Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed

jonathan cyriax brast wrote:
Spaceman schrieb:
jonathan cyriax brast wrote:
Spaceman schrieb:
jonathan cyriax brast wrote:
Mass does not gain mass with speed,
I disagree.
It seems like more mass, because velocities don't sum up linear.
It only seems like more mass,
It is more energy.
Like a baseball when it is thrown.
The mass remains the same the energy it has increases
only.
E=mc^2 is telling certain enlightened people energy equals mass.
More energy can be the same as more mass.

Correct,
and unless you have infinite energy you are not going
to make infinite mass and of course the same for the reverse.
You need an infinite to make an infinite.

That is right, and that is why we can't possible fly with lightspeed.

No,
lightspeed is not infinite.
Where do you get that lightspeed is infinite?
It must be from that unitless 1 you keep playing with
even though it is actually not unitless.
Are you ever going to answer..
How is that 1 just allowed to be unitless without proper
reason nor logic?
1 What?


The energy it gains is a direct consequence
of the energy you give it.
But you can't decide the energy distribution.
Sure you can
Why couldn't you?
Because energy distribution is decided by the velocity.

Again correct.
So you would need an infinite velocity to ever get
infinite energy for such velocity or you would need
infinite energy to ever produce an infinite speed.

No, you just need lightspeed (explanation below (can you find it?))

Sorry, that still proves nothing since lightspeed is finite
and v = c would not cause m to get larger since
m is a constant once figured.


Again,
The only way you get infinites is with infinites.

and 1-1 in infinite small and 1/(1-1) is 1/0 is infinite big.

1 What?
and you really accept anything that has a 1/0 as good math
at all?

You have 1 nothing in your proof so far.
That is equal to nothing still.



If you have a finite number, no infinite numbers occur
with any equation that models reality.

Yes Infinity is a border you can't cross like lightspeed.

No,
lightspeed is not a border.
It is a speed that i very hard and maybe impossible for
humans to reach but has never been proven,
It has been proven that e/m waves and radiofrequencies
can not move mass to lightspeed, but nothign more
than that has been "proven".
and it of course has nothing to do with infinite anything.


Oh I see,
You have been fooled by the supposed unitless 1 bull***.
Go ahead.. say it..
1 is for the speed of light.

299792458m/s is the speed of light.
1 is only the proportion of the lighspeed to the lightspeed.

Sorry,
You just failed
You can not place a proportion to a proportion
and just call it unitless by doing such.
1 can not = 299792458m/s
You can not use a dimensional units as unitless.
You still don't really know how the math works
I see.
You don't see the trick played on you with the 1
that is not really unitless.


Yes, and that is not unitless so get it the freak out of the
dang math.
It is a joke to science.

More like magic.
The magic in math is adding nothing and having something one times.
So I do the magical operations "+0" and "*1" and gain something.

No the magic is how you have been fooled by a unitless 1.
Even though it can not be unitless.
:)


And the kinetic energy is not 9992238.08J but 9992238.81945J.

The Kinetic energy it can produce does
but the mass remains the same.
You need more force to accelerate the same object.
The same kinetic energy has less effect.
You need force and energy.
neither make the mass increase.
You only need more force or energy.
Still not infinite energy since the mass always remains
the same.
Well there is no such thing like Mass Conservation.

Wrong.
You just violated the conservation of mass
and the conservation of energy.

Why should there be a conservation of mass.
That against Heisenberg.

The same reason there is a conservation of energy.
mass is a form of energy, energy is a form of mass.
I thought you said you understood classical physics?
Now I am having different thoughts about that again.
You seem to have removed some of it and replaced
it with your unitless religion instead.



You're in mechanics like Newton, but even Newton is more complex.

Either mechanics..
no matter what you do with the silly math you are using.
No infinites are produced from finites.
1/(1-1)
You would need an equation with an infinite built in
to do such.
Or you would need infinite energy or infinite speed to
"create" your silly ass infinite mass.

Just the energy.

You don't need infinite energy to produce lightspeed.
photons do it all the time.
No infinities needed at all.
photons als ohave mass or do you think all that
momentum is massless?
Can you show me a massless momentum equation?

If you think finites produce infinites, It is religion
on your side.

It's like a 1/0 thing.

Yes,
Total bull***
1 nothing for proof.


It's 1/y and y gets smaller.
So 1/y gets bigger.
If v would be c than y would be 0.

No,
that only occurs when you use that silly unitless 1
for something that it not truly unitless.

But you can't divide by zero

No duh,
so why do you think a division by 0 would be proof
for anything


If you try to get close to division by zero you will get close to
infinity. And you have to divide by 0 if you gain lightspeed
This is why you can not accelerate to lightspeed.
And if you could, the energy you need would be infinite.

Why can't you understand all that bologna is because
you have been fooled by the unitless "almighty and powerful"
number 1?


You have been tricked by the magic of self limiting math.
Do you know how to limit a closing speed?
you use a transform and in it is that silly 1 pretending
to be unitless.

you can not transform it to only 1 but to one VU (Velocity Unit)
you can just move the unit not let it vanish.

1 Vu?
That is a variable.
Now you have a unitless 1 that is actually a variable
that is based upon a constant.
Sheesh
You truly have been brainwashed well.
I feel sorry for you on that case.
As I said.
You can break such brainwashing by simply learning
how a clock works and starting to use classical physics
with absolute time and absolute distances again.
It is only easy if you try though.


Basic math and knowing the trick of the self limiting math
may increase yours..
I am way beyond your ability simply because I know
"how the math works" not just how to do it.
:)

I can see even beyond math.

Actually you can see beyond basic math but the mth you see
is incorrect.
Such as
u+v = wrong answer according to your religion.
and it should be
(u+v) (1+(u*v)/c^2)
But of course that would mean you really have
(wrong answer)(1 + (u*v)/c^2)
So you somehow get a correct answer wit wrong answer
inside it?
That is wonderful proof that basic math is wrong and basic
math proves it.
Nice religion you got going there.
You really should revert to classical physics and test that
"beyond math" a bit more than you have.


E=mc^2 is a rare simplified equation only when nothing is moving.

Correct,
You need to add the KE when it moves as I said.
:)

Unless either E or (c) is infinite.. m will not be such.

m will not be infinite if you:
1. are a normal mass and slower than light. (Normal Matter)
2. are without mass and exactly as fast as light.(Photons/Light)
3. are a imaginary mass and faster than light. (Tachyons/not known)

No,
the mass is a constant.
It does not increase with speed.
The energy increases with the speed.
Again,
You have lost your classical physics all over again.
That religion is really messing you up.



I am sorry the teacher never showed you that a transform is
used to self limit the math.

I am sorry the teacher never showed you that correct transformations
don't affect the validity of a equation.

I am sorry the teacher never showed you transforms are a simple
trick used to limit numbers.


It is a great little trick.
You can even limit a turtle to turtle speed by using turtle
speed as the c in a transform.

It has mass even when it doesn't move.

The mass is constant moving or not.

I am also sorry you were fooled into thinking the (1) is
unitless.

1 is unitless, tell me the unit of one instead.

186,000 miles per second.
miles and second are both in that 1.
Why do you allow them to just "go poof" for no
physical reasoning?


What is the 1 jonathan cyriax brast?
1 what?
:)

the 1 is c/c

c = 186,000 miles per second
c/c = 1 unitless conversion factor?
Sorry, that does not cut the cheese enough and
yet cuts it so much it smells real bad.
How do you get rid of the miles and the second
by just deviding them?
What physical reason can you just devide the
speed of light for anyways?
That is amazing you fell for that math trick.
:)

it's like c/c-v/c

Yup total bull***.
unitless bull*** magically created from non unitless
speeds.
Nice trick. but way too many have fallen for it.


and for the unitless c is 299792458m/s
but a second is a piece of the time dimension
an a meter is a piece of the room dimensions
and if you know that you c itself is unitless.
for 1 second in time is exactly 299792458m long
therefor c equals 1
but this makes only sense if you know velocity is just the angle of a
curve in 4 dimensions.

You poor poor man,
You have taken an abstract and made it real and mixed it
up with other dimensions that are seperate.
You really need to learn how clocks work,
I also suggest learning the history of time.
Time is a human construct.
It is nothing more than a ratio of motion created by humans.
apparently you never learned that.
I do feel sorry for all that brainwashing you recieved from
the religious relativity cult.
As I said.
Learn how a clock works for once and maybe you can
save yourself from learning about the clock gods death
before it finally reaches the masses of science and leaves
you in the dust far behind in rubber ruler land and abstract
religion world.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman



.

Quantcast