"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"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
Not at all. I didn't ask the question you attempted to answer. If there were
any such animal as time dilation, then GPS clocks would slow down, not speed
up. They are actual evidence that your conjectures are hopelessly wrong, and
there is nothing (except the practical difficulties of constructing a
fuelling a suitable vehicle) to prevent a velocity exceeding c, except a
religious-like faith in the word of one man that got his math wrong.
Androcles

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

No reason, if you have enough energy you can.

For 'enough' read 'infinite'.

Prove it.

How much do you think is needed then?

Martin Hogbin

In message , Androcles
writes

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"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
Not at all.

[Hiyaah!]

I didn't ask the question you attempted to answer.

Well maybe you should have done.

If there were
any such animal as time dilation,

There is no time.

then GPS clocks would slow down, not speed
up.

Androcles, haven't you heard of retro rockets?

They are actual evidence that your conjectures are hopelessly wrong, and
there is nothing (except the practical difficulties of constructing a
fuelling a suitable vehicle) to prevent a velocity exceeding c, except a
religious-like faith in the word of one man that got his math wrong.
Androcles

What a c***!
--
[Hiyaah!]
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

In message , Androcles
writes

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"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
Not at all.

[Hiyaah!]

I didn't ask the question you attempted to answer.

Well maybe you should have done.

If there were
any such animal as time dilation,

There is no time.

then GPS clocks would slow down, not speed
up.

Androcles, haven't you heard of retro rockets?

They are actual evidence that your conjectures are hopelessly wrong, and
there is nothing (except the practical difficulties of constructing a
fuelling a suitable vehicle) to prevent a velocity exceeding c, except a
religious-like faith in the word of one man that got his math wrong.
Androcles

What a c***!
--
[Hiyaah!]
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

"Gauge" wrote in message
om...
"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
Quote
When mass is defined as the "m" in p = mv it follows that m is a
function of speed.
Unquote.
1) I write m(v) = p/v. That would make m() a function of v, but what is p?
If you can give me a definition of p that is both independent of m and
independent of v, I'd like to see it. I can write f(x) = x+1, but f(x) =
f.x/x is meaningless.
How do you make the argument of a function into the function? At best, I can
see that m(v) = p/v = mv/v = m, which is a constant and independent of v.
2) How does it follow?
Androcles

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

No reason, if you have enough energy you can.

For 'enough' read 'infinite'.

Prove it.

How much do you think is needed then?

Martin Hogbin
..
E = 1/2mv^2, v = c = 1, m = 1, so in the units I've chosen, 0.5.
You can convert to SI units if you wish.
Androcles

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"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.
No I'm not, Ship time and Earth time are the same.
GPS clocks run fast, not slow, and have to be corrected to Earthtime from
the ground since they were misprogrammed by relativists.


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
Prove it.
Androcles

"Bill Rowe" wrote in message
...
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.
Not true. It is relativists that do not understand physics or mathematics,
or take the time to understand. GPS clocks run fast. Period. They have to be
corrected from the ground, because they've been misprogrammed on the word of
relativists. They do not run slow, they are in orbits that follow straight
lines in curved space and therefore have inertial frames, and they do NOT
obey SR. If you were to take the time to understand, then you'd take the
time to examine the luminosity curves of stars in elliptical orbits from a
model that uses source dependency, and from that conclude that Einstein's
second postulate was valid according to Nature only to a first
approximation, and the first exactly right, because they match empirical
data.
[remainder snipped.]
Androcles

"Pmb" schreef in bericht
...

"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.

relatively speaking momentum is defined as p=M*v*gamma. if you leave out the
gamma you could still exceed speed of light.

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

"Androcles" schreef in bericht
news

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

No reason, if you have enough energy you can.

For 'enough' read 'infinite'.

Prove it.

How much do you think is needed then?

Martin Hogbin
.
E = 1/2mv^2, v = c = 1, m = 1, so in the units I've chosen, 0.5.
You can convert to SI units if you wish.
Androcles


E=1/2mv^2 is NON-relativistic. Relativistic it would be E=gamma*m*c^2. Gamma
would be
1/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) 1.

You really dont understand physics my friend

Floris