On 22 Nov 2003 23:01:50 -0800, (Jean) wrote:

My Query is quite simple........


Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the velocity of light????????

Just increase the velocity by some m/s for some time to reach the C ....!

'Velocity' on its own does not exist.

'Velocity can only be defined wrt another object.

If relative velocity is measured using light, it is pretty obvious that
problems will arise near and beyond light speed. This has caused great
confusion in the physics ranks.

If relative velocity is measured using an infinite grid of synched clocks,
(simulating instantaneous communication) these problems disappear.

Thus it should be quite possible to travel to a planet 10 LY away in '5
minutes' if suitable rocket engines are available and your body can stand the
g's.

What is more, when you return, you will be only 10 minutes older.

However an observer on Earth will still be monitoring your spaceship's journey
for twenty years after you have returned.

Relativity is BULL!!!


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

"Jean" wrote in message
om...
My Query is quite simple........


Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the velocity of
light????????

Just increase the velocity by some m/s for some time to reach the C ....!
No reason, if you have enough energy you can.

For 'enough' read 'infinite'.

Martin Hogbin

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Jean" wrote in message
om...
My Query is quite simple........


Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the velocity of
light????????

Just increase the velocity by some m/s for some time to reach the C
.....!
No reason, if you have enough energy you can.

For 'enough' read 'infinite'.

Martin Hogbin
Prove it.
Androcles

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2003 23:01:50 -0800, (Jean) wrote:

My Query is quite simple........


Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the velocity of
light????????

Just increase the velocity by some m/s for some time to reach the C ....!

'Velocity' on its own does not exist.

'Velocity can only be defined wrt another object.

If relative velocity is measured using light, it is pretty obvious that
problems will arise near and beyond light speed. This has caused great
confusion in the physics ranks.

If relative velocity is measured using an infinite grid of synched clocks,
(simulating instantaneous communication) these problems disappear.

Thus it should be quite possible to travel to a planet 10 LY away in '5
minutes' if suitable rocket engines are available and your body can stand
the
g's.

What is more, when you return, you will be only 10 minutes older.

However an observer on Earth will still be monitoring your spaceship's
journey
for twenty years after you have returned.

Relativity is BULL!!!

For the outward trip, monitoring would fail when c was achieved relative to
the monitoring station, doppler shift would fall to zero. At any speed
beyond that, the light would never reach the monitoring station. As the ship
decelerated to less that c to turn around, the signal would resume. On the
return trip, the frequency at c will double. The ship will be able to read
its own signals that it outrun in the first part of the journey. Note that
this in no different to firing bullets backwards as you accelerate. When you
return they'll still be there, you'll run right into them.
Androcles

"kenseto" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...
Indeed its very simple. Look into the FAQ files for the Twin Paradoxon.
The moving twin coming back e.g. from Sirius needed only e.g. 4 years on
his
clock.
And the distance is about 8 lys. so 16ly years in 4y shiptime gives
about
avg. 4c.
But observers on earth measure that the ship has never exceeded 1c.
Its a question of where you are.

Ah....but you can't compare the ship's 4 clock years with the earth's 16
clock
years directly. Why? Because the passage of a clock year in the ship is
not
equal to the passage of a clock year on earth. To make the comparison you
must convert the ship's clock years to the earth's clcok year as follows:
Converting the ship's time to earth time=gamma*4 ship's clock
years
=16
earth's clcok years.
What this means is that a physical clock is NOT a universal clock. A clock
second does not contain the same amount of universal time (absolute time)
in all frames of reference.

Ken Seto

Yes you are right. But I don't know a universal clock.
But the original question was, if its possible to exceed c.
The gamma of 4 is no question and o.k.
The observation of the rocketeer twin after return is that he needed 4y and
his twin on earth is 16y older.
So the moving twin knows he had a passage of 16ly in 4y shiptime = 16y
earthtime.
speed in the rest frame was nearly c, speed in moving frame was about 4c.
That's all what Androcles wanted to know I think.

Rudi

"Androcles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...
Indeed its very simple. Look into the FAQ files for the Twin Paradoxon.
The moving twin coming back e.g. from Sirius needed only e.g. 4 years on
his
clock.
And the distance is about 8 lys. so 16ly years in 4y shiptime gives
about
avg. 4c.
But observers on earth measure that the ship has never exceeded 1c.
Its a question of where you are.

rgds Rudi
Nonsense.

pls give some comment on "nonsense" and explain your background to say it.
Would be simply polite to behave so.

rgds Rudi


"Jean" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om...
My Query is quite simple........


Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the velocity of
light????????

Just increase the velocity by some m/s for some time to reach the C
....!

"Androcles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2003 23:01:50 -0800, (Jean) wrote:

My Query is quite simple........


Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the velocity of
light????????

Just increase the velocity by some m/s for some time to reach the C
.....!

'Velocity' on its own does not exist.

'Velocity can only be defined wrt another object.

If relative velocity is measured using light, it is pretty obvious that
problems will arise near and beyond light speed. This has caused great
confusion in the physics ranks.

If relative velocity is measured using an infinite grid of synched
clocks,
(simulating instantaneous communication) these problems disappear.

Thus it should be quite possible to travel to a planet 10 LY away in '5
minutes' if suitable rocket engines are available and your body can
stand
the
g's.

What is more, when you return, you will be only 10 minutes older.

However an observer on Earth will still be monitoring your spaceship's
journey
for twenty years after you have returned.

Relativity is BULL!!!

For the outward trip, monitoring would fail when c was achieved relative
to
the monitoring station, doppler shift would fall to zero. At any speed
beyond that, the light would never reach the monitoring station. As the
ship
decelerated to less that c to turn around, the signal would resume. On the
return trip, the frequency at c will double. The ship will be able to read
its own signals that it outrun in the first part of the journey. Note that
this in no different to firing bullets backwards as you accelerate. When
you
return they'll still be there, you'll run right into them.
Androcles

Your last statements are not correct. You are mixing up shiptime and
earthtime.
Seen from earth the ship never exceeded c, so its not possible to run into
the own signals.
Only the moving clock has a dilated time.

Rudi

"Androcles" wrote in message ...
"Pmb" wrote in message
...

"Jean" wrote in message
om...
My Query is quite simple........


Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the velocity of
light????????

Just increase the velocity by some m/s for some time to reach the C
....!

The faster the body goes the greater its mass becomes since mass is a
function of velocity even though your rest mass remains the unchanged. As
you appoach c your mass will become infinite. That means the momentum
becomes infinite since mass is defined as the "m" in p = mv. So while v is
still finite, m becomes infinite. It would require a force greater than
infinity to accelerate to or past c. This follows from the fact that force
is the time rate of change of momentum.

See also -- http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/qu...accel_obj.html

Pmb
Nonsense.

When mass is defined as the "m" in p = mv it follows that m is a
function of speed (when the object is a normal object, i.e. it has a
finite rest mass).

When mass is not defined as the m in p = mv then "m" is not generally
meaningfull. See
http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...riant_mass.htm

Prove it.

I did. I've posted it many times before.

See http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...rtial_mass.htm

Your turn. Prove that I'm wrong. And do not claim that the definiton
is wrong since a definition can't be wrong - it's a definiton. And you
didn't say that you disagreed with the definition.

Pmb

In article ,
(HenriWilson) wrote:

'Velocity' on its own does not exist.

'Velocity can only be defined wrt another object.

True.

If relative velocity is measured using light, it is pretty obvious that
problems will arise near and beyond light speed. This has caused great
confusion in the physics ranks.

Not true. It seems to cause great confusion only among those who do not
understand physics or don't take the time to understand.

If relative velocity is measured using an infinite grid of synched clocks,
(simulating instantaneous communication) these problems disappear.

But such a grid doesn't exist. Nor is is possible even as a
hypothetical, to construct such a grid. The problem hinges on precisely
how the clocks are synched.

remainder snipped

--
To reply via email subtract one hundred nine

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...
Indeed its very simple. Look into the FAQ files for the Twin
Paradoxon.
The moving twin coming back e.g. from Sirius needed only e.g. 4 years
on
his
clock.
And the distance is about 8 lys. so 16ly years in 4y shiptime gives
about
avg. 4c.
But observers on earth measure that the ship has never exceeded 1c.
Its a question of where you are.

rgds Rudi
Nonsense.

pls give some comment on "nonsense" and explain your background to say it.
Would be simply polite to behave so.
Certainly, be glad to do so. The question posed was clearly intuitive and
based on an acceptance of the vector addiction of velocities, or, as
Einstein called it, the Principle of Relativity. In introducing his second
postulate, for which there is no experimental evidence whatsoever, the first
postulate was modified by the composition of velocities. In other words, the
second postulate is incompatible with the first. The answer you gave
involves time dilation, is confused at best, hopelessly wrong anyway, and
has no bearing on the question asked.
As to my personal background, that is irrelevant to the issue and not open
to discussion with strangers.
Androcles