Kryten

None of these are relevant to the planned mission. It isn't going to enter Europa orbit, never mind land there.

The planetary science decadal survey determined otherwise, but I've a feeling the fact a Jupiter mission would be inherently cheaper had a big influence on the priority selection.

That's 'precession', sorry, autocorrect got it. The planet, of course, precession is an orbital effect.

Einstein wasn't provably wrong. He had evidence as well, of course (e.g. the discrepancies in the procession of mercury), but you can't really get to the latter without going through the former.

Yawn That took about ten seconds. It shouldn't take you any longer to find a source for your 'beta rays move at C' claim.

You made the claim, that beta rays travel at C; your claim is the one that requires proof.

That won't get you velocity of a particle given it's energy. What will is the relativistic equation for Ke I gave earlier. Yes, now provide proof for this assertion.

You're the one that made a claim. You said all forms of 'radiation' travel at C; find a source that says beta rays travel at C. I'm having trouble finding one that states a specific speed (at least connected with an actual experiment) because the standard is to give particle energy, but of course that requires the equations you've arbitrarily decided are incorrect.

The speed of a beta ray varies depending on the specific decay event you're looking at.

Proof of what? That beta rays aren't EM radiation? But you've already said they're just moving electrons.

EM radiation moves at the speed of light. Beta rats are not EM radiation. That is very, very basic stuff.

That's exactly what I'm thinking here. YOU are the one saying it should not take infinite energy-in this case, show some evidence. It should be easy enough to get some mention of particles meeting or exceeding the speed of light, given the already established implications that would have.

Ever used actual logic? Yes, obviously nothing has the infinite energy that would be required, but you're saying infinite energy would not be required. You can't use points you explicitly disagree with to back your own arguments.

Beta rays are electrons from radioactive decay, artificial sources are electron beams or (archaicly) cathode rays. But you haven't actually responded to the point; if the equation is wrong, accelerating particles past the speed of light becomes trivial. Got any record of that ever happening?

Let's take one of your own posts from a few pages back; It makes some good points, just not towards the position you want it to. The accelerator mentioned can get protons to very close to the speed of light, so if you swap in an electron beam, (which after all does indeed include particles about 1/1000 the mass) it must be able to get them past the speed of light, right? Right?

This isn't even remotely relevant to the point. Reality has been shown to conform to the equation to the limits of measurement, you can't try and disprove the equation with inaccurate definitions your maths teacher gave you.

Then why have we failed to accelerate massive particles above the speed of light? After all, we've been able to hit 'nearly' the speed of light since the '40s. That's not how infinity is defined.

Yes, it was nonsense.

THERE That's the answer, finally. It would take an infinite amount of energy to bring a massive object to the speed of light.

It is if nobody has a better explanation, as was the case with maxwell's equations, but that's not really necessary here. There are plenty of tests that have been done to show relativistic effects, such as every single high-energy particle accelerator run since the 20s. Plenty of activities are sensitive enough we even have to precisely account for relativistic effects; for example it's possible to measurably render an atomic clock out of sync just by sending it on a plane journey. You can. There is a value you can multiply by zero to get a real value (in fact any real value), just not a specific one.

He in turn ultimately derived it from Maxwell's equations, but that's not really relevant here. Special relativity is accepted fact with huge amounts of evidence behind it-if you don't believe that, just try and derive your figure for the energy required to acclerate a proton a few pages back using classical kinetic energy equations. It does have a defined value. I'm just not saying what it is because I want to work out at least one thing by yourself here, however small.

I said V/C=1, because C and V are the same; that applies whatever value they have. It's not 'undefined' or zero.

C=the speed of light. V=the speed of the particles, which is the speed of light, because they are particles of light. This isn't exactly difficult stuff here.

80 million is the cost allocated to finalise the design of the europa mission. 5 billion is the total cost of manufacturing and operating the spacecraft (a figure from a previous, more ambitious study-this one should be quite a lot lower).

C=V, in this specific case, because the particle is supposedly moving at the speed of light; it's not true for all cases. If you'd prefer to use the numbers, C and V= 3X108, but, again, it makes no difference to the outcome.