Scientist's Blinkered View of Light Speed

A Black Hole

Hong Kong

It is reported that a team of scientists, from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology have confirmed Einstein’s theory that nothing can travel faster than light.

This team was led by Professor Du Shengwang, who says he has proven that a single photon obeys “the traffic law of the universe”.

Hello Professor Du, it does not surprise me that light cannot travel faster than light but I think you assume too much. To assume a theory for one thing applies to everything else, I think is a blinkered view.

As I understand it, the plumes seen coming out from a Black Hole, are particles that, as they are drawn into a Black Hole continue to accelerate their orbit. Eventually they reach speeds that allow them to escape the Hole. If light cannot escape the hole, this means these particles reach speeds in excess of the light, meaning they achieved “faster than light speed” to escape the Black Holes pull.

You also state that, this means time travel is just a thing of science fiction.

Torsion Physics?

The Real World

Scientists in Russia have claimed to prove, that the effects of a “torsion field” travel at speeds many times greater than that of the speed of light. A torsion field is when an object spins fast enough that it can have an effect on everything around it. It has also been proven that a torsion field can have an effect on gravity.

Some people are already speculating that torsion physics may be a way to progress in the field of space exploration. Some have even speculated that Nazi scientists were on the verge of making a time machine “The Bell”, using torsion energy.

Professor Du, well done you’ve earned your grant but do not try to “blind us with science” and claim that this is greater than it really is. It is not the experiment to end all experiments in physics.

Too many scientists in the past, having proven one theory, try to attach it to all of science. This does not help progress, it hinders it. By all means continue your experiments but don’t try to convince others that they no longer need to continue with theirs.

To assume that the universe depends on the laws of one item, light, I think is a little presumptuous. There are probably more forces of physics in the universe, many of which we are probably not even aware of yet.

More by this Author


Comments 12 comments

artblack01 profile image

artblack01 4 years ago from New Mexico

Here is a good example, Space travel, science is desperately trying to get into space all the time, but the Government is slowly dismantling the programs that get science into space. Virgin Galactic is trying to market space flight by implementing new science designs on aerodynamics in nature and find a way to sell trips into space, but "The starting price for flights is $200,000 with refundable deposits starting from $20,000." are you willing to put that much money to go into space for several hours and then get shot back home to the same location? No space port, not trip to the moon or mars... no funding to get there. Who is going to buy into it? Science is NOT at fault.


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 4 years ago from New Mexico

Now you are blaming science for something they have no control over. No matter what kind of technology is possible or is invented or developed you can't blame science for it's implementation. Corporations are responsible for marketing and selling and designing a practical use for the everyday consumer. So there is two groups you can blame. The everyday consumer or the corporations for it's marketing. Science has nothing to do with either. Your issue in any of this is not with science. You need to learn who is responsible for why we don't have electric powered clean running vehicles and why such technology is blocked from being marketed and by whom. Science can only show you what is possible, not market or produce it. Maybe if you would do some actual research into this phenomenon you might figure this out.


rafken profile image

rafken 4 years ago from The worlds my oyster Author

artblack01 - All that you say is true but you leave out that today, some wealthy elitists are opponents to some breakthroughs in science. There were electric delivery trucks in the 40's, they can't be bettered today? In Europe in the 70's nobody would buy a new car that did less than 40mpg, that can't be bettered today? Science today is blinkered and hampered by money. The only research done is that which is paid for - always by whom? Science today is not driven by a thirst for knowledge but a thirst for wealth and that means that because they are looking for certain results, the scientists could understandably miss the real holy grail.


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 4 years ago from New Mexico

Wow, you really have a skewed view of science and how it works. There are many discoveries and advances that were made in science back in the 30s but all through history and including the 30s many failures as well. The idea of time travel was abandoned because of Einstein and what that 30s idea of time travel would do to a physical body trying to push that barrier. The ideas that science snubbs today are ideas that have been shown to be failures from the past. If you look through your history as well the only modern sciences that was previously snubbed in the past was done so by religion. The earth was discovered to be round during greekntimes but religion suppressed this idea and Sinai with Galileo as well. Many scientists were tried and killed as heretics. The only true opponents of science are the religious and the badly educated.


rafken profile image

rafken 4 years ago from The worlds my oyster Author

artblack01- So according to you the science of the 30's failed and science today is doing good. Wasn't it in the 30's that the ground work was done for jets and rockets. If that was such a failure, why are we still using them today? I don't doubt that our modern day scientists have found new technology, they just haven't told us what it yet. My guess is though, that it will be to do with either torsion or gravity, for which most of the ground work was done in the thirties before the the "scientific world" snubbed them. History repeats itself, the world actually was round and the Earth does in fact orbit the Sun. Most great science advances have been snubbed at least once before coming to fruition. It is you that should not beleive the money driven media. Science and history always seem to go hand in hand, just like money and the media.


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 4 years ago from New Mexico

So you are using science from the 1930s (which failed by the way) to debunk modern science? I think you are the one who is blinkered. Remember that science is constantly testing itself constantly debunking itself. Time travel, the speed of light and so on have already made the rounds. Maybe you should look up what has been said recently by scientists and science publications and peer reviewed discoveries and not what the media or some 70 year old propaganda says.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi Lonestar,

Einstein did actually ponder the potential existence of objects that move faster than light (nuons), but had no opinion on whether they actually exist in nature.

Your first paragraph is correct.

The second paragraph is hard to speak definitively about, as a black hole by definition is a mass so great that even light waves can't escape it if they get too close. The electro-magnetic properties of black holes are not known; we just know that they curve space intensely (i.e., possess great gravitational attraction).

Stu


lone77star profile image

lone77star 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Actually Einstein's theory of relativity stated that any mass accelerated to near light speeds will have an increased mass which would become infinite at light speed. This would make it impossible for a "naked" mass to accelerate to a velocity greater than that of light. Light speed is about 186,282 miles per second (~300,000 km per sec). (Sorry Stu. I don't remember Einstein ever talking or writing about objects moving faster than light.)

As for particles escaping a black hole, I agree with 1701. Anything outside the event horizon has the potential to "escape" the black hole. Heck, we're outside the event horizon of all those black holes, and we're doing just fine. But another possibility exists. Electrical charges or magnetic moments of particles might affect even the event horizon's rule of "no return." If the black hole is electrically charged, locally, then a particle which is attracted by gravity might be repelled electrically. Or if the black hole has a strong magnetic field, it could affect the path of a charged particle, modifying the event horizon's grip.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Actually, Einstein did not postulate that nothing can move faster than light. He simply postulated than any object moving slower than light cannot be accelerated to light speed or above, and any object moving faster than light cannot be decelerated to light speed or below. Einstein had no opinion as to whether any objects actually exist which in fact do move faster than light.

Einstein's theory above is of course necessary to maintain the inertial reference frame hypothesis. Since light moves at an absolute speed (about 900,000 MPS in free space), "switching sides" relative to the speed of light would allow you to make inferences about the absolute speed of the object, which would invalidate the inertial reference frame hypothesis, and hence relativity (time dilation, space contraction, and mass increase at very high speed).


Tony DeLorger profile image

Tony DeLorger 5 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Interesting as always. In many ways we are all clutching as straws, trying to understand the uiniverse in ways we cannot at this time and place perceive. There is always something else to grasp. Our striving simply keeps the dream alive. Fascinating stuff. Thanks


gogogo 5 years ago

I am getting a education just reading your very interesting articles.


1701TheOriginal profile image

1701TheOriginal 5 years ago

Just so you are aware, particles do indeed radiate from black holes, seemingly violating their property of absorbing everything. But this is what most people forget: black holes absorb everything that crosses the event horizon. Particles will still be affected by the black hole's gravity, but until that particle is past the event horizon, it can indeed escape.

As for the rest of these ideas, are there any sources? Science will always test theories, this is the basis of science. Nothing can ever truly be proven unless it is a law, like Newtons Three Laws of Forces, which are almost the axioms of Mechanics. Trust me, the isotropic nature of the universe is always up to debate.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working