B Can Accelerate at Constant g in Own FoR?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the possibility of experiencing constant acceleration at 9.8 m/s² indefinitely within one's own frame of reference, particularly in the context of flat spacetime and general relativity. It is argued that while infinite energy would allow for perpetual acceleration, this leads to inconsistencies regarding the nature of spacetime and energy requirements. The concept of flat spacetime is challenged, as it cannot accommodate a "rest of the universe" while allowing for increasing velocity. Additionally, the implications of energy and momentum conservation are highlighted, emphasizing that any propulsion method must account for exhaust and stress-energy. Ultimately, the conversation concludes that under general relativity, infinite constant acceleration is not feasible without encountering significant theoretical limitations.
  • #31
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Dale said:
You guys are getting too bogged down in technical details.
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.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Ibix and jbergman
  • #33
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #34
Dale said:
in post 13 the OP basically asked to focus on the idealized model
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.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
14K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
6K
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K