speed of light

[mustkara]

I would recommend the textbook

 

Newton to Einstein: The Trail of Light

 

that will detail explain Einstein's theory of light. The book is abit difficult to understand but very useful for the study of light. Wish help.

[thedarkshade]

Well, I understood a singularity to be the point where the math breaks down usually due to divisions by zero b ut your point is taken.

Why diving by zero seems to be a problem, it just tends toward infinity

[ydoaPs]

Why diving by zero seems to be a problem, it just tends toward infinity

 

No it doesn't. [math]\lim_{x \to 0}\frac{1}{x}[/math] does not exist. Draw a graph and it is painfully obvious why.

[Mr Skeptic]

Why diving by zero seems to be a problem, it just tends toward infinity

 

Only if you can tell me whether zero is positive or negative.

[thedarkshade]

Only if you can tell me whether zero is positive or negative.

If it's up just to that, pick which one you want and see which one works better:-).

[HannonRJ]

Swans, I don't know how many people doing serious physics have used relativistic mass in the past few decades, but I'm sure it must be in the vast minority. Most textbooks today will either make no mention it or only mention it to discourage its use. Not only is it pointless and confusing, but it is wrong. The factor of gamma that somehow gets attached to mass actually comes from time dilation (See the thread about Why c in E=mc2?).

 

As a compromise, I am willing to say rest mass, as long as nobody says relativistic mass or implies that mass can be a function of speed.

 

HannonRJ: Einstein's "relativistic mass equation" was derived vi his SR transformation equations. If you want to reasd one version of that derivation, it is in section 5.13 of ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND WAVESm by Lorrain and Corson, WH Freeman and Co., NY

[Slinkey]

Why diving by zero seems to be a problem, it just tends toward infinity

 

Which infinity? There are more than one.

[Klaynos]

HannonRJ: Einstein's "relativistic mass equation" was derived vi his SR transformation equations. If you want to reasd one version of that derivation, it is in section 5.13 of ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND WAVESm by Lorrain and Corson, WH Freeman and Co., NY

 

Science moves on, in this case away from relativistic mass, to only one mass, a Lorentz invariant rest mass.

[Calabi-Yau]

We know from accelerating basic atomic particles that there comes a speed which is almost light speed beyond which they will not go and increasing their energy just makes them more massive. EMR and gravity travel at light speed and everything else slower.

 

While in theory a rocket could travel at a constant acceleration and eventually reach almost light speed (maybe in many thousands of years), it would need a planet sized fuel tank (which would of course slow it down) for such a trip.

 

We need a new type of propulsion. If you had told people 110 years ago that we could in the year 2000 cross the Atlantic in 5 hours and ask how we did it, they would imagine some kind of super sailing ship with loots of sails and never guess something like Concorde. At present, we cannot guess what will get us to the stars but it will hopefully come along in our lifetimes.

 

We do not no for sure, but we can imagine. It may seem afar of, but it may not be. Developement is not always linear when those who bring it about are of sufficient ability, of sufficient logic. Virtually all have or are capable of having this ability, as long as they have the ability to perform basic logical processes, on which they can build themselves. I believe the man who invented the hyperdermic needle was actually dislexic. Nothing is impossible if one can see-at least to some extent, but preferably to a greater- reality

[Calabi-Yau]

E = 0.5*m*v^2

 

 

 

I think talking about lightspeed traveling while we have trouble going to Mars or the moon is like talking about highways and racecars when you haven't even invented the wheel. It's fun, but it makes little sense

 

Really? So because we may not have the internal combustion engine, we should not build the jet, despite the possessing the required knowledge[and ability]? Because we have'nt travelled to the nearest island by sail, we should use that before steam?

Engineering is a matter of applying knowledge to improve the manner in which endeavours may be undertaken, not using mediocre tech because it existed first. We do not presently have FTL tech, but if we work towards it, we may achieve it.

Please see the above post

[swansont]

FTL tech is not an engineering issue.

[Slinkey]

I guess he meant sub-luminal but near light speed. I would say even that is infeasible because the background radiation will be harmful to you at appreciable fractions of c.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that with a constant acceleration you would not reach c. Hence Tom's quote.

 

FTL tech is not an engineering issue.