Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #521259 > unrolled thread

If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn’t you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn’t you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:33 -0500
    Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn’t you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously? gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 10:48 -0500
    Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn’t you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 17:48 +0000
    Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:05 -0700
      Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 19:11 -0500
        Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 12:50 -0700
    Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:37 -0700

#521259 — If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn’t you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously?

If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn’t you 
travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating 
continuously?
> http://www.askamathematician.com/2014/05/q-if-time-slows-down-when-you-travel-at-high-speeds-then-couldnt-you-travel-across-the-galaxy-within-your-lifetime-by-just-accelerating-continuously/


> Physicist: Yup!  But sadly, this will never happen.
>
> This is a good news / really bad news situation.  On the one hand, it
> is true (for all intents and purposes) that if you travel fast
> enough, time will slow down and you’ll get to your destination is
> surprisingly little time.  The far side of the galaxy is about
> 100,000 lightyears away, so it will always take at least 100,000
> years to get there.  However, the on-board clocks run slower (from
> the perspective of anyone “sitting still” in the galaxy) so the ship
> and everything on it may experience far less than 100,000 years.
>
> First, when you read about traveling to far-off stars you’ll often
> hear about “constant acceleration drives”, which are rockets capable
> of accelerating at a comfortable 1g for years at a time (“1g” means
> that people on the rocket would feel an acceleration equivalent to
> the force of Earth’s gravity).  However!  Leaving a rocket on until
> it’s moving near the speed of light is totally infeasible.  A rocket
> capable of 1g of acceleration for years is a rocket that can hover
> just above the ground for years.  While this is definitely possible
> for a few seconds or minutes (“retro rockets“), you’ll never see
> people building bridges on rockets, or hanging out and having a
> picnic for an afternoon or three on a hovering rocket.  Spacecraft in
> general coast ballistically except for the very beginning and very
> end of their trip (excluding small corrections).  For example, the
> shuttle (before the program was shut down) could spend weeks coasting
> along in orbit, but the main rockets only fire for the first 8
> minutes or so.  And those 8 minutes are why the shuttle weighs more
> than 20 times as much on the launch pad than when it weighs when it
> lands.



> The speed of light is still a fundamental limit, so if you were on
> the ship you’ll still never see stars whipping by faster than the
> speed of light (which you might expect would be necessary to cross
> 100,000 light years in only 25 years).  But relativity is a slick
> science; length contraction and time dilation are two sides of the
> same coin.  While everyone else in the galaxy explains the remarkably
> short travel time in terms of the people on the ship moving slower
> through time, the people on the ship attribute it to the distance
> being shorter.  The stars pass by slower than light speed, but
> they’re closer together (in the direction of travel).  “Which
> explanation is right?” isn’t a useful question; if every party does
> their math right, they’ll come to the same conclusions.
>




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#521290

On 9/15/2015 8:33 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn’t you
> travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating

>> Physicist: Yup!  But sadly, this will never happen.
>>
>> This is a good news / really bad news situation.  On the one hand, it
>> is true (for all intents and purposes) that if you travel fast
>> enough, time will slow down and you’ll get to your destination is
>> surprisingly little time.  The far side of the galaxy is about
>> 100,000 lightyears away, so it will always take at least 100,000
>> years to get there.  However, the on-board clocks run slower (from
>> the perspective of anyone “sitting still” in the galaxy) so the ship
>> and everything on it may experience far less than 100,000 years.
>>
>> First, when you read about traveling to far-off stars you’ll often
>> hear about “constant acceleration drives”, which are rockets capable
>> of accelerating at a comfortable 1g for years at a time (“1g” means
>> that people on the rocket would feel an acceleration equivalent to
>> the force of Earth’s gravity).  However!  Leaving a rocket on until
>> it’s moving near the speed of light is totally infeasible.



because of the amount of MASS that has to be expended, that is your real 
limit, calculate it for extra points.



<snip rest>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521316

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn?t you 
> travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating 
> continuously?

No, spamming shit head.

You have a great fascination for puerile questions, spamming shit head.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521361 — Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously?

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 6:33:50 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you 
> travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating 
> continuously?

  More than just the galaxy. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Zero


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521385 — Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously?

On 9/15/15 5:05 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 6:33:50 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you
>> travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating
>> continuously?
>
>    More than just the galaxy. See:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Zero
>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson
>

   There is another oft overlooked problem traveling at relativistic
   speed with respect to the galaxy -- interstellar dust grains, micro-
   meteoroids and grains of sand -- you can't see them coming and they
   will vaporize your spacecraft.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521491 — Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously?

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 5:11:39 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 9/15/15 5:05 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 6:33:50 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you
> >> travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating
> >> continuously?
> >
> >    More than just the galaxy. See:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Zero
> >
> >
> >    Mark L. Fergerson
> >
> 
>    There is another oft overlooked problem traveling at relativistic
>    speed with respect to the galaxy -- interstellar dust grains, micro-
>    meteoroids and grains of sand -- you can't see them coming and they
>    will vaporize your spacecraft.
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Sam They can create hazards for LIGO .Fine molecules of dust are everywhere Even comets are deep in dust.NASA sees water when its in reality dust.  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521368 — Re: If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating continuously?

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 6:33:50 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> If time slows down when you travel at high speeds, then couldn't you 
> travel across the galaxy within your lifetime by just accelerating 
> continuously?
> > http://www.askamathematician.com/2014/05/q-if-time-slows-down-when-you-travel-at-high-speeds-then-couldnt-you-travel-across-the-galaxy-within-your-lifetime-by-just-accelerating-continuously/
> 
> 
> > Physicist: Yup!  But sadly, this will never happen.
> >
> > This is a good news / really bad news situation.  On the one hand, it
> > is true (for all intents and purposes) that if you travel fast
> > enough, time will slow down and you'll get to your destination is
> > surprisingly little time.  The far side of the galaxy is about
> > 100,000 lightyears away, so it will always take at least 100,000
> > years to get there.  However, the on-board clocks run slower (from
> > the perspective of anyone "sitting still" in the galaxy) so the ship
> > and everything on it may experience far less than 100,000 years.
> >
> > First, when you read about traveling to far-off stars you'll often
> > hear about "constant acceleration drives", which are rockets capable
> > of accelerating at a comfortable 1g for years at a time ("1g" means
> > that people on the rocket would feel an acceleration equivalent to
> > the force of Earth's gravity).  However!  Leaving a rocket on until
> > it's moving near the speed of light is totally infeasible.  A rocket
> > capable of 1g of acceleration for years is a rocket that can hover
> > just above the ground for years.  While this is definitely possible
> > for a few seconds or minutes ("retro rockets"), you'll never see
> > people building bridges on rockets, or hanging out and having a
> > picnic for an afternoon or three on a hovering rocket.  Spacecraft in
> > general coast ballistically except for the very beginning and very
> > end of their trip (excluding small corrections).  For example, the
> > shuttle (before the program was shut down) could spend weeks coasting
> > along in orbit, but the main rockets only fire for the first 8
> > minutes or so.  And those 8 minutes are why the shuttle weighs more
> > than 20 times as much on the launch pad than when it weighs when it
> > lands.
> 
> 
> 
> > The speed of light is still a fundamental limit, so if you were on
> > the ship you'll still never see stars whipping by faster than the
> > speed of light (which you might expect would be necessary to cross
> > 100,000 light years in only 25 years).  But relativity is a slick
> > science; length contraction and time dilation are two sides of the
> > same coin.  While everyone else in the galaxy explains the remarkably
> > short travel time in terms of the people on the ship moving slower
> > through time, the people on the ship attribute it to the distance
> > being shorter.  The stars pass by slower than light speed, but
> > they're closer together (in the direction of travel).  "Which
> > explanation is right?" isn't a useful question; if every party does
> > their math right, they'll come to the same conclusions.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Lots of big body problems take place once you hit 84% of c,Heart and lungs get heavy.You can;t do work.Things get more worse the closer to c.In the end acceleration kills like falling into a BH.  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web