Infinite Energy stops us from traveling faster than the speed of light

Okay, so most people have seen Einstein's famous equation that showed us that mass is fundamentally the same thing as energy:  \( E=mc^2 \).  But, what is often ignored is the total energy of the massive object, this equation is only the energy of an object at rest, its rest energy.   You see, an object has both the potential energy stored in its mass, but also some kinetic energy when it moves.  Einstein also had an equation that represents the total energy of an object and this is given by:

\( E = \gamma mc^2 \)

or, is we write it out more fully it is given by:

E = \(mc^2 \over \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} \)

Without getting into this too much, this shows how as an object moves faster it's energy goes up and as the object approaches the speed of light, it approaches infinite speed. (Check out the plot below. Note: I took the theorist habit and set the speed of light to "1".)

Since this isn't a physical possibility, we cannot travel that fast. 

I hate the phrase 'scientific fact'

     At this point this idea isn't a full/organized thought on it's own, but it is still worth being said. I don't like the phrase 'scientific fact' because it put an emphasis on an aspect of science and manages to dismiss what the scientific process is all about.  It makes it seems as though science is all about collecting facts and putting them in a book, but science is a process in which we make subtle leaps in our human knowledge.  

     As time goes on and the collective knowledge of society grows, we begin to take these facts for granted. When our ancestors were first learning how to use tools, taking a rock and breaking over a shell to eat food, they were begging to collect 'scientific facts'. "Hit the nut with a rock, nut cracks open. " Then about 2.5 million years later we took the next step in the scientific process and made a model for these 'facts'.  The rock is hard and heavy and consequently can more easily deliver a large pressure to crack the nuts. 

    By only emphasizing the 'facts' we overlook that science is a process and a process in which asking one question can lead to many different and exciting answers.  This is why Allan Alda encourages a different approach to communicating science. "...kids get to hear different attempts at answering the same question. It’s a good way to learn. It helps them see that science isn’t a stock set of known facts: it’s a way of trying to know things."  

    It's not to say that science doesn't have 'facts', they certainly do.  But being a scientist is WAY more than knowing these facts (not to mention that every 'fact' in science comes with a set of necessary conditions for the 'fact' to be true. And those conditions are almost always ignored/glossed over.)  At the end of the day we're all just a bunch of dumb mammals trying to figure out what the hell is going on around us...and by calling them 'scientific facts' we ignore what science is really about.  It's how we learn about our surroundings and do so in an objective manner, we just happen to collect facts along the way.

Denver vs Chicago Humidity 1st Week February 2015.

Denver Average Humidity

February 1st = 83%

February 2nd = 84%

February 3rd = 64%

February 4th = 96%

February 5th = 88%

February 6th = 33%

February 7th = 34%

Week Average = ~70%

Chicago Average Humidity

February 1st = 92%

February 2nd = 85%

February 3rd = 88%

February 4th = 92%

February 5th = 85%

February 6th = 78%

February 7th = 88%

Week Average = ~87%

If you're curious, you can look at all averages, max/min values and other data at wunderground.com.   Here's Chicago and here's Denver.