[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel

In a message dated 2/21/00 2:45:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, Kelly St writes:

>  In a message dated 2/19/00 11:42:40 PM, STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes:
>  >In a message dated 2/19/00 6:00:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
>  >
>  >writes:
>  >
>  >> STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes:
>  >>   > >  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.
>  >>  
>  >>  I just knew you'd say something like that. 
>  >
>  >Wow, Now you are a psychic. I speak what I know to be true. Were I 
> dishonest
>  >
>  >I would have not made the patent claim 7 for it would have made the patent
>  >
>  >examination less costly by thousands of dollars.
>  >
>  >Einstein was so fearful of what he had to say about taking responsibility
>  >for 
>  >inventing the atomic bomb and how it worked he dictated his 1955 work to
>  >a 
>  >women who specialized writing physics books for children and had here 
>  >
>  >his words in her juvenile book to avoid government censors for he spoke
>  >of 
>  >things others were to be executed for during that time. It was the 
>  >
>  >era and the climate of fear dominated discussions of atomic bomb details.
>  >
>  >What Einstein said started me on my search for the machine to obtain the
>  >
>  >super light velocities he predicted were possible.
>  >
>  >The female author waited fro fear until 62 or 63 to publish. Fearful 
>  >
>  >I burned the atomic bomb diagrams I had written from his work and my note
>  >
>  >books. I kept only the library book checkout cards from my school library
>  >and 
>  >committed my work to memory for without the written work (used to execute
>  >
>  >Rosenbergs) so I figured I was safe from execution. Those library 
> references
>  >
>  >were thrown out.
>  >
>  >Research and documentation to meet your naive standards was impossible
>  >at the 
>  >time. Deal with it but you cannot ignore it simply because you do not know
>  >
>  >about it. For it did happen and his work will resurface as it has many
>  >time 
>  >since. 
>  >Examples:
>  >1. Instructor at FAA academy in 1968 taught me Einstein's impact bomb 
>  >
>  >for the third time. (The first was my uncle who built them for the Air
>  >Force)
>  >2. Explosive ordinance manual reference book inadvertently published by
>  >US 
>  >government printing office (1977) the impact bomb formulas I have 
>  >3. Found web page of Einstein's taking credit for invention and the 
>  >
>  >he told Fermi how to build the bomb in a ten minute telephone(1938) 
>  >conversation. (Erased favorite link when switched from AOL 4.0 to 5.0)
>  I'm assuming at this point your hoaxing us.  

but others have not taken me serious :=)

Speaking for myself Anecdotally, I begin my study of physics seriously in 
school form the writings of physicists who thought physics should be taught 
at the
grade school level. By high school I had designed both atomic bombs and atomic
rockets. Applied physics I learned in two years of government electronic 
By the time I actually got around to taking a university basic physics course
in (1977)learning how to measure marbles), I was so bored I drew an atomic 
on a shrinky dink (clear plastic that shrinks on heating) placed it pointed 
to the bibliography reference in "Lawrence and Oppenheimer" index listing on 
"How to Build An Atomic Bomb" and handed it in to the physics department for 
extra credit.

When the chrome foil wrap and silver thread fuse was removed from the bomb 
shaped shrinky dink the device "blew up" in size on a overhead projector for 
classroom display (show and tell).
They did not take me serious as the had the preconcieced notion that it was 
not possible as they thought it would take teams of best scientist and 
millions of dollars to do what I had done.
I then walked from the university without withdrawing so flunked out. 
Several years later I placed my work against the work of other student 
publications in the Chicago Tribune and Progressive Magazine and learned mine
was complete as they were missing parts and theory constructing duds. 
I then called they FBI and told them I designed an atomic bomb and to come out
and pick up my report. They had no problem taking me seriously' but, that is 
another story----.
My point is that if you have not learned physics before entering junior high 
you just do not have a chance of catching up.
Even the graduate level course work in physics I took was taught at the 
elementary level with not even elementary theoretical analysis or the 
definitive proofs required or understanding beyond rote memorization. As a 
result most physics Ph.Ds I converse with  cannot even analyze new theories 
against those they were taught.
Study of physics at a university even to graduate level (I have graduate 
level credits) would appear to be a waste of time until peconceived notions 
are discarded. 

Kelly, I do not play games. 
I recommend physics be learned behind the barn from forbidden knowledge books.
 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexda.html">A Definitive 
Analysis of Atomic Power</A>
 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm">Plasma Rocket Engine</
 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexC.htm">MATH PROOFS</A> 

>  - Anyone involved with physics, or weapons history knows Einstein wasn't 
> involved in the bomb program (though he wrote a letter supporting the gov 
> researching its possibility).  

Misinformation, He explained the letter to Roosevelt he signed as concocted 
by Enrico Fermi to obtain funding to build Einstein's invention. The pretense 
was that the device was not invented as funding was available for research 
and not development so the wording omitted the fact it was invented to obtain 
funding easily available to discover something while ignoring what has 
already been discovered.

This scientific method (unethical but needed method) of getting grants worked 
and first used by Roger Bacon in the 12th or 13th century on the King to get 
funds to transmute base metals to gold. ..Of general interest -- reading the 
French text of Roger Bacon, he coined the words fusion and fission 
respectively to describe the process of making gold from lighter or heavier 
elements--Believe it or not but check your library for Bacon's published 
works for verification. I recall that reference was in his work measuring the 
velocity of light.

I have no reason to believe Einstein built the device he invented. The actual 
builders of the Manhattan device wrote their names and placed them in a time 
capsule not to be uncovered for 100 years in the year 2045. I suspect Fermi 
was on the list. No proof accessible as the location of the time capsule is 
probably lost. Reference to the capsule can be found in the library of 
Congress publication entitled "Lawrence and Oppenheimer". Knowledge of it had 
leaked in a letter written by one of the builders sent to his mother's sister 
and published.

>  - nothing related to blast physics would permit, FTL exaust or in any way 
> relate to possible forms of FTL (past possible power generation).
>  - "..Found web page of Einstein's taking credit for invention.."  Einstien 
> died decades before the web was started.

Your syntex (time case)error, The web page author quoted Einstein's 1955 

>  - Even an extremely minimal knowledge of relativity would tell you that 
> travel at light speed would require infinate amounts of power, so FTL would 
> need some other trick to get around that.

Wrong the only infinite amount requirement is when you attempt to go from 
zero to light speed instanteously (very short period of time). As this is 
what particle accelerators do, they are under the limit so that laws momentum 
are conserved as proven. Chemical rockets have prior velocity limitations 
(mass and height), so the equation is not applicable there. Atomic rockets 
that do no use high specific impulse or instantaneous acceleration have no 
limit on velocity. The divide by zero consequence of a relativistic observer 
equation is defined to be the point where the observer ceases to be able to 
observe due to the velocity of the observer light limit and says nothing 
about a masses limiting velocity.

>  Its no longer credible that you could have missed all this, so it think 
> almost certain that your pulling our leg (rather then being this sloppy).

I just went into the subject and trained much deeper than you. What I cannot 
find credible is that you bought the misinformation about nucleus of protons 
and chain reactions and critical mass junk the government fed you. I only 
know what I know from insider knowledge from my early years, so as a 
humanitarian can understand you being misled. What I cannot understand is you 
being mislead for so long a time to where even my reason and logic cannot 
remove your preconceived notions that fail with the minimum of scientific 
examination and common sense.

You need to place US government press release credibility (regarding atomic 
physics -or the meaning of sexual relations) with the tooth fairy, and Santa 
Claus :+)

>  Kelly