I recently studied the data which claims to be evidence of the need for an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a body to the speed of light. This consisted of accelerating particles at different energy levels and then graphing the resultant speeds attained by the accelerated particles. The resulting graph clearly showed the claimed result. However, this experiment was premised on the equipment which is doing the accelerating remaining at rest in the original reference frame. In some systems the means of acceleration remain in the frame of reference of the accelerated object. A rocket is a good example of such a system, and I cannot see why relativity precludes a rocket from reaching c with respect to its initial reference frame. For example, say an object of initial mass m1 is able to convert this mass to energy and then use this energy so that it accelerates until it reaches the speed of light relative to its initial framework. The kinetic energy needed to do this is infinite when viewed from the initial frame of reference, but when viewed from the frame of the mass itself there would appear to be little difference in energy needed for each increment of speed. As the energy for acceleration is coming from the mass itself and is not delivered from the original reference frame, then it would appear only to need a maximum of 0.5*m1*c^2 to reach the speed of light. The energy stored in the object initially is m1*c^2 so it only takes half the available energy to reach the required speed. Another twist here is that one would only need to reach 0.5c in each mass as two such experiments could be set up, with each mass moving towards each other, giving a closing speed of c. Given that it is widely accepted that attaining such a speed is not possible, can someone please tell me what is wrong with this argument.