Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel

[STAR1SHIP@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/23/00 1:37:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org 
writes:

> STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes:
>  
>   > 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.
>  
>  Please give a citation for these writings of Einstein that you believe
>  justify your position.  At best they are quite at odds with everything
>  else Einstein wrote about relativity.  If you claim that no one else can
>  see them because they are "non-publized" (sic) then you should not
>  expect us to believe that they exist or that they say what you claim
>  they say.

Would like to give you the citation but it was inadvertently thrown out along 
with many text books and personal papers by stepfather when I enlisted in the 
Air Force. 
The significant text parts were in my memory banks and the name and title 
were not.
If you require a literary reference then use.
 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexda.html">A Definitive 
Analysis of Atomic Power</A> 

No apology here but you need only rely on my superior education relativistic 
to your education. With a silly assumption you have a Ph.D. with some 3500 
classroom hours since high school and have met the minimum grade point 
average, I have 8000+ class hours (1 semester =16 hours class or 32 hours lab 
or 72 hours formal on job training) then credibility may be established with 
my lawful signature of.

Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson,
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Transcript.htm">Common Law 
Doctorates</A> 
Math, Physics, Computer Science, General Education

>  
>   > If you do not know how to read patent applications than consult an 
>   > attorney. 
>  
>  The patent office has never consistently taken physical reality into
>  account when reviewing or granting patent applications.  One is not
>  required to build a prototype to get a patent, and the existence of a
>  patent is not proof that a concept is physically realizable.

Inventors normally do not build an invention to see if it works but instead 
know that it works and then they build it. Simple machines such as rocket 
engine rarely require building to obtain a patent. When a working diagram 
does not violate known law of physics it is considered made and working. I 
had to evaluate all atomic rocket engines invented and show that mine was a 
significant improvement over the prior art. Skepticism is not considered 
proof of an invention not working by reasonable men nor even good science as 
the burden of nonworking proof is on you.

>  
>  As I said, this mailing list is for discussing how to achieve
>  interstellar travel with what we do know about physics.  This has
>  disappointed more than previous subscriber with fanciful ideas.

You cannot get to the stars with the physics that you as a part of your 
alleged what "we" know about physics. It is about time you tried some new 
knowledge(patentable). Mine.

Your fanciful claimed "Borg collective con-science(spelling intentional)" of 
speaking for "we physicists" is such non scientific nonsense I am surprised I 
responded.

Your Academic Superior,
Na Na Na Na Na

>