|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 1:34 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 4:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 8:14 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 9:26 pm
|
|
|
|
dboyzero So, the closest choice on the horizon would be sub-light speed travel (very, very much sub-light speed) with cryogenic freezing of the crew. I've actually heard some very interesting things concerning the need for cryogenic freezing and near-light-speed travel / general relativity. Something along the line of a trip seeming long for an observer on earth taking nowhere near as much time for the traveler if they're going a significant fraction of the speed of light. It has to do with time dilation, time the traveling individual experiences being much slower than a still observer, all part of the requirement that from all frames of reference light must be observed as traveling at the speed of light at a maximum.
To illustrate, you have points A and B and O (observer) and T (traveler). Light takes one year to travel from A to B and vice versa. T and O are on A and T leaves A heading towards B at half the speed of light.
To O, it takes T two years to complete the trip, I think. That's pretty simple... maybe too simple (Might be other things such as T appearing to be pretty long during the trip, though.)
T is heading towards B, so if time was passing normally for T the light coming from B would look like it's traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light, which is too fast hence T must be experiencing slower time. (That's what general relativity posited; universal speed limit is the speed of light, so in this reference time and/or distance have to change.)
The general relativity math really is escaping me right now, but it's almost easy to see that for T either the observered distance has to be shorter (since what light traveled in a period of time would seem to be going faster than the speed of light if the distance didn't appear shrunk) or when one second has passed for O the same light that T observered must have traveled 1.5 times the observered distance hence T experienced only 2/3rds a second in the same time. (Wait... was that it? Hey, it could be, possibly meaning T sees its trip as taking only 16 months instead of O's 24 months... hmmm...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 11:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 1:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:21 am
|
|
|
|
Einstein once proposed that as we approach the speed of light, mass increases. At the speed of light, mass is INFINITE. Tell me, how is it physically possible to propel an infinite mass, AND maintain light speed?
F=ma, if mass is infinite, force is infinite. That means the engine has to produce infinite force to propel an infinite mass. Not possible.
So, what do we do? I believe that there is a way of travelling at the speed of light without actually going that fast.
This will require actually "bending" the fabric of space and time. Just like on a sheet of paper, the fastest way between two points will be to fold the paper together and go past the space between the two points. To do so will be to actually break the fabric of space, go into an alternate dimension, and appear on the other side(worm holes). In the real world, however, it will seem like you have travelled great distances within a short time.
v=s/t
I believe that the whole idea of "breaking" the fabric of space will require us to generate a strong gravitational field. One theory of the black hole is that the great compact mass at its centre actually breaks the fabric of space, leading to an alternate dimension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 4:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:11 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 9:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:15 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:48 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|