If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
On a serious note, wouldn't the time it takes to accelerate be the same time it takes to decelerate, so the higher the accel, the higher the speed and the less time it takes to decell?
Not really... as it's far harder to accellerate than to use gravity to slow you back down/use some technique like atmospheric drag/balloon approach to slow a ship.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." -- Dr. Seuss
"Always do good. It will gratify some and astonish the rest." ~Mark Twain
If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.
Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."
It is inefficient to approach the speed of light with a regular propulsion system since the more you approach c your mass increases and the more energy you need to accelerate. Even if we do get to travel at c it makes no difference.
...check me out Mr. RPI, but doesn't it take the same energy to accelerate an object as to decelerate it, whereas time is a factor of the rate of energy application ?
Also assuming that the weight of the accelerated object is reduced by the expenditure of fuel, deceleration energy and time expenditure is proportionately reduced?
How can you possibly take anything seriously?
Who cares?
Comment