Question related to Mass and the Speed of light.?
917240
You can't travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, so it's a moot point.
1097182
E = mc^2 \nOr energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. Albert Einstein's famous formula proves that mass and energy are different manifestations of the same thing, and that a very small amount of mass can be converted into a very large amount of energy. One profound implication of his discovery is that no object with mass can ever go faster than the speed of light.
287810
you are saying that light has mass???
799784
In theory, yes.  Because the light particles that were traveling slower than you would have been slower.  Very good question.  However, speeding past the speed of light would mean the fundamentals of E = Mc^2, would cease to make sense.
13401
It's true that the speed of light is constant no matter what speed at which you or the source is moving.  This is a fundamental postulate of relativity, and there is no explination.  It's just accepted because our experiments indicate that it is true.  You used the formula "lights speed + X = actual speed"  this type of velocity addition is called "Galilean".  It turns out that speeds don't actually add that way.  Far out.\n\nWhere is the rest of the energy? Good question.  The frequency of the light you observe from the sun DOES depend on how fast you and it are moving.  The energy of each photon is given by E = hf, where f is the frequency of light.
954813
Yeah, it's E=mc^2 and it relates energy and mass.  E is energy, m is mass, c is the speed of light (celeritas).  The equation could come useful in physics, like atomic physics.\n\nWhat did you wanted to know?
648126
*sighs* Why can't people do any research on their own? Anyway... you are traveling through time right now, how else did you push those keys in sequence to form your question?\n\nI think that what you are attempting to refer to (lol I'm never gonna get a best answer replying like this) Is that as you travel faster and faster, closer and closer to the speed of light, time flow for you slows down, and the misconception of the public that if you go faster than light you will reverse time. WRONG!\n\nThat's not specifically what you asked though, so I will focus on teh misconceptions regarding the speed of light. First of all, accelerating mass to the speed of light is impossible as it would require an infinite amount of energy, so your question is meaningless. Second, since your question is meaningless tehre is nothing more to say except maybe a supporting and enlightening example. Third, I do not feel creative tonight so that example is gonna have to pass tis time, unless you email me and I will explain it better.\n\ndavid_lapierre@sbcglobal.net\n\nUnless this is just a school project, which I doubt since they are going donw the drain is sciences these days... you might wanna ask me a question, I can be very helpful when I know my time is not going to be wasted on a person who won't bother to take a few minutes to learn something... :-)
160198
This is a very interesting question and most people don't understand it.\nTHE value of the speed of light  is "C" in vaccuum IRRESPECTIVE of the refernce frame. Light will travel at velocity C (relative to you) even if you are going at C. \n\nSounds crazy? This is at the fundamental of Einstien's assumption which was later proved right. Common sense is often wrong.
593336
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
1087544
The energy contained with in an object of mass "m" is equal to that mass times the speed of light, squared.\n\nOr Energy = mass X speed of light X speed of light\n\nEinstein surprised the scientific world with this equation showing the equivalence of mass and energy.  Because the speed of light is such a large number (299 792 458 m / s), much larger when it is squared (8.98755179 × 10^16 m^2/s^2), a very small amount of mass can yield a huge amount of energy.  This is why nuclear reactions are so efficient - just a small amount of fissile material can power a city (or blow it up).  \n\nIt wasn't until 37 years after Einstein first published this equation that it was shown experimentally.  On December 2, 1942, man first initiated a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, and controlled it.\n\nIn 2005, the centennial of Einstein’s great year, a team made the most accurate test yet of his equation. They measured the tiny change in mass of radioactive atoms before and after the atoms emitted gamma-rays. And they measured the energy of the rays. The missing mass times c² equalled the energy of the rays to within 4 hundred-thousandths of one percent.)
172843
force does NOT come into play here at all. the spped of light in a medium is depndant on the refractive index : C/C'= u'/u where u' is the refractive index of the medium. hence when it enters glass u increases hence speed of light dec.
687262
Light doesn't accelerate to that speed, it just propogates at that speed period.  Besides, F = ma says you need a mass to have an acceleration, and light, or photons, have zero mass.
1149311
Light does not intend to travel at the speed of light\nLight travels at a certain speed, it actually does not know its speed.\nWhen scientists measured this speed they found it 299 792 458 m / s or about 186000 miles per second \nso they make it fixed term, refereed as "the speed of light", used it in other physical equations...\nthen it "speed of light" became a famous term. \nBut Light still does not know that they called its velocity as the light speed..\nAnd I think it will not know!
323277
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/fast_light.html\n\nhave a look at this website
819378
It's a common misconception that the mass of an objects actually increases as the object approaches light speed.\n\nPeople get this from the equation M = m*(Lorentz factor) where M is the "relativistic mass" and m is the "invariant" or "rest" mass. For example, if I'm holding a 5kg rock in my hand, that's the invariant mass.\n\nAs the object is traveling, nothing is actually happening to increase it's invarient mass. Rather, it's best to interpret the equation as saying that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the object to light speed (for reasons that have to do with messy things). A loose analogy is, when you have your hand out the window in a slow moving car, it's rather easy to move your hand forward, but the faster the car goes, the more your hand feels the effects of the atmosphere and it becomes more and more difficult to move your hand forward. Your hand didn't increase in mass, but from the viewpoint of the muscles you use to move the hand forward, it seems as though it has.\n\nThe equation for time dilation: T = t*(Lorentz factor) where T is the time interval measured by the stationary observer and t is the time interval measured by the moving observer, is of the same form as the "relativistic mass" equation but this doesn't make time and mass the same. Using algebra we can arrange the equations so we get:\n\nT/t = M/m\n\nThis just means that the same characteristics govern both phenomenas and so the ratios are the same.
1186727
It is a failing of the current theories of physics that the values of the key fundamental constants - of which c is one - cannot be derived but have to be measured and inserted into the equations. In other words, no-one knows what determines the speed of light.\n\nIt is true that the permittivity and permeability of free space are related to the speed of light, but the relationship is the other way around - they are what they are because the speed of light is what it is.\n\nThere have been two sources of thoughts that the speed of light may vary over time. One is theoretical, because it may help the sums work better when describing the early universe (i.e. moment after the big bang).\n\nThe other is experimental, and is controversial as it has not been independently confirmed (see link). This involves looking at light from galaxies so far away the light took billions of years to reach us - ie we are looking back to the early universe. But the measurements show a change in the fine structure constant, and not c directly, so there could be other sources of the discrepancies if the measurements are correct.
34913
It is not possible for any particle that has mass to travel faster than the speed of light. The reason has a lot to do with relativity. Because the faster you go, the slower time passes for you. So if you are at 80% of the speed of light, and launch a projectile in front of you at light speed, because of your slow passage through time, it will still appear to you to travel at light. Everything is relative, and because of that, certain constants like the speed of light never change.\n\nAlso, a particle with mass would achieve infinite weight at light speed. Since you can't obviously exceed infinite weight, you can't exceed light.\n\nThe ideas behind things like "warp speed" don't propose actually traveling faster than light. What they propose is taking shortcuts through space, kind of like skipping a stone across the surface of the water. Even "warp speed" is subject to the laws of relativity.