View Full Version : Speed Limit of C

2011-Sep-05, 08:30 PM
As I stated on a previous thread, our universe is more likely contracting, than expanding and accelerating. It really becomes a matter of perspective, and understanding what the perspective truly is. We live in a house of mirrors and we view the world 2-dimensionaly...

The limit of C as defined by Einstein is evidence I use to define contraction, as well as mass gain and the perspective of relative velocity. The question I ask, as well as thousands of others before me, is why a limit? The stock answer comes in the form of mass gain, where an object would gain so much mass at relative velocity, that it would take an infinite amount of energy to move that mass. While I see the point, and I believe the math to be correct, I don't think this adequately explains the question. Why would the size of our mass have anything to do with motion in an infinite universe?

I think I can answer this question of motion with contraction. In essence, our universe is collapsing, and everything contained within it, is collapsing inwards at a rate of C. We don't physically move as we perceive, we simply resist contraction in one direction or another. Our physical movement is an illusion, although real enough to us. The more resistance we apply, the larger our mass becomes, because we are fighting against contraction. Mass gain represents a resistance to mass contraction, so it grows in size or is viewed from a prior or delayed state. The maximum resistance to contraction we can apply to an object is C, which represents all the energy in the universe flowing inwards. I don't think we move though. Light itself doesn't really move, the universe moves towards it. An explosion doesn't expand outwards, we contract towards that disruption in space.

I think it's already been proven by Einstein, but misunderstood since relativity published. I think Einstein got the math right, but the reality of what we're dealing with is almost incomprehensible. I don't think anyone reading this will believe it, but it's the logical answer to the problem based on the math and observations.

2011-Sep-05, 08:50 PM
You don't get to re-start a closed ATM discussion. Please report this post to carefully explain what's new here, that isn't repetition of your previous thread.