Changes

If you want to take issue with the mass-energy relation, you should turn your attention to the stress-energy tensor <i>T_μν</i> in the Einstein field equations. That's where the prediction is made that mass and energy are related on a fundamental level. If you want to argue that point, argue it there, not in the unit conversion equation, which doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

If you want to take issue with the mass-energy relation, you should turn your attention to the stress-energy tensor <i>T_μν</i> in the Einstein field equations. That's where the prediction is made that mass and energy are related on a fundamental level. If you want to argue that point, argue it there, not in the unit conversion equation, which doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Finally (and I'm only stopping here because I don't want to be ridiculously verbose), it's not ''exactly'' correct to say that relativity "[claims] that v can never, ever be faster than c." That's ''sort of'' true, if you squint, but it's not exactly right. What special relativity ''predicts'' — not ''claims'' — is that if you start with any object the speed of which is less than the speed of light — say, me, sitting here — and you ''accelerate'' that object, then its velocity as measured in any reference frame will never reach the speed of light, no matter how ''hard'' you accelerate it nor for how long. That's a more accurate way to describe the prediction. In fact, from a purely abstract mathematical standpoint, the equations of special relativity kind of say the ''opposite'' of what you said. Because it's an equally valid mathematical solution to say that objects can exist which move ''faster'' than the speed of light, but that when they are ''negatively'' accelerated (i.e., decelerated) their speed will never be so ''slow'' as the speed of light. These types of masses are called "tachyons."

Finally (and I'm only stopping here because I don't want to be ridiculously verbose), it's not ''exactly'' correct to say that relativity "[claims] that v can never, ever be faster than c." That's ''sort of'' true, if you squint, but it's not exactly right. What special relativity ''predicts'' — not ''claims'' — is that if you start with any object the speed of which is less than the speed of light — say, me, sitting here — and you ''accelerate'' that object, then its velocity as measured in any reference frame will never reach the speed of light, no matter how ''hard'' you accelerate it nor for how long. That's a more accurate way to describe the prediction. In fact, from a purely abstract mathematical standpoint, the equations of special relativity kind of say the ''opposite'' of what you said. Because it's an equally valid mathematical solution to say that objects can exist which move ''faster'' than the speed of light, but that when they are ''negatively'' accelerated (i.e., decelerated) their speed will never be so ''slow'' as the speed of light. These types of masses are called "tachyons."

Of course, there are some serious mathematical problems with tachyons as a solution to the equations of special relativity. It's true that the math works, but it's also true to say that if I have three apples and you take away five I have negative-two apples. A mathematically correct statement, but one that doesn't have meaning in the real world, since you can't ''physically'' take away more than I have; "negative-two apples" doesn't have a real-world meaning, and tachyons might also not have a real-world meaning. Special relativity doesn't say they ''do'' exist, or that they ''must'' exist, merely that ''may'' exist without contradicting the theory.

Of course, there are some serious mathematical problems with tachyons as a solution to the equations of special relativity. It's true that the math works, but it's also true to say that if I have three apples and you take away five I have negative-two apples. A mathematically correct statement, but one that doesn't have meaning in the real world, since you can't ''physically'' take away more than I have; "negative-two apples" doesn't have a real-world meaning, and tachyons might also not have a real-world meaning. Special relativity doesn't say they ''do'' exist, or that they ''must'' exist, merely that ''may'' exist without contradicting the theory.

I do apologize for writing at such length, but reading the exchange between Aschlafly and Rschlafly made me deeply sad. You two argued with such vehemence over points of misunderstanding that are really very simple. The coincidence in your names, and the possibility that you might be kin, just made it all the more sad to me. Perhaps it makes me a busybody, but seeing two people in conflict over such a trivial set of misunderstandings made me want to help. I hope you take my comments in that spirit. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 13:00, 11 November 2009 (EST)

I do apologize for writing at such length, but reading the exchange between Aschlafly and Rschlafly made me deeply sad. You two argued with such vehemence over points of misunderstanding that are really very simple. The coincidence in your names, and the possibility that you might be kin, just made it all the more sad to me. Perhaps it makes me a busybody, but seeing two people in conflict over such a trivial set of misunderstandings made me want to help. I hope you take my comments in that spirit. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 13:00, 11 November 2009 (EST)