Return to Answer

I have painstakingly assembled a highly realistic relativistic raytracing 3d renderer and plausible geometry and position for nearby stars.

Here's a render of the view to starboard:

I'm sure you can appreciate the thousands of hours of compute time that went into this.

Less facetious answer:

Leaving aside the issues of whether there's any time for your observers to experience stuff in, lets look at the boring relativistic things.

Here's a thing that Einstein cobbled together using some of Lorenz's work, describing relativistic aberration.

$$\cos \theta_o=\frac{\cos \theta_s-\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c} \cos \theta_s} \,$$

This is the effect by which things in space (that are effectively stationary background objects, relatively-speaking) around you appear to be warped to bring light sources together into a region in front of you, centred on your direction of travel. $\theta_s$ is the angle between your direction of travel and the direction of travel of the photon shooting at you. $\theta_o$ is the observed angle of the incoming photon's trajectory The exact reason for this is kinda hard to articulate in simple terms (but related to the fact that light always seens to be travelling at lightspeed for an observer, regardless of what sublight-speed they may be travelling at), but you can reasonably take it on trust that those two gentlemen knew what they were talking about.

This means that as your velocity approaches the speed of light, your entire view gets concentrated into one tiny spot in front of you. You can see that the equation simply resolves to 0 when you reach lightspeed. There's nothing to see to the side. That image above? Totally plausible for an ultrarelativistic traveller.

Here's another thing: relativistic length contraction.

$$L =L_{0}\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$$

Here, $L$ is the length of the ship as observed by some "stationary" observer, and $L_0$ is the actual length of the ship. You'll note that from the point of view of this observer, an object passing at lightspeed has no length. If I shoot a laser at a passing C-ship, how can I hit a side window, when it has no side? I can still hit the front, but that's about it.

I'm fairly certain that this is another way of stating the same sort of thing described as relativistic aberration above. Someone who actually knows relativity, rather than just trying to bluff confidently, feel free to correct me...

I have painstakingly assembled a highly realistic 3d rendering using advanced relativistic raytracing and plausible geometry and position for nearby stars.

Here's a render of the view to starboard:

I'm sure you can appreciate the thousands of hours of computing time that went into this.

Less facetious answer:

Leaving aside the issues of whether there's any time for your observers to experience stuff in, lets look at the boring relativistic things.

Here's a thing that Einstein cobbled together using some of Lorenz's work, describing relativistic aberration.

$$\cos \theta_o=\frac{\cos \theta_s-\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c} \cos \theta_s} \,$$

This is the effect by which things in space (that are effectively stationary background objects, relatively-speaking) around you appear to be warped to bring light sources together into a region in front of you, centred on your direction of travel. $\theta_s$ is the angle between your direction of travel and the direction of travel of the photon shooting at you. $\theta_o$ is the observed angle of the incoming photon's trajectory The exact reason for this is kinda hard to articulate in simple terms (but related to the fact that light always seens to be travelling at lightspeed for an observer, regardless of what sublight-speed they may be travelling at), but you can reasonably take it on trust that those two gentlemen knew what they were talking about.

This means that as your velocity approaches the speed of light, your entire view gets concentrated into one tiny spot in front of you. You can see that the equation simply resolves to 0 when you reach lightspeed. There's nothing to see to the side. That image above? Totally plausible for an ultrarelativistic traveller.

Here's another thing: relativistic length contraction.

$$L =L_{0}\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$$

Here, $L$ is the length of the ship as observed by some "stationary" observer, and $L_0$ is the actual length of the ship. You'll note that from the point of view of this observer, an object passing at lightspeed has no length. If I shoot a laser at a passing C-ship, how can I hit a side window, when it has no side? I can still hit the front, but that's about it.

I'm fairly certain that this is another way of stating the same sort of thing described as relativistic aberration above. Someone who actually knows relativity, rather than just trying to bluff confidently, feel free to correct me...

I have painstakingly assembled a highly realistic relativistic raytracing 3d renderer and plausible geometry and position for nearby stars.

Here's a render of the view to starboard:

I'm sure you can appreciate the thousands of hours of compute time that went into this.

Less facetious answer:

Leaving aside the issues of whether there's any time for your observers to experience stuff in, lets look at the boring relativistic things.

Here's a thing that Einstein cobbled together using some of Lorenz's work, describing relativistic aberration.

$$\cos \theta_o=\frac{\cos \theta_s-\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c} \cos \theta_s} \,$$

This is the effect by which space appears to be warped to bring light sources together into a space in front of you, instead of being distributed around you. The exact reason for this is kinda hard to articulate in simple terms, but you can reasonably take it on trust that those two gentlemen knew what they were talking about.

This means that as your velocity approaches the speed of light, your entire view gets concentrated into one tiny spot in front of you. You can see that the equation simply resolves to 0 when you reach lightspeed. There's nothing to see to the side. That image above? Totally plausible for an ultrarelativistic traveller.

Here's another thing: relativistic length contraction.

$$L =L_{0}\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$$

Here, $L$ is the length of the ship as observed by some "stationary" observer, and $L_0$ is the actual length of the ship. You'll note that from the point of view of this observer, an object passing at lightspeed has no length. If I shoot a laser at a passing C-ship, how can I hit a side window, when it has no side? I can still hit the front, but that's about it.

I'm fairly certain that this is another way of stating the same sort of thing described as relativistic aberration above. Someone who actually knows relativity, rather than just trying to bluff confidently, feel free to correct me...

I have painstakingly assembled a highly realistic relativistic raytracing 3d renderer and plausible geometry and position for nearby stars.

Here's a render of the view to starboard:

I'm sure you can appreciate the thousands of hours of compute time that went into this.

Less facetious answer:

Leaving aside the issues of whether there's any time for your observers to experience stuff in, lets look at the boring relativistic things.

Here's a thing that Einstein cobbled together using some of Lorenz's work, describing relativistic aberration.

$$\cos \theta_o=\frac{\cos \theta_s-\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c} \cos \theta_s} \,$$

This is the effect by which things in space (that are effectively stationary background objects, relatively-speaking) around you appear to be warped to bring light sources together into a region in front of you, centred on your direction of travel. $\theta_s$ is the angle between your direction of travel and the direction of travel of the photon shooting at you. $\theta_o$ is the observed angle of the incoming photon's trajectory The exact reason for this is kinda hard to articulate in simple terms (but related to the fact that light always seens to be travelling at lightspeed for an observer, regardless of what sublight-speed they may be travelling at), but you can reasonably take it on trust that those two gentlemen knew what they were talking about.

This means that as your velocity approaches the speed of light, your entire view gets concentrated into one tiny spot in front of you. You can see that the equation simply resolves to 0 when you reach lightspeed. There's nothing to see to the side. That image above? Totally plausible for an ultrarelativistic traveller.

Here's another thing: relativistic length contraction.

$$L =L_{0}\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$$

Here, $L$ is the length of the ship as observed by some "stationary" observer, and $L_0$ is the actual length of the ship. You'll note that from the point of view of this observer, an object passing at lightspeed has no length. If I shoot a laser at a passing C-ship, how can I hit a side window, when it has no side? I can still hit the front, but that's about it.

I'm fairly certain that this is another way of stating the same sort of thing described as relativistic aberration above. Someone who actually knows relativity, rather than just trying to bluff confidently, feel free to correct me...

I have painstakingly assembled a highly realistic relativistic raytracing 3d renderer and plausible geometry and position for nearby stars.

Here's a render of the view to starboard:

I'm sure you can appreciate the thousands of hours of compute time that went into this.

Less facetious answer:

Leaving aside the issues of whether there's any time for your observers to experience stuff in, lets look at the boring relativistic things.

Here's a thing that Einstein cobbled together using some of Lorenz's work, describing relativistic aberration.

$$\cos \theta_o=\frac{\cos \theta_s-\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c} \cos \theta_s} \,$$

This is the effect by which space appears to be warped to bring light sources together into a space in front of you, instead of being distributed around you. The exact reason for this is kinda hard to articulate in simple terms, but you can reasonably take it on trust that those two gentlemen knew what they were talking about.

This means that as your velocity approaches the speed of light, your entire view gets concentrated into one tiny spot in front of you. You can see that the equation simply resolves to 0 when you reach lightspeed. There's nothing to see to the side. That image above? Totally plausible for an ultrarelativistic traveller.

I have painstakingly assembled a highly realistic relativistic raytracing 3d renderer and plausible geometry and position for nearby stars.

Here's a render of the view to starboard:

I'm sure you can appreciate the thousands of hours of compute time that went into this.

Less facetious answer:

Leaving aside the issues of whether there's any time for your observers to experience stuff in, lets look at the boring relativistic things.

Here's a thing that Einstein cobbled together using some of Lorenz's work, describing relativistic aberration.

$$\cos \theta_o=\frac{\cos \theta_s-\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c} \cos \theta_s} \,$$

This is the effect by which space appears to be warped to bring light sources together into a space in front of you, instead of being distributed around you. The exact reason for this is kinda hard to articulate in simple terms, but you can reasonably take it on trust that those two gentlemen knew what they were talking about.

This means that as your velocity approaches the speed of light, your entire view gets concentrated into one tiny spot in front of you. You can see that the equation simply resolves to 0 when you reach lightspeed. There's nothing to see to the side. That image above? Totally plausible for an ultrarelativistic traveller.

Here's another thing: relativistic length contraction.

$$L =L_{0}\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$$

Here, $L$ is the length of the ship as observed by some "stationary" observer, and $L_0$ is the actual length of the ship. You'll note that from the point of view of this observer, an object passing at lightspeed has no length. If I shoot a laser at a passing C-ship, how can I hit a side window, when it has no side? I can still hit the front, but that's about it.

I'm fairly certain that this is another way of stating the same sort of thing described as relativistic aberration above. Someone who actually knows relativity, rather than just trying to bluff confidently, feel free to correct me...