So... I had an epiphany...

Newton's laws of motion state F = MA. For those of you who don't know, that means that the force an object exerts, is equal to its mass, times its velocity.

Einstein's theory of relativity stats E = MC(squared)
that is, the maximum Energy that a mass can yield, is its mass, times the speed of light squared.


Look at those formulas.
If F = MA and E = MC^2,

so of an object with a mass of 900 Peta-tons, moving at 9 times the speed of light, strikes another object, also of 900 peta-tons, at 9X the speed of light, head on.
Then E = M(C9)^2. this can not happen, because nothing can move faster than the speed of light, because E = MC^2, which can only be true, if the fastest anything can travel is the speed of light.


Therefor, E = MC^2 is proven by itself.

It proves itself, and can not be contradicted because of itself. Its exactly like virtually every religion. it is not testable, or measurable, by any means.



My question is, was I wrongly informed that, the reason people believe the maximum velocity is the speed of light, is because of E = MC^2, which has no basis other than itself to say as much? its the old theory that if you are holding a gun and traveling at the speed of light, and shoot the gun towards your direction of travel, wouldn't you travel at the speed of light minus half of the balistic force, and the bullet would travel at the speed of light PLUS half that force (in velocity, via F = MA). if there is another law, that is not proven by E = MC^2, that causes this to be true, could someone please kindly point me to it. this is actually only half intended as a joke, that is the way its worded, not the actual statement itself.

-edit
To clarify, because I just noticed bad wording

E = MC^2 means that the fastest anything can travel is the speed of light.
and the fastest anything can travel is the speed of light, because E = MC^2

E = MC^2 can not be true, if something can travel faster than the speed of light, but nothing can, because E = MC^2 says so, and to even attempt to prove it wrong, is laughed out, even though F = MA.

Meaning if F = MA, lets say you have an object, with a mass of 2, moving at the speed of light. doesn't that mean that the same F, with a mass of 1, is possible if its moving at 2x the speed of light? the 2 laws equate to E = F, if A = C^2. how can this be?

Those rules are just temporary 'till we figure out how to bend space itself with our mere hands.

Newtonian physics describe the way things happen.

Einsteinian physics describe why things happen.

Einsteinian physics have supplanted Newtonian physics; high school textbooks just teach Newtonian because it's significantly easier to wrap your head around. They are not exactly compatible; they just both happen to talk about the same things.

okay, that only partially explains it.

is it actually E = MC^2 that states nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, if so, AND if not, then how is it proven. Is there another law or theory, that supports it, without being based upon it.

That is my question.

No it doesn't. It states that nothing can travel at the speed of light. And on a macroscopic scale. Actually I'm pretty sure the theory of relativity is in a state of being revised based on some interesting things happening at the subatomic scale.
They managed to put a macroscopic object into a quantum state recently. Quantum entanglement transfers information faster than the speed of light, etc.
Ramble ramble.

I got to the part about Erwin Schrodinger, and raeg-quit. His theory requires we lose the concept of object permanence, you know, 'if we can't see it, it's not there'. if his theory applied to the scale it suggests, then if I am not in view of anyone else, I do not exist, and that because I can not see you, you do not exist.

considering how much Erwin Schrodinger, and his cat are mentioned in that article...

isn't it just possible that our instruments for testing can not function fast enough to perceive an object moving faster? after all, you can't hear an object moving faster than sound, until it has passed, so you wouldn't see an object faster than light, until it is no longer at the point which you see it at. Or worse, half the light from multiple points.

TL:DR Schrodinger can eat a ♥♥♥♥, and so can his cat, he lost the object permanence that babies master before speech. he belongs in a Douglas Adams book. now if you can point me to an article that explains how or why that can happen, and not simply that 'zomg it did happen', then I will care.

I expect that nobody really knows why stuff happens like that at the subatomic scale, but the effects are well documented afaik. I have no idea how it all works and I expect that I won't ever, so I can't really give you any good explanation or reasoning. Here, have an article from Stanford on entanglement, maybe they'll explain it or something. In my opinion it's the most interesting part of quantum physics at the moment.

while interesting, I couldn't help but notice that was on philosophy, and not science. it also makes mention of the act of observing affecting things.

Its not the fact that someone sees something that affects it, but rather, a person, using the tools he has in order to observe things on the scale in which they refer, affects things, the result is the idea that if you can't observe something, you can't know what is happening. This is why I tend to ignore quantum physics. and once again, that doesn't have anything noticeable to do with my question.

the question was, can an object physically travel faster than light. Not can an object be in 2 places at once, or can an object teleport, or in that case 'teleport' via identical recreation. while very interesting and enlightening, nothing anyone has said has even seemed to be on that topic. I guess I'll never really know, because this is starting to hurt my head.

You're thinking of it too algebraically.
You could, say, put a negative mass into the equation, but that doesn't mean that it would be supported by physics.

Remember Domains and Ranges for graphing? I'm pretty sure that applies here.

Yeah, I just take on physicist's authority that things can be in two places at once, and they can exist or not exist at the same time, and leave it at that. Oh, and they can become entangled and whatever happens to one will happen to the other, no matter the distance.

I've decided knowing why is not worth the time, so long as someone understands it.

Quantum physics deals with the whole light is waves/particles/neither/both at the same time.

The key bit is that by observing the position you change the velocity, and by observing the velocity you change the position. The act of observation on quantum scales changes data irrevocably.

This is all part of a revised macro-scale Einstein-related model of physics that deals with all manner of things.

The basic reason nothing can go faster than light is because as you approach the speed of light, your mass increases infinitely.

http://www.physorg.com/news12084.html

It's pretty well documented.

And also something you can learn in sixty second's worth of Google. Contrary to your own opinions, Miles, you are not, in fact, smarter than 90 years of physicists.

E=mC^2 is for atomic power. Energy, not force.

F=MA is for physical power, thats how I think about it.

I never claimed to be smarter, what I did claim is that I considered something that, if true, would break Einsteins theory. note the if.

That does actually answer my question,

F = MA, F affects the objects perceived mass, ie Centrifugal force. and E = MC^2 relates to that, in that, the faster an object goes to the speed of light, the more massive it appears to be, once again F = MA.

There are only 2 things left that I find wrong, and even then they are minor.

A bullet fired faster than the speed of light, appearing to strike a target before it is fired. that article says it defies causality, by negating cause and effect. the cause and effect do not actually change, but rather out perception of it changes. If we could see where things are, without the need for light, we would still see the shot fired before it struck the target. Cause and effect is that they happen not that we see them happen.

The second is the notion that, just because mass increases with velocity, does not mean that the 'max velocity' is the speed of light, because that implies a maximum mass as well. while yes, physics says that any given system can only have so much mass, there are objects in space, that we can see, that defy that, in that they are both more massive and faster traveling than what our science can account for (not that I know what the actual formulas are).once again, if an object moving at just under the speed of light, can't go faster due to its mass, than an object of half its mass, could go twice as fast.... well not twice as fast, but still faster by some factor.

Regardless of any of that, this has answered my question, in that the relationship between F = MA and E = MC^2, I now understand. thank you grif, that was actually helpful.

Believe me.

You are not considering something that no one's ever though of in the last ninety years.

You just don't understand the underlying physics well enough to understand why what you're bringing up as a counterpoint, isn't.

meh, I just always interpreted that way, and noone ever corrected me on it. It only just dawned on me what it would have meant. I never even claimed that it was original idea.