(fwd) Where Do We Go From Here?

Close, but not quite. Einstein's _theories_ show that nothing with significant mass can travel AT C. If you look in depth at his equations, and work done by others, the graph has a symmetry line/asymptote at C, with things at greater speeds than C not able to slow down to C. So this means that slower than C is OK, faster than C is OK, velocity = C is a no-no for anything with significant mass. More recently, physics doesn't assign the term "Law" until it can be determined that it works for all (or almost all) cases. Newton's Laws were shown to have a high degree of error in high gravity environments, or when travelling close to the speed of light. It is somewhat difficult to directly test Einstein's Theories at this time, but from observations the theory seems sound.

At this time, we can only consider travel within the solar system. As far as in-solar system travel, light sails would work, but only after getting off the Earth's surface (even if using Lasers). Getting off the Earth has been the biggest problem, now if we were to develop some type of Electrodynamic Tether, getting to LEO would be simple. The Ion drive used on Deep Space 1 has an ISP of ~3100. Pretty darn good. Even better is Project Orion, a concept project thought of in the '50s and '60s. Orion had a theoretical ISP approaching 10,000. The only drawback...the concept used explosions from nuclear bombs that were dropped off the back of the ship. Not exactly something you would want to use near an inhabited, technological planet.

This is not to say that we won't find some way to other stars. It probably won't happen within my lifetime, but look at what has happened in the last century. From the time of the first human flight, we have split the atom, made destructive devices powerful enough to annihilate technological life on the planet, developed ICBMs to deploy those wepons, used those ICBMs (and their descendants) to mount several trips to orbit and the Moon (mostly because Kennedy needed some PR fodder to point the public away from the non-existant missile gap he ran on, and as a Prestige thing...beat the "commies"). We also developed the Internet to organize the developemnt of such projects (Thank you ARPA, not Gore), and stealth technology, GPS, smart bombs, etc. We have even approached the verge of quantum computers and scientists have taken particles of light, destroyed them and then resurrected copies more than a mile away.

I have learned, in my 1/4 century on this planet, not to underestimate the drive of the human spirit. I can't say for certain that we will or will not ever leave our solar system. I can only hope that we learn how to do so before we either destroy ourselves or before this planet becomes uninhabitable because of some natural phenomenon. I would expect any solution to look like something impossible to us at our current technological level, but look like child's play to our descendants. Just like Einstein's peers scoffed at the Patent officer's ideas, until they saw the light from a star bent around the Sun during a solar eclipse.

Mike Gerszewski Univ of North Dakota Space Studies Graduate Assistant NAR #80579

Reply to
Mike Gerszewski
Loading thread data ...

Sort of like the traditional equations that showed that aerodynamic pressure became infinite at exactly Mach 1...

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Yep. Nowadays the problem is that even adding and subtracting without the aid of a calculator is becoming a rare talent. Look how many cashiers and burger flippers unless the register tells them how.

Reply to
RayDunakin

It does about triple. It peaks at approx 1.05 BTW.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yes, but the math was scaring people until Yeager went and flew the X-1...

(Just like a number of the country's finest flight surgeons were convinced, on some sort of theoretical grounds, that the Mercury astronauts were gonna keel over with some kind of weird heart trouble the moment they experienced zero-G orbital flight... once they actually tried it, Gordon Cooper (for example) described the experience as "the only time I was ever actually _comfortable_ in a pressure suit"!)

So when will someone build a spacecraft with enough impulse to theoretically push it well past the speed of light, and see what _actually_ happens?

(It's been pointed out that all observation of relativistic effects has to date been performed with subatomic particles accelerated by external fields, not with self-propelled objects of tangible size...)

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Hmmm. A life goal :)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

This is incorrect.

Reply to
BB

I know it just a technicality but I disagree on one point.

it says you can not GO C IE you can not travel AT C not beyond C

if we could find a way to "skip" or "jump" past C then who knows.

pure speculation off course

also we have no idea WHY mass >

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

Perhaps Mass does *not* increase as you approach the speed of light. Perhaps only the perception of that mass, from the point of view of an observer standing still, increases. From the point of view of a traveller on a spaceship approaching C, all may remain quite normal, and it will appear to them that the rest of the universe has been distorted.

Reply to
Ann Morgan

No disagreement there, and if it were just restricted to burger flippers it wouldn't be so bad. BTW, I can still take square roots the old fashioned way (if I have a lot of time on my hands).

Reply to
jsk

Slide rule?

Tom

Reply to
Tom Binford

Wouldn't help your mass fraction any, though...

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Well, I can do it with a slide rule too, but I was thinking of synthetic division (pencil and paper method). I guess I can also do it by Newton's method, come to think of it. Penalty of being old.

Reply to
jsk

EEEEWWWW!! That's why I got a slide rule in the first place!

Tom

Reply to
Tom Binford

Infinite from whose point of view? The point of view of someone standing still or the point of view of someone on the spaceship?

Obviously it does *not* take an infinite amount of power to accelerate something to the speed of light. For instance, the event horizon of a black hole is that point at which light cannot escape, because the black hole is pulling matter in faster than the speed of light. Since matter entering a black hole is going faster than the speed of light once it passes the event horizon, and since a black hole does not have an *infinite* amount of mass or gravitation, it therefore does *not* take an *infinite* amount of energy to go that fast. Also, light is travelling at the speed of light, and light sources do not have an

*infinite* amount of energy either.

Then there is the question of inertia. A spaceship may gain mass as it accelerates, but perhaps it loses inertia, so it might take less and less fuel to accelerate each pound of mass.

Reply to
Ann Morgan

Not for geeks with slide rules!

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

By the way, if anyone is interested, here's a nice web site on the problem:

formatting link
Zooty

(I wonder how hard it would be to get a Project Daedalus to fly as an OddRoc/ FF entry? I've got a 1978 edition of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society book on it, and it's got enough for a data packet...)

Reply to
zoot

Nothing I've read suggests that matter going into a black hole accelerates faster than the speed of light, including Hawking's books and others.

tim

Reply to
Tim

But what is Dark matter? If they think they know it all, they dont. There is another energy that we dont know about and do not know how it works. Just like electromagnetic fields. Till we detect them we wont know they exist. The theorys are close. But not correct.

RDH8

Reply to
Robert DeHate

Robert,

I don't know if this is simply not the place for this discussion, or if I just don't feel like arguing it.

There's something about the way the statistics of quantum entanglement play out that has made me a bit cynical. It looks like you could send a message FTL, but when you crunch the numbers it turns out the error is exactly enough to kill any attempt to send the message.

Hawking seems to have a similar gut feeling, with his cosmic protection conjecture. He lost that bet. It seems that one can generate a naked singularity, but only under some very odd and extreme conditions that might not be possible.

I would suggest two books for you:

Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne

formatting link
and The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
formatting link
They're both easy reads, and (it's been a while since I read it) you don't have to follow the math in Thorne's book, although it's not difficult.

It will give you a feel for what's going on.

Zooty

PS: I just noticed that the signs in my local store say "10 Items or Fewer." This is great news! The economy's improving. Ph.D.s are finding jobs as checkout clerks in supermarkets.

Reply to
zoot

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.