The discussion centers on the limitations of reaching the speed of light with spacecraft, emphasizing that while space lacks friction, significant challenges remain. As an object's speed increases, its relativistic mass approaches infinity, making acceleration to light speed impossible. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation illustrates that rockets are limited by their exhaust velocity, which is insufficient for achieving relativistic speeds. Additionally, even theoretical propulsion methods would require energy levels far beyond current capabilities, making near-light-speed travel unfeasible.
PREREQUISITESAerospace engineers, physicists, and anyone interested in the theoretical limits of space travel and the physics of high-speed motion.
I don't have any idea who that "we" is that you are talking about. I'm not aware of any knowledgeable physicists who says any such thing and you will not find any such members of this forum saying so. There are HUNDREDS of threads on this forum pointing out that objects do NOT gain mass in that manner, they gain energy.Neandethal00 said:. Then we turn around and say mass increases with velocity.
rootone said:Since energy and mass are equivalent in relativity, the object's greater energy can be considered as greater mass.
We do that with light because there is no "medium" required for it to propagate through - no "ether". This might not always be the case with other phenomenona.Neandethal00 said:there are 'fish scientists' in the ocean, the fish scientists formulate theories of physics to explain everything to other 'fish' totally ignoring the 'water'.
That's right. This is best demonstrated using a force 4-vector: ##F_μ = γ\frac{∂p_μ}{∂t}##. This implies that the force required to accelerate an object at a constant value tends to infinity over time (for rectilinear motion).Neandethal00 said:My thinking is it is not mass that increases, it is the inertia that increases requiring larger energy to move through space.