How do you define speed in space?

SoonerAviator said:
Seriously though, I’d try to keep it simple and use some fraction of the speed of light. Remember that light-years is a measure of distance, not speed.
Click to expand...

yes, unless the travel speed is very slow...in which case I'd think meters per second, kilometers per hour, etc...
and I have no idea why metric seems to make more sense to me in this context...but it just seems better than miles per hour
 
FastEddieB said:
Because we have 10 fingers?
Click to expand...


But if the story's aliens only have 8 digits, their number system might be base eight instead of base ten. A clever writer can create everything from humorous confusion to world-destroying catastrophes around a few simple base mistakes or unit errors.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I think you're over thinking it. The universe is expanding and everything in it is moving but a stretched out mile long piece of bailing wire is still a mile long even if its stretched out in the vacuum of space. And your space cruiser is going to have to fly past a whole bunch of stretched out mile long pieces of bailing wire if it wants to get anywhere. Miles per hour, or probably miles per second is probably all you need. Doesn't have to be relative to anything except the imaginary atoms all lined up end to end that are flying past the windshield or rather the atoms that would be flying past the windshield if the vacuum of space was filled with atoms all lined up end to end.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the concept of speed has no meaning unless it's relative to some other object.
 
Here's a question: Suppose you have three objects, labeled A, B, and C, all traveling along the same straight line. B is moving away from A at 90% of the speed of light, and C is moving away from B at 90% of the speed of light. So does that mean that C is moving relative to A at 90% + 90% = 180% of the speed of light, which is impossible?

I expect that the equations of the theory of special relativity have a solution to this conundrum, but I haven't gotten around to doing the math.
 
Palmpilot said:
So does that mean that C is moving relative to A at 90% + 90% = 180% of the speed of light, which is impossible?

I expect that the equations of the theory of special relativity have a solution to this conundrum, but I haven't gotten around to doing the math.
Click to expand...

The math is WAY beyond me, but the implication of that math is if an object were to be accelerated to the speed of light, it’s mass would become infinite and time would stop. Which, of course, would present its own problems.
 
FastEddieB said:
The math is WAY beyond me, but the implication of that math is if an object were to be accelerated to the speed of light, it’s mass would become infinite and time would stop. Which, of course, would present its own problems.
Click to expand...

Mass doesn’t change, that’s a common misconception, it’s momentum that approaches infinity.
It’s thought that worm holes or invisible (to us) dimensions can be used to travel faster by taking a short cut.
Star Trek star blurring gives an indication of speed, they also use increase engine sounds.


Tom
 
FastEddieB said:
The math is WAY beyond me, but the implication of that math is if an object were to be accelerated to the speed of light, it’s mass would become infinite and time would stop. Which, of course, would present its own problems.
Click to expand...
Define "stop"!
 
Half Fast said:
But if the story's aliens only have 8 digits, their number system might be base eight instead of base ten. A clever writer can create everything from humorous confusion to world-destroying catastrophes around a few simple base mistakes or unit errors.
Click to expand...

No need for being creative, just pretend we sent up a Mars rover . . .
 
Palmpilot said:
Here's a question: Suppose you have three objects, labeled A, B, and C, all traveling along the same straight line. B is moving away from A at 90% of the speed of light, and C is moving away from B at 90% of the speed of light. So does that mean that C is moving relative to A at 90% + 90% = 180% of the speed of light, which is impossible?

I expect that the equations of the theory of special relativity have a solution to this conundrum, but I haven't gotten around to doing the math.
Click to expand...

They do, indeed. (And this is exactly the kind of question that Einstein daydreamed about at the patent office.)
First, throw out the idea that "Vac = Vab + Vbc" for a situation like this. It works down here at pokey slow speeds and for Physics I, but not when things get relativistic.

When you take into account how both space and time get all mixed together in the theory, the new formula is:
Vac = (Vab + Vbc)/(1 + Vab*Vac/c^2)
...so in your example, where Vab = 0.9c and Vbc = 0.9c, the answer is C is moving relative to A at 0.9945c, or 99.45% of the speed of light.

You can play with the formula and see that there is NO WAY you can get something to break the rules (go past "c"), if you start with V's that obey the rules. :)

Edit: you can also notice that as the two V's approach c, the answer does too. And that if the two V's are small compared to c, you get the old Physics I formula back.

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
 
Newtons equation for gravity F=GmM/r^2 doesn’t change because of relativistic speeds. So, no such thing as relativistic mass.





Tom
 
Palmpilot said:
Define "stop"!
Click to expand...

The "onboard clock" of an object traveling at the speed of light, would appear to be stopped or "frozen", with time not passing at all.
From the point of view of the object itself, its clock would seem to be running fine, but the rest of the universe would look like it was stopped.

Happens all the time. ...To photons, which are massless particles so they're the only ones who can get away with it, and not get into "infinite relativistic mass" troubles.
If a photon were carrying a clock, it would appear to be stopped.
If you were a photon, you'd feel normal but you could cross the whole universe in zero time because of length contraction.

Mason said:
If you're driving at the speed of light and turn on your headlights, how far ahead can you see?
Click to expand...

To the edge of the universe, because it will be contracted to zero size and the light (traveling at c) will cross it in no time.
But only if you look straight ahead. ;)

This is, absolutely, my favorite lecture of the whole year of Physics I...
 
Mason said:
If you're driving at the speed of light and turn on your headlights, how far ahead can you see?
Click to expand...

Your light buckets would fill with light until they fill up and flow over. The light flowing over the edges would set fire to the plastic surrounding the light assemby and you would crash in a blaze of glory.

:eek:
 
Could you bottle the light and reuse it?
 
kath said:
If a photon were carrying a clock, it would appear to be stopped.
If you were a photon, you'd feel normal but you could cross the whole universe in zero time because of length contraction.
Click to expand...
Well... you'd FEEL like you'd gotten there in no tme, but then you'd get where you were going and find that billions of years had passed, right? Like "hypersleep" in the movies, but without the yawn and the hangover.

Not that you'd care, since you're a photon.
 
Sac Arrow said:
But, if it is holding light, that would, by definition, make it a light bottle.
Click to expand...
You'd have to weigh it before and after to know how much is in it. Once you open it, you let it all out. Unless it's clear, then it's already gone. Because science.
 
It's all relative, right? If there is nothing to compare your position to, you are motionless. This from someone who doesn't know his mass from his energy.
 
Doesn’t matter what your speed measurement reference is...if it can’t measure the acceleration or deceleration due to farting, it’s not going to be believable.
 
Is there such a thing as absolute speed? We all know what relative speed is. If the entire universe was travelling all together as a unit at the speed of light, would that make the whole mass-time thing different than if it was standing still?
 
Sac Arrow said:
Is there such a thing as absolute speed?
Click to expand...
In the aftermath of the experimental confirmations of the theory of relativity, I don't think anyone has come up with a definition of absolute speed that would make it observable or measurable.
 
Palmpilot said:
Here's a question: Suppose you have three objects, labeled A, B, and C, all traveling along the same straight line. B is moving away from A at 90% of the speed of light, and C is moving away from B at 90% of the speed of light. So does that mean that C is moving relative to A at 90% + 90% = 180% of the speed of light, which is impossible?
Click to expand...
This video demonstrates the principal in as easy to understand way as I've ever seen.


That doesn't mean that I actually understand it, but it makes sense as I'm watching the video. :)
 
FastEddieB said:
I’ve always thought that a system in base 12 would be a lot more elegant.
Click to expand...

Base 8 or 16 is much simpler.

Humans can instinctively do multiplication but not division. The reason for that is base 10 is horrible for division - if I ask you to slice a pizza into 10 equal pieces it will lead to amusing results without pre-measurement. Slice it into 8 (or 16) though and it’s easy - just divide it in 2 three times.

Humans can naturally judge balance and can divide most things in 2 equal parts. So any numeric system that is a power of 2 would mean even a 4 year old would be able to understand division. Having more intuitive access to math available at the time your brain is developing comprehension skill would be a good thing.

It also makes logarithms easier - you can rewrite base 16 very easily into base 8, 4 or 2. Base 10 can only easily be rewritten into base 5, which is not an interesting base mathematically.
 
deonb said:
Base 8 or 16 is much simpler.

Humans can instinctively do multiplication but not division. The reason for that is base 10 is horrible for division - if I ask you to slice a pizza into 10 equal pieces it will lead to amusing results without pre-measurement. Slice it into 8 (or 16) though and it’s easy - just divide it in 2 three times.

Humans can naturally judge balance and can divide most things in 2 equal parts. So any numeric system that is a power of 2 would mean even a 4 year old would be able to understand division. Having more intuitive access to math available at the time your brain is developing comprehension skill would be a good thing.

It also makes logarithms easier - you can rewrite base 16 very easily into base 8, 4 or 2. Base 10 can only easily be rewritten into base 5, which is not an interesting base mathematically.
Click to expand...
I call bs.
Calculate 0x24 / 0x0C without a calculator and without converting to decimal first. I can easily do it in decimal. Even simple multiplication in hex is hard, only because we didn’t grow up memorizing the tables. 0x0A * 0x0C = ?, Childs play in decimal.

Ask someone to divide a pizza into 0x0A pieces and it’s the exact same difficulty as your example.
 
Salty said:
I call bs.
Calculate 0x24 / 0x0C without a calculator and without converting to decimal first. I can easily do it in decimal. Even simple multiplication in hex is hard, only because we didn’t grow up memorizing the tables. 0x0A * 0x0C = ?, Childs play in decimal.

Ask someone to divide a pizza into 0x0A pieces and it’s the exact same difficulty as your example.
Click to expand...
Only because, I think, we haven't thought in hex since early childhood. If we'd grown up learning to count 0-10 in hex instead of 0-10 in decimal, I think we'd be just as comfortable with that system -- except that we don't have fingers for A-F.
 
DaleB said:
Only because, I think, we haven't thought in hex since early childhood. If we'd grown up learning to count 0-10 in hex instead of 0-10 in decimal, I think we'd be just as comfortable with that system -- except that we don't have fingers for A-F.
Click to expand...
Doesn't change my point. Dividing a pizza by 0x0A is no easier than dividing it by decimal 10. children wouldn't inherently understand division better. Sure, division of numbers evenly divisible by the base would be easier, but that's universally true, including base 10.
 
deonb said:
Humans can naturally judge balance and can divide most things in 2 equal parts. So any numeric system that is a power of 2 would mean even a 4 year old would be able to understand division.
Click to expand...
Using the pizza example, then, 1 divided by 2 would be 2.

I see it working for fractions but not division.
 
Salty said:
Doesn't change my point. Dividing a pizza by 0x0A is no easier than dividing it by decimal 10. children wouldn't inherently understand division better. Sure, division of numbers evenly divisible by the base would be easier, but that's universally true, including base 10.
Click to expand...
But that is my point. You can calculate 30/10 in your head instantly, simply because of the decimal notation. You can do the same thing in hex... 0x30/0x10 yields the same result and is just as easy to do. 12/5 in decimal is no easier than, say, 0x0c/0x05. Just as dividing a pizza into 10 slices requires the exact same amount of work whether you call it decimal 10 or hex 0x0A.

I'm not disagreeing with your argument that doing division in hex is no easier than doing division in decimal. Well... actually it might be, since there are more cases where /2 works out to a whole number. But my point was that this statement:
Calculate 0x24 / 0x0C without a calculator and without converting to decimal first. I can easily do it in decimal. Even simple multiplication in hex is hard, only because we didn’t grow up memorizing the tables. 0x0A * 0x0C = ?, Childs play in decimal.
Click to expand...
is only true because, as you correctly noted, we didn't grow up learning a hexadecimal numbering system. If we had, it would be just as easy for us to do as decimal is for us now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top