DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Testing OldCold's Theory

Sorry, I gave up on sci-fi in college. And you clearly googled this a couple hours ago. But yeah, the solar sails we have now are exactly like the 1 km^2 ones we need in 2069. And Nuclear ION drive. You sure you're not committing to that sweet, sweet nectar known as ideology.

Taking acceleration and deceleration into account this might be the math Nelson used, but who knows for sure. He could just be waiting for a brilliant answer to call his own.

I agree with the misdirection on the observer - but to be honest I think you can throw any impact of the observer out of the window - firstly because the question is how long does the trip (journey) take ... it does not ask about the observer measuring the time or being involved in the measurement in any way. . . secondly Nelson suggests that stationary observer is an accepted norm to remove any time related factors from the equation.

I can't find a Youtube clip sadly - but Eddie Izzard did a brilliant stand up on science experiments and measuring the speed of light ... it went something like imagining two school kids doing an experiment with a flash light in the dark and a stopwatch .... and the one kid says "shout 'Go' when you turn on the flashlight ... no hang on, the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound, so shout 'go' a little bit before you turn on the flashlight"

Thanks for the nice words. I did need to read the OP multiple times as it was a bit tricky to figure out exactly what you were looking for. Basically-- trivial math and a little thinking, but we weren't trying to figure out engineering or special relativity problems.


Years ago, this would have perfectly described my thoughts. Not so much anymore. It's really quite a fascinating topic and I don't think I can do it justice right now. Suffice it to say I've spent a lot of time thinking about what makes people tick, how they think, and why they do what they do. Very little surprises me anymore, but this builds on a lot of different ideas, some of which differ from mainstream thinking.


No additional research was done for the part that I answered. I was going to figure out the amount of time that would have passed in the ship (i.e. with time slowing down) but then got bored and just posed it as a topic with a vague question. Sorry to disappoint.

Very true. Misread and started to get down the rabbit hole of subject and object.

No your answer is at best plausible theory, not provable, so you can not say corect.

And you added two distinct attributes to your question, "steady-state model" and "stationary observer" these are two very different concepts which bring different variables. Stop trying to twist this into a victory when you seem just as clueless as the next guy. I see your game clearly.

I actually think it's all a moot point because space is not an empty vacuum. It's full of dust and minor particles that will rip tha sail to shreds.

I think they will have to generate some sort of magnetic field much like the earth does to slow and repel such small thing from vaporizing the craft. I could see them just capturing an asteroid and putting a field generator on it and some small atmosphere and have it act as shielding of a kind much like it does on our own planet. After all our planet is a great model of something moving fast through space and supporting life just fine.

I have never claimed to be good at math but I do enjoy physics a great deal so this was a fun thread to read =)

Oh BTW, thanks for proving my theory about you. You are the best!

OLDcold, um, hogwash.

You made the ASSumption that steady-state refers to the outmoded model of the universe.

Steady state is also used to describe spaceflight under constant acceleration, for reasons I have described several times.

EVERYTHING in space travel is acceleration, which also means slowing down when you get there. Expansion of space in the time period concerned is minimal and can be dismissed.

I am insecure about very little, my intelligence level most of all. Too many test results and personal experience and consults with professors to have any real confusion there.

While I do not expect most folks to be knowledgeable in this area, what I DO expect is that those with minimal understanding make themselves aware of that and in a discussion on subjects they know little to nothing about they would have at least the good sense to keep their yap shut.

The example was derived as I explained. It is specifically simplified for consumption for the general public.

That the concept of slowing down at the end of the trip could somehow be avoided when traveling at 37,000 miles per second is just amazing.

You have misunderstood what you have read and/or seen, so you would be in the category of Incorrect Answer, With Research. OK

Thanks again for proving my point. Smart people don't have to tell you how smart they are all the time. smfh

To REPEAT, the stationary observer does not ADD variables, it REMOVES them. Time dilation is out of the picture for a stationary observer, Holy Crap this concept is older than I am.

No, I did not Google anything, I've known this crap for 40 years. I remember discussing Black Holes with my uncle the high-end GM engineer when I was 8 years old.

The solar sail was functionally tested, why yes, to go a lot farther and a lot faster will take a much bigger sail. The ION drive has been tested in space, and does work as expected, but it was not tested as a functional propulsion system, just a proof of concepts, but the test did, in fact, Prove the Concept.

Razor, space dust is a major problem, current thinking is an electrostatic charge, but this will likely need to be generated some distance ahead of the ship and is not entirely practical at this time. BUT, no one really knows how necessary such shielding will be, if at all.

If you just want to kvetch, whine, and moan, because you do not like what I say or how I say it or just the fact that I am the one talking, that is your choice, but unlike most people, there are many subjects I am deeply knowledgeable on, and on those where I am not, I do not make pronouncements and snide comments and insults just because I have no clue what the heck is being discussed, unlike so many, many here.

What I, and many others, wish to clearly express is that we are thoroughly sick and tired of stupid people putting forth stupid concepts and bullying weak-willed individuals into joining them in their stupidity. Stupid generally results in negative outcomes and if you want that feel free to go get it but your enforcing it onto others in no longer going to be tolerated.

my HOA has this FB page with all these annoying ass suburbia women who do nothing but whine and make post like these all days. me a couple of guys in the neighborhood actually made a semi tradition of drinking and smoking together and making fun of the comments those chicks make, even if its our own wives.

you would fit in with the wives.

Fear not, Old one, I no longer expect a coherent response from you.

fail.

Swish, stay high and refrain from participating in complex discussion. It suits you.

Me, I do both.

lol bro, my man has a trigger like a hot headed woman that's for sure. I'm like "Honey you're dumb!" and she's like "Oh hell no you didn't!"... lmfao

this discussion doesnt do anything. we all know why you made this thread to begin with. apparently your feelings got hurt by OCD, and now here we are.

i mean damn bro. you really made a thread in an attempt to prove how intelligent you are.

all it did was just really make you look like a jerk. i thought some of us, including myself, had quick triggers.

bro, you're REALLY sensitive. calm down.

He's not smart enough to realize what really happened. lmao

OCD is a master of mental kungfu. lol.

yo bro, tell me what its like living rent free in Nelson's head?

does it have a pool?

It has an unbelievable IQ and lot's of fake test in the 99 percentile. But it's so steamy there is no need for a pool.

MGH, I will address one of your comments as you have made an effort and also continued to act as an adult, which so many have failed at.

I am MOST CERTAINLY not contending or suggesting that the stationary observer is a standard practice. I am STATING it, as established fact, for over half a century, accepted by EVERYONE in the field, beyond question, not up for debate, etc., etc. It is about as basic as 2+2=4, which there are those who fail to come to the same answer.

Where you have separated yourself from the herd, is that unlike those who "do not know, that they do not know", you understand and recognize that you do not know and proceed logically from that point. Get More Information.

Those who do not know, and fail to acknowledge that, will not arrive at optimum solutions to ANY problem, issue, or opportunity, precisely because they truly do not know, that they do not know. They do not understand that they NEED more information, they think they already have it when they do not.

Just as they completely fail to grasp just exactly what has been demonstrated during this discussion. Mental kung-fu my gluteous maximus.

He's never seen a woman in real life. So it's not that steamy.

Anyways, my solution to the question is... I get there the same day, because I used the wormhole. Screw flying around in space for half your life.

So, Eve, you never did make a decision on whether your line dies out, or not, and if not, alert and awake, or not?

That's OK, you are free to continue making things up out of thin air and making childish insults. I shared this with my son and we both had a good laugh.

So you would go in the category of those who will not even attempt the elementary school math. I don't have any right now, but I may get some gold stars to hand out just for effort. Sadly, none for you either way.

But that's ok, don't make any effort whatsoever to participate, just kvetch, whine and moan long enough and somebody will come along and give you a cookie.

I bet you only hire the best people.

1) I do not care if my line dies out.
2) I prefer my solution. I dont want to spend half my life in a spaceship.

I want to hear more about lobotomies.

I am not suggesting that your comments about a stationary observer are wrong. Any comments are written from the point of view that I have not tried to verify - you made a comment in the OP about not googling and using the internet to seek answers.

Which also relates to your second comment about get more information .... Either their is sufficient information in the question to answer correctly or there isn't. Which is it.

If the question contains all the information needed but you need to be "in the field" to realize or know the terminology - then in my opinion - it's hardly a good gauge of intellect. I feel pretty certain Clem could ask a 'rudimentary' music based question that would have most or all of us stumped without the use of the internet and research....

Back to the answer - my understanding was that Haus has hit the nail in the head? Uniform and consistent acceleration and deceleration which results in an average speed of 10% of the speed of light. . . I'm reading in between work, but I'd swear you indicated Haus was right.

The steam is coming from all the crap.

Wow man this thread is getting heavy

Is this you trying to do emotional iq? dawg, no one wants to have a lobotomy just to avoid seeing their own destruction.

If our knees bent the other way, what would chairs look like?

Why do most home pianos have 3 pedals when they only need 2?

Ask around. See if you get the correct answer. I'll let you know if you do.

Is water wet?

No.


Discuss, while I go mow. If I feel like it later, I will come back and tell you why anyone that answers is wrong, no matter their answer. For, I am awesome.

The answer is 2.

Dry water, an unusual form of "powdered liquid", is a water-air emulsion in which tiny water droplets, each the size of a grain of sand, are surrounded by a sandy silica coating. ... It is also more commonly known among researchers as "empty water".

Since several people had some interest in the topic, I shall continue while ignoring the useless noise.

First, for those who are adding the length of time for the information to travel back to the observer, to the length of the trip, while the light would indeed take 4 years to get to the observer, he/we would know that, and would know that the ship actually got there 4 years ago, so, NO, we do not add that 4 years onto the trip time.

Also, the observer can be absolutely anywhere, as long as he is stationary, relative to the ship, and we know his distance from the two endpoints.

Now, about the slowing down issue. Why would you build a ship, travel for decades, only to spend 2-3 seconds in the vicinity of the destination? You cannot drop into orbit at 130 million mph. The whole point of "going there" is to "be there". Whizzing by at that speed would be pointless. As for impacting the planet, well, for one, "getting there in one piece" is often assumed, also such an impact would be nearly equivalent to the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, not something you plan on doing.

On a related point, this takes TIME. At constant thrust, starting and ending speeds nearly identical, it will take the same amount of time to slow down as it did to speed up.

All current long-distance space drives are extremely slight thrust, with very long duration. Getting to full speed will take anywhere from 6-15 years, same time to slow down. Exception is Project Orion, which IMO is just totally nuts. Uses Hiroshima yield nukes, roughly, one every 1-3 seconds, for hours. I guess if you're not coming back, but then there are the squishy parts. Humans not likely to survive. Wild idea, but it keeps coming back from the dead. I think the military keeps bringing it back because it involves blowing things up.

Just a comparison for acceleration - if you take an approximately average rifle bullet, take the muzzle velocity as an acceleration rate per second, meaning 2 seconds equals twice the speed, in 10 seconds you are 10 times the speed, you would need to continue that rate for a little over 20 hours to reach 20% lightspeed. Squishy bits not likely to survive, any electronics also. To do this in seconds, no solid block of titanium would survive the first fractions of a second, much less a structure with voids and open areas and squishy bits.

The constant acceleration, steady-state model for such a voyage has been derived from several areas, one the drive would need to be running for a majority of the trip anyway, fewer shifts in gravity would be advisable, simply get off the throttle just a bit and you get half the trip under acceleration, then flip the ship and decelerate the other half, all crew would be under the same constant acceleration the whole way, gravity never varies, much better for survival. No one knows for certain if it will work as planned, because we have not done it yet. Again this concept is not my idea, not just one but several NASA engineers are responsible for the plan. This has been in place for decades, and is in the public domain in multiple publications and media.

The subject is over my head but reading your posts is like hearing a god speak.

I like reading his posts too, 40. He's a bit hurtful, yet funny/smart.