Re: starship-design: Autodynamics, relativity, etc.

["Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>]

> Afraid not. You can't reach C with a normal engine...it thrusts at the
> same amount continuously. Remember the first postulate of relativity?
> The laws of physics are the same in EVERY reference frame? This applies
> here. Calculations have been done that show that you cannot accelerate
> to C by throwing mass out of your vehicle. You can't do it by slinging a
> particle or vehicle through a field of some type either. The best you
> can hope for is a way to "bend" spacetime around the vicinity of your
> object, and you might be able to exceed C. To do much even using the
> Levi-Civita solutions of General Relativity, you will need a magnetic
> field strength of ~10^18 Tesla. To do the exotic warping, where you need
> tension higher than actual density, you will need a much higher regime.
> Or, you can do what I do: try to figure out how to cheat. If you can
> cheat a bit, you might find a way to do it without all that power. I
> have personally tested one such device, and have measured a _possible_
> weight change of .5%. This is not yet confirmed, so don't get your hopes
> up. It is possibly a magnetic effect.
> 
   I know that but that is the design of the space craft is based on
speeds close to light speed so time slows down. I am just saying that
.7 C is the best I think that can be reached rather than .999C.
In real life 1/20C may be the fastest.

I would love a time warp field rather than a space warp field.


> Autodynamics-don't trust it. Carezani conveniently ignores many known
> facts, especially his energy calculations for accelerating particles.
> The relativistic predictions have been confirmed EXPERIMENTALLY in the
> lab, not just on paper. Do get a couple of books: 1. "Space-time
> Physics" by Wheeler and Taylor., 2. "Black holes and Time Warps:
> Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" by Kip Thorne. These are excellent books
> on the subjects. But I ask you to NOT do the following: 1. Do not close
> your mind to the possibility that either SR or GR may one day be
> falsified; or any other theory for that matter. 2. Do not believe
> unwarranted assumptions; such as: "Nothing can travel faster than light
> in a vacuum." (see my notes below) 3. Don't disregard an experimental
> result on the grounds that it disagrees with conventionally accepted
> theory. 4. If you do an experiment, and get a strange result, ask
> yourself: "How am I fooling myself? What might I have overlooked that
> could account for my anomalous result?"

  Right now I trust Autodynamics more than SR, but since the test to prove
if autodynamics is valid has not been done right now it is just theory.

 
> Faster than light?: It happens. It's true, everywhere you look, there is
> a superluminal process taking place. It is called the "EPR effect," but
> don't get your hopes up; it cannot be used to transfer meaningful
> information. Can there be faster than light transfer of information?
> Probably. I have personally done an experiment where I had this as a
> result. On wednesday, if all goes well, I will do this again with a
> double modulated signal. The modulation I used? FM. The setup is
> proprietary. So, I give this to you as simply an interesting tidbit.
> Don't go running around and tell everyone that it has been done, because
> I could be wrong. And for all you know, I could just be some idiot
> thinking this up for idle pleasure. What my point is: don't give up on
> it. There are serious attempts to do it. Well, that about does it for
> now.

Ok, but remeber more people that can duplicate a experiment the better.
 
> Best regards,
> Kyle R. Mcallister