Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Thus Einstein, was wrong, about the energy needed to reach light speed.Let's take one of your own posts from a few pages back;Sure?200 Mw for protons to near light speed. 1 atomic mass. 1 thousandth of that, and it's clear what would be needed.Want a source?http://home.web.cern.ch/about/engineering/powering-cernIt 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 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.Reality? What is this reality? Reality is all about perception. We could be seeing things wrong (as is said, one should not trust the eyes too much)Math teacher? Okay, you sir, are being illogical, and unpractical, and have strayed from the point of the thread. Once again, your strange behavior leads me to believe you lack the necessary skills to even GRASP the BASICS.And, Einstein, whom you claim to be right, was kicked out of school. Your scrutiny of someone with a better understanding of how everything we KNOW came FROM THIS ONE LITTLE CORNER. So, Einstein could be wrong. It could be a distortion between us in those images. So, please silence your posts on this topic.And BTW, try NOT to scrutinize everything you hear/read. It goes bad with character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 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?Umm, Beta rays?Ever hear of em?Electron in wave form?Electrons have mass, right?So, what has INFINITE energy (according to you) to get that electron to the speed of light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Umm, Beta rays?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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I continue to be amazed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 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?Ever care to read edits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I continue to be amazed.I continue to despise Kryten, for being a heavy critic of EVERYTHING. Save the things he has bias for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Ever care to read edits?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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 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.It's called "according to you, what would have this infinite energy to accelerate the electron? Nothing, because you can't."That ALONE should be enough, but no...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 It's called "according to you, what would have this infinite energy to accelerate the electron? Nothing, because you can't."That ALONE should be enough, but no......He said you need infinite energy to accelerate a electron to light speed, not any speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 That ALONE should be enough, but no......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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 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.Well, I like to use something called logic.By using this new and amazing thing, we can determine that:1. atoms don't have infinite energy2. Radiation moves at light speed3. According to Einstein, it's impossible to accelerate ANYTHING with MASS to light speed4. But Electrons, HAVE MASS5. Electron "beta" rays are emitted by decaying atoms6. *tragic music in background*Conclusion:Einstein, has to be wrong.BTW, you NEVER gave ME a single source. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDarkStar Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Undefined?Zero.Same as the others.Zero times zero is zero.Thus Einstein, was wrong, about the energy needed to reach light speed.Let me point out something: What happens as you approach a value of zero in the denominator?First, the variables: m = rest mass, c = speed of light, v = velocity, and Ek is the energy of the At 0.99c, you get sqrt(1 - (0.992/12)= sqrt(1 - 0.9801)= sqrt(0.0199)Divide the top (which is mc2) by this, subtract the mc2. term to the side, and you get 49.251mc2.Repeat this for 0.999, 0.9999, and 0.99999c. You get 499.25mc2, 4999.25mc2, and 49999.25 respectivelymc2. Thus, as the velocity increases, the energy approaches infinity. What do you not see? Edited February 8, 2014 by TheDarkStar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 W2. Radiation moves at light speedEM radiation moves at the speed of light. Beta rats are not EM radiation. That is very, very basic stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Let me point out something: What happens as you approach a value of zero in the denominator?First, the variables: m = rest mass, c = speed of light, v = velocity, and Ek is the energy of the At 0.99c, you get sqrt(1 - (0.992/12)= sqrt(1 - 0.9801)= sqrt(0.0199)Divide the top (which is mc2) by this and you get 50.251mc2.Repeat this for 0.999, 0.9999, and 0.99999c. You get 500.25mc2, 5000.25mc2, and 50000.25 respectivelymc2. Thus, as the velocity increases, the energy approaches infinity. What do you not see?what I DO KNOW is that infinity is overrated, as it is nonexistent. Zero is bigger than this "infinity" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewas Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Well, I like to use something called logic.4. But Electrons, HAVE MASS5. Electron "beta" rays are emitted by decaying atomsbeta rays do not travel at light speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 EM radiation moves at the speed of light. Beta rats are not EM radiation. That is very, very basic stuff.Proof? Where IS IT? YOU always ASK ME for PROOF. Yet you don't need ANY? I will not give you anything, till proof, CREDIBLE proof, is given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 beta rays do not travel at light speed.Got proof? Have you measured the speed of a free-flying electron? NO? Then be quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDarkStar Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 what I DO KNOW is that infinity is overrated, as it is nonexistent. Zero is bigger than this "infinity"What are you saying? If you mean that it doesn't matter about the bottom if the top is zero, well, that's what you get for photons and other massless particles that move at the speed of light. If not, please clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Proof? Where IS IT? YOU always ASK ME for PROOF. Yet you don't need ANY? I will not give you anything, till proof, CREDIBLE proof, is givenProof of what? That beta rays aren't EM radiation? But you've already said they're just moving electrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 What are you saying? If you mean that it doesn't matter about the bottom if the top is zero, well, that's what you get for photons and other massless particles that move at the speed of light. If not, please clarify.I mean that infinity doesn't exist. Zero is the sum of all numbers. Even the "so-called" infinities, infinity+-infinity = zero. OH NO.Proof of what? That beta rays aren't EM radiation? But you've already said they're just moving electrons.Proof of what is known as "the speed" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Proof of what is known as "the speed"The speed of a beta ray varies depending on the specific decay event you're looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Proof of what is known as "the speed"What is "the speed"? The speed of light or the speed of the electrons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 What is "the speed"? The speed of light or the speed of the electrons?It's called "context"I think you should look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The speed of a beta ray varies depending on the specific decay event you're looking at.Max speed, then? and still have a distinct lack of proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts