hubbard_ron@hotmail.com writes:

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:

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

_________________________________________________________________

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://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html
http://www.geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html

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://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html
http://www.geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html

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
Applet 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

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