KnifeMissile

I'm sorry, saltfish. Your post is so egregiously erroneous that I must respond. Please pay attention carefully, I think you will learn something!

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.

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 Kg-m/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!

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.

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!