[Curtman]

Tricks Tricks:

Curtman Curtman:

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Sweet, we should start packing

Now if only we could travel at the speed of light, we could be there by about 4011...

Not necessarily, as you approach the speed of light, time slows down. If we were to travel as close to the speed of light as we could for 100 years, something like a week would pass.

While we travel 2000 light years at the speed of light, 2000 years would pass here on Earth though right? And another 2000 until Earth hears back from us.

[Tricks]

Curtman Curtman:

While we travel 2000 light years at the speed of light, 2000 years would pass here on Earth though right? And another 2000 until Earth hears back from us.

Yup, on earth, but if it were possible to sustain that flight, for us, it would say be 2020 or something. Since time isn't linear, and its subjective.

(TIME TRAVEL!)

[DrCaleb]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Curtman Curtman:

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Sweet, we should start packing

Now if only we could travel at the speed of light, we could be there by about 4011...

That reminds me, if light slows down as it passes through an object, then is it not at least theoretically possible to increase the speed of light?

No. The top speed of light is calculated as in a vacuum. Passing through a transparent substance slows it down from that top speed. As an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down for it, so Velocity as (V=Change in Distance/Change in Time) means that changing velocity needed to approach the speed of light is decreased by time dilation. That's why the speed of light cannot be achieved to 100% by anything with mass.

But 5 planets! When I read this on the Kepler site, I thought it exciting. Especially in the same system! Imagine if one or more had life!

[Curtman]

Tricks Tricks:

Curtman Curtman:

While we travel 2000 light years at the speed of light, 2000 years would pass here on Earth though right? And another 2000 until Earth hears back from us.

Yup, on earth, but if it were possible to sustain that flight, for us, it would say be 2020 or something. Since time isn't linear, and its subjective.

(TIME TRAVEL!)

No problem.

[raydan]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No. The top speed of light is calculated as in a vacuum. Passing through a transparent substance slows it down from that top speed. As an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down for it, so Velocity as (V=Change in Distance/Change in Time) means that changing velocity needed to approach the speed of light is decreased by time dilation. That's why the speed of light cannot be achieved to 100% by anything with mass.

But 5 planets! When I read this on the Kepler site, I thought it exciting. Especially in the same system! Imagine if one or more had life!

And if I remember correctly (I'm using my memory here), as you approach the speed of light, mass increases. That's why you could not attain the speed of light, as your mass would be infinite.

Doesn't the length in the forward moving axis also diminish... also from memory?

[raydan]

Tricks Tricks:

Curtman Curtman:

While we travel 2000 light years at the speed of light, 2000 years would pass here on Earth though right? And another 2000 until Earth hears back from us.

Yup, on earth, but if it were possible to sustain that flight, for us, it would say be 2020 or something. Since time isn't linear, and its subjective.

(TIME TRAVEL!)

Theoriticaly, to travel in time, you would need to go faster than the speed of light... someone told me that was impossible.

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

Curtman Curtman:

While we travel 2000 light years at the speed of light, 2000 years would pass here on Earth though right? And another 2000 until Earth hears back from us.

Yup, on earth, but if it were possible to sustain that flight, for us, it would say be 2020 or something. Since time isn't linear, and its subjective.

(TIME TRAVEL!)

Not just for velocity. Also time dilates depending on proximity to mass. Orbiting Jupiter would result in a time effect. Another way to time travel would be to orbit a black hole.

[DrCaleb]

raydan raydan:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No. The top speed of light is calculated as in a vacuum. Passing through a transparent substance slows it down from that top speed. As an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down for it, so Velocity as (V=Change in Distance/Change in Time) means that changing velocity needed to approach the speed of light is decreased by time dilation. That's why the speed of light cannot be achieved to 100% by anything with mass.

But 5 planets! When I read this on the Kepler site, I thought it exciting. Especially in the same system! Imagine if one or more had life!

And if I remember correctly (I'm using my memory here), as you approach the speed of light, mass increases. That's why you could not attain the speed of light, as your mass would be infinite.

Doesn't the length in the forward moving axis also diminish... also from memory?

Correct, on both. At 90% the speed of light, your mass increases 2.3 time, and the ship you are in shrinks about 2.2 times. A 300m ship would shrink to 130m long.

The time dilation effect would be found by (1/ square root of (1 - v^2/c^2))

[DrCaleb]

raydan raydan:

Tricks Tricks:

Curtman Curtman:

While we travel 2000 light years at the speed of light, 2000 years would pass here on Earth though right? And another 2000 until Earth hears back from us.

Yup, on earth, but if it were possible to sustain that flight, for us, it would say be 2020 or something. Since time isn't linear, and its subjective.

(TIME TRAVEL!)

Theoriticaly, to travel in time, you would need to go faster than the speed of light... someone told me that was impossible.

To travel *back* in time, yes. To travel forward in time ... well you are doing that now.

[Regina]

Fuck..........I tuned into a math class.

[raydan]

Begs to wonder if the people in the ship would feel time slowing down, the increase in mass and the "shrinkage". But I think the changes are only observable from another position.

Important also is the time it would take to accelerate to close to the speed of light without putting too many G's on the passengers. If this is correct, our resident brain can confirm...

$1:

It would take 353.7 years of constant 1G (9,81 m/s^2) acceleration to reach the speed of light. In that time you would travel 4,58 billion Km.

[Brenda]

Regina Regina:

Fuck..........I tuned into a math class.

And it's WAYYYYYY too early for that shit

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Smoke a fatty, it all makes sense then

[PluggyRug]

raydan raydan:

Important also is the time it would take to accelerate to close to the speed of light without putting too many G's on the passengers.

You would need inertial dampers. The energy required can come from the matter/anti-matter power generators modified by the warp coils.

[raydan]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

raydan raydan:

Important also is the time it would take to accelerate to close to the speed of light without putting too many G's on the passengers.

You would need inertial dampers. The energy required can come from the matter/anti-matter power generators modified by the warp coils.

You mean "Inertia negation".

I'm doing tests on either deflecting, storing, or neutralizing the quantum particles (gravitons) which are a normal byproduct of inertial motion within a quantum reference state, as gravity itself manifests in the physical world as a form of acceleration (inertia).

To counter graviton particles I have to find a way to produce a sort of "pseudo-acceleration" that runs contrary to the direction of the original inertia. I still have a problem because the amount of energy required to generate any sort of inertial compensation in moving reference systems is horrendously unthinkable.

Soon....