Mass doesn't prevent reaching C

siarad · Aug 20, 2004

If I drive at 5mph it's takes the same energy to accelerate to 10mph as to go from that 10mph to 15mph. Low speed to eliminate windage & frictionless motion. To an external observer my mass has increased & an external force would see this making it increasingly difficult to increase speed. Externally is how we see the impossibilty of reaching C but using an internal force would not have the problem of increasing mass so could reach C. In my design life I know of the apparent mass increase to an external force & had to allow for it to know where electrons actually are as opposed to where Newtonian ballistics give. Does this inertial mass exist or is it a property of time not mass? By this I mean if I have a rocket engine accelerating me at 1m/s I would obviously reach C except for time dilation. This would shorten those seconds until I eventually ran out of time in which to reach C & it has nothing to do with inertial mass. Don't ask me how electromagnetic radiation apparently does this time travel. I think if this was answered we'd make a gigantic leap forward. Have I made a mistake in my thought experiment?

toothferry · Aug 21, 2004

If I drive at 5mph it's takes the same energy to accelerate to 10mph as to go from that 10mph to 15mph well, if you were driving it would require more energy because of increased friction. But even in space I think there would be an immeasurably tiny amount of extra energy required. They probably wouldn't even need an extra molecule of propellant, in that case.

siarad · Aug 22, 2004

Absolutely! it's just I couldn't think of another way of putting it. e/m=c^2 is a rest equation so if I'm in a rocket accellerating it is of no consequence to me only to an external observer. I do not notice any mass increase or that would surely be saying there's a universal reference frame. So all I have left is time, which Einstein thoroughly mixed up with mass as you've pointed out. To me in the rocket relativity is of no consequence except of course I never reach C as it's a constant but to an external observer I would seem to be approaching it. Is this the essence of relativity & all those differential equations just saying how it works.

toothferry · Aug 22, 2004

and mass does prevent us from reaching C. If an object didn't have mass, and it was pushed, then it would travel infinitely fast, or c from the observers point of view due to time dilation. That's why massless particles like photons DO travel at C.

siarad · Aug 23, 2004

OK I made the error of calling it mass implicit in the topic but yes I should have said inertial mass. I've got a topic on the confusing use of mass so should have known better. Then again I thought it more eye-catching & we all like to be read <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

siarad · Aug 23, 2004

Well no, these have internal driving forces which is my point. Assuming the wave/particle duality. According to James Clarke Maxwell these travel by interchanging their electric field with the magnetic field of space. That they are self propelled is my point & we all look from an external frame when insisting on the impossibility of achieving C.

siarad · Aug 23, 2004

I didn't want to distort this topic by bringing that in & it is something over which I've been pondering of late so started a new topic which builds on it.

Saiph · Aug 27, 2004

1) it isn't the same energy to go from 5 to 10mph as it is from 10 to 15 mph. The difference is negligible (at those speeds) but there is one. 2) The difference between light and matter is rest mass. Light doesn't have any, so the fractional increase in inertia due to velocity doesn't affect it. This increase does affect matter. 3) Because of 2, matter can't exceed C. It's a problem of energy availability. There just isn't enough (more than infinite) to accomplish this. 4) In the objects frame (or 'internal' in your choice of words) it isn't moving at all. Just as you don't percieve motion while in your car, or in a plane. So it certainly isn't exceeding C in that frame. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siarad · Aug 28, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />4) In the objects frame (or 'internal' in your choice of words) it isn't moving at all. Just as you don't percieve motion while in your car, or in a plane. So it certainly isn't exceeding C in that frame.<hr /></blockquote> Ah you misunderstand. I did say in that frame c couldn't be exceeded somewhere in my replies. What I am trying to put is in our frame the energy seems infinite but to the objects frame it isn't. All experiments I've read try to accelerate say an electron, done it myself, by external means not in the time frame of the electron. If the electron had energy to propel itself surely it may exceed c in our frame, not it's but not be so measurable by us. This is worse than my original offering! Perhaps what puzzles me is whether C is just a constant or fixed too, yes there's a formula dealing with related speeds but does it relate to energies. I may have put this above but has C ever been measured using a different timeframe such as a Pulsar. This has been done to find the position of the Earth in respect of gravity.

siarad · Aug 28, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />1) it isn't the same energy to go from 5 to 10mph as it is from 10 to 15 mph. The difference is negligible (at those speeds) but there is one. <hr /></blockquote> You're taking my analogy too literally. I was trying to say if I'm at a constant speed then adding a speed, which is then constant & adding a similar speed this seems the same to me in all instances as my refence frame has moved. Thereby internally accelerating would allow me to reach my c which may be greater than say yours. If this isn't so then there must be some ultimate reference frame surely

toothferry · Sep 5, 2004

from a speeding objects vantage point, in outter space, it will always require an identical amount of energy to accelerate an attitional 5mph, or any given amount for that matter. from an observers point of view, however, the closer the speeding object is to achieving "c", the slower it will appear to accelerate (each time the speeding object registers that it has accelerated by an additional 5mph- or any given amount). For example, intially the speeding object will register that it has accelerated by 5mph, and the observer will register the same amount. Later on as the speeding object starts to make headway closing in on "c" the observer will begin to register... "hmmm it only accelerated by 4.9mph this period of time". And then later on as the speeding object makes tremendous headway at closing in on "c" it will still be measuring by its clock "I'm still accelerating by 5mph every given unit of time.. still not slowing down yet" while at the same moment the observer will be looking at his clock going "oh no.. its acceleration is reallly starting to slow down now.. its down to 0.5mph acceleration for every given unit of time now" eventually that grows to 0.005mph and later on 0.0000000000001mph for every given unit of time while the observer sees that he is at .99 c but making ever slower dimenishing returns at furthur closing in on 100%c. All the while the speeding object is chugging along by its clock going.. "hey.. I'm unstoppable at this acceleration thing.. I'm still increasing my acceleration by 5mph (or whatever) every given unit of time. But the only problem is that light is still travelling past me at "c" speed and I haven't closed in on my target of reaching "c" speed by evenen 0.01%. That's called time dialation between the observer and the traveler, and why c is always constant. The traveler can never go c speed, or even a fraction of c according to its clock... unless it had enough ene

newtonian · Sep 5, 2004

toothFerry - A relativity correct post. However, there must have been enough energy to propel some objects faster than the present value of c - which some scientists have recently questioned as to being a constant through universal time. Unless, of course, inflation theory is wrong! If so, one needs to ask if some of our universe is beyond our visibility horizon, how did it get there? Oh, there is a hitch: what if the object was not accelerated to FTL, but space between objects simply expanded faster than light (FTL)? In that case, how does one determine the difference between actual acceleration and simple expansion of space between reference points? BTW - Catholics may believe Mass is necessary to reach c (if going to heaven involves FTL travel).

newtonian · Sep 5, 2004

ranur - Hi! Can you add some input on the spin thread - e.g. - how fast do quarks and protons spin to produce their respective magnetic effects? Does the winking in and out of particles in Quantum effects involve frames of reference? FTL? E.g. if spin reached FTL, would the particle wink out - only from our frame of reference? Or, more accurately, from our observation point? Could a particle wink back at an FTL distance - speed- compare Hawking radiation from a black hole.

Saiph · Sep 7, 2004

actually, paul, that amount of energy isn't required. Inflation theory hinges on a fun little bit of relativity: Space can expand faster than C. And it can carry things with it. Toothferry: One thing to note, the traveller is going to measure entirely different distances covered for a certain time period due to length contraction and time dilation. Distances for them are shorter and such, and the duration of events different as well (the entire universe is moving fast according to them). that's how the two points of view are reconciled. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Search

Mass doesn't prevent reaching C

siarad

Guest

toothferry

Guest

siarad

Guest

toothferry

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

toothferry

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page