Pushing a particle from a collider fixed to our Earth inertial frame is not the same as having an engine on the particle..
Relativity describes phenomenon observed by different frames, does it not?
The mass of the particles in a collider does not change, the relativistic mass appears to change from the view of the accelerating magnets.
It is all predicated on how we view light, EMR, itself.
I know electromagnets well nd have aplied it, but I doubt we really understnd the phenomena of light and propagation.
I read Yeager's biography where he discusses his time at Edwards. There were those unconvinced the sound barrier was not surpacable for a number of reasons. In the 19th century soe scientists believed humans could not survive 50mph on a train.
The idea that we have it all understand existed in the 19th century, the end of science. Obvu iouly wrong. Along came QM and rekatuvity.
We can still be susceptible to it. All models are subject to change.
In electronics increasing how fast a digital signal changes increases power, other things being equal. As dt goes to 0 dV/dt goes to infinity a singularity. It s impossible to change a signal in zero time, and C represents the limit. C limits how fast your PC runs.
My quetion is you are traveling on a ship with self contained energy and engine, what is the mechanism that would increase energy demand as v/C goes to 1?
The mechanism is that the energy you add increasingly goes to increases in mass, and not increases in velocity.
And this "scientists were wrong in the past, therefore they might be wrong now" argument is horseshit. It's common enough, but it's based on abject ignorance of what science is, and what scientists are.
Science is a method by which our knowledge ratchets up over time through the identification and elimination of impossible hypotheses. It's a process of making fewer and fewer things possible, starting from the position that absolutely anything is possible, and then showing that some things are not.
The opposite is done in technology, where scientific information is applied to making previously impossible things possible - such as building a plane that can break the sound barrier.
Scentists are not only people who use the scientific method; They are also people who speculate with limited evidence or knowledge, about things they don't know much about.
When a scientist says "it might be impossible to build an aircraft that can exceed the speed of sound", he is wearing the latter hat. When he says "it is impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light", he is wearing the former.
That uneducated people can't tell the difference is not a failure of science, it's a failure of the education system - a system that is constantly and deliberately undermined by people who are terrified that their favourite nonsense might be shown to be impossible.
It's no more possible that "the scientists are wrong about the light speed barrier, just like they were with the sound barrier", than it is possible that they are wrong about the impossibility of building a perpetual motion machine.
The sound barrier was never a fundamental scientific principle; It was a mere engineering challenge. Breaking the sound barrier required no revisions or overturning of basic physics as it was then understood.
The speed of light as a limit is, like the first law of thermodynamics, fundamental. It's not possible that it might be wrong, because if it were then all of our science would have to be very obviously and seriously wrong. And it's not. We checked.
The superficial similarities between the incorrect claim that the sound barrier would never be broken, and the correct claim that the light barrier will never be broken, are a trap for the ignorant; Nobody with a grasp of what science actually is should be fooled into imagining that these claims are genuinely in the same category of plausibility.
