Raider

Why? You are just making stuff up.

It is including time.

No. If you *accelerate* to c, you have infinite energy but that isn't possible as far as we know.

It seems to me that uncertainty is not fundamental. Both position and momentum can be measured precisely (not at the same time of course). Our devices for measuring such properties affect the properties themselves, thus making it impossible right now to get both measurements precisely at once. However, beyond that, i've seen no evidence that the certainty of the principles breaks down in reality--only that we can not be certain today. It seems an illogical leap to assume that things we can acquire individually really do not exist because we can't get them all at once due to imperfect measuring devices.

Use 99.9999999999999999999% of c if it helps you, rather than c, in my last post.

I understand special relativity, and I know that you can't accelerate to c.

I don't doubt I word things poorly because i've learned all this stuff on my own rather than in a physics community like college. Sorry for anything that is unclear. According to us, anything accelerated to c would have infinite energy. To them, it would seem 'normal.' It seems to me that by your logic from the last post, they wouldn't really have the energy that we perceive. I think that is incorrect. Rather, that they just don't realize it is a lot because it is normal to them. Likewise with gravity seeming normal to them, but very much increased to us.

It gets harder to accelerate to c as you approach c because momentum energy acts like mass and thus it requires more energy to make each successive increase in speed. Things get infinetely heavy at c I think, so is there something changing besides momentum energy??? Would such a body still act with the gravitational force it has at rest?

Of course a photon doesn't really have mass in the traditional sense, but all energy behaves like mass in that it creates gravity as I understand it. This could very well be wrong so please do feel free to correct me (photons don't really get trapped in black holes, or there is another explanation?).

The cat is in the bag. You can't see in the bag. You don't know if the cat is dead or alive. The conclusion is that the cat is neither dead nor alive until you open the bag and check. Same with a wave, it is only a probability until observed.

It doesn't have rest mass. It has energy, so it does have mass.

That is because the effect of it is minimal, edward. Kind of like you having gravity.

I do not think this is true. Kinetic energy acts as mass, making acceleration more difficult at higher speeds (Thus the closer to c, the harder it is to get closer...). What evidence do you have that it does not act like mass with respect to gravity?

Wouldn't it be... 1 + 1 = lots of energy ((2c^2) + (pc))

The first year of school I, along with the rest of my class, was given a placement test. It basicly worked like this: the teacher calls out words and you write them down how you think they should be spelled based on sounds. I had already begun to read things on my own by this time, and understood that words were not always spelled how they sounded. We wern't suppose to know that. To the point, the correct spelling of a word was deemed incorrect on this type of testing. I never came to grips with the idea that I had to get something wrong in order to get it right. I took the test trying to spell things the REAL correct way as per books I read, as opposed to just by sound. This prevented me from being skipped any grades, so i've been left with the story i'm sure you've heard many times before. Trapped in first grade as a senior, moving along with the lowest common denominator, etc...

I like the first subtitle and second title as well.

Anyone been to one? I've just been accepted to the Misssissippi School for Math and Science.

Sigh... Otherwise, a good post.

I have a hard time seeing two black holes meeting "under" the fabric via warping of space time in 3d (+t=4d) versus 2d (+t=3d). Seems like this would either fold the universe or be different than i've seen it described (black holes falling down then pulled together "under" the fabric, thus a wormhole)

I've just always wanted to know how things work. Space has fascinated me--especially the origins of it--since four or five years old, probably because I didn't keep the religious explanations offered (goddidit). It just grew from there, and now i'm in love with science.

I would love to be in one of those chats, though i'm afraid I have little to offer.

Don't our formulas break down at singularities?

How would you measure it? Can it be done in the forseeable future?

Can we predict and measure the amount of energy that should be released when you split the atom? That could verify c as the correct variable in (e^2) = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, right?

Are you saying there is a stationary reference frame and one can only approach c relative to it? How do you find this stationary reference frame?