If an astronaut in a spaceship is moving close to the speed of

>>8647077
more.

>>8647087
Care to explain? Not OP and I don't understand

>>8647150
[math] blue \; balls [/math]

>>8647077
More or less than what? If he was moving slower for a year? If he was going the same distance over a longer time at a lower speed? If he stayed home? You can't compare one situation.

>>8647202
If he was moving much slower than near-light speeds.

>>8647249
For the same distance or the same time?

>>8647254
Time is relative. For the same distance, of course.

>>8647266
1 year was specified in his original question. So he'll nee to provide frame of reference for that as well. Is he talking about 1 year in whatever that frame of reference is, or just covering the same distance at a lower speed?

>>8647266
>>8647271
That was me. I meant covering the same distance at a lower speed.

>>8647150
He just wants more pictures of the rocket in OP's pic

My guess, and I don't want to calculate it (do it yourself), is that the amount of radiation is proportional to the time in transit, but the deadliness is proportional to the lorentz factor. So maybe there is a sweet spot between moving slowly and super fast where it makes the least damage.

>>8647576
Pretty sure interstellar medium gets blueshifted into gamma radiation

>>8647350
Hm. Similar to, If I have to run from this building to that one during a downpour, do I get wetter running fast, or walking?

The difference is, the rain puzzle has a certain distance. Yours has exposes over the amount of time, but the nature of the radiation shifts. I would prefer to be exposed to more low-level radiation over the same amount of time.

It depends on how close to C you get, but ultimately you will get the same amount of exposure from say a year relative to you in travel to a few minutes relative to you. Once the background starlight becomes ionizing frequencies, I'd imagine health problems would start appearing.

>>8647077
If somebody lights that, she's gonna burn her cheeks.

>>8647077

>carmen electra

Thank you for this throwback

File: ben.jpg (11KB, 242x257px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 242x257px

>>8647077
>>8647087
>>8647150
>>8647151
Epic /sci/

>>8648211
Rain doesn't get blue shifted, friendo. The distance in the case is the same, only speed difference matters. If you travel at relativistic speeds you won't get "bumped" into more photons than if you were to travel with nowadays rocket speeds, because the photons themselves travel at c. Blueshift is the only thing that matters here.

>>8649244
Hm. Hadn't thought of that. So... I guess you get more radiation than if moving at "regular" speed.

>>8647266
brainlet here

isn't distance relative as well? that's kinda what i gathered from all those simultaneity thought-experiments

>>8648264
i'd burn her cheeks with my rocket if ya know what i mean!

>>8647077
would probably follow the same problem with running through rain vs walking.

>>8652253
chlamydia ?

File: ghostdog.jpg (89KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 768x768px

>>8648211
>If I have to run from this building to that one during a downpour, do I get wetter running fast, or walking?
When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything.