# Thread: Does everything travel at the speed-of-light?

1. Hello all! Newbie here, no background in physics or higher mathematics, but very curious about theoretical physics nonetheless. I've been reading various articles about the speed-of-light and I came across a statement that intrigued me: Everything travels at the speed of light.

Now, I realize that most of this motion for everyday objects is diverted in both the time and space directions, so that theoretically an object at rest is travelling through spacetime at light-speed through the time direction while light travels at this speed through space.

But my question is this: "objects at rest" that travel at the speed-of-light through time DO NOT apply to me sitting here at my desk, correct, since I am moving with the earth's orbit? These "objects at rest" travelling at 100% lightspeed though the TIME DIMENSION ONLY only apply to hypothetical objects in a vaccuum (like empty space), and not anything here on Earth?

Please tell if I am right or wrong on this. And if I am wrong, please give me an example of something at perfect rest (all travel is done through time and none through space) without mathematics, if possible. :-D

Thanks!

2.

3. No, only light travels the speed of light along with a few other bosons that may go the same speed.

Anything with mass CANNOT go the speed of light.

Everyone sees light going the same speed no matter how fast they are going. But they are not going the speed of light.

4. well so far we haven't discovered anything that travels faster than the speed of light.

But because of the pitiful amount of knowledge mankind has about the universe/multiverses, who knows what is out there

5. Originally Posted by organic god
well so far we haven't discovered anything that travels faster than the speed of light.

But because of the pitiful amount of knowledge mankind has about the universe/multiverses, who knows what is out there
At one time we had ships that could go faster then light and did. But imagine one coming in at Washington DC? Demanding a heap of satisfaction? They were actually able to radio control it with no problems.

That was the end of that project.

The astronauts aboard the Apollo space mission proved the speed of radio on national TV, and it was infinitely faster then foretold.

No one cared really. Because if it was true, there really weren't many good people around. Some just could not deal with where we are. And ignore reality, and me sometimes. Ha-ha.

They will believe anything or do anything, that does not force them to stand up for what American truly stands for.

Which is fine. I only wish to find those that are not afraid of knowledge.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

6. Pitiful indeed

7. Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
No, only light travels the speed of light along with a few other bosons that may go the same speed.

Anything with mass CANNOT go the speed of light.

Everyone sees light going the same speed no matter how fast they are going. But they are not going the speed of light.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wow!How do u know4sure that light travels the speed of light?how Did u measured????man,u are just talking somebody elses bullshit bed time stories here as the reality!

Can u prove that the light travels?

8. Originally Posted by William McCormick
At one time we had ships that could go faster then light and did. But imagine one coming in at Washington DC? Demanding a heap of satisfaction? They were actually able to radio control it with no problems.
No we didn't stop wasting time and space.

9. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by organic god
well so far we haven't discovered anything that travels faster than the speed of light.

But because of the pitiful amount of knowledge mankind has about the universe/multiverses, who knows what is out there
At one time we had ships that could go faster then light and did. But imagine one coming in at Washington DC? Demanding a heap of satisfaction? They were actually able to radio control it with no problems.

That was the end of that project.

The astronauts aboard the Apollo space mission proved the speed of radio on national TV, and it was infinitely faster then foretold.

No one cared really. Because if it was true, there really weren't many good people around. Some just could not deal with where we are. And ignore reality, and me sometimes. Ha-ha.

They will believe anything or do anything, that does not force them to stand up for what American truly stands for.

Which is fine. I only wish to find those that are not afraid of knowledge.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
What the hell are you talking about?

10. Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by organic god
well so far we haven't discovered anything that travels faster than the speed of light.

But because of the pitiful amount of knowledge mankind has about the universe/multiverses, who knows what is out there
At one time we had ships that could go faster then light and did. But imagine one coming in at Washington DC? Demanding a heap of satisfaction? They were actually able to radio control it with no problems.

That was the end of that project.

The astronauts aboard the Apollo space mission proved the speed of radio on national TV, and it was infinitely faster then foretold.

No one cared really. Because if it was true, there really weren't many good people around. Some just could not deal with where we are. And ignore reality, and me sometimes. Ha-ha.

They will believe anything or do anything, that does not force them to stand up for what American truly stands for.

Which is fine. I only wish to find those that are not afraid of knowledge.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
What the hell are you talking about?
]

Exactly what I was writing. Unless I missed something. Is there something in particular that you are not feeling good about?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

11. Can u prove that the light travels?
Can you prove it doesn't? Wait, can I prove it does? Sure! Flashlight off against a wall, turn it on, the light is there!

how Did u measured????
Me? Well, I personally used the Fizeau–Foucault apparatus, but what do I know, I'm just a geologist

Nothing but light travels at the speed of light, and NASA recently made light travel faster than that. There are things that can travel faster than c, of course, they start out like that (this is currently in theory).

12. Originally Posted by Ryon
Can u prove that the light travels?
Can you prove it doesn't? Wait, can I prove it does? Sure! Flashlight off against a wall, turn it on, the light is there!

how Did u measured????
Me? Well, I personally used the Fizeau–Foucault apparatus, but what do I know, I'm just a geologist

Nothing but light travels at the speed of light, and NASA recently made light travel faster than that. There are things that can travel faster than c, of course, they start out like that (this is currently in theory).
It's the speed of gravity actually u measured!

13. Madmonk, prove me the gravity exists.

Gravity is lie that been told by liers claiming to be scienstist!

....
...
..
.

In all seriousness though, there really is no such thing as gravity, at least as far as particles or energy are concerned. Gravity is simply a description of the effect caused by the warping of space-time around an object of either large mass or large energy.

14. In all seriousness though, there really is no such thing as gravity, at least as far as particles or energy are concerned. Gravity is simply a description of the effect caused by the warping of space-time around an object of either large mass or large energy.
/me agrees.

It's the speed of gravity actually u measured!
.... you know, that is so stupid I can't refute it. Wait, yes I can:

Light doesn't travel 9 m/s. Light travels 99,792,458 m/s. Gravity has no speed, know why? Gravity doesn't move. Objects do, mass does, but not gravity. Light can go into any direction too, correct? Then gravity doesn't affect it unless it is a really strong pull (black holes). But, light does affect space-time. A scientist recently put light into a vacuum full of smoke and light actually moved the smoke. Go figure

Text you are going to say that the earth is flat...and if you do you really need to pick up a history book.

( Limited knowledge of physics, by the way. The only bit I know about physics is that which I experiment with )

15. actually, even the earth's gravity affects light slightly, it is minuscule, but not undetectable.

But, it really isn't affecting the light, it is changing the space-time light is traveling in to make it appear that way. If the light knew which direction it was going, it would think it is still going straight.

16. Originally Posted by Ryon
In all seriousness though, there really is no such thing as gravity, at least as far as particles or energy are concerned. Gravity is simply a description of the effect caused by the warping of space-time around an object of either large mass or large energy.
/me agrees.

It's the speed of gravity actually u measured!
.... you know, that is so stupid I can't refute it. Wait, yes I can:

Light doesn't travel 9 m/s. Light travels 99,792,458 m/s. Gravity has no speed, know why? Gravity doesn't move. Objects do, mass does, but not gravity. Light can go into any direction too, correct? Then gravity doesn't affect it unless it is a really strong pull (black holes). But, light does affect space-time. A scientist recently put light into a vacuum full of smoke and light actually moved the smoke. Go figure

Text you are going to say that the earth is flat...and if you do you really need to pick up a history book.

( Limited knowledge of physics, by the way. The only bit I know about physics is that which I experiment with )

There is no mystery about gravity. It is electrons pressing you to the earth. The atmosphere slows incoming ambient radiation, and pushes you to the earth.
The planet earth accelerates the ambient radiation that hit the far side of the planet, so that it is going so fast, that it does not have time to repel you from the earth as it leaves the earth.

Gravity has a speed. Luckily only some of the ambient radiation is slowed to gravity velocity. Or you would press into the ground like a tent spike.

Electrical effects can demonstrate gravity like power.

There are no black holes. Those are very large dark rather cold objects. That block background light. And just like light blinds you to darkness. Over the very long journey the black bodies rays of darkness, are sometimes encroached upon by excited gases in space. That gives the black object that weird almost gaseous look.

"Space Time" is nonsense. Space is where atoms are not, but ambient radiation still is. Space is created by ambient radiation.
Time is, and we measure it, by comparing moving objects to one another, and give the time it takes for repeating events to occur increments.

We see a mirage in the desert, and we do not ever make a big stink about how hot gases bend light. Not a billion dollar research center or any kind of explanation. About this amazing phenomena. Why because anyone can walk outside on a hot day and own it.

So it is not "HOT" it also does not cost fifty billion dollars or employ a campus full of retards. So it is not interesting.

Yet it obviously explains the effects that substances have on light. Since there is no place in the universe itself. Not at the outer boundaries. But in the universe itself, that is void of air, or substance.

And that is why and how you can easily bend light. By changing the density of light. But you cannot hire fifty scientists with high paying salaries to record and document this. Because the average person would say "I know what that is"

Sincerely,

William McCormick

17. William, to you, everything is ambient radiation. Ambient radiation this, ambient radiation that. You do know that everything you are saying has been dis proven, but you are so stuck on the way you were taught having to be the right thing and saying everyone else is a liar. Why didn't you ever stop to think that maybe your teachers were liars? Personally I dont know if they were lying or if they just didn't yet understand some things just as other scientists don't understand everything and often have to change and modify their theory's to fit new results and observations.

You need to stop spouting your nonsense, I hope for your sake you don't actually believe the stuff you are saying, but if you don't believe what you are saying you should stop trolling.

18. Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
dont forget electrons and plasma rays...

might be feeding the troll here but where do you get these crazy ideas at? are you retarded? (no offense to the mentally challenged. their adorable... really) are you crazy? (no offense to the crazies, what would i do without republicans?) do you just get your jollies from posting crazy/retarded ideas?

19. <i deleted the polotics part, your right>

William gets his stuff from a 60 yr old encyclopedia i think.

20. Hey guys, this is the physics forum, not politics. I know the laws of physics apply to politicians, I should know, I've dropped many from the top of buildings.

abolishing the IRS by enacting a federal sales tax.
And what will we have? The FBI running around chasing a chicken farmer for not paying his sales tax...

If we are going to have this discussion, can a mod split this and move it?

21. Well. Here´s what I find tricky. It´s said that the Universe expands faster then the speed of light (right?). Or is it "just" at the speed of light?

Anyways. The planets at the "edges" (even if there are none) are traveling either above or at C then, from our perspective.
So what if a spaceship is traveling at 30.000 m/s at that location, is it then traveling at C + 30.000 m/s in relation to us? And how does physics explain such things?

I -think- that was what the OP meant..

22. Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
William, to you, everything is ambient radiation. Ambient radiation this, ambient radiation that. You do know that everything you are saying has been dis proven, but you are so stuck on the way you were taught having to be the right thing and saying everyone else is a liar. Why didn't you ever stop to think that maybe your teachers were liars? Personally I dont know if they were lying or if they just didn't yet understand some things just as other scientists don't understand everything and often have to change and modify their theory's to fit new results and observations.

You need to stop spouting your nonsense, I hope for your sake you don't actually believe the stuff you are saying, but if you don't believe what you are saying you should stop trolling.
You are lying whether you know it or not. Ambient radiation was never dis proven. It was made illegal.

Once in a while someone will send me to a link that a three year old could see the hypocrisies in. And it tells of theoretical, particles, theoretical math, theoretical experiments. All done with zero science.

So if you, not Chadwick, or Fermi, but "You", know of something that disproves ambient radiation, and you better, to say such a thing, then just say it.

The links are horrifying at Wiki. They look like something a fifth grader writing science fiction came up with, and did it poorly. And I do state my differences with the information in the links. You guys seem more interested in where I come up with information rather then to just use science to dispute it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

23. Originally Posted by trewsx7
Hello all! Newbie here, no background in physics or higher mathematics, but very curious about theoretical physics nonetheless. I've been reading various articles about the speed-of-light and I came across a statement that intrigued me: Everything travels at the speed of light.
Not even light travels at "The Speed of Light", unless it is travelling in a vacuum. Light travels more slowly in glass, for example. And in sodium metal, light travels at just 38 miles an hour!

24. I think there was an experiment where some scientists actually stopped a photon aswell.

25. Originally Posted by William McCormick
You are lying whether you know it or not. Ambient radiation was never dis proven. It was made illegal.
Oh dear God, under what act was it made illegal?

26. Originally Posted by Edmund
Originally Posted by William McCormick
You are lying whether you know it or not. Ambient radiation was never dis proven. It was made illegal.
Oh dear God, under what act was it made illegal?
Because neutron particles in the atom had to be taught as real particles, in 1973. Or by law, Federal funds would cease to your school. Since most states had trouble keeping up with federal guidelines, they started to accept federal aid. If they did not teach the phony neutron, they were no longer a Federally recognized school. It meant a lot at the time when good scientists and science teacher knew there were no neutrons.

It meant the Federal government was on a rampage of counterintelligence.

You could no longer just teach the atom as it was. And as soon as those phony neutrons were pushed through, other imaginary particles became real over night.

You almost cannot blame some of the none scientists that just made a fortune selling imaginary particles. You have to love how they rounded up the non-scientists.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

27. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Because neutron particles in the atom had to be taught as real particles, in 1973. Or by law, Federal funds would cease to your school.
He didn't ask when or why. He asked "under what act." Now, put up or shut up, Bill.

By the way, Bill, I graduated from college in 1972 and never heard of your fictitious electron science. Explain that.

28. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Because neutron particles in the atom had to be taught as real particles, in 1973. Or by law, Federal funds would cease to your school.
He didn't ask when or why. He asked "under what act." Now, put up or shut up, Bill.

By the way, Bill, I graduated from college in 1972 and never heard of your fictitious electron science. Explain that.
Not only that, but I own a number of separate texts, all which predate 1973 and none which makes even the passing mention of WM's 'electron science'.

They are:

Ralph E. Lapp, Howard L. Andrews,

Physics in the Modern World
Henry Semat Ph.D.

Atomic Physics
Oswald Blackwood, Elmer Hutchisson, Thomas Osgood, Arthur Ruark, Wilfred St. Peter, George Scott, Archie Worthing (Members of the physics Staff of the University of Pittsburgh),

Astronomy
John C. Duncan Ph.D.
(make mention of neutrons and isotopes in the section on spectroscopy.)

Introductory College Physics
Oswald Blackwood Ph.D.

College Physics
John Reed Ph.D., Karl Guthe Ph.D.

New World of Chemistry
Bernard Jaffe

And if that isn't enough, I have a number of science essays written by the late Dr. Isaac Asimov, collected in book form. Many of these essays were originally published in the 1960's and quite a few of the book collections were published pre-1973.
One thing the Good Doctor was excellent at was in recounting how we came to learn what we know, including any once accepted ideas. Again, no mention of WM's 'electron science'.

29. And if that isn't enough, I have a number of science essays written by the late Dr. Isaac Asimov, collected in book form. Many of these essays were originally published in the 1960's and quite a few of the book collections were published pre-1973.
One thing the Good Doctor was excellent at was in recounting how we came to learn what we know, including any once accepted ideas. Again, no mention of WM's 'electron science'.
Yeh, good old Isaac Asimov! I read every book of his I could get my hands on, some twice or more, and also don't recall anything similar to WM's "Universal Science".

30. So does electron science not even exist?

31. Everything travel at the speed of light?

My tortoise Stanley doesn't

In fact he hasn't moved for weeks

I wonder if he's still alive?

32. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Because neutron particles in the atom had to be taught as real particles, in 1973. Or by law, Federal funds would cease to your school.
He didn't ask when or why. He asked "under what act." Now, put up or shut up, Bill.

By the way, Bill, I graduated from college in 1972 and never heard of your fictitious electron science. Explain that.
Most in American became very communistic, and wished no confrontation with law makers.
Just like forty healthy blacks would take all kinds of nonsense from the one white slave master, and yet stand up to Kunta Kintay. It is the strangest thing.

I guess that slaves are afraid of slave drivers, but figure they can stand up to rabbles because rabbles are nice and considerate.

I put up, already. In 1973 you will note that on reagents exams for the first time, neutrons are on the New York tests, and they are there or were to be there, by mandate.

What legal act? I don't know, and I do not care. I would not waste a nano second tracking down what a bunch of professional con artists wrote into law. I do know that we were never to be lectured by the Universal Scientists again in school. Because they taught non-neutron science.

Look Harold you seem like a fellow that is happy to be a harmless fellow with phony particle science. I on the other hand am not afraid to wield Universal Science (All electron universe science).

I took away many bottles of NO2 Mallincrodt ammonia. Myself personally. I used to bring it home, to do experiments.
We were different in my area. We had perpetual motion. Obviously the rest of America does not and did not.

When you are up to it one day you can charge a capacitor in series with a load, and then use that capacitor to power the load again, for the same amount of time. And double your wattage. That is perpetual motion. If you understand a loop. These last few sentences are all the proof I need.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

33. Originally Posted by William McCormick
When you are up to it one day you can charge a capacitor in series with a load, and then use that capacitor to power the load again, for the same amount of time. And double your wattage. That is perpetual motion. If you understand a loop. These last few sentences are all the proof I need.
Is that how you power your house? Charge up a capacitor and let it run. No sense paying those utility rates, right? You probably have a capacitor powered car too, so you aren't concerned about \$4.00 gasoline, are you? How I envy you, Bill.

34. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by William McCormick
When you are up to it one day you can charge a capacitor in series with a load, and then use that capacitor to power the load again, for the same amount of time. And double your wattage. That is perpetual motion. If you understand a loop. These last few sentences are all the proof I need.
Is that how you power your house? Charge up a capacitor and let it run. No sense paying those utility rates, right? You probably have a capacitor powered car too, so you aren't concerned about \$4.00 gasoline, are you? How I envy you, Bill.
It is about safety Harold. Some places did use some of these tricks, some still do. And when they have an accident they are pretty wild. Sometimes they leave craters where the power transformers used to be.

If you set it up right, monitor it constantly, no problem. But who is going to monitor the system 24/7 at home. But the way to do it, is comically easy. It just requires monitoring. Safeties of high quality and reliability.

I am of the opinion that every block or couple of blocks should have a generating house, or building. It would not need to be big.
And then every kid in his own neighborhood could learn how it works.

The safest system would probably be a system that creates power, through a time lag, and capacitance.

Similar to a shock you can get through a plastic meter case.
By the time the shock is delivered. The supply is already done delivering. What you are feeling was created with almost no load. And the source is no longer putting out, so you cannot load it down.

There used to be time formulations in electrical circuits. "T" meant time in seconds, in electrical calculations.

I can touch or let a high voltage ARC hit me, and I have touched spark plug output. And it does not really hit you like you would believe, if you are standing on dry ground. However if you let it charge an electrical meter. It could kill you.

The reason is that the meter causes a time lag, between the delivery and the output. This is just enough to make a difference. Same power output. One possibly deadly one startling funny.

I have actually been hit, on a dry day, when I had the whole side of my body up against an air conditioning condenser unit. A bad habit.

I had enough surface area up against the condenser to make me a plate in a capacitor. I was unscrewing the high pressure, liquid line gauge connection. When liquid came out hit my hand, while I was not touching the brass check valve connector. And the friction in the compressor, apparently was enough to cause static build up, and a shock, under those conditions. I had never felt it like that. It came through a sweat shirt and shirt. The compressor may have been leaking electricity. However I do not believe it was. It was a rather new system, running very well. And I have felt the almost static like charge before in other systems. I just never had that much area up against a unit when it happened.

I have over the years worked with ungrounded air compressors and they would give you little shocks through the rubber hose feeding air from the compressor. Very annoying. They can also build or charge up things. And it can cause you to jump.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

35. So basically,

It has not been banned by the law and you are just making crap up. If what you believed in science was banned by your country's law then you would know under what act.

I would assume if its ever been taught or even exists, then it was disproven hence why it was stopped being taught, (You know thats how it works, theories come and go... most people move on) I assume however you refuse to accept its disproven and now waste your time trying to prove it once again.

Oh and to prove my point, everything which questions the crap you come out with either doesn't exist or 'a stupid scientist said it whom was wrong'

Few examples just to clear up my point,

You say "electrons are everything with no mass"
We prove electrons have mass

Another example

You say "neutrons don't exist"
Nuetrons are the only reason the atomic bomb works
You just didn't reply, i assume its because you know there is no answer to that

So while it's nice listening to the crap you seem to come out with, It's WRONG, get that into your head, learn real science and stop thinking your some super important scientist because you have old and crap theories.

36. Originally Posted by Edmund
So basically,

It has not been banned by the law and you are just making crap up. If what you believed in science was banned by your country's law then you would know under what act.

I would assume if its ever been taught or even exists, then it was disproven hence why it was stopped being taught, (You know thats how it works, theories come and go... most people move on) I assume however you refuse to accept its disproven and now waste your time trying to prove it once again.

Oh and to prove my point, everything which questions the crap you come out with either doesn't exist or 'a stupid scientist said it whom was wrong'

Few examples just to clear up my point,

You say "electrons are everything with no mass"
We prove electrons have mass

Another example

You say "neutrons don't exist"
Nuetrons are the only reason the atomic bomb works
You just didn't reply, i assume its because you know there is no answer to that

So while it's nice listening to the crap you seem to come out with, It's WRONG, get that into your head, learn real science and stop thinking your some super important scientist because you have old and crap theories.
The law stated that schools had to follow the curriculum given by the Federal school boards. It became the law. That you could not teach a neutron less atom, and still be within Federal teaching guidelines.

Again to you it may seem like crap. And you are allowed to state that, I actually get a slight kick out of it.

Because I already have all the things you claim to want from science. So say what you will. It will come out eventually. By then you will have so much nonsense in your head that you will never be able to grasp science.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

37. Originally Posted by Edmund
So basically,

It has not been banned by the law and you are just making crap up. If what you believed in science was banned by your country's law then you would know under what act.

I would assume if its ever been taught or even exists, then it was disproven hence why it was stopped being taught, (You know thats how it works, theories come and go... most people move on) I assume however you refuse to accept its disproven and now waste your time trying to prove it once again.

Oh and to prove my point, everything which questions the crap you come out with either doesn't exist or 'a stupid scientist said it whom was wrong'

Few examples just to clear up my point,

You say "electrons are everything with no mass"
We prove electrons have mass

Another example

You say "neutrons don't exist"
Nuetrons are the only reason the atomic bomb works
You just didn't reply, i assume its because you know there is no answer to that

So while it's nice listening to the crap you seem to come out with, It's WRONG, get that into your head, learn real science and stop thinking your some super important scientist because you have old and crap theories.
Someone told you electrons have mass. I have done tests to show that they do not need mass. It would alter reality if they had mass.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

38. Teaching has always been like that, I mean in american the teaching of the theory of evolution is banned, but it is still known. As for your theories, it's not know of, you seriously need some more evidence to prove your point, most scientific theories no matter how small or ho strange, all have documentation to prove or disprove them, whereas your theories are not anywhere on earth but in your head.

what things do you already have from science?

And can you please provide these tests, you said you can prove they don't need mass, but you still can't prove they don't have it. Also unless you run many different tests, for example you test shows they don't need mass, but i bet there are other experients which show it does need mass.

39. Originally Posted by William McCormick
The law stated that schools had to follow the curriculum given by the Federal school boards. It became the law. That you could not teach a neutron less atom, and still be within Federal teaching guidelines.
This is simply to prevent schools spreading wild and unproven theories. Schools have to teach the facts that are commonly accepted by scientific investigation and research, whether you disagree with it or not. This is not a reason to claim to be a victim of an unamerican and communistic conspiracy.

40. Originally Posted by William McCormick

Someone told you electrons have mass.
The electrons themselves "weighed heavily" into the argument.

I have done tests to show that they do not need mass. It would alter reality if they had mass.
Was your reality altered as a result?

41. He is specific to say his test showed they did not NEED mass, but for that particular experiment that may be true, but it does just mean mass is no a factor in the results.

Other experiments rely on them needing mass.

42. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
The law stated that schools had to follow the curriculum given by the Federal school boards. It became the law. That you could not teach a neutron less atom, and still be within Federal teaching guidelines.
This is simply to prevent schools spreading wild and unproven theories. Schools have to teach the facts that are commonly accepted by scientific investigation and research, whether you disagree with it or not. This is not a reason to claim to be a victim of an unamerican and communistic conspiracy.
I cannot accept what you are saying as truth or fact. The unproven theory was the neutron. It was festival in science. A drunken poison mushroom festival of uncontrolled, nonsense. Rather then just taking a calm almost boring stand with Universal Scientists. Scientists and industrialists that could have wiped out all the armed forces on earth.

But would not have had to, because when the armed forces found out what they were going to miss out on. They would have joined in.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

43. Originally Posted by Edmund
He is specific to say his test showed they did not NEED mass, but for that particular experiment that may be true, but it does just mean mass is no a factor in the results.

Other experiments rely on them needing mass.
The definition of mass and weight need to be clarified on two different points of view.

We say mass is a substance verified at sea level by its volume and weight.

Yet if by some chance I am correct, that electrons are massless, weightless, then in fact because protons are made of electrons, and massless and weightless. That matter has no mass or weight either.

Then there must be some other mechanisms that create the system we use in day to day life. And I believe there is a rather simple explanation.

It is time. Anyone that has ever walked on the beach thinks sand is rather soft and gives way until your feet sink into it. Yet if you put it into a bag, you can break your wrist punching it if you are not careful. Or if you are hit with it in the bag, it could kill you. It can stop bullets and is used by the military.

So why is sand in a thin bag, so hard or unyielding? Because it is made up of many particles. Without the bag or similar structure, it would not stop anything. So this little bag that just puts a small amount of pressure on the sand. Somehow, turns the sand into something very dense or seemingly dense. Because we know that matter is actually 90 percent space.

The particles of sand, have air between them. Just like electrons in a proton/atom nucleus, have space between them, repulsive force. And their container is a spherical shaped trap. That keeps them inside as long as ambient radiation flows through matter and around the nucleus of the atom. It takes time and eats up velocity to transfer velocity from one subatomic particle to the other.

Electrons cannot be destroyed so if you can slow them, they become an invincible wall. That can only be broken or moved by a larger more invincible wall.

If you create a diode in one direction, an object like an anvil, just takes off, as if it was caught in a white tornado like a pine needle. They get stuck into trees during tornados.

The anvil that takes off, is just blocking ambient radiation.
Yet if you hit that same large metal anvil with a heavy hammer, it will just create a rather annoying harmonic. Neither object has mass actually. Yet the large anvil we hit with the hammer does not even move.

The reason is that a large enough diode was not created. Take a big enough hammer and hit the anvil and you could knock it a half mile. This is not proof. However it shows a way that would function. And I can demonstrate this method.

I am saying that ambient radiation is causing gravity because we are turned into partial diodes by ambient EMF from above us.
Very fast ambient radiation is super high voltage, much higher then even the most powerful x-ray machines. Gravity is fast stuff. Slow it down more with more intensity and it will push you into the ground. Slow it down a bit more with intensity and it will burn your insides with x-ray like energy. Or Ultra violet.

I guess if you were not brought up like this it is probably weird to hear it. I am sure though this is how it was. Because some really stealer characters also felt this way. They did most of the real pioneering.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

44. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by William McCormick

Someone told you electrons have mass.
The electrons themselves "weighed heavily" into the argument.

I have done tests to show that they do not need mass. It would alter reality if they had mass.
Was your reality altered as a result?
Ha-ha.

http://www.Rockwelder.com/Pics/rubitzhq.wmv

The cube felt lighter though.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement