How fast does a fly have to fly into a speeding locomotive to stop it?

[mountain muscle]

an article on Stephen Hawking that fits the discussions perfectly on this thread
http://www.glossynews.com/artman/publish/black_hole-250.shtml

LMAO. Good stuff.

BTW aren't some of those women on this site?

 

[chesty]

The Theory of Relativity is a THEORY, not a Law. Laws are not proven, a Theory is. The theory states that nothing that exists below the speed of light cannot go the speed of light and nothing that exists at speeds greater than the speed of light cannot go the speed of light. It does not rule out the possiblity of exceeding the light barrier.

Again, the mass of the fly while conceivably equalling or exceeding the locomotive would still not be able to transfer all of its energy to the locomotive thereby stopping it. It essentially would be a point mass equalling the mass of the locomotive or exceeding it.

 

[BrothaBill]

The Theory of Relativity is a THEORY, not a Law. Laws are not proven, a Theory is. The theory states that nothing that exists below the speed of light cannot go the speed of light and nothing that exists at speeds greater than the speed of light cannot go the speed of light. It does not rule out the possiblity of exceeding the light barrier.

Again, the mass of the fly while conceivably equalling or exceeding the locomotive would still not be able to transfer all of its energy to the locomotive thereby stopping it. It essentially would be a point mass equalling the mass of the locomotive or exceeding it.

did you hear the one about two neutrinos go through a bar?






More to the point, you arguing that atomic bombs dont exist, btw, theories are not proven, laws are, but none are exactly proven b/c there are always loopholes and there are never absolutes, except zero, which doesnt really exist given its zero, that is, unless its absolute zero, a label

and given the equation that allows for nuclear energy and nuclear bombs, the fly would not have to reach lightspeed, but, need to approach it making its mass move towards infinite, at some point, the mass equals, essentially, in this case, the twains do meet thereby cancelling out each others velocity. Its an equation with an equal sign, simply balance the equation given the accepted scientific equations/doctrine/dogma at hand

 

[samoth]

and nothing that exists at speeds greater than the speed of light cannot go the speed of light.

Glad to see someone actually got that part of it.

 

[BrothaBill]

Glad to see someone actually got that part of it.

yes samoth, but, as einstein tells us, mass and energy are interchangeable, the ability to stop a locomotive is not a measure of mass, but a measure of energy of the variable a(fly) vs variable b(twain). make a = b is the way the question is worded leaving out common sense of course. A variable a with enough energy interchangeable with its own mass can stop variable b. Its just a thermodynamic thought experiment, no?

 

[samoth]

yes samoth, but, as einstein tells us, mass and energy are interchangeable, the ability to stop a locomotive is not a measure of mass, but a measure of energy of the variable a(fly) vs variable b(twain). make a = b is the way the question is worded leaving out common sense of course. A variable a with enough energy interchangeable with its own mass can stop variable b. Its just a thermodynamic thought experiment, no?

The concept of mass alone is beyond the knowledge of most on this thread, let alone relativity theory. I was just commenting on Chesty's thorough definition inclusive of the 'other side of the coin', that's all.

 

[BrothaBill]

The concept of mass alone is beyond the knowledge of most on this thread, let alone relativity theory. I was just commenting on Chesty's thorough definition inclusive of the 'other side of the coin', that's all.

Samoth, I was looking for the great "SAMOTH SMACK DOWN", tsk, cmon mate












hoping I wasnt the recipient of it

 

[samoth]

Samoth, I was looking for the great "SAMOTH SMACK DOWN", tsk, cmon mate
hoping I wasnt the recipient of it

LOL, no offense or 'smackdown' intended, I was mostly staying out of this thread, it was going great the way it was. I was gonna leave any tech babble from my part out of it. I was just surprised to see a good definition, but then again, Chesty's had formal training.

 

[BrothaBill]

The concept of mass alone is beyond the knowledge of most on this thread, let alone relativity theory. I was just commenting on Chesty's thorough definition inclusive of the 'other side of the coin', that's all.

I know, that was quite condrumatic statement worthy of a few scratches of the head and chin, but, you are right, seems a few are still stuck with outdated Newtonian physics, which, I am just relating einsteinian physics until I get my megabolus physics published and change all of science once again. The FUTURE IS NOW!!

 

[BrothaBill]

LOL, no offense or 'smackdown' intended, I was mostly staying out of this thread, it was going great the way it was. I was gonna leave any tech babble from my part out of it. I was just surprised to see a good definition, but then again, Chesty's had formal training.

yes, its like someone arguing cardiac diseases with me, but, really, what does this mean??
" and nothing that exists at speeds greater than the speed of light cannot go the speed of light."

and nothing= 0
exists

at speeds > C

cannot = C