Infinite Education

Infinity is not very easy for earthlings to understand. We seem to have an O.K. time dealing with numbers being infinite. For example thinking of a really really big number and then just adding 1 to it,,, or adding 1 million to it and making it that much larger. A very special number in math is pi, and it is a number that continues on with an infinite number of decimal places,,, as far as we can tell. We seem fine with that idea and infinity in the case of numbers is widely accepted. Einstein popularized the fact that both Time and Space were not absolute but infinite. Most earthlings seem fine with accepting this on the basis that Einstein is really smart and knows more than them. I would like to spend a little time on explaining the facts on infinite Space and Time; actually it is pretty much easier to take in and grasp than you might think.
Let's start with the easy one you already seem to understand; numbers are infinite. The reason this is so easy is because when we use numbers we can always add 1 on to any number we already know and then add 1 on to the result of that number and so on. That example doesn't work as well with Space or Time; you can add 1 second onto any minute that just passed but how will that help prove that time is infinite? To prove that both Space and Time are infinite we will have to use another method to visualize how numbers are infinite. When anything is considered infinite it is both infinitely large and infinitely small. The small end of infinity is often overlooked. So lets take a number and start dividing it by 2 (or in half). You can grab a calculator if you like because the result will be exponentially small.
So 100 divided by 2 is 50.
50 divided by 2 is 25.
25 divided by 2 is 12.5.
12.5 divided by 2 is 6.25.
Keep dividing by 2 and you get to a number less than 1 (0.78125). Depending on the calculator you will soon reach a number that looks like this, 7.62939453125E-4 (or, 7.62939453125 x 10^-4,,, OR, .000762939453125). Ultimately you will continue to see numbers with more zeros between the decimal and the first number other than zero, or larger and larger negative numbers at the end of the number,,, however you will NEVER reach zero. This is a trait of infinity; no matter how many times you halve something it will never reach a zero amount of that something.
If we earthlings can accept that for numbers we will have a much easier time proving that Space and Time are in fact infinite as well. For those who don't know, space is measured in distance or length or volume et cetera. So let's say we take the distance of 100cm and we start dividing it by 2, we would get 50cm. Do you see where this is going? Ultimately we will result in distances that are very small (relatively to 100cm) but will never reach a distance that is zero; hence distance (or Space) is infinite. Time is pretty much just the same story with different units; take the time of 100secs and start dividing it by 2 and so on and you will also never reach zero. Hence there is an infinite amount of time in 100secs.
The massconception is that we are slaves to our units of measurement. We understand 1 meter because it is about an arm's length. We understand 24 hours because it is the time it takes for the Earth to make 1 full rotation on its axis. A Second means nothing if the Earth isn't associated with its current behavior around the Sun, a Second is just a lump of Time. Our measurements are the only way we can really understand and capture Space and Time, and all of our measurements are relative to the tangible universe around us. If the Earth stopped spinning and slowly started drifting into the Sun and all earthlings burned up would Time stop? The answer is most definitely NO. It's similar to the pre-Copernicus model of the universe where the Earth is the center of the solar system, earthlings just assume the universe revolves around them and it really truly is difficult to break our self-centered-ness.
So why does this even matter, you might ask? Well if both Space and Time are infinite then the distance between two atoms is just as important as the distance between two planets and everything in between. Earthlings must understand Time and Space without units before being able to understand a universe. I will use infinite Space and Time later in exploring the Sub-Atomic Universe (or "Supervelocity Universe").

Speed Of Light or Maximum Observable Velocity, Part II

My idea is that the labeling of the speed of light was a side product of discovering the Maximum Observable Velocity of our Universe. I know this might be a stretch but c isn't the speed of light. c is the Maximum Observable Velocity of our tangible Universe, and light is the only (noticeable) thing that travels fast enough to allow us to discover this limitation of our Universe. Light was merely the beacon that lead us to our modern day conclusion that light travels at c, which is the fastest speed possible. So you might ask why this allows me to suggest that c is not the speed of light. Making c the Maximum Observable Velocity (and not light speed) of this Universe will allow one to imagine the true attributes of light. So here's the dilemma, a long time ago we found that light takes a certain amount of time to travel from one side of a space to the other. As more accurate instruments developed, the speed at which light traveled across the (vacuum sealed) space was measured at 299,792,458m/s. After further experiments investigated the speed at which light travels, scientists found that this speed was CONSTANT. Basically, in a vacuum sealed room, whether the light source was moving towards or away from the speed sensor, the speed recorded was ALWAYS 299,792,458m/s. Today, I make this science dilemma and not science fact.
Now that we recognize 299,792,458m/s as the Maximum Observable Velocity of our Universe (c), what if light was traveling at a much faster speed than c? If this were the case and the speed of light was actually > (greater than) c + 100mph, then measuring the speed of light from a train moving away from the speed sensor at 60mph would still only result in a measurement of c.
Example A: "Speed of Light" - 60mph = c
Perhaps if we knew that the actual Speed of Light was < (less than) c + 120mph we could strap a light source onto an air plane flying 120mph, then measure the speed of the light on the air plane moving away from the speed sensor as < c.
Example B: "Speed of Light" - 120mph < style="font-style: italic;">c, or greater, to determine the actual Speed of Light. This results in our universe only ever being able to realize Example A, due to the limitations of our universe. Kind of heavy right, aren't you glad you had those Triscuits? So what does this mean for the rest of the Universe,,, or Universes? Hmmm, Part III or a seperate post? We shall see.

Speed Of Light or Maximum Observable Velocity, Part I

This is my birthday Blog so I figured I'd make it a good one. I recommend a handful of tasty Triscuits to go along with this post.
I've always had a hard time dealing with the absolute speed of light. I enjoy that the value c (Speed of light = 299,792,458m/s) has lent a helpful hand in so many of modern science's most useful equations. Equations formulated by Maxwell, Einstein and Lorentz all rely on the constant speed of light. Even one of the most famous equations of them all, E=mc^2 (pronounced, "e" equals em sea squared) uses the constant speed of light to help us better explain or understand the universe around us. Incredible! But what has always been most incredible is that the speed of light is constant. Not only can you not speed it up greater than c, such as shining a light from a moving train in the direction the train is moving,,, but you also CAN'T SLOW IT DOWN to less than c, such as shining a light from a moving train in the opposite direction. It is constant, can't change it, observable truth has proven it, and the BIGGEST of big-time scientists have used it to prove what they had faith in most.
Do you understand what I'm saying and why I see this as completely wild and mildly unacceptable? When I sit on a train moving at 60mph and I throw the pit of my apricot at 40mph towards my future destination, a static (not moving) observer on the near-by bluff will witness my pit flying through the air at 100mph (assuming zero wind resistance). But if I do this EXACT same thing replacing my apricot pit with a beam of light, the static observer will not witness the light beam moving at c+60mph; the static observer will witness your regular old run of the mill (constant speed) beam of light traveling at c. UNCHANGED, even though it was being changed just like the apricot pit.
Now due to this conundrum I can't sleep at night and I find myself constantly asking why an apricot pit behaves so fundamentally different from a beam of light? Furthermore, why is the speed of light an important factor of E=mc^2? c is not subjective, it is very much only (and always) 299,792,458m/s which is, indisputably, only the speed of light (in a vacuum). So I understand how the number 299,792,458 squared, then multiplied by a mass in kilograms results in a large number of x kilogram meters^2/sec^2 (or Joules), which is an amount of energy (E). So the number and the units make sense,,, but why does it have to be the speed of light. Why can't c be the speed of a HELL OF fast jet plane in m/s? Or the speed of the Earth in m/s? Why does light have anything to do with this? Part II coming soon, like tomorrow! I'm so 28 right now.