I'm sorry,
saltfish. Your post is so egregiously erroneous that I
must respond. Please pay attention carefully, I think you will learn something!
Quote:
Originally posted by saltfish
Now... ...Quickly, E=Mc^2 Energy is equal to the Mass times the square of the speed of light, as Einstein theorized. As a mass begins to approach the speed of light it is converted to energy; so a mass can never really travel at the speed of light, b/c it would take so much energy to get a mass to that speed it would end up as energy itself.

Your explanation makes little sense. Please, reread it.
First of all, the famous equation E=mc^2 refers to how a mass has inherent energy in it, regardless of anything else, such as it's movement (or lack, thereof). The variable "m" refers to an object's rest mass, which is a constant. You'll note, too, that the speed of light, referred to as "c," is also a constant. Thus, the inherent energy in an object is
constant.
Now, it turns out that "m" needn't be an objects rest mass. It may be the object's relativistic mass, which will prove useful, as I will explain later...
Secondly, when you accelerate an object, you are putting energy into that object, called
kinetic energy. The object does
not "become energy," whatever that's supposed to mean. It takes energy to move an object and that energy gets converted into kinetic energy  the energy stored in the motion of an object with mass.
Thirdly, there are many different reasons why you can't accelerate a mass to
the speed of light. The easiest reason is that an object gains mass as you accelerate it, according to
the theory of Special Relativity." The faster a mass moves, the more massive it becomes. In fact, the amount of mass a speeding object has becomes
asymptoticly great around
the speed of light. So, if I may colloquially use the term, it would take an
infinate amount of energy to accelerate a mass to
the speed of light.
Quote:
If you ever want to know how much energy a moving object has do this calculation
Mass of the Object in Kilograms = M
Speed of the object = X
Energy would be equal to = M*X^2
So... Pack of cigarettes traveling at 1/2 the speed of light:
Approx 150g * 150,000,000^2 = 22500000 Kg/M/s
22500000 Kgm/sec = 295,875 Hp
So, if I did this right, you're looking at using 295,875 Horsepower to get it up to this speed, and also to MAINTAIN this speed. And that's assuming travel without resistance (in a vaccuum) and with no other gravitational effects positive or negative.

You most certainly did
not do this right! In fact, everything you have stated here is patently false. So much so that it is, actually, rather funny.
Lets assume that when you say "how much energy a moving object has," you mean it's
kinetic energy. It's the only interpretation I can think of that makes any sense.
First of all, doesn't it seem odd to you that, according to your formula, it takes a finite amount of energy to accelerate a pack of cigarettes to
the speed of light? Think about it...
Secondly, the units you gave for your "pack of cigarettes traveling at 1/2 the speed of light" example are inconsistent. Kg/M/s, no matter how you interpret it, is
not energy! The units for energy is Kg*(m^2)/(s^2). I put the brackets in there so there's absolutely no confusion and you'll note that
meters is represented by a lower case "m." Also note that mc^2 produces these units, which is consistent with the fact that it's supposed to equal energy!
Thirdly, Kg*m/s is
momentum! I'm not certain what horsepower is but I'm assuming it's
power. In case you don't know (power isn't as well known as momentum or energy),
power is defined as the
derivative of
energy with respect to
time. The units for power are Kg*(m^2)/(s^3), which is not the same as the units for momentum.
So, your equation "22500000 Kgm/sec = 295,875 Hp" makes no sense, either! You're equating one set of units with something totally different! It's like saying "two meters equals three seconds."
Fourth, your conclusion has so much wrong with it that I'm tempted to put them all in their own paragraphs but, for brevity's sake, I will try to squeeze all my points in one block, here.
You don't need a certain amount of horsepower (power) to bring an object to a certain
speed, you need a certain amount of
energy!
According to
Newton's Second Law of Motion (something preserved even in Special Relativity), you do
not need any energy (or horsepower!) to "MAINTAIN this speed" or, indeed, any speed! Furthermore, all this
is assuming we're working in a vacuum...
Finally, it just so happens that the kinetic energy of an object moving at
relativistic speeds can be determined by using
Einstein's equation E=mc^2 by finding the difference between the inherent energy of an object at rest and it's inherent energy adjusted for it's
relativistic mass, or it's mass while moving. So, if "KE" is the kinetic energy, then the formula looks like this:
KE = (mc^2)*(1/(1(v/c)^2) 1)
Order of operations apply and I left out excessive bracketing in the hopes of making the formula more clear. Because
saltfish claimed to know this formula, I just
had to correct him. No one said it was pretty!
Quote:
Relativity is a bit different...
...Think of it this way,
If you're on a schoolbus, and you are standing, holding your lunch dessert at your face, an orange per say. As you drop that orange from your face you will notice that the orange drops down to your feet, in a straight line.
Now, if the bus had a transparent side, and someone who was standing on the street saw you drop that orange they would not see it travel in a straight line they would see it drop in a curved line b/c you and the orange both have forward momentum, as the buss moved forward the orange moved down, bus moved forward orange moved down, eventuall it would have moved in a exponential curve downward (gravity accellerates).
So the moral of this story is... ...you and the orange have the same forward momentum so, to you, the orange moves in a straight line, but to the observer outside, it moves in an exponential curve. This is why you have to consider, in an experiment if your motion is RELATIVE, and what relivance?

Except for your obvious mispellings and poor diction, this paragraph is actually okay.
I'll just point out that, because gravity accelerates, the orange will have moved in a
power curve, rather than an
exponential one.
Just so you know, an
exponential curve is like 2^x, whereas a
power curve is like x^2.
Quote:
another one, real quick.
We're revolving aournd the sun, well, the sun is moving in some general direction, relative to another solar system, which is moving in relation to another galaxy, with is moving in relation to...
...and what's hard is, there is no real point in which you can say that everything is relative to... ...we may discover a point in which the big bang originated, but that is a LOOOONG story...
did I answer your question?
;)
SF

By the way, what you're trying to describe here is
Newton's First Law of Motion. It's the obvious observation that all motion can only sensibly be described relative to some observer.
Actually
no, you most certainly did
not answer
Gun's question...
Damn, I really want to go to bed but my hair is still kind of wet!