@mono @nightingalle
>mfw I used to own one of those bad boys
Feels nostalgic man.

@Nightingalle If you can prove Einstein's special theory of relativity wrong, sure thing! Might take a while for you to reach speeds > c, though.

@Nightingalle Well, if you'd like to stay within kind of safe levels (as in, you probably won't die) -- say 400m/s² of constant acceleration -- you'll need 749'481.145s to accelerate to the speed of light. That is only about 8.7 days.

However, just for comparison, the maximum acceleration of the Space Shuttle Discovery is just shy of 30m/s² at an altitude of 102km ASL.

So yeah, if you sat in Discovery (and had infinite fuel), you'd need 115 days to accelerate to the speed of light.

@Nightingalle In conclusion, it's theoretically possible to reach those speeds before you turn 30 years old if you disregard the special theory of relativity. But only theoretically. Technically not even theoretically.

Furthermore, speeds greater than c introduce a whole truckload of different problems.

@mezzodrinker so just one answer in short, can you take me back in time or not?

If not then I hope you can help me solve those truckloads of problems and think of a way to keep me from getting carsick for a 115 days journey

@Nightingalle Can I? No.
Can NASA? No.
Can a Kardashev Type-II civilization? Unlikely, but we know of none.

But Star Trek can, maybe.

@mezzodrinker @Nightingalle Wasn't the theory of relativity questioned not too long ago because some scientists found some issues with it in contrast with some new theory or something?

Also what happen to the EM Drive? Did they bust it?

@proxeus @Nightingalle
Questioned? Possibly, but apparently nothing came of it.

The EM Drive is not possible with our current understanding of physics, as it would violate the conservation of momentum.

@mezzodrinker @Nightingalle Yeah I know it wasn't understanded, that's why I asked if they busted it or not, and if it was still working.

Last thing I heard is that China was going to use it for their ships and stuff.

@proxeus @Nightingalle @mezzodrinker Last I heard, there were problems independently verifying it, and in at least one case they found that the measured thrust was actually interference being caused by either the power source or the measurement instruments having unshielded radiation throwing off the results. Once that was accounted for, the thrust disappeared from their observations.

Sign in to participate in the conversation