I was reading through some various internet articles that propose the speed of light is possible. I have also heard the contrary (impossible).

I dont know much about physics and all that stuff but I have a basic knowledge that lead me to an Idea. Its just and Idea though so dont slam me too hard if I dont know what the H3LL im tlakin about.

What if we can't go the speed of light because we are already going the speed of light. From what I understand the earth and everything exists here at its physical point and also exists however far it traveled in light speed since its creation but not in a physical sense. What if we cant go physicly faster or at the speed of light because we would then have no point of orgin or point in the physical universe.

I hope i didnt do too horrible of a job explaining myself.

L8rz

I guess you heard about e = mc2, and the fact is, that when theres more energy than the light speed it's get converted to mass, so I think, yes you could say so. Because if you release all the energy within us we have more energy than the speed of light.

Einstein's mistake in assuming the speed of light could not be exceeded was to equate gravitational mass with inertial mass. Gravitational mass is that which is affected by gravity, while inertial mass is only a metric of stored energy conferred by the velocity of a given gravitational mass.

Constant acceleration will eventually cause speed in excess of the speed of light.

Einstein's mistake in assuming the speed of light could not be exceeded was to equate gravitational mass with inertial mass. Gravitational mass is that which is affected by gravity, while inertial mass is only a metric of stored energy conferred by the velocity of a given gravitational mass.

Constant acceleration will eventually cause speed in excess of the speed of light.

Constant cooling will eventually get you below zero Kelvin.

Constant pumping will eventually give you negative vacuum.

Constantly reading pulp science eventually will lead to enlightenment.


:D

Just on the thought initiated by: What if we cant go physicly faster or at the speed of light because we would then have no point of orgin or point in the physical universe.

Well, if I have a flashlight and turn it on, then you have a point of reference... but I think you will find that we do not overtake the light of the flashlight beam, as a result, I suppose you would notice it at some point when you pass lightspeed.

Einstein's mistake in assuming the speed of light could not be exceeded was to equate gravitational mass with inertial mass. Gravitational mass is that which is affected by gravity, while inertial mass is only a metric of stored energy conferred by the velocity of a given gravitational mass.

Constant acceleration will eventually cause speed in excess of the speed of light.

Oh, I thought he only used mass... and just for fun:

I have a mass of 70 Kilos, when I near the speed of light, I would have a mass of about 28 tons, or 28000 kilos, don't you think that I need quite a lot of energy to even keep me on the aprox. 299999,999 kilometers per second? Now take it a bit more and try to imagine my mass and the needed energy to get me above 300000 kilometers per second... of course, there is no equation that could give numbers; because my mass would be infinite, just as the energy.

But if you think that Einstein was wrong... well, why do I not see anyone getting the Nobel prize for giving us a new equation that is superior to Einsteins?

According to Einstein, lightspeed is impossible. A good analogy is a train traveling 100 miles an hour. Say 100 miles an hour is the train traveling at the speed of light, and you are in a car traveling 99 mph. From inside the car, the train would still be rocketing ahead at 100 mph, and you would be left behind. From an external viewpoint, the car would seem to have been crunched together like an acordion(spelling?) and time would slow down. From inside the car, everything would seem normal. I dont know how well I explained it, I read about it in the Book HYPERSPACE by some asian guy.

Does anyone claim that there is no difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass?I have a mass of 70 Kilos, when I near the speed of light, I would have a mass of about 28 tons, or 28000 kilos, don't you think that I need quite a lot of energy to even keep me on the aprox. 299999,999 kilometers per second?Nope! All you need is enough to accelerate.Now take it a bit more and try to imagine my mass and the needed energy to get me above 300000 kilometers per second... of course, there is no equation that could give numbers; because my mass would be infinite, just as the energy.Just because Einstein said so doesn't make it so!But if you think that Einstein was wrong... well, why do I not see anyone getting the Nobel prize for giving us a new equation that is superior to Einsteins?Mostly because Einstein is a patron saint of that new pseudo-religion called cosmology. But also, because Einstein only offered theories as to absolute speed limits. I simply disagree based on my own reasoning. I worship no god or scientist.I read about it in the Book HYPERSPACE by some asian guy.I assume that to be some unimpeachable source. Hmmmmmm, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell. Maybe you'd....

Constant acceleration will eventually cause speed in excess of the speed of light.Well yeah, oh course.

But constant acceleration is impossible, because as you approach the speed of light your mass (and therefor the energy necessary to accelerate you) increases. As your velocity approaches the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity. So unless you have an infinite power source, accelerating to light speed is impossible.

But constant acceleration is impossible, because as you approach the speed of light your mass (and therefor the energy necessary to accelerate you) increases. As your velocity approaches the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity. So unless you have an infinite power source, accelerating to light speed is impossible.There ya go! Confusing gravitational mass with inertial mass. Gravitational mass never increases. Inertial mass increases as a function of gravitational mass, which is fixed, and velocity, which increases with acceleration. In other words, inertial mass is only stored energy. Consider thinking of ergs instead of inertial mass; it would be easier to understand. I hope most of you realize that there is a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass. You do, don't you?

If you could fabricate an engine that would accelerate you through space even at just the rate of one foot per second per second for a long enough time, eventually (don't hold your breath) you would achieve and surpass the speed of light. Common sense tells you that.

But then what does a mere school dropout know.

If you could fabricate an engine that would accelerate you through space even at just the rate of one foot per second per second for a long enough time, eventually (don't hold your breath) you would achieve and surpass the speed of light. Common sense tells you that.Indeed - however, accelerating me through space at 1 foot per second per second will require an expenditure of energy, and the exact amount of energy needed will depend on my mass. As my mass increases as I approach the speed of light, the energy needed to accelerate me at a constant 1 ft/sec^2 will also increase. My mass would become infinite as I approach the speed of light, so unless I have an infinite energy source I can't ever accelerate continuously to the speed of light like you describe.

The phenomenon of mass (and the corresponding amount of energy needed to accelerate it) increasing near the speed of light has been experimentally observed.

If you could somehow create an engine where the acceleration was only dependant on rest mass (which you seem to be referring to as 'gravitational mass') then you could indeed overcome this problem - however, it does take energy to accelerate relativistic mass (which you seem to be calling 'inertial mass'), so the mere fact that rest mass and relativistic mass aren't quite the same thing doesn't really help you.

Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension by Michio Kaku.

Thats it. Good book, got it at barnes and noble.

Ah, the man who's either renowned or total crackpot, depending on who you ask.

Online interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/michio_kaku.shtml

Well yeah, oh course.

But constant acceleration is impossible, because as you approach the speed of light your mass (and therefor the energy necessary to accelerate you) increases. As your velocity approaches the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity. So unless you have an infinite power source, accelerating to light speed is impossible.
You've hit the nail on the head their. Could'nt put it any clearer myself :m:

Constant acceleration will eventually cause speed in excess of the speed of light.
True, but the mass would increase greatly. An objects of constant mass needs only enough force applied to make it accelerate (constant force), but if the mass were to increase, the applied force would also need to increase. And I won't even go into the time dilation that would occur.

When the firing pin of a rifle strikes the primer of a .223 calibre cartridge, the powder ignites and produces gas. The gas, attempting to expand, can only accelerate the 55 grain bullet down the length of the barrel. When the bullet exits the muzzle of the rifle, the gas is now free to expand laterally and no longer accelerates the bullet. As the bullet travels it's trajectory, the inertial energy of the bullet imparted by the gasses in the barrel is gradually spent overcoming the force of gravity and the resistance of the atmosphere. Eventually, it falls to earth still weighing just 55 grains.

On the other hand, if the bullet strikes something before all of the inertial energy has been spent, that target will receive the sum of the bullet's 55 grain mass and the residual inertial force. The force that changed the state of relative rest of the bullet is transferred to the target.

Can you grasp that?