Science question from son

Gwenllian

Gwenllian

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
My 15 yo old son has asked me why atoms, mass, anything do not go faster than the speed of light?
He has not been able to find the answer on the internet.

Do you know of any reliable source where he could go and explore this? His English is quite good.
Normally, I would ask the homeschooling community, but I think that I would get a standard answer and as far as my non-scientific mind can recall there is another theory??

Thanks. :D
 
hello mariama

traditionally, at least, it is thought that the more mass an object has, the more it is bound to or generates a gravitational field.
light, having no mass, or at least little-to-none, would then be less bound by and less generative of gravity, allowing it to be 'freer' in that context.

your question refers to atoms. some atoms are 'heavier' than others, but atoms are generally heavier than light since light is 'made of' photons.

atoms are systems comprised of particles called protons, electrons and neutrons. these particles aggregate together in various ways to form a plethora of differing atomic structures. generally speaking, systems constituting various particles are heavier than single particles.

so to sum up, light is fast because it's lighter, atoms are slower because they are heavier.

if anyone here has corrections / can add anything to this, please do so.

hope this helps with his question.
 
Hi mariama,

I just googled with speed limit light and got plenty of answers of all sorts, including videos with Einstein himself explaining.

Here are two examples of answers of different level of difficulty:

_http://helenair.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/article_3ad30b3c-cb94-11df-87cf-001cc4c002e0.html

_http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html

Google itself tries to be helpful with search suggestions on the bottom of each page.

Maybe your son could try to copy my search and take it from there? Each and every answer leads to more clues for further search.

He automatically would learn some discernment proper to his level of development along the way.

Hope this helps.
 
It seems there is research showing that some things may actually travel faster-than-light according to these SOTT articles.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/163826-Signals-seem-to-travel-faster-than-light

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/163826-Signals-seem-to-travel-faster-than-light

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/235288-Strange-Particles-May-Travel-Faster-than-Light-Breaking-Laws-of-Physics

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/201501-Cosmic-Currents-May-Move-Faster-Than-Light
 
transientP said:
Nienna Eluch,

it seems that everything is speeding up;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-nobel-physics-idUSTRE7931ET20111004

plus, quantum entanglement would also qualify as information travelling at zero speed, which is faster than light.
we have this happening in scientific research recently;
http://www.nature.com/news/entangled-diamonds-vibrate-together-1.9532
Click to expand...

The current consensus on this is that quantum entanglement does not actually imply the transfer of information at zero speed.

A relatively simple explanation can be found here:
_http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612


Mariama said:
My 15 yo old son has asked me why atoms, mass, anything do not go faster than the speed of light?
He has not been able to find the answer on the internet.

Do you know of any reliable source where he could go and explore this? His English is quite good.
Normally, I would ask the homeschooling community, but I think that I would get a standard answer and as far as my non-scientific mind can recall there is another theory??

Thanks. :D
Click to expand...

With the current theories, it would require infinite energy to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light. I think that is the simplest way to see it.
 
Because....the earth's spin and gravity "slows" everything down enough for us to experience "time"?
[quote author=Session August 9, 1997]
Q: Assuming this to be the case, what are their lifespans?

A: 2,000 of your years.

Q: Okay, assuming such a bunch have traveled...

A: When in space, that is...

Q: And what is the span when on terra firma?

A: 800 years.
[/quote]

It's like that analogy for gravity where space-time is a sheet, and the earth's "matter/mass" weighs down on that sheet causing a distortion which "pulls" things into it.
[quote author=Session January 17, 1997]
Q: (Laura) Oh, gravity is the binder... (Terry) and is the one truth of the universe.

A: Element.

Q: (Terry) The element. Gravity is the one true element. This is what you're saying?

A: Close.

Q: (Laura) So, if gravity is lessened, and it is the binder, then, everything... ohhh, I see what you're getting at! (Jan) Yes, gravity is the binder. Without gravity, it just all falls apart...

A: Not "Falls apart," my dear, it all "opens up!"
[/quote]

Therefore a lack/reduction of Earth's gravity could allow Earth particles to achieve superluminal motion. (This may be happening already, like transientP said, as the sun's companion continues to approach us.) I'm not sure about this but could being unbound by Earth's gravity be 4D environment? Of course, consciousness fits in somewhere:
[quote author=Session October 23, 1999]
A: Classical negates consciousness, regarding the mind as merely a function of chemical functions and electrical impulses occurring within a vacuum, rather than being interfaced with the rest of creation at all levels of density and all dimensions, which is of course, the case. Gravity is the "glue which binds all aspects of reality, physical and ethereal. Nothing would exist without consciousness to perceive it. Classical physics assumes, among other things, that consciousness and "the brain" are one and the same, or that one exclusively facilitates the other. In actuality, the brain is merely that conduit which facilitates conscious expression in the physical state of human 3rd density states and similar manifestations.
[/quote]

Why don't you ask your son to just mull over it? Yet untarnished by the limitations of classical physics, he might come up with his own version of UFT.

Interesting that you guys brought up quantum entanglement. Speed is a function of distance and time, and since the C's tell us time is an illusion, "speed" could simply be "distance". For instance, the C's send information to Laura perhaps not at zero speed, but at a "speed" faster than light that is really the "distance" between the realm border and Laura.
 
Muxel,

the c's have also stated that 'all realities are merging'..
maybe the way in which they merge is the interactive part of 'experiencing' the wave ?
 
why is the speed of light "x" number? answer: we measured it. so light has a certain speed, and it has no mass. Then, it is common sense that things that weigh more, have larger quantity of mass, travel slower. This seems sufficient for most people maybe?

except maybe I wonder atoms / molecules travel different speeds depending on the organization. Also, this concept: relative to the nucleus, the proton speed in the vibration. relative to a substance composed of certain molecules, the speed of the proton is the vibrations + movement of nucleus + movement / speed of molecule. maybe something like this... not considering "directional speed".

So Speed of mass widely varies. mass can be accelerated to close to the speed of light but with the input of energy/force, your son probably knows this. the "hadron collider". but he's is correct, not faster. Why is their a limiting speed to mass, the speed of light, that is maybe the question?
 
[quote author=wetroof]Why is their a limiting speed to mass, the speed of light, that is maybe the question?[/quote]

It’s been my understanding that classical physics defined mass as that value of matter which is resistant to being repelled.

The conclusion there is a limit is drawn from the fact that the faster the object is moving the greater the force required repelling it, therefore its mass increases, and the greater the energy needed to drive it faster.
 
Okay, "speed of light" is actually "speed of that little portion of the EM spectrum that we can see in 3D". So can I assume that anything traveling faster than light is automatically invisible to us?
[quote author=wetroof]
Why is their a limiting speed to mass, the speed of light, that is maybe the question?
[/quote]
So, there is a "limiting speed to mass" only because the human eye perceives it to be so.

[quote author=Jerry]
The conclusion there is a limit is drawn from the fact that the faster the object is moving the greater the force required repelling it, therefore its mass increases, and the greater the energy needed to drive it faster.
[/quote]
Isn't it acceleration, not mass? In the equation F = ma, F (force) increases as a (acceleration) increases while m (mass) is constant.

[quote author=davey72]
I thought quantum entanglement was supposed to transcend time?
[/quote]
It does....I think, using Laura and the C's as an example of a quantumly entangled pair. Laura's information becomes the C's information by default, which does not imply any "transfer" and adheres to what is said in the link Ask_a_debtor gave:
[quote author=Ask_a_debtor]
_http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612
[/quote]
However the reverse (C's information to Laura) requires "transfer" from our point of view. Still, both cases can be said to "transcend time".

There are other ways of explaining it though, like this from the Glossary:
Generally, Steiner sees spirit as guiding the present from the future, whereas matter reaches for the future from the past.
Click to expand...
Or the several times the C's have said:
[quote author=Session July 4, 2009]
Q: (J) So, merging is whenever you...

A: We are merging with you right now!
[/quote]
[quote author=Session January 14, 1995]
Q: (L) The future is simultaneous events, just different locales in space/time, just a different focus of consciousness, is that correct?

A: Yea, so if that is true, why try to apply linear thinking here, you see, we are merging with you right now!
[/quote]
A simple analogy for it is, at the beginning of each session Laura is talking to "herself after the session". As each answer comes through Laura has already merged with the future part of herself necessary to make that answer come through. "Transfer" = merging? Which brings me to:
[quote author=transientP]
maybe the way in which they merge is the interactive part of 'experiencing' the wave ?
[/quote]
But I can't seem to wrap my head around this one. If all realities merge at the Wave, and "transfer" is then possible between all realities, so we choose which to merge with (according to our FRV)? Is that what you meant by "the way in which they merge"? Or something else.
 
Ask_a_debtor said:
With the current theories, it would require infinite energy to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light. I think that is the simplest way to see it.
Click to expand...

I like that. If we consider objective knowledge as a force equal to infinite energy, then maybe that is another way of looking at the hypothesis of graduating 3D to 4D by utilizing knowledge.
 
Hello Muxel,

Quote from: transientP
maybe the way in which they merge is the interactive part of 'experiencing' the wave ?
Click to expand...

But I can't seem to wrap my head around this one. If all realities merge at the Wave, and "transfer" is then possible between all realities, so we choose which to merge with (according to our FRV)? Is that what you meant by "the way in which they merge"? Or something else.
Click to expand...

in the line of thought i was pursuing, i don't think it's necessarily a 'choice' in the way that you choose either to order the chicken salad or the steak.
i tend to think that the 'according to our FRV' that you placed in brackets is actually what constitutes where you are at any given moment and what is going on around you, or rather, how the 'around you' is being conducted.
the c's have also said that if you reached complete STO profile you would immediately find yourself in an environment that suites said profile.

the phrase 'frequency resonance vibration' implies, to me at least, the balancing of similar frequencies within certain 'bands'.
those that resonate, or vibrate in similar frequencies, comprise one band, other things that vibrate at similar frequencies that differ enough from the above band as to be excluded from it, create another band and so on.
the phenomena of banding and grouping according to certain characteristics can be readily seen in nature everywhere.
think of objects washing up on beaches.
waves coming onto the shore deposit onto the sand objects of various weight. several distinct bands are eventually created that are visibly separated from each other and lay at various distance intervals. in each band you end up finding objects of similar weight / buoyancy properties.
on their long journey towards the beach, these various objects and fragments of objects undergo immense changes. some of them break apart, some of them acquire smoother surfaces, some aggregate to other materials and so forth. i believe The Work is about the possibility of consciously changing by first becoming aware of what we are, what we are made of.

of course with us humans, there is always the question of the consciousness factor. the c's have also said that everyone transiting to fourth will learn to think in unlimited ways either prior to or during the transition.
so maybe one aspect of the interactivity of the Wave, is how one perceives reality at all points of the journey, and the consequent realization that anything is possible ('thinking in unlimited ways'). there would be as many differing journeys to fourth as there are beings transitioning to fourth.

i hope this post wasn't too lengthy, or that it did succeed in conveying something of use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom