From VM Wed Jul 5 09:21:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3324" "Tuesday" "4" "July" "2000" "01:39:56" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "81" "starship-design: Re: Starship Design" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3324 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e645e8B23303 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e645e7Y23296 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id j.b7.496f1b1 (662); Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:39:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bldingel@rconnect.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Starship Design Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:39:56 EDT In a message dated 7/3/00 4:41:44 PM, bldingel@rconnect.com writes: >How often, in human history, has any civilization gone out of it's way >to cover vast distances in order to colonize some other place and use it's >resources? > >Answer: Once, and by accident. Remember Christopher Columbus? Actually most tribes would drift into new teratories. Vikings got as far as the new world and Arabia. But yes, without a damn good, and practical reason, you would colonize interstellar space, and I strongly argued against even considering it as a reason for a near term starflight. >The likelyhood of any human enduring long travel at high speed for a short >period of time (under 10 years) does just not exist. The only plauseable >way to travel as far as Alpha Centauri and have a chance for colonization, >is to live a few centuries in space and adapt to life out there. If generations >of adaptation and growth can take place during the trip, then you will >have a new civilization and more intelligent people. Adomently disagree. - A slow ship is certain to never get there before faster ships launched later. - A multigeneration ship, or one last more then a couple decadse, would need to be the size of a full civilization. 100's of thousands to millions of people, not hundreds. The ship would need to be VAST in size. Inconceavable in any realistic senerio. - It would be far harder to to interest qualified personel to fly on such a ship with virtually no chance to get there and contribute to knew knowledge. - It is technically vastly hard to make a slow long endurence ship, rather then a smaller faster ship. Much less make it as safe. >The only type of starship that would work is what I call the Neogenesis. >It would be a planet that moves with only a small propulsion system, allowing >it to coast, and stop, effectively. > > > >The only possible way to build the Neogenesis is to terraform the moon, >and put a massive steel shield all the way around it, then you could put >millions of greenhouses in the now 'Neogenesis' and let the terraforming >take place naturally. Water would form on it's own, a climate would develope, >the atmosphere would form. The gravity and magnetic field would have to >be further strengthened to allow for 'normal' growth, so the Neogenesis >would have to be spun faster. Most of what you list (spining the "planet to increase the mag and gravity fields, generating a climae, etc) are pure fantasy and not even theoretically possible. As to shelling in a planet, and boosting it. Even if it was possible, it would be stupid and wastefull. It would be far easier to make a faster small ship, and the big "planet ship" wouldn't give any advantage. >As soon as you had a stable environment, the Neogenesis would have to be >towed by the Earth and the 'slingshot' theory would be given a go. > > > >When you reached Alpha Centauri, you would land the Neogenesis in orbit >with the planet, bring down a ship from the Neogenesis to do research on >it, and learn as much as necessary to colonize the planet. > > > >I'll leave the details to you. > > > >Brendan Porter of Northwest Iowa. Sophomore in Highschool. Glad your interested in the site, but you need a lot more understanding of the basic ideas your talking about. Kelly Starks From VM Thu Jul 6 20:30:30 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["709" "Thursday" "6" "July" "2000" "20:35:00" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "25" "starship-design: Credit where credit is due..." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 709 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e671aID19923 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e671aDY19875 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA16123 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:36:10 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bfe7b3$94eb6400$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Credit where credit is due... Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:35:00 -0500 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kind of off topic, but I would like to give credit where credit is due... CNN recently ran a story from which this is exerted: "Last year China conducted its first unmanned test of the Shenzhou, which safely touched down in Inner Mongolia after orbiting Earth for 21 hours." The important point here is the reference to Earth as "Earth" not "the Earth" which the astronomical community has long maintained is incorrect. It seems someone was listening! L. Parker -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQA/AwUBOWUzxERr4uG2f+/WEQKD0QCg8ztrSC8xCs+PKK+hHvkO7Lz/qhoAoLb9 P3gRnW3zTPWrnQfxlAfHTLX8 =GKYD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From VM Thu Jul 6 20:30:30 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["892" "Thursday" "6" "July" "2000" "21:49:16" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Credit where credit is due..." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 892 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e671qGI24755 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e671qFY24745 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.123.112]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000707015209.IXGU17650.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:52:09 +0000 Message-ID: <3965371C.E94941A9@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000401bfe7b3$94eb6400$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Credit where credit is due... Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:49:16 -0400 Thanks for pointing that out. I'm one of the ones who wouldn't have caught it. Shame on me; I call myself a writer . . . "L. Parker" wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Kind of off topic, but I would like to give credit where credit is > due... > > CNN recently ran a story from which this is exerted: > > "Last year China conducted its first unmanned test of the Shenzhou, > which safely touched down in Inner Mongolia after orbiting Earth for > 21 hours." > > The important point here is the reference to Earth as "Earth" not "the > Earth" which the astronomical community has long maintained is > incorrect. It seems someone was listening! > > L. Parker > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 > > iQA/AwUBOWUzxERr4uG2f+/WEQKD0QCg8ztrSC8xCs+PKK+hHvkO7Lz/qhoAoLb9 > P3gRnW3zTPWrnQfxlAfHTLX8 > =GKYD > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From VM Fri Jul 7 10:27:04 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["630" "Friday" "7" "July" "2000" "00:20:15" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: Credit where credit is due..." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 630 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e674L2f08883 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e674L1Y08877 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id 4.60.4c06eac (8977); Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <60.4c06eac.2696b47f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Credit where credit is due... Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:20:15 EDT In a message dated 7/6/00 8:37:18 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Kind of off topic, but I would like to give credit where credit is >due... > >CNN recently ran a story from which this is exerted: > >"Last year China conducted its first unmanned test of the Shenzhou, >which safely touched down in Inner Mongolia after orbiting Earth for >21 hours." > >The important point here is the reference to Earth as "Earth" not "the >Earth" which the astronomical community has long maintained is >incorrect. It seems someone was listening! > >L. Parker I'm sure it was just a typo. I can't see CNN being that accurate. ;) Kelly From VM Fri Jul 7 12:11:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["885" "Friday" "7" "July" "2000" "14:54:21" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Credit where credit is due..." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 885 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e67IvKc24100 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e67IvJY24084 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.107]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000707185713.MLOY1264.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:57:13 +0000 Message-ID: <3966275D.6A5CE148@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <60.4c06eac.2696b47f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com, starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Credit where credit is due... Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:54:21 -0400 You know, it's one of those things that isn't too obvious until you put it in a different context . . . you wouldn't say, "orbiting the Mars," for example. However, the moon is still "the moon." KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/6/00 8:37:18 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >Kind of off topic, but I would like to give credit where credit is > >due... > > > >CNN recently ran a story from which this is exerted: > > > >"Last year China conducted its first unmanned test of the Shenzhou, > >which safely touched down in Inner Mongolia after orbiting Earth for > >21 hours." > > > >The important point here is the reference to Earth as "Earth" not "the > >Earth" which the astronomical community has long maintained is > >incorrect. It seems someone was listening! > > > >L. Parker > > I'm sure it was just a typo. I can't see CNN being that accurate. ;) > > Kelly From VM Fri Jul 7 13:51:56 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["80" "Friday" "7" "July" "2000" "15:00:32" "-0500" "Kevin Houston" "Kevin@urly-bird.com" nil "3" "starship-design: Sail technology being tested." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 80 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e67K0af25238 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web12.ntx.net (web12.ntx.net [209.1.144.158]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e67K0ZY25231 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty (ip251.minneapolis7.mn.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.199.251]) by web12.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA29368; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20000707145945.02f8d100@www.urly-bird.com> X-Sender: web121aa@www.urly-bird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 In-Reply-To: <3966275D.6A5CE148@worldnet.att.net> References: <60.4c06eac.2696b47f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kevin Houston From: Kevin Houston Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Curtis Manges , KellySt@aol.com, starship Subject: starship-design: Sail technology being tested. Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:00:32 -0500 check this out. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000706060204.htm From VM Mon Jul 10 19:10:55 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["21777" "Monday" "10" "July" "2000" "21:05:06" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "440" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 94 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 21777 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6B27Ko00518 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6B27I200510 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p456.gnt.com [204.49.91.72]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA22139 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:06:56 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bfeadc$89457b00$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 94 (fwd) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:05:06 -0500 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 23:13:18 -0400 (EDT) From: hvanderbilt@Bix.Com To: hvanderbilt@Bix.Com Subject: Space Access Update #94 7/9/00 Resent-Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 23:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: hvanderbilt@Bix.Com Resent-To: spacelst@world.std.com Space Access Update #94 07/09/00 Copyright 2000 by Space Access Society ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society was born on the Fourth of July, 1992. We're officially eight years old now (though like actress and ballplayer birthdates, ours is a bit deceptive) and all we have to say is, my oh my, these are interesting times. Gary Hudson has left Rotary Rocket, all sorts of promising approaches are gone from NASA's SLI "Space Launch Initiative", X-33 is on lifesupport till after the election, X-34 is under the post Mars-screwup microscope, and NASA's "2nd- Generation RLV Program" is under the axe - and we think the Congress *should* chop a major part of it, and we're going to ask you all to tell them so over the next couple of weeks. And then there's this new angle on why we've been in a space-launch blind alley since 1970 - something we heard at this year's Space Access '00 conference clicked, and a pattern emerged that makes a lot of sense of recent decades. Speaking of our annual Space Access conference, this year's went well - - see Jeff Foust's and Larry Niven's reports at: http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/05/article3a.html http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/larryniven/niven_rocket_men_000616.h tml In a burst of enthusiasm, we've already signed a hotel contract for next year's Space Access '01. It'll be at the same place as this year, the Holiday Inn Old Town in Scottsdale Arizona, Thursday evening April 26th through Saturday evening April 28th, 2001. Watch www.space-access.org for details. ________________________________________________________________________ Contents: - Cheaper Space Launch: Stranded On The Demand Curve - X-33 Impasse Unlikely To Be Resolved Before Election - Cash Transfusion (And Who Pays), Or Pull the Plug? - NRA 8-27 Awards Foreshadow NASA SLI Direction - Alert: "RLV Competition And Risk Reduction" NASA Budget Line Should Be Eliminated ________________________________________________________________________ Stranded On The Flats Of The Demand Curve: Cheap Launch In Limbo Consider how the demand for space launches varies with changes in launch cost. Start plotting launch cost at infinity and reduce it as you move to the right, with demand on the vertical axis... At the infinite-cost start of our plot, demand is at zero - for most of history, all the wealth of the planet couldn't have put a BB into orbit. Then, as cost drops to mere millions per pound, demand starts stirring - at least if you have a Cold War going on and national security requires that you keep up with the other guy. After you get halfway good at flying modified missiles to space and the huge R&D costs are written off, you find you can actually get costs down to mere tens of thousands of dollars per pound. At that point, things get interesting - you find there are things you can do that pay off. Surveillance of the other side in that Cold War, first of all, and right along with that Cold War national-prestige missions, and then comes the money app, communications. And then, as launch costs come down more... not much happens. Nobody cares. You've hit a flat "price-inelastic" section of the demand- versus-cost curve; costs can drop more without persuading anyone to buy more flights. Since 1970, launch costs have come down to mere thousands of dollars per pound, with some bargains as low as two thousand a pound - but the people buying spysats and comsats and national-prestige missions have decided how many launches they need based mainly on other factors - even as low as a couple thousand a pound, there's been no launch-buying spree. The demand curve is flat. This is not just us saying this; the government-sponsored industry- wide Commercial Space Transportation Study (CSTS) back in the nineties concluded that not only are we in a flat section of the launch demand curve, but also that the flat section extends to well below a thousand dollars a pound - their estimate was that launch demand wouldn't start taking off in response to lower costs until six hundred dollars a pound. Somewhere around that point, existing space operators might start modifying their operations to take advantage of lower costs, and more important, new applications would start springing up. Past that point, the curve isn't flat anymore, and the sky's the limit. Meanwhile, though, we're still stranded out here on the flat section of the curve. This has significant consequences for space-launch investment decisions. We'll just hit the high points for now; a detailed analysis would take a book. (Depending on the launcher, the destination, and the customer, US launch costs can actually vary quite a bit, but for the sake of argument, call the current cost of American space launches $10,000 per pound. It's far from a free market in international launch; considering US launch in isolation makes sense for our purposes.) (Again for the sake of argument, let's call launch cost reductions of up to half "minor", of up to ten-fold "major", and of twenty-fold or more "radical". Note that "major" reductions would still leave launch cost above the point in the curve where demand finally starts rising fast - only "radical" cost reductions would get past that point.) (This is, by the way, why Space Access Society pursues "radical" reductions in the cost of launch. We see no point in working this hard merely to increase some launch company's profit margins or to reduce the slice of NASA's budget it devotes to the limited number of launches it uses each year. We want to see revolutionary growth in the space economy get underway, soon, because we think that would be one of the finest gifts anyone could give to this country and to the world in this coming century.) The major established launch contractors have no incentive to invest in lower space launch costs, beyond minor investments aimed at minor cost reductions that show up in higher profits on existing traffic. Large investments aimed at major cost reductions would tend to have the effect of significantly reducing their launch business cashflow, as their largest single customer, the government, would insist on having the savings passed along. At worst, it would lead to a price war in the relatively flat commercial market and both majors would take a very large space-launch business hit. Beyond that, neither major is at all likely to go even further and pursue "radical" twentyfold-or-more cost reduction - the potential payoff may be huge, but it's a long-term and speculative payoff; the new markets can't be straight-line projected from current markets, and they won't spring into being overnight. The current majors have too much near-term existing cashflow that would be put at risk; if their management did try such a thing, their stockholders might well fire them - and rightly so, at least by current business theory. Our read of Lockheed-Martin is that they've reacted to this by a dual- track strategy of, to date, soaking up most available government cheap-launch R&D money so none of their competitors (competitor, now) could get the jump on their existing high-cost launch business, while pursuing government financing for their own "Venturestar" concept in the hope of using other people's money to get the jump on their remaining competitor. They have, understandably, showed not the slightest interest in putting their own money on the line for more than a fraction of any major launch cost reduction project. Boeing, meanwhile, seems to have kept their powder dry in the form of a reusable launch engineering department that stays ready to go, when and if Boeing is forced to go by external competition, but not one moment sooner. They also seem to have had their Washington lobbyists oppose "Breaux Bill" Venturestar loan guarantees, for which we for our own reasons are grateful. Let's look at the various startup launch companies now. All have pursued some "major" degree of reduced cost as their only real hope of being able to compete on price and grab a slice of the existing market near-term enough to attract investors. The ones of interest to us have taken approaches that also have potential for eventual "radical" cost reductions at higher flight rates. To date, though, neither the conservative nor the conservative/radical approaches have attracted enough investment to get to orbit - the lure of a highly regulated flat market (even flatter now that the LEO coms companies are in trouble) has not sufficed for the conventional investors, and the number of long-term high-risk visionaries willing to plow in several hundred million dollars on faith remains at zero. (This is why we continue to insist that the government must be the investor of last resort in pushing launch costs down to "radically" lower levels - the country and the world would benefit hugely, but getting past the break-point in the demand curve has so far taken too much money and time for private investors in the current climate.) And finally, we come to NASA. NASA's current Space Launch Initiative policy is to pursue "major" (up to tenfold, but they hint that they'd settle for two or three-fold) decreases in launch cost, in order to allow them to continue doing what they currently do in space, launching a half-dozen heavy manned and a dozen or so medium unmanned missions every year, for somewhat less money. The problem with this is that SLI is predicated on, after NASA subsidizes prototype development, commercial investors putting up several times that much money to build operational vehicles that will give NASA their cheaper launches and somehow also gain enough commercial traffic to make money and pay off the investors. And as we've seen, the main effect of a three-to-tenfold launch cost reduction on the current market is going to be a major reduction in overall market cashflow. No commercial investor in his right mind is going to put money into pursuing that result. Absent some flavor of government subsidy - loan guarantees or a market guarantee, and at that point it isn't a commercial operation, it's a quasi-government monopoly - it isn't going to happen. NASA has a legitimate interest in pursuing major reductions in cost for their in-house launch needs. But commercial launch vendors, as we've seen, are more hurt than helped by mere "major" tenfold reductions in launch cost. NASA needs to bite the bullet and budget for their own modest cost- reduction needs separately from their support for the commercial requirement for nothing less than "radical" twenty-fold or more launch cost reductions. The US commercial launch market must somehow get past the flat sector of the demand curve. So far, private investors haven't shown themselves ready to do it. Absent powerful level-playing-field launch investment incentives, if NASA won't do it either, some government agency that will do it must be found and funded, soon. The potential benefits are far too large for the nation to forego for another generation via foolish reliance on NASA's current "'2001' by 2040" plan. ________________________________________________________________________ X-33 Impasse Unlikely To Be Resolved Before Election: Cash Transfusion (And Who Pays), Or Pull the Plug? Following the internal workings of NASA is a bit like tracking events in the old Soviet Union. When things are going well, they'll tell you all about it. When things aren't going well, finding facts is like pulling teeth. Often, the most informative source there is is what NASA won't tell you and how they won't tell it - the outlines of the informational no-go areas can speak volumes. Things aren't going well for X-33. One of the composite multi-lobe tanks failed massively during routine test last fall, and the report on that (and on problems with the program in general) was originally due out last winter. The trouble seems to be, though, that this report is supposed to say how NASA and Lockheed-Martin are going to deal with the various problems - and as best we can tell, they can't agree on a fundamental point: Who pays for the extra couple years of work both sides seem to think it'll take to fly X-33. Our best guess as to the nature of the impasse is, NASA refuses to pay because there's no money in their budget for X-33 past this September (X-33 was originally supposed to fly in March '99; the most recent blown schedule said July '00, AKA now) and because, well, the contract they have with Lockheed-Martin, the "Cooperative Agreement", says Lockheed-Martin pays for any overruns. Lockheed-Martin meanwhile is understandably reluctant to dip into their own pocket for the couple hundred million dollars extra (minimum) to get X-33 to flight - they are already in enough trouble with their stockholders over recent technical and financial performance problems. Neither side is eager to do the obvious thing, admit the project is too far up a blind alley to be worth salvaging and shut it down, because neither needs another expensive embarrassment right now. Lockheed-Martin however quite probably thinks they have negotiating leverage, because NASA needs the embarrassment even less than they do. Not only is NASA currently trying to get the new SLI funded, but the White House that NASA works for is trying to get the man who unveiled Lockheed-Martin's win of X-33 elected President. It wouldn't likely be a major embarrassment (though it might put another dent in that candidate's reputation for technological savvy) but no embarrassment is welcome during a Presidential campaign. The most recent public word on when the X-33 report was due out said, late May. Since then, not a peep, officially, but the unofficial word had it that X-33 work at NASA has been "put to sleep" till after the November election. Our estimate of the situation is, that's exactly what makes sense for NASA, for Lockheed-Martin, and for the White House (though not the taxpayers): Put off any decision until after the election. Everything we see says that's exactly what NASA's doing. ________________________________________________________________________ NRA 8-27 Awards Foreshadow NASA SLI Direction "NRA 8-27" was the NASA Research Announcement soliciting bids for initial SLI study contracts. Awards were announced last month, and we have to say we were surprised - we'd expected NASA to be more politically astute and hand out at least token study contracts to all the startups, in addition to the predictable awards to the established majors. Instead, they showed their hand early, freezing out a number of the startups whose approaches were more focussed on radically higher flight rates and radically lower costs to open up commercial high-volume markets than they were on meeting NASA's launch needs. NASA Marshall pretty much stuck to the established STAS (Space Transportation Architecture Study) contractors in making the NRA 8-27 awards, which we think does not bode well for there being any room within SLI for approaches aimed at getting past the flat part of the launch demand curve and into the steep-growth region. "The customer is NASA." ________________________________________________________________________ Alert: "RLV Competition And Risk Reduction" NASA Budget Line Should Be Eliminated Background The "commercial" portion of NASA's new Space Launch Initiative, done in the manner NASA looks more and more certain to do it, will be worse than doing nothing at all. It will most likely fail in the same inconclusive manner as the current X-33 program, at twice the price, wasting five more years and additional billions of taxpayer dollars. In the unlikely event it does "succeed", it will have created a quasi- governmental space-launch monopoly that will stall the space market short of the high-growth part of the curve for a generation to come. We do not oppose the other two major portions of SLI, "NASA-Unique Systems" and "Alternative Access". NASA-Unique Systems appears to be aimed at some flavor of "Space Taxi" Crew/Cargo Transfer Vehicle, something which will assure capability to meet NASA's basic manned- space obligations without (as best we can tell) unduly disrupting commercial markets. We think this will be a good thing if NASA pulls it off, and even if they fail it shouldn't do much harm. Our colleagues over at ProSpace and the Space Frontier Foundation, meanwhile, have put a lot of effort into promoting Alternative Access (to Space Station) as a way of supporting the RLV startup companies. We're not convinced NASA Marshall won't turn it into a program to have one of their local contractors build a FasTrac-powered expendable, but for the moment we think AA deserves the benefit of the doubt. We'd like to be proved wrong. But absent radical changes in the "RLV Competition & Risk Reduction" plan, we recommend killing this $2.5 billion-over-five-years ($145 million this coming FY'01) part of SLI now, in the hope that whatever new Administration takes over next January will rethink things. We believe it's better to wait one more year than waste another five. The House HUD/VA Appropriators (NASA is funded in the HUD/VA And Independent Agencies bill), in a tactical budgetary move last month, already zeroed the entire FY'01 $290 million NASA "Second Generation RLV" program, the core of SLI. This includes $145 million for "RLV Competition & Risk Reduction" (including its associated "Systems Engineering & Requirements Definition" budget line), $50 million for NASA-Unique Systems, $40 million for Alternative Access, and $55 million for Ongoing Pathfinder Programs (the final-year windup of X-34, X-37, and the other former "Future-X" programs.) The Senate VA/HUD Appropriators should meet and "mark up" their version of the bill towards the end of this coming week of July 10th. Early word is that they're inclined to restore the entire $290 million for "Second Generation RLV"; we have a few days to make the case to members of this Senate subcommittee to kill the "RLV Competition & Risk Reduction" budget line. Once the Senate Appropriators finish their VA/HUD Appropriation markup, the bill goes to the full Senate for amendment and passage. Sympathy for (or even awareness of) our opposition to the "RLV Competition" budget line by any or all Senators will be extremely helpful here if it ends up being the subject of floor action. Once the Senate passes their VA/HUD Appropriation, the next step - sometime between next week and the end of the summer - will be a House-Senate HUD/VA conference committee, which will meet to hammer out a compromise between House and Senate versions of the HUD/VA funding bill. The members of this conference committee will be mainly drawn from the House and Senate HUD/VA Subcommittees. This will be the final (and possibly the best) real chance for us to persuade Congress to kill NASA's "RLV Competition & Risk Reduction" FY'01 budget request line. (Federal FY'01 starts this October 1st.) Action Recommendations As early as possible this coming week, if one of the VA/HUD Subcommittee Senators is from your state, contact their Washington DC office via phone, fax, or paper mail, and ask them to zero the NASA "RLV Competition & Risk Reduction" budget line. Ask them to do that specific thing, explain briefly why, then thank them for their attention and ring off/end the letter. Senate Appropriations Committee, VA/HUD Subcommittee: Bond MO, Burns MT, Shelby AL, Craig ID, Hutchison TX, Kyl AZ, Stevens AK, Mikulski MD, Leahy VT, Lautenberg NJ, Harkin IA, Byrd WV. For DC office voice/fax numbers or mailing addresses, check www.vote- smart.org. For the rest of you, check whether your member of the House of Representatives is on its Science Committee, Space Subcommittee or on its Appropriations Committee, HUD/VA Subcommittee. If so, contact them as above; make the case for killing the NASA "RLV Competition" line as well as you can. We may well be asking all of you to contact your Representative and both your Senators on this in the coming weeks. If you don't fall into either of the above categories, it can't hurt and might help to do this now. Understand that you'll probably get told "we're not on that subcommittee", at which point just say you wanted to let them know you feel strongly about this, and anything they can do would be appreciated. That's all for now - thanks for your help in this! ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited in its entirety. ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org space.access@space-access.org "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert A. Heinlein -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQA/AwUBOWqA0kRr4uG2f+/WEQJOOgCeMmrx3Dbj7dn49/mMAS2Cx+AMhwcAoIcR i/xky2N+dVJKYyWKr1TarMSA =Yadn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From VM Tue Jul 18 14:16:39 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3101" "Tuesday" "18" "July" "2000" "16:40:37" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "69" "starship-design: Fwd: Fwd:ContentMail - Weird News 7/17" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3101 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6IKetD16029 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6IKerb16022 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id h.3f.7b02737 (17079); Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3f.7b02737.26a61ac5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_3f.7b02737.26a61ac5_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Kryswalker@aol.com, kgstarks@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com, DTaylor648@aol.com, JohnFrance@aol.com, jensenm@saic.com, moschleg@erols.com, SFnoirSD@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, bbbark@surfree.com, jcavelos@mindspring.com, DotarSojat@aol.com, rddesign@rddesigns.com, RICKJ@btio.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com, Kath2go@yahoo.com, lord_starchild@hotmail.com, edrataj@earthlink.net, alwermter@netzero.net Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Fwd:ContentMail - Weird News 7/17 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:40:37 EDT --part1_3f.7b02737.26a61ac5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/17/00 2:22:21 PM, JAMES_NEWLAND@udlp.com writes: >____________________Forward Header_____________________ >Subject: ContentMail - Weird News 7/17 > >Claiming that Virginia has inadequately prepared for extraterrestrial >invasions, Larry W. Bryant and two colleagues filed a lawsuit in June >in Alexandria, seeking to force Gov. James Gilmore to empanel a grand >jury to investigate alien abductions, to train the National Guard to >handle attacks from outer space, and to cover abductees under civil >rights laws meant for rape victims. Bryant told the APBnews service >that he was especially worried about the "dark, silently floating >flying triangles" that observers have noticed and that Gilmore has >neither explained nor put a stop to. --part1_3f.7b02737.26a61ac5_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:22:21 -0400 Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80]) by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:22:05 -0400 Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA17328; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:21:51 -0500 (CDT) From: JAMES_NEWLAND@udlp.com Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([10.1.6.254]) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA17317; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:21:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.14) id 001FDF36; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:18:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:16:40 -0500 Message-ID: <001FDF36.C21254@udlp.com> Return-receipt-to: JAMES_NEWLAND@udlp.com Subject: Fwd:ContentMail - Weird News 7/17 To: roncrocker@email.msn.com, randy.watson@guidant.com, Kelly Starks , jackshome@sprintmail.com, Jack Newland , grrly1885@yahoo.com, brojames52@yahoo.com, Bill Newland , Audiewood@aol.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part X-Mailer: Unknown ____________________Forward Header_____________________ Subject: ContentMail - Weird News 7/17 Claiming that Virginia has inadequately prepared for extraterrestrial invasions, Larry W. Bryant and two colleagues filed a lawsuit in June in Alexandria, seeking to force Gov. James Gilmore to empanel a grand jury to investigate alien abductions, to train the National Guard to handle attacks from outer space, and to cover abductees under civil rights laws meant for rape victims. Bryant told the APBnews service that he was especially worried about the "dark, silently floating flying triangles" that observers have noticed and that Gilmore has neither explained nor put a stop to. ================================================================ --part1_3f.7b02737.26a61ac5_boundary-- From VM Thu Jul 20 18:34:42 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4475" "Thursday" "20" "July" "2000" "19:59:30" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "82" "starship-design: Light can break its own speed limit" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4475 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6L10vw06281 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6L10ub06276 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p457.gnt.com [204.49.91.73]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA23629 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:00:52 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bff2ae$f32c20d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Light can break its own speed limit Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:59:30 -0500 Light can break its own speed limit, researchers say July 20, 2000 Web posted at: 2:16 p.m. EDT (1816 GMT) In this story: Not so impossible Application: faster computers? How the experiment worked RELATED STORIES, SITES (AP) -- Scientists have apparently broken the universe's speed limit. For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. Not so impossible "This effect cannot be used to send information back in time," said Lijun Wang, a researcher with the private NEC Institute. "However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that `nothing can travel faster than the speed of light' is wrong." The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. The achievement has no practical application right now, but experiments like this have generated considerable excitement in the small international community of theoretical and optical physicists. "This is a breakthrough in the sense that people have thought that was impossible," said Raymond Chiao, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley who was not involved in the work. Chiao has performed similar experiments using electric fields. In the latest experiment, researchers at NEC developed a device that fired a laser pulse into a glass chamber filled with a vapor of cesium atoms. The researchers say the device is sort of a light amplifier that can push the pulse ahead. Previously, experiments have been done in which light also appeared to achieve such so-called superluminal speeds, but the light was distorted, raising doubts as to whether scientists had really accomplished such a feat. The laser pulse in the NEC experiment exits the chamber with almost exactly the same shape, but with less intensity, Wang said. The pulse may look like a straight beam but actually behaves like waves of light particles. The light can leave the chamber before it has finished entering because the cesium atoms change the properties of the light, allowing it to exit more quickly than in a vacuum. The leading edge of the light pulse has all the information needed to produce the pulse on the other end of the chamber, so the entire pulse does not need to reach the chamber for it to exit the other side. The experiment produces an almost identical light pulse that exits the chamber and travels about 60 feet before the main part of the laser pulse finishes entering the chamber, Wang said. Wang said the effect is possible only because light has no mass; the same thing cannot be done with physical objects. The Princeton experiment and others like it test the limits of the theory of relativity that Albert Einstein developed nearly a century ago. According to the special theory of relativity, the speed of particles of light in a vacuum, such as outer space, is the only absolute measurement in the universe. The speed of everything else -- rockets or inchworms -- is relative to the observer, Einstein and others explained. Application: faster computers? In everyday circumstances, an object cannot travel faster than light. The Princeton experiment and others change these circumstances by using devices such as the cesium chamber rather than a vacuum. Ultimately, the work may contribute to the development of faster computers that carry information in light particles. Not everyone agrees on the implications of the NEC experiment. Aephraim Steinberg, a physicist at the University of Toronto, said the light particles coming out of the cesium chamber may not have been the same ones that entered, so he questions whether the speed of light was broken. Still, the work is important, he said: "The interesting thing is how did they manage to produce light that looks exactly like something that didn't get there yet?" Copyright 2000 The Associated Press . All rights reserved. From VM Fri Jul 21 10:04:52 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["997" "Monday" "17" "July" "2000" "04:53:20" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: Light can break its own speed limit" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6L348903978 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6L347b03972 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin49.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.49]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA18629; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:03:44 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <39729140.8C649D5A@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000401bff2ae$f32c20d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" CC: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Subject: Re: starship-design: Light can break its own speed limit Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 04:53:20 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > > Light can break its own speed limit, researchers say > > July 20, 2000 > Web posted at: 2:16 p.m. EDT (1816 GMT) > In this story: Not so impossible Application: faster computers? How the > experiment worked RELATED STORIES, SITES > (AP) -- Scientists have apparently broken the universe's speed limit. > For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light > moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. > But in an experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, physicists sent a pulse of > laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before > it had even finished entering. Wow ... Tube computers will make a comeback.... Scotty Why do the Ads for dylithim crystals say "Cesium Inside"? Kirk. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Octal Computers:Where a step backward is two steps forward!" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html From VM Fri Jul 21 18:25:46 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2846" "Friday" "21" "July" "2000" "20:01:03" "CDT" "Aaron Plasek" "aaron_is_present@hotmail.com" nil "54" "starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2846 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6M119e14078 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f285.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.160]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e6M118b14067 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 28071 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jul 2000 01:01:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000722010103.28070.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.4.73.228 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:01:03 PDT X-Originating-IP: [4.4.73.228] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Aaron Plasek" From: "Aaron Plasek" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . . Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:01:03 CDT So you wanna go faster than light. Ok. Just make sure you don't have any mass. ;) Here is some information dealing with the much talked about "faster than light experiment" (also known as Gain -Assisted Superluminal Light Propagation)that you might find helpful. (this info was taken from the website of the people who actually performed the experiment) "The experimental study has been performed with great care and repeated numerous times. The results are consistent with what our theoretical model predicted. The theoretical model is entirely based on existing physics theories of Electromagnetism and Quantum mechanics. It has been mistakenly reported that we have observed a light pulses group velocity exceeding c by a factor of 300. This is erroneous. In the experiment, the light pulse emerges on the far side of the atomic cell sooner than if it had traveled through the same thickness in vacuum by a time difference that is 310 folds of the vacuum transit time. In our experiment, a smooth light pulse of about 3-microsecond duration propagates through a specially prepared cesium atomic chamber of 6-cm length. It takes 0.2 nanosecond for a light pulse to traverse a 6-cm length in vacuum. In our experiment, we measured that the light pulse traversing through the specially-prepared atomic cell emerges 62 nanosecond sooner than if it propagate through the same thickness in vacuum. In other words, the net effect can be viewed as that the time it takes a light pulse to traverse through the specially prepared atomic medium is a negative one. This negative delay, or a pulse advance, is 310 times the "vacuum transit time" (time it takes light to traverse the 6-cm length in vacuum). Our experiment is not at odds with Einsteins special relativity. The experiment can be well explained using existing physics theories that are consistent with Relativity. In fact, the experiment was designed based on calculations using existing physics theories. However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception "nothing can move faster than the speed of light" is wrong. The statement only applies to objects with a rest mass. Light can be viewed as waves and has no mass. Therefore, it is not limited by its speed inside a vacuum. Information coded using a light pulse cannot be transmitted faster than c using this effect. Hence, it is still true to say that "Information carried by a light pulse cannot be transmitted faster than c." The detailed reasons are very complex and are still under debate. However, using this effect, one might be able to increase information transfer speed up to c." Cheers, Aaron ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:51 2000 Content-Length: 8920 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8920" "Friday" "21" "July" "2000" "21:33:50" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "232" "Re: starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . ." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8920 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6M1YXK21018 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6M1YWb21013 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id i.32.7aef65a (7041); Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:33:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <32.7aef65a.26aa53fe@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 104 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: aaron_is_present@hotmail.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . . Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:33:50 EDT In a message dated 7/21/00 6:02:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, aaron_is_present@hotmail.com writes: > So you wanna go faster than light. Ok. Just make sure you don't have any > mass. ;) Mass would not limit a object to below light speed as Special Relativity Equations do not forbid faster than light for mass, only the direct observation of that event. Einstein himself never made the c limit claim for mass, other misinformed SR interpeters, and Lorentz "closet etherists" made the speculation for a c limit. > However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception > "nothing can move faster than the speed of light" is wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------- I'm not one to tell you "I told you so", but "I told you so" :-/ :-\ :-| ;-) -------- Survey on sci.physics with my answers on how I told it. 1. Do you have a web page outlining a physics theory? (Feel free to >provide the URL and/or briefly state the topic.) Not on theoretical physics but applied physics. Compiled historical research: "A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power" How to build an atomic bomb http://members.aol.co m/tjac780754/indexda.html Independent researchand development; How to build a faster than light atomic rocket. http://members.aol.com/ tjac780754/indexb.htm >2. Are you the sole author of this theory? If not, how many other >people collaborated in its formulation? I am sole author of the above two works with the first a compilation of historical records and eye witness reports and the second independent research. Indexda.html compiled research from past writings of Albert Einstein-Atomic bomb inventor(1913) Thomas Starritt--builder of Atomic Bombs for U.S. Air Force(1955) with some indepentent commetary by myself. Independent research and development at indexb.html by Thomas Jackson-Sole Author, independent inventor and small entity(Lat, little person, soverign nation of one.) >3. To your knowledge, is your theory known to the academic community? Einstein chose to keep his 1955 work from the academic community so you are unlikely to find it in your teachers or your teacher's teacher teachings. He published in a children's book his 1955 work to avoid academia and the law imprisoning and executing those that taught atomic bomb stuff at a credible level. >4. Does your theory contradict a currently accepted theory? (If so, >please briefly explain.) A few prolific authors and interpreters of Special Relativity Theory teach millions of a light speed limit for Mass. Einstein taught to a select few his special relativity theory allowed for faster than light travel(FTL) for mass objects. FTL is not a contradiction of Special Relativity, but clarification and derivations of velocity equations beyond light speed. >5. In your opinion, on a scale of 1-10 (10=absolute certainty), how >likely is it that your theory correctly explains physical phenomena in >our universe? (i.e., do you just think it should be considered as a >possibility, or do you think it's definitely the answer.) 9.99 as I consider Einstein a credible source and his FTL theory as testable by unobservable experiment and provable by logic. A theory of velocity limit at c is speculation unsupported by factual evidence or credible logic. A Limit of c is not even a theory but only uneducated guess at best. >5. What is your physics background? Please indicate how much formal >academic training you've had (high school, college, etc.), as well as >other resources you've used to learn physics. 500+ semesters hour equaling 8000+ classroom hours resulting in 4 common law Doctorates (informal) in Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education. Schools (partial list); United States Air Force Air University(USAFAU), Oklahoma University(OU), University of Central Oklahoma(UCO), Federal Aviation Administration Academy(FAA Academy), Formal Diplomas(12+) >6. How old are you? 51 years old >7. What do you do for a living? Physics my life, my love, my reason for being. >8. Do you expect to be eventually recognized for your work? (If not >credited during your lifetime, then at least historically vindicated.) Yes, In 2045 when the time capsule with the builders names and the reasons for dropping the atomic bomb on Japan is uncovered after 100 years. If someone remembers where the capsule is ;=) >9. Briefly, why do you study physics? I enjoy my work. I only teach physics from rote memorization without understanding. You do not have to be an atomic theorist to be an inventor of atomic powered machines. Also, inventors do not have to be crazy, but it does help. > >Thanks!1. Do you have a web page outlining a physics theory? (Feel free to >provide the URL and/or briefly state the topic.) Not on theoretical physics but applied physics. Compiled historical research: "A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power" How to build an atomic bomb http://members.aol.co m/tjac780754/indexda.html Independent researchand development; How to build a faster than light atomic rocket. http://members.aol.com/ tjac780754/indexb.htm >2. Are you the sole author of this theory? If not, how many other >people collaborated in its formulation? I am sole author of the above two works with the first a compilation of historical records and eye witness reports and the second independent research. Indexda.html compiled research from past writings of Albert Einstein-Atomic bomb inventor(1913) Thomas Starritt--builder of Atomic Bombs for U.S. Air Force(1955) with some indepentent commetary by myself. Independent research and development at indexb.html by Thomas Jackson-Sole Author, independent inventor and small entity(Lat, little person, soverign nation of one.) >3. To your knowledge, is your theory known to the academic community? Einstein chose to keep his 1955 work from the academic community so you are unlikely to find it in your teachers or your teacher's teacher teachings. He published in a children's book his 1955 work to avoid academia and the law imprisoning and executing those that taught atomic bomb stuff at a credible level. >4. Does your theory contradict a currently accepted theory? (If so, >please briefly explain.) A few prolific authors and interpreters of Special Relativity Theory teach millions of a light speed limit for Mass. Einstein taught to a select few his special relativity theory allowed for faster than light travel(FTL) for mass objects. FTL is not a contradiction of Special Relativity, but clarification and derivations of velocity equations beyond light speed. >5. In your opinion, on a scale of 1-10 (10=absolute certainty), how >likely is it that your theory correctly explains physical phenomena in >our universe? (i.e., do you just think it should be considered as a >possibility, or do you think it's definitely the answer.) 9.99 as I consider Einstein a credible source and his FTL theory as testable by unobservable experiment and provable by logic. A theory of velocity limit at c is speculation unsupported by factual evidence or credible logic. A Limit of c is not even a theory but only uneducated guess at best. >5. What is your physics background? Please indicate how much formal >academic training you've had (high school, college, etc.), as well as >other resources you've used to learn physics. 500+ semesters hour equaling 8000+ classroom hours resulting in 4 common law Doctorates (informal) in Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education. Schools (partial list); United States Air Force Air University(USAFAU), Oklahoma University(OU), University of Central Oklahoma(UCO), Federal Aviation Administration Academy(FAA Academy), Formal Diplomas(12+) >6. How old are you? 51 years old >7. What do you do for a living? Physics my life, my love, my reason for being. >8. Do you expect to be eventually recognized for your work? (If not >credited during your lifetime, then at least historically vindicated.) Yes, In 2045 when the time capsule with the builders names and the reasons for dropping the atomic bomb on Japan is uncovered after 100 years. If someone remembers where the capsule is ;=) >9. Briefly, why do you study physics? I enjoy my work. I only teach physics from rote memorization without understanding. You do not have to be an atomic theorist to be an inventor of atomic powered machines. Also, inventors do not have to be crazy, but it does help. > >Thanks! Your very welcome surveyer (Erik) Doctor Thomas H. Jackson Your Academic Superior Na Na Na Na Na From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:51 2000 Content-Length: 12288 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12288" "Saturday" "22" "July" "2000" "04:35:07" "CDT" "Aaron Plasek" "aaron_is_present@hotmail.com" nil "233" "Re: starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . ." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 12288 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6M9ZEJ06439 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 02:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f176.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.176]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e6M9ZDb06426 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 02:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 62157 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jul 2000 09:35:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000722093507.62156.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.4.73.238 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 02:35:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [4.4.73.238] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Aaron Plasek" From: "Aaron Plasek" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . . Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:35:07 CDT lot of this refers to a message dated Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:33:50 EDT Dear all, Amazing. . . Never did I imagine that such an interesting event would occur by me simply writing a message trying to dispel some of the mis-conceptions dealing with the gain-assisted superluminal light propagation experiment. Never the less, I will endeavor to offer any insight or offer any help possible. I hope you may find me equal to the task. In regards to the comment, Mass would not limit a object to below light speed. . . here goes nothing. As has been pointed out to me, my thoughts are hampered by my own math and experience limitations. My recourse is simple but I believe it to be correct (if not, please correct me). Einsteins STR defines kinetic energy as the following: K.E. = (mc^2)/ sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) To quote Einstein from his own book entitled Relativity: the Special and the General Theory, This expression approaches infinity as the velocity v approaches the velocity of light c. The velocity must therefore always remain less than c, however great may be the energies used to produce the acceleration. You cant argue with a definition unless you make a new one (if someone has done this, let me know). It was said (by Dr. Jackson), however, that Einstein forbid only the observation of this event and on this I would like to hear more. If something has mass, it seems to me (based on this definition of K.E.) that in order to reach c one would need an infinite amount of energy. This also means that as you approached c, and you had mass, it would take more and more energy to increase ones speed by even the tiniest amount (but I assume that most people reading this probably know how I could arrive at this). However, there is nothing in physics (again, to my knowledge) that says you cant go faster than the speed of light if you cross the light barrier in less than plancks time, but, again, the energy considerations for this would be astronomical, I cant begin to fathom it. Again, I must stick to my original statement, So you wanna go faster than light. Ok. Just make sure you don't have any mass. ;) However, this doesnt mean we cant go faster than the speed of light if we can distort space-time in some way Ive never heard of. (i.e. find a loop whole in the equations which can bring about zero mass or some other outrageous result). I am not convinced by the statements you gave concerning faster than light travel and mass. Not that I am not open to the idea of FTL, but I need to see some real proof. *Sorry* And on to the experiment. Just to clear up any confusion, I didnt conduct this experiment. However, I do believe in the validity and repeatability of the experiment. >1. Do you have a web page outlining a physics theory? Its not my page, but here is the address. This experiment is based on calculations, given at this address, from QM and is described there. http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/lwan/gas.htm >2. Are you the sole author of this theory? If not, how many other >people collaborated in its formulation? Again, not my theory (and it was an experiment, not theory). I believe this experiment is being published under three people. >3. To your knowledge, is your theory known to the academic community? The results are being considered for publication in Nature as I write this. >4. Does your theory contradict a currently accepted theory? (If so, >please briefly explain.) No, this experiment doesnt. The equations were derived using Einsteins own equations as well as QM. >A few prolific authors and interpreters of Special Relativity Theory teach >Millions of a >light speed limit for Mass. Einstein taught to a select few >his special relativity theory >allowed for faster than light travel(FTL) >for mass objects. FTL is not a contradiction of Special Relativity, but clarification and derivations of velocity equations beyond light speed. (And as a side note on faster than light travel. It is interesting that faster than light particles, called tachyons, have already been predicted by theory. For tachyons, it takes energy to move slower. In fact, tachyons have the same problem with the speed of light that we do. Much like we have problems going faster than light, tachyons have problems going slower than light! This is just a hypothesis and has not been proven, and cant be with the experimental methods we have used thus far.) >5. In your opinion, on a scale of 1-10 (10=absolute certainty), how >likely is it that your theory correctly explains physical phenomena in >our universe? (i.e., do you just think it should be considered as a >possibility, or do you think it's definitely the answer.) Again, its just a neat experiment that proves what we already know. >9.99 as I consider Einstein a credible source and his FTL theory as >testable by >unobservable experiment and provable by logic. A theory of >velocity limit at c is >speculation unsupported by factual evidence or >credible logic. A limit of c is not even >a theory but only uneducated >guess at best. (As far as this goes, I believe this to be, at best, wrong. But, than again it was kind of a subjective statement. Einstein is a credible source, I agree. A theory of velocity limit at c is speculation unsupported by . . . credible logic- very doubtful. Einsteins own equations, indeed, seem to suggest a difficultly of reaching c. i.e. The energy you need to accelerate increases exponentially as you approach c. In fact, remove the speed of light as a constant and Special Theory of Relativity falls (I cannot speak to the general theory yet because the math is at too advanced of a level for me at the present time.) STR was created with this (light as a constant) as one of the original, assumed postulates! If you accept this, the idea that c requires an infinite amount of energy to reach necessarily follows. Again, *sorry*. I dont buy it (but I am open to suggestions that would lead me to a different conclusion). >5. What is your physics background? Please indicate how much formal >academic training you've had (high school, college, etc.), as well as >other resources you've used to learn physics. Yes, Ive graduated high-school. . .he he he. Presently, I am earning a degree in Physics and Astronomy, with minors in Math and English @ Drake University. >6. How old are you? I really believe that age should have very little to do with credibility. Because this question implies (to me) that the older you are, the more credible you are, I will not answer it. Credibility has nothing to do with age, but deals with experience. (Based on my responses, however, you can probably guess my age, and I have already given you my experence). >7. What do you do for a living? Based on how things look now, Ill probably be a student for the rest of my life (or at least the next 6 years.) ;) >8. Do you expect to be eventually recognized for your work? (If not >credited during your lifetime, then at least historically vindicated.) Again, not my experiment and yes. I hope I can play a part before I pass on. ;) >9. Briefly, why do you study physics? I cant hope to answer that. ;) Ill let Q do that, lol. We hoped to open your mind and your horizons and for one brief moment you did. In that one fraction of a second you were open to possibilities you have never considered. That is the exploration that awaits you. Not charting stars and exploring nebula, but exploring the unknown possibilities of existence. Wow. That was a lot of work. Most of you probably know much more than you ever wanted to know about me. Again, sorry about that. Now on to applied physics. I believe that a star ship design based merely on the use of fission for energy (i.e. fission bombs) is simply much to energy inefficient for anyone to dream of investing in for any kind of interstellar journey. I believe that fusion and antimatter are really the only methods that provide enough energy based on the amount of fuel needed (this means I stray away from projects like the orion, because nuclear fission bombs simply do not convert enough matter to energy, while antimatter/matter reactions have a theoretical 100% matter to energy rate. . . .and yes, I realize the present limitations in creating antimatter). I believe that a system proposed at the address http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/fusion_rockets_000719_2.html has some real promise. The following is the gist of what I believe, currently, holds the most promise for an interplanetary method of propulsion and power. The promising concept that Cassenti and NASA are investigating, magnetically insulated inertial-confinement fusion, employs a unique combination of fission, fusion and antimatter. The concept derives partly from attempts to have high-energy lasers implode targets of deuterium and tritium (D-T -- the heavy hydrogen and heavy-heavy hydrogen used in most fusion studies) to produce power. Kammash suggested replacing the large, fragile lasers with a quick squirt of antimatter. Cassenti described the targets that would be used in such a scheme: only 0.8 inches (2 centimeters) across (less than half the width of a ping-pong ball) and just 0.1 ounce (3.5 grams) in mass. Most of the target is deuterium and tritium, with a hollow core and a small chip of uranium 238 to one side. The D-T pellet is coated with uranium to serve as a neutron reflector, and that is coated with tungsten to help contain the blast just for an instant. In operation, a target is dropped into the combustion chamber and a stream of antiprotons is fired through a pinhole into the core. This triggers fission in the uranium. Neutrons reflect off the uranium shell, and freed electrons form a magnetic field to confine the D-T plasma long enough for a small fusion reaction. Theoretically, Cassenti said, such an engine could have an Isp of up to 200,000 seconds, although the practical limit is 9,000 seconds -- more than 19 times as efficient as the shuttle's main engines. And unlike most other schemes where high Isp also means low thrust, the pulse propulsion would have a real kick. Firing at a rate of 136 pellets per second, the pulsed fission-fusion hybrid would accelerate a ship at 1/5 G for extended periods. "You could get to the inner planets in less than a week," Cassenti said. "This is tourist stuff." Jupiter would take less than a month, allowing "settlement trade." "We would provide a way to open the solar system," Cassenti said. "The solar system can be settled and you can do trade -- and it can actually pay for itself." A test of the principle may be just a few years away, Kammash explained. Marshall Space Flight Center is investigating basic methods with a Van de Graff generator that will produce high-speed beams of protons aimed at fusion targets costing about $5,000 each. With this they can learn to position the target and aim the beam. "Then it becomes really exciting," Kammash said. Pennsylvania State University is developing a Penning trap, a Star Trek-like magnetic bottle that will hold a small quantity of antiprotons, carefully trapped and cooled after they come flying out of an atom smasher in other experiments. It will hold a paltry 1 trillion or so antiprotons, just enough for one test shot. "How many times you can do this depends on how many times you can go back and fill it up," Kammash said. But that may be enough to demonstrate the high-octane fuel that space enthusiasts have been seeking to open the spaceways. -taken from www.space.com Well, everyone who read this entire thing. . . .congrats. It was long and Im very tired. I hope this helped someone learn a little more about something or at least provided some entertainment at my expense. ;) Sincerely, Aaron PS: My hats off to you Dr. Jackson. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:51 2000 Content-Length: 1169 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1169" "Saturday" "22" "July" "2000" "13:24:15" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "21" "starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1169 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6MHRHr19837 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6MHRGb19832 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.85]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000722172711.QOKZ14052.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:27:11 +0000 Message-ID: <3979D8BF.4B29EF6F@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . . Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:24:15 -0400 Regarding the current discussion, I have to agree that Dr. Einstein seems to suggest that FTL travel, for physical bodies at least, requires infinite energy. I have before me a copy of his book, "The Meaning of Relativity" (Fifth edition, MJF Books), and, although I can't follow the copious math, I did find his most famous equation (on p. 46), shortly followed by this exact quote: "We see from the last of equations (43) that E becomes infinite when q approaches 1, the velocity of light." Not much there to argue about, and it gives Dr. Johnson a less-than-snowball's chance of breaking c with his fission rocket. I do continue to maintain an as yet irrationally-held belief that we will, at some time, conquer the light speed barrier; I just don't know how (when I find out, I'll quit my day job!). My personal favorite approach to this would be to concentrate on learning to control gravity, though I can't explain why I feel that this would be a key. This approach does have appeal, though, in that I think that it would give you a free bonus in gaining control of inertia at the same time. I'd be interested to hear responses to this. Keep looking up, Curtis From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:51 2000 Content-Length: 15720 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["15720" "Saturday" "22" "July" "2000" "15:27:01" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "391" "Re: starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . ." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 15720 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6MJRJZ12496 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 12:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6MJRIb12491 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 12:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id i.32.7b8230e (16789); Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <32.7b8230e.26ab4f85@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Language: en X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 104 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id e6MJRJb12492 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: aaron_is_present@hotmail.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . . Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:27:01 EDT In a message dated 7/22/00 2:35:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, aaron_is_present@hotmail.com writes: > lot of this refers to a message dated Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:33:50 EDT > > Dear all, > > Amazing. . . Never did I imagine that such an interesting event would occur > > by me simply writing a message trying to dispel some of the mis-conceptions > dealing with the “gain-assisted superluminal light propagation” experiment. > > Never the less, I will endeavor to offer any insight or offer any help > possible. I hope you may find me equal to the task. > > In regards to the comment, “Mass would not limit a object to below light > speed. . .” here goes nothing. As has been pointed out to me, my thoughts > are hampered by my own math and experience limitations. My recourse is > simple but I believe it to be correct (if not, please correct me). > Einstein’s STR defines kinetic energy as the following: > > K.E. = (mc^2)/ sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) > > To quote Einstein from his own book entitled Relativity: the Special and the > > General Theory, “ This expression approaches infinity as the velocity v > approaches the velocity of light c. The velocity must therefore always > remain less than c, however great may be the energies used to produce the > acceleration.” You can’t argue with a definition unless you make a new one > (if someone has done this, let me know). Aaron, Einstein defined both velocity and velocity real in Spcial Relativity Einstein equations list both real (not subscripted inertial frames of reference) and relativistic[rel. or '(prime) terms as an external observer rest frame of reference] E and E' L and L' T and T' M and M' V and V' Infinite E' you calculated is not needed to exceed light speed for mass. A small amount of E delivered from the inertial frame of reference and not the observer frame is sufficient to exceed C. V' has a light speed limit as velocities relativistic at c and above are not defined since they are unobservable and in the real realm of negative velocities and negative time. expressed as velocity relativistic=distance traveled/time. V=0,>C do exist but are unobservable from the law of subtracting velocites. Velocity real or Velocity=distance traveled / time dilated has no limit at c though it may have a practical limit far beyond C. >From the derivative proof (not shown) of your KE equation when v=c of 1/v^2-C^2 the equation returns 1/0 this term is undefined, but not meaningless. It is not infinity as commonly taught. For relativistic v>c your given equation returns imaginary numbers of a real number set. In any case, Einstein stated in 1955 he was referring to the energy required to be delivered from the rest frame of a partical accellerator or energy relativistic. He knew other machines could be found to accelerate mass beyond light speed. A atomic rocket converting some small fraction of ship mass to energy requires much less energy. This energy does not hit infinity at v=e relativistic. It becomes unobservable and in the set of real numbers Vrel.>c is calculatable though not observable. What part of velocity=distance traveled/time did you not understand? What part of E and E' did you not understand? Were you taught the meaning of negative velocities and negative time? Aaron, negative velocities were taught me in Physical Science 101 in college. Negative time of Special Relativity equations occurs at relativistic velocities at c returning -0, and >c returning the set of velocities of (-0,-1,-2,-3,.....-n). As V=Distance traveled/ Time dialted, negative velocities have the minus sign placed on time in special relativity equations. > It was said (by Dr. Jackson), > however, that Einstein forbid only the observation of this event and on this > > I would like to hear more. An observer light from a moving velocity rel. c object sent to an earth observer at c will not reach earth as it will "hang" relative to earth where it was ommitted. The light sent from a Vrel. >c rocket though traveling towards earth at light speed never reaches it as it has some negative velocity wrt earth so is in fact traveilng away from the earth observer never to be observed. Einstein said of this event 'just because we cannot observe something does does not mean it does not or cannot exist' > If something has mass, it seems to me (based on > this definition of K.E.) that in order to reach c one would need an infinite > > amount of energy. This also means that as you approached c, and you had > mass, it would take more and more energy to increase one’s speed by even the > > tiniest amount (but I assume that most people reading this probably know how > > I could arrive at this). That is true only with mass undergoing instaneous acceleration. A craft at constant 1 g acceleration would have no problem exceeding c within a years time. > However, there is nothing in physics (again, to my knowledge) that says you > can’t go faster than the speed of light if you cross the light barrier in > less than planck’s time, but, again, the energy considerations for this > would be astronomical, I can’t begin to fathom it. Einstein said Max Planck was a poor student of Special Relativity, > Again, I must stick to my original statement, “So you wanna go faster than > light. Ok. Just make sure you don't have any mass. ;)” However, this > doesn’t mean we can’t go faster than the speed of light if we can distort > space-time in some way I’ve never heard of. (i.e. find a loop whole in the > equations which can bring about zero mass or some other outrageous result). Do not try and get around laws of physics. It is scientific unethical. Work work with the Laws. There is no scientific Law stating notheing can exceed light speed. > > I am not convinced by the statements you gave concerning faster than light > travel and mass. Not that I am not open to the idea of FTL, but I need to > see some real proof. *Sorry* MATH PROOFS > > And on to the experiment. Just to clear up any confusion, I didn’t conduct > this experiment. However, I do believe in the validity and repeatability of > > the experiment. I agree also. Thsoe that see any velocity greater than c as impodssible, dispute the experiment with speculation not supported by the facts. > > >1. Do you have a web page outlining a physics theory? > > Its not my page, but here is the address. This experiment is based on > calculations, given at this address, from QM and is described there. > > http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/lwan/gas.htm Einstein taught (1955) Quantum theory was matematical gobbley gook containg fatasy world phyical dimensions greater than the four valid ones. > > >2. Are you the sole author of this theory? If not, how many other > >people collaborated in its formulation? > > Again, not my theory (and it was an experiment, not theory). I believe this > > experiment is being published under three people. > >3. To your knowledge, is your theory known to the academic community? > > The results are being considered for publication in Nature as I write this. > > >4. Does your theory contradict a currently accepted theory? (If so, > >please briefly explain.) > No, this experiment doesn’t. The equations were derived using Einstein’s > own equations as well as QM. I also use Einsteins equations, but not quantum mechanics. > > >A few prolific authors and interpreters of Special Relativity Theory teach > >Millions of a >light speed limit for Mass. Einstein taught to a select few > >his special relativity theory >allowed for faster than light travel(FTL) > >for mass objects. > > FTL is not a contradiction of Special Relativity, but clarification and > derivations of velocity equations beyond light speed. > > > (And as a side note on faster than light travel. It is interesting that > faster than light particles, called tachyons, have already been predicted by > > theory. For tachyons, it takes energy to move slower. In fact, tachyons > have the same problem with the speed of light that we do. Much like we have > > problems going faster than light, tachyons have problems going slower than > light! This is just a hypothesis and has not been proven, and can’t be with > > the experimental methods we have used thus far.) > > > >5. In your opinion, on a scale of 1-10 (10=absolute certainty), how > >likely is it that your theory correctly explains physical phenomena in > >our universe? (i.e., do you just think it should be considered as a > >possibility, or do you think it's definitely the answer.) > > Again, its just a neat experiment that proves what we already know. > > >9.99 as I consider Einstein a credible source and his FTL theory as > >testable by >unobservable experiment and provable by logic. A theory of > >velocity limit at c is >speculation unsupported by factual evidence or > >credible logic. A limit of c is not even >a theory but only uneducated > >guess at best. > > (As far as this goes, I believe this to be, at best, wrong. But, than again > > it was kind of a subjective statement. Einstein is a credible source, I > agree. “A theory of velocity limit at c is speculation unsupported by . . . > > credible logic”- very doubtful. Einstein’s own equations, indeed, seem to > suggest a difficultly of reaching “c”. i.e. The energy you need to > accelerate increases exponentially as you approach c. In fact, remove the > speed of light as a constant and Special Theory of Relativity falls A translater of his german work to english early 20th century made the misconclusion and placed his interpertation as Einsteins word. By the time he arrived in America and discovered the mistranslation had been taught to millions, To conserve energy he taught correctly his personal SR students and non academia in his 1955 childrens book. > cannot speak to the general theory yet because the math is at too advanced > of a level for me at the present time.) STR was created with this (light as > > a constant) as one of the original, assumed postulates! If you accept this, > > the idea that “c” requires an infinite amount of energy to reach necessarily > > follows. E relativ. wrt earth observer only like a partical accelerator c limit. not Energy wrt the a moving rocket. Again, *sorry*. I don’t buy it (but I am open to suggestions that > > would lead me to a different conclusion). I am not selling having no desire to teach the mistaugt. I teach what I was taught by Einstein, plus some things discovered on my own > > >5. What is your physics background? Please indicate how much formal > >academic training you've had (high school, college, etc.), as well as > >other resources you've used to learn physics. > > Yes, I’ve graduated high-school. . .he he he. Presently, I am earning a > degree in Physics and Astronomy, with minors in Math and English @ Drake > University. Very good Aaron, please do not set in class dewey eyed learning by rote memorizatrion without understanding question all as Sturgeons Law is 90% of every thing is crap. Do understand, Universities are only allowed to teach to level 6 as highy technical and specialized training is reserved for laboratories and formal on the job training. Seek future employment at state and federal level where all training expense and living expenses are paid for. -Just a recommendation. > >6. How old are you? > > I really believe that age should have very little to do with credibility. > Because this question implies (to me) that the older you are, the more > credible you are, I will not answer it. Credibility has nothing to do with > age, but deals with experience. (Based on my responses, however, you can > probably guess my age, and I have already given you my experence). I agrre age is not factor for telling the truth. I have taught faster than light since the age of 13 when I read Einsteins words on its possiblility. Establishing credibility is another matter. I use Doctor James Randi's (magician) debunking approach. I ask physics to prove their light speed limit theory. > >7. What do you do for a living? > > Based on how things look now, I’ll probably be a student for the rest of my > life (or at least the next 6 years.) ;) > > >8. Do you expect to be eventually recognized for your work? (If not > >credited during your lifetime, then at least historically vindicated.) > > Again, not my experiment and yes. I hope I can play a part before I pass > on. ;) Me to, > > >9. Briefly, why do you study physics? > > I can’t hope to answer that. ;) I’ll let Q do that, lol. > “We hoped to open your mind and your horizons and for one > brief moment you did. In that one fraction of a second you were open to > possibilities you have never considered. That is the exploration that > awaits you. Not charting stars and exploring nebula, but exploring the > unknown possibilities of existence.” > Wow. That was a lot of work. Most of you probably know much more than you > ever wanted to know about me. Again, sorry about that. Now on to “applied” > > physics. > > I believe that a star ship design based merely on the use of fission for > energy (i.e. fission bombs) is simply much to energy inefficient for anyone > to dream of investing in for any kind of interstellar journey. Do the math and you will not agree. This time use Einstein's Energy instead of Energy relativistic equations. > I believe > that fusion and antimatter are really the only methods that provide enough > energy based on the amount of fuel needed (this means I stray away from > projects like the orion, because nuclear fission bombs simply do not convert > > enough matter to energy, My engine uses fission and fusion to provide the energy required. Rockets with bomb exhaust do instantaneous acceleration so cannot excced light speed. >while antimatter/matter reactions have a > theoretical 100% matter to energy rate. . . .and yes, I realize the present > limitations in creating antimatter). Opps, you just left applied physics with known technology and entered theoretical physics.- Shame > I believe that a system proposed at > the address > > http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/fusion_rockets_000719_2.html > > has some real promise. The following is the gist of what I believe, > currently, holds the most promise for an interplanetary method of propulsion He lists his antimatter.fission/fusion/ specific impulse at 1000,000 seconds. Nasa has other plasma rockets with projected specific impuses of 1,000,000 seconds. `10 times more powerful. My engine exceeds Nasa best on drawing boards. > Well, everyone who read this entire thing. . . .congrats. It was long and > I’m very tired. I hope this helped someone learn a little more about > something or at least provided some entertainment at my expense. ;) I am not laughing an welcome any serious inquiry, I hope I was able to dispell some commonly taught misinformation. Respectfully, Doctor Thomas H. Jackson > PS: My hats off to you Dr. Jackson. Thank you, It was quite an effort but most enjoyable ;-). From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:51 2000 Content-Length: 372 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["372" "Saturday" "22" "July" "2000" "17:22:23" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "9" "Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 372 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6MLMch03629 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6MLMbb03624 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id z.29.7ec62e2 (3312) for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29.7ec62e2.26ab6a8f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . . Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:22:23 EDT In a message dated 7/22/00 12:27:44 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: >Regarding the current discussion, I have to agree that Dr. Einstein >seems to suggest that FTL travel, for physical bodies at least, requires >infinite energy. == Actually it says that travel AT the speed of light takes infine power, travel at less OR MORE then the speed of light doesn't. From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:51 2000 Content-Length: 815 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["815" "Saturday" "22" "July" "2000" "18:44:19" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 815 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6MMiSN19422 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r11.mx.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6MMiRb19415 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id z.cb.7c87162 (16786); Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 104 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . . Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:44:19 EDT In a message dated 7/22/00 2:23:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, KellySt@aol.com writes: > n a message dated 7/22/00 12:27:44 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > >Regarding the current discussion, I have to agree that Dr. Einstein > >seems to suggest that FTL travel, for physical bodies at least, requires > >infinite energy. == > > Actually it says that travel AT the speed of light takes infine power, > travel > at less OR MORE then the speed of light doesn't. > > Kelly, Well it is clear the last four of us responders have agreed to disagree ;-) Mathematically speaking at v=c returning 1/0 from special relativity equations = undefined and not infinity as you appear to teach. Einstein defined it relating to machines as the vanishing point from observer perspective. I agree. Tom From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:51 2000 Content-Length: 2032 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2032" "Saturday" "22" "July" "2000" "18:54:57" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2032 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6MMwXm22152 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6MMwWb22147 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.150]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000722225826.PDMQ21390.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:58:26 +0000 Message-ID: <397A2641.578A43F5@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <29.7ec62e2.26ab6a8f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com, starship Subject: Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . . Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:54:57 -0400 Gentlemen, If I may quote further from the same book, but _previous_ to the quote I sent last . . . the last equation numbered (43) is: E=m/(sqrt (1-q ^2)). This is followed by the statement: "We recognize, in fact, that these components of momentum agree with those of classical mechanics for velocities which are small compared to that of light. For large velocities the momentum increases more rapidly than linearly with the velocity, so as to become infinite on approaching the velocity of light. "If we apply the last of equations (43) to a material particle at rest (q=0), we see that the energy, E(o), of a body at rest is equal to its mass. Had we chosen the second as our unit of time, we would have obtained (44) E(o) = mc^2 "Mass and energy are therefore essentially alike; they are only different expressions for the same thing. The mass of a body is not a constant; it varies with changes in its energy. We see from the last of equations (43) that E becomes infinite when q approaches 1, the velocity of light." I note here the term "approaching", and I hope it isn't a misfortune of translation. I admit, again, that I don't much comprehend this stuff, but the material I'm quoting should certainly be considered reputable, and looks to me to support the commonly held view that, the faster you go, the harder it becomes to go a little faster. Now I'm perplexed. With the present exception of Dr. Jackson (to whom I apologize for calling "Johnson" in my last post), I really didn't expect any argument on this from this group. Awaiting further enlightenment, Curtis KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/22/00 12:27:44 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > >Regarding the current discussion, I have to agree that Dr. Einstein > >seems to suggest that FTL travel, for physical bodies at least, requires > >infinite energy. == > > Actually it says that travel AT the speed of light takes infine power, travel > at less OR MORE then the speed of light doesn't. From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:51 2000 Content-Length: 4294 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4294" "Sunday" "23" "July" "2000" "00:06:13" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "110" "Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4294 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6N46SF20591 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 21:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6N46Rb20586 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 21:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id c.f2.11a2dd1 (3964); Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 104 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . . Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:06:13 EDT In a message dated 7/22/00 3:58:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > Gentlemen, > > If I may quote further from the same book, but _previous_ to the quote I > sent > last . . . > > the last equation numbered (43) is: E=m/(sqrt (1-q ^2)). This is followed by > the > statement: > > "We recognize, in fact, that these components of momentum agree with > those > of classical mechanics for velocities which are small compared to that of > light. > For large velocities the momentum increases more rapidly than linearly with > the > velocity, so as to become infinite on approaching the velocity of light. > "If we apply the last of equations (43) to a material particle at > rest > (q=0), we see that the energy, E(o), of a body at rest is equal to its mass. > Had > we chosen the second as our unit of time, we would have obtained > > (44) E(o) = mc^2 > > "Mass and energy are therefore essentially alike; they are only > different > expressions for the same thing. The mass of a body is not a constant; it > varies > with changes in its energy. We see from the last of equations (43) that E > becomes > infinite when q approaches 1, the velocity of light." > > > I note here the term "approaching", and I hope it isn't a misfortune of > translation. I admit, again, that I don't much comprehend this stuff, but > the > material I'm quoting should certainly be considered reputable, and looks to > me to > support the commonly held view that, the faster you go, the harder it > becomes to > go a little faster. Curtis, Curious, Was your edition the following or a later translation as Einstein did write with a heavy german accent. It does not sound like the Einstein works I have read including his correspondence with Burtrend Russel. Einstein, Albert.: THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY. ; Princeton, Princeton U. P., 1945 (2nd ed.). 135 pp. First printing of this edition. 83561 Science Offered for sale by Q.M. Dabney & Co., Inc. at US$25.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > > Now I'm perplexed. With the present exception of Dr. Jackson (to whom I > apologize > for calling "Johnson" in my last post), I really didn't expect any argument > on > this from this group. > > Awaiting further enlightenment, Apology accepted, I am informal so do not require people address me as Doctor; However I am much pleased when they do. I have been called much worse ;-) -Enlightning you as requested- In the above equation E=m/(sqrt (1-q ^2) as q appraoches one, the amount of 1-q^2 approaches zero, The square root of zero is + 0 or - 0. M/+-0 is undefined and not infinity. Appraching infinity is a valid exptression matematically; measured in the real world of physics as a asomtote at c on a x,y graph the rapidly rising portion of the graphed exponential curve never meets c and at values near c run parrell without touching the asomtope. As a real world value of graphs with a top limit and not a math expression. Clarifying- an x,y graph is the horizontal and vertical bisects of a large square top and sides of graph (normally not shown). Infinity is not on any valid graph, nor is 1/0 defined as infinity. I could not tell where your words start and the book quote ended. If indeed Einstein stated as you say or correctly quoted, he was speaking (he did not write but dictated most of his works) in an ungarded fashion and the editors did not catch the error. In his personal written equations he commonly wrote in the paper or blackboard margin Energy relativitic and velocity relativistic while he went through a chain of calculations using only E and V for ease having previously defined his meaning. Later transcribers of his work would see a disconected margin note or blackboard note like Erel. Vrel. and not connect it with defining the equation variable used. In the set of equations for partical rest mass he was considering the Energy relativistic limiting velocity of a partical from a partical accelerator which is c. He was not considering the energy at that time for a rocket delivering the energy real from a different frame of reference. Regards, Tom > Curtis From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:52 2000 Content-Length: 718 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["718" "Saturday" "22" "July" "2000" "23:35:36" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "18" "Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . ." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 718 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6N6ZrV16220 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6N6Zlb16214 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6N6ZkO07542 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6N6Zdg11875; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:35:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14714.37432.496716.907791@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <29.7ec62e2.26ab6a8f@aol.com> References: <29.7ec62e2.26ab6a8f@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 11) "Carlsbad Caverns" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . . Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:35:36 -0700 (PDT) KellySt@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 7/22/00 12:27:44 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > >Regarding the current discussion, I have to agree that Dr. Einstein > >seems to suggest that FTL travel, for physical bodies at least, requires > >infinite energy. == > > Actually it says that travel AT the speed of light takes infine power, travel > at less OR MORE then the speed of light doesn't. I think a more accurate summary of the situation is this: The energy required to bring a massive object to a certain relative velocity increases without bound as the relative velocity approaches c from below. Relativity doesn't make meaningful predictions for relative velocities greater than c. From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:52 2000 Content-Length: 4823 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4823" "Sunday" "23" "July" "2000" "02:35:21" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "106" "[Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "[Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4823 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6N6cRm16377 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6N6cQb16371 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.2]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000723063820.UZQF14052.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:38:20 +0000 Message-ID: <397A9229.E79C8034@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .] Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:35:21 -0400 Curtis Manges wrote: > Tom, > > > Curtis, > > Curious, Was your edition the following or a later translation as Einstein > > did write with a heavy german accent. It does not sound like the Einstein > > works I have read including his correspondence with Burtrend Russel. > > > > Einstein, Albert.: THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY. ; Princeton, Princeton U. P., > > 1945 (2nd ed.). 135 pp. First printing of this edition. 83561 Science > > Offered for sale by Q.M. Dabney & Co., Inc. at US$25.00 > > Mine is the fifth edition of the same book; the publication history matches yours. > These are the translated texts of the Stafford lectures given at Princeton in > 1921. This edition includes a second appendix that was added in the third edition, > so you may want to look into it; also, it was revised for the fifth edition. > Published by: > MJF Books > Two Lincoln Square > 60 W. 66th St > NY, NY 10023 > Library of Congress catalog # 96-77139; ISBN 1-56731-136-9 > > I got mine from my favorite cheap book resource: > Edward R. Hamilton > Falls Village, CT 06031-5000 > > write for a catalog. Hamilton keeps prices down by operating on a prepaid-only > basis. Lots of great stuff; I've gotten hardcover books for $1, and shipping is a > flat $3 for any order. I looked at the latest catalog and didn't find this book, > but titles sometimes come and go there, so it may be back, or you could enquire > about it. > > > > Now I'm perplexed. With the present exception of Dr. Jackson (to whom I > > > apologize > > > for calling "Johnson" in my last post), I really didn't expect any > > argument > > > on > > > this from this group. > > > > > > Awaiting further enlightenment, > > > > Apology accepted, I am informal so do not require people address me as > > Doctor; However I am much pleased when they do. I have been called much worse > > ;-) > > so have I! > > > -Enlightning you as requested- > > In the above equation E=m/(sqrt (1-q ^2) as q appraoches one, the amount of > > 1-q^2 approaches zero, The square root of zero is + 0 or - 0. M/+-0 is > > undefined and not infinity. Appraching infinity is a valid exptression > > matematically; measured in the real world of physics as a asomtote at c on a > > x,y graph the rapidly rising portion of the graphed exponential curve never > > meets c and at values near c run parrell without touching the asomtope. As a > > real world value of graphs with a top limit and not a math expression. > > Clarifying- an x,y graph is the horizontal and vertical bisects of a large > > square top and sides of graph (normally not shown). Infinity is not on any > > valid graph, nor is 1/0 defined as infinity. > > Okay, I understand asymptotic curves (a bit like Zeno's paradoxes), but my point > is this: even at some point below light speed, the equations say that, again, the > faster you go, the harder it will be to go a little faster. Right? And, since the > curve _is_ asymptotic, it's even harder than it would be if this were a > first-order equation. All of which makes your rocket, or anyone else's rocket, > need _way_ more fuel than it could carry in order to approach c. > > Believe me, this all is very counter-intuitive and quite hard for me, but it seems > clear from Dr. E's work that, if we want to get beyond light speed, we will need > something _very different_ from a simple reaction engine. Which is why I like the > idea of gravity control: it's the one plausible way that I can think of around the > problem. > > I may as well tell you, I never really wanted to learn any of this stuff in the > first place. I only began studying it because I was writing a science-fiction > novel, and wanted to know enough to write convincingly where needed. The fact that > I continue tells something about me as a person; after all, I've figured out more > than one way that I could write the book without ever really needing to mention > space-time relativistic travel. Perhaps I'm drawn by the challenge, but it's more > frustrating than rewarding, because I haven't touched calculus in 20 years, and I > all but flunked it back then. > > > I could not tell where your words start and the book quote ended. > > The quote begins with "We recognize . . ." and ends with ". . . the velocity of > light." (the short paragraph following the equation.) Just look for the quotation > marks. > > > In his personal written equations he commonly wrote in the paper or > > blackboard margin Energy relativitic and velocity relativistic while he went > > through a chain of calculations using only E and V for ease having previously > > defined his meaning. > > In the book, he uses terms such as K and K', e and e', t and t' -- but these > seem to refer to different frames of reference, for the most part. > > > > > Regards, > > Tom > > Thanks, > > Curtis From VM Mon Jul 24 11:40:52 2000 Content-Length: 4787 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4787" "Sunday" "23" "July" "2000" "07:09:25" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "120" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil "[Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4787 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6NB9dF25797 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 04:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6NB9cb25785 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 04:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id c.e8.781d20c (3972); Sun, 23 Jul 2000 07:09:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 104 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .] Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 07:09:25 EDT In a message dated 7/22/00 11:38:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > Okay, I understand asymptotic curves (a bit like Zeno's paradoxes), but my > point > > is this: even at some point below light speed, the equations say that, > again, the > > faster you go, the harder it will be to go a little faster. Right? That is basically correct and I find no fault with your logic to that point. > And, > since the > > curve _is_ asymptotic, it's even harder than it would be if this were a > > first-order equation. All of which makes your rocket, or anyone else's > rocket, > > need _way_ more fuel than it could carry in order to approach c. You logic fails at that point with graphical analyisis of the E rel. curve on mass, velocity or a graphs x,y axis. You do see clearly the curve as it aproaches the c asomtope. Now if you graph the Ereal curve you will find it a first order linear curve. (straight line is in set of all curves). That second graphed line on the same set of axis, extends from the origin through the c asomtope to velocities greater than c. The first graph is of energy delivered from a rest frame to a moving object like a partical accelerator and the second is of energy delivered from the moving object or the inertial frame of reference like an atomic rocket. > > > > Believe me, this all is very counter-intuitive and quite hard for me, but > it seems > > clear from Dr. E's work that, if we want to get beyond light speed, we > will need > > something _very different_ from a simple reaction engine. Which is why I > like the > > idea of gravity control: it's the one plausible way that I can think of > around the problem. I have not objection of anyone finding another type of rocket to exceed light speed besides my own. It is clear to me your proposals are not applied physics but theoretical physics. Not a bad thing but a limiting one as it requires some future discovery rather than existing knowledge. Man had the theory of needing a machine to open a tin can invention for 75 years after the invention before he invented one. > > I may as well tell you, I never really wanted to learn any of this stuff > in the > > first place. I only began studying it because I was writing a science- > fiction > > novel, and wanted to know enough to write convincingly where needed. You have no trouble writing convincingly as you are convinced of FTL possiblity. >The > fact that > > I continue tells something about me as a person; after all, I've figured > out more > > than one way that I could write the book without ever really needing to > mention > > space-time relativistic travel. Perhaps I'm drawn by the challenge, but it' > s more > > frustrating than rewarding, because I haven't touched calculus in 20 years, You are going to have to trust me on this. "All of the equation of the science of physics contain no calculus as Newton warned of its application. Calculus is only an engineering math and has no place out side of engineering. You can create in your writings and drawings a working diagram. > and I > > all but flunked it back then. Einstein did flunk calculus. It is not logical and so does not coexist well with physics thought. I.e. it is from an imaginary math coordinate system of arithmatic. Physics is real world measurements and calculations using algebra. > > > > > I could not tell where your words start and the book quote ended. > > > > The quote begins with "We recognize . . ." and ends with ". . . the > velocity of > > light." (the short paragraph following the equation.) Just look for the > quotation > > marks. > > > > > In his personal written equations he commonly wrote in the paper or > > > blackboard margin Energy relativitic and velocity relativistic while he > went > > > through a chain of calculations using only E and V for ease having > previously > > > defined his meaning. > > > > In the book, he uses terms such as K and K', e and e', t and t' -- > but these > > seem to refer to different frames of reference, for the most part. That is correct. Follow it through to see for E or V there are two valid frames of reference. That of the observer and that of the observed. Both frames require both set of equations giving calculations be made to completeness before you attempt to speculate what one set of equations (used for partical acellarators) mean and and limits as inclusive to the entire universe and all machines including rockets. Apply the equations to diferent machines. A bicycle has a practical limit less than c for non relativistic reasons. A atomic rocket has no c limit for special relativistic reasons. Regards, Tom > > Thanks, > > > > Curtis > From VM Mon Jul 24 16:57:04 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2764" "Monday" "24" "July" "2000" "19:48:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "93" "starship-design: FYI - Space policy info on candidates" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2764 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6ONmpX29016 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6ONmnb28951 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id a.74.1726320 (7360); Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <74.1726320.26ae2fd1@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_74.1726320.26ae2fd1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: DTaylor648@aol.com, JohnFrance@aol.com, jensenm@saic.com, moschleg@erols.com, SFnoirSD@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, bbbark@surfree.com, rddesign@rddesigns.com, RICKJ@btio.com, lord_starchild@hotmail.com, Kevin@urly-bird.com Subject: starship-design: FYI - Space policy info on candidates Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:48:33 EDT --part1_74.1726320.26ae2fd1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/24/00 9:27:43 AM, kgstarks@collins.rockwell.com writes: >Subject: No Subject > > >Subject: Bush and Gore on space >Date: Sat, Jul 22, 2000 11:42 AM >From: BrianF5070 >Message-id: <20000722124223.16449.00000035@ng-cs1.aol.com> > > >The details of the space platforms of the two major parties are just >starting >to take shape. Find info at the link below: > >HREF=" >http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/gorebush_spaceplatform_000720.ht >ml">http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/gorebush_spaceplatform_000720.htm l > --part1_74.1726320.26ae2fd1_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-ye02.mx.aol.com (rly-ye02.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.199]) by air-ye01.mx.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:27:43 -0400 Received: from gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com (gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com [205.175.225.1]) by rly-ye02.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:27:11 2000 Received: by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com; id JAA14045; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:27:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Received: from mnpcl1.collins.rockwell.com(131.198.67.150) by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com via smap (V4.2) id xma013865; Mon, 24 Jul 00 09:26:37 -0500 Received: from crnotes.collins.rockwell.com (crnotes.collins.rockwell.com [131.198.213.32]) by mnpcl1.collins.rockwell.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA23270 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:26:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: No Subject To: KellySt@aol.com Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:20:54 -0500 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CollinsCRSMTP01/CedarRapids/Collins/Rockwell(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 07/24/2000 09:26:36 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Unknown KellySt@aol.com on 07/23/2000 01:54:38 PM To: kgstarks@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com cc: Subject: No Subject Subject: Bush and Gore on space Date: Sat, Jul 22, 2000 11:42 AM From: BrianF5070 Message-id: <20000722124223.16449.00000035@ng-cs1.aol.com> The details of the space platforms of the two major parties are just starting to take shape. Find info at the link below: http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/gorebush_spaceplatform_000720.html Brian Want to go to Mars? http://www.marssocie ty.org --part1_74.1726320.26ae2fd1_boundary-- From VM Tue Jul 25 14:50:07 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4194" "Tuesday" "25" "July" "2000" "16:54:11" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "106" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4194 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6PKsQr28242 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r16.mx.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6PKsPR28235 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id z.ce.891079b (16784) for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:54:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 112 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .] Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:54:11 EDT > > > You logic fails at that point with graphical analyisis of the E rel. > curve > > on > > > mass, velocity or a graphs x,y axis. You do see clearly the curve as it > > > aproaches the c asomtope. > > > Now if you graph the Ereal curve you will find it a first order linear > > curve. > > > (straight line is in set of all curves). That second graphed line on > the > > > same set of axis, extends from the origin through the c asomtope to > > > velocities greater than c. The first graph is of energy delivered from > a > > rest > > > frame to a moving object like a partical accelerator and the second is > of > > > energy delivered from the moving object or the inertial frame of > reference > > > like an atomic rocket. Posted with curtises permission-tom. >From Curtis > > What you seem to be saying is that the rocket pilot sees E real (the > linear > > graph) and has all the fuel he needs to surpass c by a simple steady > > acceleration, while the Earth observer sees the E rel graph and thinks > you' > > ll > > never make it. Is this what you meant to say? If so, it implies that the > > pilot > > could accelerate _beyond_ c and not even know he'd done it, while the > Earth > > observer would simply see the rocket vanish, as though it had suddenly > > jumped > > across that tiny gap between the asymptotic curve and the ideal limit. > > Curtis > You have an excellent understanding of what does occur ;-). > > > It > > seems > > somehow inconsistent . . . > > Consider then negative velocities where though an observer light is > traveling from the c or >c rocket to the earth observer at light speed. > Relative to earth the light is traveling away from the earth at light speed > or obtaining a negative velocity. Light traveling towards the eath and away > from the earth at the same time is not inconsistant. It is from the two > frames (wrt ship, wrt earth) by which it is observed, as a basic postulate of > relativity validating both frames. > > Your next step in understanding is to break the negative velocity down to > distance traveled/time and place the negative sign in front of time. Distance > traveled(D) is a vector without direction. Time is a scaler vector having > both direction and magnitude designated in this case by the negative > direction sign for -180 degrees and a magnitude of c to >c value. Do not > confuse direction with the temporary Length(L) variable of special > relativitey for that forshortning occurs on board the moving ship seen only > in the earth observer eye. > > From there it is simple to see that the rocket returning to earth after near > light speed trip returns to earths distant future. At c and greater > velocities he returns to his anchient relativites on earth finding them much > younger than he calculated at sub light speed. The negative time variable > does not allow him to travel backward in time as the earth twin is still > older than when the rocketman twin left. > > As time does flow forward and not backward. At sub light speed the rocket > man can observe his distant twin as he was some years ago as a function of > the time it takes observer light to reach the ship allowing one to "see" > backwards in time like we do presently with distant stars. At velocities c > and greater wrt earth no observation backward in time is possible from either > frame of reference. > > It is indeed possible to calculate with negative velocites and time just how > much younger the earth twin would be on returning compared to his older > advanced age; calculated from sub but near c velocities after the rocket man > returns compared to his c or > c trip returning. Time travel then is not > observable except at sub light velocities but calculatable all velocities (>c, > c,>c), although the effects are observable when both frames of reference > coincide when rocket man returns to his earth twin or his ancient twins bones > as the case may be. > > True grist for your sci.faction novel. > > Tom > > Tom > > This is simple analytic geometry and requires no calculus. From VM Tue Jul 25 16:13:47 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1540" "Tuesday" "25" "July" "2000" "19:09:58" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "40" "[Fwd: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]]" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1540 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6PNCwK27168 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6PNCvR27162 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.157]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000725231251.PBYA6710.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:12:51 +0000 Message-ID: <397E1E46.168FF24E@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]] Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:09:58 -0400 Curtis Manges wrote: > > > > Tom, > > Okay, now let's look at something else for a moment. Let's just assume an analogy > between the experiences of breaking the sound barrier and breaking c. We know > that when an airplane is pushing through the sound barrier, it's flight gets > rough for a while, then smoothes out once past Mach 1. And we know that the > airplane is then making a sonic boom; a concussion wave of sorts, right? Now -- > are there any sorts of analogous phenomena that we might guess at or expect for a > ship breaking through c? Has there even been any serious speculation on this? I > know of one physicist who postulates that GRB's are produced by superluminal > stars, which is why I asked. > > His website is at: http://www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents > > I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. > > Curtis > > > > It is indeed possible to calculate with negative velocites and time just > > how > > > much younger the earth twin would be on returning compared to his older > > > advanced age; calculated from sub but near c velocities after the rocket > > man > > > returns compared to his c or > c trip returning. Time travel then is not > > > observable except at sub light velocities but calculatable all velocities > > (>c, > > > c,>c), although the effects are observable when both frames of reference > > > coincide when rocket man returns to his earth twin or his ancient twins > > bones > > > as the case may be. > > > > > > True grist for your sci.faction novel. > > > > > > Tom> From VM Tue Jul 25 16:34:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1257" "Tuesday" "25" "July" "2000" "18:28:17" "-0500" "Kevin Houston" "Kevin@urly-bird.com" nil "31" "starship-design: Libertarian Megamillionaire Gets Russki Space Heap!" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1257 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6PNSgL04003 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web12.ntx.net (web12.ntx.net [209.1.144.158]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6PNSfR03995 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty (ip66.minneapolis14.mn.pub-ip.psi.net [38.31.47.66]) by web12.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA07862 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20000725182719.01efdea0@www.urly-bird.com> X-Sender: web121aa@www.urly-bird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 In-Reply-To: <397E1E46.168FF24E@worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kevin Houston Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1 From: Kevin Houston Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: starship-design: Libertarian Megamillionaire Gets Russki Space Heap! Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:28:17 -0500 More on the man who bought MIR. I am not surprised that he is a Libertarian either. http://www10.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000723mag-millionaire.html -----Begin Quote:-------------- This is a story about wealth and space and America and Russia, and it begins with one man, Walter Anderson -- a man with white hair and pale skin, square, gold-rimmed glasses and a physical presence so profoundly unprepossessing it's almost impossible to remember what he looks like. Anderson is 46 and worth almost a billion dollars. He lives in Washington -- the city he grew up in, a city he hates; his hatred of the government is, as he puts it, "personal" -- in an apartment adorned with a painting he commissioned based on a Smashing Pumpkins lyric, "I am still just a rat in a cage." "That's what we are," Anderson explains, "rats in a cage. And we're going to gnaw through the bars because we've got about a 30-year window here, and we'll starve if we don't get out." In the alternative space underground, which Anderson has bankrolled pretty much singlehandedly, he's known for being dystopic, generous, ruthless, overimpassioned, incisive, philanthropic, libertarian and shy -- by those who know him at all. -----end Quote:---------------- From VM Tue Jul 25 17:13:21 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["833" "Tuesday" "25" "July" "2000" "17:11:33" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "17" "[Fwd: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]]" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 833 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6Q0Bk022658 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6Q0BjR22650 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6Q0Bhv00288; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6Q0BZb27644; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:11:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14718.11446.6090.267590@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <397E1E46.168FF24E@worldnet.att.net> References: <397E1E46.168FF24E@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 11) "Carlsbad Caverns" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Curtis Manges Cc: starship Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]] Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Curtis Manges writes: > > Okay, now let's look at something else for a moment. Let's just > > assume an analogy between the experiences of breaking the sound > > barrier and breaking c. There is no valid analogy between breaking the sound barrier and breaking the light speed barrier. It was well known that it was possible to make objects go faster than the speed of sound through air before aircraft did it; the problem was recognized not as being a physical impossibility, but a design problem in aircraft. I miss Isaac Kuo, who used to be a subscriber to this list. He had some very enlightening things to say about physics, including this item from the mailing list archives on the problems with talking about FTL frames of reference in relativity: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive/sd-1997-3/msg00594.html From VM Wed Jul 26 09:33:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2062" "Tuesday" "25" "July" "2000" "22:13:29" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "59" "Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]]" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2062 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6Q2GUG25440 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6Q2GSR25434 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.123.179]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000726021623.ERUJ9297.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:16:23 +0000 Message-ID: <397E4949.DB93DBC6@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <397E1E46.168FF24E@worldnet.att.net> <14718.11446.6090.267590@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7968353E36BD0B56371244BA" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender , starship Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]] Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:13:29 -0400 --------------7968353E36BD0B56371244BA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve VanDevender wrote: > Curtis Manges writes: > > > Okay, now let's look at something else for a moment. Let's just > > > assume an analogy between the experiences of breaking the sound > > > barrier and breaking c. > > There is no valid analogy between breaking the sound barrier and breaking > the light speed barrier. It was well known that it was possible to make > objects go faster than the speed of sound through air before aircraft > did it; the problem was recognized not as being a physical > impossibility, but a design problem in aircraft. > Good point, Steve, thanks. It's getting clear to me that I need a little break from physics, though. I think I'll just step aside for a bit and go study philosophy, instead. Keep looking up, Curtis --------------7968353E36BD0B56371244BA Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

Steve VanDevender wrote:

Curtis Manges writes:
 > > Okay, now let's look at something else for a moment. Let's just
 > > assume an analogy between the experiences of breaking the sound
 > > barrier and breaking c.

There is no valid analogy between breaking the sound barrier and breaking
the light speed barrier.  It was well known that it was possible to make
objects go faster than the speed of sound through air before aircraft
did it; the problem was recognized not as being a physical
impossibility, but a design problem in aircraft.
 

Good point, Steve, thanks. It's getting clear to me that I need a little break from physics, though. I think I'll just step aside for a bit and go study philosophy, instead.

Keep looking up,

Curtis
  --------------7968353E36BD0B56371244BA-- From VM Wed Jul 26 09:33:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3691" "Tuesday" "25" "July" "2000" "23:29:48" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "79" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3691 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6Q3TwB11914 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6Q3TvR11908 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id c.a7.5ff31d0 (16783); Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 112 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .] Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:29:48 EDT In a message dated 7/25/00 4:07:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > Okay, now let's look at something else for a moment. Let's just assume an > analogy > between the experiences of breaking the sound barrier and breaking c. We > know > that when an airplane is pushing through the sound barrier, it's flight gets > rough for a while, then smoothes out once past Mach 1. And we know that the > airplane is then making a sonic boom; a concussion wave of sorts, right? correct >Now > -- > are there any sorts of analogous phenomena that we might guess at or expect > for a > ship breaking through c? Not compared to the shockwavecreated by sound. A board the ship all appears normal is a basic postulate of special relativity. wrt an earth observer the ship would vanish from observation. >Has there even been any serious speculation on this? Not speculation but calculations show that behind ship objects reaching -c from the ship disappear from view and forward objects entering from greater than c enter into view with side objects viewed from the shop in a shfted cone of doppler and lengt contraction cone. Speculation about the big bang theory suggest distant stars are nearing light speed due to expansion; therefore those "edge" stars outside the visable universe would come into view. My self I do not subscribe to the big bang thoery for star distantce measurements used in the theory are not corrected to account for the doppler shift caused by distant light traveling through thousands of gravitational fields till they reach earth. Einstein equations included a doppler ship for mass atraction effects that would be accumulative summed for distant star light accounting for the earth observed doppler shift > I > know of one physicist who postulates that GRB's are produced by superluminal > stars, which is why I asked. > > His website is at: http://www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents I read much of the sight and missed the GRB jargon you did not define, So I will answer on what I saw. Einstein claimed poorly designed experiments like miclal morleyson and others could prove noting either way so it would seem Gassbeek relying on them to support his theory is not valid. His understanding of relitivity in mor from the Lorents scool of closet etherist whose ideo of scientific thought is that if sound needs air to travel through then light needs something to travel through therefore the conjur up "ether" and spend time and grant money looking for it. They did not know enough to go back to the basics and see why sound needs air to transfer mechanical vibration and light propogates through a vaccum as an electro/magnetic wave. Time dilation was not proven by later experiment after Eintein died in the orbiting atomic clock and the earh twin clock returning time consistant with Einsteins equations' and in addition returning velocity real and velocity relativistic, therefore Gaasbeeks alternate relativity based on no time dilation is proven false by default as the counter proof does exist. His speculation about subatomic particals is not supported by experiment and his idea for a grand unified field theory contridicts Einsteins instructions for developing it. Provide GRB definition and I may revise what I say. > > I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. I like his attidude to seek alternative theories when SR is no mistaught that the logical inconsistancies require questioning the SR theorys crediblity. Unscramble the misinformation of SR and stick with Einsteins understanding of it and Geesbeeks alt theory fails easily. Tom > > Curtis From VM Wed Jul 26 12:23:10 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2242" "Wednesday" "26" "July" "2000" "15:02:10" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "48" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2242 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6QJ59K13911 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6QJ58R13895 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.123.114]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000726190502.OYSX14052.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:05:02 +0000 Message-ID: <397F35B1.2997B572@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .] Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:02:10 -0400 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/25/00 4:07:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > I > > know of one physicist who postulates that GRB's are produced by > superluminal > > stars, which is why I asked. > > > > His website is at: http://www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents > > I read much of the sight and missed the GRB jargon you did not define, So I > will answer on what I saw. Einstein claimed poorly designed experiments like > miclal morleyson and others could prove noting either way so it would seem > Gassbeek relying on them to support his theory is not valid. His > understanding of relitivity in mor from the Lorents scool of closet etherist > whose ideo of scientific thought is that if sound needs air to travel through > then light needs something to travel through therefore the conjur up "ether" > and spend time and grant money looking for it. They did not know enough to go > back to the basics and see why sound needs air to transfer mechanical > vibration and light propogates through a vaccum as an electro/magnetic wave. > > Time dilation was not proven by later experiment after Eintein died in the > orbiting atomic clock and the earh twin clock returning time consistant with > Einsteins equations' and in addition returning velocity real and velocity > relativistic, therefore Gaasbeeks alternate relativity based on no time > dilation is proven false by default as the counter proof does exist. His > speculation about subatomic particals is not supported by experiment and his > idea for a grand unified field theory contridicts Einsteins instructions for > developing it. > > Provide GRB definition and I may revise what I say. > > > > I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. > > I like his attidude to seek alternative theories when SR is no mistaught that > the logical inconsistancies require questioning the SR theorys crediblity. > Unscramble the misinformation of SR and stick with Einsteins understanding of > it and Geesbeeks alt theory fails easily. > > Tom Sorry. GRB is for Gamma Ray Burst. Go back to his website and click on "Frames of Reference, Part 2"; it's number four in the table of contents on the index page. > > Curtis From VM Mon Aug 7 18:52:49 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["194" "Monday" "7" "August" "2000" "21:40:09" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "9" "starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 194 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e781hME02412 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e781hLw02406 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.232]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000808014315.EVZD17157.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:43:15 +0000 Message-ID: <398F64F9.CC9BFEE3@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship , josef christoffer , kevin rothwell , Thaddeus Edens , "J.L.Gaasenbeek" Subject: starship-design: relativity Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 21:40:09 -0400 I don't recall where I found this, but it's kind of interesting: http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce_toc.html It's pretty long, so you may want to bookmark it. Keep looking up, Curtis From VM Tue Aug 8 08:25:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4176" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "02:00:16" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "112" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4176 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e7860Sf01583 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e7860Rw01559 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id c.ac.8db193f (16790); Tue, 8 Aug 2000 02:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 112 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 02:00:16 EDT In a message dated 8/7/00 6:44:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > I don't recall where I found this, but it's kind of interesting: > > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce_toc.html > > It's pretty long, so you may want to bookmark it. > > Keep looking up, > > Curtis > Thanks Curtis, File not found error so deleted farce_toc.html and found this working one http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/ Interesting reading for c+v measurements. Will read more later. Sorry I still have not reviewed your Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) info link you provided in one of your last posts. I got into a 500+ message thread in alt.engineering.explosives and slaying trolls kept me busy ;-) Some more good links http://sec353.jpl.nasa.gov/apc/ http://sec353.jpl.nas a.gov/apc/Nuclear/10.html Advanced Propulsion Concepts-fission fragment rocket Tom The below not intended for this group but for troll slaying only- read if interested -------------------------- Troll, You have established credibility with me as a snot nose, in knee pants, know it all who has not been taught to add "I do not know" to your vocabulary" Were you in my class you would flunk, Were I in yours I would return the answers you believe correct thereby earning an "A", as you consider yourself wise above all men and therefore those that agree with you as wise also and give them an "A" in your class. In addition, I find you both educationally and folliclely challenged. (include weblink photo if applicable) Photo My work must be read as new knowledge and not as incorrect knowledge simply because it is different from what you were taught because it was not available to your teacher or your teacher's teacher. I came by my discoveries solely by accident browsing library shelves and overhearing atomic bomb builders. My work does contain numerous errors as with any technical work but none is significant to my FTL rocket and Atomic Bomb design. Secrets reveled and not taught at your university http://www.infowar. com/mil_c4i/mil_c4i8.html-ssi The E-Bomb- a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction http://www.cnd e.iastate.edu/staff/swormley/eo/eo.html Educational Observatory - Astronomy Resources Add remote controlled moving Internet telescope to your website http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/Einstein.html Secret paraphrased death bed confession of Einstein in 1955 claiming invention of atomic bomb http://www.sunon e.com/news/articles/12-28-99h.shtml Einstein fondly recalled by area woman See disclosure from woman with top secret clearance as she reveals what Einstein failed to teach universities about how to make an atomic bomb in the mid 1940's. http://sec353.jpl.nasa.gov/apc/ Advanced Propulsion Concepts See my competitor NASA's efforts to reach the stars and catch up with my rocket. http://sec353.jpl.nas a.gov/apc/Nuclear/10.html Advanced Propulsion Concepts-fission fragment rocket See their fastest ship on the drawing boards eat my exhaust My Faster than Light Ship http://members.aol.com/ tjac780754/indexb.htm Patents pending U.S and international My Math Proofs for FTL http://members.aol.com/ tjac780754/indexC.htm See why Einstein taught in 1955 the possibility of Faster than Light Machines Thomas H. Jackson Common Law Doctorates Math, Physics, Computer Science, General Education Your Academic Superior Na Na Na Na Na http://members.aol. com/tjac780754/Transcript.htm Personal Educational Transcript From VM Tue Aug 8 08:25:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["174" "Monday" "7" "August" "2000" "23:34:44" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "7" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 174 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e786Z0h08395 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e786Yxw08369 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e786YuQ04558; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:34:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e786YmN16943; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:34:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14735.43524.151577.823987@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Cc: clmanges@worldnet.att.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:34:44 -0700 (PDT) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/ After you read that link, go and read this link: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html From VM Tue Aug 8 08:25:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["455" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "09:28:25" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 455 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e78EXsk21937 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e78EXrw21932 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLA010-0147.splitrock.net [64.196.252.147]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA02822 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008081433.KAA02822@smtp6.mindspring.com> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:28:25 -0500 > I don't recall where I found this, but it's kind of interesting: > > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce_toc.html I've read it before. The entire thing. It is nonsensical. To deny that the Lorentz contraction and time dilation takes place is to deny not just theory, but a plethora of experiments, which any good scientist should not do. Light speed does not add to the speed of the light emitting object in a c+v fashion. --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Tue Aug 8 16:38:39 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1378" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "19:00:34" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1378 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e78N0ru08027 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e78N0q207968 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id 7.9d.923d808 (4329); Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:00:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9d.923d808.26c1eb12@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 112 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:00:34 EDT In a message dated 8/8/00 7:36:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stk@sunherald.infi.net writes: > > I've read it before. The entire thing. It is nonsensical. To deny that the > Lorentz contraction and time dilation takes place is to deny not just > theory, but a plethora of experiments, which any good scientist should not > do. Light speed does not add to the speed of the light emitting object in a > c+v fashion. > > --Kyle R. Mcallister Kyle, Einstein said that most of experiment performed by scientists were so poorly constructed they could prove nothing either way regarding Relativity. He referred especially then to the Michael Morley experiments, and Bohr atom theorist used by Lorentz theorist to take the time dilation discovery from Einstein. Lorentz quacks theorize an ether exists. Their sole claim to fame was discovering a minor math error in Einstein's work. Einstein corrected the error and to this day none of your thousands of working Lorentz physicists have completed Einstein's work by adding the equations gravitation required or unifying the field of physics equation nor have they produced any promised fusion reactor therby failing to provide any significant proof of their even basic understanding of physics. You clearly have memorized without understanding that relativity which is taught at undergraduate levels. Tom Jackson From VM Tue Aug 8 17:27:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2417" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "20:22:24" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "50" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2417 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e790PvW22878 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e790Pu222857 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 17:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.36]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000809002550.GQXX13787.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:25:50 +0000 Message-ID: <3990A440.3DB30E77@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200008081433.KAA02822@smtp6.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 20:22:24 -0400 "Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote: > > I don't recall where I found this, but it's kind of interesting: > > > > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce_toc.html > > I've read it before. The entire thing. It is nonsensical. To deny that the > Lorentz contraction and time dilation takes place is to deny not just > theory, but a plethora of experiments, which any good scientist should not > do. Light speed does not add to the speed of the light emitting object in a > c+v fashion. Then someone had better tell JPL/NASA, who, according to Wallace, have been using the c+v formula in their solar system calculations. Can someone verify this, please? Besides, Wallace reports being treated to a great many behaviors that "any good scientist should not do." The fact is, as I have recently been finding in many various readings, that new ideas, and their proponents, are regularly savaged by the scientific establishment. The general public is getting wind of this, and they tire of scientific corruption as much as political. Bottom line: if you work in the field, _listen_, and respond with clear explanations, clear and complete data, and a fair trial of reasonable questions. Dogmatism is not an acceptable response; it merely signals that you are afraid of the question. I've been there, so I know. I'm not qualified to judge the merit of Wallace's theories, but some of his questions seem reasonable, and he gets little more than severe abuse for asking them. Now, roll up your mouse pad and stick it between your teeth, because I'm about to make you bite down really hard. It seems to me that c+v makes sense of an otherwise obvious conundrum: let's say you have a light source which is receding from you at some considerable velocity (or approaching, it doesn't matter). If, as relativity asserts, light always travels _only_ at c, then the light reaching you has to actually _change its speed_ to be at exactly c when it reaches you. In other words, if a light source moves, _and_ c is always constant, then an observer _must_ see c+v. There is, to me, only one condition under which c+v will _not_ apply, and that is when the observer frame of reference is the light source itself. As well, within my limited understanding, it seems to me that an annulment of c+v will _also_ be an automatic annulment of the Doppler effect and the red shift; these seem to be mutually exclusive to relativistic c. Curtis From VM Tue Aug 8 18:25:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4460" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "19:56:27" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "91" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4460 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e79123w07565 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e79121207528 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLA010-0019.splitrock.net [64.196.252.19]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA15203 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:01:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008090101.VAA15203@blount.mail.mindspring.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:56:27 -0500 > Then someone had better tell JPL/NASA, who, according to Wallace, have been > using the c+v formula in their solar system calculations. Can someone verify > this, please? Where can we find some proof of this statement? What would NASA stand to gain by lying about what measurements they use? The GPS uses calculations based on General Relativity...and it works. > The fact is, as I have recently been finding in many various readings, that new > ideas, and their proponents, are regularly savaged by the scientific > establishment. The general public is getting wind of this, and they tire of > scientific corruption as much as political. Yes, new ideas are treated badly at first by a significant portion of the scientific community. But the majority don't act like this. Unfortunately, the ones who do make asses of themselves, proclaiming wild assumptions and the like, such as Dr. Robert Park, to use him as an example, are the most vocal. He may be in a high place, but his opinion is not true of the entire scientific community. Most people don't demean others, and think they are holier-than-thou-art with proud statements saying that FTL/gravity control/interstellar travel/insert-your-favorite-topic-here is impossible, and always will be. And most people don't say that their opinion is not shared by the APS, but should be. > Dogmatism is not an acceptable response; it merely signals that you > are afraid of the question. I've been there, so I know. Uh...when was I practicing dogmatism? By asking for experimental results that back up Wallace's claims? If that's dogmatism, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you... > Now, roll up your mouse pad and stick it between your teeth, because I'm about > to make you bite down really hard. There's no need to get uptight about this. I'm not angry, and you shouldn't be either. Maybe you weren't...email is not good at conveying emotion. > It seems to me that c+v makes sense of an otherwise obvious conundrum: let's > say you have a light source which is receding from you at some considerable > velocity (or approaching, it doesn't matter). If, as relativity asserts, light > always travels _only_ at c, then the light reaching you has to actually _change > its speed_ to be at exactly c when it reaches you. I understand what you are saying. It does not make total sense to me either. But it is like this: if you move an object at .5c, towards a detector, the detector sees the incoming light to be travelling at 1.0c. Why? It's just the way things are. Now, if you're aboard the object moving at .5c, you measure the beam of light to be travelling outwards from yourself at 1.00c. According to relativity, all unaccelerated frames of reference are equivalent, and thus equally correct in their view of reality. Now if you want to delve deeper, you get into a big mess of metaphysics and such that is NOT accepted by the scientific community, and as such, what I write below is my own personal speculation on what *might* happen. I have no experimental proof to back it up, so don't take it as gospel. It could be right, it could be wrong. That said... Maybe what really happens is this: the object moving at .5c towards you really doesn't send out a beam that goes 1.00c. Maybe the beam really goes 1.00c with respect to you, but only .5c with respect to him. .5c+.5c=1.00c. The thing is, he sees the beam to be coming from his laser (or whatever emitter) at 1.00c because of the effects of length contraction and time dilation. But if you believe that, then you have to ask, which observer is really at rest? Are you or is he? Then you have to go further and say that one frame of rest is special: it is _really_ at rest, and everything is in motion with respect to it. Why don't we teach this view? Because so far, no one knows how to: A. Measure this supposed absolute reference frame, and B. It would have to cover the predictions of general relativity, not just the simpler special relativity. If faster than light signals are determined to exist, then this will probably change the views we currently hold on how constant the speed of light really is. But at this point, it is just speculation, and not needed. The preceding was for thought provocation only... > In other words, if a light > source moves, _and_ c is always constant, then an observer _must_ see c+v. But he _doesn't_ see this. He sees it to move at c. This was not meant to flame... --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Tue Aug 8 18:51:31 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2401" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "18:41:49" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2401 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e791g7h21749 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e791g5221716 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e791g1A00353; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e791fpH20704; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:41:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14736.46813.560628.849065@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <200008090101.VAA15203@blount.mail.mindspring.net> References: <200008090101.VAA15203@blount.mail.mindspring.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Cc: Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > Maybe what really happens is this: the object moving at .5c towards you > really doesn't send out a beam that goes 1.00c. Maybe the beam really goes > 1.00c with respect to you, but only .5c with respect to him. .5c+.5c=1.00c. > The thing is, he sees the beam to be coming from his laser (or whatever > emitter) at 1.00c because of the effects of length contraction and time > dilation. But if you believe that, then you have to ask, which observer is > really at rest? Are you or is he? Then you have to go further and say that > one frame of rest is special: it is _really_ at rest, and everything is in > motion with respect to it. Why don't we teach this view? Because so far, no > one knows how to: A. Measure this supposed absolute reference frame, and B. > It would have to cover the predictions of general relativity, not just the > simpler special relativity. If faster than light signals are determined to > exist, then this will probably change the views we currently hold on how > constant the speed of light really is. But at this point, it is just > speculation, and not needed. The preceding was for thought provocation > only... The deal is that the object moving at 0.5c relative to you emits a beam of light that appears to move at 1c relative to you and at 1c relative to him too. Other than that, however, you and he have rather different ideas of the spacetime coordinates of pretty much everything. Something to remember is that the speed of light is itself a result of the electrical and magnetic properties of the vacuum. If you could see different speeds for different light beams, then you would also have to be seeing different electromagnetic properties in the regions those light beams propagate through. And if those properties were different, then a lot of the fundamental behavior of atoms would also be different, since electrons are bound to nuclei by electrical forces and so on. In other words, if c wasn't a constant, then the properties of matter would also be non-constant. This line of thinking is more or less why Einstein proposed that Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are more fundamental than Newton's laws of motion and notions of absolute time. Other physicists of the day were already groping towards that idea; Einstein was just the one who sat down and worked out the important consequences. From VM Wed Aug 9 09:16:14 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5025" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "22:17:53" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "122" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5025 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e792IGL25633 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e792ID225601 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id z.73.5cb7b6a (3966) for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <73.5cb7b6a.26c21951@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 112 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:17:53 EDT Subj: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: 8/8/00 3:46:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: STAR1SHIP To: stevev@efn.org CC: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu In a message dated 8/7/00 11:36:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/ > > After you read that link, go and read this link: > > http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html You have provided a credible source for answering questions incorrectly to support a preconceived notion. Watch As I answer correctly. "I have proven that special relativity/Quantum mechanics is wrong." Equation derivations require derivative proofs not taught to most formal educated physicist to the Ph.D. level. You could easily prove it wrong, but it is more likely you will prove the interpreter of Einstein's SR and GR theory wrong as few people even today understand relativity beyond rote memorization. Myna birds mimic speech without understanding. You mean you did an experiment whose results disagree with the predictions of that theory? Experimental proofs are only one of many acceptable proofs scientists use. " I didn't think so". Your beliefs are not as important as the Universal laws of physics and the scientists organized laws of common sense. You mean you proved it is self-contradictory? Self contradictions are not considered proof of deception at any level until the contradictions and the liar accuser scenario both are subject to review of facts and evidence. Contradictions are a normal part of human speech. "That's what they told Galileo." Any new independent scientific thought is attacked by the majority. Scientists and democracy protect the few free thinkers from the tyranny of the majority. I know Galileo, and you're no Galileo. I read the 1955 work of Albert Einstein, claiming U235 explodes because of impact not chain reaction and mass can exceed light speed. You do not understand atoms or relativity if you think otherwise. "My theory is prettier than the accepted one." Einstein said we cannot make thing simpler than they already are. "My theory is better philosophically". Those that cannot do, teach, those that can do, do. This is not ancient Greece where philosophers are valued. America in the 21st century where the applied physicist rules and theorist is reduced to grant sucking to survive. "My theory makes more sense." Considering the majority taught theories, that is not a big accomplishment. "My theory doesn't need any complicated math, like calculus or vector algebra." Newton warned scientists not to use calculus in science as it was only to be used for engineering. Einstein used vector algebra to discover the forth dimension to be time. Einstein warned scientists not to use any algebra for physics with exponents higher than 3 cause you would enter the fantasy world of Quantum theorists. Then how do you calculate anything? Algebraically using equations in physics with only exponents of 0,1,2,3 to represent the 4 known dimensions. "My theory totally replaces the accepted one." But how would you know all that if you haven't studied the old theories in the first place? You do not need to replace an old theory with a better one you only need to show the old theory as in violation of universal law like protons in a nucleus violate like charges repel. Throw the theory out. Go back to basic research of Rutherford and Einstein to come up with a new theory and both them publicly denounced Neils Bohr atom model by 1940. "I knew you wouldn't listen, you scientists are too arrogant and closed-minded." That is so as their grants depend on them supporting the majority taught view. "You have to spend some time studying my theory." Proper scientific examination of any theory requires both the theorist and any debunker be examined by the same methods. The debunker does not determine what proof is acceptable and he has his belief system challenged by the same examination method. How much time did you spend getting an education in physics? 8000 plus classroom hours equivalent to 4 doctorates in math, physics, computer science and general education "Why don't you spend some time telling me what's wrong with my theory?" Debunkers are lazy, they find it easier to just say prove it, and let the other fellow do all the work. I say prove a mass cannot exceed light speed. Show me a match box of neutrons or even an example of compressed metal used allegedly to obtain critical mass in nonsense chain reaction bombs. They always fail the three examinations regardless of all the alleged neutron sources, neutron guns; fast and slow, thermalized, ultral cool, and even decaying neutrons of imagininary theory. Why don't you take a course? I took more courses you did, now what is your excuse Steve for supporting the nonscientific nonsense you teach? I apologized to you once, Do not make me do it again;-) Respectfully, Tom Jackson From VM Wed Aug 9 09:16:14 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2755" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "21:14:52" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2755 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e792Kgr27261 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e792Kd227233 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLA010-0019.splitrock.net [64.196.252.19]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA02476; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:20:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008090220.WAA02476@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Steve VanDevender" Cc: Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:14:52 -0500 > The deal is that the object moving at 0.5c relative to you emits a beam > of light that appears to move at 1c relative to you and at 1c relative > to him too. Other than that, however, you and he have rather different > ideas of the spacetime coordinates of pretty much everything. Yes, that's what I was basically saying in the part before my bit of speculation. By the way, did I get that part right? > Something to remember is that the speed of light is itself a result of > the electrical and magnetic properties of the vacuum. Are you talking about the equation 1/sqrt(u0*e0)? Where u0 and e0 are the magnetic permeability and dielectric permittivity of free space, respectively. I seem to recall some thought on modifying this to raise the local velocity of light...don't remember where at the moment, but it was all speculation nonetheless. If I remember correctly, it was stated that causality violation would be avoided if you did this (raised the speed of light)...but that doesn't make sense to me: you would still be going globally FTL, wouldn't you? > And if those properties were different, > then a lot of the fundamental behavior of atoms would also be different, > since electrons are bound to nuclei by electrical forces and so on. In > other words, if c wasn't a constant, then the properties of matter would > also be non-constant. Hmmm...I didn't think of it that way. I wonder if the Lorentz transformations would nullify the effect that this would have on the matter of your vehicle? (or whatever was in motion) This seems to be what Lorentz was getting at with his archaic ether theory. Perhaps one way to put it would be that the u0 and e0 were set properties of the frame determined to be at 'true rest,' if you can justify that concept. Then an object in motion with respect to this frame would be experiencing different electromagnetic properties of space in his frame of reference. Since the speed of light can only be 299,792,458 m/s in free space, no more or less, relative to the rest frame, it cannot add to the speed of the object in motion, and therefore the c+v argument is impossible. But the Lorentz transformations, which are a direct result of the altered EM properties of the moving frame of reference, prevent you from seeing the non-isotropic speed of light. Now, this is just my speculation, I don't know if it is fact or not. Probably it is not, but it is interesting to think about. Unfortunately, I don't know how to develop a mathematical theory for this idea, and it is just as well...until we find a flaw in relativity, there is no use for it. I wonder what other effects a change in u0 and e0 would have on an object. It is definitely something to ponder. Best regards, --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Wed Aug 9 09:16:14 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2692" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "22:44:13" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "67" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2692 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e792iVF17656 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e792iU217635 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id c.76.1ef9be9 (3966); Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <76.1ef9be9.26c21f7d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 112 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:44:13 EDT In a message dated 8/8/00 5:26:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > It seems to me that c+v makes sense of an otherwise obvious conundrum: Curtis, I looked up condundrum and found conjecture defined as: First appeared 14th Century 1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION 2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved Curtis You are correct, The c limit for all things is pure conjecture and no proof has been offered. > let's > say you have a light source which is receding from you at some considerable > velocity (or approaching, it doesn't matter). If, as relativity asserts, > light > always travels _only_ at c, then the light reaching you has to actually _ > change > its speed_ to be at exactly c when it reaches you. In other words, if a > light > source moves, _and_ c is always constant, then an observer _must_ see c+v. > There is, to me, only one condition under which c+v will _not_ apply, and > that > is when the observer frame of reference is the light source itself. Lorentz relativists assert the law of addition of velocities applied to relativity to show that two velocities added together cannot exceed C. It is just as easy to show that by the laws of subtracting an observer light emitted from a c+v source obtains a negative velocity wrt earth observer so that even when traveling towards the earth at light speed the light is actually traveling away from the earth at some negative velocity. Lorentz relativists consider only the observer frame of reference as valid when in Einstein relativity the inertial frame is equally valid and from that frame C+V is calculated and all appears normal. As a direct consequence of negative velocity the minus sign is placed on the time variable and not the distance traveled as it does not vary. Vavg=Distance traveled / time dilated contains the set of real numbers to include c + (1,2,3.....n distance/time) or to be more precise c+v velocities with no known theoretical limit thought there may be as practical limit as yet unknown. > As well, within my limited understanding, it seems to me that an annulment > of > c+v will _also_ be an automatic annulment of the Doppler effect and the red > shift; these seem to be mutually exclusive to relativistic c. Your understanding is indeed very good. SInce an observer cannot observe velocities greater than c, then doppler and redshift would also be unobservable so you would be correct even if your reasoning is unclear. Tom > > Curtis From VM Wed Aug 9 09:16:14 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["354" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "14:24:59" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "8" "Re: starship-design: relativity" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 354 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e792xgi00965 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e792xe200939 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin38.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.38]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA21317 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:59:37 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3990183B.A73A365A@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <398F64F9.CC9BFEE3@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:24:59 +0000 I will stick with Autodynamics, worry about LOW COST LEO, wonder about space travel and work on my TTL Computer design using FPGA's. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Octal Computers:Where a step backward is two steps forward!" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html From VM Wed Aug 9 09:16:14 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3719" "Tuesday" "8" "August" "2000" "23:03:16" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "81" "[Fwd: starship-design: relativity]" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3719 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e7936L807850 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e7936K207833 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.146]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000809030610.IWFF13787.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:06:10 +0000 Message-ID: <3990C9F4.F92168D6@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: [Fwd: starship-design: relativity] Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 23:03:16 -0400 "Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote: > Yes, new ideas are treated badly at first by a significant portion of the > scientific community. But the majority don't act like this. Unfortunately, > the ones who do make asses of themselves, proclaiming wild assumptions and > the like, such as Dr. Robert Park, to use him as an example, are the most > vocal. He may be in a high place, but his opinion is not true of the entire > scientific community. Most people don't demean others, and think they are > holier-than-thou-art with proud statements saying that FTL/gravity > control/interstellar travel/insert-your-favorite-topic-here is impossible, > and always will be. And most people don't say that their opinion is not > shared by the APS, but should be. Good. I guess the pity is that the bad ones are the loudest. > > Dogmatism is not an acceptable response; it merely signals that you > > are afraid of the question. I've been there, so I know. > > Uh...when was I practicing dogmatism? By asking for experimental results > that back up Wallace's claims? If that's dogmatism, I've got a bridge in > Brooklyn to sell you... Sorry, I just thought your first response seemed a bit stiff . . . > > Now, roll up your mouse pad and stick it between your teeth, because I'm > about > > to make you bite down really hard. > > There's no need to get uptight about this. I'm not angry, and you shouldn't > be either. Maybe you weren't...email is not good at conveying emotion. No offense intended, none taken. You're right about email, full interpretation is quite difficult at times. > > It seems to me that c+v makes sense of an otherwise obvious conundrum: > let's > > say you have a light source which is receding from you at some > considerable > > velocity (or approaching, it doesn't matter). If, as relativity asserts, > light > > always travels _only_ at c, then the light reaching you has to actually > _change > > its speed_ to be at exactly c when it reaches you. > > I understand what you are saying. It does not make total sense to me > either. But it is like this: if you move an object at .5c, towards a > detector, the detector sees the incoming light to be travelling at 1.0c. > Why? We can ask why, and should, but how do we know that this really is so? I can't be the first to have asked this question (obviously), but here's where I think that Wallace deserves a little consideration on the c+v issue. In looking through all this material, I kept seeing references to Michelson-Morley, and went and looked it up, in several places. Okay, Michelson proved the non-existence of ether, and I see that previous to that, he had measured the speed of light. But his apparatus had the limitations of fixed targets at a relatively short range. Here's where I made the connection between Wallace and Michelson. You can't look for c+v with a fixed target, and a short range makes it harder to check your error. Wallace's biggest issue is the idea of using radio telescopes to measure c against other planets. This is great; you've got unmistakable, large targets, a good many light seconds of distance, and generous relative velocities, plus modern equipment to measure the results. And he says (or suspects, as seems reasonable anyway) that all the data he needs already exist. An honest evaluation of this data should easily settle the issue of c+v, one way or the other. So why does he keep getting the run-around? I would think that any true scientist would be delighted with such a project, and for that matter, I'd be amazed if someone hadn't done it deliberately by now. So why the evasion? > This was not meant to flame... Nor mine, and thanks again for your indulgence. > --Kyle R. Mcallister Curtis From VM Sat Aug 12 19:33:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4431" "Saturday" "12" "August" "2000" "11:24:25" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "87" "starship-design: Re: book review" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4431 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e7CFOZk05395 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 08:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e7CFOX205385 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 08:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id c.46.93075d4 (16784); Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <46.93075d4.26c6c629@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 112 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: book review Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:24:25 EDT In a message dated 8/9/00 8:01:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > Tom, > > This may interest you. I've been getting into philosophy a lot lately, > and this is a reference taken from www.philosophynews.com > > http://www.sciam.com/2000/0900issue/0900reviews1.html Curtis, Good reference, For hundreds maybe thousands of years, mainstream scientists, have always resisted new knowledge for it is clear that until the majority of scientist agree on something it is not deemed "credible". I call this Lemming philosophy, that causes all to run over the cliff to escape an imaginary danger. Philosophies like ideas are a dime a dozen and most worth less. Playboy has a valid philosophy an in some respect so does Charles Manson. I do not subscribe to any "valid" philosophy preferring to think independently my own thought and maintain my own world view based on my personal experience and book learning. This is not to say that I do not share my view of the world with many others. I recall that Einstein believed in God and his close friend was the Atheist Mathematician Bertrand Russel . I spend many enjoyable hours as a youth reading their correspondence letters discussing both Science and Religion at the philosophical level. It was published in one book that I do not recall the name of. I would not mind rereading it. In a college course book on communications and technology the authors stated the scientific method they were using in the book and it is the same used by most science fair projects at the state level and beyond. The method is also used to award most grants especially NASA grants as it is written in their evaluation of proposal data quide lines so other methods used are not funded not meeting automatically the steps of the scientific method used for evaluating them. My college text for physical science explained their are many equally valid scientific methods for investigating the unknown as this is the main job of research and development scientists. The majority of scientists are very uncomfortable with unknowns preferring to remain in the known world. As a youth it was clear to me that Einstein was not using the common scientific method in his work. His results predicting time dilation have been proven to my satisfaction. I use many of his same methods to examine unknowns (questions) not answered as yet by the standard scientific method. Stepping out on this limb (my favorite position), I consider questions unanswered by science to be available answered by religion and questions not answered by religion to be in the domain of science to try and answer. Researching in the Dewey decimal system, I would read in the science section until I found an unanswered question, and then go to the religion section until I found their answer. In this manner, I used the natural system organization of the Dewey decimal system to provide me with a definite analysis of the subject, realizing both sections have common unanswered questions that are most interesting to me to try and solve. As most libraries by now use the Library of Congress system of organization, it is as if they shuffled all the books together and still have not reached the organization level of the Dewey decimal system so it is very difficult for me to do another definitive analysis work. Instead, I use the alternative scientific methods taught by Einstein to attack unknowns with some satisfaction as the answers are at least aesthetically pleasing to my eye and food for the soul, or at most correct. My enjoyment of physics is from deciding which scientific method to use to best attack an unanswered question. Arriving at a correct solution is bliss, Good luck hunting for answers as you get into philosophy hopefully to develop your own independent one. I have enjoyed very much your on target links provided. Keep them coming. > Come to think of it, I believe that the link to Wallace's book also came > from Philosophy News. I have not read Kuhn's book, btw. Nor have I read Kuhn's Book. I plan on doing more reading soon and will check out your recommendations. Can you reprovide the Philosophy News Link I must have missed? Please, excuse my reflective rambling, but I have the day off and am bored with nothing better to do but keep looking up ;-) Best regards Tom Jackson > > Enjoy, > > Curtis From VM Mon Aug 14 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1766" "Saturday" "12" "August" "2000" "23:57:21" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "46" "starship-design: Re: book review" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1766 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e7D3vlN12791 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e7D3vk212783 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id c.11.7d162d0 (7041); Sat, 12 Aug 2000 23:57:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11.7d162d0.26c776a1@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 112 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: book review Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 23:57:21 EDT In a message dated 8/12/00 11:53:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > Can you reprovide the Philosophy News Link I must > > have missed? > > http://www.philosophynews.com > Curtis, I found it at the beginning of my last post to you, If it had been a snake it would have bit me ;-). I read the link after it. >From that link the following sections look interesting so will review them Thanks a bunch, Tom --------------------------------- Kuhn's ideas anything but revolutionary What Thomas Kuhn had going for (or against) him was a dazzlingly simple schematic embedded in an inchoate epistemic stew. This made him easy to latch onto by almost anyone, regardless of philosophical or political predilections. Now along comes Steve Fuller to put Kuhn into a historic and philosophical context and to excoriate The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for its presumed baleful influence on the authority and practice of science. How culture molds habits of thought The strategies people adopted in processing information and making sense of the world around them were, Western scholars assumed, the same for everyone, exemplified by, among other things, a devotion to logical reasoning, a penchant for categorization and an urge to understand situations and events in linear terms of cause and effect. However, recent work by a social psychologist at the University of Michigan is turning this long-held view of mental functioning upside down. Philosophical chauvinism In failing to read their European contemporaries in the original languages, American philosophers are depriving themselves of important sources of thought, argues Richard Shusterman, a professor of philosophy at Temple University. Tom From VM Thu Sep 14 10:19:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1614" "Thursday" "14" "September" "2000" "06:05:40" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "40" "starship-design: stale mail" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1614 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8EH9SQ28001 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8EH9QF27975 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin53.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.53]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA14603; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:07:44 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <39C06AB4.41C74B6F@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Beanstalkr@aol.com" , "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: stale mail Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 06:05:40 +0000 Your mail to: "Michael K. Heney" with subject: Re: Virtual Beanstalk -- Numbers, numbers, who's got the numbers? sent on: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 21:42:13 -0600 is being returned to you. It sat unread in the mailbox beyond NetZero's 6 month limit. Undelivered Ideas > > Sorry for saying you were negative. I know you were just trying to > > put a practical spin on my $10 orbital goal and that you want cheap > > access to space as much as I do. Here are some round about numbers for my view on the lowest cost. http://www.rotaryrocket.com/tec/rotonv.html Rotory rocket. Mass fully loaded 180,000 kg Pay load 3,200 kg cost per playload $2,200 kg fuel/payload 56:1 http://solar.rtd.utk.edu/%7Emwade/props/loxosene.htm lox/Kerosene ratio 2.5 40 kg lox 16 kg fuel for each kq of payload. cost 1980 lox kg $ .08 fuel kg $ .20 assuming 3 x increase for 2010 then ( my guess ) lox .24 fuel .60 lox $9.60 fuel $9.60 rounding up $19.20 per kg of payload fuel costs. tricky part assume a running cost 30% of the fuel Mininum cost $ 25 per kg $12.5 per lbm RLV Current cost $2,200 per kg Mature cost ( guess ) $ 50 per kg $25.00 per lbm So here are my numbers. I can see why NASA and the military have never developed RLV's look how much you can rip off the tax payer. From VM Thu Sep 14 11:10:44 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6870" "Thursday" "14" "September" "2000" "19:48:33" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "137" "starship-design: The URANOS Club Newsletter No. 5" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6870 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8EHoW422536 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8EHoKF22382 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA00827 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:48:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200009141748.TAA00827@ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: The URANOS Club Newsletter No. 5 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:48:33 +0200 (MET DST) --------------------------------------------------------------- --> http://www.uranos.eu.org/ <-- * * **** *** * * *** **** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * **** ***** * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * *** * * * * * * *** **** CLUB * for * EXPANSION * of * CIVILIZATION * into * SPACE --------------------------------------------------------------- No. 5 URANOS CLUB NEWSLETTER 11.IX.2000 This is the new issue of our irregularly published electronic newsletter. To receive further issues of this newsletter, please send a letter stating so to the address: --------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to the URANOS site -------------------------- - The Mars section has been significantly changed and extended: -- the general information about Mars has been extended with more astrophysical, climatic and areographic data, and with information about the two Mars moons; -- a separate page, grouping links to other Mars sites, has been added and its collection of links significantly extended; -- separate pages about the problems and possibilities of building Martian permanent manned bases and future colonization of Mars have been added; -- information about Mars Society Polska (i.e., the Polish Chapter of The Mars Society) has been updated. - The biographical section has been also extended considerably: -- biographies of von Braun and Korolyov have been added (unfortunately, we were not yet able to provide their full English translations); -- a new component has been introduced, namely short biographical notes (without portraits, containing only the most important information) for persons whose larger biographies are either not yet ready, or are not planned to be included; at present we have provided such short notes for Esnault-Pelterie, Goddard, Oberth, Szternfeld, and Ulam; -- several small corrections and additions have been made in biographies of Banachiewicz, Bekker, Hevelius, Sagan, and Siemienowicz. - To the "What to do in Poland" page, an information about Shoemaker NEO grants has been added, and information about the "Red Rover Goes to Mars" competition has been updated; also, information about two new interesting space initiatives in Poland (see below) has been added. - The pages of Polish names in space, Polish organizations and institutions, as well as WWW link pages (both Polish and general) have been updated and extended. - As usual, we have introduced numerous small improvements of navigation aids, graphics, etc., and corrected various errors. Other information ----------------- - On the list a discussion started, several months ago, on further possibilities of action toward development of space exploration in Poland. As a result, two new initiatives originated - PolSEK (Polish Space Exploration Society, in organization) and an informal "Garage Rocketmen Club", see the URANOS website for details (the page "What to do in Poland" and the page of Polish organizations). Several persons connected with the URANOS Club take active part in those initiatives - a step worthy of praise, despite that it also resulted in a significant delay in launching the new edition of our site... - The Polish Astronautical Society, together with the journal "Astronautics" published by it, launched their websites on the URANOS webserver. We welcome them and wish them many successes! - The URANOS Internet server started also to host the new closed e-mail list of the Mars Society Polska governing board. - The discussion list now counts 54 subscribers. Special information - The URANOS Club is over two years old! ------------------------------------------------------------ - On August 18, 2000, exactly two years have passed since the official appearance of our site on the Web. In that time our site has been rebuilt and extended many times, gathering many new supporters and fans on our two e-mail lists and , and on the distribution list for the Club Newsletter. An excerpt from the usage statistics for the second year of activity shows among others: -- the total number of hits: over 210,000 (i.e., three times more than during the first year!); -- average numbers of hits: . per month: around 17,000 (peak values: 23,951 in March, 23,643 in February, and 22,202 in May, all in 2000), . per day: around 1,150 (peak values: 2,814 on Dec. 3, 1999, 2,492 on Feb. 10, 2000, and 1,304: on Sep. 1, 1999). -- the principal domains of the visitors: 50-70% from Poland; over ten percent "unknown" and the US (mostly .com, and some .edu), then .net, followed by the rest of the world (around one percent or less for a domain), from all continents, including some far away and exotic countries. An appeal to our sympathizers ----------------------------- Unfortunately, lately no new collaborators, actively working on the development and maintenance of our website, appeared on our working list. As a result, many of the long planned and important extensions to our site (see advance notices on the Contents page) experience continuous troubles with their realization, and some sections of the site (e.g., link collections) are not updated often enough. Hence our appeal: - We invite you warmly to join us and help us in the development of the site - details how to do it can be found on the "Activity" page. Active collaborators, who contribute to the development of the site, will be of course listed on our pages, or incorporated into the team of site editors, not counting their personal satisfaction coming from contributing to the realization of the Club goals. - All our visitors are encouraged to send us reports about any errors noticed on the site. We are especially interested in verification of all the links to other websites included in our pages: please send us wrong addresses and dead links, providing the exact indication of the page containing them, the wrong address, and its anchor (i.e., the text fragment to which the link is attached). If possible, provide also the correct address in case you knew it, or were able to find it. Your cooperation will help us in providing an up-to-date information on our site, useful for current and potential fans of our Club and other space enthusiasts. --------------------------------------------------------------- Please forward! From VM Thu Sep 14 13:08:34 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2275" "Thursday" "14" "September" "2000" "16:02:44" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: stale mail" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2275 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8EK3SV28464 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r16.mx.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8EK3QF28437 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id z.ad.88bf6f (15891); Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web51.aolmail.aol.com (web51.aolmail.aol.com [205.188.161.12]) by air-id08.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:02:45 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown Message-ID: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: Re: starship-design: stale mail Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:02:44 EDT Your mail to: "Michael K. Heney" > with subject: Re: Virtual Beanstalk -- Numbers, numbers, who's got the > numbers? > sent on: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 21:42:13 -0600 is being returned to you. > It sat unread in the mailbox beyond NetZero's 6 month limit. > > Undelivered Ideas > > > > Sorry for saying you were negative. I know you were just trying to > > > put a practical spin on my $10 orbital goal and that you want cheap > > > access to space as much as I do. > > Here are some round about numbers for my view on the lowest cost. > http://www.rotaryrocket.com/tec/rotonv.html Rotory rocket. > Mass fully loaded 180,000 kg > Pay load 3,200 kg > cost per playload $2,200 kg > fuel/payload 56:1 > > http://solar.rtd.utk.edu/%7Emwade/props/loxosene.htm > lox/Kerosene ratio 2.5 > 40 kg lox > 16 kg fuel for each kq of payload. > > cost 1980 lox kg $ .08 > fuel kg $ .20 > assuming 3 x increase for 2010 then ( my guess ) > lox .24 > fuel .60 > lox $9.60 > fuel $9.60 > rounding up $19.20 per kg of payload fuel costs. > tricky part assume a running cost 30% of the fuel > > Mininum cost $ 25 per kg $12.5 per lbm > RLV Current cost $2,200 per kg > Mature cost ( guess ) $ 50 per kg $25.00 per lbm > > So here are my numbers. I can see why NASA and the military have never > developed RLV's look how much you can rip off the tax payer. The big issue is the service costs. Shuttles fuel costs are only tens of dollars a LB, but the real costs are thousands per. The big thing needed is improving the servicability and amount of trafic. Oh as a nit, fuel and LOx costs have been droping, not rising, for years. No idea why this sat in a server for months. Kelly From VM Fri Sep 15 10:03:34 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["287" "Friday" "15" "September" "2000" "06:36:05" "-0700" "Skyler Hall" "jacetaran@yahoo.com" nil "11" "starship-design: Ion Propulsion" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil "starship-design: Ion Propulsion" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 287 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8FDaC707199 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web9407.mail.yahoo.com (web9407.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.129.23]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e8FDaBF07192 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20000915133606.21616.qmail@web9407.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [163.6.254.138] by web9407.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:36:05 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Skyler Hall From: Skyler Hall Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Ion Propulsion Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT) I heard NASA's first ion probe failed (Deep Space 1, I believe). Are they planning on making any more attempts? ===== -Skyler Hall Period 1 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From VM Fri Sep 15 10:03:35 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["859" "Friday" "15" "September" "2000" "10:53:00" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" "<003001c01f2d$ccbd20b0$0100a8c0@broadsword>" "29" "RE: starship-design: Ion Propulsion" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil "starship-design: Ion Propulsion" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 859 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8FFxsu24285 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8FFxpF24268 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p477.gnt.com [204.49.91.93]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA06432; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:59:47 -0500 Message-ID: <003001c01f2d$ccbd20b0$0100a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000915133606.21616.qmail@web9407.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Skyler Hall'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Ion Propulsion Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:53:00 -0500 No it didn't fail - it worked spectacularly well. The problem was with the star tracker that is used to determine the spacecraft's location and orientation. The star tracker died and they had to find another way to steer. The ion drive worked flawlessly. L. Parker > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > Skyler Hall > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 8:36 AM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: starship-design: Ion Propulsion > > > I heard NASA's first ion probe failed (Deep Space 1, I > believe). Are they planning on making any more attempts? > > ===== > -Skyler Hall > Period 1 > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! > http://mail.yahoo.com/ From VM Fri Sep 15 10:23:52 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1289" "Friday" "15" "September" "2000" "10:20:05" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "39" "RE: starship-design: Ion Propulsion" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1289 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8FHK8n06628 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8FHK6F06601 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8FHK5A26079 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8FHK6K24444; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:20:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14786.23109.557743.616192@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <003001c01f2d$ccbd20b0$0100a8c0@broadsword> References: <20000915133606.21616.qmail@web9407.mail.yahoo.com> <003001c01f2d$ccbd20b0$0100a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 6.76 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: Ion Propulsion Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:20:05 -0700 L. Clayton Parker writes: > No it didn't fail - it worked spectacularly well. The problem was with the > star tracker that is used to determine the spacecraft's location and > orientation. The star tracker died and they had to find another way to > steer. > > The ion drive worked flawlessly. > > L. Parker In fact, it's premature to be talking about Deep Space 1 in the past tense. Its primary mission has ended, but it's still out there on its way to an encounter with Comet Borrelly in September 2001. NASA's Deep Space 1 web site has status reports and other information on the spacecraft: http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/ > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > > Skyler Hall > > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 8:36 AM > > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > > Subject: starship-design: Ion Propulsion > > > > > > I heard NASA's first ion probe failed (Deep Space 1, I > > believe). Are they planning on making any more attempts? > > > > ===== > > -Skyler Hall > > Period 1 > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! > > http://mail.yahoo.com/ From VM Fri Sep 15 13:32:35 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1950" "Friday" "15" "September" "2000" "15:53:12" "EDT" "Kyle B" "piman90@hotmail.com" "" "35" "starship-design: Ideas for the future" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1950 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8FJrJG25068 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f274.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.149]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8FJrIF25029 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:53:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:53:12 -0700 Received: from 142.250.2.17 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:53:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [142.250.2.17] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2000 19:53:12.0755 (UTC) FILETIME=[949C3830:01C01F4E] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle B" From: "Kyle B" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Ideas for the future Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:53:12 EDT i was thinking, that in the future, spaceships are going to need: a) some sort of communication system, and b) a very powerful computer. I know that quantum technology hasn't reached to poingt where these devices could be feasable, but they are theoretiacally possible. 1. A superluminal communication system. An experiment was done a couple of years ago proving that two photons that had been entangled would change states simultaniously even if they were seperated. This has been shown to happen at exactly the same time, i.e. faster than light. imagine if one photon was placed aboard a spaceship and the other left on earth. it would be a simple matter to detect the polarization of these photons, unfortunately not without breaking the entanglement (yet). If the polarization could be changed fast enough, it could possibly be used to transmit digital signals in realtime- even between places light years apart. 2. A very powerful quantum computer. I know that quantum computers can be made more powerful than anyone can dream of, with a quadrillion atome, about 1 quadrillion operations per second or more can be carried out. Now, 1 quadrillion atoms is quite small, but if you want orders of magnitude mor computing power, you have to have as many atoms as well. This can only go on for so long, as space would surely be at a premium on spaceships. To get around this, you could use gravitational pull to compress the atoms into a sort of miniature black hole, but with all those atoms, more power could be derived from one computer. This could possibly go on indefinately. Well those are my ideas, and i hope someone could comment on the practicality of them. -Kyle _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From VM Fri Sep 15 14:21:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1100" "Friday" "15" "September" "2000" "13:38:12" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "17" "starship-design: Ideas for the future" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1100 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8FKcJu18051 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8FKcEF18020 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8FKcDA16349; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8FKcDK25357; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:38:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14786.34996.524118.177974@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.76 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kyle B" Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Ideas for the future Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:38:12 -0700 Kyle B writes: > 1. A superluminal communication system. An experiment was done a couple of > years ago proving that two photons that had been entangled would change > states simultaniously even if they were seperated. This has been shown to > happen at exactly the same time, i.e. faster than light. imagine if one > photon was placed aboard a spaceship and the other left on earth. it would > be a simple matter to detect the polarization of these photons, > unfortunately not without breaking the entanglement (yet). If the > polarization could be changed fast enough, it could possibly be used to > transmit digital signals in realtime- even between places light years apart. Quantum mechanics gives, and quantum mechanics also takes away. The same laws of quantum mechanics that allow for quantum entanglement also say that entanglement can't be used to communicate information. The entangled particles may change state "simultaneously" when one is observed, but you don't know what state they were in before that, so you can't communicate anything by observing one of them. From VM Fri Sep 15 14:46:21 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["285" "Thursday" "14" "September" "2000" "13:44:41" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "9" "starship-design: FTL is nice but..." "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 285 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8FLZP417692 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8FLZHF17468 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin44.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.44]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA26119 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:33:35 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <39C0D649.F41D2D25@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: FTL is nice but... Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:44:41 +0000 All kinds of FTL designs of the future are nice but lets solve the "How to get the #%$! in orbit" first. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Luna family of Octal Computers" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk From VM Fri Sep 15 15:26:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2425" "Friday" "15" "September" "2000" "17:13:56" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "59" "RE: starship-design: Ideas for the future" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2425 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8FMGLr11582 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8FMGJF11550 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p454.gnt.com [204.49.91.70]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA03290; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:16:15 -0500 Message-ID: <003901c01f62$63eb6080$0100a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kyle B'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Ideas for the future Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:13:56 -0500 Kyle your supposition that computers and communications will be increasingly important to spaceships (as well as to space travel in general) is well put. C3 (Command, Control and Communications) are the backbone of any enterprise (for the moment, I am neglecting Intelligence). However your next points are slightly flawed: > 1. A superluminal communication system. An experiment was > done a couple of > years ago proving that two photons that had been entangled > would change > states simultaniously even if they were seperated. This has > been shown to > happen at exactly the same time, i.e. faster than light. > imagine if one > photon was placed aboard a spaceship and the other left on > earth. it would > be a simple matter to detect the polarization of these photons, > unfortunately not without breaking the entanglement (yet). If the > polarization could be changed fast enough, it could possibly > be used to > transmit digital signals in realtime- even between places > light years apart. Although the entanglement was indeed successfully demonstrated, no one has been able to show a useful way of obtaining information from it. So far at least, it is worthless as a communications device. Who knows what the future may bring... > 2. A very powerful quantum computer. I know that quantum > computers can be > made more powerful than anyone can dream of, with a > quadrillion atome, about > 1 quadrillion operations per second or more can be carried > out. Now, 1 > quadrillion atoms is quite small, but if you want orders of > magnitude mor > computing power, you have to have as many atoms as well. This > can only go on > for so long, as space would surely be at a premium on > spaceships. To get > around this, you could use gravitational pull to compress the > atoms into a > sort of miniature black hole, but with all those atoms, more > power could be > derived from one computer. This could possibly go on indefinately. This one is less problematic. You might possibly be able to store information in a miniature black hole, but you can't retrieve it from one. For the foreseeable future, quantum computers are the limit of what we can see. The one thing you can say for certain about the future is that it will probably be different from what you imagined - unless your name is Verne, Clark or Asimov....I direct your attention to one of Asimov's short stories: "Let There Be Light". Lee Parker