#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# light speed engine

## Recommended Posts

what is the speed when an object can accerlerate at 100% i know its based on the wieght, and its not light speed, because im multiplying my position by a percentage of the accerleration, and if it were lightspeed, itd take forever to accerate, and depending on the answer i think i can figure out if sound is wieghtless or not [edited by - dimension_x_son on June 3, 2004 11:02:17 AM]

##### Share on other sites
I''d like to nominate the above for the "most confused post of the month" award.

##### Share on other sites
what do you call 100% ?
multiplying my *position* by a percentage of the accerleration? uh?
i can figure out if sound is wieghtless or not. -> to calculate the sound speed you must use conservation of momentum, energy and mass. And its theorical speed. A sound who comes from a source with high energy will move faster than the low ones.

##### Share on other sites
WTF?!

"C lets you shoot yourself in the foot rather easily. C++ allows you to reuse the bullet!"

##### Share on other sites

when the "thing" can accelerate at 100 percent of its velocity vector

without drag from its wieght,
just going strait

if "sound" the element, the sound of things, is faster then this point, then its weightless, and theres a vacuum accererating it
//////////////light speed engine/////////////
then if you could build a second stage to, the engine that reaches the point of zero drag interference with acceration, a second stage that could accelerate at 0 drag up to light speed, mabey thats time travel speed, or youd eventually hit a star

i think,
can i just this out
plese?

[edited by - dimension_x_son on May 26, 2004 9:35:46 AM]

lol

##### Share on other sites
Presumably the OP wants to know when energy put into a system will have the maximum effect in terms of providing the greatest acceleration.

##### Share on other sites
ok me though this is my question go get your own post

##### Share on other sites
1°/ The velocity vector of an object is the current velocity of that object. Which means an object is, by definition, always at 100% of its velocity vector.

2°/ m * a = F, where m is the mass and a the acceleration, and F the sum of all forces.

3°/ This means you can always accelerate more : there''s no 100% acceleration. All you need to do is increase the force, and you also increase acceleration.

4°/ a = dv/dt (acceleration is the derivative of velocity)
(and also, v = dx/dt, velocity is the derivative of position).

5°/ If you consider that acceleration is constant, then v = a * t, where t is the time which has elapsed. In such a case (assuming newtonian physics), the speed will keep increasing and there is no max velocity. And if you increase the value of acceleration, then the time needed to reach a certain velocity decreases.

6°/ "Sound" is a movement, not an object. When something emits a sound, no mass is created at all. It only sets matter into motion. It works the same as when you strike the surface of a pool with a stick : waves form at the point of impact. The waves have no weigth of their own, their mass is the mass of the water they''re made of. So the mass of sound is either 0, or the mass of the volume of matter through which the sound propagates (depending on the definition you choose).

Victor Nicollet, INT13 game programmer

##### Share on other sites
ok heh
mr thanks
no accelerate at 100 percent of the force?

a minute later............
ok

i think

inverse the time

[edited by - dimension_x_son on May 26, 2004 10:00:27 AM]

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by dimension_x_son
ok heh
mr thanks
no accelerate at 100 percent of the force?

my times not decreasing

[edited by - dimension_x_son on May 26, 2004 9:57:31 AM]

What the heck do you mean by "100 per cent of the force"? Do you want to double the speed every second? What do you mean?

EDIT: By the way, no object can be accelerated to light speed, never, since it would require infinite energy.

[edited by - Goldfish on May 26, 2004 10:01:20 AM]

##### Share on other sites
yes thanks i dont know hgow this stuff comes out sounding the first time like this

>>What the heck do you mean by "100 per cent of the force"? Do you want to double the speed every second? What do you mean?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
to increase my position at the length of the force vector, being something multiplied by the inverse of the time fractioning for it in the current speed(based on its percentage of how long of the force vector you got), which will normalize out this rate of speed im after(the 100 accerleration percent rate of force)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

chases tail

should i go see if im right?

rocks out to industrial music i make

[edited by - dimension_x_son on May 26, 2004 10:20:16 AM]

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by dimension_x_son
and depending on the answer i think i can figure out if sound is wieghtless or not

At last check, wasn''t sound caused by vibrations occuring on a level detectable by the human ear? Vibrations don''t have mass, the vibrators do.

New and improved! Yet still under construction.

##### Share on other sites
Where there''s bad english, there''s almost always bad physics accompanying it, in my experience.

One of my friends is an exception. But then she does come from Suffolk, so I think we can forgive her english.

##### Share on other sites
I think this thread is a joke, I think Tim Cowely is behind it. Or Programmer One.

MindEngine Development | E-Commerce Business Architecture

##### Share on other sites
wow, you guys are SILLY, it is plainly obvious that the answer to the question is:

the square root of negative 27

DUH people!

##### Share on other sites
dimension_x_son,

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the other posters. You have not stated your problem clearly, and there is much confusion. If you are seriously in need of assistance, and if this is on-topic (see Forum FAQ), then please give us some background information on your project. Tell us what you are trying to do, and then try to restate your question in simpler, more straightforward terms.

Graham Rhodes
Principal Scientist
Applied Research Associates, Inc.

##### Share on other sites
dimension_x, are your queries just for intellectual curiosity or are you really doing physical experiments?

##### Share on other sites
I think this post belongs in the ''Dense Oddities'' forum.

##### Share on other sites
*breathes deeply once*

i had to go through this motion of thinking

im not following what exactly i said,

but mostly i am and the inspiration seems to come out of the same understanding of the zeroing out points between mass and velocity and gravity

its working

now imna work on using the force of momentum for neat sh_t

and im convinced if i can create an fzero + 4X4 suspension my way, the cartoonish way that i want, then i can peice together reality just as easy

yai dense oddities, that sounded neat

[edited by - dimension_x_son on May 27, 2004 5:57:52 AM]

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by dimension_x_son
*breathes deeply once*

i had to go through this motion of thinking

im not following what exactly i said,

but mostly i am and the inspiration seems to come out of the same understanding of the zeroing out points between mass and velocity and gravity

its working

now imna work on using the force of momentum for neat sh_t

and im convinced if i can create an fzero + 4X4 suspension my way, the cartoonish way that i want, then i can peice together reality just as easy

yai dense oddities, that sounded neat

<large>It''s poetry.</large>

##### Share on other sites
You want a formula? I can *almost* understand what you're trying to say because I deal with people that communicate about half of what they're thinking all the time . the best you're going to get is: Position = position + Basefactor * sqrt(1 - velocity^2 / c^2). That is relativity right there. Oh, and drag is proportional to velocity squared the last time I checked, and does not exist in a vacuum Hope I helped.

[edited by - uber_n00b on May 28, 2004 2:05:18 AM]

##### Share on other sites
Quoting ToohrVyk:
5°/ If you consider that acceleration is constant, then v = a * t, where t is the time which has elapsed. In such a case (assuming newtonian physics), the speed will keep increasing and there is no max velocity. And if you increase the value of acceleration, then the time needed to reach a certain velocity decreases.

Actually, there is a max velocity that can be reached, namely the speed of light. This speed can be exceeded, but only for a short time, and the average speed of an object can never exceed the speed of light. This is the basis of special relativity. You''ve heard of Mr. Einstein, right?

--Garibaldi

##### Share on other sites
Peace mows like a harvest. We come in peace!1 We come in peace!1

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

• ### Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
628394
• Total Posts
2982428

• 10
• 9
• 19
• 24
• 9