[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Timothy van der Linden <TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl>*Subject*: Re: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight*From*: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>*Date*: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:37:03 -0800*Cc*: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu*In-Reply-To*: <3.0.1.32.19980218135515.00812100@pop1.tip.nl>*References*: <3.0.1.32.19980217223859.0081e630@pop1.tip.nl><3.0.1.32.19980217161310.00798cb0@mail.u-net.com><3.0.1.32.19980217223530.007b69e0@mail.u-net.com><3.0.1.32.19980218135515.00812100@pop1.tip.nl>*Reply-To*: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>*Sender*: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu

I guess I must be nearly alone in preferring modern expositions of relativity theory that treat mass as an invariant quantity, and distinguish relativistic energy (which does change with velocity) from mass. Mass is invariant because accelerating an object does not change its self-measured properties. If you are on a relativistic starship you do not find that everything around you becomes more massive as it accelerates. Neither does ejected fuel become heavier because it's moving away from you; its energy and momentum increase, and in more non-Newtonian ways as the exhaust velocity becomes a higher fraction of c, but the exhaust particles themselves are not more massive. There's a persistent problem with people interpreting the relativistic momentum formula p = m * v / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) by regrouping it as if the object has a variable mass m' = (m / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) and then behaves as if it has pseudo-Newtoniam momentum p = m' * v Having worked through a fair number of relativistic dynamics problems, I can assure that things are much easier if you remember these things: 1. Always work from a single frame of reference. 2. Energy and momentum are always conserved in a system. So Timothy may think it's easier to analyze an accelerating starship in the ship's frame, but in reality there is no "ship's frame"; one can attach an instantaneous frame to the ship, and the ship's behavior in a self-relative sense is fairly simple, but determining things like the ship's velocity relative to an observer or the difference between elapsed ship time and elapsed observer time is best done using a non-accelerating frame, at least if you don't want the math to become really painful. Note that in a system where objects interact via fission or collision, mass may _not_ be conserved, while the total energy and momentum of the interacting objects are conserved. If this is still confusing, read chapters 7 and 8 of _Spacetime Physics_. They (Taylor and Wheeler) also go into a lot more detail justifying why they formulate things this way.

**References**:**starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight***From:*Timothy van der Linden <TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl>

**No Subject***From:*A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>

**Re: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight***From:*Timothy van der Linden <TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight** - Next by Date:
**RE: starship-design: charts** - Prev by thread:
**Re: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight** - Next by thread:
**No Subject** - Index(es):