61–70 of 273 posts
Shameless plug: Accurate solar system in 192 Bytes: https://www.dwitter.net/d/26521 The red bit is the sun. 1000 kilometers per pixel, and 1000 seconds per second. They all fit onto the screen by looking through the orbital plane, as if through a telescope from a distant world, i.e effectively an orthographic projection. The orbits are accurate in terms of mean orbital distance (in reality there is slight perturbance…
I love how simple the HTML/CSS is. Absolute positioning with really large left: values. #saturn { position: absolute; left: 412397px; height: 34px; width: 65px; fill: #ffa043; }
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the OP was referring to relativity - the closer to the speed of light you get the slower time appears to tick. So if you could travel at light speed you'd arrive at your destination immediately from your reference frame, but much slower from another person's.
Then what’s up with all of those sci-fi chows where using FTL still takes some amount of time to arrive?
2) it's assumed within the framework of the fictional universe that time dilation isn't taking place because the actual travel is occurring within an external frame of reference like "hyperspace" or a "warp field."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
10,000 years of empty space to get to the next solar system. Exciting.
Not with light speed travel. At even 1% the speed of light, the travel time diminishes significantly: - Titan, Io and Ganymede are only 2.5 days away - Pluto is about 23 days Edit: Even at such speeds, we still can’t visit a nearby star system in a reasonable time-frame. Oh well.
Even if we could travel at 1 percent the speed of light, the "destination" would be inflating away from us at much greater relatavistic speed.
To your point, this is less an issue with solar or extra solar objects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe light’s insanely fast and space is just huge. It’s all relative ;)
I would say they're two sides of the same coin. The time it takes for light to travel the universe (which makes communication even with nearby stars essentially impossible) is what makes the universe huge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you travel at relativistic speeds, your trip will appear far shorter to you than to those that stayed on Earth. With a ship able to accelerate at 1G continuously, you can be at the edge of the observable universe in [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/s4tbry/oc_...
Naive question: is accelerating at 1G continuously within the range of what we consider possible?
The greater barrier is that the nature of the expansion of the universe prevents any real interstellar travel that has a "destination" in mind. Of course we might have some "FTL" or "near light speed" travel in futre, but if the universe is expanding infintely from every point in space at light speed, how could we ever "catch up" to objects we see even now?
Shameless plug: Accurate solar system in 192 Bytes: https://www.dwitter.net/d/26521 The red bit is the sun. 1000 kilometers per pixel, and 1000 seconds per second. They all fit onto the screen by looking through the orbital plane, as if through a telescope from a distant world, i.e effectively an orthographic projection. The orbits are accurate in terms of mean orbital distance (in reality there is slight perturbance…
Incredible - how does this work?
Here's the js anyway:
for(i=10;i--;x.fillStyle=R(i-8||255),x.beginPath(x.fill()))x.arc(960+[45,29,14,8,2,1.5,1,.6,0,0][i]*1e5*S(t/5e3/[165,84,29,12,2,1,.6,.2,1,1][i]),540,[24,25,58,69,3.4,6.4,6,2.4,696,2e3][i],0,7)
Surprisingly the precision used in those encoded values is enough at 1000km per pixel (I checked).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say they're two sides of the same coin. The time it takes for light to travel the universe (which makes communication even with nearby stars essentially impossible) is what makes the universe huge.
Luckily FTL communication isn't actually impossible and special relativity only applies to energy and mass.