/sci/ - Science & Math

Jesus, I was thinking about this same question under an hour ago.

Well since you're traveling at 1.7 kilometers a second, I would suppose most things around you would be a blur.

I'd guess it would be like a fan blade spinning. reacquiring things outside your window would appear to skip(grass trees roads)and non reacquiring(farm housse, phone towers) would just be split second blurs of color

>>3843250
>1.7 km/s
Holy shit, that put some perspective on it.

To OP, I imagine you'd still be able to see this in the background pass by relatively slowly.

Are vactrains those things that travel through a vacuumed tube to reduce friction? If so then you wouldn't be able to see anything outside the window because light can't pass through a perfect vacuum.

>>3843285

>>3843250

Where do you collect all of those awesome images?

>>3843291
/sci/. I've been here for a while.

>>3843285
oh god.
I seriously hope you're trolling.

>>3843239
Escape velocity is, what, 18000mph?

Would you weigh somewhat less if you were traveling at 4000 mph?

>>3843298

Mass increases as your speed does retard

>>3843285

wat

>>3843298
>Would you weigh somewhat less if you were traveling at 4000 mph?
I think you would.
Just imagine, Venusian gravity while travelling at full speed. Everything seems to fall slower and sag slightly less, as if in a one were in a dream.

>>3843307

But mass decreases as speed increases

>>3843298

Inc. speed = inc. mass, or "weight" as you stupidly put it.

Why do you think nothing with mass can travel faster than light? As it approaches the speed of light it gains infinite mass and requres infinite energy for acceleration.

Inb4 neutrinos

>>3843312

whatever happened to that experiement? has it been debunked yet?

If they built a vactrain, they would probably build it underground. You wouldn't be seeing much of the outside world if you were in it.

>>3843300
>Mass increases as your speed does retard
Is that why Columbia crashed?
It got too fast, got too much mass?

Was Columbia going at .99c?

>>3843321

so why would you weigh less if you went faster?

>>3843317

Do you have autism or aspergers?

>>3843317
5ft Thick Plexiglass tunnel?

>>3843312
Why are you putting weight in scare quotes?

W = mg

>>3843320

It's going to take 4-6 months. Fermilab has a similar setup and is repeating the experiment.

How fast would you have to travel in the vacuum tube to experience a full 1 G inverse gravity?

>>3843327
I'm not a physics person, but I believe earth's mass has a certain amount of gravitational force.
When you start to accelerate to faster speeds, you balance out that force. When you reach 18,000 mph, you cancel out that gravitational force completely. What pulls you back to Earth is friction. For satellites, this is usually caused by particles from the outermost layers of the atmosphere.

>>3843361
Assuming Fgrav = 9.81 N

Assuming average person is 65KG

Force needed to feel weightless: 637.65N

Fcentripetal must be 637.65N too.
637.65 = (65*velocity^2)/6378e3
65*velocity² = 4 066 931 700
Velocity = 7910m/s

>>3843394
Aaaaand backing up my calculations:
http://www.freemars.org/jeff/speed/index.htm

So to stay in orbit, you need to go that fast for a certain altitude

>>3843394

But wouldn't you have to go twice as fast to be able to stand on the ceiling of the train?

>>3843626
Double the Fcentripetal, recalculate v and you have your answer

>>3843321
18c, actually.

At nearly two kilometers each second, just imagine the outcome of a catastrophic accident. Even some sort of atmospheric breach at that speed would produce huge forces against a traveling capsule. And what sort of braking mechanism would be required? How much distance is required to come to a stop? The stopping distance is likely to be in tens of kilometers, meaning that rupture and obstruction detection has to be very long distance and using a very short reaction time (meaning emergency response would need to be fully automated).

that's a nice image, something to imagine...
like flying really fast really low,
like that