It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Science, Technology, & Medicine => Topic started by: Libertas on September 05, 2013, 12:04:45 PM
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2412151/Super-Earth-GJ-1214b-40-light-years-away-rich-water-steamy-atmosphere.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2412151/Super-Earth-GJ-1214b-40-light-years-away-rich-water-steamy-atmosphere.html)
Good enough for me, where water is there can be life, I'll take my chances...leftists and other assorted asshats are ruining this planet...be nice to GTFO while the gettin' is good!
40 LY away though, damn Einstein! How do I get past that pesky E=MC2?! I need to go faster than light, but how?!?!?! ::gaah::
-
Just do what Han Solo did and proclaim, Light Speed Chewie, and let nature do the rest (http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=201528)
-
40 LY away though, damn Einstein! How do I get past that pesky E=MC2?! I need to go faster than light, but how?!?!?! ::gaah::
Actually, that is 40 Years earth time. If you are traveling near light speed, Einstein says you will hardly age. Depending on the acceleration and deceleration times, it may only be a couple of years for you. Of course, some smart ass will have invented a faster than light drive in those 40 years, and when you arrive the planet will already be populated with lefty fascists.
-
Why don't we sell it as a fantasy lefty land of milk and honey...no cars....no pollution....no conservatives..... Create a "time" tunnel worm hole. Just step into the light. Why should I move when liberals are so gullible. I believe there was just that scene in the flick "Independence Day".
-
40 LY away though, damn Einstein! How do I get past that pesky E=MC2?! I need to go faster than light, but how?!?!?! ::gaah::
Actually, that is 40 Years earth time. If you are traveling near light speed, Einstein says you will hardly age. Depending on the acceleration and deceleration times, it may only be a couple of years for you. Of course, some smart ass will have invented a faster than light drive in those 40 years, and when you arrive the planet will already be populated with lefty fascists.
Crap, thwarted again. OK, Don's idea might just work!
-
40 LY away though, damn Einstein! How do I get past that pesky E=MC2?! I need to go faster than light, but how?!?!?! ::gaah::
Actually, that is 40 Years earth time. If you are traveling near light speed, Einstein says you will hardly age. Depending on the acceleration and deceleration times, it may only be a couple of years for you. Of course, some smart ass will have invented a faster than light drive in those 40 years, and when you arrive the planet will already be populated with lefty fascists.
Crap, thwarted again. OK, Don's idea might just work!
" Walk into the light"..........
-
Why don't we sell it as a fantasy lefty land of milk and honey...no cars....no pollution....no conservatives..... Create a "time" tunnel worm hole. Just step into the light. Why should I move when liberals are so gullible. I believe there was just that scene in the flick "Independence Day".
You want to B-Ark them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CSid-p0Xlk0#t=265 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CSid-p0Xlk0#t=265)
-
LOLOLOLOLOL...... Yea...This..... I hope they are all lucky enough to be sent in the first ship....LOLOLOLOL
-
Or...
We can figure out what that virulent disease is and spread it all of their phones.
;D
-
It's only a few miles a way.... 170,604,506,880,000 or 170.6 trillion miles. Now, if you can travel faster than light or bend space time with some sort of singularity, travel time will be much less. DO it in secret though, liberals will outlaw the warping of space because it causes galaxian warming or climate change or something. ::hysterical::
-
Actually, that is 40 Years earth time. If you are traveling near light speed, Einstein says you will hardly age. Depending on the acceleration and deceleration times, it may only be a couple of years for you. Of course, some smart ass will have invented a faster than light drive in those 40 years, and when you arrive the planet will already be populated with lefty fascists.
Umm...not if I remember my high school physics correctly.
40 light years is the distance that light travels in 40 years and really doesn't have anything to do with the amount of time that a space traveller would spend in transit. Travel time depends on velocity and acceleration unless there is some sort of FTL drive involved in which case all bets are off.
What you are referring to (the hardly aging thing) is the "time dilation effect" that was predicted by Einstein (and proven too, if I'm not mistaken). This is more or less what "relativity" means, though...that the experience of the passage of time is relative. It really doesn't matter what speed you are traveling - you will experience time the same as you always have. That means that 40 years is 40 years for you. However, when you are traveling at some velocity approaching the speed of light relative to, say, the Earth, time will pass differently on Earth relative to you. This is illustrated in what's called the "Twin Paradox."
One twin stays on Earth, one takes a trip on a spacecraft that travels at a velocity that approaches the speed of light. When the traveling twin returns he finds that his brother has aged many more years than he has. In other words, the trip that took X years for the traveling twin took some multiple of x years for the twin who stayed on Earth. This is called time dilation and the closer that the traveler gets to the speed of light the more pronounced the time dilation effect is.
Again, for the traveler, he experiences time normally. So does the one who remains behind. But relative to each other time moves at different rates.
That's what makes interstellar travel a bit of a bitch. It takes decades to get anywhere even if you could go at the speed of light. And then, to make matters worse, everyone you leave behind is long dead even if you immediately turn around and come back. FTL drives (and communications) magically solve this problem in almost all SF scenarios. If it wasn't solved then virtually no one would want to go anywhere because when you returned everything would be totally different. Imagine George Washington taking a trip to somewhere in space and coming back a year later and finding that he was now in President Zero's America. That would suck for Washington. All his friends and family long since dead, he can't speak the language anymore, nothing makes sense and there's this idiot running the country.
So essentially, even if you could travel at 99.999% of light speed, you had better take all your friends and family with you because, for all intents and purposes, there is absolutely no going back. Plus, given the distances involved, you had also better count on not living to see the promised land. Not unless medical science has figured out a way to keep you alive longer (a lot longer) or a way to freeze you while in transit. No...interstellar travel has a lot of problems that cannot be merely solved by being able to go really, really fast.
-
Umm...not if I remember my high school physics correctly.
40 light years is the distance that light travels in 40 years and really doesn't have anything to do with the amount of time that a space traveller would spend in transit.
Yes, and in a ship that traveled a near the speed of light the trip time ( on Earth) would be 40 years + time to accelerate/decelerate from near light speed. A light year is a unit of distance, but if you you happen to use a ship that travels at light speed, it is also a description of travel time.
For a traveler at near light speed, time outside the craft would appear to speed up. Depending on the actual speed achieved and the acceleration/deceleration time, the person on the ship may experience only a few years on the journey, while 40+ years passes on Earth.
Travel time depends on velocity and acceleration unless there is some sort of FTL drive involved in which case all bets are off.
Velocity ( distance over time) and is derivative acceleration don't behave the same at near light speeds - because time is not behaving the same.
That's what makes interstellar travel a bit of a bitch. It takes decades to get anywhere even if you could go at the speed of light.
It takes Decades Earth time. Not for the traveler on the craft. Your trip to another world 40 light year away would be a long one, and you would live on the space craft for years, but probably not decades.
And then, to make matters worse, everyone you leave behind is long dead even if you immediately turn around and come back. So essentially, even if you could travel at 99.999% of light speed, you had better take all your friends and family with you because, for all intents and purposes, there is absolutely no going back.
And the American Pioneers were different how? They either took their families with them or never saw them again either. The Atlatic took 2-3 Months to Cross. Oregon was another 6-8 months away after that.
The journey would be longer. At 95% of the speed of light the time dilation is about 1/3 - its one year on ship for every 3 on earth. IN the Ender universe, the starships were not FTL ( at least not till the 4th book with Jane) - but could "park shift" to near light instantaneously. SO if you could do that to 95% light speed, your journey to our hypothetical planet 40 light years away would take just over a decade.
t = t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2
Plus, given the distances involved, you had also better count on not living to see the promised land. Not unless medical science has figured out a way to keep you alive longer (a lot longer) or a way to freeze you while in transit
This is more of a "Humans are like really needy Water Balloons" problem than it is a speed or power problem ( RamJet to accelerate us have already been designed) the problem is the human body can't really stand the sort of forces that would be experienced to get you close to the speed of light quickly., and those forces have to be that much greater if they have to push 10 years worth of food ( or space to grow 10 years worth of food) in addition to the supplies you need on the new world. Freezing for the journey saves you the cost of bringing along the extra food required and makes your body potentially much tougher to withstand the forces it will be subjected to. Point is, if you had a short term deep freeze that allowed you to sleep and be protected from high forces for the acceleration and deceleration phases , you could easily live through a journey to many of the closer stars - you probably just wouldn't enjoy it much.
-
Hmmm...
Well, I'm not a physicist or anything but if you are going to a place that takes light 40 years to get there and you are (let's say instantaneously) able to go 95% of the speed of light then I'm thinking that you would get there in 40+ years.
-
My understanding is the same as Trap's.
-
Hmmm...
Well, I'm not a physicist or anything but if you are going to a place that takes light 40 years to get there and you are (let's say instantaneously) able to go 95% of the speed of light then I'm thinking that you would get there in 40+ years.
Whose 40 years? For the observer on Earth, that is absolutely true. IN the Ender-Verse they used an "ansible" - a device based on Quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement) to communicate instantly between worlds. Once you reach your destination you could communicate back to Earth to tell them you have arrived, inquire about your 10 year old nephew who is now 50, married and about to have his first grandchild. You on the other hand boarded the spacecraft at 18, and due to the relativistic time dilation, celebrated 13 years of birthdays and you are now 31. Of course, if you can get up to 97% speed of light, or 99% that effect is even more pronounced. (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html)
(http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/figures/gr_timedial.gif)
So at .97c you age about 1/4 as fast - and your time on board is around 10 years instead of 13 . at .99c its about 1/7 so a little under 6 years.
Go faster still? 0.999999c - two years pass on earth for every Ships day. Your 40 year Journey to new earth at near light speed takes less than a month - according to the watch on your arm. Clocks on Earth of course show 40 years have passed, but you are not even a month older. Time is Relative to the observer - and just as real. (If you think this hurts your head check out the Pole Barn Paradox (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/polebarn.html). And Yeah, I actually had to do the actual math in college and take tests with this stuff on it.)
Of course if you immediately turn around and head home, everyone you knew is dead and you call upon their children and grandchildren as the crazy uncle who went to the Stars.
Of course the real risk of heading out on a 10-20 year journey and near light speed is some clever fellow back on earth will invent a FTL, and by the time you get to the new world you will have found it settled, possibly for decades. Think of Poor Khan Noonien Singh - in his sleeper ship, intercepted in mid journey by a Starship with FTL.
-
Again, not being a physicist, I have to depend on other's words and thoughts. This is a short paragraph from the wikipedia entry on time dilation:
In theory, and to make a clearer example, time dilation could affect planned meetings for astronauts with advanced technologies and greater travel speeds. The astronauts would have to set their clocks to count exactly 80 years, whereas mission control – back on Earth – might need to count 81 years. The astronauts would return to Earth, after their mission, having aged one year less than the people staying on Earth. What is more, the local experience of time passing never actually changes for anyone. In other words, the astronauts on the ship as well as the mission control crew on Earth each feel normal, despite the effects of time dilation (i.e. to the traveling party, those stationary are living "faster"; whilst to those stood still, their counterparts in motion live "slower" at any given moment).
I interpret that to mean that both the traveller and the "stationary" observer experience time the exact same way as they always have. If you have a trip that takes 40 years then that is what you will experience. However, for the "stationary" observer your trip will appear to have taken some multiple of 40 years and therefore you will be younger and they will be older when next you meet. I don't remember reading anywhere that if a traveller is able to approach something close to lightspeed that they will somehow magically reduce the amount of time needed for the trip.
If you are a physicist and you know of things that I don't then I will just have to take it on faith that you are correct but I honestly cannot remember ever reading about such a thing as you describe. I do remember reading that another way to achieve time dilation (which is a pretty nifty way to travel forward in time at an accelerated rate relative to an observer) is by getting unrealistically close to a super massive object such as a neutron star or black hole. The problem with that plan, though, as I understand it, is that you would have to somehow overcome gravitational tidal effects which would be wanting to tear your body (not to mention your vehicle) apart as you orbited that mass.
Getting back to the original problem: Your destination is 40 light years away. Let's say that you can travel there with an average speed (includes acceleration and deceleration) of 1/2 the speed of light. Your total travel time is 80 years to get there and you will have aged 80 years. Period. If you can travel at an average speed of 90% of lightspeed then you will arrive their having aged 44.44 or so years and so on. In each case you are going to arrive at your destination having experienced something greater than the 40 years that it takes light to get there since you cannot exceed or even match that velocity. But that is the time that you experience. The stationary observer, on the other hand, who is watching you believes that you are taking a very, very long time to get there. You, looking at the stationary observer, think that time is moving very fast back on Earth. In reality, both of your are experiencing the effects of time the same, both aging at the same rate as you always have but just not in relation to each other.
Bottom line is, though, that you can't exceed the speed of light. So, if you need to go somewhere that takes light 40 years to reach then you will get there in some amount of time that (for you) is in excess of 40 years and for a stationary observer is going to take some multiple of that depending on your speed.
And, yeah, who knows what happens technologically back on Earth while you are moving at some percentage of C? Someone could somehow figure out how to develop a FTL drive and beat you to your destination.
And, yeah, for the pioneers who discovered the New World or for the settlers who pushed West, they did more or less leave everyone behind for a very long time but since velocities never got much over the speed of a galloping horse they could always return home and find everyone pretty much at their same relative ages. When we talk of interstellar travel, though, it's kind of a forever proposition short of FTL drives and communication. Sort of the Rip Van Winkle effect for the travelers.
-
I don't remember reading anywhere that if a traveller is able to approach something close to lightspeed that they will somehow magically reduce the amount of time needed for the trip.
No. It reduces the time EXPERIENCED during the trip for the person at Light Speed. That is why the traveler is younger than the earth bound people who didn't travel at relativistic speeds. According to the clocks on earth your Ship took a little over 40 Years travelling at just under the speed of light to reach a planet 40 light-years away. You Watch on the ship ticks away just like it always has- because in your frame "time" is no different. You experiece one second as if one second has passed, and on the ship, that is all that has happened. Back on Earth, their clocks have ticked the seconds away as well, but if you could compare them ( you can't because the light from their clocks will not have reached you yet - but say you had an ansible and could check) you would find the earth clocks ticking away much faster than yours. The people on earth see your watch ticking slower. NO ONE in either frame feels or notices anything unusual other than seeing that the two clocks tick at different rates ( the clock still tick once per second in both frames, but TIME ITSELF (well actually distance, if you really want to get into it with the Pole Barn thing) is different. When you slow down and arrive, 40 years have passed on earth. Less time has passed for you.
Bottom line is, though, that you can't exceed the speed of light. So, if you need to go somewhere that takes light 40 years to reach then you will get there in some amount of time that (for you) is in excess of 40 years and for a stationary observer is going to take some multiple of that depending on your speed.
Its exactly the opposite. The amount of time you experience while traveling is SMALLER than the amount they experience in the "standard" frame. It will take 40 years for you to reach it from the standard frame (yes, slightly more because you aren't travelling at light speed - just close) because that is the speed light goes at.
But as you say-it isn't just speed that can do this. Just living in Colorado- and thus being farther from the Earth's center of gravity makes you experience time at a different ( relative) rate than a person in Florida. Its so small you would never notice that some how your friend from Florida you haven't seen in 80 years is a whole day younger than he should be.
-
I still don't understand how you can travel a distance of x light years in less than x years. That would mean that you are traveling at a speed greater than C which is not possible.
-
I still don't understand how you can travel a distance of x light years in less than x years. That would mean that you are traveling at a speed greater than C which is not possible.
You aren't traveling that distance in any less time. It will take you 40 years in the standard frame. But as you approach the speed of light, as you BECOME like light, something has got to give. Turns out its time and space. Check out the link (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html)
At the velocities people currently travel the effect of time dilation is small, but measurable with accurate instruments. Since time dilation affects the rate at which time passes, the total discrepancy between stationary and moving clocks increases throughout the voyage. Several Russian cosmonauts have spent a year or more in Earth orbit on the space station Mir. Their orbital velocity, about 7700 metres per second, is only 0.0000257 times the speed of light, yielding a time dilation factor of 1.00000000033; each second on board Mir, 1.00000000033 seconds pass on Earth. For every second you age on Earth, the cosmonaut in orbit ages 3 nanoseconds less. This doesn't seem like much, but it adds up; after a year the cosmonaut's watch will be 3.8 seconds behind your earthbound timepiece.
You don't even have to go into orbit to measure time dilation. Modern-day atomic clocks are so accurate that when synchronising clocks between different observatories, the effect of time dilation due to transporting the reference clock on an airline flight must be taken into account.
-
Again, I have to disagree.
It will take you something greater than 40 years in your time frame because you cannot travel faster than C. But for the observer's time frame it takes you some multiple of your shipboard time and that's the time dilation effect.
I have to leave it at that, though...I can't argue it on the science or the math because it is outside of my area of expertise. I can only argue it based on what I think I understand which seems to be at odds with your understanding. So...I have to agree to disagree.
Nice discussion, though.
-
Again, I have to disagree.
It will take you something greater than 40 years in your time frame because you cannot travel faster than C. But for the observer's time frame it takes you some multiple of your shipboard time and that's the time dilation effect.
WHY do you think that? I have provided links to multiple site showing the actual equations, the math they imply and its application. Here is a link to a nifty calculator that gives you ships time and stationary frame (Earth) time (http://www.shellac.org/slu/slutime.html) . IN reality of course the earth, the sun and the milky way are all moving, so aren't really stationary.. but now you are really complicating the math. I understand its counter intuitive and annoying the universe behaves in this way, but as far as we know, this is actually how it works. You have to remember the stationary frame is just a reference point. When you are on the ship - YOU ARE "STATIONARY" in the sense that your motion is not obvious to you..
You are NEVER at any point travelling faster than the speed of light ( as observed in the stationary frame) However, in order for your mass to travel at near the speed of light, time and space have to bend - and as a result you experience them differently. Your time will pass slower than the time on earth. When you slow down and re-enter the standard frame, 40 years will have passed on the clocks on earth, but MUCH LESS time will have passed for you, for the time you experienced was time (and space) as it behaves at near the speed of light.. (and speed is distance over time. ) Your "multiple" is a fraction. Time will have passed more slowly for you on the starship relative to the clocks on earth which still show you having spent 40 years in transit. If they could talk to you in real time you would actually seem to speak slower ( and with a doppler effect change on your voice) - and at extreme speeds, they would just have to record it and play it back massively sped up. because it would seem you were almost frozen... in a type of time stasis if you prefer. Your travel speeds itself is making the time pass slower for you relative to the people watching on earth. If you wanted to listen to a message from Earth you would have to slow it down. A Huge amount . The "relativity" is relative to the observer. Once you are both in the same frame again (because you slowed down and are no in sync with earths movement ( you aren't of course, but back to where they are nearly the same - like Florida and Colorado ) - you experience time the same way .
-
Sounds great Weisshaupt, but the one thing about Einstein's equations you cannot excape is the mass/velocity problem...you need more power to create more velocity and the added mass to achieve that adds to the additional power you need to push it, and so the paradox intensifies. So it is an issue of power, right now we have no engine designs to create anywhere near the kind of energy required to propel even a modest long-duration lightly-crewed vehicle anywhere remotely near the speed of light. Until Stargate technology or stable wormhole backdoors or some exotic new energy source is discovered we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
-
Sounds great Weisshaupt, but the one thing about Einstein's equations you cannot excape is the mass/velocity problem...you need more power to create more velocity and the added mass to achieve that adds to the additional power you need to push it, and so the paradox intensifies. So it is an issue of power, right now we have no engine designs to create anywhere near the kind of energy required to propel even a modest long-duration lightly-crewed vehicle anywhere remotely near the speed of light. Until Stargate technology or stable wormhole backdoors or some exotic new energy source is discovered we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Bussard Ramjets (http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/Catalytic%20Nuclear%20Ramjet.pdf) burn the matter they get from Outer space. The Problem ( as this article states) is that, in order to collect the required amount of fuel , you have to accelerate at greater than one G ( plus you have to accelerate up to the required speed before the Ramjet starts working without extra fuel (There are some Nuclear rocket designs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA) that could potentially do this ) But the Bussard Ramjet idea could be used in probes and the like. As could the Starwisp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwisp) approach. So yeah we have some approaches to actually getting a vehicle to relativistic speed - just not with live, needy water balloons inside.
But Yeah, we really need FTL. I guess there is a part of NASA not concerned with outreach to Muslims that is working on that.
update: [url=http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php]A complete illustrated Guide to all of your space propulsion options, real and theoretical (http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive)
-
Sounds great Weisshaupt, but the one thing about Einstein's equations you cannot excape is the mass/velocity problem...you need more power to create more velocity and the added mass to achieve that adds to the additional power you need to push it, and so the paradox intensifies. So it is an issue of power, right now we have no engine designs to create anywhere near the kind of energy required to propel even a modest long-duration lightly-crewed vehicle anywhere remotely near the speed of light. Until Stargate technology or stable wormhole backdoors or some exotic new energy source is discovered we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Bussard Ramjets (http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/Catalytic%20Nuclear%20Ramjet.pdf) burn the matter they get from Outer space. The Problem ( as this article states) is that, in order to collect the required amount of fuel , you have to accelerate at greater than one G ( plus you have to accelerate up to the required speed before the Ramjet starts working without extra fuel (There are some Nuclear rocket designs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA) that could potentially do this ) But the Bussard Ramjet idea could be used in probes and the like. As could the Starwisp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwisp) approach. So yeah we have some approaches to actually getting a vehicle to relativistic speed - just not with live, needy water balloons inside.
But Yeah, we really need FTL. I guess there is a part of NASA not concerned with outreach to Muslims that is working on that.
update: [url=http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php]A complete illustrated Guide to all of your space propulsion options, real and theoretical (http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive)
The Alcubierre Drive, sounds promising. We don't have that level of knowledge yet to make it real, but maybe someday...if we don't all get slaughtered...we can get there.
The description of the Alcubierre warp movement makes me think of Frank Herbert's "foldspace" concept.
-
I don't know the answer but I bet if Hollywood liberals thought they could travel 40 light years and get younger they would all sign up for the trip. make it happen.
-
Heh!
And we don't care if they make it or not...
::newyear::