Originally posted by adam warlockYou and I are on the same side of this, I think. My comment to you is simply that you're right even if the object slows down for some other reason than a collision; for example, gravity might slow it down, but then the other object would shoot up to light speed due to the infinite energy transferred.
[b]nfinites do not exist. You cannot have something with infinite energy and therefore mass cannot move with the speed of light according to the Lorenz factor.
Of course the Lorenz factor might be wrong. You want to try to prove it?
Aren't you saying what I said?
Your argument ignores the experimentally verified model used by anyone wo ...[text shortened]... Lorenz factor does not exist. That does not fit in with experiment.
Please explain it.[/b]
Please explain "it"? What is "it"? The Lorenz factor?
Originally posted by wormwoodMr. E's lack of excitement means nothing. He believed Quantum Mechanics was garbage.
while googling for stuff I happened to find this einstein quote from 1948:
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energ ...[text shortened]... (1987) 739.
(oh, and I just realized I got the equation wrong, the square root...)
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow my argument disproved or neglected something. I think that on my first post I openly stated that we were discussing an impossible situation according to today's knowledge. But also said that we could have a sort of hypothetical arfumnet over it.
Please explain "it"? What is "it"? The Lorenz factor?
Originally posted by Phlabibitit could simply be a flaw of measurement.
It would be interesting if anyone heard this and could find the write up.
I believe light or particles were passed through xenon gas, and registered on the other side .0000000000000000000000003 seconds earlier than when the light was emitted.
My understanding is the light pulse traveled faster than the speed of light through the gas and actually reac ...[text shortened]... nyone hear anything similar to this? Not sure where I read it some time last year or so.
P-
what you are saying isnt that light through xenon gas traveled faster than the speed of light. i understand it as traveling into the past. which is SF.
"registered on the other side .0000000000000000000000003 seconds earlier than when the light was emitted." if it hadn't started its journey how could it have already arrived? what if it would have changed my mind .0000000000000000000000003 second before pushing the button? would it have still arrived?
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt wasn't an error in measurement. It was a measurement of a phenomena well known, Phase velocity. Phase velocity can indeed be faster than C but cannot be used to transmit information. Google it, there is lots of info on it.
it could simply be a flaw of measurement.
what you are saying isnt that light through xenon gas traveled faster than the speed of light. i understand it as traveling into the past. which is SF.
"registered on the other side .0000000000000000000000003 seconds earlier than when the light was emitted." if it hadn't started its journey how could it have ...[text shortened]... ind .0000000000000000000000003 second before pushing the button? would it have still arrived?
Originally posted by FabianFnasaccording to the einstine equation if we keep the mass constant, then energy will be directly propotional to the square of "c" the n to reach to this velocity is imposible because this amount of energy is almost impossible to obtain.
I was about to pose this question in the Posers and Puzzles Forum, but when I saw this new Forum (Thank you Russ!) I bring it here instead.
What is the highest possible velocity in normal space and with things with mass?
I say there is no highest velocity at all, what do you say?