Steven, The hypothetical ship is undergoing an acceleration of 10 "G's". This is determined by an accelerometer on board that is quite accurate. If this level of acceleration is applied for the 1 year period, then I can calculate that my resulting velocity would be approximately 10 times c greater than the initial velocity of the ship. I am not aware of any GR factor that must be applied to accelerations of such a small value(10 G). At the moment, I see no reason to take into account my velocity relative to any other observer since these determinations would be entirely relative.
Do you know of any form of correction to acceleration that needs to be applied according to GR? There may be one of which I am not aware. If acceleration can be accurately determined then change in velocity should be the integral of that value over the time it is applied by definition. After I posed the original question I realized that most of the mass of the space ship would need to be converted into energy in order to propel the remaining mass at a velocity that is equal to or greater than c according to the on ship calculations. I suppose that a calculation of the amount of ship mass per second exhausting the rear of the vehicle at a relative velocity of c to generate a total acceleration of 10 G's would demonstrate the problem as this level of acceleration continued for the total 1 year period. The problem appears to be the same one encountered by standard chemical rockets that reach a velocity several times that of the exhaust stream. There is only so much rest mass that could be converted into kinetic energy in this particular case. I am aware of the standard SR calculation that limits the observed velocity of the ship to be less than c. That is the reason for the thought experiment. My suspicion is that the results one obtains for a stationary observer when taking into account time dilation and SR for the relative velocity are comparable to that expected according to Newtonian calculations for a traveler on the ship. In that case, the space man concludes that he is traveling faster than c so it takes less time to travel the distance than expected. I am sorry that it is difficult to explain what I am thinking. You ask if the thought experiment is intended to neglect SR and the answer is partially yes. It is to reach some form of comparison between SR and Newton. The twin paradox is difficult for me to accept and I seek a better understanding. Both twins are moving relative to the other by the exact same velocity. Why not reach the same calculation for time dilation? If acceleration is the key, then how is that applied in this case? You know that I relish asking questions which generate turmoil among the crew. :-) Dave -----Original Message----- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 10:26 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship Dave, ... > ...After a modest period of time, we calculate that our super rocket engine > which > uses anti matter as fuel and attached ship, has reached a calculated velocity > of > 10 times the speed of light. This number is calculated by integrating the > acceleration that we can easily measure in the reference frame around our ship > that is also constantly accelerating. I think you need to go into more detail as to why your thought experiment apparently glosses over the fact that the hypothetical space ship can somehow reach a velocity 10 times the speed of light. Someone like me would first like to know why it is that your thought experiment can somehow overcome this little light barrier problem. Since you don't seem to be applying anything believable in the virtual sense, or from a science fiction POV, like a hypothetical Star Trek warp drive to justify the fantastic speed of your space ship, I'm left at a loss as to how to take your thought experiment seriously. The use of a mathematical integral equation to explain why the ship has somehow reached 10 times the speed of light is of little use here. The “barrier” I can’t get past is the fact that I don't think all the anti-matter plus positive-matter annihilating each other in the entire universe could get your space ship to reach 100% the speed of light, let alone 10 times that. Are you using a warp drive???? A worm hole? Is your hypothetical experiment deliberately choosing not to consider the effects of relativity? If that really is the case you should clearly state that that was your intention. Not to do so gives me the impression that you are totally ignorant of the effects of relativity – and I can’t believe that of you! ;-) Did I miss something important in your interesting thought experiment? Perhaps I did! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
