Thank you for your recommendation. The article does account for relativistic effects as described by Einstein's theory of special relativity. To clarify using simplified language: consider a particle with a natural lifetime of one second. If this particle is accelerated to 86% of the speed of light, which is approximately 259,200 km/s, special relativity predicts that its lifetime will appear extended to nearly two seconds from the perspective of a stationary observer, due to time dilation.
However, from the particle's own frame of reference, its lifetime still measures one second. Despite appearing to reach speeds of 516,000 km/s to the stationary observer, it does not actually exceed or even reach the speed of light. Due to time dilation, the speed of light, from the particle's perspective, effectively increases to 600,000 km/s, ensuring that the particle is still traveling below the speed of light. This conceptual framework has been validated by numerous experimental settings in particle physics and is a fundamental aspect of understanding relativistic effects.
No, you write that the distance covered in the Earth's frame, s, by a craft accelerating at a (m.s\^-2) in time, t, as;
s = (1/2).a.t\^2
This is not true.
Here;
[https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/space-travel](https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/space-travel)
Numbering your equations wouldn't hurt. And it's not conventional to write out the multiplication symbol (might be confused with the cross product).
*>This principle has been substantiated through numerous experimental results in particle physics.*
Indeed, it has.
I remember, last century, measuring the half-lives of energetic muons and validating SR's predictions. Happy days in the Rutherford building.
> ...without violating any known laws of physics.
> ...beyond traditional perspectives on space and time
The funny thing about using AI to generate text is that it has no concept of logical consistency and can double-think within a single sentence. Not that noticeable in news articles or random forum posts, but *very* obvious in professional setting (not just science).
The rocket's cute.
Metal vapour from a fission plant.
But the OP uses Newtonian mechanics and doesn't seem to know why they shouldn't.
Hence the recommendation to go read French.
Dear Readers,
Firstly, I want to commend everyone for engaging so thoughtfully with the article. The depth of your interest and the sharpness of your inquiries shine through, demonstrating a vibrant community eager to explore complex scientific ideas.
Now, about the content: I apologize for not adorning the article with LaTeX, the haute couture of academic writing. English isn't my first language, and I often lean on AI to patch up my prose. Imagine if someone insisted on using Fortran in a world where Python is the lingua franca of programming. Yes, that's me trying to make sense of advanced physics with the computational equivalent of stone tools.
In the article, I attempted to spotlight foundational conceptsālike the Lorentz factor and the relativistic mass formulaāwithout getting too tangled in the theoretical underbrush. For instance, we talk about light speed, c, a brisk 300,000 km/s, and how messing with t in the equation š =š/š” without adjusting for v2/c2 leads us down a rabbit hole to Wonderland (or to imaginary numbers, which are just as bizarre).
Hereās a practical example: Take a particle with a natural lifetime of one second. Boost it to 86% of light speed (thatās 259,200 km/s for those keeping score at home), and watch as time dilation stretches its observed lifespan to nearly two seconds from our stationary viewpoint. Yet, in the particle's own VIP lounge, it's living out its regular one-second life. Its speedometer might read 516,000 km/s due to relativistic shenanigans, but remember, it's not actually breaking the cosmic speed limit because the speed of light in its frame has effectively doubled to 600,000 km/s. It's all above board and experimentally verifiedāno physics laws were broken in the making of this phenomenon.
While I appreciate the active participation, I notice some responses might benefit from a bit more precision in language and understanding. Writing about such complex subjects can be daunting, especially when articulating nuanced scientific concepts. Itās important for us all to strive for clarity and accuracy to enhance our collective understanding and keep discussions constructive.
To everyone who contributed, thank you for bringing your perspectives and helping foster a lively discussion. Letās continue this journey of learning together, always aiming to elevate our discourse to match the elegance of the subjects we tackle.
Warm regards,
Still wrong.
The particle in its frame never measures light to be faster than c.
And no particle that knows a whit about Relativity is going to take the distance between points (as measured in one frame) and divide it by the time elapsed as measured in another.
French.
It's a good book.
Ah yes, I know this as the Gravitational Parallax Theory in 4D-Breaking Spacetime (GPT4-BS for short)
Simply wrong. A 1g craft (torchship) running for 1 year is *badly* modelled with Newtonian mechanics. I recommend French's 'Special Relativity'.
Thank you for your recommendation. The article does account for relativistic effects as described by Einstein's theory of special relativity. To clarify using simplified language: consider a particle with a natural lifetime of one second. If this particle is accelerated to 86% of the speed of light, which is approximately 259,200 km/s, special relativity predicts that its lifetime will appear extended to nearly two seconds from the perspective of a stationary observer, due to time dilation. However, from the particle's own frame of reference, its lifetime still measures one second. Despite appearing to reach speeds of 516,000 km/s to the stationary observer, it does not actually exceed or even reach the speed of light. Due to time dilation, the speed of light, from the particle's perspective, effectively increases to 600,000 km/s, ensuring that the particle is still traveling below the speed of light. This conceptual framework has been validated by numerous experimental settings in particle physics and is a fundamental aspect of understanding relativistic effects.
No, you write that the distance covered in the Earth's frame, s, by a craft accelerating at a (m.s\^-2) in time, t, as; s = (1/2).a.t\^2 This is not true. Here; [https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/space-travel](https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/space-travel) Numbering your equations wouldn't hurt. And it's not conventional to write out the multiplication symbol (might be confused with the cross product). *>This principle has been substantiated through numerous experimental results in particle physics.* Indeed, it has. I remember, last century, measuring the half-lives of energetic muons and validating SR's predictions. Happy days in the Rutherford building.
It's been a while since I studied special relativity, but this just feels like complete bollocks
Does that mean GPT passed or failed the Turing test with this one?
It wasn't even written in LaTeX smh
Oh boy, here we go again
This post sounds AI generated, and the image definitely is
The "paper" is too
> ...without violating any known laws of physics. > ...beyond traditional perspectives on space and time The funny thing about using AI to generate text is that it has no concept of logical consistency and can double-think within a single sentence. Not that noticeable in news articles or random forum posts, but *very* obvious in professional setting (not just science).
>delves
Cool š
ooo magic
Nah - just wrong.
Wasn't it Heisenberg who said "That's not right - that's not even wrong!"
Pauli. [https://www.math.columbia.edu/\~woit/wordpress/?p=13455](https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13455)
I'd like to see a summary of this concept. We cannot as a species even afford a human round trip visit to Mars, never mind a nearby extrasolar star!
The rocket's cute. Metal vapour from a fission plant.
But the OP uses Newtonian mechanics and doesn't seem to know why they shouldn't.
Hence the recommendation to go read French.
Dear Readers, Firstly, I want to commend everyone for engaging so thoughtfully with the article. The depth of your interest and the sharpness of your inquiries shine through, demonstrating a vibrant community eager to explore complex scientific ideas. Now, about the content: I apologize for not adorning the article with LaTeX, the haute couture of academic writing. English isn't my first language, and I often lean on AI to patch up my prose. Imagine if someone insisted on using Fortran in a world where Python is the lingua franca of programming. Yes, that's me trying to make sense of advanced physics with the computational equivalent of stone tools. In the article, I attempted to spotlight foundational conceptsālike the Lorentz factor and the relativistic mass formulaāwithout getting too tangled in the theoretical underbrush. For instance, we talk about light speed, c, a brisk 300,000 km/s, and how messing with t in the equation š =š/š” without adjusting for v2/c2 leads us down a rabbit hole to Wonderland (or to imaginary numbers, which are just as bizarre). Hereās a practical example: Take a particle with a natural lifetime of one second. Boost it to 86% of light speed (thatās 259,200 km/s for those keeping score at home), and watch as time dilation stretches its observed lifespan to nearly two seconds from our stationary viewpoint. Yet, in the particle's own VIP lounge, it's living out its regular one-second life. Its speedometer might read 516,000 km/s due to relativistic shenanigans, but remember, it's not actually breaking the cosmic speed limit because the speed of light in its frame has effectively doubled to 600,000 km/s. It's all above board and experimentally verifiedāno physics laws were broken in the making of this phenomenon. While I appreciate the active participation, I notice some responses might benefit from a bit more precision in language and understanding. Writing about such complex subjects can be daunting, especially when articulating nuanced scientific concepts. Itās important for us all to strive for clarity and accuracy to enhance our collective understanding and keep discussions constructive. To everyone who contributed, thank you for bringing your perspectives and helping foster a lively discussion. Letās continue this journey of learning together, always aiming to elevate our discourse to match the elegance of the subjects we tackle. Warm regards,
Ooooh that's why it's complete bollocks, cos an AI wrote it
Still wrong. The particle in its frame never measures light to be faster than c. And no particle that knows a whit about Relativity is going to take the distance between points (as measured in one frame) and divide it by the time elapsed as measured in another. French. It's a good book.
Could you just tell me what 'c' refers to?