Finally, an Answer! Why the 'Not Allowed' Assumption...

So, I was emailing with my teacher, Mr. Levesque, and I asked him to read my blog.
After reading it, he emailed me a very good answer about why most or all scientists agree nothing can go faster than the speed of light.
The answer is *drum roll please*

Einstein!
Well, Einstein's equations.
Einstein's equations have indeed been experimentally proven, which means that if you could go faster than the speed of light, your mass would be infinite (a fraction with zero in the denominator = not real or infinite).
This means that if in the case they did find Tachyon particles (or something like them only photons or something) that go faster than the speed of light, Einstein's equations would have to be altered in such a way that they still expressed relativity in the same way it did before, only without this issue of the non-existent fraction.

What I want to ask is, if in the case black holes could be used as a tunnel for Tachyon particles (or photons or something) that go faster than the speed of light, (which I still believe rips space-time creating the black holes, but it has to be small but dense enough to do so), then couldn't these particles or photons or whatever end up even in another dimension?
Couldn't that explain why the mass wouldn't be comprehensible?
It's almost like the issue with perceiving the fourth dimension: Although we can somewhat perceive it and look at it, we cannot figure out what exactly it means because it is not in this dimension. Such as how we perceive four- dimensional objects made up of three dimensional objects put into one, instead of just a four- dimensional object, like other four-dimensional objects do.

Now, an interesting question came up while I was speaking to Sam about the dimensions. He pointed out that according to the pattern, the zero dimension would be able to perceive everything in the negative-one dimension.
Now, what the heck is the negative-one dimension?
Well, since everything is a square of what it was before, let us look at the pattern:
A hypercube is a cube, cubed.
A cube is a square, cubed.
A square is a line, squared.
A line is a point, extended ("lined" if you want to make it follow the pattern)
A point is what?

Maybe the zero dimension is the lowest it can go?
If the negative one dimension does exist, I'm assuming it is inverted from that of the first dimension.
But what is the inversion of a line?
Perhaps this line is the opposite of what it would be in the first dimension? (A line pointing the exact other direction relative to whatever is observing it)
And perhaps if we were to perceive not only the negative one dimension, but all others, instead of the ones we have now, perhaps if we thought we were moving one direction we would be moving in the exact opposite direction, making it difficult to move and do things.
Which maybe is why all of us are in this dimension instead of the negative third dimension (natural selection, I suppose?)
And I'm kind of weirding myself out speaking about natural selection on a universal scale. Has this been mentioned or thought of before?
I have no idea.
I guess that's another thing I'll have to answer!

The Actual Text from the Library that I Freaked Out Over...

 

The is the exact paragraph of the book that made me so excited when I read it at the library!
Because of something else, like another universe was filling up our universe by sending stuff into it through a white hole, the white hole would be like the hole of the balloon, and the person would be the other universe, sending stuff through the black hole... Only it may not be intentional. Maybe this black hole is so supermassive that it just eats everything!
This is what got me so excited: The fact that another universe sending in matter through a black hole into a white hole on our end would make SO much sense when you think about the Garbage Can Theorem.
(By the way, I'm going to have to come up with a more scientific name for that sooner or later...)
Or I could call it the Garbage Can Theorem and have hundreds of scientists laugh at me and say it's the dumbest thing they've ever heard...
In any case, have fun reading that paragraph, that's all I'll put online from the actual text, though I have some more diagrams to upload later once I read through some more of the book.
Thanks for reading!
And thanks for the add, Kyle!

Light Cones... Why Make the "Not Allowed" Assumption?

NOTE: THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE POSTED FOR THURSDAY, JULY 22ND BUT COULD NOT BE PUBLISHED BECAUSE MY COMPUTER WAS BEING OBNOXIOUS. BEAR WITH ME AS I REPHRASE A FEW THINGS THAT IVE SAID ALREADY. THANKS! - Tuesday, July 27th

P.S.: THERE WERE THREE IMAGES WITH THIS POST THAT DID NOT SUCCESSFULLY BLOG ON HERE. WILL BE UPLOADING IN THE NEAR FUTURE. ONE IS THE LIGHT-CONE, THEN THE FUTURE AND PAST LIGHT-CONE, THEN ANOTHER DIAGRAM.

So, I was sitting at the library with my friend Sam, and I finally made a prioritized list of what I need to scan (or in this case, take a pic of and upload)... What these light cones represent are points, and each of the points within that shaded region of the Future Light Cone represent an event that light will eventually be reaching or affecting, but hasn't yet. As an event occurs, it moves closer toward the center, until it ends up in the Past Light Cone, where the light has already reached and or affected it. The center represents light affecting it at that exact moment.
I was talking to Sam about the fourth dimension, and I figured I should put in here how the dimensions view each other, including the second, first, and zero.
The zero dimension is a point, and apparently it cannot see, because according to the pattern it should be able to view the 'negative one' dimension, which makes no sense at the moment.
The first dimension, which is a line, views things as points.
The second dimension, as in a flat plane, views things as lines.
The third dimension, which is us, views things as flat planes.
The fourth dimension, as in hypercubes and such, views things as three dimension objects.
It's interesting the talk about the fourth dimension because a hypercube is so strange. The way Lisa Randall described it was a bit strange, because for us to view it it would be one cube at a time, not all at once.
If we were to view a hypercube, it would look like a cube inside a larger cube, with the smaller cube expanding to the size of the large one, and a smaller one reappearing inside the cube and expanding to the large cube's size again.
-----------------
Besides alternate dimensions, I was thinking about that Garbage Can Theorem again... Or Excess Energy Theorem. Whatever you want to call it...
I was reading about how Einstein figured there was an 'anti-gravity force' but didn't know what it was that was expanding the universe, and I realized:
If another universe is what's giving us excess matter to expand, then this means that it's not dark energy as defined... Read this quote from Stephen Hawking before you read any more:
"A Brief History In Time", Page 42:
"In Friedmann's model, all the galaxies are moving directly away from each other. The situation is steadily blown up. As the balloon expands, the distance between any two spots increases, but there is no spot that can be said to be the center of the expansion. Moreover, the farther apart the spots are, the faster they will be moving apart. Similarly, in Friedmann's model the speed at which any two galaxies are moving apart in proportional to the distance between them."
This would actually fit my model PERFECTLY.
Because in reality, when you're blowing up a balloon, you can figure out what is making the balloon expand: There's only one entrance to let air in and out.
And in our universe, it could be a white hole coming into our universe from another (which doesn't have to be physically and literally connected, but it would be by an Einstein Rosen Bridge with a black hole somewhere in another universe) spitting out matter and otherwise that fills up space. It could actually be spitting space-time into our universe, (I mean, black holes can even suck up light, so who knows? You can't see if it's swallowing space-time or not..)
The last thing that occured to me at the library today was that Hawking said when the universe was infinitely dense, it was a singularity. But singularities are in black holes today. So isn't that saying that at any time another universe could form inside our own, on a smaller scale???
And if this is the case, then wouldnt that pretty much prove what nikodem poplawski said, about our universe going into the future through time, coming out of a black hole? That would make it concrete, as long as one assumes our universe is the same as others.
That means that we'd be coming out of a black hole in a larger universe, probably similar to our own.
Wow. I may have caught on to something here...
I'm gonna continue with this tomorrow, and probably upload some more pics or something.

Questions on Black Holes and Light...

So, I read a bit more about the alternate dimensions last night, and it's funny, because Stephen Hawking says that it's impossible to visualize the fourth dimension, when Lisa Randall with other theoretical physicists have recently found out how.
Of course, "A Brief History of Time", again, was published in 1989 - 1990.
I am currently getting a TON of books, not only be Hawking, but by Feynmann and some of his lectures, too, to get some variety. Once I'm done with this book, I'm going to read into "The Day Without a Yesterday" (I can't remember the author right now) which was published in 2005. It has to do with Le-something(can't remember his name either)'s work, with all his papers stored in a university in Belgium.
Back to Hawking, what I found was possibly a way to disprove that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. When he was talking about special relativity, Hawking says that this was when Einstein came up with General Relativity, which works with Gravity... The only problem is, no one can really evaluate the formula without having all their own measurements, which is very faulty and not very sufficient.
This leads to a few questions...
Does gravity have a lot to do with what I'm doing?
Yes, it does.
Should I pay more attention to gravity?
Indubitably, yes.
And so, I'm going to study this further, because I feel that there has to be something greater out there than this formula that so many have failed to use, and it seems that there has to be something much more sufficient, accurate, and describes more than just gravity between planetary and solar bodies.
I feel that the formula needs to be tweaked somehow, and can be, but at the moment (for me, at least) there's too many unknowns. I'll have to narrow that down.
Before I can do that, I want to know what each of the symbols mean, because there's one that I'm not really sure what it is. I think it's absolute velocity, but I'm not sure. I'm going to check up on that later.
What I also think is, that there has to be a material out there that can withstand going at speeds faster than light, and that the "light cone" of an event (I just learned about this myself -- you know how everything you can see is because light reflects off of it? a light-cone is a drawing of a three-axis graph that I'll post tomorrow, that's shaped like a cone, and anything outside of the cone cannot exist, apparently.) Isn't a boundary of matter, but everything that we can see. I mean, if you think about it, air that we can't see is being touched by light obviously, but whether it's pitch black or blindingly white, you can't see the air in front of you.
That's why it brings me some questions:
Is everything really affected by light in some way?
I mean, black holes can carry light into their gravitational fields, so that means they must be even more powerful, right?
I am going to continue on this journey through A Brief History in Time, and I'll post some diagrams tomorrow, promise this time.

The Juiciest Part of "A Brief History of Time" So Far...

So, tonight, I wasn't going to post, because my throat is killing me, as well as my stomach... But besides feeling like crap, I did happen to read more of "A Brief History of Time", and it was amazing!
I'm at the part where Hawking begins to talk about Einstein and the French guy (Can't remember his name) making the Theory of Relativity, and I was just getting into the part that most applies here, about the Theory of Special Relativity, which is the formula I had used originally to show why I thought I could pull through with "This does not mean you can't go faster than the speed of light, this means it is inconceivable to us because we are moving into the future, but when you go faster than the speed of light, time flips over relative to you, and you begin going BACK in time!"
Now, I didn't really get to explain the whole theory, so I'll say some more about the diagrammed aspect of it. Yes, I have a diagram, but unfortunately I couldn't find the energy to draw up a good one for the website...
It consists of an hourglass-shaped drawing with a little square near the top left corner of the page, and an arrow showing the square (representing matter) spiraling into the black hole, going straight through an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) and spiraling out of a white hole near the bottom. On the side there are two markings, positive infinity (the black hole) and negative infinity (the white hole) representing the direction of time away from zero, where you'd be meeting the speed of light, as if represented by a number-line of some sort.
Now, my next goal is to come up with some sort of equation to represent time according to when it flips over, and such. I was thinking of playing with the d=rt formula, kind of, only mixed with E=MC^2, and possibly even more mixed with the Special Relativity formula (which is a bit confusing when put into typing), and making it something of my own.
The Garbage Can Theorem (haha) keeps coming to my mind, and I'm thinking of what Stephen Hawking said too, about how the Creator of our universe (if there was really one Creator, who knows?) didn't have time: That time is only a dimension of our universe, but that maybe time has always happened with the Creator, too, we just don't know. He said that the common sense-way of thinking about time not being connected to space somehow may have to be altered (I mean, it was in 1990 but still), this may solve some of our problems. For instance, time could be a thing of reality outside our universe, too. Or it could only be for this universe, in this dimension. I mean, time doesn't really exist for the second dimension, so why should it exist for the fourth, the fifth, the sixth?
It's interesting to think about what the fourth dimension looks like: according to Lisa Randall, we already know. You see, to the second dimension, you can see one side of something 3 dimensional at a time. So to us, we can see a three dimensional figure that's one side of a four-dimensional object at a time.
Let's look at the hypercube. It consists of two large cubes connected by six smaller cubes making a ring around the middle of the two. If this were to pass into our plane, we'd see one cube appear, and that one disappear, then another cube, then that one would disappear, and so on...
So you see, it's very hard to visualize (I mean, obviously it'd be pretty weird if some random cubes appeared in the night sky and disappeared one after the other...)
But it makes sense, if you think about how if you're only looking at one side of cone, and you make cuts through it (like the plane barrier does) then you can only see slices of the cone at a time. It's sort of like that. You can only see one part a time, because of the way the planes of the dimensions work, slicing the objects so you can only see one part at a time.
Anyways, for tonight, I'm done.. I was going to talk more but I still feel like crap. It was great posting though!
Also, thanks for the follow, nick!