Don't be silly, the moon is, relatively speaking, a hop, skip and jump away, whereas Mars comes under the heading 'deep space'? And TBH I'm not wholly convinced that we've been to the moon, but there's a dedicated forum for that.
If you're asking about whether relativistic time dilation effects have been proven, then yes they have and GPS, among other things, absolutely rely upon them.
It depends on what we're trying to accelerate. The Large Hadron Collider manages to accelerate particles to within a tiny fraction of 1% of the speed of light. But if you're talking about manned or unmanned spacecraft then you're absolutely right. As vman12 said, the problem is one of fuel. Crudely speaking we accelerate ships by throwing stuff out of the back of them. To get anywhere near the speed of light, you have to have a lot of stuff to throw out of the back - which in turn makes the ship more difficult to accelerate. I guess that's why so much science fiction relies of different forms of propulsion.
Do you believe that the various unmanned missions to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn have taken place ? Do you believe that the Voyager missions have taken place ? If so there is ample evidence of craft being sent a long way. By the way, astronomically speaking, deep space is defined as interstellar space (i.e. outside the solar system) so Mars wouldn't qualify. Outer space on the other hand is anywhere beyond the Earth/Moon system. I don't know if colloquial usage is different - I doubt it.
Mar's is in deep space compared to the moon. Also 'there is ample evidence of craft being sent a long way.'? Well there's plenty of evidence of them being launched but how far they actually go is anybody's guess - if they're interested. And no, as it happens I don't believe all those 'missions' took place. I'll qualify that . . . that they were productive.
The thing is that "deep space" has a specific astronomical definition - I was just pointing that out. If you wish to use your own, personal, idiosyncratic, definition you're free to do so but don't be surprised if you cause confusion in the process. What a bizarre definition. The reason for this part of the conversation IIRC was scepticism on your part that objects could be sent that far - or move that fast. Whether they have been scientifically productive (astronomers and astrophysicists would disagree with you on that point) the fact remains that the objects have gone that far and have moved that fast.
So you're a space junkie and I'm not - it takes all sorts to make a world? I also believe it's the biggest scam ever devised by mankind.
No, it isn't! Gravity exerts a constant acceleration until friction counteracts it. Think of the engine in your car as exerting a force that moves you forward. You can accelerate up to the speed where the friction of the air prevents you from going any faster. As a child did you ever put your hand out of the window of a moving car? That faster the car went the more pressure you felt on your hand. The entire surface of the car is encountering that air friction which is why your car engine reaches a point were it stops accelerating and your speed remains constant. Gravity is same as your car engine in that it will exert the same force towards the center of the earth. It will keep accelerating until the friction of the air resistance prevents it from going any faster. The air density at the top of the sky dive in the OP was far lower than it is at ground level. Lower air density means less friction which means faster speed. As the air density increased the speed slowed but the force of gravity remained constant for the purposes of this explanation. The force of gravity itself changes the further away you are from the center of the earth. You weigh less on the top of Mt Everest than you weigh in Death Valley but the difference is very small. However the higher you go the less you weigh so once you reach space you become virtually weightless.
Except it doesn't prevent it from going faster which is why cars have different speeds. The only thing preventing us from going faster are the engines. Look at airplanes, they can go faster than a bullet, there is no limit to their speed. Not sure why this doesn't apply to space where there is no friction, it should be possible to go as fast as your engine will let you. Even beyond the speed of light. People say weird things happen with time at that speed but nobody has witnessed it, its just a theory. I think we could go the speed of light and everything would be just fine.
There are various limits to their speed. If you don't hit the drag limit, eventually you'll get to the speed where the material the plane is made from will start to deteriorate due to atmospheric friction - one of the reasons why experimental high-speed planes are made of exotic materials. Both special and general relativity have been repeatedly verified experimentally. As has already been explained, as a body (a particle, a spaceship or other thing with mass) approaches the speed of light, it mass tends towards infinity which means that you have to use increasing amounts of energy to accelerate it further. The increase in mass has been verified experimentally. Actually they have by looking at how long high velocity unstable particles last. I'm afraid you are wrong...
They are ALREADY at steady state. Those in thin atmosphere that pass into thicker atmosphere, BECOME an asteroid.
It takes a LOT of power, to BUST thru the sound barrier. It takes ESCAPE VELOCITY, to get thru the last of gravity. It takes MASSIVE POWER, for a SUPERBIKE to go the same speed as a SLICKER car. All things considered. I think it takes 40 hp to push the license plate to 100 speed.
okay then, then is slightly off topic it has to due with speed, gravity and free fall, until I heard it explained I had no idea ...the astronauts on the international space station aren't weightlessly floating in zero G space as the ISS is still in earth's gravity well...those aboard aren't floating about due to a lack of gravity, they're actually in constant free fall like sky divers....
Well since space is a vacuum it doesn't seem like it would take that much power. I mean if you are going 1000mph then a simple thrust will put you a little faster and it should keep going like that, up to the speed of light. And beyond. I haven't heard anyone say its impossible to go faster than the speed of light, only that humans would be effected by it somehow. Seems to me if we can figure that part out then the speed part should be relatively easy. Maybe not easy but we know its possible.
At least a couple people have pointed out that there are actual properties of physics that prevent us from accelerating an object to the speed of light. I know it seems weird, but there really is a limit. It's something we don't see as significant when an object is only accelerating to a few hundred thousand miles an hour. But, there comes a point where accelerating an object becomes harder. You say "we know it's possible". Please cite. Or at least describe what you think is possible, because some of what you have proposed is counter to modern physics.
If we can send an object to the Moon we can send it to Mars. There isn't enough gravity or friction in space to stop an object we shoot at Mars if we give it as much thrust as it takes to go to the Moon.
Because its based on Einsteins work which is simple theory, its never been put to a practical test. He wondered why the speed of light was infinite and what would happen if you put a torch on a rocket...wouldn't the light be moving faster than what we know to be the speed of light? Yes. But since he claimed it wasn't possible to go faster than the speed of light he came up with the theory that a moving object must affect time. And this isn't based on any actual scientific study, its a gedanken of his. In 1964 MIT tested electrons and how fast they could go. They discovered that as they went faster their mass increased to the point where they couldn't accelerate them faster...that speed was the speed of light. However, they didn't determine that they couldn't go faster physically, they could, MIT just couldn't push them beyond that. Another famous test was done by putting clocks in airplanes and flying them around the world. All the clocks came back with different times meaning that time is indeed affected by movement, this would seem to authenticate Einstein's theory. However, we overcame that by putting a satellite up in orbit that makes all time unchanging no matter how fast you go. And this is my point. Nobody has proven its physically impossible to go faster than the speed of light, it is, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so its possible to break that barrier, we just haven't figured out how to yet. Yes, with current technology its impossible but once we figure out the mass problem it will be a piece of cake. And then we have warp drive.
some recent research experiments have been claimed to move light faster in laboratories than through the vacuum of space but other physicist question whether it was really accomplished... regardless even the scientist who did the experiment said this only applies to light as light does not have mass...not solid objects, in that case they say the rule still applies nothing can move faster than light. light speed isn't advisable even if possible, space is not empty a collision with even a tiny particle would destroy a space ship at those speeds...
FALSE!!!! First of all, Einstein's theory has been tested over and over again for 100 years. Second of all (and you need to know this), a theory in science is NOT the same as a theory in the general public. In science, a theory is a collection of one or more hypotheses that have gone through repeated testing, duplication by unrelated groups, review by experts in the field. Third of all (and you need to know this, too), in science there is NOTHING stronger than a theory when it comes to stating how something works. Science does NOT have any way of proving that something is absolutely true. The very best answers from science are scientific theories as per the above. The speed of light is NOT infinite. There are physics experiments that you can run in a high school lab to measure the speed of light - thus demonstrating that the speed of light is not infinite. Yes, he was famous for the way he thought about problems. But, guessing that means his ideas weren't put through the serious rigors of science before his theory was ever accepted is a big fat blunder. His ideas WERE tested by both himself and other physicists around the world. After he published his theory, there was a gap of years before his theory was accepted. No. If you think so, cite your source. No, that's not what happend at all. Satellite time happens at a different rate than earth time. The satellite didn't do more than communicate an earthly clock to all subscribers. YES!!! We know there are stars that are receding from our own star at faster than the speed of light. BUT, that comes because the very fabric of space is expanding. It does NOT mean we can go faster than light. It means that over stupendously gigantic distance, like the distance to the very edge of the observable universe, the expansion of space itself is enough to carry objects away from us faster than the speed of light. Draw two dots on a balloon. If you blow up the balloon, the fabric of balloon between them expands and it looks like the dots are moving apart. That's what is happening with our universe. If you add the expansion of the universe and the speed of the hugely distant star, the sum can exceed the speed of light. Einstein's theory has two parts - general relativity that covers the universe as a whole and special relativity that shows how things work between nearby objects that aren't affected by the fact that our universe is expanding. lol - the "mass problem"??? I think you're going to remember that every object we deal with on a normal basis has mass - outside of photons. And, we're not composed of photons. And, we know how mass behaves when it approaches light speed. You can't just say "when we figure out some NEW physics" - we're stuck with this one universe of ours. And, warp drive is Sci-Fi.
a did quick search and found this... https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120095&page=1 but as I posted it's also disputed...
People like Will are stuck on their beliefs. Like I said, we just haven't figured it out yet. Suppose we could bend space, we wouldn't need to physically go faster than the speed of light although we would be doing it. And the expansion of the universe proves Einstein wrong. There are planets and suns with mass moving faster than the speed of light just fine. You can't debate that fact. And yes, we are inventing new physics all the time. Your belief that we have it all figured out already is childish. We don't, we are still making discoveries all the time. Because we haven't done something yet doesn't mean its not possible. Remember that everything was impossible until we did it.
Exciting stuff! Even the idea of a propagation rate faster than light would seem amazing. Plus, the wave/particle duality ... not sure what this all means.
lol. I'm "stuck on the laws and theories of physics"? Thanks! Well, why bother with that. Suppose we could teleport. Suppose we had "warp drive". Suppose we had "worm holes". Suppose god would answer a prayer to go to a distant star system. False. Einstein's general theory of relativity specifies this. Physicists are not inventing new theories of relativity. And, that is the foundation of this thread. True. Failing to do something doesn't mean it's not possible. However, physics can mean something is not possible.
