[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel
In a message dated 3/17/00 10:55:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
> STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes:
> > As with known bomb and reactor fusion and fusion reactions, my plasma
> > Americium 241 above critical mass contain mostly fusion compared to
> > reactions. The liquid propellant (water) exposed to the plasma
> > has mainly fission (hydrogen) with some fusion products. The higher the
> > plasma temperature the smaller the fission parts.
> Elements heavier than iron will only fuse if you put energy into the
> reaction. You aren't going to get fusion products out of Americium,
> only fission products. You seem to be deeply confused about the basics
> of nuclear fission and fusion.
Nonsense, the confusion is yours.
Einstein invented the atomic bomb and that fact blows your nonsense theories
you were taught out of the water.
quoting (I bolded the original text for emphasis)
Albert Einstein from the
Some people called me amazing. I was born in Germany in the year 1879. I went
to the United States in the 1930s. I developed the important theories of
relativity. The famous equation E=MC^2 led to the development of nuclear
fission and eventually the atomic bomb. My reason for inventing the atomic
bomb, was because the received evidence that Germany (my native country) was
planning to build an atomic bomb. They were going to use it against the
United States. The atomic bomb was made in the U.S. and in 1945 the United
States used the atomic bomb. They used it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While I
was attending college Marcel Grossman, a classmate, said, "This Einstein will
one day be a very great man." Marcel Grossman was right.
End quote ---------
> > Even were my "fusion drive" very low efficiency aboard my 105 ton craft
> > 1/2 ton of americium 241 need to be converted to the energy required to
> > accelerate the 100 tons of propellant causing the 5 ton payload to
> > light speed relativistically to earth observer and with time dilation
> > greater than light speed wrt to the ship for just such an acceleration.
> Even if you were to indulge in your amusing habit of mixing Newtonian
> and relativistic physics, you would find that accelerating a payload to
> a high fraction of c requires a quantity of energy comparable to the
> mass of the payload converted _completely_ to energy.
Nonsense, You cannot ignore Newtonian physics and see only relativistic
(observer effects) as important. Einstein's equations use the terms E and E'
for Newtonian and relativistic energy respectively. The value is different
and both are valid. It is obvious both observer (relativistic effect) and
Newtonian physics aboard the spacecraft are calculated by SR equations and
The E' value you find required is observed from the earth. The value I
require aboard my ship is E =MC^2. If you will stop mixing frames of
reference for a minute and observer that to calculate the energy observed
relativistically you have to use the relativistic mass M' in your calculation
to prevent mixing of frames. The increased relativistic 1/2 ton mass
approaches infinity as the velocity approaches light speed.
This real difference in the masses and resulting energy is the factor you
underestimate the velocity obtainable by my machine.
> As a very rough
> approximation fission converts about 1/1000 of the mass of the fission
> fuel to energy, so 500 kg of fission fuel won't get you more than about
> 0.5 kg of mass converted to energy, and correspondingly won't accelerate
> even its own fission products to more than about 1/1000 c. It would
> accelerate your 5 ton payload considerably less. That's probably good
> enough for interplanetary velocities, but you're going to need a _lot_
> more fuel than that to achieve relativistic velocities.
Nonsense, your wrong, poorly calculated as shown, but forgivable. Einstein
claimed in 1955 he never said objects cannot exceed light speed and gave the
reasons I give always. He said the misunderstanding began when a translator
for his German SR theory was translated to English. The translator used his
own misunderstanding and quoted the misinformation attributing his own
thoughts as quoted as what Einstein said. Widely published in America, by the
time he got over here and his English had greatly improved he made not
attempt to correct (until 1955) the public misunderstanding. He focused
instead on teaching correctly his student classes at Princeton and CalTech.
Since then I have found no quote or work by any of his actual students or
Einstein, claiming otherwise.
It is time for you to put up or shut up and listen.
Show me other wise.