The premise here is that the ship will CONSTANTLY accelerate at the rate determined by a force of 1g. At that rate the ship would reach the speed of light in less than 1 year (353 days, they say). And then, it just keeps on accelerating at an exponential rate year after year. Yet it never reaches the speed of light.
Apart from mathematical equations and insubstantial "appearances," how can that make even the least bit of sense?
If space can be distorted, it also means that there are wormholes, through which the ship can in effect travel faster than speed of light.
Quote:If space can be distorted, it also means that there are wormholes, through which the ship can in effect travel faster than speed of light.
This claim had nothing to do with wormholes, Oris, but never mind that. I'm not even going to ask you what "wormholes" are, how you know they exist, how they "work," or anything else. I can see that you are determined to try to "make sense" of this claim, by whatever means. If that's the case you will certainly succeed in convincing yourself, at least.
Keep the faith, Baby.
Anyway, Oris, it seems to me that all this talk about "inflation" for an infinitesimal amount of time doesn't relate to the question I asked at all. The question was:
Quote:The basic proposition is that, theoretically at least, a space ship can go 13.7 billion light years in 23 years and never travel faster than the speed of light.
Does anybody see a problem with this claim? Isn't there "something" inconsistent here?
What assumptions underlie such a claim? How would carrying those same assumptions over to other areas of physics mandate a reassessment of our "knowledge" in those other areas?
Do you agree to this theory of Einstein's and do you make it your theoretical ground when asking such question?
I just want to point out that the basic point that someone in a spaceship travelling at near C will experience less time going to the nearest star than someone on Earth watching is not theoretical.
Under the mathematical rules and procotols which SR requires for calculating time and distance
If you are now explaining what these mathematical rules and procotols (sic) say
That is all I can say... unless you want to start diving into the math
Tell me, if I am in an inertial frame of reference, do I make any calculations regarding the LT based on the assumption that I am moving? EVER? Or does the very concept of a "frame of reference" (in SR) mean I am NOT moving (for LT purposes)?
Quote:Do you agree to this theory of Einstein's and do you make it your theoretical ground when asking such question?
If you insist, no, and yes. I was hoping to get some analysis from others, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
A lot of people seem to assume that "whatever the scientists tell us MUST be right," and don't try to see if what the scientists are saying actually makes sense. They see it as their "obligation" to uphold "science" as they're told it is.
You can make valid calculations from any frame of reference. They are equally valid
You realize that from any inertial frame of reference, including yours, the speed of light is a limit.
Let's say I want to calculate it from the way the spaceship "sees" it. Let's say I am now on the ship, instead of the earth, OK. Now that's *my* frame of reference. Under SR, am I moving now?
This is simple mathematics Layman, the definition of frame of reference is well-defined. When you accelerate, your inertial frame of reference has changed. This means that what you are now calling "*my*" frame of reference isn't the same mathematical frame of reference as it was before you got onto the space ship and accelerated.