There wouldn't be any difference in speed between the 200 and 300 lb guy. The 300 lb guy requires more force to accelerate, which is the same as the greater force of gravity on him. So they would fall equally (which is what Galileo discovered). Streamlining can increase that max speed some, but I have no idea how much. In skydiving, we usually see the opposite. Skydivers try to become less aerodynamic, so they fall slower (and have more time up in the air). They don't want to fall faster.
So the law of gravity isn't set, it can be adjusted based on our actions unlike say the theory of the speed of light which is impossible to break. An object, unencumbered will fall at a certain rate but we can manipulate that? So its possible to fall faster then the rate that gravity pulls us down?
Experimentally, Einstein's work has shown to be true. Here is a pretty good article that explains why the speed of light is the maximum speed. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/einstein-theory-of-relativity-speed-of-light
The law of gravity is set. It's based on the relative masses of the two objects. It's a constant. We are manipulating the amount of friction slowing down the object, not manipulating gravity. Gravity pulls the same on the skydiver in flying squirrel position as if pointed straight down. The difference is in the air resistance that slows the person down. No, it's not possible to fall faster than gravity. It is possible to fall slower than gravity (by increasing air resistance). Friction (air resistance) slows down objects.
Im not certain, but I believe there is resistance in space as well. The slight resistance created from space dust/gasses and distant gravity wells is essentially zero (lets call it .000000000000000000000001 for reference) until you approach the speed of light, in which case it becomes an insurmountable 'wall' that conventional propulsion cannot overcome, simular to how earths gravity is limited in how fast it can propel an object by the atmosphere. Even space is not a true vacuum. It has particles in it. They're extremely spread out, of course, but they're there, and travelling faster still means you hit them more often, which reduces your velocity. Light is not hindered by these atomic-level obstructions because its small enough to pass by all of them. Or put another way, just as there doesnt seem much resistance on your hand if you wave it through the air, but it becomes noticeable while travelling in a car, the slight resistances in space dont become noticeable until you're travelling hundreds of thousands of miles an hour. Im just guessing here... that is a very good question and outside my range of knowledge
The maximum terminal velocity is the same as the escape velocity of rockets bound for other celestial bodies - about 25,000 mph.
As you approach the speed of light, your mass increases according to Special relativity. So the harder you push, the greater the mass, and the harder you have to push to accelerate. At speeds very near the speeds of light, your mass approaches infinity.
Additionally, if a ship is propelled by blasting bowling balls out the back at one per second, what we see is that time on the ship slows down, and so does the rate of bowling ball ejections. As the ship approaches the speed of light, clocks on the ship approach a dead stop from our frame of reference; bowling balls are only ejected every hour, then once a day, then once a year, then once in a million years, and so on. Note that gas molecules from a rocket engine can be thought of as tiny bowling balls. From the point of view of the astronaut, space in front of the ship contracts. As he approaches the speed of light, the size of the universe in the direction of motion approaches zero. In the limit, as you approach the SOL, you exist at all points in space at once and the universe has no size at all.
Here is a more sophisticated explanation I like his shirt. It says, I have a physics degree. Of course I have problems!
It takes four times as much energy to double your velocity. Doubling the amount of force does not double velocity (it would only increase by a factor of the square root of 2). This doesn't seem intuitive but is something taught in basic physics.
I gave the correct answer. You did not. What you state is true at low speed. And it isn't true at very high speeds.
Would strapping two men together make them fall faster? There's twice the force, but now there's also twice the mass too, isn't there? One of Galileo's famous experiments, he dropped heavy metal balls of different weights at the same time from a tall tower, and they all fell to the ground at roughly the same time.
No, because if the vehicle is in a void the engine(s) will make no forward thrust. That's why none will ever reach effing 'Mars'!
Setting aside the hypothetical scenario, realistically, a spaceship would never get anywhere near those speeds for time dilation to slow down the ship compared to the other effect I mentioned.
A bowling ball and a feather will fall at the same rate in a vacuum chamber, and hit the 'ground' at the same time.
I gave the correct answer. You did not. If is true that energy limits the capacity to continue acceleration. But you could use a nuclear powered craft or one that scoops up hydrogen as it moves, for fuel. So the ultimate limit is driven by relativistic effects. And time dilation occurs at all speeds. It is just a matter of how much.
I wonder if time dilation is caused by beginning to move out of the spatial plane, Either I misidentified the post as the answer to which you refer, or you didn't bother to think about what I said. Neither of us is "wrong".
Did you watch the video I posted instead of guessing? You are approximately correct at low speeds. But the math isn't correct as higher speeds. And relativistic effects become significant at speeds around 80% of the speed of light. You don't have to get extremely close to the SOL before it matters.
At 80% of the SOL, the gamma value is about 1.6. So time is running at about 0.6 times as fast as for an observer defined to be at rest.
Video not does good job of explaining. It shouldn't matter whether you're "moving through time" to experience time, because of relativity. For his explanation to hold, it would require some sort of polarization theory of space-time, where space-time only interacts with matter in a certain way in certain direction. Perhaps that could be true for mediating bosons that appear out of the vacuum? Then there's the issue of how that would relate to Unruh radiation.
Tau Zero a good novel about time dilation https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/240617.Tau_Zero Although the ending goes loony toons.
