If Einstein is right you can't go faster than C. But IMO he wasn't right and SR is full of flaws.
If the mass does not increase as the speed of light is reached and if the fabric of space goes on the journey too then any speed is possible. On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 07:01 PM 11/3/2009, Horace Heffner wrote: > > The model by which the device is said to work looks bogus. I think if >> they knew why and how it actually works they could produce a much >> better W/a ratio. The device applies force to vacuum elements. >> Their theory predicts a change in acceleration with velocity. I think >> this is nonsense. Either the device doesn't work at all in space or >> its thrust, as perceived by the occupants, does not vary with velocity. >> > > The only way that the thrust could vary with velocity would be if it > depends on velocity through a material or velocity through a field of some > kind. > > > > A 1 g device should be able to accelerate right on beyond c, and thus >> go anywhere in the universe. >> > > The occupants would feel the 1 g >> acceleration though, and that is a good thing. >> >> The time to light speed T2 at 1 g is: >> >> T2 = c/g = 3.057x10^7 s = 0.968735 years = about 11 months 20 days >> > > Eh? No, "g" is a measure of acceleration, but the acceleration produced in > a reference frame by a constant force reduces as the velocity approaches c, > while, at the same time, that acceleration is experienced as the same by the > occupants of the ship, who are now experiencing time dilation and the other > nifty effects of approaching light speed. They never get to light speed, > just closer and closer and closer. The accumulated potential energy keeps > rising. > > > I have no idea what this might mean in terms of what would happen if >> they should hit some atoms along the way though, as the atom apparent >> mass might be infinite. Also, the mass presented to the incoming >> atoms would be infinite. A practical case of the irresistible force >> and the immovable object paradox? >> > > They would become more and more irresistible, but, unfortunately, so would > anything they hit as their velocity approaches c, and with time dilation, > they will cover a lot of space in cross-section where there might be > something. In any case, the fuel that must be consumed to continue to > accelerate like that .... how big are they, including fuel? And then how > much force is exerted by the drive? The bigger they are the lower the > acceleration for a constant fuel consumption... Getting significant mass > close to c ... forget about it. > > Ah, I wasted a few perfectly good minutes on this. >
