JaKiri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation is a nice article on it.

YT, you're completely misunderstanding what a 'frame of reference' is in the context of relativity. Read this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame

I don't like this attitude; whilst it is true that YT does not understand relativity too well (and this is something he admits to), to just point him at the site and expect it to deal with everything is somewhat annoying, especially given that there is NOWHERE in the site that deals with YT's problem; all the lorentz transforms are assumed, and not justified to a satisfactory level of detail (or, it appears, at alL). Furthermore, it is, in places, rather badly written (for example, "literally moving somewhat toward the past". That's extremely clunky english). YT: I will try to get you out of your hole later tonight, when I have time to construct a complete argument.

No, you buffoon; I was explaining that it didn't matter whether or not you yourself could measure your own mass increase, because it would NEVER stop your ability to accelerate. Your post implied that the mass increasing to infinity is irrelevent because there's no measured mass increase in the accelerator's original rest frame. My point here was that this was actually incorrect, as even if mass increase was irrelevent of the rest frame of the observer, the ship would still be able to accelerate. I admit this is a fairly subtle point, and it's entirely plausable for you to have missed it. The ability to do something is having the capability to do something. ANY force is able to enact an acceleration (assuming no other forces) on ANY object, no matter how small the force, or how massive the object. The fact that the acceleration can be done less well (as it were) is utterly irrelevent to my point; that acceleration may still take place. I think you misinterpreted what was incorrect. The (by coincidence) bit of my post was meant to imply that there was some technical error with the argument of your post, not that it was incorrect as a whole. The argument was incorrect (by omission), the jist of the post wasn't.

A more elegent (and less calculation intensive) way of doing it is 14*15. Similarly for other problems. This works for (x.5)^2 too; x*(x+1)+0.25

Before I say anything else, I'll say this: never, ever, do thought experiments involving anything but light (or the other massless particles) travelling at lightspeed. Many things take place (or not, as the case may be) at lightspeed that don't happen just under it. Special Relativity doesn't replace the slowing down of the receiving of signals, it acts in addition to it. Time dilation is a result of the speed of light being constant for all observers.

Just under a couple of minutes (in head).

Incorrect, actually, but only by coincidence. If there was an absolute reference frame, and you observed your mass increasing as you approached lightspeed, you could still accelerate all you want and never hit lightspeed, because your mass would approach to infinity, and therefore require infinite energy. Furthermore, I never said anything about the ability to accelerate; merely that you couldn't hit lightspeed. And finally, it doesn't matter what the ship can do; if it would require infinite energy for you to travel at that speed relative to a stationary observer, it would break energy conservation and thus must be invalid for all cases.

What? The ('best') reason you can't travel at light speed is because it would take infinite energy to reach it. This is because mass increases to infinity as light speed is approached. Special Relativity was a theory published by Einstein in 1905, building on the work of Michaelson, Moreley and others. General Relativity is to do with gravity, and was published by Einstein in 1916. There is no 'Einstein's Relativity' per se, just these two theories.

What question?

That's not a paradox at all. The symmetry is broken because one has to accelerate to get back to the other.

Put slightly more succintly, '1+1=3 for high values of 1'

It's not a coincidence, one is the justification for the other (sort of). They're both parts of special relativity, which works on the basis that the speed of light is invariant for all observers.

Everything involving some sort of angle.

All the other integral roots. You have an equation which ends in a prime. To factorise it into an (x+a)(x+b)(x+....) form, a*b*c*whatever must equal the prime. To get integral values, one of those numbers must be the prime, and the rest must be one, by the definition of a prime number. As it's fairly clear that 2 is not a factor, the solutions therefore can't be nice integrals.

XP Pro isn't 64 bit

That should have been fairly obvious, as you can see that x +- 2 can't be a factor, so you've straight ruled out all the other integrals.

If we had a referendum on, say, gay rights, and the press came out against them, then I have no doubt at all what the result would be. The majority of people are stupid, or, if not stupid, malinformed; why should these people dictate how others live their lives?

0 looks the same on its side as it does vertically (ignoring the slightly different dimensions). 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 have definite ends. If we're choosing a number, 8 is the obvious one; it is continuous, ala the symbol for ourobouros.

The first problem in this thread is that it's in 'Classical Mechanics'. Anything to do with the speed of light is anything but classical mechanics. I be movin it after I make this post. Yarr.

You appear to not know what you have said. You MEANT to say 'The human body couldn't withstand acceleration TO that speed', not 'at' As was (I thought) fairly clear in my post, I was talking about the effect on the human anatomy. You said 'going that fast could ruin the human anatomy', which is, by definition, not true (bear in mind that all velocity is relative; compared to a specific observer we could, say, be doing 9/10 c). I said that this wasn't so; acceleration has that effect, yes, but constant velocity does not. See? Obviously the g-forces would be pretty high, I wasn't arguing that part, and didn't in the first reply either. It was the juxtaposition of 'constant velocity' and 'g-forces' without any mention of acceleration which was dodgy. As I said in the other thread, it doesn't. Furthermore, it wouldn't make any difference anyway. If you measured you, you would find yourself to be exactly the same mass at 10mph as you would at 0.9c. The velocity term for change in mass is relative velocity; your mass would increase from the point of view of an observer, just as the mass of the observer would increase from your point of view. Mass (at v relative to rest frame) = Mass (at rest relative to rest frame) / SQRT (1 - v^2/c^2). This is a Lorenz Transformation, is part of Special Relativity, and is an upshot of the speed of light in a vacuum being invariant to all observers. It's tested every time anyone uses a particle accelerator, and is probably the most correct thing in all of physics. Evidently not! I'll make a more detailed reply to the O/P in a moment; I haven't actually commented on the plausability of this 'invention' yet.

Taking, as our example, the United States of America: Homosexuals. Abortion. Islam. Evolutionary Theory. Nuclear Power. Freedom of Speach. I have seen properly conducted polls that, in the US, belief or support of these things is a minority view. Your 'society' is designed around eradicating minority views and keeping the status quo.

Your mass increases. And it doesn't 'go' anywhere, it's an energy thing. Mass is not conserved.

What kind of physics have you been smoking?

It's the SIMPLEST. In no way is it the easiest.