DaughterOfMars

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] DaughterOfMars 0 points 1 year ago

Sure, I don't mind explaining. No, we would not need near-infinite energy. We are quite capable of accelerating at 10 Gs in space right now, but eventually you will run out of fuel. So, let's say you add more fuel, well now you have more mass to accelerate so it costs more fuel per second. This becomes a balancing act which we can not overcome for long, and it's the reason space shuttles are so complicated and have multiple stages which break away to reduce mass.

This is primarily an issue because we use quite simple propulsion techniques, which rely on Newton's third law -- that forcing mass out from behind a ship will propel it in the opposite direction. It may be possible to accelerate using an Electro-Magnetic field, which would not involve burning fuel but instead some kind of depleting battery storage, or perhaps a nuclear reactor. In this case, accelerating at 10 Gs is simply a matter of matching the energy requirements to the mass of the ship, and for some perspective on the energy capabilities of nuclear fission, the Little Boy bomb reacted less than a gram of nuclear material to create the explosion in Hiroshima.

The uranium in the Hiroshima bomb was about 80 percent uranium 235. One metric ton of natural uranium typically contains only 7 kilograms of uranium 235. Of the 64 kilograms of uranium in the bomb, less than one kilogram underwent fission, and the entire energy of the explosion came from just over half a gram of matter that was converted to energy. That is about the weight of a butterfly.

So, obviously we aren't capable of converting that energy into a useful method of propulsion yet, but have some heart, because the pieces are all there -- we just need to put them together.

[–] DaughterOfMars 3 points 1 year ago

Bans do not seem to work. The button spins forever, and unlike some other similar issues this one does not seem to resolve in the background after some time.

[–] DaughterOfMars 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I thought it was quite good for a first hearing. Rational discourse was had even across the aisle, and ultimately the topic was treated with the respect it deserves. I think everyone should actually watch the entire thing. Too many people are jumping on headlines or sound bytes, but that's the way of the Disinformation Age I suppose.

[–] DaughterOfMars -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You don't need infinite energy, to be clear. Mathematically, you would need infinite energy to cross the light-speed barrier, which is why we don't believe that it is possible. You would simply need a LOT of energy. How much would depend on the mass of the craft. Actually the bigger problem may be negating the internal G forces, as humans cannot survive 10 Gs for long (or at all), but again it seems that these UAPs are capable of that.

[–] DaughterOfMars -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I didn't mean to go for your throat, you just brought up a topic I wanted to address. However, I will say that the problem is not that people refuse to believe that telepathy exists. Obviously we have no proof of that. The issue is that people deny that it exists, with no evidence. These people, many of whom would claim to believe in science, are completely ignoring the scientific method. We must accept that either possibility could be true until one is proven. Instead, they take a hard stance that everything is bullshit unless they personally see proof. "I'll believe it when I see it" et al.

Some food for thought. We have already proven that it is possible to read minds, using a simple MRI machine and electro-magnetic fields. We now have neural networks that can describe what you are seeing just by observing the patterns in your brain. Who's to say definitively that telepathy is impossible?

[–] DaughterOfMars 10 points 1 year ago

This is the most convincing part, in a political climate that can be called divisive at best.

[–] DaughterOfMars -5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I'll put it another way then: any information you intended to send back after you arrive in Sirius would take ~9 years to arrive back home. Due to causality, this means that you cannot interact with Earth in any way for -- at minimum -- 9 years. However, from your perspective, you accelerated at let's say 10 Gs (speed increased by 98 meters per second every second), until you were half-way to Sirius, which will take about 5 months. Then you decelerated at -10 Gs to arrive with 0 speed, another 5 months. You perceive only 10 months of travel, but you are now 9 light-years from home.

The math is not the part which is difficult, and requires only a basic understanding of relativistic physics. The issue is maintaining 10 Gs of constant acceleration for 10 months.

view more: ‹ prev next ›