[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Nobody I'd like to see the real evidence that motion isn't just a tool to measure time dilation. An infinite distance between point A and point B is reduced to zero proportionate to speed. At infinite speed, time stands still and hence there is no motion possible. So all concepts of literal motion of "particles" or "energy quanta" travelling through space, or space expanding through (?), are illusory.

It is interesting in what you say Nobody,prehaps motion implies a purpose of
embarkation to fufil some need? And what can that need be if the universe is
wholly whole!


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Another meta-non-physical Alligator bites the infinite stardust...

regards,

Originally Posted by Nobody I'd like to see the real evidence that motion isn't just a tool to measure time dilation. An infinite distance between point A and point B is reduced to zero proportionate to speed. At infinite speed, time stands still and hence there is no motion possible. So all concepts of literal motion of "particles" or "energy quanta" travelling through space, or space expanding through (?), are illusory.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Another meta-non-physical aligator bites the infinite stardust... regards,

Just a small aside Lloyd,if I may bring to your attention that the correct spelling
for the reptile you are so fond of using is Alligator,as from the Oxford Dictionary,
in this politically correct world Lyoyd,you would notwant to cause offence would
you,after all reptiles have feelings too!


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Just a small aside Lloyd,if I may bring to your attention that the correct spelling for the reptile you are so fond of using is Alligator,as from the Oxford Dictionary, in this politically correct world Lyoyd,you would notwant to cause offence would you,after all reptiles have feelings too! regards michael.

Thanks for the correction, alley-gator.

regards,

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by Fortean Einstein predicts that as an object gets closer to the speed of light its mass increases.

Does he? And do you strongly believe in it?

Hello Fortean!
Welcome to the forum.
I think as any object gets closer to the speed of light, its mass strives to zero, because it (object) turns into light, so no object can have the speed of light and have mass at the same time…
If you don’t mind, you can consult two my posts (#2 and #5, mainly the latter) of the thread “mass” and give your brief opinion about this matter again...

Thanks,
zeroca.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by zeroca Does he? And do you strongly believe in it? Hello Fortean! Welcome to the forum. I think as any object gets closer to the speed of light, its mass strives to zero, because it (object) turns into light, so no object can have the speed of light and have mass at the same time… If you don’t mind, you can consult two my posts (#2 and #5, mainly the latter) of the thread “mass” and give your brief opinion about this matter again... Thanks, zeroca.

Merab explain what process would say dis-mantle a spaceship approaching the speed
of light,and reduce the capsule to say a beam of light,as you suggest here,being an
ardent Star-trek fan,the enterprise never seems to encounter these difficulties!
I would be interested in your reply.

kind regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Zeroca, you and Einstein are both correct. Lorentz had already done the close to light transformation calculations before Einstein's ideas became popular. Einstein also knew all of Lorentz's work because he published much of it in, I believe, his g.r. material. If you carefully check their work, you'll find that mass increases as it approaches the speed of light is true, but thermodynamics takes over at the entropy stage very near light speed and mass sprays massive radiation decay to end at zero or very near zero, at the speed of light. All mass transitions are absolute thermodynamic motions, very similar to boiling water's entropy into steam. Not so complex, when looked at this way, just very fast entropy motions.

regards,

Originally Posted by zeroca Does he? And do you strongly believe in it? Hello Fortean! Welcome to the forum. I think as any object gets closer to the speed of light, its mass strives to zero, because it (object) turns into light, so no object can have the speed of light and have mass at the same time… If you don’t mind, you can consult two my posts (#2 and #5, mainly the latter) of the thread “mass” and give your brief opinion about this matter again... Thanks, zeroca.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Merab explain what process would say dis-mantle a spaceship approaching the speed of light,and reduce the capsule to say a beam of light,as you suggest here,being an ardent Star-trek fan,the enterprise never seems to encounter these difficulties! I would be interested in your reply. kind regards michael.

Dear Michael!
Let me think it over again. I'll give you reply soon.
Regards,
Merab.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Hi Zeroca, you and Einstein are both correct. Lorentz had already done the close to light transformation calculations before Einstein's ideas became popular. Einstein also knew all of Lorentz's work because he published much of it in, I believe, his g.r. material. If you carefully check their work, you'll find that mass increases as it approaches the speed of light is true, but thermodynamics takes over at the entropy stage very near light speed and mass sprays massive radiation decay to end at zero or very near zero, at the speed of light. All mass transitions are absolute thermodynamic motions, very similar to boiling water's entropy into steam. Not so complex, when looked at this way, just very fast entropy motions. regards,

Dear Lloyd!
I almost never read great scientists' works, because I’m ordinary man and sometimes don’t grasp all their ideas. This reply seems clear and sensible to me and I share it almost! completely concerning of the seocnd part of your post…
Regards,
Merab.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Merab explain what process would say dis-mantle a spaceship approaching the speed of light,and reduce the capsule to say a beam of light,as you suggest here,being an ardent Star-trek fan,the enterprise never seems to encounter these difficulties! I would be interested in your reply. kind regards michael.

As I see my mind became rusty from inactivity but I’ll try my best:
There are several reasons that would dismantle a spaceship approaching the speed of light:
The first one I already mentioned in the thread “mass”.
Before reciting the reasons I’ve revised the themes of my old posts:
I conventionally called any separate amount of matter, i.e. independent object single system, or independent system.
Single system can exist in two different states: in a solid state!!!!! and in expended state!!!!!.
Independent, i.e. self-defendant motion of any single system in a solid state!!!!! is only free fall (when it’s placed “within gravitational field” of planet) or revolving (when it isn’t placed “within gravitational field” of planet or when it presents a solid planet itself). All these processes are passive processes (passive motion), the determining reason of those is the quality of solid matter called by us “mass”. I.e. if they didn’t have mass they wouldn’t act the mentioned way, i.e. solid body (independent object) is deprived the ability to accelerate itself, i.e. mass is the quality of matter that forces it to rest…
(The matter in expended state doesn’t experience free fall (for inst. water steam), but only free rise, [about difference between behavior of solid planets and the Sun later], i.e. Single system in expended state!!!!! has ability of active motion, even can serve as source for giving of impulse for acceleration of solid object, i.e. can serve as a locomotive force).

But flying spacecraft with working engine or thrown by somebody a pebble can’t be counted a single system, as they present kind of motion, caused by external force – in first case caused by fuel’s combustion, but in the second – by influencing of mechanical outer force, i.e. any kind of active motion of solid body!!!!! (We can call this body dependent or complex system) needs some kind of locomotive force.
How much outer force must we apply to spacecraft (how much fuel we need?) in order to accelerate it to the speed of light?
The much speed is needed, the much fuel we need, but fuel’s needed quantity is only half of misfortune: we need greatest energy in a very small fraction of time (i.e. greatest power) and the latter (utmost energy in form of heat) will turn our poor spacecraft into the light at once.

So to say briefly, light doesn’t need outer impulse for acceleration, as it has inner capability of active motion (as it’s deprived of mass), but solid object needs outer impulse for acceleration (as it’s deprived of inner capability of active motion), and the latter is the main obstacle.

Regards,
Merab.

[zeroca]

Let’s assume that we can find some mechanism (some locomotive force) to accelerate solid body close to the speed of light.
What can we do with attractive forces among bodies?
(I definitely emphasize that solid heavenly bodies don’t attract each-other and I’m preparing an article about it, but that’s another matter and about that later…)
For now let’s assume that existing physics is right and solid matters attract each-other according to the formula F=γMm/r2, where γ is gravitational constant, M and m are masses of objects an r – distance between them, i.e. attractive gravitational force between objects is directly proportional to masses of objects, and inversely proportional to distance between them.
When mass of any randomly taken body within universe is increasing infinitely because of its speed-increase up to the speed of light (m~V), gravitational attractive forces among it and the rest bodies increase (F~m) infinitely! (I.e. increase of mass of body infinitely will surely increase gravitational binding forces among mentioned body and the other heavenly bodies of universe infinitely), so that would become insuperable, inhibitory obstacle for subsequent increase of mass (as well as of speed) of mentioned body…
But as for light, because of absence of mass it doesn’t experience the same attractive, binding influence from bodies of universe when traveling at such high speed…

Regards,
zeroca