Jump to content

The Speed of Light


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

This only indirectly deals with time travel. Here is the closest that humans will ever get to the speed of light(theoretically):

 

c - 1/infinite#

 

c = the speed of light

 

- = minus

 

/ = means "divided by"

 

As I said, this does not directly deal with time travel, but it is a good piece of information to know. Because 1 divided by an infinite number is the closest number that you will ever get to zero without it actually being zero, the speed of light minus that will therefore have to be the closest speed to the speed of light without actually being it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

RE: The Speed of Light, re corrections:

 

The speed of light as we know it, is only assigned to this dimension, as we realize this speed to be.

 

Your second sentance grouping, is reciprosical.

 

Since we live in a multiverse, as light fractates through prismatic qualities, so giving an inclintation that many other wolrds exist, or a multiverse, then each one of these other worlds, does have they're own particular speed of light.

 

Our speed of light, as we realize as we post, is observe in concept in two ways.

 

One, is the speed of light within the atmosphere.

 

Two is in situ in supposedly null space, outerspace if you will?

 

From how we as a species observe, this is only realized as a zero point conclusion.

 

There are fractates of C, in sub realms, which goes down in frequency, as light is also energy, with energy being realized as being imparted to photonic realms or qualities.

 

So there must be a bi-valaed realization of sub-nutral projected qualites of light, which transpose in a reverse to zero point observations.

 

This statment realization is due to the fact, that in frequencies below what we can observe, light does still exist.

 

Thank you creedo 299X9

 

Note in supposed other realites, the quality of light velocities, may not be all the same?

 

This is due to two factors, which give a control backdrop to known qualities of light and these are the Einstein Bose expierment and the Super-luminal C expierment.One being a five miles per hour slowed light speed and the other being a velocity, in super cesium, many time the natural speed of light, within space.

 

Light can also be made to have presure, as to how this light is pumped and or excited.

 

This concept is brought foward within the mythical, in the remake of the movie (The Time Machine), useing a modified Lorentz contaction, to oblate C, as a viable key into the qualities of T & S, or time space.

 

Thanks for your tip, Dr.?! :oops:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

RE: The Speed of Light, re corrections:

 

You are an idiot, you know that? You make yourself seem smart by using those big words which you have almost no idea about what they mean, but you know nothing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

RE: The Speed of Light, re corrections, who?

 

What do you know Ritchie, that I don't?

 

Go a'head, you've got the stage.

 

If I'm wrong somewhere within this post, then you, all knowlegable Ritchie, please point it out to me.

 

Where did I go wrong within my post?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

but isnt that l;ike saying you can never reach a destination because you have to cover half the distance and then ahve to cover half of the remaining distance and then half of that remaining distance and so on and so on?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

RE: The Speed of Light, re TTA, et al.

 

Whoever is retorking here, is not useing proper references to who what when and where.

 

Who is speaking to whom?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

RE: The Speed of Light, re TTA, et al.

 

Whoever is retorking here, is not useing proper references to who what when and where.

 

Who is speaking to whom?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

RE: The Speed of Light, reply without a requote.

 

The speed of light or us ever reaching it, is superfluis.

 

Does not matter, as in space, in order to get from one point to another, speed, velocity and so-on are not always required.

 

Even if you could obtain the speed of light within a vehicle, this too is superfluis, as phtotons, or light packets ie. quanta, are inhearent withion all matter.

 

So when you start accelerating an object up to the maximum speed towards lights top end within this assigned reality only, what happens?

 

Right, you guessed it' photonic expression starts to occur from that matter, as the object starts to disgennis, as the matter and photonoic arrangments can no longer hold the object togeather as solid state.(A solid state object Ritchie, shhhh, just between you and me Ritch)???

 

There must be more than one frequency of existance, due to light prismantic concepts being universal and if this is so, then black hole event horizions, only for examples sake, act as an inverse prismatic concept, however only to dimensional doorways.

 

This is simple stuff really.

 

However now take the differnce between a said time travel device which uses a displacment theory utalizing the Trippler Zeropoint methods, of time and space displacment, as opposed to the light tensor oblate zeropoint method of displacment.

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTE)))).The term Trippler Zeropoint, is now considewred to be an arbitrary term, as the construction of the universe, is now thought to have been composed of a nonconsistant series of burps.

 

If this is so, then this does cause considerable areas of argumentation, as far as how standard cosmologcal physics, with respects to creationism.((((.

 

The first value is by an e.m. pulse, which again constructs a zero point shell, which allows entry into time and space.

 

The light oblate shell, which is light as a tensor field, does the same thing, however light must be replicaited upon its own bounderies, which would mean that light must be captured, in order to construct a light oblate?

 

What the good doctor was talking about it seems was half values of light...?

 

This can mean many things, as classically light is only, or has been measured from our observer's point upward within respects to velocities to the top end of assigned C.

 

Okay you Captain Jones morning advanture fans' what about proposed lower spectra light qualities and values, AS'' as I had stipulaited, that photonic constiutuancies are always contained within matter and energy fields, (even the lower E.M. spectra) which is below humans abilites to see into?

 

Yes' I had to illustrait the point more fully, due to Ritchie's objection. The good Dr, Englehart, does bring foward the platten that light should at least be considered in half value ranges.

 

I had to illuminate this theory of field conjecture to a greater extent, as I had also said other dimensions, which light may also inhabit?

 

AGAIN'I had to do this and this goes back to the old Cartesian coordinates of Einstein, where a scalier values behind the invisable wall, does yeald a corolation to standard non-kherr black hole dimensional event spectra, if one modulates controlled e.m. entries into event horizions thereof?

 

....Did anyone, as far as a time travler ever meet Pamela More within that church in Ohio, as she had offered that she was going to do, on the Anom.net?

 

Anyone know,..I mean did Pam ever meet with the proposed time travler, via her invitation?

 

:)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

RE: The Speed of Light, reply without a requote.

 

The speed of light or us ever reaching it, is superfluis.

 

Does not matter, as in space, in order to get from one point to another, speed, velocity and so-on are not always required.

 

Even if you could obtain the speed of light within a vehicle, this too is superfluis, as phtotons, or light packets ie. quanta, are inhearent withion all matter.

 

So when you start accelerating an object up to the maximum speed towards lights top end within this assigned realit12

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Dr. Englehart & Creedo

 

Both of you are idiots! You both know nothing! Creedo, you just ramble on w/o making any sense, which you hope will confuse people & make them think you are intelligent, & Dr. Englehart, u think that writing some equation makes you smart? Wow, any idiot could have figured out that the closest we could get to the speed of light is the speed of light minus the smallest number possible. You are both idiots & morons!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

RE: The Speed of Light, re TTA, et al.

 

I'm also a prodgey in physics and math.

 

This is all my own.

 

About two years ago, they were pushing to keep relativity alive as a viable science.

 

This is not so, as it is now found that dimensions may rest close to each other.

 

The peice that I was prominate for a while, was analysis of star light at a distance.

 

This poses a false image, as events behind what one is viewing, may have changed.

 

This has nothing what-so-ever to do with sacred geomentry.

 

These are lines of happenstance that are with older realms which are now for the most part irrelevent.

 

This will have to be good enough, as I'm not disclosing any more.

 

You've stepped on some toes and it's best to back off for a while.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

>c - 1/infinite#

 

>c = the speed of light

 

>

 

>- = minus

 

>/ = means "divided by"

 

>

 

>As I said, this does not

 

>directly deal with time travel,

 

>but it is a good

 

>piece of information to know.

 

>Because 1 divided by an

 

>infinite number is the closest

 

>number that you will ever

 

>get to zero without it

 

>actually being zero, the speed

 

>of light minus that will

 

>therefore have to be the

 

>closest speed to the speed

 

>of light without actually being

 

>it.

 

If 1/infinity is the smallest number you can get without hitting zero, then wouldn't .5/infinity be half of that?

 

Couldn't we cut that in half again to get .25/infinity?

 

So 1/infinity/infinity would be the smallest we could pare that down, but what about 1/infinity/infinity/infinity? And so on...

 

We'd end up with 1/infinity/.../infinity, where the elipses represent an infinite number of /infinity's (let's call those elipses I).

 

If I represents those /infinity's, we can then rewrite it as 1/I. But we can keep going and do 1/I/I, and so on, infact carrying THAT out to an infinite # of levels.

 

Of course, the single /infinity implies all of that. This is certainly nothing new. In fact, going back to the "original" equation, we could also say c-2/infinity. Or c-500000/infinity. Any real number will work, because any real number divided by infinity will yield the same result. Just like we could change it to c-1/(infinity * infinity) or c-1/infinity^infinity. The denominator is always just "infinity" and the numerator could be any real number.

 

Really, the equation could be c-x/infinity, where x is any real number. It doesn't have to be 1.

 

Nothing earth-shattering here. I just like playing with numbers, especially when dealing with infinity in any direction.

 

Imaginary numbers are fun. Don't get me started on the square root of -1.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Skipper

 

Skipper, I'm glad you asked me questions regarding that. Only integers are allowed to be numerators in fractions, which is why you cannot use .5/infinite#. Now, I would agree with you if you said that x=any whole number, because any infinite number divided by an finite number would yield the same result (they can all reduce down to the same thing: 1/infinite#). My reasoning behind that is this: let's say you have 38/infinite#. If you reduce it by dividing the numberator & denominator by 38, you will get the numberator to equal 1, & since any infinite number divided by a finite number would have the result of an infinite number, the denominator would still by an infinite#. So, the reason I used 1 was that it was that fraction in simplest terms.

 

Regarding the square root of negative 1, the answer is 1i. i is an imaginary number that equals -1 when it is squared. But you know that of course. Thank you for your interesting views & arguements, and if you have any arguements in response to what I have said in here, please respond as soon as you can.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...