Problematic element in chronology

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 02 Jun 2011, 19:36 · from 2011-June.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:36:14 -0700
Subject: (urth) Problematic element in chronology
In-Reply-To: <4DE7E4B3.5030706 at io.com>
References: <87E792FA008E4A679A9EFA68176C4976@jill>
	<4DE0BB7C.2060406 at gmail.com>
	<919CCDA1A13748D3885C08CACA98A8FF@jill>
	<ACEAA57F-D428-4FB2-B650-33276F9B59D8 at gmail.com>
	<1FA299F467334EA3AB206557AEDF319A@jill>
	<4DE4F975.7040803 at gmail.com> <4DE50281.6070600 at irit.fr>
	<338FE273BF55421DAA98943A6330B0E0@jill> <4DE7CAA4.4010200 at irit.fr>
	<4DE7E4B3.5030706 at io.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=KfkKZYfm0QvHEW23-qMhkqtm3WQ at mail.gmail.com>

Eeeeeyeah, but . The calculations below don't take dilation into
account. I'm just sayin'.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 12:38 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
>>
>> I made some computations (simplified) and it seems to me that indeed
>> GW does not pay too much attention either to physics or to chronology.
>> Very roughly,
>> with constant acceleration of 1 m/sec^2 it is needed about 50 years to get
>> to relativistic speed, and the same to slow down.
>
> I think you are off by a factor of 5 or so.
>
> 300,000 km/sec is 300,000,000 m/sec
>
> /1 m/sec/sec is 300,000,000 sec
>
> /60 for 5,000,000 min
>
> /60 for 83,333 hr
>
> /24 for 3472 days
>
> /365.25 for 9.5 years
>
> As a check, the familiar factoid of 1 year at 1 g to reach lightspeed:
>
> 9.8 m/sec/sec round up to 10 m/sec/sec
>
> *60 for 600 m/sec/min
>
> *60 for 36,000 m/sec/hr
>
> *24 for 864,000 m/sec/day
>
> *365.25 for 315,576,000 m/sec/year
>
> /1000 for 315,576 km/sec/year
>
> c is actually a little under 300K, so this is more like lightspeed in 50
> weeks.
>
> --
> Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
> Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
> < http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net