The Rocket Ship

[Motor Daddy]

The Rocket ship

 

Twin brothers are standing next to each other on Earth. One brother is showing the other brother his new rocket ship. He says "this baby will go from 0 to 93,000 miles per second (.5c) in one second." He explains to the brother that an acceleration rate of 93,000 miles/sec^2 is the rate of change of velocity. If an object's initial velocity is zero, and the object accelerates (thrusts) at the rate of 93,000 mi/sec^2 for one second, one second later the object will have traveled a distance of 46,500 miles, and will be traveling at the velocity of 93,000 mi./sec.

 

The brother says, "cool, can I take a spin?" The other brother says, "no problem." The brother immediately jumps into the rocket, ready to go. The rocket ship has on board data acquisition systems that will record the exact distance traveled per time interval, and a state of the art time device. The ship also has a accelerometer that records the acceleration of the ship at all times in every direction.

 

The brother flips the switch that activates the data acquisition systems and the max thrust engines at the same time. He turns off the thrust when one second has elapsed. He is now traveling at the velocity of 93,000 miles/sec. The brother continues to travel at that velocity for 10 seconds at which time he reverses thrust and "decelerates" at the rate of 93,000 miles/sec^2 for a duration of 1 second.

 

His velocity is now zero miles per second and he is 1,023,000 miles away from his brother. He just traveled a total of 1,023,000 miles in the duration of 12 seconds. The brother decides to get some sleep.

 

Exactly 8 hours after arriving, the brother activates all systems, including max thrust that starts the return journey. The brother accelerates at the same rate (93,000 miles/sec^2) for one second. After one second has elapsed he turns off thrust. He again travels at the velocity of 93,000 miles per second for 10 seconds, at which time he "decelerates" at the rate of 93,000 miles/sec^2 (reverse thrust). Total elapsed time of return travel is 12 seconds, and again, the distance traveled is 1,023,000 miles.

 

The ship traveled 1,023,000 miles in 12 seconds in one direction, and 8 hours later traveled 1,023,000 miles in 12 seconds in the opposite direction.

 

Actual travel distance- 2,046,000 miles

Actual travel time- 24 seconds

Layover time- 8 hours

Total time- 8 hours 24 seconds

Max acceleration- 93,000 mi/sec^2

Min acceleration-0

Maximum velocity- 93,000 mi./sec

Minimum velocity-0

Average speed- 85,250 mi./sec

Edited June 18, 2008 by Motor Daddy

[nstansbury]

The average velocities are different for the stages:

 

Out:

Av. v1: 46,500 mi/s

Av. v2: 93,000 mi/s

Av. v3: 46,500 mi/s

 

Back:

Av. v4: 46,500 mi/s

Av. v5: 93,000 mi/s

Av. v6: 46,500 mi/s

 

Av: Vtotal: 62,000 mi/s

[Motor Daddy]

The average velocities are different for the stages:

 

Out:

Av. v1: 46,500 mi/s

Av. v2: 93,000 mi/s

Av. v3: 46,500 mi/s

 

Back:

Av. v4: 46,500 mi/s

Av. v5: 93,000 mi/s

Av. v6: 46,500 mi/s

 

Av: Vtotal: 62,000 mi/s

 

I didn't give average velocities, I gave actual velocities and accelerations, and actual travel times, and they are correct. What does Einstein have to say about these numbers? Does he agree? If not, please give Einstein's numbers for a comparison.

[timo]

I wrote him an email but he hasn't responded so far.

[Motor Daddy]

I wrote him an email but he hasn't responded so far.

 

I kinda figured that he wouldn't respond, as he doesn't have a leg to stand on (theoretically or physically!)

[timo]

Interesting reply. Made me actually read the thread. So what is your question or your statement (assuming we have agreed that Prof. Einstein is not going to post here)?

[Motor Daddy]

Interesting reply. Made me actually read the thread. So what is your question or your statement (assuming we have agreed that Prof. Einstein is not going to post here)?

 

 

Does Einstein agree with these numbers? If not, please explain his position on this scenario so that we can get to the real meat and potatoes.

[timo]

I think we agree that Einstein is dead. So in most belief systems he will not agree - I assume you are not asking for someone who can contact the spirits of dead people. Speaking of different systems: You made up some numbers in some frame of reference. Ignoring the unhealthy amount of acceleration the numbers are physically fine (i.e. v<c). Taking out the time where v=0 when averaging velocity over time might or might not lead to problems with further statements but is quite okay so far. There's not much more than can be said about the numbers.

[Motor Daddy]

I think we agree that Einstein is dead. So in most belief systems he will not agree - I assume you are not asking for someone who can contact the spirits of dead people. Speaking of different systems: You made up some numbers in some frame of reference. Ignoring the unhealthy amount of acceleration the numbers are physically fine (i.e. v<c). Taking out the time where v=0 when averaging velocity over time might or might not lead to problems with further statements but is quite okay so far. There's not much more than can be said about the numbers.

 

That's funny, because on another board, the "expert" SR guy didn't agree with this example, and even came to a point that he refused to further answer my questions, and said he wasn't going to play my game anymore. Happens all the time (pun intended.) LOL

[swansont]

You haven't stated in whose reference frame the numbers are measured. The brothers will not agree on the duration of the trip or the distance travelled.

[Motor Daddy]

You haven't stated in whose reference frame the numbers are measured. The brothers will not agree on the duration of the trip or the distance travelled.

 

The ship's on board data acquisition systems don't lie, and neither does the accelerometer. There is no two reference frames. I gave you the facts of the distances traveled, the accelerations, the velocities, and the durations. I didn't give you the illusions, as they are not reality.

[swansont]

The ship's on board data acquisition systems don't lie, and neither does the accelerometer. There is no two reference frames. I gave you the facts of the distances traveled, the accelerations, the velocities, and the durations. I didn't give you the illusions, as they are not reality.

 

More than a hundred years of physics says you're wrong. There is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference.

[nstansbury]

Does Einstein agree with these numbers? If not, please explain his position on this scenario so that we can get to the real meat and potatoes.

 

Probably not. Time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light, so you won't have experienced 1, 10 & 1 "earth" seconds of acceleration, you will experience proportionally more due to time dilation.

 

So, btw will your super accurate clock on board.

 

So you're in no position to measure "your" anything and relate it to us on earth. So what you mean is the brother has a laser beam on earth that he can use to determine where you are and ensure the times he has are in our frame of reference.

 

BTW. Your accelerometer won't help you either because acceleration and velocity are vectors that both rely on time - which as you'll remember is slowing down(relatively), as you're speeding up.

Edited June 19, 2008 by nstansbury

[Motor Daddy]

Probably not. Time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light, so you won't have experienced 1, 10 & 1 "earth" seconds of acceleration, you will experience proportionally more due to time dilation.

 

So, btw will your super accurate clock on board.

 

So you're in no position to measure "your" anything and relate it to us on earth. So what you mean is the brother has a laser beam on earth that he can use to determine where you are and ensure the times he has are in our frame of reference.

 

BTW. Your accelerometer won't help you either because acceleration and velocity are vectors that both rely on time - which as you'll remember is slowing down(relatively), as you're speeding up.

 

So, basically, what you are saying is that c is not c because 186,000 miles per second can not be accurately measured, and that there is no 186,000 miles, or 1 second??? Likewise there is no distance, and no duration??

 

What is a mile, and what is a second??

 

While you're at it, can you explain how you go from zero to one, and one to zero?

 

More than a hundred years of physics says you're wrong. There is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference.

 

So now the measure of correctness is time??

[mooeypoo]

What is a mile, and what is a second??

Definitions created by humans, to explain reality from their own point of reference.

We invented those terms, Motor Daddy. From our own point of reference, obviously, because that's what we know. That's what we used to know until Einstein's theory. His theory was, at first, treated as bullshit -- until his predictions came true, and the math checked out. Hence, until it was obvious it explains reality better than what was the current theories.

 

While you're at it, can you explain how you go from zero to one, and one to zero?

 

Add 1 or subtract 1? Uhh.. I don't understand the question.. 1 what? second? mile? person? steps? ... a number is meaningless without a unit attached to it, unless you're talking about pure mathematical equations, in which case you just need +1 or -1 and you're done.

 

So now the measure of correctness is time??

The fact that time dilates in relation to speed is proven.

Two perfectly synchronized atomic clocks were produced - one put on a fast moving plane, another left on the ground. After a while of movement from the plane, the two clocks were not synchronized anymore. Since atomic clocks are perfectly accurate, that means that time dilates.

 

It's proven. It's a fact. The explanations may vary in the future as we find more and more information about our reality and surroundings, but the odds that thy will be dramatically different than the current one (hence, that the theories will state that there's no dilation of time, or no other points of reference for time) are slim to none.

 

Because of the observed facts.

 

The fact you don't understand the theory does not make the theory false.

 

~moo

[Motor Daddy]

Definitions created by humans, to explain reality from their own point of reference.

We invented those terms, Motor Daddy. From our own point of reference, obviously, because that's what we know. That's what we used to know until Einstein's theory. His theory was, at first, treated as bullshit -- until his predictions came true, and the math checked out. Hence, until it was obvious it explains reality better than what was the current theories.

 

 

We invented the units of measure, not the concept of distance or duration, we just labeled a specific amount of each.

 

There is distance, and there is duration, regardless if we labeled it or not. A mile is a specific distance, and a second is a specific duration. Saying there is two different seconds is absurd. A second is a specific duration, regardless what your watch says if it runs slow or fast. A mile is a specific distance, and a specific amount of rotations of a 24" circumference. RPM is a specific rotational velocity, whether you know that rotational velocity or not.

 

 

Add 1 or subtract 1? Uhh.. I don't understand the question.. 1 what? second? mile? person? steps? ... a number is meaningless without a unit attached to it, unless you're talking about pure mathematical equations, in which case you just need +1 or -1 and you're done.

 

How do you add something from nothing? How do you get rid of something, and turn it into nothing. Time doesn't begin or end, it is continuous, whether we are here to measure it or not!

 

The fact that time dilates in relation to speed is proven.

Two perfectly synchronized atomic clocks were produced - one put on a fast moving plane, another left on the ground. After a while of movement from the plane, the two clocks were not synchronized anymore. Since atomic clocks are perfectly accurate, that means that time dilates.

 

If the two clocks were perfectly accurate they would not differ in measuring duration. If one clock changes (or they no longer agree), then one or both accelerated, and it (they) are no longer accurate. A second is a second is a second. Just because my clock starts running slow or fast I am supposed to change the definition of a second??

 

It's proven. It's a fact. The explanations may vary in the future as we find more and more information about our reality and surroundings, but the odds that thy will be dramatically different than the current one (hence, that the theories will state that there's no dilation of time, or no other points of reference for time) are slim to none.

 

Because of the observed facts.

 

The fact you don't understand the theory does not make the theory false.

 

~moo

 

The fact that you have a light illusion doesn't change the duration of a second. The fact that you don't have a ruler long enough to reach Mars doesn't mean that Mars is not an exact distance away. The fact that we don't have the capability to measure to 10^-1,000,000 seconds doesn't mean that there isn't a duration that small.

[mooeypoo]

We invented the units of measure, not the concept of distance or duration, we just labeled a specific amount of each.

No, we invented the TERMS and THEORIES to explain what we see.

That includes explanation of how times work, and the definition for it.

 

There is distance, and there is duration, regardless if we labeled it or not.

Yes, but the way we think of it, relate to it and explain it depends on our definition. That's why old/ancient definitions are different (and sometimes wrong) than current ones.

 

A mile is a specific distance, and a second is a specific duration.

Who do you think defined it? I personally go by meters and kilometers. Those are units of distance too... which we invented. So is "Ama" which is a biblical unit of measurement. A very inaccurate one at that, which is why it was replaced. See what I'm saying?

 

Saying there is two different seconds is absurd.

Well, since your suggestion is contradicted by reality (read the above posts and the posts in the other thread), I would say that the absurd part is not in the current theory.

 

A second is a specific duration, regardless what your watch says if it runs slow or fast.

Repeating a false claim does not make it true. We explained this point three times already, and gave examples from successful experiments that proved this point. Time is observed differently from different speeds. Same as speed is observed differently from different relative speeds.

 

It's proven. It's not just hypothetical. Arguing against proven, observed, supported, experimentally supported facts is not going to change the fact that it is proven.

 

A mile is a specific distance, and a specific amount of rotations of a 24" circumference. RPM is a specific rotational velocity, whether you know that rotational velocity or not.

 

We invented the definition of a mile. From our perspective. And from our USUAL perspective, it's the same for us all. The problem starts when you start moving fast. Very fast. Since we were unable to move as fast as to notice the change until recently, the concepts of how we percieve time, distance and speed have changed as well.

 

 

How do you add something from nothing? How do you get rid of something, and turn it into nothing. Time doesn't begin or end, it is continuous, whether we are here to measure it or not!

What does that have to do with speed or time? Nothing is being added from nothing... nothing as anything to do with nothing...

 

Okay, here's the deal:

 

I'm on a spaceship, you're on the ground. We both have cameras filming us, and a screen that shows each-other's feeds. I see your film, you see mine.

I hit the gas and go extremely fast. I accelerate so fast, that I reach speeds that are close to the speed of light.

Through my video screen, I see you moving VERRRRYYY VVVEEERRRYYY fast. You see me going slowmotion. I don't feel as if I am slow motion, and you don't "feel" like you're fast motion. I see you fast, you see me slow.

 

That's time dilation. That's reference frame.

 

That's also proven (see atomic-clock experiment we discussed earlier).

 

If time has no frame of reference, you will have a lot of trouble explaining what happened in that experiment.

 

If the two clocks were perfectly accurate they would not differ in measuring duration.

But they were, and they did!

 

If one clock changes (or they no longer agree), then one or both accelerated, and it (they) are no longer accurate. A second is a second is a second. Just because my clock starts running slow or fast I am supposed to change the definition of a second??

Read a bit about atomic clocks. It's not your 'usual' clock. It's accurate by atomic reactions. They don't "go bad". Or malfunction. That's why they were used.

 

A second is a second is a second is a second. Until you speed up, in which case a second is a longer second.

 

Proven.

 

 

The fact that you have a light illusion doesn't change the duration of a second. The fact that you don't have a ruler long enough to reach Mars doesn't mean that Mars is not an exact distance away. The fact that we don't have the capability to measure to 10^-1,000,000 seconds doesn't mean that there isn't a duration that small.

 

The distance of mars is not the same as time/space dilation. Mars also changes its distance from us because both the earth and mars move in circles. If both will be on the same "side" of the sun, they're both CLOSER than if they're on opposite sides. Mars orbits the sun in a(lmost a) circle. So is the earth. but earht's "circle" is smaller. So the earth and mars are, many times, on different distances.

 

Don't mix up claims.

 

We don't need to measure such small speeds to state that time CHANGES with SPEED.

 

Stop ignoring facts to suit your own purpose. The experiments (MANY! not one!) are factual. They happened. For real. In reality. And we had to explain what happend-- lo and behold, Relativity predicts reality to the letter.

Ignoring facts because you don't like their implications is not science, it's fantasy.

 

~moo

[Klaynos]

Two ideal perfect clocks would show differences, read the arxiv article I linked to in the other thread.

[Motor Daddy]

I asked at the beginning of this thread for someone to show me the SR numbers of this example. I have yet to see them. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see ANY numbers for the SR believers of the ACTUAL distance traveled, and the duration of that travel.

 

SR is stuck on illusions, not real measurements. The tape measure and stop watch have no eyes to "see," and they don't need them, because measurements are taken AFTER the event. There's nothing to see, folks, so you can all go home. The details of the event will be published as fact. The exact distance traveled will be noted, the exact duration of the event will be noted, and contrary to popular belief, illusions don't change the actual distance traveled and the actual duration of the event!

Edited June 19, 2008 by Motor Daddy

[Klaynos]

There are thousands if not millions of SR measurements that are real measurements....

 

You've got accelerations (and massive ones at that) so you can't really use SR for that...

[Motor Daddy]

Two ideal perfect clocks would show differences, read the arxiv article I linked to in the other thread.

 

I'm not denying the clocks will show different upon return. I am saying that IF they show different times, one, or both of the clocks are wrong. They did not accurately record the duration, they either speed up or slowed down, and that is not accurate. Accurate is maintaining a constant duration, regardless of the acceleration or velocity, or distance traveled!

 

There are thousands if not millions of SR measurements that are real measurements....

 

You've got accelerations (and massive ones at that) so you can't really use SR for that...

 

 

What, you mean SR doesn't know how to deal with how far I traveled in one second if I accelerate from a velocity of 0 ft/sec to a velocity of 186,000 ft/sec in one second?

[Klaynos]

I'm not denying the clocks will show different upon return. I am saying that IF they show different times, one, or both of the clocks are wrong. They did not accurately record the duration, they either speed up or slowed down, and that is not accurate. Accurate is maintaining a constant duration, regardless of the acceleration or velocity, or distance traveled!

 

But you can repeat the experiment and find exactly the same results, and if you keep the clocks next to each other they measure the same time for a REALLY long time....

 

What, you mean SR doesn't know how to deal with how far I traveled in one second if I accelerate from a velocity of 0 ft/sec to a velocity of 186,000 ft/sec in one second?

 

SR cannot comment on accelerations, only inertia reference frames.

[Motor Daddy]

SR cannot comment on accelerations, only inertia reference frames.

 

If SR can't comment on accelerations, how can it think it can define REAL distance and time? In other words, who cares what the illusion is, I want the facts!

[mooeypoo]

This is silly. You chose to come to this scientific forum for a reason. Now, you insist on ignoring science so that you can claim you are right, when reality proves you wrong. We're not even debating here, we're repeating ourselves, and you repeat your stomping-the-ground "I don't care about reality, I'm right!" mantra.

 

Motor Daddy - reality disagrees with you.

In order to prove what you're saying, you need to prove how your claim FITS reality. It doesn't so far. Insisting a theory is wrong because you're uncomfortable with it is unscientific.

 

And you insist on not studying the theory you're critiquing. That's just silly.

 

Let me make an analogy to your argument, Motor Daddy, so you might see how silly this argument is:

 

I claim gravity is a fantastical claim by an old man who was hit on the head by an overly heavy apple.

 

You give me proof: You take a ball, and drop it from 20 feet. The ball drops at constant acceleration. You measure the acceleration and it fits the prediction of Newton's theory of gravity to the letter.

 

I claim the ball is wrong. I show you that if I jump from a plane at 4000 feet hight, I accelerate up to a certain speed (and stop accelerating). Ha, I say. Gravity is wrong.

 

You then show me that the theory of gravity, along with proven observational facts and mathematical corroboration shows the concept of "Terminal Velocity", dependant on my mass, speed, and whatever else. You also point out that at some point I open up a shoot. I am also affected by the friction of the air.

 

I tell you that you're wrong. I demand you explain, then, how come I didn't accelerate forever.

 

You point out you already told me. I tell you that you're wrong.

 

And on we go. Forever. A silly argument.

 

 

 

 

 

Now take a look at what you're saying throughout the 20+ posts in this thread and the other posts in the other thread.

 

Stop telling us facts are wrong and start reading about the FACTUAL EVIDENCE and explanations of the VERY WELL SUPPORTED theory you keep arguing against without any proof of its flawlessness.

 

At the very least, refine your arguments. They're becoming repetitive, which shows that you - above making strawman arguments because you refuse to learn what the theory REALLY says and insist on claiming what you THINK it says - also ignore what we explain.

 

That's just rude. It's also called trolling.

It's also against the rules of the forum.

 

You chose to post here and debate with us, remember? Follow the rules, own up to the responsibility to PROVE and SUPPORT your claims.

 

Or stop wasting our time.

It might be relative, but it's still ticking.

 

~moo

[Klaynos]

It does describe measurements in and between inertial reference frames very well, but acceleration and gravity are discussed in general relativity.