3 ms·
I was assuming conventional propulsion at 95% c. An Alcubierre warp field would be ideal, assuming the problems can be overcome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A
by thangalin 13y ago
I was assuming conventional propulsion at 95% c. An Alcubierre warp field would be ideal, assuming the problems can be overcome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Difficulties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Difficulties
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4960 http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4960
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5708 http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5708
I'd enjoy seeing your calculation of the number of years that would have passed on Earth for a round-trip of 100 light-years out.
- gliese1337 13y agoYou've seen it. 210.52 years. The passengers on the ship should only experience 65.7 years- (210.52)sqrt(1-.95^2). Hence the famous twin paradox- the twin who goes on a relativistic trip comes back younger than the one who stayed behind. What you calculated was how much time would pass on Earth for a trip that took 100 years and 100 light-years from the perspective of the people on the ship, which is not generally what people mean when they say that a star is 100ly away.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- thangalin 13y agoI found the source of my confusion. The post I replied to stated, "I don't know how much time would have passed on Earth though." You stated I calculated "how much time would pass on Earth." The OP was wondering, "if a person on a ship visited a star 100ly away, how much time would have passed on Earth when they returned?" However, the OP was wondering about time frames in terms of a warp drive, rather than a conventional almost-light-speed drive. Take my upvotes. :-)