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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.science > #23884

Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 7:50:42 PM UTC-7, Don Kuenz wrote:
> There's time enough at last for me to read my first Perry Rhoden
> story, named "Prisoner of Time." In it Rhodan's people use a device
> that speeds up their proximal clock by 72,000 times. After Rhodan's
> people speed up their proximal clock, the distal world moves so slow
> that it appears to stand still while distal objects become virtually
> immovable due to inertia. To understand why, let's take a look at a
> couple of formulas.
>     We can define inertia as the resistance of an inertial mass to a
> change of velocity. Formula 1 shows the relationship:
>          F = m*a                                                     [1]
> where F is force, m is inertial mass, and a is acceleration.
> Acceleration is defined as:
>          a = d / t^2                                                 [2]
> where d is distance and t is time. The numerator in formula 2 becomes
> larger as time t shrinks and causes the denominator to become smaller.

  Hold it right there; whose "t" are we using?

> "Prisoner of Time"

  I haven't read that so I snipped it.

>     Wells' "The New Accelerator" [3], written in 1901, may be the
> seminal story of the hypertime genre. But it fails to honor inertial
> mass increase because it allows Professor Gibberne to move a lapdog.

  That I have read.

  There should be more than one kind of hypertime. Wells' version is the result of speeding up every bodily chemical (and electrical) process to (let's say for the sake of simpler math) 1000 x its normal rate. Wells mentions that vision would be different- I suppose one would see by UV though he doesn't describe it that way.

  This means that their nerves, muscles, and so on consume energy at 1000 x the normal rate, and they'd need 1000 x the normal amount of oxygen, and would generate 1000 x the normal amount of metabolic heat. I think they'd spontaneously combust because they wouldn't be able to shed it to the air.

  Handwaving that last bit away...

  Prof. Gibberne and the author also feel warmed, and later scorched, by friction due to them plowing all of those air molecules out of their way while walking and running. OTOH, if they're moving 1000 times normal speed, air would have about the same relative density as water *to them*. I don't think they could actually move fast enough to be scorched by air.

  They should also be able to breathe air, despite the greater perceived density. I suppose they should be able to get enough oxygen if its diffusion into their alveolar walls is also 1000 x faster than normal- their muscles are capable of exerting 1000 x their normal force. A well-trained athlete can sustain ~ 1/2 hp, so the Prof. and author should be capable of exerting up to 500 hp each while accelerated. I think they could move a raindrop.

  OTOH are inertial and gravitational mass *really* identical? At 1000 x normal speed, does one feel one Earth g? If not, neglecting air friction, how far could one jump straight up?

>     Bradbury's "Frost and Frost" [4], written in 1946, also fails to
> honor inertia. In the story, exposure to radiation causes the survivors
> of a rocket crash to live out their lives in eight short days. Yet the
> survivors easily open the door of their rocket.

  I don't remember that one. Is that hypertime or just accelerated aging- is their proper time described as being different from external time? Is the landscape (or whatever) outside the ship "frozen"?

>     In television it again is "hit or miss" in regards to inertia. The
> _Outer Limits_ episode called "The Premonition" [5] honors inertia.

  Yup. Good, creepy episode.

>     But the movie "Clockstoppers" [6] fails to honor inertia. In it
> people in hypertime move distal objects with ease. The _Smallville_
> episode "Accelerate" [7] shows raindrops suspended in mid-air and slowly
> falling. It fails to honor inertia when it allows people in hypertime to
> move raindrops.
> 
> So there you have it. Inertia as the key insight to hypertime. :)

  Inertia is such a sloppy concept. I prefer to think in terms of momentum.


  Mark L. Fergerson

Back to rec.arts.sf.science | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime Don Kuenz <garbage@crcomp.net> - 2015-08-22 02:48 +0000
  Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-22 03:54 -0400
    Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime Don Kuenz <garbage@crcomp.net> - 2015-08-22 16:44 +0000
  Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime Richard Todd <rmtodd@servalan.servalan.com> - 2015-08-22 12:49 -0500
    Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-08-22 14:56 -0400
      Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime Don <g@crcomp.net> - 2021-11-23 03:30 +0000
        Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime eripe <eripe.dk@gmail.com> - 2022-01-09 20:10 -0800
    Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime Don Kuenz <garbage@crcomp.net> - 2015-08-22 20:49 +0000
      Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime Richard Todd <rmtodd@servalan.servalan.com> - 2015-08-22 17:10 -0500
    Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-22 17:07 -0500
  Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 13:50 -0700
    Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 14:06 -0700
  Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) - 2015-08-23 02:20 +0000
    Re: Inertia as the Key Insight to Hypertime Don Kuenz <garbage@crcomp.net> - 2015-08-24 01:28 +0000

csiph-web