Why haven't we yet tried accelerating a space station with people inside to a near light speed?Why is there a controversy on whether mass increases with speed?Is rocket propellant meaningfully a form of “space junk”What is the relativistic calculation of travel time to Proxima Centauri?Do photons see shorter distances due to space contraction?Relativistic space travel?Does physics recognize the particle of light separately from the wave of light?Wormholes, time travel, and time dilationFalling into the black hole: a picture from the infinite distanceAre there any well-known large body objects moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light relative to earth?Observer inside event horizon of an extremely large black holeEffect of Acceleration on (Special) Relativity of Simultaneity
Job Market: should one hide their (young) age?
What could a self-sustaining lunar colony slowly lose that would ultimately prove fatal?
Is superuser the same as root?
Why did Jon Snow do this immoral act if he is so honorable?
Why is the Eisenstein ideal paper so great?
Security vulnerabilities of POST over SSL
Heat lost in ideal capacitor charging
How to deal with a colleague who is being aggressive?
What is the meaning of "<&3" and "done < file11 3< file22"
Where is Jon going?
Are black holes spherical during merger?
Is there an actual reason behind the author's using the number four in "value meal number four"
Is there a standard name for this relation property : " aRb --> there is no c different from b such that aRc "?
What is the use case for non-breathable waterproof pants?
Why did Theresa May offer a vote on a second Brexit referendum?
Did 20% of US soldiers in Vietnam use heroin, 95% of whom quit afterwards?
Navigating a quick return to previous employer
Of strange atmospheres - the survivable but unbreathable
Can you output map values in visualforce inline using a string key?
Replacement stem cap and bolt
Why was this character made Grand Maester?
Expected maximum number of unpaired socks
Do photons bend spacetime or not?
Find this cartoon
Why haven't we yet tried accelerating a space station with people inside to a near light speed?
Why is there a controversy on whether mass increases with speed?Is rocket propellant meaningfully a form of “space junk”What is the relativistic calculation of travel time to Proxima Centauri?Do photons see shorter distances due to space contraction?Relativistic space travel?Does physics recognize the particle of light separately from the wave of light?Wormholes, time travel, and time dilationFalling into the black hole: a picture from the infinite distanceAre there any well-known large body objects moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light relative to earth?Observer inside event horizon of an extremely large black holeEffect of Acceleration on (Special) Relativity of Simultaneity
$begingroup$
Is that something we could do if we use ion or nuclear thrusters?
Wouldn't people in the station reach 0.99993 speed of light in just 5 years accelerating at 1g and effectively travel into the future by 83.7 years?
That would be a great experiment and a very effective way to show relativity theory in action. I mean, the people inside the station would have effectively traveled into the future, how cool is that? Why haven't it been done yet?
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
asked 10 hours ago
Un1Un1
16216
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is that something we could do if we use ion or nuclear thrusters?
Wouldn't people in the station reach 0.99993 speed of light in just 5 years accelerating at 1g and effectively travel into the future by 83.7 years?
That would be a great experiment and a very effective way to show relativity theory in action. I mean, the people inside the station would have effectively traveled into the future, how cool is that? Why haven't it been done yet?
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
asked 10 hours ago
Un1Un1
16216
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is that something we could do if we use ion or nuclear thrusters?
Wouldn't people in the station reach 0.99993 speed of light in just 5 years accelerating at 1g and effectively travel into the future by 83.7 years?
That would be a great experiment and a very effective way to show relativity theory in action. I mean, the people inside the station would have effectively traveled into the future, how cool is that? Why haven't it been done yet?
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
asked 10 hours ago
Un1Un1
16216
$endgroup$
Is that something we could do if we use ion or nuclear thrusters?
Wouldn't people in the station reach 0.99993 speed of light in just 5 years accelerating at 1g and effectively travel into the future by 83.7 years?
That would be a great experiment and a very effective way to show relativity theory in action. I mean, the people inside the station would have effectively traveled into the future, how cool is that? Why haven't it been done yet?
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
asked 10 hours ago
Un1Un1
16216
asked 10 hours ago
Un1Un1
16216
edited 5 hours ago
Un1
asked 10 hours ago
Un1Un1
16216
asked 10 hours ago
Un1Un1
16216
asked 10 hours ago
Un1Un1
16216
16216
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text kg$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$beginalign
E_text k &= fracmc^2sqrt1-v^2/c^2 - mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-v^2/c^2-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-0.99993^2-1right)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^21text J
endalign$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^20text J$.)
answered 9 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,07011119
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
4 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 7 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
601
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481634%2fwhy-havent-we-yet-tried-accelerating-a-space-station-with-people-inside-to-a-ne%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text kg$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$beginalign
E_text k &= fracmc^2sqrt1-v^2/c^2 - mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-v^2/c^2-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-0.99993^2-1right)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^21text J
endalign$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^20text J$.)
answered 9 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,07011119
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
4 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text kg$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$beginalign
E_text k &= fracmc^2sqrt1-v^2/c^2 - mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-v^2/c^2-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-0.99993^2-1right)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^21text J
endalign$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^20text J$.)
answered 9 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,07011119
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
4 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text kg$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$beginalign
E_text k &= fracmc^2sqrt1-v^2/c^2 - mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-v^2/c^2-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-0.99993^2-1right)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^21text J
endalign$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^20text J$.)
answered 9 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,07011119
$endgroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text kg$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$beginalign
E_text k &= fracmc^2sqrt1-v^2/c^2 - mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-v^2/c^2-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac1sqrt1-0.99993^2-1right)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text kgcdot (3cdot 10^8text m/s)^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^21text J
endalign$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^20text J$.)
answered 9 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,07011119
edited 2 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,07011119
answered 9 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,07011119
answered 9 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,07011119
2,07011119
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
4 mins ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
4 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
4 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
4 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 7 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
601
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 7 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
601
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 7 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
601
$endgroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 7 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
601
answered 7 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
601
answered 7 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
601
answered 7 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
601
601
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
1 hour ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:
tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:
tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481634%2fwhy-havent-we-yet-tried-accelerating-a-space-station-with-people-inside-to-a-ne%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
2 hours ago