Einstein was wrong, E=mc2 does not prove we can not travel faster then the speed of light.

a reply to: andre18

you can't square the speed of light and give it a value when the speed of light cant go faster then itself.

What in Zod's name are you talking about?

Forget mathematics, you're not even making sense in English.

a reply to: Revolution9

It means nothing to the fact that in the universe there has never been any other phenomenon recorded that travels as fast as light.

But light travels as fast as light.

There is nothing wrong with the theory of relativity except that it is too complicated for most people to understand.

a reply to: soulwaxer

A powerful laser is mounted on an electric motor and spun around at high velocity. It is positioned at a certain angle so that the moon is in its path. The light dot which crosses the surface of the moon will travel faster than light.

No?

No.

a reply to: soulwaxer

You're talking about a stream of particles (photons) and no photon in that stream ever exceeds the speed of light as dictated by the medium even though the apparent impact point could be moving faster than C. Reflected photons also come back at C.

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: andre18

Even the OMG particle travels slightly slower than the speed of light. There is nothing faster than light we have discovered in the universe.

Well apparently there is a speed faster than that of the light.

Scientists Break Speed Of Light Barrier

Scientists have apparently broken the universe's speed limit.

For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second.

But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.

The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum.

Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances.

www.cbsnews.com...



So I guess time to say goodbye to the "absolutism" of the notion no faster than the light.

E=MC2 is a relationship. The result of C2 is not a speed.
Incredible diatribe in this thread about a comparison that was wrong from the git go.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: Aleister

That's the point, you can't square the speed of light and give it a value when the speed of light cant go faster then itself.
If light could travel faster then 299 792 458 m / s then it could be squared.

multiplying the numbers representing lights' velocity in a vacuum is not the same as exceeding light's velocity physically. relativity and other things make it extremely difficult (to be as charitable as possible) to exceed light speed. some (MOST) say it is impossible. but you have to remember it applies to relative motions and not all motions are relative though non relative motions are useless and only possible in a simplified model of the universe. it only applies to things with mass. not all things have mass. and finally it means in a system of observers and an actor. there are ways of satisfying the restriction in all related reference frames while violating the heck out of it in others. and it is possible to do get the same result as going FTL without actually going FTL as far as anyone can notice. though- even doing this has serious outstanding physics issues that may or may not ever be overcome. causality ordering protection, negative masses and energies and philosophical conundrums like if it is possible why hasn't anyone seen someone doing it; kind of a temporal fermi paradox.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Revolution9

It means nothing to the fact that in the universe there has never been any other phenomenon recorded that travels as fast as light.

But light travels as fast as light.

There is nothing wrong with the theory of relativity except that it is too complicated for most people to understand.

it really isn't it appears hard to understand because academic types are puffed up arrogant jargon slinging snobs. it can be explained in everyday language if you take the time to do it. even the math can be explained term by term along with what it is, why it is there, how it came to be. just a little bit; -a paragraph or two per term. There are a few qualified people that even have had that thought occur to them who are in a position to explain it. Woodward explains it very well. even includes the pre-Einstein developments which led to it. starting at Galileo and he only needs a chapter and a half to handle it all even with the additional history.

spacetime being curved is hogwash, it's space aka nothing so that wouldn't create gravity. I suspect dark matter is the ether and it's density causes gravity. But they are too ashamed to admit Einstein was wrong because he was built up as a genius.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Revolution9

It means nothing to the fact that in the universe there has never been any other phenomenon recorded that travels as fast as light.

But light travels as fast as light.

There is nothing wrong with the theory of relativity except that it is too complicated for most people to understand.

it really isn't it appears hard to understand because academic types are puffed up arrogant jargon slinging snobs. it can be explained in everyday language if you take the time to do it. even the math can be explained term by term along with what it is, why it is there, how it came to be. just a little bit; -a paragraph or two per term. There are a few qualified people that even have had that thought occur to them who are in a position to explain it. Woodward explains it very well. even includes the pre-Einstein developments which led to it. starting at Galileo and he only needs a chapter and a half to handle it all even with the additional history.

galiolean relativity was wrong too, he said you could be inside a boat and that frame of reference you wouldn't be able to tell the boat was on water, wrong, was he ever actually in a boat they wobble around due to waves and you definitely feel it inside the boat. I watch videos where they try to explain relativity like this and I just think, did no one else realize this is BS?