Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Here's the problem with generating an universe exactly like ours, but without the little parts: the little parts are required in the early stages.

Hand-wave it away by programming in a fast early expansion, maybe, under the cover of universal opacity? Sure, it might leave a few data artefacts from the small seed structure that translates across the entire later universe, but who within your simlated universe is going to notice all those anomalies, literally across the entire sky?

(Also, you can probably poke into the data stack and housekeep away almost half of the matter produced from the original energy, so that it doesn't just all annihilate back into energy again. Fascinating to watch, but really slows the FPS down and then you miss out on all the more interesting stuff in your UniverseGen.)

[Starver]

Up-goer ten, From the land of the reds, did not go as far as it should have. They won't go to space today. (They may go another day. On a different up-goer.)

[x2yzh9]

Okay, so I've got a legitimate question here-
While the human brain doesn't adapt to sudden G forces, more really dealing with it in a gradual capacity, how would we as humans operate something that could travel near or at the speed of light? Wouldn't we basically become gradually more concentrated forms of energy, rather than mass? And if so, could that hypothetically be the counter-balance measure inherently needed for space travel? As isaac newton said, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so where exactly lies the danger? Is it moreso in the fact that of what we do know on earth we couldn't survive that kind of acceleration at the rate of which it was going, but what if in zero-G this just means we traverse in accelerating forms of energy assuming that x is being a near-FTL or FTL starship, wouldn't Y be the universes natural way of allowing that to happen? Because(and a lot of this may be wrong. please correct me, as this is the field I'm interested in) in quantum superpositioning and quantum mechanics we can see with the most simplest of experiences that change happens due to observance. So if we figured out predictive quantum mechanics-meaning we can know for sure x is where x is in the positioning, so that must mean y is stable. Does any of this make sense, and if it does, how could it apply to space?

[Il Palazzo]

Acceleration is not velocity. At this very moment you're travelling at nearly the speed of light w/r to some random particle of cosmic rays, and you're doing just fine.

Seriously, dude. If you're interested in how the world works, pick up a physics textbook and start working through problems. There's no shortcuts to understanding, but what you learn trumps any random flight of fancy.

[Madman198237]

I think you need to break up the brain-murder paragraph there a little bit, because it seems to wander from topic to topic and is very difficult to parse.

However, as far as becoming "energy"...I don't believe so. We obviously haven't ever tested it, but so far as we know the only thing that will happen is that, as you approach the speed of light, the energy you try to invest into motion instead goes into increasing your mass...you will not notice this except for the spaceship not accelerating as fast as it should.

You don't turn into energy and that has nothing to do with how you might respond to changes of acceleration near light speed.

[Caz]

Okay, so I've got a legitimate question here-
While the human brain doesn't adapt to sudden G forces, more really dealing with it in a gradual capacity, how would we as humans operate something that could travel near or at the speed of light?

By not accelerating past whatever is too dangerous for humans.

Wouldn't we basically become gradually more concentrated forms of energy, rather than mass?

...No.

And if so, could that hypothetically be the counter-balance measure inherently needed for space travel? As isaac newton said, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so where exactly lies the danger? Is it moreso in the fact that of what we do know on earth we couldn't survive that kind of acceleration at the rate of which it was going, but what if in zero-G this just means we traverse in accelerating forms of energy assuming that x is being a near-FTL or FTL starship, wouldn't Y be the universes natural way of allowing that to happen?

This paragraph makes no sense to me.

Because(and a lot of this may be wrong. please correct me, as this is the field I'm interested in) in quantum superpositioning and quantum mechanics we can see with the most simplest of experiences that change happens due to observance. So if we figured out predictive quantum mechanics-meaning we can know for sure x is where x is in the positioning, so that must mean y is stable. Does any of this make sense, and if it does, how could it apply to space?

WTF does that have to do with the acceleration of spaceships?

[Magistrum]

Oh, I thought it was a copypasta, it flew all over the place. Can't find it anywhere tough.
Yeah, there's not much difficulty in achieving lightspeed travel (except for maybe some optics computing problems, but I think it can be adjusted for.) It just takes a good amount of time to accelerate to a good fraction of light speed.

[Egan_BW]

My understanding is that the phrase "turn into energy" doesn't quite make sense, because you already are made of energy, in the form of matter.

But yeah, most of the weird shit from moving at relativistic speeds comes from accelerating, not from simply having a high velocity. Of course, if you then run into anything that doesn't have a similar velocity, things get weird again.


...I've never taken a formal physics class. My knowledge all comes from high school chemistry, youtube videos, and kerbal space program. :v
The world mostly makes sense to me down to electrons and up to escape velocity, and past that it's filed away as "weird stuff" by my brain.

[x2yzh9]

Yea, my post most definitely came off as copypasta. I mean, in my own brain even it was word spaghetti. Really what I was getting at was a hypothetical, but yes, you are right, I should really go to school to learn this stuff in a concrete definition if I'm going to be trying to postulate such an idea. It's just my form of problem-solving inherently was probably what made the post I made sound illogical. I have a really odd-thinking brain when it comes to stuff like this.
   obviously as you accelerate towards the speed of light you become more energy than mass(right?) so I figured the universe would have an equal countermeasure, but to think it would accomodate biological beings may be naive, yes.

[GiglameshDespair]

   obviously as you accelerate towards the speed of light you become more energy than mass(right?)

No

[Madman198237]

You do not turn into energy. At all. Ever. End of story.

HOWEVER: The energy you invest in attempting to accelerate yourself (i.e., firing a rocket to accelerate) starts increasing your mass. This makes you accelerate slower...and slower...and slower, approaching infinity as you approach the speed of light. You can never reach the speed of light because of this. It's a complicated topic and there's no replacement for learning it yourself, from someone more knowledgeable than a bunch of forumgoers.

Anyway, I'd suggest looking through some books and possibly looking for the TV series (one season) Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. It's a tour through modern science with Neil deGrasse Tyson and it covers relativity in a couple places IIRC, as well as pretty much every other topic of interest in modern science.

[LordBaal]

Yup, at university a professor got us interested in calculus by using a sci-fi premise, were acceleration of a spaceship towards the speed of light is actually a limit that tends to infinite.

[smjjames]

You do not turn into energy. At all. Ever. End of story.

HOWEVER: The energy you invest in attempting to accelerate yourself (i.e., firing a rocket to accelerate) starts increasing your mass. This makes you accelerate slower...and slower...and slower, approaching infinity as you approach the speed of light. You can never reach the speed of light because of this. It's a complicated topic and there's no replacement for learning it yourself, from someone more knowledgeable than a bunch of forumgoers.

Anyway, I'd suggest looking through some books and possibly looking for the TV series (one season) Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. It's a tour through modern science with Neil deGrasse Tyson and it covers relativity in a couple places IIRC, as well as pretty much every other topic of interest in modern science.

If you collide with anything at those speeds though, a good chunk of you will be transformed into energy, think particle colliders. Not that there'd be anything left of you to care anyway.

Also, that reminds me a bit of Zeno's Paradox, no matter how hard you try, you never QUITE get to the speed of light. Probably the wrong application of zenos paradox though. Edit: Yeah, definetly the wrong application of it, but as a visual, it kind of works doesn't it? The visual of Achillies never quite catching up to the tortoise anyway.

[Madman198237]

Yes yes yes I am aware and thought of that loophole (release of your mass-energy into just plain energy in a collision or other catastrophic event) immediately after posting it.

[Max™]

Your brain straight up ignores all sorts of different motion.

Locate the sun, turn and face south and point at the sun with your left hand, then point your right hand straight out from your shoulder sideways. You're hauling ass that way at around 100,000 kph while the whole solar system plows through the galaxy tipped up so we're kinda heading towards Vega last I checked at something like 720,000 kph and then we can go into our motion through the Laniakea Supercluster or relative to the microwave background.

You aren't aware of any of your motion within those different frames of reference, are you?