[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel
In a message dated 2/19/00 10:20:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, email@example.com
> Good scientists don't justify their work by citing works that they will
> not show to anyone else.
I did not cite the work, you requested a citation and I gave you all I had
and attacked by you when I did as you requested.
Good scientists don't say that you have to
> prove them wrong; if they are right, then they can prove themselves
> right by experiment and so can others.
Experimental proof is only one of many proofs available for science. I gave
you a repeatable experiment in my patent application that can be verified.
Your looking at it and not doing it shows you are not interested in
verification but only speak loudly in support of your own. philosophies
Good scientists can explain
> their theories without resorting to "I know more than you do, so just
> shut up" or calling those who disagree with them miseducated brainwashed
Recall your previous(and present) attitude to any member that professes no
light speed limit ffor rockets.
You can have no complaint about my attitude display.
If you think you understand physics better than other
> physicists, then you can prove them wrong -- but only if you make a
> repeatable experiment that shows how.
I gave you the repeatable experiment <A
/A> and all the details you need to construct it.
> When we formed this list, we agreed that starships will be built by
> engineering and not just theorizing. So we also agreed that trying to
> design a ship around scientifically unproven principles would be a
> pointless exercise, and since faster-than-light motion of mass has not
> been experimentally demonstrated there's no way to figure out how to
> engineer a ship that can go faster than light.
Speak for your self as I engineered the ship. You not knowing a way means
speaking in the "We" voice you do implies a consensus of opinion that is not
evident. Were such a total consensus existing then it would fail for the
members could not possible get to the stars for good science requires
diversity of opinions for the discovery of new knowledge. Do not refer to my
knowledge as theory for it is applied physics. Your thesis is what is theory
and not fact.
Atomic fission and
> fusion are _experimentally_ proven. The existence and properties of
> antimatter are _experimentally_ proven.
I will use some of you better logic to disprove that statement. You imply in
1945 the public press releases on who invented the bomb and how it worked was
released. That makes no sense for then there would have been no secret of
fission and fusion after that time. The nonsense is evident. People are still
being jailed for discussing it. The experimental device was and remains
unexamined and not repeated in public as you would require for proof. Nucleus
of protons and neutrons violate what is known world wide as universal law of
"like charges repel". Anti matter theories based on those "theories" fall by
We honestly can't say whether
> FTL is possible or not, because no one has ever demonstrated it
> experimentally. Until it's been proven possible and the engineering
> properties of an FTL drive can be determined, there's just no way to
> build it into a ship.
That I did it proves your statement wrong. Your problem was the assumption
you made of "no way" was your ego speaking because you know of no way then no
other person could possible figure out how to do it. Your arrogance, ego,
reactionary physics(reacting emotionaly to statements contrary to your set of
beliefs) have no place in any know scientific methodology.
> If you can demonstrate it experimentally, then do so. If you can't,
> please understand that we won't accept it until you do.
We again? I do not believe you represent the other approximately 50 members
of the list. As your members ship has dropped considerable over the recent
past perhaps it is time you reconsider your inflexible position and unproven
I looked over
> your "proof" of the possibility of FTL. Sadly it's a jumble of
> equations and statements with no logical flow.
I do not recall an intelligent question from you in your claimed attempt at
understanding like "what is a Stokes". An educated guess is you just read it
and thought you were taught something else so what you read must be wrong.
What an ego!
> And some of its
> assumptions seem to be wrong, like the justifying claim that one can
> accelerate an object to light speed in about a year, which uses the
> Newtonian rather than the relativistic equations for accelerated motion.
I used the Newtonian equation correctly for the 1 g acceleration was relative
to the star ship and not an earth observer requiring the equation you have in
mind. The relativistic equation you have in mind gives the relativistic
velocity wrt earth observer. That is the wrong equation for the frame of
reference I use. Should you wish to use only the relativistic equations of
time dilation for faster than light than use v=d/t, velocity = distance/time
and calculate that relative to earth coasting at very near light speed, time
dilates to a point where to coast 4 light years requires two years ship
giving twice light speed. This time dilation has been proven by the orbiting
clock experiment and allows men at a velocity relative to earth below light
speed to transverse the galaxy easily in the rocketmen's own life time by
reaching near light speed relative to earth. When you can accept that proven
fact, I will attempt to explain why we can exceed light speed relative to
> Saying that you can reach high relativistic velocities using a drive
> powered by nuclear fission is similarly dubious. Achieving high
> relativistic velocities requires tremendous amounts of energy, and
> nuclear fusion is barely capable of achieving the necessary energy
> yield, and requires thousands to millions of times as much fusion fuel
> as payload.
Let me check your math. An 105 ton ship accelerating at 1 g can propel a 5
ton payload to near light speed relativistic to earth and to twice light
speed wrt the ship motion by geting the energy to propell 100 tons of
propellant to 1/10 light speed.
Recalling my calculation the energy is quite high but no where near infinite
and can be provided by converting 1/2 ton of Americium to provide the energy.
If you think that average exhaust velocity is to much for my invention to
handle then how about 1/100 light speed far a 1000 pound payload to the
stars. Would that meet your expectation or would you like to provide the
engineering specifications you want and I will engineer an engine to meet
them. Until then my engines meet mine.
In theory, sure, a fission-powered rocket could get to the
> same velocities, but only with absolutely incredible amounts of fission
> fuel, at least billions of times the mass of the payload.
As stated above paragraph, nonsense theory as you have not done the math
using my invention. When my theory became reduced to practice (made
practical) it entered the realm of applied physics and not theoretical