Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   Why does light travel so fast?

    Relativists and mechanics have never been able to justify why light travels so fast.

    " One answer is that it isn't." [1]

    Gibbs argues that it is not that light is so fast. It is you who walks too slow. [Oh brother! And this guy is allegedly a
    professional 'physicist.] After pussy-footing around for a while, he finally has to concede that he doesn't have the
    foggiest idea:

    " Until more is known about the fundamental parameters and how they derive from
       deeper principles, a complete answer cannot be given." [2]

    It is to note that since Gibbs wrote his eloquent 'explanation' in 1997, the Physics FAQ, a bastion of mainstream
    Mathematical Physics, hasn't changed his answer. In other words, the famous mathematicians who claim that
    quantum and relativity are done deals don't know the first thing about light: what it looks like and how the shape
    of the invisible entity relates to its speed. The mathematicians simply measure the speed of light to ever more
    precise values and state the facts (i.e., describe) without understanding anything:

    “ This is one of the frustrating aspects of science. Science tends to be wonderful
       at answering how the universe works, but is much less successful at answering
       why it works the way it does. There are a couple of perspectives on why light
       travels at 300000 km per second. One is that it is just a random accident and that
       the speed of light could be much faster or much slower, but was set that way in
       the big bang. Another is that there are fundamental physical theories which force
       the speed of light to have a particular value.”  [3]

    [In other words, light is so fast because it is so fast. If contemporary Science is
     unsuccessful at answering 'why' questions it is only because the establishment has
     misconceived the scientific method!]”

    This Mad Scientist is also attempting to mislead you. A description (how) alone is not science, and if the
    proponent provides a supernatural or irrational explanation (why) for a phenomenon and tells you that he
    inferred it from equations and that all celebrities of 'physics' believe in it, he is definitely attempting to induct
    you into his religion:

    “ We do not yet know why this is.  It may be that the values are arbitrary and their
       differing values have to be put down to something ontological such as the
       anthropic principle, or it may be that they are determined without ambiguity from
       a unified theory of forces which split naturally at different scales.” [4]

    [Blah, blah, blah, blah…]

    The mathematicians should save themselves the trouble of trying to answer a question they have never
    bothered to research. The mathematicians are only interested in measurements, in how much, in how fast
    light travels. They have no 'why' answers because they aren't interested in architecture. The bozos of Math
    try to memorize the following one liner: 'I don't know.' They would at least come across as more honest.

    A quick review of the allegedly mass-less photon of Quantum serves as an introduction to why light is
    unimaginably swift. The mathematicians are on record as saying that an object with mass would require
    ‘infinite energy’ to travel at the speed of light:

    “ To accelerate an object of non-zero rest mass to c would require infinite…
       energy.” [3]

    Why then do they insist on modeling light with particles knowing in advance that this is mathematically
    unsound? According to relativity, a particle wouldn’t be able to travel at c if it had even the slightest ‘mass’.
    Ergo, the mathematicians were compelled to wave their magic wands and convert the photon into a mass-less
    particle. Otherwise it would destroy their logic. The photon’s lack of mass is not a feature of reality. It is simply
    a mathematical necessity. The mathematicians offer no rational explanation for why this physical object is
    different than all others with respect to mass.

    Just as significant, they have no rational explanation for why a mass-less photon has the ability to knock
    electrons out of polished metal. They were then compelled to invent yet other types of 'masses' known as
    'rest' mass and 'relativistic' mass to plug this hole. The insinuation is that the ‘rest’ mass of a photon is 0 until
    you accelerate it. Then it suddenly acquires > 0 mass. Does this mean that the photon acquired more substance?
    Did it inhale quantity of matter and become fat? No. The photon increased its 'momentum,' which means that it
    increased its 'energy,' both of which are defined in terms of mass. According to the mathematicians of Quantum,
    the photon increased its mass by increasing its mass!

    So let’s debunk the particle and the transverse wave with a single blow. Only a rope can explain why the signal
    we call light travels practically instantaneously. The main reason for this is that a rope doesn’t have to travel
    anywhere. It is already there! A rope is already connected at the receiving end! Prove this to yourself. Take a rope
    and secure its two ends. Ensure that it is straight. If not, torque it until it’s so taut circus acrobats can walk upon it.
    Attach clothespins near the two ends. Touch one pin with your little pinky and observe how the other one moves
    ‘instantaneously’ (Fig. 1). Take note of how much effort you expended in moving the signal from one end of the
    rope to the other.

    Now you know why nothing can travel faster than a torque wave! (And why it requires so little ‘energy’ to send
    the signal from one end to the other! Catapulting a photon cannonball would require ‘infinitely’ more ‘energy’! )
Why would a particle
Nothing is faster
than lightning!
particle
wave
rope
Nothing is faster
than a clothesline!
Nothing is faster
than a bullet from
my gun!

Fig. 1   Faster than a clothesline: Why light is so fast
The one-way particles and waves of Quantum
cannot explain why light travels so swiftly.
With the rope the mystery vanishes. You can
prove this to yourself the next time you hang
your clothes outside. Attach pins to the ends
of a taut clothesline and move one of them
with your little pinky. The other one moves’
instantaneously’. The signal is so fast that
you can’t even catch it on tape! This is as
close as it gets to realizing 'WHY'  light is so
fast!  No particle accelerators, no Math, no
bull! Torsion travels from one end to another
along a taut rope almost instantly. (Check to
see how much 'energy' you spent sending
the signal from one end to the other. Now
you know why a 'photon' is also mass-less!)


    Should you add the speed you throw the ball at to the speed of the train you're on? Of course you do!
    Unfortunately, observation shows that you don't do this with light. If you are on a train and shine your
    flashlight in the direction you're moving, light continues to travel at the same speed. The speed of the
    train has no effect on the speed of light:

    “ light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
       independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.” [4]

    Of course, the idiots of Mathematics cannot simulate this magic trick with particles. Yet they claim that
    Quantum Mechanics is a complete theory and that it has never been falsified. The stupid morons cannot
    explain this simple phenomenon. That should make you stop and wonder about the scholars who control
    what gets published in the 'scientific' journals and about their theories.
    3.0   Is it possible to travel faster than light?

    Will we ever travel to the stars at the speed of light: 300,000 kilometers per SECOND?

    The quick and dirty answer is that there are impossible barriers to overcome when it comes to interstellar travel.

    Impossible? Most anyone would argue that time and again this word has been shown to disintegrate against
    experience. What was 'impossible' in the 19th Century is a reality today. Everyone and their mothers has been
    conditioned to believe that nothing is really impossible. What makes it so special in this case?

    First, I make it plain that it doesn't take much to demonstrate that certain scenarios are impossible. I can readily
    imagine making another Sun, an artificial star within our Solar System, but where would I obtain the necessary
    matter? More readily, I can imagine the wolf gnawing on Little Red and the hunter dragging a live girl from the
    animal's stomach. Clearly we can imagine more than we can build.

    So can we dismiss flying to the nearest star as an impossibility when the most advanced computers have been
    unable to demonstrate its feasibility and when NASA project managers make the trip contingent upon the
    development of GR-related technology (i.e., faster than light)?

    Einstein mathematically demonstrated that c is unconquerable. This is one of the 'principles' of Special Relativity.
    But as always happens, his own disciples refuse to believe that God placed a limit on our freedom. So, unable to
    come to terms with Einstein's devastating sentence, his disciples have persistently sought loopholes to his
    resilient theory. The mathematical physicists treat FTL not as fantasy that violates a sacred principle of
    Mathematical Physics, but as a serious pursuit of 'science':

    " Apparent FTL is not excluded by general relativity. Examples of apparent FTL
       proposals are the Alcubierre drive and the traversable wormhole... This concept
       [FTL] is a staple of the science fiction genre, and is also the subject of ongoing
       scientific study."  [5]

    " localized tachyon disturbances are subluminal and superluminal disturbances
       are nonlocal" [6]

    " There are several serious possibilities for real FTL which have been proposed
       in the scientific literature, but these always come with technical difficulties... In
       general relativity there are potential means of FTL travel, but they may be
       impossible to make work... but it is curious that theoretical physics as we
       presently understand it seems to leave the door open to the possibility." [7]

    " Our experiment is not at odds with Einstein's special relativity... our experiment
    does show that the generally held misconception 'nothing can move faster than
    the speed of light' is wrong. The statement applies to objects with a rest mass.
    Light can be viewed as waves and has no mass. Therefore, it is not limited by
    its speed inside a vacuum." [8]

    The bottom line is that the mathematicians give lip service to Einstein's equation for three reasons:
    •        They don't like God placing limits on their speed.
    •        It leaves them without hope of ever traveling out of the solar system.
    •        And nevertheless, impossible things have been shown to be possible.

    The result is that the lines separating fairy tales from science have become so blurred that no one in Mathematical
    Physics can tell the difference anymore.

    With the rope model of light, the physical reason that no object can travel at the velocity of light becomes readily
    apparent. FTL entails that an atom travelling towards another moves faster than the signal torquing along the taut
    EM threads that connect the two. FTL is irreconcilable with the hypothesis that threads are tightly drawn.

    Let's look at an example you can visualize. Assume you hold the end of a tightly drawn rope in your hand. The
    trick is for you to visualize approaching the wall while you torque and maintain the rope tight. Imagine now, if you
    can, overtaking the signal travelling along the tightly drawn, twined strands interconnecting one of your atoms
    and an atom of the object you are approaching. Two things will happen. In front of you the rope will go limp, and
    ironically you end up speeding towards an object that has become undetectable and which is no longer having
    gravitational effects on you. Light can only torque along a taut rope, and gravity is the aggregate of taut ropes. A
    limp rope implies that light and gravity have disintegrated. Push and pull are undefined! You suddenly find
    yourself out of physical contact with the universe before you (Fig. 2). Behind you, the rope supposedly ripped in
    your unfathomable attempt to tow the entire universe at faster than c. Again, no light or gravity. It's like trying to
    outrun your shadow with the light perpetually behind you! There is simply no way for an atom to overtake the
    speed of the signal that it is generating while preventing the rope from going limp!
I can't go any faster because my motion
is independent of the tightrope.
You’re, uuuggh, choking me, Steve! It’s
the last time I piggyback a relativist
across the river!
I’m terrified of heights, Bill.
Can’t you go any faster? In
relativity we can exceed any
speed whenever necessary!

    Fig. 2   

    Why c is independent of the speed of the source
An EM rope binds any two atoms.
Light is the result of EM rope torque.
Its speed is limited by (c = ƒ * λ).
Gravity is the result of the exponential
pull of countless ropes as two objects
approach each other. For simplicity, in
the following scenario we see only
two of these ropes. If the cube were
to travel towards the cylinder at > c
(i.e., faster than the signal torquing
along the rope), we should expect the
rope at the rear of the cube to break
and the rope in front of it to loosen.
Light and gravity would disintegrate.
Proponents of FTL travel would have
to show how they intend to increase
frequency without shortening the
wavelength.
You're running around
as if you shit in your
tunic after seeing a
ghost, Steve.
No you dummy!
I'm trying to see if  
I can outrun my
shadow!

So Bill? Why is that you say that the mathematicians of the world are a bunch of idiots?

    4.0   The rope model EXPLAINS why the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the source

    Mössbauer talks about recoilless emission of bound atoms:
                               
    “ Mössbauer proposed that, for the case of atoms bound into a solid, under
       certain circumstances a fraction of the nuclear events could occur essentially
       without recoil.” [9]

    The EM rope guarantees that an atom will be pulled in different directions by other atoms. The entire web of
    atoms is under tension. Hence, when an atom vibrates it lightly tugs and pushes on other atoms while
    pumping torque signals to them. In order for the rope to remain tense, atoms must necessarily act as if they
    were connected by a ‘stiff spring’ (Figs. 3 and 5). It follows that if we bind one of the atoms in a crystal lattice
    so that we can’t detect its vibrations, the electron shell will continue to pump back and forth consistent with
    Bohr’s Quantum jump theory and thus continue to emit torque waves consistent with the Mössbauer Effect
    (Figs. 4 and 5). This model explains the mystical ‘principle’ of Special Relativity where light has the same
    speed irrespective of the motion of the source. The torque proceeds along the rope without regard to what
    the atoms do. We cannot explain this phenomenon with particles.

Fig. 3

Fig. 4   The Mössbauer Effect

Fig. 5   Good Vibrations
In order for the EM rope to remain straight, an unbound atom vibrates and induces the one
at the opposite end of the rope to vibrate as well. It is important to keep in mind that
vibration (long arrows) is a different phenomenon than pumping (short arrows). An atom
pumps while it vibrates.

Atom labeled A is part of the crystal lattice of a solid. It is thus essentially
immobile within the crystal. This does not prevent A from pumping torque
signals to other atoms. Pumping, vibrating, and spinning are three
different mechanisms.

B. Mössbauer Effect Scenario 1. One atom is anchored and the other slides along the rope
like a bead along the wire of an abacus. Therefore, wavelength and frequency remain the
same.

C. Mössbauer Effect Scenario 2. One atom is anchored and the other stretches the rope.
Here, the wavelength increases at the expense of frequency (i.e., the links become longer).

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008