From VM Thu Aug 23 10:27:44 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1216" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "05:01:46" "" "Ron Hubbard" "hubbard_ron@hotmail.com" nil "24" "starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1216 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7N51qc22535 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f228.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.228]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7N51pS22528 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:01:47 -0700 Received: from 192.216.199.184 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 05:01:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.216.199.184] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2001 05:01:47.0071 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5EF04F0:01C12B90] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ron Hubbard" From: "Ron Hubbard" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 05:01:46 I grew up reading E.E. 'Doc" Smith's Lensman novels and have always been fascinated by the concept of the inertialess space drive. I think that with the various new theories of inertia, such a space drive might be technically feasible within a couple of decades. If by some miracle of "voodoo technology" such a drive becomes a reality, would faster-than-light navigation be a problem? >From the little I care to understand about special relativity, as an object accelerates time slows down, mass increases (thus requiring more and more energy to push it), and the universe appears to shrink down ahead of it-- but since Einstein had decided nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there doesn't seem to be any speculation on what the view would be if all of the relativistic hindrances Einstein foresaw were removed. If a hypothetical inertialess spaceship was traveling at ten times the speed of light, would it see the universe rushing towards it or nothing at all? Or would FTL navigation be an immensely complicated proposition? Ron Hubbard _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From VM Thu Aug 23 10:27:44 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["272" "Wednesday" "22" "August" "2001" "22:25:48" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "6" "starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 272 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7N5QJf08004 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7N5QIS07998 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:26:18 -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 f7N5QGK23593 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7N5QDk02007; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:26:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15236.37852.34281.936123@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" 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: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:25:48 -0700 FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation". You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel, right? From VM Thu Aug 23 10:27:44 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11707" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "01:55:40" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "244" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 11707 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7N5uAw29598 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.97]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7N5u8S29569 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id i.6a.124efb36 (2524); Thu, 23 Aug 2001 01:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6a.124efb36.28b5f4dc@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6a.124efb36.28b5f4dc_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 43 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: hubbard_ron@hotmail.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 01:55:40 EDT --part1_6a.124efb36.28b5f4dc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/22/01 10:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hubbard_ron@hotmail.com writes: Subj:starship-design: FTL Navigation Date:8/22/01 10:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:hubbard_ron@hotmail.com To:starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu BCC:STAR1SHIP Sent from the Internet I grew up reading E.E. 'Doc" Smith's Lensman novels and have always been fascinated by the concept of the inertialess space drive. I think that with the various new theories of inertia, such a space drive might be technically feasible within a couple of decades. Ron, Liked Doc Savage novels myself/ Probably read at least some of the lensman set but cannot remember them. Pardon the copy to your private mail but starship lists sometimes have trouble reading my emails with AOL bue line notation for parseing your comments as they were set up to read like so: >> your comments mine >> yours again. I do not know the switch to toggle back to the old style for starship lists. Oh well.......... The majors of this list of probably do not agree with future FTL within decades or far future feasability, but I see it as feasable now with exiting technology I patented. If by some miracle of "voodoo technology" such a drive becomes a reality, would faster-than-light navigation be a problem? No all is normal in space and time near C, at C and above C aboard the craft. >From the little I care to understand about special relativity, as an object accelerates time slows down, mass increases (thus requiring more and more energy to push it), You are thinking of particle accelerators, rather than rockets. The infinite energy requirement falls when the energy is provided from the reference frame of the rocket rather than the rest frame of the particle accelerator. Example to accelerate 5 tons to twice light speed requires converting only of 1/2 ton of the 95 tons of propellant to energy giving the energy required to accelerate the 95 tons to 1/10 light speed whereas from conserving momentum laws propel the 5 ton payload to its C + V velocity of 2C as the mass times velocity of exhaust must equal the mass times velocity of payload with velocity measured in a point fixed in space twixt the exhaust mass and payload mass expressed normally as MrVr=MpMp from Newtons third law of action equals reactions law regarding momentum and also valid in Einstein's. Special relativity equations. and the universe appears to shrink down ahead of it-- Yes, Also. At c and above c rest objects behind vanish behind the ship, and objects ahead traveling faster than light become visible. These are effects only an observation effects caused by the limit of the speed of observer light and not a limit on rockets velocity. but since Einstein had decided nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there doesn't seem to be any speculation on what the view would be if all of the relativistic hindrances Einstein foresaw were removed. Einstein in 1955 claimed he never said objects could not travel faster than light cause he did not believe it was impossible. Newsgroup sci.physics.relativity FAQ states it was Henry Pointcare that said it and NOT Einstein. I agree with Einstein. hypothetical inertialess spaceship was traveling at ten times the speed of light, would it see the universe rushing towards it or nothing at all? Or would FTL navigation be an immensely complicated proposition? There are two cases of FTL allowed with Einstein's special relativity. Accelerate at one g with respect to (wrt) the ship for 355 days and one exceeds light speed wrt earth. Accelerate at 1g wrt the earth for 355 days and time dilates giving a sub c velocity wrt earth and a c + v velocity wrt the ship and one easily at that rate crosses the galaxy in 12 years ship time though many thousands of years pass on earth. In the former case the earth twin is much younger than time dilation permits in the later as at c and c + v time wrt to earth has stoped though all remains normal aboard the sship. Time does not run backwards at c and c + v as velocity =distance traveled/time and a vector with magnitude and direction so the negative sign is on the nominator as distance traveled and not the time denominator. Tom http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Page5.html Ron Hubbard _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp --part1_6a.124efb36.28b5f4dc_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/22/01 10:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hubbard_ron@hotmail.com writes:


Subj:starship-design: FTL Navigation
Date:8/22/01 10:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:hubbard_ron@hotmail.com
To:starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
BCC:STAR1SHIP
Sent from the Internet




I grew up reading E.E. 'Doc" Smith's Lensman novels and have always been
fascinated by the concept of the inertialess space drive. I think that with
the various new theories of inertia, such a space drive might be technically
feasible within a couple of decades.


Ron,
Liked Doc Savage novels myself/ Probably read at least some of the lensman
set but cannot remember them. Pardon the copy to your private mail but
starship lists sometimes have trouble reading my emails with AOL bue line
notation for parseing your comments as they were set up to read like so:

>> your comments

mine

>> yours again.

I do not know the switch to toggle back to the old style for starship lists.
Oh well..........


The majors of this list of probably do not agree with future FTL within
decades or far future feasability, but I see it as feasable now with exiting
technology I patented.
If by some miracle of "voodoo technology" such a drive becomes a reality,
would faster-than-light navigation be a problem?


No all is normal in space and time near C, at C and above C aboard the craft.

>From the little I care to understand about special relativity, as an object
accelerates time slows down, mass increases (thus requiring more and more
energy to push it),


You are thinking of particle accelerators, rather than rockets. The infinite
energy requirement falls when the energy is provided from the reference frame
of the rocket rather than the rest frame of the particle accelerator. Example
to accelerate 5 tons to twice light speed requires converting only of 1/2 ton
of the 95 tons of propellant to energy giving the energy required to
accelerate the 95 tons to 1/10 light speed whereas from conserving momentum
laws propel the 5 ton payload to its C + V velocity of 2C as the mass times
velocity of exhaust must equal the mass times velocity of payload with
velocity measured in a point fixed in space twixt the exhaust mass and
payload mass expressed normally as MrVr=MpMp from Newtons third law of action
equals reactions law regarding momentum and also valid in Einstein's. Special
relativity equations.

and the universe appears to shrink down ahead of it--

Yes, Also.
At c and above c rest objects behind vanish behind the ship, and objects
ahead traveling faster than light become visible. These are effects only an
observation effects caused by the limit of the speed of observer light and
not a limit on rockets velocity.  


but since Einstein had decided nothing can travel faster than the speed of
light, there doesn't seem to be any speculation on what the view would be if
all of the relativistic hindrances Einstein foresaw were removed.


Einstein in 1955 claimed he never said objects could not travel faster than
light cause he did not believe it was impossible. Newsgroup
sci.physics.relativity FAQ states it was Henry Pointcare that said it and NOT
Einstein. I agree with Einstein.  
 

hypothetical inertialess spaceship was traveling at ten times the speed of
light, would it see the universe rushing towards it or nothing at all? Or
would FTL navigation be an immensely complicated proposition?


There are two cases of FTL allowed with Einstein's special relativity.
Accelerate at one g with respect to (wrt) the ship for 355 days and one
exceeds light speed wrt earth.   Accelerate at 1g wrt the earth for 355 days
and time dilates giving a sub c velocity wrt earth and a c + v velocity wrt
the ship and one easily at that rate crosses the galaxy in 12 years ship time
though many thousands of years pass on earth. In the former case the earth
twin is much younger than time dilation permits in the later as at  c and c +
v time wrt to earth has stoped though all remains normal aboard the sship.
Time does not run backwards at c and c + v as velocity =distance
traveled/time and a vector with magnitude and direction so the negative sign
is on the nominator as distance traveled and not the time denominator.  

Tom
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Page5.html
Ron Hubbard


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



 --part1_6a.124efb36.28b5f4dc_boundary-- From VM Thu Aug 23 16:12:20 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["227" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "15:28:54" "-0700" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" "<20010823222854.81707.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com>" "10" "starship-design: virus alert" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 227 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7NMT3b18022 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web13604.mail.yahoo.com (web13604.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.115]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f7NMSsS17985 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20010823222854.81707.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.24.228.96] by web13604.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:28:54 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: customercare@bluelight.com, Anderson , Chris Blank , Bryan Briskey , Josef Christoffer , Gary Cox , John Dickinson , Brian Eastman , Thaddeus Edens , John Fox , Mike Hedgpath , Mark Hockenberry , Todd Huller , Amee Manges , Phil Meeks , "Michael O'Connell" , Bruce Reed , Ted Rodgers , Kevin Rothwell , starship-design , Jon Zumwinkle Subject: starship-design: virus alert Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:28:54 -0700 (PDT) ===== visit my website at: www.geocities.com/clmanges __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From VM Thu Aug 23 16:30:07 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["622" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "16:18:16" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "11" "starship-design: virus alert" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 622 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7NNIHd08549 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7NNIGj08543; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:18:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15237.36664.84029.171219@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <20010823222854.81707.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20010823222854.81707.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Curtis Manges Cc: starship-design Subject: starship-design: virus alert Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:18:16 -0700 This list is not for virus warnings or other off-topic postings. It is also inadvisable to copy so many other recipients along with the starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu address; anyone who tries to reply who is not a subscriber to this list will just generate a non-member posting bounce to me. Note that list postings must be 40,000 bytes or less, which prevents most viruses from making it onto the list (in particular, the Hybris, Magistr, and Sircam viruses that propagate via Microsoft Outlook all routinely exceed that size). I haven't even seen any moderator bounces from attempts to post viruses to this list. From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["868" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "21:08:28" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 868 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O2B7f06213 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O2B5S06199 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer.sunherald.infi.net (pool-63.52.6.234.mhub.grid.net [63.52.6.234]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA21882 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20010823210534.021e8cb0@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com> X-Sender: stk@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 In-Reply-To: <15236.37852.34281.936123@tzadkiel.efn.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:08:28 -0500 At 10:25 PM 8/22/01 -0700, you wrote: >FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore >it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation". This is a rather non answer. If indeed FTL velocities are possible, which we do not know if they are or not (equal chance) then it is NOT physically meaningless. It is physically meaningful. >You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says >we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel, >right? Who is we? You? I say we ask Kelly, Lee, Curtis, Ben, etc. And me. As far as I know this is a democracy. As for "we" not being interested in FTL speculation, speak for yourself. Maybe you're not but that does not prevent us from doing so. And hell, we're sture not talking about anything else. Now how about some real discussion on this subject? --Kyle From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9949" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "22:15:59" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "255" "Fwd: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 9949 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O2G8N07250 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O2G7S07244 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id z.45.b314e91 (2523) for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:16:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <45.b314e91.28b712df@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_45.b314e91.28b712df_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 43 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: Fwd: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:15:59 EDT --part1_45.b314e91.28b712df_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_45.b314e91.28b712df_alt_boundary" --part1_45.b314e91.28b712df_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/23/01 5:33:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, STAR1SHIP writes: Subj:Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date:8/23/01 5:33:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:STAR1SHIP To:stevev@efn.org In a message dated 8/22/01 10:26:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org writes: FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation". You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel, right? Steve, I did and that is correct that you are not interested in discussing FTL, but you cannot speak for all list members who have an interest in FTL such as Ron who I replied to private mail and offered myself as a believer to discuss it privately. Neither NASA Advanced propulsion concepts group nor Jet Propulsion Laboratory has any trouble discussing FTL nor do sci.physics or sci.physics.relativity newsgroups but there are always skeptics unable to prove a sub c limit that also stubbornly fail to establish any other credibility. FTL aside, I use this list for the valuable links to information on space flight craft requirements of sublight speed I apply to FTL engines and even have a site link to this alternative science list so do speculate that my readers can hear both sides to make informed decisions and also benefit from your "Lunar" website for sub c craft considerations as any manned flight to FTL would be at near 1 g acceleration for comfort and therefore have 355 days of flight time at sub c at the start and finish of the journey where your limitations are applicable so useful to me for a limited time. Thanks for your prompt response and alternative opinion. Tom http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm Other's neat stuff....... http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/Other_Groups/PAO/warp.htm http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html http://www.geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html --part1_45.b314e91.28b712df_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/23/01 5:33:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, STAR1SHIP
writes:

Subj:Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation
Date:8/23/01 5:33:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:STAR1SHIP
To:stevev@efn.org



In a message dated 8/22/01 10:26:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org
writes:


FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore
it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation".

You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says
we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel,
right?


Steve,
I did and that is correct that you are not interested in discussing FTL, but
you cannot speak for all list members who have an interest in FTL such as Ron
who I replied to private mail and offered myself as a believer to discuss it
privately. Neither NASA Advanced propulsion concepts group nor Jet Propulsion
Laboratory has any trouble discussing FTL nor do sci.physics or
sci.physics.relativity newsgroups but there are always skeptics unable to
prove a sub c limit that also stubbornly fail to establish any other
credibility.

FTL aside, I use this list for the valuable links to information on space
flight craft requirements of sublight speed I apply to FTL engines and even
have a site link to this alternative science list so do speculate that my
readers can hear both sides to make informed decisions and also benefit from
your "Lunar" website for sub c craft considerations as any manned flight to
FTL would be at near 1 g acceleration for comfort and therefore have 355 days
of flight time at sub c at the start and finish of the journey where your
limitations are applicable so useful to me for a limited time.

Thanks for your prompt response and alternative opinion.

Tom
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm

Other's neat stuff.......
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/Other_Groups/PAO/warp.htm
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html
http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html
http://www.geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html





 --part1_45.b314e91.28b712df_alt_boundary-- --part1_45.b314e91.28b712df_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Full-name: STAR1SHIP Message-ID: <39.1985c193.28b6fad9@aol.com> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:33:29 EDT Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation To: stevev@efn.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_45.b314e91.28b6fad9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 43 --part2_45.b314e91.28b6fad9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/22/01 10:26:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org writes: FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation". You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel, right? Steve, I did and that is correct that you are not interested in discussing FTL, but you cannot speak for all list members who have an interest in FTL such as Ron who I replied to private mail and offered myself as a believer to discuss it privately. Neither NASA Advanced propulsion concepts group nor Jet Propulsion Laboratory has any trouble discussing FTL nor do sci.physics or sci.physics.relativity newsgroups but there are always skeptics unable to prove a sub c limit that also stubbornly fail to establish any other credibility. FTL aside, I use this list for the valuable links to information on space flight craft requirements of sublight speed I apply to FTL engines and even have a site link to this alternative science list so do speculate that my readers can hear both sides to make informed decisions and also benefit from your "Lunar" website for sub c craft considerations as any manned flight to FTL would be at near 1 g acceleration for comfort and therefore have 355 days of flight time at sub c at the start and finish of the journey where your limitations are applicable so useful to me for a limited time. Thanks for your prompt response and alternative opinion. Tom http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm Other's neat stuff....... http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/Other_Groups/PAO/warp.htm http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html http://www.geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html --part2_45.b314e91.28b6fad9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/22/01 10:26:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org
writes:


FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore
it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation".

You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says
we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel,
right?


Steve,
I did and that is correct that you are not interested in discussing FTL, but
you cannot speak for all list members who have an interest in FTL such as Ron
who I replied to private mail and offered myself as a believer to discuss it
privately. Neither NASA Advanced propulsion concepts group nor Jet Propulsion
Laboratory has any trouble discussing FTL nor do sci.physics or
sci.physics.relativity newsgroups but there are always skeptics unable to
prove a sub c limit that also stubbornly fail to establish any other
credibility.

FTL aside, I use this list for the valuable links to information on space
flight craft requirements of sublight speed I apply to FTL engines and even
have a site link to this alternative science list so do speculate that my
readers can hear both sides to make informed decisions and also benefit from
your "Lunar" website for sub c craft considerations as any manned flight to
FTL would be at near 1 g acceleration for comfort and therefore have 355 days
of flight time at sub c at the start and finish of the journey where your
limitations are applicable so useful to me for a limited time.

Thanks for your prompt response and alternative opinion.

Tom
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm

Other's neat stuff.......
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/Other_Groups/PAO/warp.htm
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html
http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html
http://www.geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html



 --part2_45.b314e91.28b6fad9_boundary-- --part1_45.b314e91.28b712df_boundary-- From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2151" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "21:25:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "56" "RE: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2151 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O2QI010521 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O2QHS10506 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (host121-208-45-64.utelfla.com [64.45.208.121] (may be forged)) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA05852; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:26:14 -0500 Message-ID: <002201c12c44$17a80490$0201a8c0@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 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20010823210534.021e8cb0@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kyle R. Mcallister'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:25:50 -0500 Considering that it is through Steve's effort that the list is even here, I think a modicum of respect for his rules is appropriate. The answer/non-answer issue isn't even relevant. The charter of the group was to discuss ways to build a starship within fifty years. Although I will grant that there may yet be some unknown or undiscovered loop hole that permits FTL, AT THE MOMENT, there is not even a theoretically accepted POSSIBILITY of FTL travel, which puts it outside the range of discussion for this list. Which is what Steve said. Kyle is correct however, that it HAS been sort of dead around here lately. Tell you what, with apologies to Steve in advance, I will offer to discuss FTL travel OFF LIST with those who are interested. My email is lparker@cacaphony.net. BTW, I once wrote a physics paper on the possibility of inertialess drives. Which ARE NOT necessarily FTL and there is some physics to support the possibility. Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Kyle R. > Mcallister > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 9:08 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation > > > At 10:25 PM 8/22/01 -0700, you wrote: > >FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore > >it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation". > > This is a rather non answer. If indeed FTL velocities are > possible, which > we do not know if they are or not (equal chance) then it is > NOT physically > meaningless. It is physically meaningful. > > >You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says > >we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel, > >right? > > Who is we? You? I say we ask Kelly, Lee, Curtis, Ben, etc. > And me. As far > as I know this is a democracy. As for "we" not being > interested in FTL > speculation, speak for yourself. Maybe you're not but that > does not prevent > us from doing so. And hell, we're sture not talking about > anything else. > > Now how about some real discussion on this subject? > > --Kyle > From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["909" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "13:38:58" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 909 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O2ZbP13440 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O2ZaS13433 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:35:36 -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 UAA11692 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:35:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3B855BD2.BD635BCD@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010823210534.021e8cb0@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com> 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-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:38:58 -0600 "Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote: > Who is we? You? I say we ask Kelly, Lee, Curtis, Ben, etc. And me. As far > as I know this is a democracy. As for "we" not being interested in FTL > speculation, speak for yourself. Maybe you're not but that does not prevent > us from doing so. And hell, we're sture not talking about anything else. > > Now how about some real discussion on this subject? I don't believe FTL travel is possible. I suspect that physical components will fail around .75C. That is the about the speed of electrons travel in wire and people. How much faster than light speed are we talking here? Stars really don't move that fast. You just aim for that star and go. When you get near slow down! and hope you shields handled the messy stuff. Ben. -- Standard Disclaimer : 97% speculation 2% bad grammar 1% facts. "Pre-historic Cpu's" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk Now with schematics. From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["989" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "21:10:08" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 989 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O4AX309733 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O4AWS09721 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:10:32 -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 f7O4AUK18602 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:10:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7O4APT05298; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:10:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15237.54176.227228.475873@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3B855BD2.BD635BCD@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010823210534.021e8cb0@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com> <3B855BD2.BD635BCD@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" 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: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:10:08 -0700 Ben Franchuk writes: > "Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote: > > > Who is we? You? I say we ask Kelly, Lee, Curtis, Ben, etc. And me. As far > > as I know this is a democracy. As for "we" not being interested in FTL > > speculation, speak for yourself. Maybe you're not but that does not prevent > > us from doing so. And hell, we're sture not talking about anything else. > > > > Now how about some real discussion on this subject? > > I don't believe FTL travel is possible. I suspect that physical components will > fail around .75C. That is the about the speed of electrons travel in wire and > people. How do the electrons know they're in a wire travelling at 0.75 c? Particles (including electrons) that have been accelerated to within the tiniest fraction of c don't behave any differently at speed than they do at rest. Electronics (and people) on a relativistic spacecraft won't behave any differently than they do here on Earth, at whatever speed the spacecraft travels. From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1916" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "21:18:16" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "37" "RE: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1916 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O4IcF12237 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O4IbS12231 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:18:37 -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 f7O4IaK20027 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7O4IVe05317; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:18:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15237.54664.685656.490825@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <002201c12c44$17a80490$0201a8c0@broadsword> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010823210534.021e8cb0@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com> <002201c12c44$17a80490$0201a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:18:16 -0700 L. Parker writes: > Considering that it is through Steve's effort that the list is even here, I > think a modicum of respect for his rules is appropriate. > > The answer/non-answer issue isn't even relevant. The charter of the group > was to discuss ways to build a starship within fifty years. Although I will > grant that there may yet be some unknown or undiscovered loop hole that > permits FTL, AT THE MOMENT, there is not even a theoretically accepted > POSSIBILITY of FTL travel, which puts it outside the range of discussion for > this list. Which is what Steve said. Let me clarify that as a list member, I feel that discussing FTL travel is inappropriate to the extent that there is no accepted theory for how FTL travel can be achieved and in particular no accepted demonstration of FTL transmission of mass. As the list maintainer my position is neutral; I feel my role as list maintainer does not extend to dictating what may be discussed on the list in relation to interstellar travel. How do you tell which hat I'm wearing? I post from my stevev@efn.org account when participating in list discussions. I post from my stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu account for things relating to list management (such as discouraging off-topic postings such as virus warnings, as I did earlier today). > Kyle is correct however, that it HAS been sort of dead around here lately. > > Tell you what, with apologies to Steve in advance, I will offer to discuss > FTL travel OFF LIST with those who are interested. My email is > lparker@cacaphony.net. BTW, I once wrote a physics paper on the possibility > of inertialess drives. Which ARE NOT necessarily FTL and there is some > physics to support the possibility. As far as I'm concerned (temporarily speaking as the list maintainer) you can discuss FTL travel on the list. As a list participant I will tend to be very skeptical about it, though. From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1873" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "21:32:54" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1873 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O4XGp16324 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:33:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O4XFS16318 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:33:15 -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 f7O4XDK22343 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7O4X9J05354; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:33:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15237.55542.249168.138698@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20010823210534.021e8cb0@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010823210534.021e8cb0@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" 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: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:32:54 -0700 Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > At 10:25 PM 8/22/01 -0700, you wrote: > >FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore > >it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation". > Now how about some real discussion on this subject? A slightly less terse answer would be that most of the speculative but remotely plausible means of travelling faster-than-light (wormholes, Alcubierre "warp bubbles", etc.) seem to preclude much useful interaction with the universe while travelling at FTL velocities. So FTL navigation isn't done while you're travelling FTL; you pretty much have to aim where you intend to go and turn on the FTL drive for the period of time you expect to require. Or, in the case of wormholes, navigation is mainly a matter of aiming yourself into the wormhole so that you come out the other end instead of being destroyed. There's actually a rather entertaining science fiction novel called "The Cassini Division" by Ken MacLeod which, among other interesting speculations, includes an artificially-constructed wormhole. One end of the wormhole was anchored in orbit around Jupiter, and the other was carried on a relativistic spacecraft. The interesting feature of this wormhole is that you can travel to any location that the far end of the wormhole went by, at the time that end of the wormhole went by it; this was supposedly achieved by entering the wormhole at exactly the right angle and velocity. This isn't even physically problematic on the surface; by travelling into the wormhole you travel into the future (when entering the Jupiter end) along a nearly light-like worldline. MacLeod conveniently sidesteps the question of travelling back into the past in the story, but presumably travel into the wormhole from the far end would bring you out in the past at time that would not allow causality violations. From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["827" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "14:40:33" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 827 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O4Xp516413 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O4XnS16407 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin36.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.36]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA13605 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:33:48 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3B856A41.42F299BF@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010823210534.021e8cb0@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com> <3B855BD2.BD635BCD@jetnet.ab.ca> <15237.54176.227228.475873@tzadkiel.efn.org> 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-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:40:33 -0600 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Ben Franchuk writes: > How do the electrons know they're in a wire travelling at 0.75 c? > > Particles (including electrons) that have been accelerated to within the > tiniest fraction of c don't behave any differently at speed than they do > at rest. Electronics (and people) on a relativistic spacecraft won't > behave any differently than they do here on Earth, at whatever speed the > spacecraft travels. I have yet to hear of bulk matter being accelerated to high speeds? The other problem is acceleration. 1 G is 10 meters/second. light speed is 3x10^9? meters/second. That is 3x10^8 seconds to get to light speed. That is 9 1/2 years. -- Standard Disclaimer : 97% speculation 2% bad grammar 1% facts. "Pre-historic Cpu's" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk Now with schematics. From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1444" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "22:24:27" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1444 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O5PEn00566 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O5P8S00538 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:25:08 -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 f7O5P7K00157 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7O5P2S05556; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:25:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15237.58635.443772.633087@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3B856A41.42F299BF@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010823210534.021e8cb0@pop.infi-net.mindspring.com> <3B855BD2.BD635BCD@jetnet.ab.ca> <15237.54176.227228.475873@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B856A41.42F299BF@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" 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: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:24:27 -0700 Ben Franchuk writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > Ben Franchuk writes: > > How do the electrons know they're in a wire travelling at 0.75 c? > > > > Particles (including electrons) that have been accelerated to within the > > tiniest fraction of c don't behave any differently at speed than they do > > at rest. Electronics (and people) on a relativistic spacecraft won't > > behave any differently than they do here on Earth, at whatever speed the > > spacecraft travels. > > I have yet to hear of bulk matter being accelerated to high speeds? So? Matter's made of the same particles they routinely whiz around in particle accelerators. And a number of astrophysical phenomena do involve substantial amounts of matter travelling at high fractions of c, which behave as expected. If the laws of physics were to change with velocity as you think they do, then it would be possible to determine what speed an object is travelling at without reference to any external objects. > The other problem is acceleration. 1 G is 10 meters/second. light speed is > 3x10^9? meters/second. That is 3x10^8 seconds to get to light speed. > That is 9 1/2 years. No, 1 ga is 9.8 m/s^2, while c is 2.99792458 m/s. One year of acceleration at 1 ga (both measured in the frame of the object being accelerated) brings the object up to 77% of c as measured by a non-accelerating object that was at rest when the acceleration started. From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["13659" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "01:33:39" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "340" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 13659 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7O5XtV02435 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7O5XmS02426 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id z.131.6388aa (3951); Fri, 24 Aug 2001 01:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <131.6388aa.28b74133@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_131.6388aa.28b74133_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 43 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 01:33:39 EDT --part1_131.6388aa.28b74133_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/23/01 9:34:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,=20 bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: Steve VanDevender wrote: >=20 > Ben Franchuk writes: > How do the electrons know they're in a wire travelling at 0.75 c? >=20 > Particles (including electrons) that have been accelerated to within the > tiniest fraction of c don't behave any differently at speed than they do > at rest. Electronics (and people) on a relativistic spacecraft won't > behave any differently than they do here on Earth, at whatever speed the > spacecraft travels. I have yet to hear of bulk matter being accelerated to high speeds? The other problem is acceleration. 1 G is 10 meters/second. light speed is 3x10^9? meters/second. That is 3x10^8 seconds to get to light speed. That is 9 1/2 years.=20 Correct math please. Using a as 1 g =3D 9.8 meters /sec^2 and light at 2,998= =20 times 10^8 m/s c=3Dat=20 t=3Dc/a t=3D (2.998E8 m/sec)/(9.8 m/sec^2) inverting parentesised denominator and=20 multiplying gives t=3D2.998E8 s^2 / 9.8 s by simultaneously canceling the m in nominator and=20 denominator t=3D2.998E8 sec/9.8 by canceling the s in nominator and denominator t=3D3.059E7 sec one year in sec =3D 365.25 days x 24 hours x 60minutes x 60 seconds or =20 31557600 seconds therefore 3.059E7/3.156E7 =3D .969 years .969 years times 365.25 days =3D 353.93 days given some small rounding erro= rs=20 as the best measurements of 1 g and c give slightly more than 355 days. This calculation is valid for any mass falling in a free fall in hypothetica= l=20 unbounded uniform gravitaional field of 1 g or an actual object accelerating= =20 at one g. Argueing if c or c + v for acclerating rockets is possible is counter=20 productive when C + V relativisic calculations and effects are to be derived= =20 and the work to be discussed. It would be most productive if those that do=20 not belive FTL possible join in a different discussion thread and leave this= =20 thread open to FTL belivers so effects for navigation and practical c + v=20 star travel can be calculated. For instance: There a formula that I don't have to derive myself to find time dilation for= =20 an accelerating object. It is t'=3Dd/v with v determined by a * t keeping in mind the frame of=20 reference for the a value is wrt to the ship and not a stationary earth=20 observer for theacceleration rate relative to the earth observer is always=20 less.IE acceleration observable and measureble measeured from earth always=20 gives subc final velocities and accleraton measured and observed from the=20 moving objectcan give real above c velecities.You can use the applet and=20 equations provided below instead of deriving themyourself by knowing the=20 applet and formula consider a rockets constantaccceleration for 1/2 distance= =20 then deceleration at a constant g the remaining distance to determine the=20 ship time and from that you can derive the velocitywrt the ship. Note the=20 velocity varies with the reference frame. Quote-----------The Relativistic Rocket=20 http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.htmlApplet implemente= d=20 by Paul O'Brian for the Programming Languages class. This applet lets you=20 plan how long a trip will take on a rocket that travelsnear the speed of=20 light. You type the distance of the trip (measured in lightyears) and the=20 acceleration of the rocket (measured as a multiple of Earth'sgravity). The=20 rocket will accelerate at that rate for half of the trip, thendecelerate at=20 the same rate for the second half of the trip. The time for the trip is=20 measured in two ways: (1) As seen by a person whostays behind on Earth, and=20 (2) as measured by you on the ship. For yourconvenience, space-sickness pill= s=20 are available aft of the observation lounge. The equations for the=20 computations came from the Desy Web Site. Here is what Iused: Calculate d as= =20 the distance of half the trip in meters. (Note: There are about9.47e15 meter= s=20 per light year). Calculate a as the acceleration in meters/sec=B2. (Note: Th= e=20 conversion is 9.81times the acceleration measured in gravities.) Set c equal= =20 to the speed of light in meters/sec (which is 3.00e8). The total time on=20 earth, measured in seconds is: 2 * sqrt( (d*d)/(c*c) + 2*d/a ) The total tim= e=20 for the voyager, measured in seconds is: 2 * (c/a) * asinh(a *0.5 *=20 time_earth / c) (Note: asinh is the inverse hyperbolic sin function, compute= d=20 in Java with theformula Math.log(x+Math.sqrt(x*x+1)). The Relativistic Rocke= t=20 Applet / Text by Michael Main, Applet code by PaulO'Brian / obrian at=20 colorado.edu / Revised April 1999Return to my home page ----------end quote Sample trip inputting 4.25 light years distance given to nearest star at 1=20 gacceleration half way then deceleration at 1 g 1/2 way arriving at rest=20 nearstar. Trip length: 4.25 light years.Acceleration: 1.0 g. Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years. Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years. Bon Voyage! Average Velocity(V)=3D distance traveled/time traveled.Relativistic subscrip= t:=3D=20 rel.Lorentz velocity: Vrel.=3Ddistance traveled/proper time; Vrel.=3DD/T Ein= stein=20 Velocity: Vreal=3Ddistance traveled/ship time; Vreal=3DD/TrelNote: Ship time= is=20 not considered improper time aboard ship.Vrel.=3D4.25 light years / 5.878=20 years=3D .723 CVreal=3D4.25 light years / 3.544 years=3D1.20 C Since a unive= rsal=20 law of physics requires it be true that nowhere in the universe is a case=20 found in violation of the law, the law is held to be, by virtue, a self=20 evident truth.Therefore in the above case is found a single C + V velocity=20 and no Universallaw forbidding C + V velocities or math proof of any limit t= o=20 C velocity of objects of mass, can exist. I rest my case by summarizing: Any= =20 claim other wise is held to be without virtue and clearly false and those=20 making the claim areseen from this rest observer viewpoint without virtue,=20 truth or other redeemingqualities.Skeptics may now state their case beginnin= g=20 with:Relativity FAQ=20 http://www.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/FTL.html#7 Tom --part1_131.6388aa.28b74133_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/23/0= 1 9:34:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,=20
bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:



Steve VanDevender wrote:
>
> Ben Franchuk writes:
> How do the electrons know they're in a wire travelling at 0.75 c?
>
> Particles (including electrons) that have been accelerated to within th= e
> tiniest fraction of c don't behave any differently at speed than they d= o
> at rest.  Electronics (and people) on a relativistic spacecraft wo= n't
> behave any differently than they do here on Earth, at whatever speed th= e
> spacecraft travels.

I have yet to hear of bulk matter being accelerated to high speeds?
The other problem is acceleration. 1 G is 10 meters/second. light speed is 3x10^9? meters/second. That is 3x10^8 seconds to get to light speed.
That is 9 1/2 years.




Correct math please. Using a as 1 g =3D 9.8 meters /sec^2 and light at 2,998= =20
times 10^8 m/s
c=3Dat
t=3Dc/a
t=3D (2.998E8 m/sec)/(9.8 m/sec^2) inverting parentesised denominator and=20
multiplying gives
t=3D2.998E8 s^2 / 9.8 s  by simultaneously canceling the m in nominator= and=20
denominator
t=3D2.998E8 sec/9.8    by canceling the s  in nominator=20= and denominator
t=3D3.059E7 sec
one year in sec =3D 365.25 days x 24 hours x 60minutes x 60 seconds  or=  
31557600 seconds
therefore 3.059E7/3.156E7 =3D .969 years
.969 years times 365.25 days =3D  353.93 days given some small rounding= errors=20
as the best measurements of 1 g and c give slightly more than 355 days.<= BR>
This calculation is valid for any mass falling in a free fall in hypothetica= l=20
unbounded uniform gravitaional field of 1 g or an actual object accelera= ting=20
at one g.

Argueing if c or c + v for acclerating rockets is possible is counter=20
productive when C + V relativisic calculations and effects are to be der= ived=20
and the work to be discussed. It would be most productive if those that=20= do=20
not belive FTL possible join in a different discussion thread and leave=20= this=20
thread open to FTL  belivers so effects for navigation and practica= l c + v=20
star travel can be calculated.

For instance:
There a formula that I don't have to derive myself to find time=20= dilation for=20
an accelerating object.

It is t'=3Dd/v with v determined by a * t keeping in mind the fr= ame of=20
reference for the a value is wrt to the ship and not a stationary earth=20
observer for theacceleration rate relative to the earth observer is alwa= ys=20
less.IE acceleration observable and measureble measeured from earth alwa= ys=20
gives subc final velocities and accleraton measured and observed from th= e=20
moving objectcan give real above c velecities.You can use the applet and= =20
equations provided below instead of deriving themyourself by knowing the= =20
applet and formula consider a rockets constantaccceleration for 1/2 dist= ance=20
then deceleration at a constant g the remaining distance to determine th= e=20
ship time and from that you can derive the velocitywrt the ship. Note th= e=20
velocity varies with the reference frame.

Quote-----------The Relativistic Rocket
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.htmlApplet im= plemented=20
by Paul O'Brian for the Programming Languages class. This applet lets yo= u=20
plan how long a trip will take on a rocket that travelsnear the speed of= =20
light. You type the distance of the trip (measured in lightyears) and th= e=20
acceleration of the rocket (measured as a multiple of Earth'sgravity). T= he=20
rocket will accelerate at that rate for half of the trip, thendecelerate= at=20
the same rate for the second half of the trip. The time for the trip is=20
measured in two ways: (1) As seen by a person whostays behind on Earth,=20= and=20
(2) as measured by you on the ship. For yourconvenience, space-sickness=20= pills=20
are available aft of the observation lounge. The equations for the=20
computations came from the Desy Web Site. Here is what Iused: Calculate=20= d as=20
the distance of half the trip in meters. (Note: There are about9.47e15 m= eters=20
per light year). Calculate a as the acceleration in meters/sec=B2. (Note= : The=20
conversion is 9.81times the acceleration measured in gravities.) Set c e= qual=20
to the speed of light in meters/sec (which is 3.00e8). The total time on= =20
earth, measured in seconds is: 2 * sqrt( (d*d)/(c*c) + 2*d/a ) The total= time=20
for the voyager, measured in seconds is: 2 * (c/a) * asinh(a *0.5 *=20
time_earth / c) (Note: asinh is the inverse hyperbolic sin function, com= puted=20
in Java with theformula Math.log(x+Math.sqrt(x*x+1)). The Relativistic R= ocket=20
Applet / Text by Michael Main, Applet code by PaulO'Brian / obrian at=20
colorado.edu / Revised April 1999Return to my home page ----------end qu= ote

Sample trip inputting 4.25 light years distance given to nearest star at 1=20
gacceleration half way then deceleration at 1 g 1/2 way arriving at rest= =20
nearstar.

Trip length: 4.25 light years.Acceleration: 1.0 g.
Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years.
Bon Voyage!

Average Velocity(V)=3D distance traveled/time traveled.Relativistic subscrip= t:=3D=20
rel.Lorentz velocity: Vrel.=3Ddistance traveled/proper time; Vrel.=3DD/T= Einstein=20
Velocity: Vreal=3Ddistance traveled/ship time; Vreal=3DD/TrelNote: Ship=20= time is=20
not considered improper time aboard ship.Vrel.=3D4.25 light years / 5.87= 8=20
years=3D .723 CVreal=3D4.25 light years / 3.544 years=3D1.20 C Since a u= niversal=20
law of physics requires it be true that nowhere in the universe is a cas= e=20
found in violation of the law, the law is held to be, by virtue, a self=20
evident truth.Therefore in the above case is found a single C + V veloci= ty=20
and no Universallaw forbidding C + V velocities or math proof of any lim= it to=20
C velocity of objects of mass, can exist. I rest my case by summarizing:= Any=20
claim other wise is held to be without virtue and clearly false and thos= e=20
making the claim areseen from this rest observer viewpoint without virtu= e,=20
truth or other redeemingqualities.Skeptics may now state their case begi= nning=20
with:Relativity FAQ
http://www.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/FTL.html#7

Tom




 --part1_131.6388aa.28b74133_boundary-- From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1676" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "15:49:03" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1676 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7ODrRv00047 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7ODrBS29966 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 06:53:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA01860 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:49:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200108241349.PAA01860@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: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:49:03 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Aug 24 04:11:09 2001 > From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" > > At 10:25 PM 8/22/01 -0700, you wrote: > >FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore > >it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation". > > This is a rather non answer. If indeed FTL velocities are possible, which > we do not know if they are or not (equal chance) then it is NOT physically > meaningless. It is physically meaningful. > According to the current state of physics theory, it isn't. As yet no convincing alternative theory making it meaningfull is available. When it appears, and is experimentally confirmed, then we can return to the subject. > >You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says > >we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel, > >right? > > Who is we? You? I say we ask Kelly, Lee, Curtis, Ben, etc. And me. As far > as I know this is a democracy. As for "we" not being interested in FTL > speculation, speak for yourself. Maybe you're not but that does not prevent > us from doing so. And hell, we're sture not talking about anything else. > I, for one, am not particularly interested. Partly because any mention of this subject here starts an avalanche of gibberish from some , who is not even able to edit his posts so that they are moderately readable... > Now how about some real discussion on this subject? > The problem is, there is not much to discuss, as yet. Ungrounded wild speculation is not particularly interesting, especially in this list which has quite clearly delimited scope. -- Zenon From VM Fri Aug 24 10:20:42 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["457" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "15:01:26" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "14" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 457 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7OErbe17209 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 07:53:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7OEraS17193 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 07:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin40.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.40]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA04497 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:53:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3B856F25.B4AF11E9@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <131.6388aa.28b74133@aol.com> 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-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:01:26 -0600 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Encoding: quoted-printable 1) I hate posts that you can read. 2) While I did goof on the math, the whole point was to show that with out si-fi's intertial dampers you spend a long time getting to near light speed. Ben. -- Standard Disclaimer : 97% speculation 2% bad grammar 1% facts. "Pre-historic Cpu's" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk Now with schematics. From VM Fri Aug 24 10:35:02 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6746" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "13:31:37" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "158" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6746 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7OHWLB18090 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7OHWJS18081 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id z.66.135e4c16 (2523); Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <66.135e4c16.28b7e979@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 43 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id f7OHWKS18085 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:31:37 EDT n a message dated 8/24/01 7:54:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: >> >> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) >> Encoding: quoted-printable I did not write the above nor know how it got there. What I wrote in response to you is included below under the dotted line. >1) I hate posts that you can read. I hate all posts I cannot read myself and some I can read :-) >2) While I did goof on the math, the whole point was to show that with >out >si-fi's >intertial dampers you spend a long time getting to near light speed. Ben. Ben, At 1 g acceleration it takes only 355 days to reach light speed. Conventional constructed chemical rockets have the power to maintain that rate of acceleration for maybe 15 minutes at best. 355 days/15 minutes 355 times 24 hours times 60 minutes=511200 minutes therefore: 511200 minutes/15 minutes gives a power ratio of 34,080 to one required to reach light speed. Energy available per equal units of mass gives ratios of Atomic power VS Chemical power of 1,000,000 to one. This ratio has been measured in bombs and reactors so are expected in atomic rockets of good design. Therefore: 1,000,000/34,080 = 29.3 so atomic rockets have the potential to propel mass to 29.3 C. ---------------------------------------------------------- Noting your previous math error, I wrote To calculate the time to accelerate at 1g to reach light speed. I use "a" as 1 g = 9.8 meters /sec^2 and light at 2,998 times 10^8 m/s in the formula: c=at therefore t=c/a and replacing parameters with given values t= (2.998E8 m/sec)/(9.8 m/sec^2) inverting parenthesized denominator and multiplying gives t=2.998E8 s^2 / 9.8 s by simultaneously canceling the m in nominator and denominator t=2.998E8 sec / 9.8 by canceling the s in the nominator and denominator t=3.059E7 sec to reach c at 1 g. One year in sec = 365.25 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds or 31557600 seconds: therefore; 3.059E7/3.156E7 = .969 years .969 years times 365.25 days = 353.93 days given some small rounding errors as the best measurements of 1 g and c give slightly more than 355 days to reach c velocity. This calculation is valid for any mass falling in a free fall in hypothetical unbounded uniform gravitational field of 1 g or an actual object accelerating at one g. Arguing if c or c + v for accelerating rockets is possible is counter productive when C + V relativistic calculations and effects are to be derived and the work to be discussed. It would be most productive if those that do not believe FTL possible join in a different discussion thread and leave this thread open to FTL believers so effects for navigation and practical c + v star travel can be calculated. For instance: There a formula that I don't have to derive myself to find time dilation for an accelerating object. It is t'=d/v with v determined by a * t keeping in mind the frame of reference for the a value is wrt to the ship and not a stationary earth observer for the acceleration rate relative to the earth observer is always less. I.E. acceleration observable and measurable measured from earth always gives sub c final velocities and acceleration measured and observed from the moving object can give real above c velocities. You can use the applet and equations provided below instead of deriving them yourself by knowing the applet and formula considering a rockets constant acceleration for 1/2 distance then deceleration at a constant 1 g the remaining distance to determine the ship time and from that you can derive the velocity wrt the ship. Note the velocity varies with the reference frame. QUOTE-----------The Relativistic Rocket http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html Applet implemented by Paul O'Brian for the Programming Languages class. This applet lets you plan how long a trip will take on a rocket that travels near the speed of light. You type the distance of the trip (measured in light-years) and the acceleration of the rocket (measured as a multiple of Earth's gravity). The rocket will accelerate at that rate for half of the trip, then decelerate at the same rate for the second half of the trip. The time for the trip is measured in two ways: (1) As seen by a person who stays behind on Earth, and (2) as measured by you on the ship. For your convenience, space-sickness pills are available aft of the observation lounge. The equations for the computations came from the Desy Web Site. Here is what I used: Calculate d as the distance of half the trip in meters. (Note: There are about 9.47e15 meters per light year). Calculate a as the acceleration in meters/sec². (Note: The conversion is 9.81 times the acceleration measured in gravities.) Set c equal to the speed of light in meters/sec (which is 3.00e8). The total time on earth, measured in seconds is: 2 * sqrt( (d*d)/(c*c) + 2*d/a ) The total time for the voyager, measured in seconds is: 2 * (c/a) * asinh(a *0.5 * time_earth / c) (Note: asinh is the inverse hyperbolic sin function, computed in Java with the formula Math.log(x+Math.sqrt(x*x+1)). The Relativistic Rocket Applet / Text by Michael Main, Applet code by PaulO'Brian / obrian at colorado.edu / Revised April 1999 ----------END QUOTE A sample trip inputting 4.25 light years distance given to nearest star at 1 g acceleration half way then deceleration at 1 g 1/2 way arriving at rest near star. Trip length: 4.25 light years.Acceleration: 1.0 g. Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years. Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years. Bon Voyage! Average Velocity(V)= distance traveled/time traveled. Relativistic subscript:= rel. Lorentz velocity: Vrel.=distance traveled/proper time; Vrel.=D/T Einstein Velocity: Vreal=distance traveled/ship time; Vreal=D/Trel Note: Ship time is not considered improper time aboard ship. Vrel.=4.25 light years / 5.878 years = .723 C Vreal=4.25 light years / 3.544 years=1.20 C Since a universal law of physics requires it be true that nowhere in the universe is a case found in violation of the law, the law is held to be, by virtue, a self evident truth. Therefore in the above case is found a single C + V velocity and no Universal law forbidding C + V velocities or math proof of any limit to C velocity of objects of mass, can exist. I rest my case by summarizing: Any claim other wise is held to be without virtue and clearly false and those making the claim are seen from this rest observer viewpoint as without virtue, truth or other redeeming qualities.Skeptics may now state their case beginning with: Relativity FAQ http://www.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/FTL.html#7 Tom From VM Fri Aug 24 11:06:40 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4682" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "20:00:46" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "107" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4682 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7OI4uq01578 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7OI4sS01569 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id UAA02102 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:00:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200108241800.UAA02102@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: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:00:46 +0200 (MET DST) > From STAR1SHIP@aol.com Fri Aug 24 18:56:43 2001 > > In a message dated 8/24/01 6:54:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >I, for one, am not particularly interested > > (in FTL discusion?). > Exactly. > > Partly because any > >mention of this subject here starts an avalanche of gibberish from > >some , who is not even able to edit his posts > >so that they are moderately readable... > [...] > Trip length: 4.25 light years.Acceleration: 1.0 g. > Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years. > Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years. > Bon Voyage! > > Average Velocity(V)= distance traveled/time traveled. > Relativistic subscript:= rel. > Lorentz velocity: Vrel.=distance traveled/proper time; > Vrel.=D/T > Einstein Velocity: Vreal=distance traveled/ship time; > Vreal=D/Trel > Note: Ship time is not considered improper time aboard ship. > Vrel.=4.25 light years / 5.878 years = .723 C > Vreal=4.25 light years / 3.544 years = 1.20 C > > Since a universal law of physics requires it be true that nowhere in the > universe is a case found in violation of the law, the law is held to be, > by virtue, a self evident truth. > > Therefore in the above case is found a single C + V velocity > and no Universal law forbidding C + V velocities or math proof > of any limit to C velocity of objects of mass, can exist. > > I rest my case by summarizing: Any claim other wise is held to be without > virtue and clearly false and those making the claim are seen from this > rest observer viewpoint as without virtue, truth or other redeeming > qualities. > I have written on that already, long ago, let me quote: > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:43:43 +0100 (MET) > From: Zenon Kulpa [...] > It seems there is some misunderstanding. > Tom receives "FTL" by dividing the distance in the Earth reference frame > by the time in the starship reference frame. For relativistic speeds, > due to time dilation, one indeed obtains from this division > a "velocity" larger than c. However, this is not a velocity > in physical sense - for which one should measure time and distance > in _the same_ reference frame. > Your "Vreal" is not a _speed_, since "D" and "Trel" are measured in different reference frames. The fact that such a formula gives the "speed" greater than c was, and is, well-know to anybody having even a cursory knowledge of relativistics. It was also since long ago explained in most popular literature on the subject, showing that because of that time dilation in the fast traveling starship, if only it contained enough fuel allowing it to travel in constant acceleration, say 1g, it would be possible to reach the farthest galaxies within the lifetime of those aboard - though, of course, on Earth would then pass billions of years. So boasting around about discovering that miraculous fact, and presenting it as an argument against that stupid physiscist that claim FTL is impossible, is silly and annoying, hence the disgust I expressed. May be a simple thought experiment will show that your trick of juggling reference frames does not produce _real_ FTL. Consider that there is some mirror in Alpha Centauri system. You start from Earth in your relativistic ship accelerating with that 1g, and at the same time a laser impulse is send to your destination yonder. The light goes on with c, is refelected in the mirror and returns back to Earth. It arrives after exactly 8.5 years, right? Your ships ploddes on, stops at Alpha, immediately returns back and arrives on Earth as well. Of course, according to your (quite correct) calculation its "Vreal" will be 1.20 c approx. So, the ship should arrive back on earth earlier than the laser impulse, since it traveled, as FTL acronym means - "Faster Than Light", right? Nohow. Actually it will be much late, arriving 3.26 years _after_ the light impulse. So, did it _really_ traveled faster than light?? Nice feat - to claim that who arrived later, actually went faster... Of course, the crew will be 4.67 year younger (physically and subjectively) than if they stayed back on Earth, but this is not FTL, only relativistic time dilation. Note: Of course, the argument works as well without returning back. The light impulse arrives at Alpha after 4.25 years, while the ship, going along identical route and allegedly traveling faster than that light, arrives there 1.63 years _after_ the light impulse. I used the return trip example to ease somewhat the problem of shifting refence frames... And that is about all that I would like to say about the subject. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Aug 24 14:34:59 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["260" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "15:48:34" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "7" "RE: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 260 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7OKn7Q07944 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7OKn5S07938 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (host121-208-45-64.utelfla.com [64.45.208.121] (may be forged)) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA17093; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:48:59 -0500 Message-ID: <003701c12cde$24dfc090$0201a8c0@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 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <66.135e4c16.28b7e979@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:48:34 -0500 I haven't worked this acceleration to light speed problem since I was sixteen...and I'm not going to say how long ago that was. Nevertheless, I think even Starfish made a mistake. Look carefully at your seconds units and your canceling and try again.... Lee From VM Fri Aug 24 17:01:39 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1503" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "16:53:04" "-0700" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "39" "starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1503 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7ONr5r24750 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web13602.mail.yahoo.com (web13602.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.113]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f7ONr5S24745 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20010824235304.87400.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.24.228.90] by web13602.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:53:04 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: starship-design: FTL Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Hello, all, FTL discussion is fine with me; it provides a little vibration to shake some of the rust off my brain, so to speak, as well as providing at least _some_ discussion material for this otherwise oft-dormant list. I can't offer much to the discussion myself, d/t above-mentioned rust, plus the fact I focus more on philosophy than science these days. However, I've found that good philosophers _can_ teach you something. Pertinent example: our universe is not symmetrical, as shown in our search for anti-matter. Since the topic of time travel appeared again, I wish to add that this assymmetry is the basis for my own belief that time-travel is impossible, at least to the extent that anti-matter is impossible. Now, to my understanding, time travel is not the same thing as motion-induced time dilation, which still confuses me, but I have to admit that time dilation is easy enough to shake out of a box of equations. As you may recall, my own favorite candidate for FTL is gravity control. I seem to recall an Albert someone writing that gravitational mass is indistinguishable from inertial mass, which makes me wonder if gravity control would also give you inertia control as a free bonus. I'd love to see the group's thoughts on this. Keep looking up, Curtis ===== visit my website at: www.geocities.com/clmanges __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From VM Fri Aug 24 17:17:44 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1348" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "17:15:21" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "26" "starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1348 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7P0FbH02984 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7P0FaS02978 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:15:36 -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 f7P0FZK29365 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7P0FSI08429; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:15:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15238.60953.145584.432690@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <20010824235304.87400.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20010824235304.87400.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: starship-design: FTL Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:15:21 -0700 Curtis Manges writes: > Since the topic of time travel appeared again, I wish to add that > this assymmetry is the basis for my own belief that time-travel is > impossible, at least to the extent that anti-matter is impossible. Antimatter isn't impossible, and antiparticles are routinely created and manipulated, both naturally and artificially. The universe shows a very high preponderance of matter over antimatter now; it appears that certain critical but small asymmetries in particle physics originally resulted in slightly more matter than antimatter being created during the Big Bang, and after the antimatter annihilated its equal amount of matter, the matter currently in the Universe is what we have left. > However, I've found that good philosophers _can_ teach you > something. Pertinent example: our universe is not symmetrical, as > shown in our search for anti-matter. If this is what your "good" philosophers are teaching you, you need to find better philosophers. >From what I've seen most philosophers are more interested in the question "what can we think about?", not "which of the things we think about can be verified to be true and in factual correspondence with the outside world?" Consequently many philosophers are not particularly good at thinking about science, let alone making useful contributions to it. From VM Fri Aug 24 17:32:38 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["969" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "16:50:30" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 969 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7P0Np205820 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7P0NoS05811 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin36.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.36]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA16131 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:23:48 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3B8588B6.475194AA@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20010824235304.87400.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> <15238.60953.145584.432690@tzadkiel.efn.org> 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-design Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:50:30 -0600 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Curtis Manges writes: > > Since the topic of time travel appeared again, I wish to add that > > this assymmetry is the basis for my own belief that time-travel is > > impossible, at least to the extent that anti-matter is impossible. > > Antimatter isn't impossible, and antiparticles are routinely created and > manipulated, both naturally and artificially. The universe shows a very > high preponderance of matter over antimatter now; it appears that > certain critical but small asymmetries in particle physics originally > resulted in slightly more matter than antimatter being created during > the Big Bang, and after the antimatter annihilated its equal amount of > matter, the matter currently in the Universe is what we have left. But what happened to all that energy then? -- Standard Disclaimer : 97% speculation 2% bad grammar 1% facts. "Pre-historic Cpu's" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk Now with schematics. From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1193" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "17:38:35" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1193 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7P0dA510081 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:39:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7P0d9S10074 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:39:09 -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 f7P0d8K03296 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7P0d2e08516; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:39:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15238.62347.786557.726602@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3B8588B6.475194AA@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <20010824235304.87400.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> <15238.60953.145584.432690@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B8588B6.475194AA@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" 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: FTL Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:38:35 -0700 Ben Franchuk writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > Curtis Manges writes: > > > Since the topic of time travel appeared again, I wish to add that > > > this assymmetry is the basis for my own belief that time-travel is > > > impossible, at least to the extent that anti-matter is impossible. > > > > Antimatter isn't impossible, and antiparticles are routinely created and > > manipulated, both naturally and artificially. The universe shows a very > > high preponderance of matter over antimatter now; it appears that > > certain critical but small asymmetries in particle physics originally > > resulted in slightly more matter than antimatter being created during > > the Big Bang, and after the antimatter annihilated its equal amount of > > matter, the matter currently in the Universe is what we have left. > > But what happened to all that energy then? What do you think produced the cosmic microwave background? Remember the words of Douglas Adams: "Space is big. Really big. You may think it's a long way to the corner chemist's, but that's nothing compared to space." And there isn't that much mass in the universe, compared to the amount of space. From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["863" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "17:15:45" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "24" "Re: starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 863 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7P0n6g12943 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7P0n4S12936 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin36.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.36]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA16591 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:49:03 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3B858EA1.8B274596@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20010824235304.87400.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> <15238.60953.145584.432690@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B8588B6.475194AA@jetnet.ab.ca> <15238.62347.786557.726602@tzadkiel.efn.org> 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-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:15:45 -0600 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Ben Franchuk writes: > What do you think produced the cosmic microwave background? But look 99%+ of all matter was distroyed. We should still be roasting in all that energy. I thought the cosmic micrwave radation was from other stuff. > Remember the words of Douglas Adams: "Space is big. Really big. You > may think it's a long way to the corner chemist's, but that's nothing > compared to space." > > And there isn't that much mass in the universe, compared to the amount > of space. If we can have FTL travel discused what about all of Douglas Adams great ideas for speedy travel. My favorite was the craft powered by "Bad News" as we all know how fast that travels.:-) -- Standard Disclaimer : 97% speculation 2% bad grammar 1% facts. "Pre-historic Cpu's" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk Now with schematics. From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["570" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "18:28:59" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 570 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7P1T9Z23421 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7P1T8S23414 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:29:08 -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 f7P1T7K10394 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7P1T0N08644; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:29:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15238.65371.707668.454592@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3B858EA1.8B274596@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <20010824235304.87400.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> <15238.60953.145584.432690@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B8588B6.475194AA@jetnet.ab.ca> <15238.62347.786557.726602@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B858EA1.8B274596@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" 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: FTL Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:28:59 -0700 Ben Franchuk writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Ben Franchuk writes: > > > What do you think produced the cosmic microwave background? > > But look 99%+ of all matter was distroyed. We should still be roasting in all > that energy. I thought the cosmic micrwave radation was from other stuff. Let's go back to that "space is really big" concept. It's really, really, mind-bogglingly big. So big that even the energy from the annihilation of that much matter and antimatter, spread over that much volume, results in an average temperature of about 3 K. From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["620" "Thursday" "23" "August" "2001" "18:33:15" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 620 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7P26Za03114 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7P26YS03097 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin36.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.36]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA18304 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:06:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3B85A0CB.DC2586BA@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20010824235304.87400.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> <15238.60953.145584.432690@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B8588B6.475194AA@jetnet.ab.ca> <15238.62347.786557.726602@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B858EA1.8B274596@jetnet.ab.ca> <15238.65371.707668.454592@tzadkiel.efn.org> 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-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:33:15 -0600 Steve VanDevender wrote: > Let's go back to that "space is really big" concept. It's really, > really, mind-bogglingly big. So big that even the energy from the > annihilation of that much matter and antimatter, spread over that much > volume, results in an average temperature of about 3 K. Well when I read first about that there was no anti-matter stuff in the big bang. I guess both the size of space and the energy released where bigger than first thought.Ben. -- Standard Disclaimer : 97% speculation 2% bad grammar 1% facts. "Pre-historic Cpu's" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk Now with schematics. From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["786" "Friday" "24" "August" "2001" "19:32:12" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 786 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7P2WfW09201 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7P2WfS09195 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:32:41 -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 f7P2WdK18978 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7P2WRw08911; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:32:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15239.3629.260170.107356@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3B85A0CB.DC2586BA@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <20010824235304.87400.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> <15238.60953.145584.432690@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B8588B6.475194AA@jetnet.ab.ca> <15238.62347.786557.726602@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B858EA1.8B274596@jetnet.ab.ca> <15238.65371.707668.454592@tzadkiel.efn.org> <3B85A0CB.DC2586BA@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" 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: FTL Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:32:12 -0700 Ben Franchuk writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Let's go back to that "space is really big" concept. It's really, > > really, mind-bogglingly big. So big that even the energy from the > > annihilation of that much matter and antimatter, spread over that much > > volume, results in an average temperature of about 3 K. > > Well when I read first about that there was no anti-matter stuff in the big > bang. > I guess both the size of space and the energy released where bigger than first > thought.Ben. You also have to remember that not only did that tremendous amount of energy get spread over a really tremendous amount of space, but also that all those photons are extremely red-shifted due to the very rapid expansion of space during that phase of the Big Bang. From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3277" "Saturday" "25" "August" "2001" "14:56:17" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "78" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL Navigation" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3277 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7PIuS011272 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7PIuRS11266 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id z.8a.b984600 (4413) for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8a.b984600.28b94ed1@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 107 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: FTL Navigation Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:56:17 EDT In a message dated 8/25/01 10:08:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, STAR1SHIP writes: > In a message dated 8/24/01 1:50:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lparker@ > cacaphony.net writes: > > << I haven't worked this acceleration to light speed problem since I was > sixteen...and I'm not going to say how long ago that was. > > Sorry about the delay in response Lee, had to downgrade my aol mailreader from 7.0 to 5.0 to get it to work with this mailing list so my messages get through readable. > > I did the acceleration to light speed at 1 g in 1966 in high school physics and it was verified independently later by another published in Scientific American. When I patented my rocket engine in 1988, it never occurred to me I would have to go back and relearn special relativity to respond to the barrage of critism form those unable to calculate it's max velocity from the engine parameters. Instead of skeptics focusing on the engine, the focus is on relativity which is boring to me as I am more interested in discussing the engine for practical star travel as even were a light speed limit applicable to my rocket and it's max velocity be sublight speed near C it will do for star travel today and allow one to journey to the stars within the lifetimes of the astronaughts and myself. > > > Nevertheless, I think even Starfish made a mistake. Look carefully at your > seconds units and your canceling and try again.... > > StarShip often makes mistakes in math so do check my math with a preferred MathCAD program but at times do it manually- Like so: > ------------------------ > The original math. > > c=at therefore > t=c/a and replacing parameters with given values > t= (2.998E8 m/sec)/(9.8 m/sec^2) inverting parenthesized denominator and multiplying gives > t=2.998E8 s^2 / 9.8 s by simultaneously canceling the m in nominator and denominator > t=2.998E8 sec / 9.8 by canceling the s in the nominator and denominator > t=3.059E7 sec to reach c at 1 g. > > One year in sec = 365.25 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds or 31557600 seconds: therefore; > 3.059E7/3.156E7 = .969 years > .969 years times 365.25 days = 353.93 days given some small rounding errors as the best measurements of 1 g and c give slightly more than 355 days to reach c velocity. > > checking my calculation math by solving for a original variable given the calculated variable. > > c=at > t=3.059E7 sec to reach c at 1 g. > a=9.8 m/sec^2 > c= 3.059E7 sec x 9.8 m/sec^2 > c= (2.9782E8 x m x sec)/(sec x sec) seconds cancel in denominator and noninator cancel leaving a second in denominator > c= 2.9782E8 m/sec approximately = the beginning 2.998E8 m/sec > The apprximation is due to rounding errors introduced giving accuracy to two signifigant digits as accleration was to two signifigant digits. > > The math checks okay the original equation stands as is. > To see a second math check done by computer with MathCAD visit. > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexC.htm > > Tom > > Lee > >> > > Sorry about the delay in response Lee, had to downgrade my aol mailreader > from 7.0 to 5.0 to get it to work with this mailing list so my messages get > through readable. > > From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2606" "Saturday" "25" "August" "2001" "18:56:42" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "57" "Re: starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2606 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7PMvQA11712 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 15:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m01.mx.aol.com (imo-m01.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7PMvPS11705 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 15:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id z.ba.18b8907e (4413); Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:56:42 -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 107 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:56:42 EDT In a message dated 8/24/01 5:49:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > Ben Franchuk writes: > > > What do you think produced the cosmic microwave background? > > But look 99%+ of all matter was distroyed. We should still be roasting in > all > that energy. I thought the cosmic micrwave radation was from other stuff. Some theorists were looking for the cause of the background radiation showing as static on TV's tuned to no channel and also found in background radiation of radio telescopes but had no luck in finding the cause as it was still their even when the pigion droppings were cleaned from the telescopes waveguides. The big bang theorist were limping along on unsupported theory for so long the decided to use the undiscovered cause of background radiation to support the theory with a crutch by claiming it was created in the big bang and physical evidence of the big bang theories correctness. Einstein thought the doppler shift used by the Lawyer Hubble to calculate the universe expansion rate leading to the big bang theory of Physisct was instead caused by the much smaller red shift of star light from the gravitaional fields of the stars. As the distant star light traveled through multitudes of gravitaional fields then the red shift accumulated to being larger than the doppler shift. The math was horrendous to calculate the expected measured accumulation of multidudes of individual red shifts so was not done until recently by computer power as data was collected from Pioneer, Under the guidence of Physiscist Dr Shipiro, a director of the Smithstonian Institute (Museum) whos name was given as the "Shiprio effect" from his research into Einstein's gravitaional red shift equations. Big bang theory is dead in the water as is a sub c limit on rockets theory. Supporting Links to follow as soon as I recall how to spell Shipeio :-) Tom > > > Remember the words of Douglas Adams: "Space is big. Really big. You > > may think it's a long way to the corner chemist's, but that's nothing > > compared to space." > > > > And there isn't that much mass in the universe, compared to the amount > > of space. > > If we can have FTL travel discused what about all of Douglas Adams great > ideas for speedy travel. My favorite was the craft powered by "Bad News" > as we all know how fast that travels.:-) > -- > Standard Disclaimer : 97% speculation 2% bad grammar 1% facts. > "Pre-historic Cpu's" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk > Now with schematics. > From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9892" "Sunday" "26" "August" "2001" "05:22:31" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "242" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL Navigation" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 9892 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7Q9Mp102721 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7Q9MjS02710 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id 5.6d.1945ff40 (3967); Sun, 26 Aug 2001 05:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6d.1945ff40.28ba19d7@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 107 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: toxicroach@swbell.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 05:22:31 EDT In a message dated 8/25/01 9:19:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, toxicroach@swbell.net writes: > Sweet god. You people actually know what you're talking about. ToxicRoach, One of us knows what he is talking about at least :-) > > Ok, here's a question--- how much energy would an antimatter (hydrogen > atoms) collision yield per mole of anti and reg matter? How much AM would > an AM-powered ship (60000 tons and/or applicable measurement) need to go > from Earth to Mars (at the most effiecent time) in, say, 3 months? Well when anti matter meets matter all mass is converted to energy. So I have done the atomic matter converted to energy calculations so will adapt them easily to antimatter requirements and then multiply them by two for antimatter considerations. To simplify the complex rocket equation formulas by removing the energy requirements for land launches and landings, I will consider only a lunar orbit launch to Mars orbit launch as the radiation prohibits an earth launch and Mars landing for environmental concerns and the same for a return trip considering an end payload mass of 60,000 tons, accelerating at 1 g 1/2 way to Mars and then turn around 180 degrees and decelerate at one g to Mars orbit and the same for the return trip which makes the round trip journey take less than three months and provides the comfortable 1 g artificial gravity field for the travelers. I will time the lunar launch and Mars launch times to arrive a Mars and back to Lunar orbit at their minimum distance apart. As the distance is away from the sun to Mars and towards the sun's gravity field on the return trip the energy required cancels so is not considered though a normal 50% fuel surplus for safety reasons missing the launch windows or the unlikely event an emergency earth or Mars landing is needed so will be provided for dramatic effects useful in Sci-Fiction dramatic plots. Distance from Earth Note (10 to the 6th power is expressed as 10^6 or E6) Minimum (10^6 km) 54.5 = 54.5E6 kilometers Maximum (10^6 km) 401.3 = 401.3E6 kilometers Total distance round trip = 2 time 54.5E6 km = 109E6 km converting 109E6km to light years so I can use the Java applet calculator to figure trip time found at: http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html I divide 109E6 by the distance light travels in a year which is equal to 2.998E8 m/sec times the numer of seconds in a year from below (3.1557600E7 sec) therefore; 109E6 km / (2.998E8 x m / sec) x 3.1557600E7 sec 109E6 km / 9.461E15 meters as the seconds cancel out 109E6 km / 9.461E12 km to cancel the km's from the nominator and denominator 109E6/9.461E12 gives the distance in light years (ly) 109/9.461E6 ly by canceling E6 from the nominator and denominator then dividing 11.521E-6 ly equal to .000011521 ly round trip. To adjust for the java applet calculator I need the one way distance so divide by tow and enter Trip length: 5.7605E-6 light years. Acceleration: 1.0 g. and the applet returns one way time of Time on earth: 0.004726034935456117 years multiplied by 365.25 days to get 1.72618426017534673425 days Time on ship: 0.004726030251834143 years. 1.72618254948242073075 days so the relativistic time dilation effects are insignifigant but not zero. 1.72618254948242073075 times 2 for round trip time is equal to: 3.45 days rounded off. Bon Voyage! I am ready to calculate your energy requirements to make the specified journey in the given time arriving at end of trip with 60,000 ton payload. This is much easier to do but is a chain calculation with some handy shortcuts and approximations to save me from using the calculus for integration. As you figure the energy required to raise 60,000 tons of payload by propelling 1/4 of the 6,000,000 tons of propellant to send the payload max velocity at 1/2 distance to Mars under 1 g acceleration and then multiply it by four and then calculate the amount of propellant mass to be converted to energy and then divide by two calculate each mass of matter and antimatter to convert to energy. To determine first the max velocity for 1 forth the trip required I use V=AT for energy required. Energykenetic(Ek) = Mass(M) times velocity(v) / 2 >From Newtons third law of equal action and reaction I use conservation of momentum general rocket equation MrVr = MpVp with subscripts r for rocket and p for propellant to determine how much propellant I need to accelerate to what velocity to get the payload to the required velocity for each trip phase instead of the special rocket equations requiring integration as the exhaust velocity is measured from a point fixed in space twixt the exhaust port and exhaust and not the same as the exhaust velocity measured relative to the rocket needed in the special rocket equations from Newtons second law of f=ma as it is not needed to get the answers to your questions. v=1g time 3.25 days/4 v= (9.8 m/sec^2) times 3.25 times 24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds/4 to get: v=(9.8 m times 280800 sec ) / 4 times second times second v= (9.8 times 280800 /4) m/sec v=687960 m/sec v=687.960 km/sec Beginning with a 6,060,000 ton craft with common 1/100 ratio of payload to propellant I do an approximate simple integration and say that approx 1/2 of the mass is ejected in the first 1/4 distance traveled 1/4 the mass the second 1/4 distance 1/8 the third forth of the distance and 1/16 the final distance knowing that 1/2 plus 1/4 plus 1/8 +1/16 does not equal to one but it is well within the 50% saftey margin of the extra fuel carried. For the first quarter distance from, MrVr=MpVp Vp=MrVr/Mr 3,060,000 tons times 687.960 km/sec= 3,000,000 times Vp Vp=(3,060,000 tons times 687.960 km/sec)/ 3,000,000 tons Vp=701719.2 km/sec average propellant velocity Ek=MV/2 Ek=(3000000 tons times 701719.2 km/sec ) / 2 Ek=1500000 tons times 701719.2 km/sec Ek= 1052578800000 km tons/sec Ek= 1.0525788E12 km tons/sec Conveting matter to energy from Einstein's E=MC^2 M=E/C^2 M= (1.0525788E12 km tons/sec) / (2.998E5 km / sec)^2 M= (1.0525788E12 km tons/sec) / 8.988004E10 km / sec M= 1.0525788E12 tons/ 8.988004E10 M= 0.117109293676326801812727275154751E2 M=11.711 tons of the 300000 tons converted to energy or M= 5.855 tons of antimatter mixed with 5.855 tons of matter. For the second phase Vp=(1,530,000 tons times 687.960 km/sec)/ 1,500,000 tons Vp=701719.2 km/sec average propellant velocity Ek=MV/2 Ek=(1500000 tons times 701719.2 km/sec ) / 2 Ek=750000 tons times 701719.2 km/sec Ek= 526289400000 km tons/sec Ek= 5.26289400000E11 km tons/sec Conveting matter to energy from Einstein's E=MC^2 M=E/C^2 M= (5.262894E11 km tons/sec) / (2.998E5 km / sec)^2 M= (5.262894E11 km tons/sec) / 8.988004E10 km / sec M= 5.262894E11E11 tons/ 8.988004E10 M= 0.585546468381634009063636375773754 E1 M= 5.855 tons of the 150000 tons of propellant converted to energy or M= 2.927 tons of antimatter mixed with 2.927 tons of matter. Since I noticed that this was 1/2 the first stage energy requirement value then I can say For the third distance or the first accleration of the trip home requires 2.927/2 or 1.464 tons of matter of the 750,000 tons of propellant converted to energy. For the final deceleration returning to lunar orbit .732 tons of the remaining 375,000 tons of propellant are converted to energy. Mtotal=M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 Mtotal= 5.855 + 2.927 + 1.464 + .732 Recalling that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +1/16 does not equal to 1 then 5.855 times 2 = 11.77 tons of matter converted to the energy required to go to Mars at 1 g and back in 3.45 days without breaking into my 50% reserve fuel carried. 5.885 tons of anti matter would needed to be carried. But for practical reasons, and since the ship began with 6,060,000 tons I would carry 100 tons of convertable fuel in case I decided to make a side trip to say Pluto. I will let you do do that math :-) Use E = MC^2 or 11.77 tons times C^2 to calculate the energy used for the Mars trip- I recommend you calculate horsepower with miles per second instead of metric units. Tom To see animated atomic engine to do the above see link: http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Page1.html To see the patent pending on the above rocket engine see: http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm > > The original math. > > > > c=at therefore > > t=c/a and replacing parameters with given values > > t= (2.998E8 m/sec)/(9.8 m/sec^2) inverting parenthesized denominator and > multiplying gives > > t=2.998E8 s^2 / 9.8 s by simultaneously canceling the m in nominator and > denominator > > t=2.998E8 sec / 9.8 by canceling the s in the nominator and > denominator > > t=3.059E7 sec to reach c at 1 g. > > > > One year in sec = 365.25 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds or > 31557600 seconds: therefore; > > 3.059E7/3.156E7 = .969 years > > .969 years times 365.25 days = 353.93 days given some small rounding > errors as the best measurements of 1 g and c give slightly more than 355 > days > to reach c velocity. > > > > checking my calculation math by solving for a original variable given the > calculated variable. > > > > c=at > > t=3.059E7 sec to reach c at 1 g. > > a=9.8 m/sec^2 > > c= 3.059E7 sec x 9.8 m/sec^2 > > c= (2.9782E8 x m x sec)/(sec x sec) seconds cancel in denominator and > noninator cancel leaving a second in denominator > > c= 2.9782E8 m/sec approximately = the beginning 2.998E8 m/sec > > The apprximation is due to rounding errors introduced giving accuracy to > two signifigant digits as accleration was to two signifigant digits. > > > > The math checks okay the original equation stands as is. > > To see a second math check done by computer with MathCAD visit. > > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexC.htm From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["581" "Sunday" "26" "August" "2001" "11:05:25" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL Navigation" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 581 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7QGxE117854 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7QGxDS17848 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin48.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.48]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA14490; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:59:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3B892C55.45E7324B@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6d.1945ff40.28ba19d7@aol.com> 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: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:05:25 -0600 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > 5.885 tons of anti matter would needed to be carried. But for practical > reasons, and since the ship began with 6,060,000 tons I would carry 100 tons > of convertable fuel in case I decided to make a side trip to say Pluto. I > will let you do do that math :-) At $1.75 quadrillion an ounce for antimatter that is a good chunk of change! Ben. http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm -- Standard Disclaimer : 97% speculation 2% bad grammar 1% facts. "Pre-historic Cpu's" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk Now with schematics. From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["251" "Sunday" "26" "August" "2001" "12:03:15" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "7" "starship-design: Anti-matter production." "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: Anti-matter production." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 251 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7QHuwI02869 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7QHuuS02863 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin48.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.48]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15212 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:56:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3B8939E3.5CE343F7@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 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: Anti-matter production. Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:03:15 -0600 I say the best place to produce antimatter is from solar energy plants in orbit around the sun. Ben. -- Standard Disclaimer : 97% speculation 2% bad grammar 1% facts. "Pre-historic Cpu's" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk Now with schematics. From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1541" "Sunday" "26" "August" "2001" "11:07:18" "-0700" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "45" "Fwd: Re: starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "Fwd: Re: starship-design: FTL" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1541 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7QI7Je05759 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web13604.mail.yahoo.com (web13604.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.115]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f7QI7IS05753 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20010826180718.54793.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.24.228.88] by web13604.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:07:18 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Fwd: Re: starship-design: FTL Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:07:18 -0700 (PDT) --- Steve VanDevender wrote: > From: Steve VanDevender > Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:43:33 -0700 > To: Curtis Manges > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL > > Curtis Manges writes: > > Getting back to the issue, though, how many anti-particles have > you > > personally met in your lifetime? Probably the same number I > have. We > > have to _work_ to make or find them. So, another way of stating > my > > beliefs on time travel would be to say that I feel it about as > likely > > to experience time travel as it would be to find a random > > anti-particle on the street. > > Your analogy is still terrible. It's quite possible to make > antiparticles and it's well-accepted that they exist. Anyone who's > looked seriously at the problem of time travel doubts that it's > possible > at all, and no examples of it occurring have been observed. That's > a > very large difference, much more of a difference than your flabby > analogy tries to make. Sorry about the lousy analogy, Steve (too much philosophy, I guess ;), and thanks for clarifying that. Now, I'm still wondering what you folks think of the gravity drive idea, and/or any connection between gravity and inertia in such a context. Could you indeed buy one and get the other free? Curtis ===== visit my website at: www.geocities.com/clmanges __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["919" "Sunday" "26" "August" "2001" "15:31:56" "-0700" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "31" "Fwd: RE: Re: starship-design: FTL" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "Fwd: RE: Re: starship-design: FTL" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 919 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7QMVvR12764 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web13603.mail.yahoo.com (web13603.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.114]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f7QMVuS12759 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20010826223156.48946.qmail@web13603.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.24.228.104] by web13603.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:31:56 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Fwd: RE: Re: starship-design: FTL Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:31:56 -0700 (PDT) --- "L. Parker" wrote: > From: "L. Parker" > To: "'Curtis Manges'" > Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: FTL > Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:14:48 -0500 > > I probably missed something here, but to chime in in the middle... > > As far as observing time travel, whether or not it is possible, the > likelihood of observing it is practically nil. The most probable > outcome > would be to create a "branch" or another universe if you will, and > the > result of the time travel would never even appear in ours. > > Lee > In other words, it _might_ be possible, but it can't happen here (at least not that we'd notice) ;) Curtis ===== visit my website at: www.geocities.com/clmanges __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From VM Mon Aug 27 08:18:01 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["13356" "Sunday" "26" "August" "2001" "18:49:57" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "334" "Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil "starship-design: FTL Navigation" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 13356 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7QMo8T17974 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7QMo7S17958 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id 5.138.ac2602 (4239); Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <138.ac2602.28bad715@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 107 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: toxicroach@swbell.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:49:57 EDT In a message dated 8/26/01 12:14:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, toxicroach@swbell.net writes: > Subj: RE: starship-design: FTL Navigation > Date: 8/26/01 12:14:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time > From: toxicroach@swbell.net (Toxic Roach) > To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com > > Thanks very much. I actually followed that. That will be very very > useful. > I'll be printing a hardcopy. That must have been a pile of work. Thanks > VERY much. A pile of work and with one significant error. I used for kinetic energy the equation: Ek=MV/2 arriving at the 11.77 tons of mass needed to convert to the energy required. I failed to show my units cancellation so did not catch my error until after posting at this step M= (5.262894E11 km tons/sec) / 8.988004E10 km / sec This equation should of been; Ek=(MV^2) /2 giving the total mass converted to be: 11.77^2 tons = 138.5 tons of propellant required converted to energy or 69.3 tons of antimatter mixed with the propellant and require me to carry 50% more for a safety margin. I carried 100 tons for side trips, I could of made the journey successfully back to earth by turning of the engine near mid one way trip and coasting part way each direction. The only problem would be explaining to the pretty copilot navigator's mother that I ran out of fuel causing horse around in zero g and to be late a couple of days late bringing her home and hope "Mom" understands (as Scotty would say) I am a rocket scientist and not a Genius who does "enjoy my work" and hope she buys the out of gas excuse and I will promise to carry 1000 tons reserve fuel my next trip. Curious about the horsepower generated by the engine, I will Use E = MC^2 or 138.5 tons times C^2 to calculate the energy used for the Mars trip- I recommend you calculate horsepower with miles per second instead of metric units. Checking Encarta Ency. for horse power (hp) definition One horsepower was originally defined as the amount of power required to lift 33,000 pounds 1 foot in 1 minute, or 550 foot-pounds per second. I need to convert 138.5 tons times (186,000 miles/sec)^2 to units of feet, pounds, and seconds to get E in horse power. 138.5 tons times 2000 lbs/ton = 277000 lbs (186,000 mile/sec) times 5280 = 982080000 feet/sec therefore: E=MC^2 E=277000 lbs times 982080000^2 feet/sec E=267161272012800000000000 foot-pounds per sec E=2.671612720128 E23 hp E=2.67E23 horse power Tom > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > STAR1SHIP@aol.com > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 9:23 AM > To: toxicroach@swbell.net > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation > > > In a message dated 8/25/01 9:19:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > toxicroach@swbell.net writes: > > > Sweet god. You people actually know what you're talking about. > > ToxicRoach, > One of us knows what he is talking about at least :-) > > > > > Ok, here's a question--- how much energy would an antimatter (hydrogen > > atoms) collision yield per mole of anti and reg matter? How much AM > would > > an AM-powered ship (60000 tons and/or applicable measurement) need to go > > from Earth to Mars (at the most effiecent time) in, say, 3 months? > > Well when anti matter meets matter all mass is converted to energy. So I > have > done the atomic matter converted to energy calculations so will adapt them > easily to antimatter requirements and then multiply them by two for > antimatter considerations. > > To simplify the complex rocket equation formulas by removing the energy > requirements for land launches and landings, I will consider only a lunar > orbit launch to Mars orbit launch as the radiation prohibits an earth launch > and Mars landing for environmental concerns and the same for a return trip > considering an end payload mass of 60,000 tons, accelerating at 1 g 1/2 way > to Mars and then turn around 180 degrees and decelerate at one g to Mars > orbit and the same for the return trip which makes the round trip journey > take less than three months and provides the comfortable 1 g artificial > gravity field for the travelers. I will time the lunar launch and Mars > launch > times to arrive a Mars and back to Lunar orbit at their minimum distance > apart. As the distance is away from the sun to Mars and towards the sun's > gravity field on the return trip the energy required cancels so is not > considered though a normal 50% fuel surplus for safety reasons missing the > launch windows or the unlikely event an emergency earth or Mars landing is > needed so will be provided for dramatic effects useful in Sci-Fiction > dramatic plots. > > Distance from Earth Note (10 to the 6th power is expressed as 10^6 or E6) > Minimum (10^6 km) 54.5 = 54.5E6 kilometers > Maximum (10^6 km) 401.3 = 401.3E6 kilometers > > Total distance round trip = 2 time 54.5E6 km = 109E6 km > converting 109E6km to light years so I can use the Java applet calculator to > figure trip time found at: > http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html > > I divide 109E6 by the distance light travels in a year which is equal to > 2.998E8 m/sec times the numer of seconds in a year from below (3.1557600E7 > sec) > therefore; > 109E6 km / (2.998E8 x m / sec) x 3.1557600E7 sec > 109E6 km / 9.461E15 meters as the seconds cancel out > 109E6 km / 9.461E12 km to cancel the km's from the nominator and denominator > 109E6/9.461E12 gives the distance in light years (ly) > 109/9.461E6 ly by canceling E6 from the nominator and denominator then > dividing > 11.521E-6 ly equal to > .000011521 ly round trip. > > To adjust for the java applet calculator I need the one way distance so > divide by tow and enter > Trip length: 5.7605E-6 light years. > Acceleration: 1.0 g. > > and the applet returns one way time of > > Time on earth: 0.004726034935456117 years multiplied by 365.25 days to get > 1.72618426017534673425 days > Time on ship: 0.004726030251834143 years. > 1.72618254948242073075 days so the relativistic time dilation effects are > insignifigant but not zero. > > 1.72618254948242073075 times 2 for round trip time is equal to: > 3.45 days rounded off. > > Bon Voyage! > > I am ready to calculate your energy requirements to make the specified > journey in the given time arriving at end of trip with 60,000 ton payload. > > This is much easier to do but is a chain calculation with some handy > shortcuts and approximations to save me from using the calculus for > integration. > > As you figure the energy required to raise 60,000 tons of payload by > propelling 1/4 of the 6,000,000 tons of propellant to send the payload max > velocity at 1/2 distance to Mars under 1 g acceleration and then multiply > it > by four and then calculate the amount of propellant mass to be converted to > energy and then divide by two calculate each mass of matter and antimatter > to > convert to energy. > > To determine first the max velocity for 1 forth the trip required I use > V=AT > for energy required. > > Energykenetic(Ek) = Mass(M) times velocity(v) / 2 > > From Newtons third law of equal action and reaction I use conservation of > momentum general rocket equation MrVr = MpVp with subscripts r for rocket > and > p for propellant to determine how much propellant I need to accelerate to > what velocity to get the payload to the required velocity for each trip > phase > instead of the special rocket equations requiring integration as the exhaust > velocity is measured from a point fixed in space twixt the exhaust port and > exhaust and not the same as the exhaust velocity measured relative to the > rocket needed in the special rocket equations from Newtons second law of > f=ma > as it is not needed to get the answers to your questions. > > v=1g time 3.25 days/4 > v= (9.8 m/sec^2) times 3.25 times 24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 > seconds/4 to get: > v=(9.8 m times 280800 sec ) / 4 times second times second > v= (9.8 times 280800 /4) m/sec > v=687960 m/sec > > v=687.960 km/sec > > > Beginning with a 6,060,000 ton craft with common 1/100 ratio of payload to > propellant I do an approximate simple integration and say that approx 1/2 of > the mass is ejected in the first 1/4 distance traveled 1/4 the mass the > second 1/4 distance 1/8 the third forth of the distance and 1/16 the final > distance knowing that 1/2 plus 1/4 plus 1/8 +1/16 does not equal to one but > it is well within the 50% saftey margin of the extra fuel carried. > > For the first quarter distance from, > > MrVr=MpVp > Vp=MrVr/Mr > 3,060,000 tons times 687.960 km/sec= 3,000,000 times Vp > > Vp=(3,060,000 tons times 687.960 km/sec)/ 3,000,000 tons > Vp=701719.2 km/sec average propellant velocity > > Ek=MV/2 > Ek=(3000000 tons times 701719.2 km/sec ) / 2 > Ek=1500000 tons times 701719.2 km/sec > Ek= 1052578800000 km tons/sec > Ek= 1.0525788E12 km tons/sec > > Conveting matter to energy from Einstein's E=MC^2 > M=E/C^2 > M= (1.0525788E12 km tons/sec) / (2.998E5 km / sec)^2 > M= (1.0525788E12 km tons/sec) / 8.988004E10 km / sec > M= 1.0525788E12 tons/ 8.988004E10 > M= 0.117109293676326801812727275154751E2 > M=11.711 tons of the 300000 tons converted to energy or > M= 5.855 tons of antimatter mixed with 5.855 tons of matter. > > For the second phase > Vp=(1,530,000 tons times 687.960 km/sec)/ 1,500,000 tons > Vp=701719.2 km/sec average propellant velocity > > Ek=MV/2 > Ek=(1500000 tons times 701719.2 km/sec ) / 2 > Ek=750000 tons times 701719.2 km/sec > Ek= 526289400000 km tons/sec > Ek= 5.26289400000E11 km tons/sec > > Conveting matter to energy from Einstein's E=MC^2 > M=E/C^2 > M= (5.262894E11 km tons/sec) / (2.998E5 km / sec)^2 > M= (5.262894E11 km tons/sec) / 8.988004E10 km / sec > M= 5.262894E11E11 tons/ 8.988004E10 > M= 0.585546468381634009063636375773754 E1 > M= 5.855 tons of the 150000 tons of propellant converted to energy or > M= 2.927 tons of antimatter mixed with 2.927 tons of matter. > > Since I noticed that this was 1/2 the first stage energy requirement value > then I can say > > For the third distance or the first accleration of the trip home requires > 2.927/2 or 1.464 tons of matter of the 750,000 tons of propellant converted > to energy. > > For the final deceleration returning to lunar orbit > .732 tons of the remaining 375,000 tons of propellant are converted to > energy. > > Mtotal=M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 > Mtotal= 5.855 + 2.927 + 1.464 + .732 > > Recalling that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +1/16 does not equal to 1 > then > 5.855 times 2 = 11.77 tons of matter converted to the energy required to go > to Mars at 1 g and back in 3.45 days without breaking into my 50% reserve > fuel carried. > > 5.885 tons of anti matter would needed to be carried. But for practical > reasons, and since the ship began with 6,060,000 tons I would carry 100 tons > of convertable fuel in case I decided to make a side trip to say Pluto. I > will let you do do that math :-) > > Use E = MC^2 > or 11.77 tons times C^2 to calculate the energy used for the Mars trip- I > recommend you calculate horsepower with miles per second instead of metric > units. > > Tom > To see animated atomic engine to do the above see link: > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Page1.html > To see the patent pending on the above rocket engine see: > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm > > > > > > > > The original math. > > > > > > c=at therefore > > > t=c/a and replacing parameters with given values > > > t= (2.998E8 m/sec)/(9.8 m/sec^2) inverting parenthesized denominator > and > > multiplying gives > > > t=2.998E8 s^2 / 9.8 s by simultaneously canceling the m in nominator > and > > denominator > > > t=2.998E8 sec / 9.8 by canceling the s in the nominator and > > denominator > > > t=3.059E7 sec to reach c at 1 g. > > > > > > One year in sec = 365.25 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds or > > 31557600 seconds: therefore; > > > 3.059E7/3.156E7 = .969 years > > > .969 years times 365.25 days = 353.93 days given some small rounding > > errors as the best measurements of 1 g and c give slightly more than 355 > > days > > to reach c velocity. > > > > > > checking my calculation math by solving for a original variable given > the > > calculated variable. > > > > > > c=at > > > t=3.059E7 sec to reach c at 1 g. > > > a=9.8 m/sec^2 > > > c= 3.059E7 sec x 9.8 m/sec^2 > > > c= (2.9782E8 x m x sec)/(sec x sec) seconds cancel in denominator and > > noninator cancel leaving a second in denominator > > > c= 2.9782E8 m/sec approximately = the beginning 2.998E8 m/sec > > > The apprximation is due to rounding errors introduced giving accuracy > to > > two signifigant digits as accleration was to two signifigant digits. > > > > > > The math checks okay the original equation stands as is. > > > To see a second math check done by computer with MathCAD visit. > > > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexC.htm > > From VM Mon Aug 27 15:16:48 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4240" "Monday" "27" "August" "2001" "17:01:25" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "86" "starship-design: Any David Weber readers out there? Molycircs are coming..." "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4240 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7RM2Vw24395 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7RM2QS24304 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (host121-208-45-64.utelfla.com [64.45.208.121] (may be forged)) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA20097 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:02:21 -0500 Message-ID: <001a01c12f43$e0fc4cf0$0201a8c0@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 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Any David Weber readers out there? Molycircs are coming... Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:01:25 -0500 IBM research may mean tiny computer chips August 27, 2001 Posted: 12:03 PM EDT (1603 GMT) NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Reaching a long-sought goal in computing research, scientists have created a computer circuit based on a single molecule, which could lead one day to far smaller and faster computer chips that use less power. International Business Machines Corp. said Monday that its researchers have built a logic circuit -- a set of electronic components that performs a processing function -- based on a tiny cylindrical structure made up of carbon atoms that is about 100,000 times thinner than a human hair. The breakthrough is IBM's second this year using the molecules called carbon nanotubes as semiconductors, making them an increasingly viable alternative to silicon, which forms the base of current chips, IBM said. "Carbon nanotubes are now the top candidate to replace silicon when current chip features just can't be made any smaller," said IBM's Phaedon Avouris, lead scientist on the project. "Such beyond-silicon nanotube electronics may then lead to unimagined progress in computing miniaturization and power." Scientists are looking for a replacement for silicon because in the next 10 to 15 years they expect that it will no longer be possible to reduce the size of chips using silicon, which will limit improvements in chip size and speed. Since Intel Corp. introduced its "386" microprocessor in 1985, computer chips have made exponential advances in both speed and size, increasing the number of transistors on a chip more than 152 times. That's what's behind Moore's law, named after Intel founder Gordon Moore, who predicted in 1965 that the number of transistors, or electronic switches, on a chip would double every 18 months. Avouris wasn't able to quantify how chips built of nanotubes would compare in speed with current silicon ones, but nanotubes are expected to at least match the improvements Moore's Law dictates for today's silicon chip. In a couple of years, IBM expects to start working on ways of building the new chips and will know how the size of the elements in the nanotube chip compare with those of silicon chips. Circuits that compute While researchers had already found a way to form nanotubes into transistors, IBM's latest achievement showed that a nanotube can be used to make a logic circuit, the key to computing. A carbon nanotube is a single molecule that's about 500 times narrower than the silicon used in today's processor and is about 10 atoms across. In addition, a nanotube creates less heat than silicon and uses less power and space. IBM scientists used a nanotube to make a 'NOT' gate, which has both a positive and negative transistor, meaning that the entire circuit can perform the processing functions critical to computing. A NOT gate is essentially an open or closed switch that changes a '1' to a '0' and a '0' to a '1'. Previously, nanotube transistors were only positive and didn't process information. The next step IBM said a nanotube circuit's signal output is strong enough to drive other gates or circuits, which means that more complex circuits could be built using a single nanotube. These complex circuits are the next step toward molecular computer chips, IBM said. The discovery comes about four months after the IBM team said it had built the first array of transistors out of carbon nanotubes. Prior to that, nanotubes had to be positioned one at a time or by random chance. That achievement was a step toward eventual mass production of computer chips. Scientists have turned to carbon nanotubes because they are the strongest fiber in nature -- 10 times stronger than steel. They also take advantage of the very strong bond between carbon atoms -- the same bond that makes diamonds so hard. But carbon nanotubes aren't the only contender to replace silicon. Some scientists, including those at IBM, are studying the possibility of so-called quantum computing based on atoms. IBM hopes to begin to develop the carbon nanotubes in two years, although it will be another 10 to 15 years before a product hits the market. Copyright 2001 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. From VM Mon Aug 27 17:07:50 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["476" "Monday" "27" "August" "2001" "17:00:50" "-0700" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "21" "starship-design: just for kicks" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 476 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f7S00pM14179 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web13609.mail.yahoo.com (web13609.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f7S00od14174 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20010828000050.27194.qmail@web13609.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.24.228.62] by web13609.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:00:50 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: just for kicks Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Hey, folks, For any of you who don't already know this, www.spaceweather.com has daily data on such stuff as the density and velocity of the solar wind, as well as a lot of other cool stuff. You can sign up for their email bulletin. enjoy, Curtis ===== visit my website at: www.geocities.com/clmanges __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From VM Tue Sep 4 07:51:28 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5406" "Saturday" "1" "September" "2001" "08:29:12" "-0700" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "126" "starship-design: Fwd: Ulysses Forecasts Weather at Sun's North Pole" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5406 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f81FTDU28047 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web13609.mail.yahoo.com (web13609.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f81FTC828042 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20010901152912.52990.qmail@web13609.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.24.228.103] by web13609.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 01 Sep 2001 08:29:12 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Ulysses Forecasts Weather at Sun's North Pole Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Just another FYI that caught my attention. Enjoy. Curtis --- JPLNews@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:19:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: JPLNews@jpl.nasa.gov > Subject: Ulysses Forecasts Weather at Sun's North Pole > Reply-to: news-owner@www.jpl.nasa.gov > To: undisclosed-recipients:; > > MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE > JET PROPULSION LABORATORY > CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY > NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION > PASADENA, CALIF. 91109 TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 > http://www.jpl.nasa.gov > > Contact: Martha J. Heil (818) 354-0850 > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Aug. 31, 2001 > > ULYSSES FORECASTS WEATHER AT SUN'S NORTH POLE > > Space physicists predict gusty winds for the next few > months at the Sun's north pole, an area that will be observed > when the Ulysses spacecraft passes over it starting on Aug. > 31. > > This pass over the pole occurs at a time of solar > maximum, when the Sun is more active. "The solar wind is > patchier -- gustier -- during solar maximum, because the > sources of the wind are more irregular," said Dr. Edward > Smith, the project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion > Laboratory on Ulysses, which is managed jointly by JPL and the > European Space Agency. > > This will be Ulysses' second pass over the Sun's north > pole. It completed a circuit of the Sun in 1996 when the Sun > was less active, then passed by the Sun's south pole last fall > when the Sun was much more active. Now scientists will use > what they've learned from previous passes to analyze data in > the coming months. > > Earth's magnetic field reverses itself only once every > 200,000 years or so, but the Sun's internal magnet flips every > 11 years, associated with a rise in solar activity. As it > flips, the magnetic field becomes disordered, and the surface > of the Sun becomes more active, shooting out bubbles of gas > and energy called coronal mass ejections in every direction. > The reversal of the magnetic field has a particularly dramatic > effect on the poles. The Sun's magnetic field will be weak and > X-ray coronal holes at the north pole should have shrunk > during this solar maximum, because the magnetic field is > unevenly spread around the surface of the Sun. > > In 1995, Ulysses saw strong and simple magnetic fields at > both poles of the Sun. Large, dark X-ray coronal holes formed > in the solar atmosphere over the polar caps. The solar wind is > fast and hot when coronal holes in the Sun remain open over > long periods of time, as they do at solar minimum. > > As Ulysses passed by the south pole of the Sun a few > months ago, scientists expected to find that magnetic lines > were pointing outward, because observations from Earth show > that the magnetic field has already reversed at the Sun's > surface. Instead, they found that the magnetic lines were > still pointing inward, just as they had been throughout solar > minimum. They theorize that this could be caused by the > magnetic lines forming small, closed loops next to the pole > instead of escaping into space. For now, the magnetic field > and solar wind seen over the pole appear to originate near the > Sun's equator rather than from the polar cap. > > The Ulysses science team will also study energetic > charged particles, which speed away from the Sun's surface and > escape into space. These are a regular feature of solar > maximum. "These energetic solar particles can be as hot as > 100 billion Kelvin (180 billion Fahrenheit) and can cause > damage to spacecraft," said Dr. Bruce Goldstein, deputy > project scientist on Ulysses at JPL. "However, they still > follow the magnetic field lines." > > At solar minimum, Ulysses saw very few particles coming > from the poles. This was because there were fewer particle > events occurring on the Sun and also because the particles > follow magnetic lines of force that did not reach into the > Sun's polar regions. > > As it studied the south pole during solar maximum, > Ulysses saw energetic particles from many of the past year's > solar flares, though they originated at the Sun's equator. > Those observations are further evidence that the magnetic > field and solar wind seen at the polar caps really originate > close to the equator. > > Ulysses, launched in 1990, is a joint venture of NASA and > the European Space Agency. JPL manages Ulysses for NASA's > Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. More information on > the Ulysses mission is available at the JPL Ulysses web site: > http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov and the ESA Ulysses web site, > http://helio.estec.esa.nl/ulysses/ . > > # # # # # > 09/03/01 MJH > #2001-182 > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to JPL's news mailing list. To unsubscribe, > please send an e-mail to JPLNews@jpl.nasa.gov and in the body > of the message include the following line. > > unsubscribe news > > Please do not reply to this e-mail. > For help, send a message to listmaster@www.jpl.nasa.gov. ===== visit my website at: www.geocities.com/clmanges __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com From VM Tue Sep 4 16:28:18 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3283" "Tuesday" "4" "September" "2001" "18:24:53" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "72" "starship-design: Investors plan Russian space hotel" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3283 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f84NPtu20116 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f84NPnk20092 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (host121-208-45-64.utelfla.com [64.45.208.121] (may be forged)) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA21442 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:25:36 -0500 Message-ID: <002a01c13598$cdc18f00$0201a8c0@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 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Investors plan Russian space hotel Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:24:53 -0500 Investors plan Russian space hotel September 4, 2001 Posted: 3:17 PM EDT (1917 GMT) MOSCOW, Russia (Reuters) -- A group of Western investors announced plans Tuesday to launch the first commercial space station, a Russian-built home in the heavens specially designed to host fare-paying space tourists. Jeffrey Manber, head of MirCorp, told Reuters by telephone his company had signed a deal with the Russian space agency and Russia's leading spacecraft builder Energiya that could put a station in orbit by 2004. Russian space agency spokesman Sergei Gorbunov, however, accused MirCorp of jumping the gun. "All that has been signed is an agreement that opens the way for a feasibility study, one that will be conducted by Energiya and not MirCorp. Nothing has been decided yet," he said. "No one can say the station will be built. We won't make a decision about its feasibility before year end at least." MirCorp once had similar plans -- complete with a hoped-for stock market listing -- to turn Russia's aging Mir space station into a money-spinning cosmic hotel, before Moscow sent it to earth in a fireball last year. "This is not pie in the sky," Manber said. "We've developed a business plan that is pragmatic and very do-able. I give it a very high rate of probability." The deal calls for the creation of a $100 million orbiter, Mini Station 1, built to host three cosmonauts for 20 days at a time. Manber said customers were already lining up. The station would have a lifetime of 15 years and be funded by selling tickets, luring strategic investors and winning corporate sponsorship, Manber said. He said MirCorp envisaged positioning the station as an interim stop for Russian supply missions to the international space station, or ISS. Fees paid by space tourists would cover much of the cost of those missions. Earlier this year, U.S. millionaire Dennis Tito became the first paying tourist in space, visiting the ISS on board a Russian rocket over the objections of U.S. space officials who said they thought it an inappropriate use of the $95 billion orbiter. MirCorp was founded in 2000 to raise cash to exploit Mir. The company, which is based in Amsterdam and is 60 percent owned by Energiya, had also set up a deal to blast a U.S. gameshow contestant into space. But the $30 million it raised was not enough to save the accident-prone Mir, forcing Russia's cash-strapped space chiefs to sink it in the Pacific in March. "This time things are completely different. I don't have to worry that if I fail to make a payment by a certain date something will come crashing down on our heads," Manber said. Manber acknowledged the deal had yet to be okayed by senior Russian officials, but saw it as a way to help the country find the money its chronically underfunded space program needs. Moscow has already begun training other potential space tourists, including members of Russian boy band Na-Na, aiming to become the first pop group to give a concert from orbit, and Mark Shuttleworth, a South African Internet tycoon. Manber said MirCorp was considering brokering tourist trips to the ISS before its own station was launched. Copyright 2001 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. From VM Mon Sep 17 10:56:19 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["113" "Friday" "14" "September" "2001" "21:43:29" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "4" "starship-design: Any hear from David Levine" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil "starship-design: Any hear from David Levine" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 113 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8F1hea13113 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8F1hdp13108 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.129.496bc0c (25098); Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <129.496bc0c.28d40c41@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac 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, David@interworld.com, lunar@sunsite.unc.edu Subject: starship-design: Any hear from David Levine Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:43:29 EDT Last I heard the group founder David Levine was working in Manhatten somewhere. Any one know if hes ok? Kelly From VM Mon Sep 17 10:56:19 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["500" "Friday" "14" "September" "2001" "19:23:21" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "12" "starship-design: Any hear from David Levine" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil "starship-design: Any hear from David Levine" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 500 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8F2O9S21657 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8F2O8p21650 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8F2O6t14943; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8F2NOA20235; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:23:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15266.48025.948963.120711@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <129.496bc0c.28d40c41@aol.com> References: <129.496bc0c.28d40c41@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, David@interworld.com, lunar@sunsite.unc.edu Subject: starship-design: Any hear from David Levine Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:23:21 -0700 KellySt@aol.com writes: > Last I heard the group founder David Levine was working in Manhatten > somewhere. Any one know if hes ok? I unsubscribed the email address , which I believe was David Levine's address, several weeks ago because it was bouncing list postings. (I just checked again and the mail server for playlink.com is still refusing connections now.) I hope he will get back to us with a valid email address eventually, but I have no other news on his status. From VM Mon Sep 17 16:58:34 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1127" "Monday" "17" "September" "2001" "19:51:34" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "starship-design: Re: Sail Ship Idea" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1127 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8HNpiq05426 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8HNpgp05404 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.132.1b11151 (17084); Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <132.1b11151.28d7e686@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: ORESTE1687@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Sail Ship Idea Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:51:34 EDT In a message dated 9/17/01 4:38:09 PM, ORESTE1687@aol.com writes: >Okay i just read of the site that you or others had deacceleration problems >on the sail ship design so i was just wondering if you could carry retro >trusters just to stop to a dead stop or even some how close the sails so >that when you got to the system it would had slowed down immensly. If you mean the Fuel sail system. Yes the sail itself was made out of fuel, and consumed by the retro rockets entering the system, and new fuel needs to be mined in the system to get home, where a smaller sail can decelerate the unfuled ship into our starsystem, against the presure of the microwave deceleration beam. >I'm >not a scientist i just have a bunch of ideas and I'm still in middle school >and very interested in space travel I also want to be a space areonautics >engineer or just desing starships for human colonization. I don't mine >if you use the idea just if you give me recognition. I hope that my idea >will help you! Thanks, and I'll forward this to the group. >Oreste > >9/17 > >GOOD LUCK Good luck in your studies. Kelly Starks From VM Thu Sep 20 12:38:04 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6148" "Thursday" "20" "September" "2001" "06:28:37" "-0700" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "172" "starship-design: a different perspective on Afghanistan" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6148 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8KDScu18786 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web13603.mail.yahoo.com (web13603.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.114]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f8KDSbl18781 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:28:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20010920132837.84522.qmail@web13603.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.148.88.16] by web13603.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:28:37 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Anderson , Bryan Briskey , Josef Christoffer , Brian Eastman , Thaddeus Edens , John Fox , Mike Hedgpath , Mark Hockenberry , Amee Manges , Ted Rodgers , Kevin Rothwell , starship-design Subject: starship-design: a different perspective on Afghanistan Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:28:37 -0700 (PDT) Fwd from: DCox@ag.state.oh.us this was received by me from a friend. the writer of this prose is apparently from afghanistan who has been living in the united states for a while. interesting reading and his conclusion seems to me to be right on. i think that a decision to bomb afghanistan would be stupid and would be the decision of an ignorant, small person. if you agree then spread the word. peace. g. ************************** I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing. I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan-a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban. We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban-by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time. So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else? Tamim Ansary ******************************************** For my own part, I'd like all to consider that, in order to prepare for a war, you need an enemy, which means you have to demonize and dehumanise some group of targets (living humans), by propaganda (political slander). And in doing this, in preparing to kill other people, you kill part of yourself. You shut down or destroy your own capacity for compassion and reason. Someone has said that murder is an act of insanity. War is institutionalized murder. Yes, we have a right to self-defense. Yes, those responsible for the attacks must be dealt with. But our response should be limited as much as possible to those individuals only, and should be done in a civilized manner. Curtis ===== visit my website at: www.geocities.com/clmanges __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ From VM Thu Sep 20 19:42:28 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2103" "Thursday" "20" "September" "2001" "21:37:38" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "46" "starship-design: Re: The URANOS Club Newsletter No. 6 (Special issue)" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2103 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8KJbPu03957 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8KJbNl03938 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id VAA17294; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:37:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200109201937.VAA17294@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 Cc: zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl Subject: starship-design: Re: The URANOS Club Newsletter No. 6 (Special issue) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:37:38 +0200 (MET DST) --------------------------------------------------------------- --> http://www.uranos.eu.org/ <-- * * **** *** * * *** **** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * **** ***** * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * *** * * * * * * *** **** CLUB * for * EXPANSION * of * CIVILIZATION * into * SPACE --------------------------------------------------------------- No. 6: Special issue URANOS CLUB NEWSLETTER 20.IX.2001 This is a special issue of our irregularly published electronic newsletter. To receive further issues of this newsletter, please send a letter stating so to the address: --------------------------------------------------------------- A beginning of open war against our technological civilization? --------------------------------------------------------------- Recent terrorist attacks in the U.S.A., because of their scale and methods used, exhibit features of organized war against technologically advanced civilization on Earth, the only civilization currently capable of carrying on human expansion into space. These attacks, therefore, directly touch upon fundamental reasons for existence and activity of the URANOS Club. If our civilization does not find enough strength - both material and spiritual - to defend itself against the attacks and to neutralize their causes, it may put off for an indefinite time prospects for lasting presence of mankind in space. That in turn will lead to gradual civilization decline and in consequence to a final downfall of mankind. We would like our sympathizers and all who care for the future of human civilization to fully recognize the significance of these facts and take them into serious consideration. Other information ----------------- We will soon announce a new edition of our website. --------------------------------------------------------------- Please forward! From VM Fri Sep 21 15:16:54 2001 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2052" "Friday" "21" "September" "2001" "17:55:37" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "starship-design: Fwd: India's SSTO" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2052 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8LLtqK06348 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8LLtjl06305 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id n.127.4788535 (18562); Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <127.4788535.28dd1159@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_127.4788535.28dd1159_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac 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, moschleg@erols.com, SFnoirSD@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, bbbark@surfree.com, rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, DotarSojat@aol.com, RICKJ@btio.com, kcsaxton@peoplepc.com, mdlynlv@mobil1.net, george.michnavich@hs.utc.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: India's SSTO Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:55:37 EDT --part1_127.4788535.28dd1159_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/01 11:49:13 AM, KStarks.Apollo@SIKORSKY.COM writes: >This could be embarrassing. India beating us to a low cost space shuttle > >because were to wrapped up in NASA politics? > > > >http://www.beyond2000.com.au/news/Aug_01/story_1250.html --part1_127.4788535.28dd1159_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (rly-yc05.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.37]) by air-yc01.mail.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILINYC15-0921124913; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:49:13 2000 Received: from mail1.utc.com (mail.utc.com [192.249.46.37]) by rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (v80.21) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYC51-0921124913; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:49:13 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mail1.utc.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f8LGnAX11993; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(140.76.187.207) by mail1.utc.com via smap (V5.5) id xma011843; Fri, 21 Sep 01 12:48:51 -0400 Received: from saexch-bh2-stf.sikorsky.com (saexch-bh2-stf.sikorsky.com [140.76.216.22]) by nike.sikorsky.com (Switch-2.0.1/Switch-2.0.1) with ESMTP id f8LGmg409120; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by saexch-bh2-stf.sikorsky.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:48:45 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Starks, Kelly Apollo" To: "'Kelly's home'" , "'Carol'" Subject: India's SSTO Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:48:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This could be embarrassing. India beating us to a low cost space shuttle because were to wrapped up in NASA politics? http://www.beyond2000.com.au/news/Aug_01/story_1250.html --part1_127.4788535.28dd1159_boundary--