It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 1
7
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:45 AM
Don’t you think it’s a fallacy for Einstein to say we can not travel faster then the speed of light and yet his equation says E=mc2
How can one posit a value of c2 when nothing can travel faster then C?

+5 more
posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:51 AM

Mind = Blown

You totally destroyed 50 years of scientific theory with a simple sentence. Someone get this man a Nobel...

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:53 AM
I can feel a maths reply coming...

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:53 AM

Since you are smart, as your avatar says, maybe you can break this down a bit more - like, what is C, for example - so our readers (remember there are ten times more readers than posters on this site) can understand your argument or supposition as much as possible. (C is the speed of light, methinks). Thanks.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:53 AM

Could you explain this to me like I am an idiot please as I am in fact pretty stupid but intruiged!

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:58 AM
Besides the fact that you can't grasp the difference between values of an equation and constants within it, Einstein's theory seems to hold true for much of our understanding of the universe, though there does seem to be problems with very specific questions, and anomalies have arisen over time.

If you think about each of our models to describe the world or greater around us, they hold practical use, until our mind is blown into a higher order of understanding. I see no reason to think we will not have our mind's blown again and again for some time yet.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:01 AM

E - energy, M - mass, C - speed of light

edit on 14-8-2015 by andre18 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:06 AM

And what is the speed of light squared? If Energy consists of mass times the speed of light squared, is that an exact number or was he off a touch? Does the equation hold up in the real world, and why would you think that energy consists of something else (if we slow it down to the speed of light less than squared it becomes Mass?).

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:09 AM

no - because :

E = M C2

and

the theoretical maximum velocity are independant of each other

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:12 AM

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.
edit on 14-8-2015 by andre18 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:15 AM
less a fallacy, more an assumption based on earthly physics and the presumption of their universality. i don't think the speed of light is impassable.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:18 AM

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

The energy required to propel even the weight of a human being, well you can work that out as you are smart, is a crazy amount. Then imagine what traveling that speed would do to us in terms of disfigurement. We would be shot through with so many holes from particles travelling at that speed, too.

Remember Einstein is only a mathematical translation. The universe does not actually perform the action of his maths. It is a theoretical model that describes it. It is the theory of relativity. That is the relativity of mass/light to energy. He just found the curious thing that energy is equal to mass X speed of light, squared. In maths you can have a billion times the speed of light. It means nothing to the fact that in the universe there has never been any other phenomenon recorded that travels as fast as light.

edit on 14-8-2015 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:21 AM
If we can't travel faster than light, then obviously, we just have to make light travel faster. It's like driving on the highway, cops can't pull you over if everyone is doing 80.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:22 AM

originally posted by: andre18
Don’t you think it’s a fallacy for Einstein to say we can not travel faster then the speed of light and yet his equation says E=mc2
How can one posit a value of c2 when nothing can travel faster then C?

That's the equation at rest and simply relates energy to mass. If you include velocity then the equation is as follows :

E = mc^2 / SQRT(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Where v is velocity and c is the speed of light. As you approach the speed of light the denominator approaches zero and energy becomes infinite. This is why you need infinite energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:28 AM

originally posted by: andre18
Don’t you think it’s a fallacy for Einstein to say we can not travel faster then the speed of light and yet his equation says E=mc2
How can one posit a value of c2 when nothing can travel faster then C?

What's the problem? "M" in E = Mc^2 is the relativistic mass, given by E^2 = p^2c^2 + (mc^2)^2, where p is the relativistic momentum: p = Mv. Einstein derived M = m/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2). When v-->c, M-->infinity, so that p-->infinity and E-->infinity. This means that no finite amount of energy can accelerate a body to the speed of light.
There is no fallacy. However, what is not widely understood is that, as physicists Ricami and Magnani showed, Einstein's Special Relativity does not forbid the existence of particles (so-called tachyons) that travel faster than light provided they have not been accelerated from rest. Such particles, however, violate causality, whereby a cause must precede its effect and have problems with quantum theory. Theories that do not have Lorentz invariance allow particles to travel faster than light without causal paradoxes. But all experiments so far have confirmed Lorentz invariance. So there is no evidence for tachyons.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:38 AM
Here’s an example of faster than light travel:

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?

I once read something similar, and it seems to make sense to me.

soulwaxer

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:45 AM
As for humans feeling speed, we don't, its the changes in speed we feel, so a slow acceleration up to the speed of light would be fine, once there, (lightspeed) no more 'feeling'

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:49 AM
C is the inverse of the square root of permittyvity and permeability of free space. So C^2 is the inverse of permittivity times permeability. Is not a simple "speed", is a maximum propagation speed (a limit) not a measured relation between time and space.
It is measured that in empty space EM waves propagate at a this speed since wave propagation is dependent on the inverse of the square of permittivity and permeability (which is the experimental value of C) and this is always assumed constant so propagation of EM waves in non-empty space is smaller because of interaction and delay of reemission and not because C changes.

In the energy-mass equivalence formula you can read E = M/ε0μ0 so you can see there is no speed involved, it's just a matter of using a symbol for a relation.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:00 AM

Because its a maths equation that uses C as the graphical representation of a number to calculate an energy requirement.

It does not suggest that C is not a constant.

That doesn't mean I disagree with the premise that FTL is possible. I think it is.

edit on 14/8/15 by neformore because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:00 AM

originally posted by: soulwaxer
Here’s an example of faster than light travel:

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?

I once read something similar, and it seems to make sense to me.

soulwaxer

No, velocity sum is not linear in relativity and you can't use accelerated frames of reference (ie spinning around).
You can't reach nor surpass the speed of light in any way if you set C constant, it would break causality. When you have 2 objects going away from each other at a constant speed of .99999C the speed that each object will measure will still be below C and they will also measure additional redshift and slowing of time.

top topics

7