The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017

[Perpetual Student]

How do you define massive in this context? Something the size of a space shuttle? Something the size of any starship bearing the name Enterprise? Something the size of the Death Star? Larger?

An electron or any particle with non-zero mass.

Not that it helps the selected claim any because as long as you have finite mass, and that's all you can have in this universe, then it'll only require a finite amount of energy to move it at the speed of light. Sure, the energy might get to truly insane amounts but it'll never be infinite.

Wrong!

 

[MikeG]

I am 399.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % sure that little stupid Peter from the kindergarten school is intelligent enough to understand that if he got 100 USD to his bank account to his christenings, he know that because he have spent 10 USD on candy and 10 USD on toys, and because grandmother send 20USD to his account at his 5 years birthday, and his aunt did the same he have 120 USD (+ interest).

If a ostentatious postgraduate student would tell him that 20 USD only is position money that really not exist, and the other 20 USD from aunt was also only fictive relativistic money , and so was the money he spend on toys and candy, - that also really not existed, - Peter would know that something must be wrong with that students head.. – The student could be either drunk or have smoked some **** - even little Peter know that much..

But it is much worse……

According to my experience the problems can be found by usingthe equation below.

SNB = t * U * c ²

S =Stupiditý
N = Naivety
B = boasting
U = University
T = time
C= speed of light

And when drinking and smoking **** at the same time, - the equation below must be used instead

SNB = t * U * c ²²

This explains a lot of the problems we have worldwide with science today.....

Meltdown mode, I see.......

 

[Mudcat]

Wrong!

Orly? Let's put that to the test and use an example that I have already given, a space shuttle.

Space shuttles have a mass of 2,000 tons (not taking into account mass of passengers, fuel, equipment, et cetera) so in order to figure out how much energy you need to propell it at the speed of light you need only plug it into the formula E=MC².

Therefore:
E=2,000*180,000²E=2,000*32,400,000
E=64.8*10¹²
Unless there's something wrong with my eyes, that doesn't look anything like infinity.

Edited to add: This is actually the first time I've used the equation for anything, so do please keep that in mind before you chime in.

 

[erwinl]

Orly? Let's put that to the test and use an example that I have already given, a space shuttle.

Space shuttles have a mass of 2,000 tons (not taking into account mass of passengers, fuel, equipment, et cetera) so in order to figure out how much energy you need to propell it at the speed of light you need only plug it into the formula E=MC².

Therefore:
E=2,000*180,000²E=2,000*32,400,000
E=64.8*10¹²
Unless there's something wrong with my eyes, that doesn't look anything like infinity.

Edited to add: This is actually the first time I've used the equation for anything, so do please keep that in mind before you chime in.

Isn't that the energy you get if you convert this mass to energy?
Not what you would need to accelerate that mass to lightspeed?

At least that is how I always understood the E-MC2 to mean.

What formula you would need instead? I really don't know.

 

[hecd2]

If you calculate the momentum of a particle in a rest frame moving at v with respect your frame, you find that, for a particle of finite mass, using the Lorentz factor its momentum would be infinite for v = c. In other words, you cannot accelerate a particle of finite mass to the speed of light.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
According to my experience the problems can be found by usingthe equation below.

SNB = t * U * c ²

S =Stupiditý
N = Naivety
B = boasting
U = University
T = time
C= speed of light

And when drinking and smoking **** at the same time, - the equation below must be used instead

SNB = t * U * c ²²

This explains a lot of the problems we have worldwide with science today.....

^{HIlite by Daylightstar}
Does science have a problem with crackpottery?

 

[Bjarne]

^{HIlite by Daylightstar}
Does science have a problem with crackpottery?

The paper was accepted after review today, tell u more about it later

 

[Daylightstar]

The paper was accepted after review today, tell u more about it later

You mean, you'll simply repeat yourself?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Orly? Let's put that to the test and use an example that I have already given, a space shuttle.

Space shuttles have a mass of 2,000 tons (not taking into account mass of passengers, fuel, equipment, et cetera) so in order to figure out how much energy you need to propell it at the speed of light you need only plug it into the formula E=MC².

Therefore:
E=2,000*180,000²E=2,000*32,400,000
E=64.8*10¹²
Unless there's something wrong with my eyes, that doesn't look anything like infinity.

Edited to add: This is actually the first time I've used the equation for anything, so do please keep that in mind before you chime in.

The energy required for a massive particle (of mass m) to travel at v is given by:

E = γmc² where γ = (1 - v²/c²)^-1/2, so you can see a hypothetically infinite amount of energy would be required to travel at c.

 

[Dancing David]

How do you define massive in this context? Something the size of a space shuttle? Something the size of any starship bearing the name Enterprise? Something the size of the Death Star? Larger?

Not that it helps the selected claim any because as long as you have finite mass, and that's all you can have in this universe, then it'll only require a finite amount of energy to move it at the speed of light. Sure, the energy might get to truly insane amounts but it'll never be infinite.

You can't accelerate objects with mass to the speed of light because it require infinite energy , right?

 

[Dancing David]

Orly? Let's put that to the test and use an example that I have already given, a space shuttle.

Space shuttles have a mass of 2,000 tons (not taking into account mass of passengers, fuel, equipment, et cetera) so in order to figure out how much energy you need to propell it at the speed of light you need only plug it into the formula E=MC².

Therefore:
E=2,000*180,000²E=2,000*32,400,000
E=64.8*10¹²
Unless there's something wrong with my eyes, that doesn't look anything like infinity.

Edited to add: This is actually the first time I've used the equation for anything, so do please keep that in mind before you chime in.

Um maybe you should brush up on relativistic effects and how mass increase when you approach the speed of light?

 

[Reality Check]

I am ...

I am 100% sure that incoherent and irrelevant rants do not make you look rational, Bjarne !
This is what I wrote and you ignored:

The consequences of your incoherent fantasy, Bjarne? Or the consequences of this incoherent post?
You seem to be refering to what school children around the world are taught. Massive objects cannot move at the speed of light because you need to accelerate them with an infinite amount of energy. The school children read the simple equation of relativistic mass and see that as v tends to c relativistic mass tends to infinity. First year physics students then learn where that equation comes from.

Or this is a dumb insult - I was such a school child (and science university student and physics postgraduate student) !

This is what happens in the real world but obviously not in your world!

 

[Reality Check]

How do you define massive in this context?

Massive is anything with a mass greater than zero in this context, Mudcat.
Photons have no mass and exist in this universe!
You did not read what I wrote correctly. SR states that no massive object, e.g. a proton, can get to the speed of light and so cannot move at the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to the speed of light.

Of course any massive object can be accelerated to a finite speed less then c - look at the Large Hadron Collider.

 

[MikeG]

.......Of course any massive object can be accelerated to a finite speed less then c - look at the Large Hadron Collider.

OK, now I'm confused. So it is possible to accelerate something (presumable a very small something) to 99.9999999999% of C, or to (C-1/C^2), but impossible to do that last little bit. Is that right?

 

[Reality Check]

The paper was accepted after review today, tell u more about it later

So you submitted a paper to a journal whose peer reviewer was the devil !
The problem is that the only one that understand me, and the only one that I am sure not have been victim for 100 years massive brainwash, is the devil

Somehow I suspect that either this acceptance is a fantasy or that the "journal" is one of those bottom feeding, publish anything, non-peer reviewed ones that are run to take money from gullible people.

 

[Reality Check]

OK, now I'm confused. So it is possible to accelerate something (presumable a very small something) to 99.9999999999% of C, or to (C-1/C^2), but impossible to do that last little bit. Is that right?

Yes: The 0.9999999c is what my example of the LHC does. SR states that the "last little bit" is impossible.

 

[MikeG]

Yes: The 0.9999999c is what my example of the LHC does. SR states that the "last little bit" is impossible.

Even if that last little bit were, literally, infinitesimally small? I know you'll say yes. Like many things in this field, the absolutism in this is just mind boggling. But if that's what the maths says..........

 

[MRC_Hans]

Even if that last little bit were, literally, infinitesimally small? I know you'll say yes. Like many things in this field, the absolutism in this is just mind boggling. But if that's what the maths says..........

The energy required will approach infinity.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Even if that last little bit were, literally, infinitesimally small?...

I will say that is too vague to be really answered.
I can only state what SR states:
The Lorentz factor tends to infinity as velocity tends to c.
Thus relativistic mass tends to infinity as velocity tends to c.
Thus it takes an amount of energy that tends to infinity to accelerate an massive object to a velocity that tends to c.

That is what the math says. The universe says:
Every test of Lorentz invariance (thus the validity of the Lorentz factor) has been passed.
The LHC does not accelerate protons up to or past the speed of light.
Other particle accelerators have not accelerated electrons up to or past the speed of light.
The universe has not been observed to accelerate particles up to or past the speed of light (e.g. high energy cosmic rays).

 

[Dancing David]

OK, now I'm confused. So it is possible to accelerate something (presumable a very small something) to 99.9999999999% of C, or to (C-1/C^2), but impossible to do that last little bit. Is that right?

Pretty much, it is why the LHC takes so much energy to accelerate protons to relativistic speeds. they gain more energy but there is an asymptote for the speed of light