RawThinkTank Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 In the future, lets create an Magnetic Accelerator in the earths orbit spanning the entire orbit so huge that will accelerate a small magnetic material space ship to near speed of light then release it in the desired stars direction. Advantages : 1) We get instantaneous speed of light just as we would leave earth. 2) We don’t require to carry bulky fuel to achieve speed of light. 3) A similar magnetic decelerator can be used to decelerate without need of fuel to do so at the destinations. 4) Because time slows down at near light speeds we don’t need to carry much of human needed cargo for the travelers as they may reach the destinations in a day or minutes ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 well it'd be damn near impossible to build hard to put up and place into orbit would screw up north/pole on earth could attract passing metalic meteroite or metal debris would totaly bugger all electronics anywhere near it (incl earth maybe) the deaccelerator wouldnt work because if you shot it off it would never be able to stop! or it would just not for ages, therefore there would be no deaccelerator at the end of the ships journey! (you cant use parachutes in space, no air!) NB: you could go near speed of light, not at it... also going at that fast could ruin the human anatomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Re: O/P. You'd have to have fuel anyway, for course corrections and the like. If you miss in your system, bad things occur. Very quickly. would screw up north/pole on earth could attract passing metalic meteroite or metal debris would totaly bugger all electronics anywhere near it (incl earth maybe) Faraday Cage NB: you could go near speed of light' date=' not at it... also going at that fast could ruin the human anatomy.[/quote'] Whilst the first bit is true, I've no idea where the bit about 'human anatomy' came from. High levels of acceleration, yes. Constant velocity? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 the human body couldn't withstand acceleration at that speed... once you are travelling at your near speed of light speed there is a constant velocity. the G-forces would be pretty high and as you approach the speed of light your mass decreases... well i wouldnt want my mass to decrease much! faraday cages are meant for parts of the EM spectrum, does it work for magnets too? also the faraday cage would have to have a big opening in it to allow the vechile to get out, wouldnt that destroy the faraday cage effect anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 the human body couldn't withstand acceleration at that speed... once you are travelling at your near speed of light speed there is a constant velocity. the G-forces would be pretty high and as you approach the speed of light your mass decreases... well i wouldnt want my mass to decrease much! What kind of physics have you been smoking? faraday cages are meant for parts of the EM spectrum' date=' does it work for magnets too? also the faraday cage would have to have a big opening in it to allow the vechile to get out, wouldnt that destroy the faraday cage effect anyway?[/quote'] Photons are the exchange particle for magnetic force. And I'd suspect that the holes in the faraday cage would create a large difference, but only for a given direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 What kind of physics have you been smoking? "the human body couldn't withstand acceleration at that speed"... well, 0mph to almost the speed of light, that's what i'd call fast acceleration and the body cannot withstand such a rate of acceleration. "once you are travelling at your near speed of light speed there is a constant velocity." you said there's no constant velocity... well if ya travelling at your 'near c' speeds then that is a constant velocity until you start to brake. "the G-forces would be pretty high" if a force of 4g to 6g's is held for more than a few seconds, the results could be cause blackouts or death, more than that amount for a few seconds would cause instant death... accelerating from stand-still to 'near c' would pull quite a few g's on the person inside. "as you approach the speed of light your mass decreases" well it does, or is said to, i dont know if someone has physically prooven it. "well i wouldnt want my mass to decrease much!" well if your mass decreases where does it go??? (hence my thread approaching c) i guess ya mean that last part.... sorry, my mistake, still i wouldnt want my body mass to INcrease much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 "the human body couldn't withstand acceleration at that speed"[/i']... well, 0mph to almost the speed of light, that's what i'd call fast acceleration and the body cannot withstand such a rate of acceleration. You appear to not know what you have said. You MEANT to say 'The human body couldn't withstand acceleration TO that speed', not 'at' "once you are travelling at your near speed of light speed there is a constant velocity."[/i'] you said there's no constant velocity... well if ya travelling at your 'near c' speeds then that is a constant velocity until you start to brake. As was (I thought) fairly clear in my post, I was talking about the effect on the human anatomy. You said 'going that fast could ruin the human anatomy', which is, by definition, not true (bear in mind that all velocity is relative; compared to a specific observer we could, say, be doing 9/10 c). I said that this wasn't so; acceleration has that effect, yes, but constant velocity does not. See? "the G-forces would be pretty high"[/i'] if a force of 4g to 6g's is held for more than a few seconds, the results could be cause blackouts or death, more than that amount for a few seconds would cause instant death... accelerating from stand-still to 'near c' would pull quite a few g's on the person inside. Obviously the g-forces would be pretty high, I wasn't arguing that part, and didn't in the first reply either. It was the juxtaposition of 'constant velocity' and 'g-forces' without any mention of acceleration which was dodgy. "as you approach the speed of light your mass decreases"[/i'] well it does, or is said to, i dont know if someone has physically prooven it. As I said in the other thread, it doesn't. Furthermore, it wouldn't make any difference anyway. If you measured you, you would find yourself to be exactly the same mass at 10mph as you would at 0.9c. The velocity term for change in mass is relative velocity; your mass would increase from the point of view of an observer, just as the mass of the observer would increase from your point of view. Mass (at v relative to rest frame) = Mass (at rest relative to rest frame) / SQRT (1 - v^2/c^2). This is a Lorenz Transformation, is part of Special Relativity, and is an upshot of the speed of light in a vacuum being invariant to all observers. It's tested every time anyone uses a particle accelerator, and is probably the most correct thing in all of physics. i guess ya mean that last part.... sorry, my mistake Evidently not! I'll make a more detailed reply to the O/P in a moment; I haven't actually commented on the plausability of this 'invention' yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 The first problem in this thread is that it's in 'Classical Mechanics'. Anything to do with the speed of light is anything but classical mechanics. I be movin it after I make this post. Yarr. In the future' date=' lets create an Magnetic Accelerator in the earths orbit spanning the entire orbit so huge that will accelerate a small magnetic material space ship to near speed of light then release it in the desired stars direction. Advantages : 1) We get instantaneous speed of light just as we would leave earth. 2) We don?t require to carry bulky fuel to achieve speed of light. 3) A similar magnetic decelerator can be used to decelerate without need of fuel to do so at the destinations. 4) Because time slows down at near light speeds we don?t need to carry much of human needed cargo for the travelers as they may reach the destinations in a day or minutes ?[/quote'] Utterly, utterly implausable. Disadvantages: 1. We can't build it. A nigh-on identical suggestion was made to do with accelerating particles (rather than ships), and 'we can't build it' was the major problem there. 2. We can build it at the other end even less that we can build it at this end. 3. To get to those speeds at levels of acceleration which wouldn't crush the ship, and would leave the crew in a state not resembling chunky kibble* would take the best part of a year; and that's only to 0.9c, let alone anything higher (3 g's of acceleration). 4. Fuel. You'd have to take fuel anyway, otherwise you wouldn't be able to steer. And you would have to steer; hit an unexpected speck of dust at one end, miss by millions of miles at the other. 5. Safety. Ignoring the kibbling aspect, what happens if the steering mechanism breaks? You'd be doomed to drift in space forever, as the only way of slowing down is to hit one of these objects. Which brings us nicely onto: 6. Aiming. The closest thing we'll be aiming at is Alpha Centauri, presumably. Given this thing is the size of the solar system. Let us now assume that the catchment radius for this thing is, ooh, lets say a million miles. Fall within a million miles of a certain point and you will be caught by this thing. Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away. That two million mile target represents a possible firing arc of 0.000005 degrees. To give you some sense of how small an angle that is, 70 million of those make one circle. 7. That's a point, how are you supposed to rotate this thing to aim it anyway? The targets you'll be aiming for aren't in a single direction, or even in a single plane. 8. Only experience a day? You're being rather optimistic. Again, taking alpha centauri as our standard (obviously, this is our minimum, so, if it doesn't work for alpha, it won't work elsewhere)... To travel to Alpha Centauri and only experience a day, you'd have to be going 99.99998% of the speed of light. Furthermore, bear in mind that, if you want the ship to only feel 0.1% of the time, you're going to have to deal with the ship having 1000 times the mass it had at rest. That's a lot of mass. 9. Oh, and try and be more precise in your wording. Building something in earth's orbit just means that the earth will crash into it. *very well thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawThinkTank Posted January 7, 2005 Author Share Posted January 7, 2005 The first problem in this thread is that it's in 'Classical Mechanics'. Anything to do with the speed of light is anything but classical mechanics. I be movin it after I make this post. Yarr. OK Utterly' date=' utterly implausable. Disadvantages: 1. We can't build it. A nigh-on identical suggestion was made to do with accelerating particles (rather than ships), and 'we can't build it' was the major problem there. 2. We can build it at the other end even less that we can build it at this end. [/quote'] Thats today not tommorrow, we should build it only when we know how to. 3. To get to those speeds at levels of acceleration which wouldn't crush the ship' date=' and would leave the crew in a state not resembling chunky kibble* would take the best part of a year; and that's only to 0.9c, let alone anything higher (3 g's of acceleration). [/quote'] False, crushing is impossible if every human atom is accelerated at same time. 4. Fuel. You'd have to take fuel anyway' date=' otherwise you wouldn't be able to steer. And you would have to steer; hit an unexpected speck of dust at one end, miss by millions of miles at the other. [/quote'] Correct. 5. Safety. Ignoring the kibbling aspect' date=' what happens if the steering mechanism breaks? You'd be doomed to drift in space forever, as the only way of slowing down is to hit one of these objects. Which brings us nicely onto: 6. Aiming. The closest thing we'll be aiming at is Alpha Centauri, presumably. Given this thing is the size of the solar system. [/quote'] No, if we have not ignored safety and we have too many stations close by. Or some other means to eject for example. 7. That's a point' date=' how are you supposed to rotate this thing to aim it anyway? The targets you'll be aiming for aren't in a single direction, or even in a single plane. [/quote'] By tilting the axis of the accelerator. Or using gravity of sun and moon to make a yearly change of direction by placing the accelerator in polar orbit. to understand this requires fantastic imaginations. 8. Only experience a day? You're being rather optimistic. Again' date=' taking alpha centauri as our standard (obviously, this is our minimum, so, if it doesn't work for alpha, it won't work elsewhere)... To travel to Alpha Centauri and only experience a day, you'd have to be going 99.99998% of the speed of light. Furthermore, bear in mind that, if you want the ship to only feel 0.1% of the time, you're going to have to deal with the ship having 1000 times the mass it had at rest. That's a lot of mass. [/quote'] Correct. 9. Oh' date=' and try and be more precise in your wording. Building something in earth's orbit just means that the earth will crash into it. *very well thank you.[/quote'] wrong. Dont ignore centrifugal force. Any more queries ? I see no problemo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 False' date=' crushing is impossible if every human atom is accelerated at same time.[/quote'] You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of forces and acceleration here. I also missed the part where you explain how a magnetic force accelerates anything to higher speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 In the future' date=' lets create an Magnetic Accelerator in the earths orbit spanning the entire orbit so huge that will accelerate a small magnetic material space ship to near speed of light then release it in the desired stars direction. Advantages : 1) We get instantaneous speed of light just as we would leave earth. 2) We don’t require to carry bulky fuel to achieve speed of light. 3) A similar magnetic decelerator can be used to decelerate without need of fuel to do so at the destinations. 4) Because time slows down at near light speeds we don’t need to carry much of human needed cargo for the travelers as they may reach the destinations in a day or minutes ?[/quote'] Humans would be killed in the g forces of such an acceleration. Plus it would require an obscene amount of energy. Plus it would fling the accelerator backwards. Plus you need a decellerator already in place at your destination. For intersystem travel this *might* be feasible. Intersteller? No chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 3. To get to those speeds at levels of acceleration which wouldn't crush the ship' date=' and would leave the crew in a state not resembling chunky kibble* would take the best part of a year; and that's only to 0.9c, let alone anything higher (3 g's of acceleration). [/quote'] It's worse than that. Even traveling in a circle the size of the Earth's orbit, you could only get up to 0.7% of the speed of light before the centripetal force needed to hold you in that circular path exceeds 3 g's. Even if you could somehow withstand 10 g's, that would only get you up to 1.2% of the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickinfinit Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 A machine that size would be a to big to be efficient even if it could work which I doubt, I do not want to be slung like a stone into space rather more of a controled method of travel will be what we most likely invent. That sounds more like what wylie cyote would order from acme lol . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deified Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 I think swansont's point deserves more examination. How exactly does the magnetic force accelerate something to near the speed of light? Also, building something in Earth's orbit DOES mean building it somewhere along the path Earth takes in its trek around the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Greeniemax Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Frankly before we could think about traveling at speed of light we have to think on Atomic level. When particles are put into particle accelerator and accelerated to "near speed of light" and then they crash into one another they produce huge amount of energy. Vacuum isn't really "vacuum" we have some stray particles released from Sun and other sources, we have huge amount of space debris that even Earth sucks up everyday. If any of the particles would hit the space shit at such a high speed it would really make a mess, it would pass right through the spaceship. Secondly, even if we're able to create such system, we really don't know what effect it would have on Earth and its Magnetic field, which protect us from Harmful radiation from the Sun. But why do we need magnet we could surely have a propulsion system soon enough that would be able to take us faster than speed of light and allow us to travel in total vacuum, enabling us to survive the Journey. I call it Black Hole Propulsion System, energy mass created in front of any space ship that the space ship gets attracted toward it. But that's another subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 the earth is something like 32,000 miles in circumference, being in orbit as a ring would be considerably larger/longer than this, Where does the material for such a construct come from? ignoring power supplies, and getting it all "up there" etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nacho Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I have a question: If this thing was a strong enough magnet to fling stuff at almost the speed of light, then it would have to be huge. First of all, it would attract nearby asteroids with metals in them, mess up all of our elecronic stuff on earth, and maybe have a gravitational force so great that it would pull the earth in toward it. Then everybody on earth would DIE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 When particles are put into particle accelerator and accelerated to "near speed of light" and then they crash into one another they produce huge amount of energy. This is worded a tad awkwardly. The acceleration to large speeds gives the particles the energy. It isn't produced in the collision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawThinkTank Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of forces and acceleration here. I also missed the part where you explain how a magnetic force accelerates anything to higher speeds. You seem to have not heard about something called as Particle Accelerator. Also, are U aware that there is something called MLV, ok I give up, waste of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 As opposed to a waste of the physicist's time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 You seem to have not heard about something called as Particle Accelerator. Also' date=' are U aware that there is something called MLV, ok I give up, waste of my time.[/quote'] Actually I have heard of a particle accelerator. I used to work at one. It didn't use magnetic forces to acclerate the particles. The people who designed it understood that F = qv x B, so the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the charge's motion, so it cannot do work on it (i.e cannot impart any kinetic energy, thus it can't speed the particles up). The magnetic fields confine the particles to move in a circular path. It's a really good habit to define your abbreviations. No, I'm not aware of MLV, since I don't know what MLV stands for. Modern Literal Version of the Bible? Making Learning Visible program? Multirole Light Vehicle? Medium Launch Vehicle? Modified Live Virus? Memory Loader and Verifier? Minimum Lexographic Value? Multi-Language Vendor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawThinkTank Posted January 16, 2005 Author Share Posted January 16, 2005 Bla bla bla (whitout explaining how the particle accelerates ?) .... It's a really good habit to define your abbreviations. No' date=' I'm not aware of MLV, since I don't know what MLV stands for. Modern Literal Version of the Bible? Making Learning Visible program? Multirole Light Vehicle? Medium Launch Vehicle? Modified Live Virus? Memory Loader and Verifier? Minimum Lexographic Value? Multi-Language Vendor?[/quote'] So how do U believe this Magenetically Leviated Vehicles (MLV) do their acceleration part of work ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 I think Swansont is well aware of how MLVs operate. Are you? Both track and vehicle have electrmagnets. Now, the question you have been so studiously ignoring, how are you going to impart this immense acceleration to all the molecules of the human body? Given that we aren't especially magnetic - though some of us may have magnetic personalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 ("paraphrasing" me)Bla bla bla (whitout explaining how the particle accelerates ?) .... Instead of sarcastically admonishing me for not answering a question you didn't ask' date=' you could have politely asked the question. Particle accelerators use electric fields/forces to accelerate particles. You turn them on and off so that the particle always feels a force that tends to speed it up. So how do U believe this Magenetically Leviated Vehicles (MLV) do their acceleration part of work ? I believe most designs have basically a linear motor system. If you move a conductor through a magnetic field, you incude a voltage and try to drive a current. If you drive the current instead, you move the wire. This is how generators and motors work. The actual force is electrostatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Encrypted Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 He's right about magnetically propelled vehicles. Such thing have been tested. But i think at the scale he is talking about building it on earth itself, would cause serious problems. But why not build a really large magnetic accelerator in space itself?(between Mars and Jupiter, we got ton of space out there!) We probably couldnt build it right now, too big of a technological hurdle, but in a hundred years it could be possible. Plus, who said the magnets were on hundred percent of the time. They could be electromagnets..... I dont see why it couldnt be a possible solution to our problems in century or two. Encrypted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now