Unconventional space physics question: propulsion speed limit-

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
we're centuries away from even approaching the speed of light (say 0.9 c). The energies involved are ridiculous.

The alleged required energies are definitely ridiculous. The mathematical twist of mass is what insists on those ridiculous energies. That doesn't mean going that fast requires those energies. It means that the math is fundamentally wrong.

it would take about 3.7*10^37 kg of fuel. Thats orders of magnitude heavier than the Earth!

That's a problem with the engine and fuel, not the science. A different engine design may not require that kind of fuel at all.
 
T

theridane

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

Alleged? Dude.

Even if you toss relativity (well confirmed and routinely used to correctly predict thousands of experiment outcomes every year, definitely not fundamentally wrong) out of the window and go with good old fashioned Newton (working approximation that's been in good use for literally centuries), you still end up with 3.64e19 J of energy. That's a load too, but Newton doesn't really work at these speeds.
 
O

orionrider

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

Relativistic effects have not only been tested in the 'real world', but they are dealt with everyday on large objects: the GPS satellites:

Relativistic effects cause additional errors[70] that would render GPS useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects are time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity. For example, relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of about 1 part in 10^10, the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 10^10 faster than an Earth based clock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Pos ... Relativity

When theory, math, common sense and observation concur, you must be very audatious to say they are all wrong and you know better ;)
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

When theory, math, common sense and observation concur

Relativity likes infinite densities at the center of a black hole. There is no common sense or observation of such densities. Only the math that "requires" them.

the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 10^10 faster than an Earth based clock

The satellite travelling through and passing energy could affect the input signals on the satellite, like a dimmer on a chandelier. It's not audacious to suggest that a change of 5 parts in ten billion is due to something other than relativity.
 
J

jessez13

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

KickLaBuka":tqfxg61l said:
When theory, math, common sense and observation concur

Relativity likes infinite densities at the center of a black hole. There is no common sense or observation of such densities. Only the math that "requires" them.

the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 10^10 faster than an Earth based clock

The satellite travelling through and passing energy could affect the input signals on the satellite, like a dimmer on a chandelier. It's not audacious to suggest that a change of 5 parts in ten billion is due to something other than relativity.


Relativity has matched predictions for all tests we have been able to throw at it. Not bad for a hundred year old theory. As for Black holes there are solutions to Einsteins field equations that do not have the math problems of Hilbert's solution.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/brillouin.pdf

Brillouin's Solution matches the one currently taught for weak gravity but has no singularity besides r = 0.
Hint: Gama = R / ( R + 2m) = 1/ ( 1 + 2m/R) is approximately equal to 1 - 2m/R for 2m/R << 1
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

Not bad for a hundred year old theory

Nice to meet you Jessie. The model of relativity has been extremely successful. I do not discount it lightly, but that doesn't change my opinion that it is wrong, based on its assumptions and subsequent extrapolations.

other than at R=0

Would anyone care to explain R=0?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

sigh... :roll:
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

KickLaBuka":3gq2mtsh said:
Would anyone care to explain R=0?
That would be a radial coordinate origin: radius = 0
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

That would be a radial coordinate origin: radius = 0

hahah, thank you speedfreek. It's nice to hear from you again. I understand what it is, where it is, and what it means. What I asked was if someone would explain what happens there. If the math can't do it, does the place exist? :shock: We can get into what happens at R=.0001 later on.
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

If I may combine parts from 2 of KLB's posts above ....

KickLaBuka":17g647t6 said:
The alleged required energies are definitely ridiculous. The mathematical twist of mass is what insists on those ridiculous energies. That doesn't mean going that fast requires those energies. It means that the math is fundamentally wrong.

Well now you have to explain how the guys at LHC and other accelerators have their math so wrong. Afterall they calculated the magnetic field strength to curve those now "heavier" particles to go around their race tracks and darn if they don't have collisions right where predicted ... and not holes in the walls near the turns.

KickLaBuka":17g647t6 said:
The satellite travelling through and passing energy could affect the input signals on the satellite, like a dimmer on a chandelier. It's not audacious to suggest that a change of 5 parts in ten billion is due to something other than relativity.

Where else have "we" witnessed this effect of yours ? Or it's close cousin ??
 
N

neuvik

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

Mee_n_Mac":1ql3ja1a said:
Where else have "we" witnessed this effect of yours ? Or it's close cousin ??

Thunderbolts :mrgreen:
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

KickLaBuka":1kcj8cni said:
That would be a radial coordinate origin: radius = 0

hahah, thank you speedfreek. It's nice to hear from you again. I understand what it is, where it is, and what it means. What I asked was if someone would explain what happens there. If the math can't do it, does the place exist? :shock: We can get into what happens at R=.0001 later on.

No, what you asked was for someone to explain R=0, you asked nothing about what "happens" there. Discussions about gravitational or coordinate singularities belong in threads about black holes, and you already have a thread about this elsewhere on this board.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

Good point, and noted. MW
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

speedfreek":zshffquo said:
Discussions about gravitational or coordinate singularities belong in threads about black holes, and you already have a thread about this elsewhere on this board.
The thread was about propulsion speed limits. Since I believe that propulsion is occurring at the center of a black hole, it's perfectly appropriate to discuss them here.

mee_and_mac":zshffquo said:
kicklabuka":zshffquo said:
passing energy could affect the input signals on the satellite, like a dimmer on a chandelier
Where else have "we" witnessed this effect of yours ? Or it's close cousin ??

Pulsars would be the most obvious example, but even satellites experience affects when they near other planets.

mee_and_mac":zshffquo said:
you have to explain how the guys at LHC and other accelerators have their math so wrong

It's not that the math is "wrong." Math is a tool to explain an observation. If you develop an equation to explain the location of the curve in a seashell, it doesn't mean that the equation is the reason. The Fibonacci sequence is well rooted in observation, but it is not the cause. The same thing goes for LHC. They introduce a field to hold a proton in orbit based on a mathematical tool, but it doesn't mean that tool is properly explaining what is happening to cause them to introduce that field.
 
N

neilsox

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

I'm not sure we understand the original post as it now reads. Most of the subsequent posts are good physics. If you are in the space craft, you can think Newtonian physics. The same amount of ejection mass is required to accelerate your craft, if you assume the craft is the frame of reference. Actually somewhat less as you have less mass to accelerate, since you ejected some of it.. Other frames of reference get tricky as you get close to c with respect to your starting point or destination. It is generally agreed that there is no reference frame that is universally applicable = everything is moving with respect to most everything else after you leave Earth's surface.
Moving at almost c (with respect to something) does not produce a perception of increased mass or shortening of length or time for the crew of the spacecraft, as they have little or no movement with respect to the craft.
If the craft collides with subatomic or bigger particles at almost c, then the destructive energy is proportional to the square of the speed of the particle with respect to the craft. Dangerous radiation will result from the collision. Neil
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

KickLaBuka":ntsjmu4j said:
The alleged required energies [to accelerate to 0.9 c] are definitely ridiculous. The mathematical twist of mass is what insists on those ridiculous energies. That doesn't mean going that fast requires those energies. It means that the math is fundamentally wrong...

...it would take about 3.7*10^37 kg of fuel [to achieve 0.1 percent c with a 100,000 kg spaceship]. Thats orders of magnitude heavier than the Earth!

...That's a problem with the engine and fuel, not the science. A different engine design may not require that kind of fuel at all.

Since you seem to hold a dissenting view, I'm curious about how much fuel you calculate would be needed to accelerate a 100 metric ton spacecraft from low Earth orbit (~7.5 km/s) to 0.1 percent c (relative to Earth). If you like, you can use a hypothetical engine that's 100% efficient. For comparison, the end-of-mission weight of the space shuttle (the orbiter) is listed as ~115 tons (US) or about 104 metric tons.

Chris
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

I'm curious about how much fuel you calculate would be needed

How much fuel does our black hole use to hold the stars in their orbits?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

First of all, the black hole doesn't use fuel, it's attraction is gravity, which is strictly determined by it's passive mass.

Second of all, the stars don't orbit the black hole, they orbit the center of mass (barycenter) of the entire galaxy. Even the black hole orbits that.

MW
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

KickLaBuka":3ujp3rlk said:
I'm curious about how much fuel you calculate would be needed

How much fuel does our black hole use to hold the stars in their orbits?

If you would like to answer both questions, that's fine. I'm more interested in your answer to the first question.

Remember, the result of a calculation has been offered by Dangineer with which you've expressed your disagreement. It now is your responsibility to offer a calculation that you feel is more realistic.

Chris
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

the result of a calculation has been offered by Dangineer with which you've expressed your disagreement. It now is your responsibility to offer a calculation that you feel is more realistic.
Maybe you misunderstood the point of my comment to him. Respectfully speaking, he's one of the smartest people on this website. But my comment wasn't on the accuracy of his math, relativity or no relativity, nor on my disagreements with him regarding the science or the accepted. The argument is that fuel and conventional rocket science is insufficient in the first place. As interesting as your word problem is, it is as silly as asking the average wing speed velocity of an unladen swallow.

The answer to the second question is none. The galaxy is an engine that draws electrons to high speeds without the need for "fuel" as an input (that being my standpoint, not the accepted). If we want to go fast, find a way to attract your shuttle to what's in front of it, repel what's behind it, and get to the center of the galaxy to catch the train.
 
D

dryson

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

In a Newtonian universe there really is no limit. You can accelerate as long as you want, and reach any velocity desired.

Sadly, that's not the universe we live in right now :) in this universe, the faster you go, the higher your relativistic mass is, and since acceleration is a function of mass and thrust, the heavier you seem to be, the less acceleration your engines give. As you approach the speed of light, your relativistic mass increases to near infinity, so your acceleration drops down to near zero. That's why you're not gonna beat the light speed record :D

I do not think that relativistic mass exists maybe only in a political science venue but not in reality. What is mass? Mass is the amount of material that is contained within an object especially at the atomic level. The faster that you go would not mean that each of the atoms would aquire more material thus increasing their mass.

Do astronaughts increase in mass when they travel into space? If they would there would be a hell of mess inside of the shuttle cabin.

Relativistic Mass was established by Einstein to prevent people from aspiring to try and break the speed of light as breaking the speed of light would not only allow humanity to spread out into the Universe breaking the speed of light would also break religions hold over humanity in so much that only god could create something at the speed of light and too break the speed of light would break the method of control that religion has used over the entire planet Earth since the first person asked who created us?

This is the problem with political science's then corrupt the purity of science by twisting up the very spirit of science just so a group of people can control a certain number of the population to make theirself feel special and at the center of attention by using generalities of specialized nonsense just to say that they know when they really do not know.

If the speed of light cannot be broken then why can a blackhole pull a light photon into it's maul? The light photon should based on Eistein be traveling fast enough to avoid the gravity of the blackhole so there must be a force being produced by the blackhole that functions faster than the speed of light.
 
N

neuvik

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

dryson":22kiz9j2 said:
....
Relativistic Mass was established by Einstein to prevent people from aspiring to try and break the speed of light as breaking the speed of light would not only allow humanity to spread out into the Universe breaking the speed of light would also break religions hold over humanity in so much that only god could create something at the speed of light and too break the speed of light would break the method of control that religion has used over the entire planet Earth since the first person asked who created us?

...

Not only is that one gigantic run on sentence....but it's a pile of steaming ignorance! Congrats....you fail.
 
S

SpaceTas

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

dryson double sigh ...

Relativistic mass was not made up to limit our ambitions of going faster than the speed of light. No object with inertial mass can be accelerated to the speed of light. It is not possible in both theory and practice (ie it's been tried with sub atomic particles). The relativistic mass is a direct consequence of the axiom of special relativity that the speed of light is constant.

Here's a quick summary of the state of testing.

First; special relativity deals with objects traveling at constant velocities. It is routinely measured and confirmed to a high degree of accuracy, for a wide range of mass ie from sub-atomic particles to satellites and over a vast ranges of speeds from few km/s to 0.9999999.... speed of light. It works.

Second: general relativity deals with the affects of acceleration on space-time, and has been confirmed with high accuracy in the low gravity case ie near the Earth or Sun. In fact measuring gravitational time dilation is a 3rd physics experiment, and this correction is used to correct the on board clocks of GPS satellites ... The higher order effects like frame dragging due to the spinning of a massive object have also been tested (Gravity probe B) ... Gen rel has been also been tested in the medium gravity case ie binary pulsars to high accuracy. In the strong case near the surfaces of neutron stars and near black holes it works but the accuracy is less leaving room for alternative versions.

So Realativity works well, and is applicable to discussions about spacecraft.

Black holes are a detour on the discussion; the theory is evolving very rapidly at the moment; but there is only hints that "we" have any idea what goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole.
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

dryson":1v9uzgf7 said:
...If the speed of light cannot be broken then why can a blackhole pull a light photon into it's maul? The light photon should based on Eistein be traveling fast enough to avoid the gravity of the blackhole so there must be a force being produced by the blackhole that functions faster than the speed of light.

I agree with SpaceTas that black holes are a detour in this discussion, as well as conspiracy theory claims that scientists are in league with politicians and the world's religious leaders to control the population by fooling them into thinking that faster than light travel is impossible. My experience is that most laymen dont feel that either subject has anything to do with them.

That said, Dryson has, rather inadvertently, hit upon a question (quoted above) that I've wrestled with and tried to conceptualize within my own limited capacity. As I understand it, although GR does place a limiting value on the relative speed of particles and objects in local space, it places no such constraints on space itself.

This so-called "loophole" in GR permits widely separated regions of space to move at superluminal velocities relative to each other due to the general expansion of space. The (massive) objects within each of these regions are limited to velocities less than the speed of light realtive to any other object within their local space, but their general motion may exceed the speed of light relative to objects in other (distant) regions of space.

Regarding effects in the immediate vicintiy of an event horizon surrounding a black hole, I've read one explanation that describes space itself as moving toward the event horizon - much like a fast moving river. All particles (photons and massive particles alike) must "swim upstream" in this fast-moving current of space to move away from the event horizon. At the event horizon itself the "current" is equal to the speed of light and even photons - which travel at the speed of light in this local space - can't make any headway. Their frequency is so stretched that they become red-shifted to the point of having zero energy.

I don't know if this explanation has any mathematical basis. For a layman, though, it at least provides a conceptual framework through which I can "make sense" of the explanations for questions such as Dryson posed above about black holes as well as the questions that arise about the apparent superluminal resessional velocity of distant galaxies.

Chris
 
D

dryson

Guest
Re: Basic space physics question: propulsion speed limit

Newtonian physics give reasonably accurate results as long as you think of the space craft as the frame of reference. The problem arises if you think with respect to the starting point or the destination or a star about 13.7 billion light years away which is receding at 0.999c To reach 0.9991 c (with respect to that star) takes extreme amounts of fuel even if you are at zero speed with respect to Earth's poles.
The other problem is, if you need one ton of fuel to increase your speed by one kilometer per second, you need 100,000 tons of fuel to reach 1/3 the speed of light. Since you have to carry the fuel from the beginning, the fuel better be antimatter, or the one ton was not realistic. Neil

I hope I can explain this correctly. The faster that you go you would think that the energy needed would be less due to the fact that the interaction between electromagnetism and magnetism and the other forces that combine to create gravity would be less the farther away from a planet that you went. We know that gravity creates atomic weight based on the amount of electrons present that assist in trapping the various wavelengths that a planet creates. The more electrons present means the heavier the atom becomes unless my reasoning based upon the table of elements is wrong then having fewer electrons would mean fewer wavelengths would be trapped between the electrons and nucleus thus creating a lighter element.

I do not follow the idea that gravity is present everywhere in the Universe. I believe that gravity is generated or created by the various energetic properties of atoms combined into a larger object such as an asteroid, planet or sun. When the atoms of such objects covalently or atomically bond to one another each bond adds to the overall gravitational field strength. The more atoms and molecules that combine together creates a gravitational field around the object where different order's of gravity will be present that would be relative to the elemental composition of each element. The larger the object the greater the range of it's gravitational influence is upon the bodies that are present within the objects gravitational sphere of influence which all of the objects inside of the gravitational sphere of influence with theirself produce or generate their own gravitational sphere of influence. The smaller objects would then be effected upon by the larger objects gravitational sphere of influence thus causing movement.

As a rocket goes faster and faster into the sky the rocket is occupying more space at one time than it would be if it was at rest mass.The interaction between the objects (Earth) gravitational field and the elements of the rockets design are at an equilibrium or a position where both influences from the rockets design elements and the planets gravitational field are equal to one another. This would mean that the rocket is not placing a force against the planets gravitational field but the planets gravitational field is placing a force against the rockets design elements.

Once the rocket's engines fire the rockets design elements are occupying more space than it would be if the rocket was at rest meaning that more of the sub components that gravity consists of are interacting with the rockets design elements at a faster rate which creates more atomic weight. This means that the rocket would require more thrust to break the interaction between the planets gravity and the rockets design elements. Once an equilibriated state between the two interactions has been achieved the rocket can propel itself into space.

In space however and the farther away from a planet that you travel the less gravity is present. Similar to how if you hold up a candle in a darkened room that is filled with fog you can see the layers of intensity that the candle produces as well as being able to feel the heat of the candle. The farther away from the candle that you travel the less prevelant the light and warmth is which in this case would represent gravity with the flame being the center of Earths core.

So inside of a solar system traveling to ftl might not be possible because of the suns gravitational field creating a weight upon the ship in the same manner that Earth's gravitational field exerts it's force upon the rocket as it leaves the planet.

But outside of the solar system where the effect of the sun's gravity lessens that farther you travel away from the solar system the less gravity there is present to create a occupying force of gravity upon the ship.

Occupying force of gravity means the faster you go the more gravity that you encounter which increases the weight of the ship based upon the gravities interaction with the rockets design elements.

So once outside of the solar system it might be possible to travel faster than the speed of light due to the fact that blackholes are able to pull a light photon into it's maul. This would supercede the fact that the speed of light is the fastest attainable speed in the Universe for the simple fact that if the speed of light was the fastest speed attainable then the light photon would not be affected by the gravity of the blackhole. But since even light cannot escape a blackhole would mean that the gavity of the blackhole is functioning at a faster rate of velocity than the light photon is or faster than the speed of light.

If the gravity of the blackhole was being generated at light speed and the light photon passed through the blackhole's gravity field then both energetic processes would equilibirate to each other allowing the light photon to pass through the field without being effeected. But since the gravity of the blackhole pulls the light photon into the blackhole's maul then the rate at which the gravity wavelength of the blackhole is being generated at and occupies space would be faster than the the speed of light.

Remember the occupying force of gravity? In this instance our rocket is the light photon and the planet is the blackhole. The light photon has more gravity occupying the interior of the photon in the same manner that the planets gravity creates more weight upon the rocket's design elements which creates weight the faster that the rocket travels.

So in order for the light photon to escape the pull of a blackhole the light photon would need to travel faster than the ability of the blackhole's gravitational wavelengths would be able to occupy it's interior mass.Which means that the gravity of a blackhole functions at a velocity faster than the speed of light and would also mean that there would a force in the Universe that would be able to travel faster than the speed of the gravity of a blackhole otherwise the entire Universe would be pulling in on the center of the Universe where the largest blackhole is thought to exist instead of expanding outwards.

You have to remember that Einstein's theories revolved around energetic actions that occured within the sphere of Earth or inside the sphere of gravity.

Another way to look at what I am trying to explain is by thinking of gravity as an egg. Inside if the egg shell you have cells that grow larger and larger until the cells form a chick. The chick then has to use a certain amount of force to break through the shells barrier. Once broken through the chick is now able to fly at a faster rate of velocity than it could when it was still inside of the egg.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.