# Thread: can u stay in a space ship while traveling in light speed?

1. well this question pop im my head while i was traveling in a jet plane. How can i travel like 7 thousand mile per hours without getting kill by the G force?. is there a such thing as a gravity canceler in the jet plane. if there is such thing why dont we try to make a gravity canceler that is strong enough to travel into light speed.

2.

3. first of all use SI units DAMN IT, and talking about light speeds use C, like 0,1C and such

secondly its not the speed that kills you, its the acceleration, so if you accelerate like 1-2g you will survive and eventualy you reach almost C, never does but get closer and closer all the time

4. is there a such thing as a gravity canceler in the jet plane. if there is such thing why don't we try to make a gravity canceler that is strong enough to travel into light speed.
Zelos is correct. When you accelerate in a fast car for example the force that pulls you back into the seat is gravity. The force is called a G force (the G of course is for gravity). Let's say this is a VERY powerful car with the power (to weight ratio) of the space shuttle, and we are on a drag strip that stretches from here to the moon (about 250,000 miles away). You stomp on the petal and are slammed back into your seat with the force of lets say 10 G. That means you will be pushed back into your seat with ten gravity's, which means that if you weigh 150 pounds at rest you will weigh 1500 pounds ! 20 gas would hurt you , maybe kill you, cause you would weigh 3000 pounds if it were possible.

I'm not going to do the math, but at five G's acceleration you would reach nearly light speed quickly. Light speed is 186, 000 miles per second or about 670 million mph!

At light speed (c) (the letter c is used to to indicate light speed), or 670,000,000 mph it would take you about 4.3 years to reach the nearest star Proxima Centaui. Thats the good news! It would take you eighteen BILLION years to reach the most distant star that we can see.

yeah a looooong time.

thats considering if time is what we think it is (and its not).

So, even if you decide to visit the nearest star in our light speed capable Mustang five point Oh, pack your lunch brother, and your survival gear cause your gonna need it.

Survival gear? Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you that the earth would be hundreds of thousand of years older, while you have only aged a few years... due to the relativistic effects of near light speed travel...heh.. its called time travel and it is a real event!

been proven by dual atomic clocks and other things.

There might be dragons, or at least dinos, here by the time you return, according to the earth bound clock. If your speed was fast enough the earth would age millions or billions of years, as you age only a decade or less. Strange indeed.

; } >

5. OH GOD WHY CANT PEOPLE STOP USING THIS *BEEP*ING MOTHER *BEEP*ING UNITS?

Use SI units DAMN IT.

and also G=6,6742*10<sup>-11</sup>, so 20G is no danger
but 20 g is dangerous, becuase 1 g is the acceleration on earth, wich is 9,80665m/s²

Note inn physics there is a differens between g and G
g is the constant on earth, G is the universal constant

Use SI units, they are better, easier, logical etc. Far better than imperial units

6. why cant we use SI .....
In a forum with a general readership, zelos, I feel it is common courtesy to make a text reply easier to read by using common terms.This isn't a doctoral paper, however I agree that in a technical atmosphere more scientific terms would be desirable.

7. In a forum with a general readership, zelos, I feel it is common courtesy to make a text reply easier to read by using common terms.This isn't a doctoral paper, however I agree that in a technical atmosphere more scientific terms would be desirable.
common terms is SI units, most of this world use it, therefor it is common terms

8. I think all of these measuring and calculatin can not be 100% sure

I believe that if we could reach more than light speed there will be time jumping , and it may change a lot of things not time onley but also the structure of our bodies.......

9. Well it is time has been proven. Its explained in Einstein general theory of relativity and in his theory of special relativity .Trouble is the light speed is the speed limit of the universe, however we may be able to short cut and thus beat the limit on the sped of light by folding space time or warping it. In that case we would go back in time not forward as we would as we accelerated to light speed. Go beyond light speed and we go back in time. Profound stuff in the creation this c stuff.

yes thats by me rev roserll in area 51 which has been move d to the far east...of tennessee deep in the smokie mountains...just kidding, Its area 52 here...

: } >

10. common terms is SI units, most of this world use it, therefor it is common terms
Ummm... hi Zelos. By common terms I mean the usual way most people speak. Even at the University in astronomy dept. where I work, part time, in the imaging dept. we use english units not metric or any other science speak.

In this forum, even in the science threads and in reply's of most of the members good ole' English beats out metric and other more technical terms every time, thus they are "common terms.

I do, however agree, that in a technical atmosphere the metric or science ease is desirable.

11. Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
I'm not going to do the math, but at five G's acceleration you would reach nearly light speed quickly.
It would take about 70 days...probably much longer than you could stand 5 gs.

Survival gear? Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you that the earth would be hundreds of thousand of years older, while you have only aged a few years... due to the relativistic effects of near light speed travel...heh.. its called time travel and it is a real event!
"Hundreds of thousands of years" is a major exageration. If you spent 4 years traveling at 95% of C, the earth would only age by about 12 years. If you spent 4 years traveling at 99% C, the earth would age by about 30 years.

12. I disagree, what if your velocity were 99.> to the thousand decimal point c (light speed) Time actually stops at the event horizon of a black hole because the escape velocity and thus the momentum or velocity relative to the rest of the universe of any energy or mass entering a black hole will be accelerated to light speed and thus time and space will stop at this point.

Billions of years? Could be trillions of years or more.Time and space are interchangeable and are of little consequence when contemplating such issues.

regards and thanks for your opinion, redress me if you feel I am incorrect.

: { >

13. By common terms I mean the usual way most people speak.
thats still SI units, comman units are SI becuase most people speak SI units, its only americans who use the other crappy ones

14. interesting =]

15. Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
I disagree, what if your velocity were 99.> to the thousand decimal point c (light speed)
Yes, but in your example you were only flying to alpha centauri, which could only take about 4 years from the perspective of an observer on earth if you were going at the speed of light. If you were traveling close to the speed of light then the trip would seem to take less time for you because of time dilation - if you were going fast enough, it would seem to take almost not time at all.

16. if you were going fast enough, it would seem to take almost not time at all.
Yes by your (the astronauts) clock, no time much would pass however to an observer on earth, if nearly c could be archived 4.33 years (or thereabouts) would seem to elapse, no?

To clarify, I was in error as I was thinking about a longer round trip when I was made the trillion billion year thingie...sorry.

What if the universe evaporated while on a relatively (heh) hi speed trip? heh, Stephen Hawkins said that even the black holes would evaporate if enough time passes without a big crunch.

yes a evaporate' universe would be much worse than a older earth, ruled by apes...a little humor never hurts does it?
; } >

17. But isn't true that the faster you go, the more your mass increases? I thought that was the reason, according to Big E, that anything with mass can't travel at C, because it would take an infinite amount of energy to move an infinite mass. If that's true, wouldn't at some time in your acceleration to C, the increase in the mass of your body would begin to weigh too much for your body to support, like a shark out of water...oooo..that would be a crappy way to die....slowly squashed by your own ass. I wonder what would kill you first..your lungs weighing too much to breath, or your blood weighing to much for your heart to pump. Either way it would totally suck.

18. but thats frame depended, according to you, your mass dont increase, according to others it increases, but also in space there is no gravity

19. Originally Posted by Zelos
but also in space there is no gravity
No gravity from the earth, but your body has its own specific gravity. As you gain mass you would progressively warp space/time even more. I was assuming that at C your mass would be infinite....wait....wait....wait

That would make the ultimate science geek "mama joke" - "Yo mama's so fat, her ass infinitely warps space/time" :P

Ok..seriously..

The sun has enough mass that gravitational force fuse hydrogen atoms together. In your journey to C and infinite mass, you would, at some point, have the same mass as the sun. Assuming you were still alive, wouldn't atoms in your own body begin to fuse...You would make "The Human Torch" look like a chump. Although it would be cool to have your own satellites. oooo.. another "mama joke"

"Yo mama's so fat...GALAXIES orbit her ass"

The original question was whether you could survive a space-ship trip to C. I personally think no....but hey, I'm an electronic technician (and a smart ass), not a physicist.

20. yes you can, becuase according to you your mass dont increase

21. Originally Posted by MacGyver1968
No gravity from the earth, but your body has its own specific gravity.
Specific gravity is the density of something relative to that of water. Since any water accompanying the traveler would be subject to the same mass increase the specfic gravity would remain the same.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean specific gravity, but I just want to clarify for the benefit of the casual reader. (We're an upmarket forum. We don't have lurkers, we have casual readers.)

22. You are correct Ophiolite...I used the wrong term...sorry. Had an internal brain data processing error (brain fart)
I just meant you have your own gravity.

23. No need to apologise. I was waiting for someone to chip in with the comment that what I was talking about was Specific Gravity, not specific gravity. Therefore your lower case usage was general and did not refer specifically, to Specific Gravity. Fortunately nobody did as I don't have an answer for that one. :wink:

24. Originally Posted by Zelos
becuase according to you your mass dont increase
I'm confused...where did I say your mass wouldn't increase? I was trying to say your mass would increase...at least the way I understand it. Please clarify your statement.

25. In relativity there is referensframes, for simplicity lets have 2 referens frames, 1 and 2, ytou are in referensframe 2
according to 1 you are moving with 0,9999995C
but according to you you arent moving, its everybody else moving in the oposite direction with 0,9999995C.
so according to 1 your mass should increase about 1000x, but according to you, you arent moving, so according to you your mass havent changed, but according to you its those in 1 that should icnrease in mass with 1000x

its all about referensframe, according to you, aslongest you dont accelerate, you are allways at rest and the rest is moving
but to the others it is you who are moving and they are at rest and so on, its relative. Arent relativity just wonderful

26. Ahh..I see. Let me see if I understand, the speed I am traveling is only measured relative to another point. So without acceleration, its like I'm not moving at all? Wow..I'm relatively sure I'll never fully understand relativity. I guess I was over-simplfying things.

Thanks for the clarification.

27. thats right, aslongest you dont accelerate both of you say the other one is moving and you are standing still, both say the others mass increase, time slows down, and distance increase. and both are right

28. due to censorship from Ophiolite I am unable to reply to this thread in a manner that is ,. acceptable to his standards. I will be on a radical sabbatical, for an indefinite period. Thanks, all , for the prior debate.

; } >

29. Official Announcement
The Rev Roswell was asked to reduce the number of personal attacks made in his posts.
Rather than do so he sent a number of strongly worded pm's in which he made personally offensive remarks, continued his personal attacks, accused (without substantiation) this forum of persecuting Christians, and lambasted us for censorship.

Regulars on the forum will know that we tolerate (and sometimes indulge in :wink: ) occasional, low key, personal remarks. The majority of you have the good sense to keep these to a minimum, often accompanied by humour. On the few occassions when the boundaries are crossed a gentle comment from a moderator is sufficient to bring things back into line. The Rev Roswell clearly feels these guidelines and methods are not for him.

Prior to his current outburst I had challenged his contention that the forum persecuted Christians, noting that a) I personally treated Christians with exactly the same contempt I treated atheists! b)disagreeing with a belief system is not the same thing as persecuting it. I asked him to cite examples of where Christians had been persecuted. When he failed to do so I asked again, both within the forum and by pm. He chose not to, or was unable to provide examples.

The only censorship we have applid to Rev Roswell is to ask that he desist from personal attacks on other members, regardless of who they are.

Since I have imposed that requirement against personal attacks on Rev Roswell it seems only appropriate I should apply it to myself in this context. This prevents me sharing with you my opinion on the Rev. Is that censorship? 8)

If any of you feel that your views have been censored, or that your religion has been persecuted, please feel free to contact myself or any other moderator by pm, or within the public pages of the forum.

Finally, Rev Roswell, as has always been the case, you are free to post whatever you wish as long as it does not constitute a personal attack. Alternatively you may pursue a path of claiming persecution where none exists and declaring censorship, where none exists. The choice is yours.

Thank you.

Ophiolite

30. wow. if thats true you really need to straight out rev, and dont take things persinal just becuase others dont belive like you do and crushes arguments with facts

31. [quote="REV ROSWELL"]
It would take you eighteen BILLION years to reach the most distant star that we can see. } >
So, wouldn't that mean the Universe has an age of at least 18 billion years?

Why do I read frequently of scientists guessing the age of the Universe at 12 billion years or other figures below 18?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement