Breaking the ultimate speed of c

(moved to: http://niralaashutosh.blogspot.in/2016/06/breaking-ultimate-speed-of-c.html)
DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, nor do I understand special theory of relativity properly, so I am sure that my logic is flawed, but if you could pin-point the flaw in simple terms, please leave that in the comment or mail me.

As I understand: an object with finite mass cannot ever touch speed of light because as its speed increases it's mass also increases as m0/sqrt(1- (v/c)^2). Thus mass approaches infinity as speed approaches c, and infinite force can not be created to accelerate the object with infinite mass.

The Idea: What would happen if the force accelerating them is generated by the same objects' mass? Consider two massive objects approaching each other. If conditions are generated such that they approach near c, well before collision, then: their mass would start increasing but so would the gravitational pull between them. This should even cause further acceleration, and thus it may be possible, with right settings, to accelerate the object to speed of light (and possibly beyond!!!) before they collide.

I am sure physicists must have thought about this and if there is any flaw in this, please let me know.

Now, consider the setting, where two massive objects with rest mass of m0 and separated by distance ro, are at rest. Now, suppose a force of k*m0 is applied on both the objects so that they start accelerating towards each other.

Also there is gravitational pull acting on them as shown below:

Now as both the objects start moving towards each other, their velocity increases, and so does their mass. Once their velocities approaches c & r reduces, external force k*m0 becomes negligible and it could be ignored, for simplicity.

Gravitational force as experienced by both the objects = Gm^2/r^2
where:
m = m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
r = current distance

Even after ignoring the effect of k*m0, the above equation is incorrect (as gravity is also bounded by c), but I would come to that later.

So acceleration for both the objects = F/m = Gm/r^2

Few things to note:

• Acceleration is independent of the object's mass
• It is dependent on the other's object mass, and is proportional to it, which is increasing
• Radius is decreasing which further leads to increase in gravitational force, and thus acceleration.

So if these objects have been accelerated to a sufficiently high speed, and if the distance between them is sufficiently large, gravity between them should be sufficient to pull them towards each other, while increasing their speed to c before they collide.

Let's backtrack from the point when the objects would have achieved the speed c. Suppose the objects attain the speed c when they are separated by a distance d.
We know that del V = a * del t
For simplicity let us consider del t = 1 sec (before achieving c), and let us consider a constant acceleration during this period. We know that it would be increasing during this period, but we will consider its least value during this period, which would be the one at the beginning of this period.

1 sec ago, if the distance between the objects was r then acceleration at that time a = Gm/r^2So v = c-Gm/r^2 (as v=u+at for uniformly accelerated motion and
t=1s in this case)

We can assume any values of v and r. Let us assume
v = 0.99c and
r = 2c

For these values of v and r, let us find which value of m satisfies the above equation
=> m = ?
v= c - Gm/r^2
=> Gm/r^2 = c - v
=> m = (c - v)*r^2/G
=> m = (c - 0.99c) *r^2/G = 0.01c*r^2/G
=> m = 0.01c*4c^2/G             (as r^2 = 4c^2)

G = 6.67*10^(-11)  = 2.23*10^-19 c
=> m = 0.01c *4*c^2/(2.23^-19 c) = 0.018c^3 = 0.4888 * 10^24 Kgs

Please note that this is the mass of the object when it's speed is 0.99c
So rest mass of the object m0 = m*(sqrt(1-0.99^2))= 0.14m (not much difference in terms of order of magnitude)

So if two objects having mass of the order of 10^24, which is of the order of earths mass, are accelerated such that when they are at a distance 2c apart they have a speed of 0.99c, they would cross speed of light well before they collide.!!!!!!

In the above equations I have considered mass of both objects equal, even when they are moving. Since gravity also travels at the speed of light one object would always feel the other object lighter at each moment! (Would have tried to derive the exact equation but Maths mein dabba gul. Would be grateful if someone do it for me)

But even with the above correction, the acceleration would keep on increasing due to gravity and the objects would break the c barrier, of the ultimate speed of light, before collision.

What would be the repercussions if the above is true? What would happen the moment the objects achieve c?
Their mass would become infinite, causing gravity to become infinite, thus sucking everything in the universe in itself with infinite speed (effect would propagate with speed of light). And the universe would be destroyed!

Of course, this can't happen because of conservation of energy. To start with, the system of two objects does not have enough energy to suck entire universe, so no matter what, they can't do it!! (Perpetual Motion machines can't be created, no matter how elegantly we design the system because fundamental thing is: "Energy is always conserved")

My questions:

• Where is the flaw?
• Probably in calculating gravitational force?
• Why does mass of an object increases as it approaches c?
• I suspect the catch should be in the way gravitational force is produced because of mass.

If you have any comments, please leave your comments below or mail me directly at: akn.nirala [@] gmail [.] com

Acknowledgment

Special thanks to Utkarsh (LinkedIn) for proof reading and pointing to glaring grammatical mistakes.

What decides chords in a scale?

was going through a book (from: http://www.true-piano-lessons.com/piano-player.html), which I like.

There it is written:

Within  every  major  or  minor  scale,  there  are  seven  chords    —  one  for  each  tone  of  the  scale,  and  numbered  accordingly.    As  an  example,  if  you  were  to  number  and  name  the  chords  of  the  C-­‐major  scale,  you  would  get  the  following:  the  I-­‐chord is  C  Major,  the  ii-­‐chord  is  D  Minor,  the  iii-­‐chord  is  E  Minor,  the  IV-­‐chord  is  F  Major,  the  V-­‐chord  is  G  Major,  the  vi-­‐chord  is  A  Minor,  and  the  vii°-­‐chord  is  B  Diminished.  Every  major  scale  has  the  same  pattern  of  major,  minor,  and  diminished  triads....

How are these patterns decided? If I just start and play the major keys in 1-5-8 pattern I will just get all the major chords. As described below:

 

C

?

D

?

E

F

?

G

?

A

?

B

C

*

*

*

C#

*

*

*

D

*

*

*

D#

*

*

*

E

*

*

*

F

*

*

*

F#

*

*

*

G

*

*

*

G#

*

*

*

A

*

*

*

A#

*

*

*

B

*

*

*

There must be some logic behind it. What is it?

Learning Music

Since childhood I wanted to learn music, but was so stupid that never really tried that.

Once I went for my MTech at IIT Bombay (The place to be), I bought an acoustic guitar. With my crazy research ideas, work load at IIT B and lack of concepts from my BTech days, hardly left me any time for guitar (or so I thought).

Still learned few songs. All the people at IITB (whom I interacted with) who were guitarist (with just one exception) started playing some musical instrument from 7th grade or even earlier.

Playing bar chords was not tough. Practicing half notes also came with a little practice. But switching from one chord to other (especially when later is a bar chord) was tough. In fact was the root cause why I.... Other thing which always eluded me is music sense.

I tried to master few songs. But whenever I play chords for them, for almost all of them I was not able to feel the music (that, the song is being played). For very few songs for which I was able to feel, that yes! song is being played (like: O Soniyo from Raaz 2), I felt that strumming pattern was what causing it (and chords were not the major cause producing music).

Well my guitarist friends didn't agreed. After completing my MTech, while working as well I tried it but I guess musical sense is very tough to acquire...

Few of my friends suggested practicing on piano and I bought one (CASIO CTK-2300 Standard Keyboard). So far it looks much-much simpler than a guitar. I also found the lessons at:http://www.true-piano-lessons.com/
Also there book: http://www.true-piano-lessons.com/piano-player.html

AI and Vipassana (Mindful meditation)

If you want to find out about meditation or AI search the web. Here I am asking few questions which I feel are mere myths in otherwise pure meditation technique: 'Vipassana'.

I did the 10 day silent meditation course twice. What I felt:

• Bodily sensastions.
• On the first night I was able to hear my blood flow in my ears (I mean veins carrying blood in ears, no injury, just listening to blood flow as it is pumped by the heart).
• When I was asleep, I knew I was asleep. When I was dreaming then also I knew I was dreaming. This was an awesome state except I was physically exhausted by continuous sitting and meditation (but let's hope that will go away with practice).
• For a very small moment (fraction of a second), I was able to get a glimpse that mind is continuously active. Always churning thoughts. And in that fraction of second I realized that even when I thought I was calm and focusing on breathing, instead, there were at least three thoughts which entered my mind. As soon as the first thought entered I brought back my mind to focusing on breathing instead of thought, and then other thought entered and then again I repeated the procedure and yet another thought entered and I was like 'Whoooo, and I thought my mind was calm.'. I always thought brain has parallel architecture, but these thoughts came sequentially.

So here is what I agree to:

• Continuous practice of this meditation technique (with right diligence and focus (yes these are very essential else it will take exponentially long time, there is no other way)) will  definitely give tremendous mind control. I believe I would be able to check each and every thought entering my mind.
• This will increase my focus.
• Make me calm and peaceful.
• I will greet everyone and all situation with smile under all condition.
• Cultivating metta is crucial and should be done. There is no point in self chastising etc.

Here is what I want to believe ...

...so badly, but at some level know is BS as I have no proof of it otherwise. I want proof, faith is brain-washing and can give rise to Jihad.

• Law of karma. Vipassana says (putting me in my words so don't quote me on this) that whatever we do condition us and impression is stored in our brain (samnskara). And when we meditate and do not add any new karma, then it starts coming out in form of bodily sensations.
• I do not know why this would have been added. It has to be true as it is so deep in vipassana. But I have absolutely no proof of this.
• Past life: It says just like a flame could be passed from one candle to another (when first candle is about to be finished), similarly w/o any soul (aatma), due to our own karma and conditioning we pass from one body to other.
• Again it sounds as deep as the previous one. But some traces of Hinduism is mixed in it.
• The 6 paramitas: (Giving, Precpets (not commandments but u get the idea), Endurance/Patience, Vigor, Meditation/Samadhi, Wisodm/Prajna) Again I believe this is a mind game and these are included to:
• Help in conditioning the mind.
• Make it more cultish. So that a society can work through it.

       Howsoever novel the intention it made it impure.

Now comes the AI part

• Why do we believe that we are something other than bundle of neural networks? Even if say we have soul and God (a self contradictory concept) do exist, as per our accepted understanding there actions are also rational and thus logical. So why can't it be simulated via a program (Ok not neural n/w then sth else which we do not know yet).
• When we try to code we find so many bugs. But our complete impressions are passed life after life! Hah! Either we are talking about a huge thing (a big server at the back end) and we are just tip of the ice-berg or this is not possible.
• Law of karma: We can and we will very soon create robots which will be able to talk to us and perform some action with a lot of autonomy. Is it entitled to Law of Karma as well? With whom does its Karma lies (all the actions which it performs)?

Can anyone give me some guidance and clues from there own experience which can help me understand this more clearly? Hindu rishis and monks talk so much about superpowers, can someone perform a tiny miracle as a token of proof?