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
travel so fast?

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/06/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
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!)

    2.0   Special relativity holds that light travels at the same speed irrespective of the speed of the source:

    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!
This is not a conveyor belt, Steve! 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.
A. Both atoms are loose and vibrate in synchrony as if connected by a ‘stiff spring’.

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).