Starship Asterisk*

by **Javachip** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:23 am

neufer wrote:The parameter z is the height above the picnic assuming a field of view of ~53º (i.e., 1 m² is observed at a height of 1m).

In other words, z is the distance traveled at time t. I am with you so far.

neufer wrote:...every thing is increasing exponentially from the microscopic to the macroscopic; the breaks at either end and at the picnic are artificial to the calculation.

What if the break at the beginning is not artificial? Suppose a rocket ship blasts off from the picnic blanket with a velocity of zero and acceleration of zero at time zero. Upon liftoff, every 10 seconds it travels 10 times the distance traveled in the previous 10 seconds. Ignoring relativity, how do the equations look for velocity and acceleration at time t? Does your assumed starting velocity of 0.23 m/sec become negligible?

by **WHRoeder** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:38 pm

NoelC wrote: Okay, so we don't know how to create a black hole yet.

Isn't that one of the possible outcomes of the LHC

by **NoelC** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:01 pm

Has anyone calculated an upper-limit to the speed of imagination?

It would, for example, be silly to show the entire movie in a millisecond. People could not perceive it at all.

So does that say there is an upper-limit to the speed of imagination?

I can imagine two objects, one at one side of the known, observed universe, and one at the other, some tens or hundreds of billions of light-years apart. But it took me a few seconds to do so. Does that say that the speed of imagination something like a hundred billion light years per second?

Once we achieve faster than light speed travel, will we strive for faster than imagination speed travel?

-Noel

by **neufer** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:36 pm

Javachip wrote:
neufer wrote:
Note: Velocity doesn't start at zero once the motion has actually begun; (it is more like 0.23 m/s).

t = 10 log(z)

z = 10^t/10 = e^{(ln(10)/10) t}
v = (ln(10)/10) z ~ 0.23 z
a = (ln(10)/10) v ~ 0.23 v ~ (z/185) g's

c ~ 3 x 10⁸ ~ 0.23 z_c
z_c ~ 1.3 x 10⁹ meters
t_c ~ 10 log(1.3 x 10⁹) = 91.14 seconds
Thank you neufer. Is z the distance traveled at time t?

The parameter z is the height above the picnic assuming a field of view of ~53º (i.e., 1 m² is observed at a height of 1m).

Of course all this is calculated non relativistically.
A relativistic calculation would have to take into account
both time dilation and the relativistic distortion on the size of the field of view.

Javachip wrote:
And, why do you say that initial velocity is 0.23 m/sec, rather than 0, at t=0?
Is that necessary for the math to work out?

Yes; every thing is increasing exponentially from the microscopic to the macroscopic;
the breaks at either end and at the picnic are artificial to the calculation.

Javachip wrote:
I see that 0.23 appears in the equations for v and a

The factor 0.23 comes from ln(10)/10.
If this was "Powers of N" the factor would have been ln(N)/N.

by **Javachip** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:09 am

neufer wrote: Note: Velocity doesn't start at zero once the motion has actually begun; (it is more like 0.23 m/s).

t = 10 log(z)

z = 10^t/10 = e^{(ln(10)/10) t}
v = (ln(10)/10) z ~ 0.23 z
a = (ln(10)/10) v ~ 0.23 v ~ (z/185) g's

c ~ 3 x 10⁸ ~ 0.23 z_c
z_c ~ 1.3 x 10⁹ meters
t_c ~ 10 log(1.3 x 10⁹) = 91.14 seconds

Thank you neufer. Is z the distance traveled at time t? And, why do you say that initial velocity is 0.23 m/sec, rather than 0, at t=0? Is that necessary for the math to work out? I see that 0.23 appears in the equations for v and a.

by **cljohnston108** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:48 am

Ray and husband Charles, the film's creators, were known as quite visionary spirits and even invented their own popular chair.

I believe their more iconic chair is the Eames Lounge Chair and ottoman, which is seen in pretty much every classy abode in movies & TV.

by **GoBears** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:09 am

bystander wrote:
GoBears wrote:I have a used set of gravitational tenterhooks for sale on eBay if anyone is interested.
How many hours are on them? Is a warranty still available? Does the Buy Now price include free shipping?

"How many hours are on them?" you ask. How in the heck could I know that? Gravitational tenterhooks stretch spacetime, so the number of hours on them depends on the observer's frame of reference. But I will say this--they are relatively new. Get it? Relatively? A little Einsteinian humour.

PS Free shipping included.

by **NoelC** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:51 pm

I suppose if the Earth were orbiting a black hole that there would be spiraling rocket trajectories into that black hole that would temporarily emulate exponential acceleration away from the earth (and towards the black hole) where the g forces would be close to zero.

You've just hit upon how we can achieve acceleration to near the speed of light in real time!

We won't need propulsion at all. We just need to create a black hole and keep it exactly far enough away from us to accelerate the capsule as needed. Okay, so we don't know how to create a black hole yet. But it's a different problem from how to carry all the fuel needed to propel the rocket!

You can thank me later.

-Noel

by **alphachap** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:39 pm

That movie is 50 years old. Very well done.
Even for a 2011 critic, very well done.

by **neufer** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:20 pm

rstevenson wrote:
neufer wrote:
(We would have been dead long before that from the g forces in any event.)
Nah... Artificial gravity is a well known by-product of any technology which allows us to accelerate past the speed of light. Not to worry.

I suppose if the Earth were orbiting a black hole that there would be spiraling rocket trajectories into that black hole that would temporarily emulate exponential acceleration away from the earth (and towards the black hole) where the g forces would be close to zero.

by **bystander** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:52 pm

GoBears wrote:I have a used set of gravitational tenterhooks for sale on eBay if anyone is interested.

How many hours are on them? Is a warranty still available? Does the Buy Now price include free shipping?

by **GoBears** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:24 pm

rstevenson wrote:Nah... Artificial gravity is a well known by-product of any technology which allows us to accelerate past the speed of light. Not to worry.

Actually, in order to produce artificial gravity you need a set of gravitational tenterhooks.

As everyone knows, tenterhooks (from the familiar idiom "on tenterhooks" meaning filled with anticipation) are actually medieval devices for stretching freshly woven fabric. Gravitational tenterhooks, of course, are used to stretch the fabric of spacetime, thereby producing artificial gravity. If NASA and ESA would simply stop being stubborn and start using them, it would make those pesky spacewalks a lot easier!

I have a used set of gravitational tenterhooks for sale on eBay if anyone is interested.

by **rstevenson** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:29 pm

neufer wrote:(We would have been dead long before that from the g forces in any event.)

Nah... Artificial gravity is a well known by-product of any technology which allows us to accelerate past the speed of light. Not to worry.

Rob

by **Barry** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:44 am

Oh Boy - I've been telling people about this film for DECADES! At last I get to see it again! I saw it at the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto in 1971 when I was 14 years old. It catapulted my curiosity of outer and inner space - microscopes at school and indigo night skies of our Quebec Laurentian cottage. I probably wouldn't have made this NASA Picture of the Day site my home page if it hadn't been for this.

by **neufer** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:12 am

NoelC wrote:Fun!

At what point did we exceed the speed of light? Was that what you wrote, neufer, when you expressed the following?

t_c ~ 10 log(1.3 x 10⁹) = 91.14 seconds

Right. It is an imaginary trip and the speed of light is no object.

(We would have been dead long before that from the g forces in any event.)

by **GoBears** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:43 am

León wrote:1.-I agree with Protagoras that man is the measure of all things, and the construction of the video was made on the basis of man to the maximum, and in man to a minimum..

No, we are not the measure of all things, and this video is not based on that notion.

Instead, it is one of the wonders of the cosmos that we are at the "middle" of the scale of things. In other words, we are about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the known universe, and we are about 20 orders of magnitude larger than the smallest particles we know about. Ain't that wicked amazin'?!? The design of this video simply follows the design (for lack of a better word) of the universe.

Sorry, Protagoras. All things are the measure of all things.

by **delco** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:26 am

All you commenting on how did we exceed the speed of light, totally miss the point.
This is very educational and shows us how important we really are on the scale of all things larger and smaller.
It is also really fun to watch!! Well done.

by **NoelC** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:24 am

Fun!

At what point did we exceed the speed of light? Was that what you wrote, neufer, when you expressed the following?

tc ~ 10 log(1.3 x 109) = 91.14 seconds

-Noel

by **Biziliz** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:23 pm

As I watched the film advance the Earth became visible in a starfield at about 10^7. However I did not see the starfield change in size until the film reached 10^17. You would think that the starfield would be changing and expanding constantly as the field of view widened around the Earth and our galaxy.

by **lisaloon** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:29 pm

Advances in cellular and molecular biology make it really necessary to update the graphics in the microscopic, cellular and subcellular levels. In particular, it would be most important to incorporate our current understanding of membrane structures and the packing of DNA and histones inside nuclei--in this case, that of a white blood cell, it seems. I would also expect that current understanding of atomic-level physics would require more changes at those levels--I'm just not informed enough myself to suggest what's outdated and how to improve it.

by **dmpalmer** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:18 pm

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)

Re: APOD: Powers of Ten (2011 Feb 01)