RE: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

On Friday, December 12, 1997 11:32 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] 
wrote:

> What you describe is really the result of two previously unknown
> forces--the strong and weak forces.  In the absense of these,
> "classical" conservation of energy is correct.

Which makes Kelly's statement true. They WERE absent according to what he 
said.

> Contrast this with classical mechanics, which had "explained"
> observed phenomena which were contradictory (light having both
> wavelike and particlelike properties)!

Which is exactly the point at which quantum mechanics is at the moment...

> You're right, but relativity has passed all its tests with flying
> colors.

No, it hasn't.

> That's what I think we should be doing.  We aren't here to try and
> come up with what we think will be the design of the first manned
> interstellar missions.  That's hopeless.

Again, you are wrong. David already asked you once, go read the charter.

> What we should try to be doing is trying to find the best thing
> possible using as conservative technology possible just as a
> baseline to see if it's possible at all, and at what maximum cost.
> (Improvements in science and technology will necessarily reduce
> the mission cost, if our baseline uses only existing technology
> at existing cost.)

As usual, you have taken it upon yourself to decide what is right. I'm 
beginning to think you should have been a priest during the inquisition.

> Yes, but it's important to recognize just how much better general
> relativity is compared to anything that came before.  In many ways,
> it's the most awesome scientific theory ever devised (so far).
> Despite its radical and highly dubious (to scientists of the time)
> concepts and masses of skeptical testing, it's stood the test of
> time.  It combined high controversy over its concepts with a perfect
> record in scientific observations.  It's all encompassing nature
> allowed it to make predictions which could be tested in widely
> disparate ways.  Einstein's said that when he found that general
> relativity predicted the precession of Mercury, he _knew_ is was
> correct.

I'll give credit where credit is due. You finally said something sensible.

> No.  You are wrong.  To put it bluntly.

No, he is right and again you didn't bother to read what he said. The 
aperture diameter for a given spot size, wavelength and distance is 
governed by Rayleigh's Criteria. Which is the only thing Kelly is talking 
about. He very specifically said he wasn't talking about total power 
delivered to the sail. You simply ignored what he said.

The fresnel lens concept was originally proposed as a focusing mechanism to 
provide the correct aperture, irregardless of whether the original emitter 
was a single emitter or an array of emitters. Incidentally, you seem to be 
a lone voice crying in the wilderness. A review of the literature turns up 
absolutely no proposals for a single emitter, so exactly what is your 
point?

Lee