Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sidewinders Bar & Grille' started by LPBlue, Sep 25, 2020.
Hey Op so sorry for the divergence from the original topic
The movie Interstellar covered an often-ignored aspect as well, and until the ending, was based on pretty solid (currently believed) science.
Time is influenced not only by speed, but also by mass... I mean, the two are one and the same because as speed increases, mass increases... But merely being in the area of an extremely massive object, such as a black hole, will have a significant impact on the passage of time relative to areas outside of the influence.
The same exists on a smaller scale with the Sun, Earth, Moon, Jupiter, etc... But like effect of orbital velocity on the astronauts in the ISS, the effects are observable, but negligible on this scale.
Another observation that anyone can make that I've heard conflicting arguments for.....
Take a cube of steel, place it on a scale, and heat it to orange.
As it heats, it gets heavier. This was explained in an article that I read in the 70s (Omni) that the atoms are vibrating at such a high speed that they begin to exhibit observable relativistic effects.
Those who have disagreed with that have given me nothing more than "It does get heavier, but that is not the reason"
I'm not going to discuss Interstellar, there's a lot that didn't jive with me in that movie. But as for your point about mass and energy content, most of the mass of everything is actually energy:
The "time travel" aspects, or communicating through time, are the plot elements that I do not believe have a scientific basis.
Time dilation is not time travel. You can theoretically move "forward" in time (relative to the rest of the world) by traveling faster, but there are no indications that time is anything but linear, so you can't go back.
But it makes for some very good science fiction... and some very lame Star Trek plot lines.
Some time travel fiction is great, and some just uses it as a convenient dues ex machina to tidy up plot holes and inconsistencies. I enjoy the former, the latter drive me crazy.
We're space truckin' round the the stars
Come on let's go Space Truckin'
Well to be honest our bodies can easily handle the speeds. At a 1 G acceleration it will take you about 7 hears to get to the nearest star (alpha centauri system). In 18 years you can reach the center of the galaxy, a few years more an you could be at the other side of the galaxy. And if you can exist on planet Earth you can handle 1 G.
Problem is the energy it takes. Even at 100% conversion of mass into thrust your fuel requirement would be hundreds of times the weight of you and your spaceship. And we know of no physics, save perhaps antimatter mutual annihilation that converts 100% of the mass into energy to say nothing about actually converting it into thrust. And it takes far more energy today to actually make antimatter than the antimatter would release.
Nope, barring some sort of space warp the best option that I can see is some sort of device that picks up energy along the way like a Bussard ramjet.
And some humor from me of course