Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine

Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine

Posted by: inventor - Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:47 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 62 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine 
Author Message
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:44 am
Posts: 23
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:48 am
Johno wrote

No they don't. You said that they say it. What they actually said is that its mass increases. You're not listening and you're only hearing what you want to hear.


Different people say it differently some say the mass some say the eneregy, in any case it is still nonsense.

Its the momentum of the matter that increases. And they say this energy makes the object harder to propel. A moving object is easier to move. It's true for a truck and it's true for a space ship moving 3 times the speed of light.

How would the mass of the matter change when its speed becomes very high?


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:05 am
I'm probably not going to get far here, but I'll give it a go...

Momentum = mass x velocity, so, yes, it increases as velocity increases. But mass also increases as velocity increases. (special relativity I believe). So, as you get faster (approaching speed of light - at the velocities experiences by humans at the moment, the change in mass is negligible), the mass of the system increase, and it requires more and more energy to increase speed and therefor momentum. By the time you get close to light speed, the mass is so huge that the energy required to accelerate any further tends to infinity.

All the evidence supports the theory that mass increase with velocity. I don't believe there is any counter evidence whatsoever. As to why - this is JUST THE WAY IT IS. Albeit it's counter intuitive.

With regard to your comment that a moving object is easier to move - that is not the case. You example of a trunk is wrong. You have not taken account of the friction in all the moving parts of the trunk. Friction is the reason why it appears that the trunk is harder to get going than to accelerate it further once moving. You have to overcome the friction at first. Of course in space there is no friction, so f=ma (force = mass x acceleration) is much more accurate. Well, it's always accurate, you just need to take account of all the variables, e.g. friction. If it was easier to accelerate an object once it was already moving, then cars would not have a top speed......they could just keep accelerating. But this is plainly not the case - air friction prevents it. At top speed the engine power is completely offset by air friction (and friction of all moving parts in the car)

To be honest this is pretty basic physics (so I am bound to have made a mistake - school was a long time ago), available in any O or A level physics reference (sorry, UK school exams references, not sure of USA or other equivalents!)


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 146
Location: Webster, TX
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:41 am
inventor wrote:
A moving object is easier to move


"easier" is a relative term.

JamesHughes wrote:
By the time you get close to light speed, the mass is so huge that the energy required to accelerate any further tends to infinity.


Inventor, Using your truck is a perfect example. Let's expand on that.
Say truck X has a power rating of 300 hp and a top speed of 200 MPH, in order for that truck to go an extra 5 MPH faster, it would take another 50hp to that extra 5 mph, and another 100 to go 5 mph faster than that, i.e 350 hp to go 205mph and 400 hp to go 210 mph.
I know those numbers aren't entirely accurate in the sense of reality, int ath it doesnt take into effect alot of things, like the aerodynamics of the truck, but its close enough to reality to illustrate the fact that required propulsive power vs craft speed is not linear, and probably closer to exponential. in the end it comes down to the same fact, to go faster and faster it will take more and more energy.

Space isn't a complete void. Gravitational influences extend alot farther than you would think.

the whole mass increasing as velocity increases is a completely wonky concept to me as well, and I'm still not sure I believe it,especially considering everything at those speeds is relative :P (lol, couldn't resist)


Ok... just looked up mass in wikipedia....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
i guess that is a concept i need to break myself from, that mass is not equal to matter, but a property of it. must read more.....lol


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:48 pm
inventor wrote:
It is difficult if not impossible to measure the speed of or propel a particle of matter when the measuring equipment or particle accelerator is functioning at that same speed as the particle. It does not surprise me that it would be difficult. You are using a measuring tool, a particle accelerator, devices, eye sight, brain and perception that is functioning at light speed, it must be difficult. However, faster than light speed particle acceleration I think is still possible but I think it’s dependent on the technique of acceleration.

I do think the speed of light is an ultimate speed but not the ultimate speed. I think the speed of light is an atomic speed. I think matter is created from energy and this energy is set in the structure of the atom, if the atom is disintegrated the particle comes flying out at this set speed and energy. So I do think the speed of light is a set atomic particle speed. I think that a mass of atoms clump together like a ball, like a car, whatever has different speed ability than an atomic particle. And this is where I differ from saying that the speed of light is the ultimate speed for every thing. I think a clump of matter can go slower than light speed or faster than light speed depending on the technique use for propulsion.


I think you missed this bit about Muons:

Quote:
When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei of air atoms in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (the pion's preferred decay product), and neutrinos. The muons from these high energy cosmic rays, generally continuing essentially in the same direction as the original proton, do so at very high velocities.

Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 0.66 km at most, the time dilation effect of special relativity allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the earth's surface.


Why does something moving faster cause time dilation? Something very clearly measured.

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Ireland
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:52 pm
inventor wrote:
I do think the speed of light is an ultimate speed but not the ultimate speed. I think the speed of light is an atomic speed.


Good for you. When you are finished flying around the galaxy in your car, hopefully you'll come back to visit Earth and show us all how to get to a temperature below absolute zero. That would be great, thanks.

johno


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:43 pm
Posts: 2
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:17 pm
Different people say it differently some say the mass some say the eneregy, in any case it is still nonsense.

Mass and energy are the same thing.

I'm sitting here on Earth, looking at a 1kg spacecraft moving away from me at 0.9c. 1kg travelling at 0.9c has a kinetic energy relative to me of about 1e17 joules, which is equivalent to a bit over a kilogram. To me, the spacecraft's apparent mass is the combined total of its rest mass and its kinetic energy: about 2kg.

But a (very small) passenger on the spacecraft is travelling at the same speed as the spacecraft. Therefore the kinetic energy difference is nil. So it perceives the rest mass only, 1kg.

Now the passenger looks back at me. I'm on Earth, which has a rest mass of about 6e24 kg. Because we have a difference in velocities of 0.9c, the passenger will perceive Earth to have a mass of 12e24 kg.

The reason why nobody's answered your original question is because it's not a valid one. Relativity is all about perception. You cannot phrase any question without specifying who is observing the scenario. It's meaningless to say 'matter travelling at high speed'; you have to say 'matter travelling at high speed relative to me'. Yes, you'll see the matter's mass to have increased --- because you're perceiving its kinetic energy along with the rest mass. Has the matter changed? No, because a passenger on the ship will detect no difference; yes, because the matter has all that kinetic energy squeezed into it. It's not a meaningful question.

Relativity is, alas, fundamentally unintuitive --- our intuition is great for swinging around in trees but fails abjectly when applied to the greater universe. We know it's right, though; it's one of the most rigorously verified theories ever. We can observe it in action everywhere we look in the universe. Huge amounts of our technology depend on it. For someone to prove it wrong, they'd have to provide some really compelling and reproducible evidence...


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:30 am
Posts: 213
Location: USA
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:22 pm
Bravo to the above response!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:53 am
Posts: 1
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:59 am
just a random question but it does pertain to this post but ive heard alot of talk about antimatter testing could be the answer to lightspeed travel and creating a lightspeed engine is there any way this could be true


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:30 am
Posts: 213
Location: USA
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:18 am
In a word, no. There is nothing special about matter antimatter annihilation. It is just converting mass to energy. It is of course the most complete transformation of mass to energy and thus the theoretical best choice for rocket propellent, but any rocket must still obey the laws of physics and stay soundly below the speed of light.

That being said there are all kinds of fun things that go on at high relative speeds and an anti matter engine could get you around the galaxy in a life-time. Given of course that you have as much anti-matter as you want and can personally withstand the required acceleration....


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:21 pm
Posts: 471
Location: B.O.A. UK
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:27 am
MMFQ DEATH wrote:
just a random question but it does pertain to this post but ive heard alot of talk about antimatter testing could be the answer to lightspeed travel and creating a lightspeed engine is there any way this could be true


Unfortunately not i was listening to an interview not long ago about the CERN experiments and how much antimatter has been created so far and they are still counting the individual atoms no one is anywhere near creating sufficient quantity of antimatter for propulsion experiments and even if it is some day possible to create large quantity's of the stuff under current scientifically respectably theories the best we could hope for IIRC is a ship that runs a few percent below light speed i quite like Alastair Reynolds sci fi name for such a ship, a Light Hugger and his description of it needing a leading edge of a large block of ice as a radiation shield is quite valid as i think the calculations have now been done on how much radiation would be created from the odd hydrogen atoms all thru interstellar space hitting anything travelling at near c speeds in relation to them.

_________________
Someone has to tilt at windmills.
So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 707
Location: Haarlem, The Netherlands
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:20 pm
For those confused about mass, momentum, and light speed, I wrote a post about that recently in another thread. People seemed to like it, so perhaps it's of use here as well.

_________________
Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhere
What is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphere
Machinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 929
Location: Columbus, GA USA
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:03 am
Does any else read the title of this thread as: "Light speed travel and the ACME propulsion engine"?

Image

:mrgreen: Tried to resist posting this, but I can no longer resist...


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:36 pm
Posts: 113
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:09 pm
JamesG wrote:
Does any else read the title of this thread as: "Light speed travel and the ACME propulsion engine"?


I did... I still do


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:51 am
Posts: 449
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe, Earth
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:01 pm
I had that association as well! :mrgreen:

_________________
pride comes before a fall


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 153
Post Re: Light speed travel and the AEMIE propulsion engine   Posted on: Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:28 pm
It seems to me that it is not time or matter that changes, but the effects of time on matter. So when you apply acceleration, you create time dilation that changes the observable effects of further acceleration (since velocity is a function of time and acceleration). Specifically, your space craft would observe its velocity as greater than c, but I back here on earth would observe it as less than c.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html

Of course, I'm trying to understand this myself so I could be wrong..

edit: I'm a bit fuzzy on how your spacecraft would observe its velocity. But the basic point to be made is that, given an origin and a destination, the time taken to reach the destination would appear to the traveller as less than (distance/c).


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use