It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Photons have zero rest mass, however when in motion they have a non-zero mass as does all forms of energy including charge.
If you could “catch up” to a photon you would still measure its velocity as c, the speed of light, because c is an invariant. You would, however, measure its frequency as 0 due to red shift.
The second point is that anything that travels at the speed of light can ONLY travel at the speed of light. It can never be “at rest” because it IS light and the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant. Therefore, the “rest mass” of a photon is NOT zero; the photon has no rest mass because it can NOT be “at rest”.
Originally posted by jvm222
You guys should check out the patents of Nikola Tesla and read the book 'The lost journals of Nikola Tesla' by Tim Swartz. All this stuff is around and has been possible in general. Just because humans hide stuff and take a long time to figure stuff out doesn't mean it isn't there. It just hasn't been 1. Found or 2. Made public.
In 2001, long after the Art Bell show, Sereda queried James Oberg about the camera test again. Oberg, realizing the depth-of-field problem did not support his own out-of-focus theory, wrote Sereda...
James Oberg was losing the debate clearly. NASA was at a standstill. They had to come up with something to make their theory hold and prevent public embarrassment.....
Originally posted by Overload
Thats fine if you think he is not creditable, but other than using "other peoples words" to get your point across, lets hear it strait from the horses mouth.
Originally posted by Overload
So there could be breaking evidence to support some new theory and you would not have anything to do with it because it is from a certain person?
?????????
How is that logical...in anyway
Originally posted by Overload
reply to post by JimOberg
Thats fine that you don't believe what he says....
If you find Sereda's theories plausible -- or even just mind-expanding -- by all means encourage his work and go to his website and buy his videos and books. I'm sure he'd appreciate the encouragement.
sign his on-line petition to put him aboard a space flight, too, so he can observe the dots phenomena.
I'm trying to figure out the most effective ways of communicating the full story to a lot of people who are really 'space nuts' and love many of the same subjects I do -- but who have gotten side-tracked into dead-ended intellectual detours that will lead nowhere. They represent too much brainpower -- and enthusiasm -- to waste.
What I'm saying here that any speculation based on opinions and allegations from Mr. Sereda is a total waste of time until you can determine if those original assertions have any credibility.
Originally posted by Overload
A simple couple of paragraphs would be sufficient(from a scientific point of view) and we could continue a grown up conversation. As you sad on this thread
Originally posted by max.is.awake
I need someone to clarify or verify something i was taught in school...in space there is no resistance , no wind , no air , so if a ship maintains a constant propulsion it will continually increase its speed, therefore making it possible to eventually go beyond the speed of light. Is this true or not? Thank you in advance to the member who can clear this up for me.
Originally posted by JimOberg
It's a deal, I owe it to you... and since i've intended to add to my home page a roster of why i find some people's testimony unworthy of belief (while not alleging they are liars or con artists, which I do not believe), I'll go ahead and do the section on sereda soon and post it -- or u2u it -- when it's done. Pester me if I take too long -- the ball is in MY court on this, your request was fair and fair-minded.
Has anybody found a link, maybe in a wayback site, to the Sereda-Oberg mud-wrestling show?