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