Why isn´t it possible to reach or exceed the Speed Of Light?

>>8546897
if you could speak english I'd probably be assed to try and explain

>>8546901
If you can't comprehend what OP is stating than I have some bad news for you; you are a brainlet.

>>8546897
From my understanding we've never seen it done so we assume it's impossible, similar to how it's "impossible" to fly by flapping your arms. Similar to all natural laws, if it looks true it is true until it's proved wrong.

>>8546897
>I have heard so many scientists saying, that it is not possible to go faster than light or as fast, because you would need more energy the higher your speed is.
That's not the reason.

James Clerk Maxwell (a.k.a. the most based physicist ever) built the most solid theory of electromagnetism, and he found that the electromagnetic field propagates like a wave at a speed [math]c[/math] which he found was extremely close (and later discovered to be equal) to the speed of light in a vacuum. The problem was he derived this speed without assuming any frame of reference.

It was first assumed the speed and Maxwell's theory only applies in the "most absolute" frame of reference which was called Ether. Michelson deduced that if Ether exists, he could measure the speed of Earth relative to it with his interferometer, but it's always been measured to be 0.

It wasn't until Einstein that we concluded that Maxwell's equation apply in all inertial frames of reference, which naturally entail dilatation of time and the impossibility of exceeding the speed of light, as the speed of a photon emitted by you in your frame of reference must be the same as its speed in Earth's frame of reference. This cannot happen if both you and Earth have the same "speed of time".

Because the momentum of all particles is given by
[eqn]p=\frac{mv}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/eqn]
Now suppose your velocity v is approaching c, your momentum goes to infinity which is impossible because that'd require infinite energy. It seems that space-time behaves in a way that, the faster you go, more energy you have to put in to accelerate, it looks like its an intrinsic property of nature to avoid massive particles reaching the speed of light.

How the fuck do you manage to write something so fucking horrible, OP?

I'll give you an advice on that instead - next time before writing a thread, open Word and pre-write it there. Take your time to edit it and cut as much useless bullshit as possible, even if it takes you an entire hour. Everyone does this, and most people who write a maxed-out post usually take about 20 to 30 minutes to write and edit it so it seems persuasive and high-quality. The best posts I write that farm the most (You)s are usually posts where I've spent at least 20 minutes editing and cutting useless or bad-sounding words to make them sound more elegant.

>>8546897
It's not impossible. Anything going FTL would have to be created FTL like a tachyon. Or just consider the correlations of entangled quantum states at space-like separated distances.

>>8546897
No, due to relativity, you wouldn't be able to attain >100% of the speed of light relative velocities, due to time dilation and lorentz contraction.
To C, A would always appear to be travelling slower than the speed of light.

>>8546897
You would have different speeds relative to the different observers because they are in different frames of reference. The speed of light is only a limit to any one frame of reference.

>>8546897
>70% + 70% = 140% > 100%
jesus christ dude, you cant just add numbers together and pretend it makes sense.
if A-> B = 70% speed of light, and B -> C is also 70%, then A -> C = (70% + 70%)/(1 + (70%*70%)) = 94% < 100%

>>8546997

This. Also, at v = c, this only converges for m going to zero.

>>8546927
This is the best answer. Michelson-Morley experiment is an absolutely fucky experiment and really shows the reason why we need relativity to describe the universe.

>>8546897
why does that pic look like a universal goatse