SPL bullshit again

So to go as fast as light you need infinite energy? right?
When does it skip over from just requiring finite energy to infinite?

Just curious.

I'll guess never.  I don't even know the equations, but my guess (which no doubt will be clarified or corrected entirely later) is that it's a limiting situation that can't really be satisfied.

To reach c, you either need zero energy or infinite. There is no in between. See my rant here for more:
http://dis.4chan.org/read/sci/1131860867/
#27

The reason you need infinite energy is because as a massive object accelerates, it becomes MORE massive and requires more energy to push it's velocity higher. (Like time and spatial dilation/contractions, mass dilation/contraction is mostly insignificant until you start approaching c.) As an object's velocity approaches c, it's mass approaches infinity, thus you need an infinite amount of energy to attain c. This is totally regardless of how MUCH mass an object has so long as it is more than zero.

The reason photons can travel at c is because they have no mass and thus with the slightest of touches they are propelled forward at the maximum velocity allowed.

>The reason photons can travel at c is because they have no mass

Hmm.. won't hf=E=mc^2 give photons a mass of m = hf/c^2?

No, E=mc^2 only in the special case of a particle at rest, i.e. in the limit that the speed is zero. For a moving particle, E=sqrt((mc^2)^2+(pc)^2) and since momentum p=hf/c for a photon, the energy comes out to be exactly E=hf, as you said, while the mass remains zero.