It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Kama
"Increasing the speed of a rocketship, say, requires energy being released from it's engines. This energy is added to the rocket's inertia and the inertial mass of the ship increases -- it'll take more energy to slow it down than it did before"
i'm not saying this statement is false but i dont see how it is true, can you go into more detail? i dont see how it would take more energy to deccelerate than it did to accelerate
your statement below, while i dont feel that your numbers are inaccurate, i dont understand where this theory or proof of this idea comes from:
"t = to / sq.rt. of: 1 - v^2/c^2
t is the time dilation
to is the "rest time" ("normal" time, so to speak)
The closer that velocity (v) gets to c, the closer v^2/c^c equals 1, and as 1-1=0, time stops (and the body's inertial mass is infinate). Since it'd be a paradox to perform an event where time is stopped, the speed of light is unreachable."
Originally posted by Kama
THIS statement (and e=mc^2) implies that acceleration and velocity are completely independant in vacuum. but i dont see how they are, once acceleration stops, then velocity remains constant. so how can further acceleration require any more energy than prior acceleration did???
Originally posted by Kama
then if an inertial frame of reference was traveling at 0.6c and a non-zero mass passed by in the opposite direction at 0.6c it would appear to travel at 0.6c
can anyone help explain how that is possible?
so at full momentum we are traveling at least 217+30 km/s to 250+30 km/s which is definitely enough to affect our e=mc^2 because we are MUCH closer to c than if we were at absolute rest
i'm not talking warp drives or hyper space here i'm just talking about building inertia to the point of light speed. is that not possible and if so, why?
Originally posted by Kama
hold on doesnt that prove that the speed of light IS relative rather than isnt relative?
if they measured light traveling in various directions to be constant than in one of those measurements wasnt light actually traveling at least c+30,000 m/s?