The discussion revolves around the possibility of experiencing constant gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s²) indefinitely from one's own frame of reference, particularly in the context of flat spacetime and relativistic physics. Participants explore the implications of this scenario, including the assumptions about energy and the nature of spacetime.
Participants express differing views on the implications of flat spacetime and the assumptions surrounding energy and stress-energy. There is no consensus on the feasibility of experiencing constant gravitational acceleration indefinitely, and several competing perspectives remain unresolved.
The discussion includes assumptions about infinite energy and the nature of spacetime, which are not universally accepted. The implications of momentum conservation and the treatment of exhaust gases are also points of contention that remain unresolved.
Yup. It's even described in mtw for special relativity in chapter 6, I believe. Basically you asymptotically approach the speed of light and follow a hyperbolic path in space time.Dale said:You guys are getting too bogged down in technical details. There is no finite limit to how long you can accelerate in your own frame of reference. And there is no need to restrict yourself to rockets that carry all of their fuel as payload.
It is fine to say that yes it is possible to accelerate forever in your frame.
Granted, this is a "B" level thread, but I still think it's worth pointing out the distinction between idealized models and what can actually be physically realized under what conditions.Dale said:You guys are getting too bogged down in technical details.
Yes, but in post 13 the OP basically asked to focus on the idealized model, which is a perfectly reasonable request and which we have done a rather poor job of now.PeterDonis said:Granted, this is a "B" level thread, but I still think it's worth pointing out the distinction between idealized models and what can actually be physically realized under what conditions.
I think @Ibix in post #24 summed things up pretty well.
Sort of. The "idealized model" he was proposing was inconsistent. See my response in the first paragraph of post #15. Sometimes the best response to a question is to point out issues with the question rather than to just provide an answer as it is asked.Dale said:in post 13 the OP basically asked to focus on the idealized model