In a message dated 1/23/00 1:14:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, STAR1SHIP writes: > Subj: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel > Date: 1/23/00 1:14:46 AM Pacific Standard Time > From: STAR1SHIP > To: stevev@efn.org > > In a message dated 1/22/00 8:55:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org > writes: > > > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > > When a object reaches the effective range of the radar it does not > need > > to > > > wait for a main bang pulse to arrive as they are continuly sent. > > > > If your ship is going faster than the radar pulses then there is no way > > for the radar pulses to reach an object in front of the ship before the > > ship does. That's as simple an explanation as there is. > > > That is true but you missed the subject thread as I was talking about > onboard radar aboard a >c, <c or c ship. the radar can detect all projectiles > on collision course that is not traveling >c toward it. > > That which is not detected can be delt with by other provisions used. > > > > I appreciate your enthusiasm for building a starship but when you talk > > about physics it looks like you are stringing random words together > > without any understanding. The point of this mailing list is to talk > > about how to build a starship using what we do know about physics, not > > what we wish might be true, and certainly not based merely on wild > > handwaving. > > That is a stupid statement period. Einstein taught what I teach about the > possibility of faster than light graft. Your physics that you know cannot get > there period. The New knowledge that I bring to this group is Einsteins non > publized teachings of 1955 plus my new inventon knowledge that you could not > of possibly know about. > > If you do not know how to read patent applications than consult an attorney. > All invention is new knowledge. It is not what you were taught or it simply > could not be patented. > If you read it expecting to see some thing about atoms, you will be > dissapointed for all high patent court decision have held that atomic theory > is not needed or cannot be required in any patent application as it is " > theory". The most common example in patent literature is the description of > the cathode ray tube with out mention of electrons protons and neutron. This > is given to patent attorneys so they can write their patents with out theory > so that when theory is found false the patent will not be declared invalid. > This is the law of the land to date and has been the law from the beginning > of the patent office. > > This paraphrase is what Neils Bohr was told by Einstein in the eary 20th > century when Bohr sought his endorsement of the proton nucleas theory he > deveoped. > > "Non scientific nonsense- It violates universal law of like charges repel > throw the theory out. "Bohr stammered "Maybe some kind of glue hold thems > together". Einsten said "Throw the theory out" and "Go back to Ruterfords > gold foil experiment examine his results for a non static atom and bring me > theory consistant with universal law". Bohr failed to throw the theory out > and it remains incomplete lacking a gravitational part and still in violation > of known universal law. > > Do not pretend you know what all physicists know, such arrogance is > foolishness. > Grow up.. > Learn something you do not know about physics. "Mass can exceed light > speed and how" taught Einstien-- listen and shut up.. > > > > > > > > > >
---- End included message ----
- To: stevev@efn.org
- Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel
- From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:14:46 EST
- Full-name: STAR1SHIP
In a message dated 1/22/00 8:55:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > When a object reaches the effective range of the radar it does not need > to > > wait for a main bang pulse to arrive as they are continuly sent. > > If your ship is going faster than the radar pulses then there is no way > for the radar pulses to reach an object in front of the ship before the > ship does. That's as simple an explanation as there is. That is true but you missed the subject thread as I was talking about onboard radar aboard a >c, <c or c ship. the radar can detect all projectiles on collision course that is not traveling >c toward it. That which is not detected can be delt with by other provisions used. > > I appreciate your enthusiasm for building a starship but when you talk > about physics it looks like you are stringing random words together > without any understanding. The point of this mailing list is to talk > about how to build a starship using what we do know about physics, not > what we wish might be true, and certainly not based merely on wild > handwaving. That is a stupid statement period. Einstein taught what I teach about the possibility of faster than light graft. Your physics that you know cannot get there period. The New knowledge that I bring to this group is Einsteins non publized teachings of 1955 plus my new inventon knowledge that you could not of possibly know about. If you do not know how to read patent applications than consult an attorney. All invention is new knowledge. It is not what you were taught or it simply could not be patented. If you read it expecting to see some thing about atoms, you will be dissapointed for all high patent court decision have held that atomic theory is not needed or cannot be required in any patent application as it is "theory". The most common example in patent literature is the description of the cathode ray tube with out mention of electrons protons and neutron. This is given to patent attorneys so they can write their patents with out theory so that when theory is found false the patent will not be declared invalid. This is the law of the land to date and has been the law from the beginning of the patent office. This paraphrase is what Neils Bohr was told by Einstein in the eary 20th century when Bohr sought his endorsement of the proton nucleas theory he deveoped. "Non scientific nonsense- It violates universal law of like charges repel throw the theory out. "Bohr stammered "Maybe some kind of glue hold thems together". Einsten said "Throw the theory out" and "Go back to Ruterfords gold foil experiment examine his results for a non static atom and bring me theory consistant with universal law". Bohr failed to throw the theory out and it remains incomplete lacking a gravitational part and still in violation of known universal law. Do not pretend you know what all physicists know, such arrogance is foolishness. Grow up.. Learn something you do not know about physics. "Mass can exceed light speed and how" taught Einstien-- listen and shut up.. > > >