase and at its smallest length contraction the length will equal zero.L=L0√(1-v²/c²) by substituting v=c ,we could actually obtain a zero contracted length.The object in the number line moving from 2 to 3 will reach the 3 even if it covers infinite fractions.What I propose here is the mass of an object "the frozen mass" will decrease as the kinetic energy increase , it will reach zero at a time " without energy conservative violation" at the time the mass reaches zero the kinetic energy will behave as a photon and will move at the speed of light. The idea of zero mass is obvious when mass converts to energy " E=mcc²"However the idea of increment in mass is mysterious .The mass decreases and its contained energy is lost to be added to the total energy of the kinetic energy.Light is massless and travels at the speed c if we substitute m=0 and v=c:

m=m0/√(1-v²/c²) , v=c , m=0,

0=0/0 the equation can't be applied to a photon , if the kinetic energy of a mass increases and the mass disappeared the equation also can't be applied to such case.It is for sure that if the above equation doesn't apply for a photon and doesn't apply to the cases I mentioned, then we can't be sure if the mass will move at the speed of light or not by using the equation .A photon is massless and moves at speed c, an object loses its mass when moving close to c, and its mass disappears becoming a photon when it moves at the speed of c.

My equation for the decrements in mass is :

At the time v=0 " stationary " m= m0 , the mass doesn't decrease .

At the time v=c ,then m=0 the mass vanish into energy and the whole energy " energy due to motion and energy of the rest mass " will move at the speed of light c.

The equation doesn't affect the general relativity kinetic energy equation:

K.E=m0c²/√(1-v²/c²) +mc², It could be :E0/√(1-v²/c²) +E0 , E0 is the energy of the rest mass which doesn't change even if the mass decrease" m0 will convert to E0"

46

What happens to the output distance of gear box of large ratio " 1: 10000" low torque " if the input" large torque " started with an infinitely small distance ?

47

Gravity:

As a result of my previous argument , gravity has a zero value , must exists somewhere in infinite space-time, it means gravity doesn't extend with its zero value to infinity , and it means the idea of gravity never reach zero is wrong, my argument is for a moving object from zero co-ordinate to 1 unit it starts infinitely small to reach the 1 unit which represent infinity, it means if the object starts infinitely small it will reach infinitely the 1 unit, if the object starts infinitely it will cover all the possible fractions that could be, , an d it will end up at infinity which is the 1 unit, it starts from infinity " the zero " and ends up at 1 unit which is itself represent infinity

Gravity starts from zero infinitely small and ends at let's say 5 Newton, while for the object zero can be reached , it is the same idea for gravity, the zero unit for the object is reachable " starting backwards from 1 unit", gravity zero value is reachable, the idea of unreachable zero value is wrong, if we compare the " 0 and 1 " case the zero will be reachable , for gravity the 0 zero is unreachable , the comparison is the object moves from 1 to zero reaches zero if it won't reach zero the zero should moves to infinity becoming unreachable , for gravity if zero gravity is unreachable the zero should exists at infinity , it means zero value extends infinitely, but if so the value of gravity between let's say 5 and zero will extend infinitely, and the gravity value between 5 and zero will change continuously, since the coordinates points will take new positions.

According to my theory zero gravity exists and reachable, starting from let's say 5 to 0, the zero exists at the edge of a range the gravity range a according to my theory extends withe speed of light , the gravity value decreases infinitely from let's say 5 to 0, I.e the zero is reachable, beyond this range gravity value is zero. It doesn’t matter when the mass exists causing gravity range.

The idea of extendable range “ my theory “ and current theory “ extending zero to infinity “ is different, the values of co-ordinate point “ according to my theory “ are fixed the range extends leaving gravity value without change, and the current theory problem is mentioned above.

As a result of my previous argument , gravity has a zero value , must exists somewhere in infinite space-time, it means gravity doesn't extend with its zero value to infinity , and it means the idea of gravity never reach zero is wrong, my argument is for a moving object from zero co-ordinate to 1 unit it starts infinitely small to reach the 1 unit which represent infinity, it means if the object starts infinitely small it will reach infinitely the 1 unit, if the object starts infinitely it will cover all the possible fractions that could be, , an d it will end up at infinity which is the 1 unit, it starts from infinity " the zero " and ends up at 1 unit which is itself represent infinity

Gravity starts from zero infinitely small and ends at let's say 5 Newton, while for the object zero can be reached , it is the same idea for gravity, the zero unit for the object is reachable " starting backwards from 1 unit", gravity zero value is reachable, the idea of unreachable zero value is wrong, if we compare the " 0 and 1 " case the zero will be reachable , for gravity the 0 zero is unreachable , the comparison is the object moves from 1 to zero reaches zero if it won't reach zero the zero should moves to infinity becoming unreachable , for gravity if zero gravity is unreachable the zero should exists at infinity , it means zero value extends infinitely, but if so the value of gravity between let's say 5 and zero will extend infinitely, and the gravity value between 5 and zero will change continuously, since the coordinates points will take new positions.

According to my theory zero gravity exists and reachable, starting from let's say 5 to 0, the zero exists at the edge of a range the gravity range a according to my theory extends withe speed of light , the gravity value decreases infinitely from let's say 5 to 0, I.e the zero is reachable, beyond this range gravity value is zero. It doesn’t matter when the mass exists causing gravity range.

The idea of extendable range “ my theory “ and current theory “ extending zero to infinity “ is different, the values of co-ordinate point “ according to my theory “ are fixed the range extends leaving gravity value without change, and the current theory problem is mentioned above.

48

How you can't use a computer to test your theory.

49

None of what you say makes sense.No.

50

I think gravity is local. In fact, I believe rotation makes it so. I think rotation limits the range of E and M force, until it is cut. Velocity factor.The rotation could be a proof, According to Einstein theory of relativity , rotation increases mass , that causes more space-time curvature , the new energy/mass will cause gravity extendable range

51

Gravity decreases in accelerated way in which it never reach zero , but the zero is beyond the edge and the edge has infinitely small gravity .

52

How can something "start infinitely"?It starts from infinitely small distance " from 1" and ends up in 2 and, we could reverse the process an object starts from 2 and ends in 1 , gravity starts from 5 and ends up in 0 and we could reveres it from zero to 5

53

What do you mean by "moves from 1 to 2 infinitely."?As a result of my argument " 4.0 , 4.00, 4.000 , 4 distance limit " An object starts from 4 meters and time 0 seconds seems it won't start motion at all , but in fact it starts infinitely from absolute zero distance.

You really must explain yourself .

54

Then there is no distance that cannot be reached given no limit in time to do it, so your assertion (if that is what you're asserting) is false.An object at motion moves from 1 to 2 infinitely.

55

It is not possible for an object in motion to pass numbers and reach infinity but in the following case An object at motion can be considered to be passing infinite numbers 4 , 4.1 , 4.11 , 4.111 , infinity , 5 limit , an object moving from 1 to 2 distance passes fraction of infinite numbers reaches infinity which is represented by 2

In the case of infinite numbers from 1 to 2

1) Limit of x as x approaching 2 is 2

In the case of infinite numbers from let's say 5 Newton to 0 zero Newton

2) Limit of y as y approaching 0 is 0

The contradiction is gravity being infinite is that number 2 equation should have value of infinity , but logically gravity decrease and it is limit is 0

The conclusion of all the above is gravity in fact reaches zero in points in space-time while space-time is infinite , it means gravity is not infinity.

accelerated values of gravity distance could be a case of infinite numbers from 1 to 2 passed by an object this object is in fact reaches 2 and passes infinite numbers.

My hypothesis gravity is limited to a range extending at the speed of c that is numbers in this range in fact has limit beyond this limit gravity equals zero , I can choose gravity to decrease infinity in an accelerated way to reach zero at the edge .

Newton gravity equation is valid, gravity in case it is limited , has limited range extend with the speed of light from a number and ends zero at the edge It has nothing to do with the infinite distance of space time , The fact is we have infinite distance related to infinite space-time and we have another distance related to the range ends in zero . .

In the case of infinite numbers from 1 to 2

1) Limit of x as x approaching 2 is 2

In the case of infinite numbers from let's say 5 Newton to 0 zero Newton

2) Limit of y as y approaching 0 is 0

The contradiction is gravity being infinite is that number 2 equation should have value of infinity , but logically gravity decrease and it is limit is 0

The conclusion of all the above is gravity in fact reaches zero in points in space-time while space-time is infinite , it means gravity is not infinity.

accelerated values of gravity distance could be a case of infinite numbers from 1 to 2 passed by an object this object is in fact reaches 2 and passes infinite numbers.

My hypothesis gravity is limited to a range extending at the speed of c that is numbers in this range in fact has limit beyond this limit gravity equals zero , I can choose gravity to decrease infinity in an accelerated way to reach zero at the edge .

Newton gravity equation is valid, gravity in case it is limited , has limited range extend with the speed of light from a number and ends zero at the edge It has nothing to do with the infinite distance of space time , The fact is we have infinite distance related to infinite space-time and we have another distance related to the range ends in zero . .

56

All this is non-sense .Quote from: Yahya A.Sharifyou have to understand what a first site with quotes above it meansTake a random section of something you wrote, say 10-15 words (something original, not reciting a nursery rhyme).

Statistically, it is very likely that no-one else in the world has put those exact same words in exactly that sequence in the age of the internet.

Now, your string is just 7 words long: "Does gravity have a limited distance range?". For a quoted search, Google says:Quote from: Google, quoted search5 results (0.21 seconds)When you quote a string of text in a Google search, Google looks those exact same words in exactly that sequence. If it exists anywhere on the public internet, Google will find and display it. (By the way, your result isnotlisted among them, in Australia.)

At this level, Google is just doing a word search: You type in a unique sequence of words, and it finds that unique sequence of words. Google places no credibility on whether these are pearls of wisdom, or utter drivel.

However, Google has an amazing innovation that allowed it to take over internet search: The Page Rank algorithm (a play on the author's name, Larry Page). To understand what Google is, you should read/listen to the podcast link below.

Quote from: Internet History PodcastAs [Page] mulled over the idea with Brin, their shared upbringing as the children of academics kicked in. Larry and Sergey knew the power of the academic citation.

Effectively, if other people think a web page is worthwhile, and link to it ("cites it"), then the ranking goes up.

- So if you put in a non-unique string of words (egquoted), out of the millions or billions of matching pages, Google will present you with an ordered list of those that PageRank considers are most valuable on the internet.not

Put in your search again, without the quotes, and see how many pages match. Then see where your page comes in the list.Quote from: Google, non-quoted searchAbout 48,700,000 results (0.58 seconds)- There are more factors in the Google algorithm now (including advertising), but that is how Google startedQuotethey didn't find anything significant in Their Google Scholar sectionGoogle Scholar was a more recent addition to Google, around 2004. It mostly searches peer-reviewed journals, thesis reports, patents and court cases - documents that have had some form of peer review to sort out the pearls from the drivel.

- It also counts citations of other documents in other peer-reviewed articles

- That is a pretty high bar to reach for your new theory

Even "Does Turkey have a special trade relation with the EU?: A gravity model approach" has 154 citations, which is 154 more than your theory.

To understand something of how Google search works, Read or Listen: http://www.internethistorypodcast.com/2017/04/the-history-of-google/

PS: It's worth listening to the podcast for the classic dial-up modem in the intro!Note: If you then start creating lots of links to your own theory, then you know you have lost it - and Google knows too!

57

If you want something that is more scientifically believable, try Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/In contrary , Google found a valuable new theory in a forum " The naked scientist forum" , and they didn't find anything significant in Their Google Scholar section, you have to understand what a first site with quotes above it means.

This indexes material that people find more academically credible.

58

I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't ever been sitting at a meal and thought, "I wish I was spinning right now".I didn't say why do you SAY you want......Why do you want to eat and vomit while you can do a big list of other things.

I never said such a thing.

I said why DO you want......

When first person says to another person: Why do you want to run ? and the other person replies I didn't say I want to run

That doesn't mean that first person judge him that he said so , he judge him by something like he is afraid..

Whether you don't understand English or you just used it as defense from what I said and you imply I attacked you.

I said what I said because you implied such a thing.

59

Google does not screen its content for scientifically accurate information. You can find all kinds of fringe material with a Google search.Read posts #5 and #6

Really? see posts #5 and #6"Science authority " ? LOL what does that even mean?Google is not a science website.

60

Who are you to underestimate google site ?that means my theory is approved by Google

LOL at the idea of Google being some kind of science authority.

"Science authority " ? LOL what does that even mean?