Thread: why is it not possible to go at the speed of light?

The thing is, if you speed up, your inertion mass gets bigger, meaning that it's harder to accelerate or de-accelerate. When you go at c (the speed of light), your inertion mass is infinity, meaning that you would need an infinite force to move on. Such a force doesn't exist.

I'll post a little more explanation, just gotta read some stuff first

EDIT: One of the relativity principles is that light moves with c, measured against all other things. No matter how hard you go, light always move with c from your view. Also, when you move closer to c, time goes slower and slower. (It's the principle of time-dillatation) When you start to move with c, all time stops.

I recommend reading Einstein for dummies

how can it be infinity, if the inertion mass depends on the speed at which you travel at, then it csnt be infinity, because c has a value, (which is approx 3 x 10 ^8 m/s)

My question to that is, isn't everything weightless in space?

how does a spaceship increase in inertion mass?

Is it proven that the faster an object travels in SPACE the heavier it gets?

I want proof, not theories.

it is physically possible to go the speed of light (bending time), but for humans to possess that kind of control would require them to create an explosion probably somewhere the size of the Big Bang.

It is possible.

Originally Posted by guerilla

My question to that is, isn't everything weightless in space?

how does a spaceship increase in inertion mass?

Is it proven that the faster an object travels in SPACE the heavier it gets?

I want proof, not theories.

Mass and weight are two separate things.

As something begins moving faster it don't get heavier, it gets more massive.

Weight is only a measure of gravity's pull on a certain object in an area. Mass is a (universal?) constant.

Mass vs. Weight

Originally Posted by Elis D.

Mass and weight are two separate things.

As something begins moving faster it don't get heavier, it gets more massive.

Weight is only a measure of gravity's pull on a certain object in an area.

exactly as i was about to say.

Originally Posted by dylanshmai

it is physically possible to go the speed of light (bending time), but for humans to possess that kind of control would require them to create an explosion probably somewhere the size of the Big Bang.

oh i thought that when people said something like, e.g. my physics techer - "its just not possible" and i kept saying, but if you were to get to that speed... and she would just say "its just not possible". i thought she meant its not physicly possible, not unhumanly possible. i understand now.

Originally Posted by slash112

oh i thought that when people said something like, e.g. my physics techer - "its just not possible" and i kept saying, but if you were to get to that speed... and she would just say "its just not possible". i thought she meant its not physicly possible, not unhumanly possible. i understand now.

Trying to reach the speed of light is like trying to touch an asymptote. You can get infinitely close but not there.

It's actually a lot more simple then everybody here is saying: the speed of light is always the same. No matter how fast you travel, light will always travel at 300,000,000 metres per second.

This single rather bizzare idea leads to the whole of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, which has some very strange consequences, including the fact that one can increase the rate at which time flows, and that mass is a form of energy.

At the start of the century, most people thought there was an 'aether', which was like a continuous substance in which every object in the universe had a specific location. Through this aether, electromagnetic waves (light) were said to be propogated.

The very famous Michelson-Morely experiment tried to prove this. Basically they measured the speed of light from the sun when we were rotating towards the sun and when we were rotating away from it. If the idea of an absolute location in space for everything was true, it should obviously be the case that when you are travelling towards the light it should pass you faster than when you are travelling away from it.

However the experiment gave a null result: no matter how fast you travel, the speed of light does not change. There is only relative locations between objects; there is no absolute location.

My question to that is, isn't everything weightless in space?

how does a spaceship increase in inertion mass?

Is it proven that the faster an object travels in SPACE the heavier it gets?

I want proof, not theories.

Weight is the force something experiences due to a gravitational field. The further you get from a mass such as the Earth, the weaker the field, and the less force you experience per kilo. If you get quite far from any big mass, for example outer space, you will experience negligble force.

Mass is constant. It doesn't matter if you're in space, you're still made out of the same amount of stuff.

And yes, if you go extremely fast, your mass will increase (according to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, E = m*c^2). The amount of energy you'd need to get fast enough to experience any significant effect is huge, however.

dreammaiden anwsers this is another thread.

Its not that something stopping you from reaching the speed of light, its just that however fast you go the speed of light is the same.

Originally Posted by wendylove

dreammaiden anwsers this is another thread.

Its not that something stopping you from reaching the speed of light, its just that however fast you go the speed of light is the same.

yes, the speed of light is the same however fast you go, but that doesnt really answer anything. because all i want to know if it is possible to reach the speed of light, i.e. 300,000,000 m/s.

Originally Posted by Xei

And yes, if you go extremely fast, your mass will increase (according to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, E = m*c^2). The amount of energy you'd need to get fast enough to experience any significant effect is huge, however.

Has this theory been incontrovertibly proven?


I know einstein wasnt some nut or an idiot but, to me theories just don't prove enough to me, I want to see footage or physical solid evidence, not some fancy formulas


I just want to see all of these theories proven, because if history tells us anything its that alot of things get proven wrong over time

Like the beloved the earth is the center of the universe theory, we all know that theory was bogus.


I'm not trying to disprove or claim that einstein is wrong but, im trying to stir up some questions like, is this theory even real or just another false theory?


I mean in reality, what evidence do we have that shows mass increasing at high speeds? do we have any proof that mass actually increases?

heres another question, HOW does mass increase due to speed? To me it just doesn't make sense...how can achieving speed effect the mass of an object? How can mass be added onto an object that already has a predetermined mass?

How can mass just appear out of nowhere onto an object?

Mass increasing with speed is called relativistic mass.

It has never been completely proven. And won't be proven until humanity is capable of making an object travel at a speed equal to C(speed of light). Quite a paradox, neh?

However every test with objects moving at ridiculous speeds has identified that theory as correct.

Take the LHC, for example. The atoms smashed in there essentially weigh nothing. But when they're flung around that particle accelerator at 99.9999991% of the speed of light, one of them puppies crashing into the side of the tunnel wall will have nearly the same effect as a pound of TNT(or something like that).

That wouldn't happen if the atoms' mass didn't increase exponentially with the speed. If the mass stayed the same it would just be like a microscopic bullet.

Another thing to point out is that to the object(let's say a spaceship with hyperdrive) the mass does not change at all to the passengers. It's relative. The mass of the ship only changes to the observer.

Thanks for clearing that up!

I know einstein wasnt some nut or an idiot but, to me theories just don't prove enough to me, I want to see footage or physical solid evidence, not some fancy formulas

...of course there is evidence?

Empirical evidence is the whole reason that we accept one hypothesis and reject another in science. Why would we believe Einstein's theories just because he said so?

An object moving at a velocity v has energy 1/2*m*v^2. It therefore has additional mass, as E = m*c^2.

E= m*c^2 has huge amounts of evidence. Nuclear bombs and power stations wouldn't work if this wasn't the case. Neither would the Sun.

It has never been completely proven. And won't be proven until humanity is capable of making an object travel at a speed equal to C(speed of light). Quite a paradox, neh?

Science is not about proof, science is about evidence. Proof is something confined strictly to mathematics. The velocity-mass equivalence shows an unambiguously confirmed precise mathematical relationship. We don't need to make something go at the speed of light to confirm an equation; neither is this possible, as it would require infinite energy.

heres another question, HOW does mass increase due to speed? To me it just doesn't make sense...how can achieving speed effect the mass of an object? How can mass be added onto an object that already has a predetermined mass?

It's a consequence of special relativity, which is itself a consequence of the fact that the laws of the universe will be the same regardless of your velocity.

You can't understand this because it's simply completely outside of human experience; just like the various bizarre results in quantum mechanics.

If we were organisms which frequently travelled around at the speed of light, then it would most likely be completely obvious, just like it is 'obvious' to us that the speed that time passes for us is the same speed that time passes for somebody else.

Originally Posted by Xei

An object moving at a velocity v has energy 1/2*m*v^2. It therefore has additional mass, as E = m*c^2.

how does that mean there is additional mass, because since E=1/2mv^2, and E=mc^2 then you can subtitute 1/2mv^2 for E in the equation E=mc^2.
and when you substitute that in, the mass cancels out. and it comes to 1/2v^2 = 2c^2.

it could be broken down further, but i dont hink it has any significance, but if it does, it comes to v = 24494.9 (approx)
my brain is shut down right now, so i cant figure out in my head right now if that means anything.