Approaching c

[TrueHeart]

Incorrect' date=' 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.[/quote']

Let's take it one paragraph at a time. Your first paragraph I dismiss as nonsensical because it starts by saying "If there was an absolute reference frame"; and of course, there isn't.

 

Your second paragraph is illogical because F=ma, ie. a=F/m. So you cannot claim a mass increase and in the same breath assert that the "ability to accelerate" is unaffected.

 

Your third and last paragraph is completely true (but only by coincidence??). If it can be shown to be impossible from one onlooker's vantage, that suffices.

 

And... I stubbornly insist on the correctness of my original assertion (the one you quoted and claimed was incorrect). Regardless of what speed one may possess per the reckoning of some observer/onlooker, it bears no constraint whatsoever on the rocket's own propulsion abilities. That is aptly proven if you look at our own rockets: from the vantage of some very distant galaxy, Earth and NASA's rockets are already moving at near lightspeed; but that in no way affects our calculations of what fuel we'll require to accelerate and travel to the Moon!

[TrueHeart]

then you shall wait a long time, as this I have already tried to no avail. do you REALLY think I`de ask if I knew ????

Well then you have my sincere sympathies. And to prove just HOW sincere are those sympathies, I have tried to call your attention to the website explainrelativity.com, which takes a radically different tack than others have... others, who mindlessly repeat the same old tired canned verbiage, amidst endless idolatrous acclaim of the scientists' personalities!

Only to first order, and certainly not as v approaches c.

Okay, okay, alright! but as I said, let's not mucky up the waters with fruitless asides. Keep to the thread at hand.

[JaKiri]

Let's take it one paragraph at a time. Your first paragraph I dismiss as nonsensical because it starts by saying "If there was an absolute reference frame"; and of course, there isn't.

 

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.

 

Your second paragraph is illogical because F=ma, ie. a=F/m. So you cannot claim a mass increase and in the same breath assert that the "ability to accelerate" is unaffected.

 

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.

 

And... I stubbornly insist on the correctness of my original assertion (the one you quoted and claimed was incorrect).

 

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.

[JaKiri]

Well then you have my sincere sympathies. And to prove just HOW sincere are those sympathies, I have tried to call your attention to the website explainrelativity.com, which takes a radically[/b'] different tack than others have... others, who mindlessly repeat the same old tired canned verbiage, amidst endless idolatrous acclaim of the scientists' personalities!

 

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.

[YT2095]

YT: I will try to get you out of your hole later tonight, when I have time to construct a complete argument.

thanx man, anything that can shead some light on my question (excuse the pun) in a way I can understand, would be more than welcome, it`s really bugging me that you all seem to understand what apears so simple to you, and I`m kinda stuck in a "mental block" or mode of thought.

[TrueHeart]

No, you buffoon... The fact that the acceleration can be done less well[/i'] (as it were) is utterly irrelevent to my point; that acceleration may still take place.

Less well?? Less well?? that doesn't jibe with Earth's proficiency at space travel to the moon.

Regardless of what speed one may possess per the reckoning of some observer/onlooker, it bears no constraint whatsoever on the rocket's own propulsion abilities. That is aptly proven if you look at our own rockets: from the vantage of some very distant galaxy, Earth and NASA's rockets are already moving at near lightspeed; but that in no way affects our calculations of what fuel we'll require to accelerate and travel to the Moon!

But no matter. You go ahead and mentor YT, and you might BOTH end up with similar mental blocks. I won't waste another alpha wave sticking around this den of stumblebums. Good riddance. [Those who, in my absence, search for and read my accumulated 78 posts, will find a veritable treasure trove.]

[JaKiri]

[edit]

 

You know, this whole argument could have been avoided if you understood how the word 'ability' works. It's a digital thing; you either have the ability (to accelerate, in this case) or you haven't. My posts were based on the assumption that you knew the definitions of the words you were typing, although, from this post, it's clear this isn't the case. [/edit]

 

Less well?? Less well??[/size'] that doesn't jibe with Earth's proficiency at space travel to the moon.

 

Perhaps 'a lower magnitude of acceleration' would have sat more happily with you? No difference to me, the implication is the same.

 

Of course, I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly, given that 'to jibe' means 'to taunt/deride'. Perhaps, if you swing by some time in the future, you'll be able to explain to me your lowly servant.

 

But no matter. You go ahead and mentor YT, and you might BOTH end up with similar mental blocks. I won't waste another alpha wave sticking around this den of stumblebums. Good riddance. [Those who, in my absence, search for and read my accumulated 78 posts, will find a veritable treasure trove.]

 

You're an amusing fellow. Stick around for good times! The fact that you're immensely arrogant, opinionated and assuming doesn't change that!

[YT2095]

I fear you`ve done Jakari and the others a disservice with those remarks, they are indeed unwarrented! and reflect AGAIN on your numerous inabilities (

 

 

I wish you well though, Good Bye!

[swansont]

Of course, I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly, given that 'to jibe' means 'to taunt/deride'

 

It also means "To be in accord; agree"

[Ophiolite]

And then you expect a mere geologist to understand! My frame of reference is surrounded by mental blocks. I thought I heard a noise from beyond the wall - the freedom of understanding immersed in the light of knowedge was at hand. Alas it was only YT in an adjacent cell.

[JaKiri]

It also means "To be in accord; agree"

 

Didn't know that one! I'll have to add it to my vocabulary. Mr Person Who's Name I've Forgotten, I've done you a disservice!

[swansont]

Didn't know that one! I'll have to add it to my vocabulary. Mr Person Who's Name I've Forgotten, I've done you a disservice!

 

It is often used in the negative.

As in "the numbers don't jibe," meaning the numbers don't agree.

 

(It is also often mis-spoken as "to jive." )

[J.C.MacSwell]

surely then the conversion of the entire ship into Energy would be required then?

and it would have to be a VERY efficient conversion leaving even the smallest of particle(s) massless' date=' and thus rendering the excersize futile, and Jakari point Valid?[/quote']

 

I think this is basically correct if you mean in order to "get to" light speed.

 

Lightsword was correct, I think, for the local frame of reference. He could still accelerate "normally". From your reference point this "normal" acceleration would seem futile as he would be using an awful lot of energy for a miniscule acceleration. But from his point of view this miniscule acceleration and the energy expended would be business as usual.

 

Remember that he changed his reference frame as he approached light speed so that he would be unaware of any mass (whatever mass is) increase. Having changed his reference frame he is also no closer to the speed of light. So he can happily accelerate away in his local reference frame even though it's perfectly obvious to you that he's just "spinning his wheels"