Acceleration compensator?

C

Catscratch

Spaceman
I have recently been doing some extra credit work for science and have noticed a similarity between WCs inertia dampener and SWs acceleration compensator.I have been doing a small thesis for fun about the inertia dampener and would like to know what the big difference is. One theory I have about the inertia dampener is: as one approaches light speed one gains mass and I have been told that an inertia dampener could possibly counter the effects of gaining mass at such a high rate. I think that if one were able to shield ones fuel/afterburner supply with a magnetic field of some sort(if it were powerful enough)you could allow the fuel/afterburner to keep gaining mass and since you are using it, the fuel will multiply infinately(sp?) and the effect would be that you would have an infinite amount of fuel to finally travel at the speed of light and even past it.You could also controll the rate that the fuel gains mass by weakening or strengthning the magnetic field.

(Catscratch then bends over,trying to catch his breath.)
smile.gif

Please correct any mistakes I have made.Thanks
smile.gif


------------------
Ultimately its other people's reactions that make us who we are.
 
Uh... I don't think you can have an infinite amount of anything
smile.gif
.
I don't know much about going up to light speed, but my guess is that this is how it goes. As you increase your speed, your mass (the stuff you measure in kgs) increases. However, as always, your weight (measured in newtons) remains the same, for the very simple reason that you did not gain any weight. There's still the same number of atoms in your body, non?
smile.gif


Oh, and the inertia dampener is used to make sure that the human pilot does not get squashed into a bloody pulp. It's as simple as that.
 
You got it the wrong way round.
The mass in kg remains constant but the weight in newtons- a vector force- is larger when accelaration is higher. And magnetic fields have nothing to do with it. I saw a book by Stephen Hawking on stuff like this. Can't remember the title but it was about the (made up) physics behind sci- fi like Star trek. You might find it interesting/helpful.

------------------
I only ever enjoy killing ETs and chewing gum. And I'm all outta gum.
 
Starfury: Argh! I _always_ get it the wrong way round
smile.gif
. All those physics lessons, and still...
 
also, if the human body were to travelk at lightspped, your body would de-molecularize (it'd turn into molecules) and there would be no way to put you back togeather, you'd be stuck....

------------------
"When my life's on the line, I want a wingman I can trust" Blair to Hobbes
 
Hunter,

"Demolecularize"? Not hardly. There's nothing inherently dangerous about traveling near/at c. Nothing likely about it, either, but that's another story.

Oh, and that quote in your sig was said to Maniac, about Hobbes.

------------------
SubCrid Death
Official Net.Nazi, LOAF's Merry Guild
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's nothing dangerous about traveling at any speed. It's the acceleration that gets ya
smile.gif
.

Death: The end of the world must be coming, if you're making mistakes in regard of WC stuff. As a matter of fact, that quote _was_ Blair to Hobbes.

"Colonel... There are many brave and noble pilots here."
"Yeah... But when my life's on the line, I want a wingman I can trust."
"I'll try not to disappoint you, old friend."
 
Stardust,

The inertia dampener is what keeps the pilot from following simple [sic] Newtonian physics, which includes being thrown through the canopy by a sudden stop, or being embedded in his seat when s/he lights their burners.

Oh, and Quarto? I never claimed to be a WC expert. I just happen to remember things (for varying degrees of 'remember' anyhow). I have made mistakes before, and the odds are high that I will again at some point in the future.

------------------
SubCrid Death
Official Net.Nazi, LOAF's Merry Guild



[This message has been edited by Death (edited February 02, 2000).]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well imho, a series of em pulses of opposite charge of the inertial forces cancel out the effects. Pulses would have to be near instantaneous (sp?) Hence, you need a powerful computer for control.
 
Imagine taking a shot on that component...

And if something gains weight enough it bends the space-time, to the point that if you have enough weight, you turn into a black hole.

But I'm probably wrong. Didn't have a physics class for years...

------------------
"This matter winds itself ever in new riddles.", Faramir - The Lord of The Rings




[This message has been edited by klaus (edited February 02, 2000).]
 
Death: Don't worry. My comment wasn't really serious. You know me better than that
smile.gif
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always thought it'd take more mass than the earth had to make a black hole, to make one the size of your hand anyway. But if you could fit it into a space really really small ...
 
Yes, it takes an awful lot of mass/weight/whatever
smile.gif
. But I don't know if there are any size limits for black holes... Maybe you could just make a really, really tiny one
smile.gif
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Absolutely

Size has little to do with it.

As Yoda says, "Look at me, judge me from my size do you? As you should not. For my ally is the Force"

Density is probably enough as long as you have an extreme density, the grav forces will attract nearby matter and maybe energy, unless the dense matter itself is giving off energy in which case it would then expand and the density would decrease and it would no longer be a black hole.

But then again black holes do give off some radiation like x-rays or radio I'm not really sure.

But then I'm no astrophysicist.

[This message has been edited by Death's Head (edited February 03, 2000).]
 
Death's Head: Black holes give off very faint x-rays.
smile.gif

And both of you were right about the size of black holes,and how it does not have to be big or small, it is theorized that they can be huge,or the size of a period on your screen.The size of the star determines how large its black hole will be.Well,actually its the size of its core after the star has expended all of its helium and hydrogen. After a star has expended all of its hydrogen supply it starts burning its helium,usually resulting in a supernova,or when the star literally explodes,creating new elements which it sends out around it.Then iron starts to build up around the core,which in turn gives the star increasingly more mass,until its core finally collapses into a black hole from its own gravity,which had built up along with the iron.(Catscratch then bends over,gasping for breath until he passes out.) Thats how I think it goes anyways.
smile.gif


------------------
Ultimately its other people's reactions that make us who we are.


[This message has been edited by Catscratch (edited February 03, 2000).]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top