If I launch a tube full of water from earth or the moon or a space
station off of a rail and it gradually increases in velocity to pass
the speed of light by exponential gain...so it speeds up to the speed
of light to the 10th power-
then considering water is a non compressible fluid - hydraulics...will
the water indeed turn into energy or will it be water going really
fast?  And what will it look like when it slows down again?

---

Clarification of Question by azakai-ga on 14 Dec 2005 08:28 PST

Perhaps I am isinterpreting the equation - but my question is still
about high speed mass...

---

Request for Question Clarification by hedgie-ga on 14 Dec 2005 09:43 PST

azakai,
        would it not make sense first to read a bit about relativity 
before you start asking questions?

statements like:
 ..gradually increases in velocity to pass the speed of light..

do not make sense in the context of the current theory.

There are many pages on line, e.g. 
http://www.einstein-online.info/en/elementary/

and many books

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html

which may  provide   basis from which the theory can be explored,
in more cost-effective manner.


You may also want to look at:
http://answers.google.com/answers/pricing.html
to know what to expect for a given price.

---

Clarification of Question by azakai-ga on 22 Dec 2005 08:22 PST

I think we know deep down that we can travel at high speeds much
faster than the speed of light.  When people first thought about
increasing the speed of sound they siad impossible based on our
current theory - ask Chuck Yeager - did he turn into sound or just
make a big boom - logic tells me an object at the speed of light will
just create a large flash.  But the water tube will still be a water
tube - just moving really fast - can we adjust the current theory and
what will the experiment look like to prove this extension to
Einstein's Theory?

Azakai

Regarding your method: 
"I think we know deep down that we can travel at high speeds much
faster than the speed of light"

 This 'deep down' may work in religion, but is not a reliable
 guide in science.

  Most people who did read books I recommended above, know that concept
'faster then light' is not even well defined in current theory. Both
 up and down, deep and  shallow. 

 Most terms in science need to be defined so that the apropriate experiments
  may be performed. That - the connection to experiment - provides the meaning.

 Ultrasonic speed is and was well defined concept since Ernest Mach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach

  Speed of light (in vacuum) is also defined 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

  
 Attempts to measure very high speeds of actual objects
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spedlite.html  

 did lead to the current theory. 

In that theory(STR) the terms describing your  'deep down' feelings
 do not correspond to any experiment. 

Hedgie

---

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 24 Dec 2005 03:02 PST

Azakai,

 you are entitled to enter a request for clarification (RFC) 
 all is not clear yet.
 When all is clear, rating of an answer is appreciated.

I want to add this:

1) The analogy between the 'speed of sound' and 'speed of light' limit is
   misleading. There never was a theoretical, physics based, argument saying
   that supersonic flight is imposible.
   There were just some technical dificulties:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier

2) Questions about this limit 'c' do come often,
   and often they are based on misunderstanding of what
    STR (Relativity) is saying
    (which is why I was, and am suggesting, that you do some reading first).

   Here is one essay, which explains  the 'illusion of alchemy'  

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/hillis/hillis_p2.html
    
   and here some which explain what happens when the
  source of light (or mirror) is moving:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_143.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970102c.html

3) Nothing happens to a tub of water when we it is traveling near to c;
   Actually we, whole Earth, are travelling that fast (with respect to some
   remote objects, such as quasars):
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=56

Quasars look  strange to us (as they move so fast): 

[
http://images.google.com/images?q=quasar+images&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest
]
or 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

but then, we would look strange to possible beings living near quasars,
 if they  exist and could see us. Speed is relative and it is symetrical. 

Happy Holidays
Hedgie

---

Request for Answer Clarification by azakai-ga on 24 Dec 2005 11:24 PST

Nice hearing from you - I guess I kind of realize by definition the
relativity of What we call c is the fastest thing in the universe. 
But I do not believe current ideas from what little light data we
have.  Perhaps we could contact Qwest and ask their R & D dept some
questions as to what they currently can do...

---

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 24 Dec 2005 22:39 PST

Do you mean the phone company Qwest
http://www.qwest.com/index.html
http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Qwest
???
      The signal propagates around the Earth about 8 times in one second,
       so we have no dificulty in talking on the phone with someone on the
       other side of the Earth. Why would a phone company work on 
       superluninal comunication?


What about first reviewing experimental data we have?
Search terms: experimental basis of theory of relativity
bring quire a few of those, e.g. 
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source
tests

http://qom.physik.hu-berlin.de/research_tosr.htm

I gave you a high rating but I would have liked to seen some more
forward thinking instead of old research...

According to the theory of relativity, the mass of an object increases
without limit as it approaches the speed of light.  Therefore no
amount of energy could accelerate a mass to the speed of light, let
alone beyond it.

I guess what I am wondering is why the current theory includes alchemy
- lead does not turn to gold as far as I know so why does mass turn to
energy?

I said gradually increases in speed from calculus - so the rate of
acceleration doesn't turn you into flat molecules...

Think in the frame of reference of a closed container accelerating
below the g forces that will crush the steel tube...take it to its
limit structurally then acclerate it as fast as is universally
possible - which - why is there a limit too?  That is not just
unreasonable but against all of the test pilots and big thinkers
mindset.  YOU CAN'T GO FASTER than light in the space time continuum.
weird

While I agree that it seems weird that you can't accelerate past the
speed of light that is the current state of the art.  It is understood
that you are talking about a reasonable acceleration (eg 1G).  Yes, as
you go faster and faster your mass increases.

Azakai, I looked at one of your other questions, and I understand
where you are coming from.  After all, it would make sense that if you
give something a constant acceleration, it will eventually increase in
speed to beyond the speed of light.

However, and this is a big however, you have to separate classical, or
Newtonian Mechanics with that of Relativistic Mechanics.  The two work
entirely differently.  There are times that you use one and times you
use the others.

Before we go into specifics of light, let's discuss sound, because
there are a lot of parallels and it's easier to understand.  When a
fluid (gas or liquid) is traveling faster than the speed of sound, it
behaves entirely differently than the same fluid traveling below the
speed of sound.  The equations that describe fluid motion are
completely different.  You can see this by looking at a rocket nozzle.
 When combustion occurs, the gas speed is less than speed of sound. 
So, you decrease the nozzle area, and this speeds up the gas flow. 
Makes sense -- think of a garden hose...you put your finger over the
end and you can increase the flow speed and squirt people....but once
it reaches the speed of sound, the opposite is true.  Once that gas
reaches the speed of sound, an INCREASE in area is required for the
gas to further accelerate.  This is why you have that bell-curved
rocket nozzle shape.  First the cross-sectional area gets smaller,
then bigger.

The whole point of what I just wrote is to know that you can't have
one set of equations that define everything everywhere everytime.

Going back, this is why we have Newtonian Mechanics and Relativistic
Mechanics.  As you approach the speed of light, Newtonian Mechanics no
longer are true for most objects.  If you want to correctly define how
these objects travel, you have to switch to Relativistic Mechanics.

Going back to your rail...

You can accelerate up to some point, and you can use Newton's Laws up
to that point.  Afterwards, Newton's Laws would no longer apply.  Read
my response to your other question; you might like that answer more.

-toufaroo

>I guess what I am wondering is why the current theory includes alchemy
- lead does not turn to gold as far as I know so why does mass turn to
energy?

A better anology would be turning diamond into graphite - they may
look completely different, but they're realy the same thing in
different forms.

Ian G.

Also there is no such thing as "Non Compressable" when you get out on
the edge of "normal" space time.

On another note. If you believe that mass increases infinately and
things with more mass have more inertia then things traveling
infinately close to the speed of light have infinately high inertia
which not only keeps them moving at that speed but also causes them to
resist further changes in velocity.

A different point would be that if you ever could accelerate something
to the full speed of light it's mass would become infinate and so
would it's inertia. Your problem would then be how do you stop the
object? :)