mix-up with velocity and acceleration

[control]

Relativity's predictions about velocity (i.e. speed of light cannot be surpassed, higher speed slows time down) have all been attempted to be verified by moving things in CIRCLES. This is NOT velocity, this is acceleration.

 

The prime example is the CERN particle accelerator. I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't get such an extreme acceleration in there! The velocity is changing from -99.9% to +99.9% of the speed of light in the VERY short time that it takes to travel the diameter of the particle accelerator. This acceleration is many times higher than the acceleration required to speed something up to the speed of light in one second. It does not prove that light speed cannot be surpassed.

[insane_alien]

as the tangental velocitcy(which is a velocty realted to angular velocity) approaches c it takes more energy to speed the particle up. We also have linear accelerators which cannot accelerate anything above c. if relativity was not true then the particles from the linear accelerators would end up at well over 30c.

[control]

what linear particle accelerators? I thought they only ever made circular ones, and I also thought that the only one they tried the experiment in was the CERN circular one. (this is only because I've never heard of linear ones, not that I think they don't exist)

 

I calculated the acceleration to be about 3.33X10^12 metres per [second squared], in a constant supply.

 

I think if the velocity of light cannot be exceeded, then the only explanation would be that the maximum kinetic energy something can hold is limited. I wonder whether they took into account the speed of the Earth around the sun at about 30,000 metres per second, that would mean if they got it up tp 99.99% of the speed of light it would verify that an electron cannot go faster than light, but if they got it up to 99.999% then it would prove that an electron can go faster than light. I don't know how many 9s they had after the 99% but I heard someone describe it as "loads".

 

If they didn't take the speed of the Earth into account, and measured the speed at various places and it was constant, then that would mean that they proved the speed of light can be surpassed, rather than verified that it can't.

[swansont]

Circular accelerators have the advantage of being able to re-use the pathway multiple times to attain higher speeds. There are linear accelerators, such as SLAC (Stanford Linear ACcelerator)

 

The speed of light as a limit is a consequence of relativity and not just something noticed experimentally. This gives the advantage of being able to test relativity effects at all speeds, and finding agreement with theory, which gives added confidence that the "speed limit" is valid.

 

The speed of the earth is irrelevant to a measurement being made on the earth — you always measure with respect to the frame you are in. Someone making a measurement somewhere else would take this into account, but c would still not be exceeded.

[insane_alien]

the speed limit comes from E=mc^2 the more kinetic energy you pump in the more mass it gets. the closer to c you get the faster the mass goes up. to travel at the speed of light you would need infinite energy.