At 07:01 PM 11/3/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
The model by which the device is said to work looks bogus. I think if they knew why and how it actually works they could produce a much better W/a ratio. The device applies force to vacuum elements. Their theory predicts a change in acceleration with velocity. I think this is nonsense. Either the device doesn't work at all in space or its thrust, as perceived by the occupants, does not vary with velocity.
The only way that the thrust could vary with velocity would be if it depends on velocity through a material or velocity through a field of some kind.
A 1 g device should be able to accelerate right on beyond c, and thus go anywhere in the universe.
The occupants would feel the 1 g acceleration though, and that is a good thing. The time to light speed T2 at 1 g is: T2 = c/g = 3.057x10^7 s = 0.968735 years = about 11 months 20 days
Eh? No, "g" is a measure of acceleration, but the acceleration produced in a reference frame by a constant force reduces as the velocity approaches c, while, at the same time, that acceleration is experienced as the same by the occupants of the ship, who are now experiencing time dilation and the other nifty effects of approaching light speed. They never get to light speed, just closer and closer and closer. The accumulated potential energy keeps rising.
I have no idea what this might mean in terms of what would happen if they should hit some atoms along the way though, as the atom apparent mass might be infinite. Also, the mass presented to the incoming atoms would be infinite. A practical case of the irresistible force and the immovable object paradox?
They would become more and more irresistible, but, unfortunately, so would anything they hit as their velocity approaches c, and with time dilation, they will cover a lot of space in cross-section where there might be something. In any case, the fuel that must be consumed to continue to accelerate like that .... how big are they, including fuel? And then how much force is exerted by the drive? The bigger they are the lower the acceleration for a constant fuel consumption... Getting significant mass close to c ... forget about it.
Ah, I wasted a few perfectly good minutes on this.
