Am 25.08.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Francois Labreque:
> Le 2015-08-25 03:09, clipka a écrit :
>> Am 25.08.2015 um 08:08 schrieb clipka:
>>
>>  As long as you don't look out the window, you can't
>> tell whether you're accelerating, or are stationary in a gravitational
>> field excerting an equivalent force. In the latter case, your mass
>> obviously does not increase over time; therefore, neither does it in the
>> former case.
>>
> 
> It depends on what you eat, and how much exercice you get.
> 
> ;-)

Dang. Too many nitpickers out here.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> Nerds.

Indeed! and you are not the only one who thinks so.
I updated Thunderbird yesterday and this thread has been deleted and ignored.
We must be getting too close to a truth that should not be discussed.

I knew that I should not have stopped off at Roswell a couple of years ago. A
marked man, I must be.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 24.08.2015 um 18:55 schrieb Stephen:
> > Ah! ha!
> > You did not spot my deliberate mistake. <blush>
> >
> >>> accelerating at a constant 1 g.
> >
> > Cannot be done. :-(
> > I forgot that as your speed increases your mass increases. So when you
> > reach 0.9c your mass is 2.29 * your rest mass and the force needed to
> > accelerate you increases as well.
> > 0.99c > 7*m
> > 0.999c > 22*m
> > 0.9999c > 70 *m
>
> That certainly depends on whether you look at it from the perspective of
> an outside observer (who will notice your acceleration decreasing, which
> to him is actually the reason why you'll never seem to reach the speed
> of light), or that of the traveler. To the latter, his mass remains
> constant, and acceleration at a constant 1g is perfectly possible.
>

Now introduce a third frame of reference.

Boggle! boggle! boggle.

> When taking on the perspective of the traveler, newtonian mechanics give
> perfectly good answers, no matter what aspect you're looking at. (Unless
> you're looking out the window.)
>

But that is the whole reason for having portholes.
To see the aberration of light.

> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html
> >
> > But your approximations are good enough for me. So you passed the crew
> > test.
> > Now I have to invent a reactionless drive using the vacuum energy.
> > Shouldn't take that long, I would think.
>
> Nasa has already conducted first tests of such drives, with promising
> results (to their own surprise). I kid you not.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster


The BBC had a report on this earlier in the year. So I believe it.

Post a reply to this message

On 26-8-2015 17:51, Stephen wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nerds.
>
> Indeed! and you are not the only one who thinks so.
> I updated Thunderbird yesterday and this thread has been deleted and ignored.
> We must be getting too close to a truth that should not be discussed.
>
> I knew that I should not have stopped off at Roswell a couple of years ago. A
> marked man, I must be.
>
>

Somehow, those things always happens to people developing means (or 
trying to) to travel to the stars...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26-8-2015 18:22, Stephen wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>> When taking on the perspective of the traveler, newtonian mechanics give
>> perfectly good answers, no matter what aspect you're looking at. (Unless
>> you're looking out the window.)
>>
>
> But that is the whole reason for having portholes.
> To see the aberration of light.
>

I seem to remember reading about simulations showing how stars would 
/creep/ towards the front of the vessel when speed approaches light 
speed. Turning blue of course. Nothing would be visible towards the 
sides or the back. Not like in Star Trek at all.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 26-8-2015 18:22, Stephen wrote:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> >> When taking on the perspective of the traveler, newtonian mechanics give
> >> perfectly good answers, no matter what aspect you're looking at. (Unless
> >> you're looking out the window.)
> >>
> >
> > But that is the whole reason for having portholes.
> > To see the aberration of light.
> >
>
> I seem to remember reading about simulations showing how stars would
> /creep/ towards the front of the vessel when speed approaches light
> speed. Turning blue of course. Nothing would be visible towards the
> sides or the back. Not like in Star Trek at all.
>

There was a relativistic patch for Ver 2.2

http://203.29.75.35/povray.unofficial.patches/thread/%3Cweb.3de6ef98c20e2bf3c571aa6c0%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=388410
&toff=300&mtop=199902

None of the links are still active. :-(

Post a reply to this message

On 27-8-2015 9:33, Stephen wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 26-8-2015 18:22, Stephen wrote:
>>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>>>> When taking on the perspective of the traveler, newtonian mechanics give
>>>> perfectly good answers, no matter what aspect you're looking at. (Unless
>>>> you're looking out the window.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> But that is the whole reason for having portholes.
>>> To see the aberration of light.
>>>
>>
>> I seem to remember reading about simulations showing how stars would
>> /creep/ towards the front of the vessel when speed approaches light
>> speed. Turning blue of course. Nothing would be visible towards the
>> sides or the back. Not like in Star Trek at all.
>>
>
> There was a relativistic patch for Ver 2.2
>
>
http://203.29.75.35/povray.unofficial.patches/thread/%3Cweb.3de6ef98c20e2bf3c571aa6c0%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=388410
> &toff=300&mtop=199902
>
> None of the links are still active. :-(
>
>

A little project for Christoph then, hmm?  ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> On 26-8-2015 17:51, Stephen wrote:
>> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nerds.
>>
>> Indeed! and you are not the only one who thinks so.
>> I updated Thunderbird yesterday and this thread has been deleted and
>> ignored.
>> We must be getting too close to a truth that should not be discussed.
>>
>> I knew that I should not have stopped off at Roswell a couple of years
>> ago. A
>> marked man, I must be.
>>
>>
>
> Somehow, those things always happens to people developing means (or
> trying to) to travel to the stars...
>
Trust no one.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:53:17 +0200, Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg>  
wrote:

> On 26-8-2015 17:51, Stephen wrote:
>> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nerds.
>>
>> Indeed! and you are not the only one who thinks so.
>> I updated Thunderbird yesterday and this thread has been deleted and  
>> ignored.
>> We must be getting too close to a truth that should not be discussed.
>>
>> I knew that I should not have stopped off at Roswell a couple of years  
>> ago. A
>> marked man, I must be.
>>
>>
>
> Somehow, those things always happens to people developing means (or  
> trying to) to travel to the stars...
>

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/1zsyz2/on_july_1954_a_man_arrives_at_tokyo_airport_in/

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Cannot be done. :-(
> I forgot that as your speed increases your mass increases.

Your speed increases relative to what?

You are always at rest relative to yourself. Your mass doesn't increase
from your own perspective, no matter what something else measures your
speed to be. (From your own perspective it's that external observer's
mass that's increasing, not yours.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message