/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9724713
1/10 * c if I'm not mistaken.

0.9999...c, so just under light speed

>>9724716
How come only 1/10th?

>>9724713
No theoretical reason you can't get as close to lightspeed as you like.
For several practical reasons, 0.1 cee is as good an estimate at any.

>>9724713
11.08 km/s

>>9724713
With just Nuclear pulsed fission you could conceivably reach a constant 1g acceleration, using that in just 10 years you'd travel 14700 light years in the ship's time frame.
In just 20 years of constant 1g acceleration you could go hundreds of millions of light years, so you could reach just about any galaxy visible. That's just from your perspective though, a stationary observer would see a Lot more time pass.

>>9724727
Radiation shielding (hitting interstellar gas at that speed)
Risk of hitting anything larger than a sand grain.
Cost. A deuterium-tritium fusion rocket could achieve 0.1 c (and stop again) with a mass-ratio of 10.15
To reach 0.2 c (and stop) the mass-ratio is 108
To reach 0.3 c (and stop) the mass-ratio is 1274

>>9724734

>>9724740
What? People keep saying "oh noo, the universe has a speed limit, that sucks" but the retards don't realize that in the travelers frame of reference he can go fucking anywhere he wants as long as he can handle the g forces from acceleration.

>>9724734
Assume Adamantium, a material which can contain a nuclear explosion. You can build a pure-fission rocket with a much better Isp than a pulse-fission drive (which wastes a good deal of the energy.)

You've got the distance right, but the mass-ratio is ridiculous. There isn't enough matter in the universe (to say nothing of uranium) to propel a single atom for 10 years at 1 gee.

>>9724745
read
>>9724738
Fuel is not a magical infinite thing, you still gotta store it to use it, and the more you plan to use, the more you have to store, which means you have to store more fuel to push that fuel you're storing
also, space is not empty, high %c gives you grains of sand and rocks that hit like nukes, with gas becoming the dust storm from hell on your ship plating

>>9724713
About five fast. Any faster and you'll be going six fast, which clearly doesn't make any sense.

>>9724752
Yeah, guess not, we'll just need to find a better propulsion system then.

>>9724760
Better than a rocket.
I did this yesterday for another thread.
Total conversion of mass-to-energy. Heinlein "torchship".

In ten years of flight (boosting and braking) you can go 168 lightyears. A good deal more if you just coast at top velocity. Let's say 200 lightyears.
There are about 450,000 stars (or star systems) within that range. Plenty of room for interstellar adventure. Forget about flying to other galaxies though.

The catch is that, even with the ultimate rocket, the mass-ratio is 21462. Only 0.004 percent of your ship remains.

>>9724755
just find some magitech that breaks conservation of momentum and use all that collision energy for more propulsion, then you won't even need fuel, easy

>>9724788
Sorry. Read the wrong row.
5 years boost needs a mass-ratio of 30772.
Only 0.0032 % of your ship remains.

>>9724758
Is that a mutherf*cking VIN DIESEL reference?

10% of lightspeed with generous usage of fission (avoid using the worlds "atomic" and "nuclear") devices.

>>9724760
Better than a rocket.
I did this yesterday for another thread.
Total conversion of mass-to-energy. Heinlein "torchship".

In ten years of flight (boosting and braking) you can go 168 lightyears. Let's say you coast awhile at top velocity and assume 200 lightyears.
There are about 450,000 stars (or star systems) within that range. Plenty of room for interstellar adventure. Forget about flying to other galaxies though.

The catch is that, even with the ultimate rocket, the mass-ratio is 30772. Only 0.0032 percent of your ship remains.

>>9724788
even if things take a long ass time, we can still visit other galaxies because you can just keep on coasting along
it'll take a fantastically long time to go to Andromeda, but we'll probably wind up doing it purely because people are going to want to go to Andromeda

>>9724758
what about 5.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999... fast?

>>9724752
You'd be blasting at near full c long before 10 years pass.

>>9724825
Sure. But you've got to get pretty close to cee before the time-dilation "advantage" really kicks in.

Here are the numbers for a pure-fission rocket (undiluted fission fragments just shoot out the tailpipe).
The numbers are already insane before you reach half lightspeed and have gained even 13 percent through Relativity.
Remember that stopping doubles the time and SQUARES the required mass-ratio.

>>9724816
Ten years boost with a total-conversion drive gives you a time-dilation of 15214. You're moving within 1-part-in-half-a-billion of lightspeed (easier to understand that way than writing a long string of 9s) and your mass-ratio is over 30,000. R is about a billion if you want to stop when you reach Andromeda -- in 167 years ship-time.

>>9724720
0,(9)c = 1c, which is obviously impossible if you have mass.

>>9724816
Nobody is going to want to go to Andromeda. There are more star systems in the milky way than we will ever be able to explore, and Andromeda would look the same as the milky way. Once you arrive the only difference would be it would take over 2 million years to phone home.

>>9725103
Furthermore, there's no point in going to Andromeda.
We just have to wait until it gets here.

>>9724713
Any amount x where x>1c, as long as the possible time to achieve it is infinite. Currently the fastest we could get in a short timeframe is however fast the Orion Project was supposed to be.

>>9725223
It was a math joke.
0.9999.... with those trailing dots represents an infinitely repeating decimal exactly equal to 1.0000

>>9725239
That post was a brainlet joke, since you can`t go faster than 1c.

>>9725103
>nobody will ever
>nobody is ever
any statement with these as a beginning is automatically incorrect

>>9724713
FWIW

The crew of NASA's Apollo 10 moon mission reached a top speed of 24,791 mph (39,897 kph) relative to Earth as they flew back to our planet on May 26, 1969. That's the fastest any human beings have ever traveled so far.

>>9725026
Clearly you don't know what a limit is

but the other guy answered the question wrong, no human has gone this fast and we can't pull that off right now

>>9724713
20% speed of light is the optimistic scenario for fusion systems. Antimatter, black holes and laser highways can pull 0.9c, but those are either situational or highly difficult to pull off.

The most realistic option for interstellar and intergalactic travel is actually biological immortality or brain uploading.

How would light speed, theoretically, impact the human body?

>>9724713
If you change the definition of human to "light", then humans would be capable of traveling the speed of light.

>>9725247
You can't even go as fast as c.

>>9725255
Really?
Your estimate on when the first free_ energy/overunity/perpetual_motion will appear?
The first compass-and-straight-edge procedure for trisecting an arbitrary angle?

>>9727591
This question is idiotic as you cant reach c

>>9725103
>Nobody is going to want to go to Andromeda.

I'd like to go to Andromeda.

>>9727848
Okay, how about near-light speed then?

>>9727906
Traveling at 0.99999 cee feels no different than being "at rest".
In fact, there IS no difference because all motion is relative.

If you travel at 0.99999 cee relative to Earth though, you're going to have problems because you're also moving 0.99999 cee relative to the thin gas and other junk between the stars. Very dangerous!

>>9725026
Hyper light-speed

>>9727906
It would be very painful

>>9729818

>>9729818
U
UU
U

>>9724716
>>9724727
>>9724738
>>9724755
Complete science fiction shit. We will probably never even get humans to 1/1000th of C.

C: 670,616,629 mph
1/10th of C: 67,061,662.9 mph (10% of C)
1/100th of C: 6,706,166.29 mph (1% of C)
1/1000th of C: 670,616.629 mph (0.1% of C)
1/10,000th of C: 67,061.6629 mph (0.01% of C)

The fastest man made object was the Juno satellite which was traveling at something like 130,000 mph at one point (according to its wiki page). That's 0.019% of C.

>that faggot that says, "near light speeedo!!! 0.99999C!!!!"

You basically need all the energy in the universe to do shit like that. Not going to happen. This is why popsci and science fiction rots your fucking brain.

>>9724713
Not conventional, but warp drive.
Maybe we could use dark energy.

There is no speed of light limit. Scientists are lying to us.

>>9729984
Science fiction has as much credibility as science. Both are made up.

>>9730003

>>9730004
None of those are paranormal. Conspiracies aren’t paranormal, either.
Kill yourself Jew

>>9730014
>this much irony in one post

n00b

>>9729984
Warp drive is the future

>>9730023
Keep believing in your fake science.

>>9730028
Are you okay?

>>9730004
>>9730014
Things that exist
>Antimatter
>Multi-dimensions
>Black Holes
>Schrodinger's Cat (Quantum Many Worlds)
>Time Dialation
>Relativity
>Psychiatry
>Aliens
>Wormhole

Things that are pop-sci bullshit
>Free Energy
>Vaccines (causing Autism)
>Chemtrails
>Overunity
>Flat Earth
>Hollow Earth
>Perpetual Motion Machines
>Simulation Theory

Uncertain
>Strong AI
>Free Will
>Meaning of Life

>>9730040
That's it goy, take it up the ass. UNF

>>9730046
Please fuck off to >>>/pol/

>>9730040
>Free Will
There is evidence to suggest that neurons fire before we are even aware of making a conscious decision. Couple that with neurons being a wholly-reactionary entity, and they exist only within the brain meaning the brain is purely a machine that reacts off various stimuli.
Not too uncertain.

>>9730217
Yeah yeah yeah, I heard the whole Free Will vs. Determinism debate before. I can say that in some cases yes the chemicals and neurons in our brains determine certain actions before they happen. But in most daily cases, who makes the decisions in the first place. Your conscious mind makes the decisions in advance before you carry it out.

>>9725608
>(39,897 kph)
That's 0.00003697c (and downhill at that)

>>9730217
>neurons fire before we are even aware of making a conscious decision
...so it's not really me aking the decisions, it's my brain???
Does that mean my brain has free will, but I don't?

>>9730277
No, it means your brain ("you") responds to its environment in ways that are outside of the brains ("your") control.
>input
>input is processed by the complex network of chemical reactions in the brain
>output

>>9724713
Almost c, but you'd die before reaching almost c.

>>9730362
So.. almost c, but not almost c?