Hi all,
Thanks for the replies! Again, I agree that for the observer in a static frame of reference will never see the traveler reach c, for the reasons we've covered.
Even though the stationary observer will never see the traveler reach c, strictly from the viewpoint of the traveler...
Ah, thank you very much! The constant acceleration equating to a rocket taking an infinite amount of time to reach c was exactly what I was trying to convey in post regarding time dilation :) (Oh, to be able to express myself more clearly ;) At the least, it's good to see that reasoning hasn't...
Please bear with me as I continue with this thought experiment, and set me on the right path if I head off in the wrong direction.
The "infinite energy" requirement for an object with mass to achieve light speed does appear to stand. It does appear to have a couple of conditions, though:
-...
Again for the anonymous poster (or anyone else, for that matter), what's your opinion on my commentary about the time dilation side of things for the travels of that hypothetical vessel?
1. Only taking into account the time dilation aspect of things, is my description accurate for why an...
Thank you to whoever commented on my blog! The comment consisted of "This treats Relativistic mass as if it was a real changing thing.
Science does not treat mass that way, nor did Einstein.
Better to think of the formula needing to factor both the mass and the speed by the Gamma Factor to...
Hi Russ,
Thank you for the speedy reply.
I agree with your statement, however it doesn't appear to relate to the example provided -- when considering the equation m1=m0/(1-(v^2/c^2))^0.5 for calculating the relativistic mass, we can see that the denominator is not influenced by the masses...
Hi all,
I've been dusting off the grey matter a bit, and have a question regarding an example I found used in both high school and university physics when broaching the topic of Special Relativity.
I do tend to ramble, and so I'll point you to my blog post at...