Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel

[STAR1SHIP@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/21/00 12:45:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes:

> > >  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.
>  > 
>  [...]
>  > 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. 
>  > 
>  It seems there is some misunderstanding.
>  Tom receives "FTL" by dividing the distance in the Earth reference frame
>  by the time in the stars ship reference frame. For relativistic speeds,
>  due to time dilation, one indeed obtains from this division
>  a "velocity" larger than c. However, this is not a velocity 
>  in physical sense - for which one should measure time and distance 
>  in _the same_ reference frame.

The misunderstanding is in your misstatement :=). The distance between the 
stars does not change with velocity of the object traveling it. The rocket 
man correctly measures his velocity using the formula v=distance 
traveled/time dilated. Relativistic length/distance contractions are only for 
the relativistic length on the ship and not the space traveled. 

Proponents of a light speed limit for rockets suggest that the distance  
traveled would be foreshortened for the rocket man view so the velocity 
equation would give less than light speed. I counter with he would be 
measuring the distance with foreshortened rulers so the distance would be 
greater and thus velocity greater than the twice light speed. This paragraph 
is a good example of twice (proponent's example and my counter example) 
mixing reference frames therby providing invalid results ;=).

The valid faster then light effects I describe were noticed, understood and 
as fact used as the basis by the SCI-faction author Poul Anderson in his 
fictional account of just such a star journey in the book " Tau Ceti". of the 
1960s. 

The time dilation effects for FTL in Einstein lifetime were only theory. 
Later orbiting clock experiments have proven Einstein's time dilation as fact 
not theory. Interpolation to velocities near and greater than light speed 
prove quite valid. When the measurements are extended from the origin and the 
error bars (earth orbital clock velocity is plus and minus measurement of 
measured value), Einstein's equation predicition fit nicely within the 
interpolated values for relativistic velocities.
  
>  Concerning the energy calculations, the energy (& mass ratios)
>  needed for obtaining relativistic speeds were calculated many 
>  times before by physicists of far greater stature then we here,

Present company(me) and Einstein excluded of course ;=)

The calculations were made by mainly for and by Bussard in calculating the 
velocity of his rocket engine. Since he did not have the knowledge of the 
power ratio of atomic bombs and reactors compared to chemical rockets he used 
and made a poor educated guess which I and time and have since corrected. 
(Specific impulse is simply not important in many rocket designs as a 
velocity determiner.)
 
>  and I have no reason to doubt their results, which are roughhly 
>  the same as given by Steve in his post.

I give dozens of excellent reasons, but are best are summed in evaluating the 
previous atomic rocket designs the patent office sent me in showing how my 
design is a significant improvement. Power ratios from 100 thousand to 100, 
million times the power per pound of chemical reaction rocket are expected 
and obtainable by my design.

I will soon post here my evaluation of previous rocket designs, as soon as I 
scan them from the printed document into word processor text. Should this not 
be prove satisfactory (my scanner has a movement clich), I will scan them as 
pictures and provide a link to the website page created for them.

>  Hence, I suspect Tom obtains his optimistic results by similar
>  kind of juggling with equations and reference frames as with his "FTL"...

I used only real world measurements and their interpolation, and not the 
overly conservative poor guesses of Bussard using only specific impulse who 
did not understand the measured power ratios of reactors or bombs and their 
fair comparison to rocket efficiencies regarding atomic Vs chemical rocket 
machines.

Please forgive my delay in responding as my computer time as been slim the 
past few weeks, I will try to respond more promptly as my work schedule has 
lightened somewhat.

Regards,
Tom


>  
>  -- Zenon Kulpa 
>