> > So how much fuel would it take for a craft, probe, or spaceship to
> > accelerate past the speed of light?
Hexslinger wrote:
> It's not possible. All mass is merely bubbles in the aether --
> electromagnetic waves (if you can call them that) are but ripples in the
> aether. You cannot exceed the speed of light unless you can find a way to
> alter the density of the aether itself.
If all mass is "bubbles in the aether" then this implies that mass IS
variations in the density of aether. Before we can talk about density
of aether and bubbles of aether perhaps it would be good to discuss the
composition of aether. The trouble with most aether theories is that
they have no clue as to what aether itself is so they become the act of
just creating some mystery substance and giving it a name.
>To understand the absurdity of the
> notion of using some 'killer rocket fuel' to blow past the speed of light
> -- just imagine someone trying to exceed the speed of sound, using sound
> itself. Cant do it. The only way to exceed the speed of SOUND is to
> utilize a higher force that has a greater speed.
The speed of sound is not a universal constant. It varies with the
density of the medium through which it propagates. Anyway I don't see
how the analogy applies to the acceleration of a mass past light speed.
How would sound be used to accelerate a mass and then what is the
limiting mechanism of that acceleration? Have you heard of shear waves?
This is where two or more wave fronts meet at an acute angle. The
intersecting point is like the corner of a V. This point moves at a
velocity greater than that of either wave front and varies with the
angle of intersection.
> Now think -- the speed of
> light has to be there for a REASON. Consequently, that which we call the
> 'aether' (or 'virtual particle flux' or whatever the buzzword of the day
> is), is not all there is to the universe. The propagation of waves thru
> the aether is limited by a HIGHER force.
> Thus: Your only solution is to discover the nature of this 'higher force'
> and find a way to manipulate it. FYI: Not to get cliched, but: 'as above,
> so below' (and, in this case: VICE VERSA). If one wishes to access this
> 'higher force' - one need only to postulate it's properties, and then,
> utilize the forces underneath it to manipulate it. (Heated air from a hot
> road causes light to bend, does it not? The lower affects the higher -
> and vice versa.)
Yes, there is a 'force' which underlies aether, and one beyond that and
so on, and so on. It is how aether arises from those underlying forces
which gives it its nature. Since we believe that lightspeed is a funtion
of the nature of aether then we should study that which makes up the
aether.
The 'lower' affects the 'higher' because they are both of the same
thing but of a different 'scale'. Aether is 'fractal' in nature. The
objects that we perceive with our 'detectors' exist within a given 'band
width' of aether dimensions relative to one another. Objects existing
outside that bandwidth are undetectable. Something faster than the speed
of light is undetectable within our range of existence. Thus lightspeed
indicates the upper envelope of our detection range or 'event horizon'.
> Oh - and lastly - the ultimate reason that mass cannot exceed the speed of
> light is because light ('aetheric waves' if you will) form the core of
> every particle of mass. Hence, mass cannot exceed the speed of light.
The whole notion of speed or velocity is related to the idea of moving a
mass or identity from one location to another in a given interval of
'time'. Velocity as a vector quantity is only meaningful in a
constant-fixed space/time reference frame. Mass will not exceed the
speed of light within its own reference frame but it and its frame
together may virtually exceed the speed of light relative to another
reference frame. Its existence though would be undetectable to such
external frame. Now the subject mass may enter into such an accellerated
frame and move some distance to another locality and then return to a
'matched' frame so that it would seem to disappear then reappear at the
distant position. As an actuality space has been demonstrated to be
nonlinear and time is only an implicit reality being derived from
observation of interrelated clocking events.
There are two ways to reduce the distance between points: shrink the
space or enlarge the ruler. We could do either with the appropriate
technique. The way to shrink the space requires a 'relatively' large
mass. The shape of the distortion is related to the shape of the mass.
It is as it were a lense. The alternative, to enlarge the 'ruler', or
lets say, our vehicle, is to increase it field intensity. By increasing
its charge density its field (of which it consists) is enlarged and its
'flux' becomes relatively straighter. When the flux lines straighten to
the requisite angle the 'vehicle' harmonicly phase locks into a larger
scale aether field and now belongs to a different space frame. At
intermediate stages the vehicle simply loses gravity and local inertia.
When phase lock is acheived at the next higher fractal aether scale, it
vanishes from the original 'location'. In this 'hyperspace' it is still
in the same universe and virtual location due to the infinitely fractal
nature of space. But it is no longer observed from the space it just
left. Furthermore it is in a larger space relative to its former space
so when it moves it covers a greater distance of the former space.
Any comments?
-Gerald O'