Is it possible to pass through a planet? (Many assumptions ahead)

[Xannari Ferrows]

Yes, you can have ideas and "hypotheses", but in the interest of discussion they must be verifiable/testable, which means we need access to your reasoning behind the assertions, not just the 'conclusions'.

Which I fully understand. Truly. But I'm fairly certain this is a topic that hasn't been discussed regularly, if not ever. I'm putting in tons of time, and I'm nowhere close to a stable answer yet. All I posted was ultimately a guess.

I'm sure if we calculated our own numbers according to tried and tested formulae, we could compare them with yours and maybe see that your conclusion was wrong (or right?). But we wouldn't know why until you post your calculations.

If you found your own answer, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, seeing your papers or not. By the way, I'm not using a formula. Just taking some data from all sides and putting it together. Sometimes that might cause issues, though...

Given my most up to date answer, still not even sure if I'm on the right track, you'd have the equivalent of shrinking Earth to 3.3 • 10^-51 nanometers; Smaller than the Planck distance.

This is a forum, the purpose of which I would presume to be constructive discussion, and that's not possible if all that we are getting are claims (the quintillion c thing), not arguments (like the entire calculation).

I cannot argue for something that I don't even know is right. I've already proven that it isn't, done through putting more time into this. Until I have a definite answer, my arguments are, quite frankly, useless.

The reason for my putting this here, was to ignite interest in this topic. I post on this forum very differently from the usual.

My questions are typically there to be answered by everyone, not just me. I leave a question, then let everyone talk among themselves. I don't like straightforward "Here are the facts" posts in the science forum. [Even my posts including those were still highly controversial]

I mean, sure, it's fascinating stuff, but I want everyone to have the opportunity to get to answer something themselves. Something, most likely no one, has found an answer to.

But I guess that's just asking too much, human autonomy.

[WestAir]

Quantisation (here) only means that it is not possible to measure the difference. That almost-c object was never moving at c to begin with, it may just be impossible to measure the difference (we still could measure it by the way: let it impact something huge and measure the released energy). At no time it was really moving at c.

While true, the end result is that we have a photon and a proton who from our perspective appear to both be moving at C, even if it is not. At this speed, all the time that has passed since the big bang has taken less than one Planck time to elapse from its perspective. At the very least, we can consider it tentative light-speed, because the difference is undefined until later in the future.

EDIT: Don't take my word as concrete, however. I have neither researched nor taken formal education on the subject at hand.

Edited March 4, 2015 by WestAir

[BlueCosmology]

I cannot argue for something that I don't even know is right. I've already proven that it isn't, done through putting more time into this. Until I have a definite answer, my arguments are, quite frankly, useless.

My questions are typically there to be answered by everyone, not just me. I leave a question, then let everyone talk among themselves. I don't like straightforward "Here are the facts" posts in the science forum. [Even my posts including those were still highly controversial]

Your arguments are useless because they don't exist. However, actual mathematical/scientific arguments are almost always more useful than the actual results/numerical answers they supply.

Also, you have posted no facts whatsoever.

[Ikaneko]

Gah, flame war much?

This is worse than fandom baiting on reddit.

(btw I'm on team Blue Cosmology!!)