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

Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel

In a message dated 3/20/00 2:19:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org 

> STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes:
>   > Einstein invented the atomic bomb and that fact blows your nonsense 
> theories 
>   > you were taught out of the water.
>  The atomic bomb was invented by a group of physicists and engineers
>  working for the Manhattan Project.  That group didn't include Einstein.
>  Einstein showed that you could release enormous quantities of energy
>  from matter, but was not directly involved in creating the atomic bomb.

I at no time did I say he was involved in building the device which was the 
main purpose of the Manhattan project. I said he invented the device.

All invention processes have benchmark dates. Date of conception where the 
device is first formed in the minds eye. That was around 1913,14  for the 
atomic bomb. Date of reduction to practice. That was 1938 when the device is 
described in text and in some cases can include drawings to another to where 
the another person can build the device. For the atomic bomb that was when he 
told (1938) Enrico Fermi how to build the device in a ten minute telephone 
conversation by using impact forces created by firing disks or half spheres 
together or surrounding a sphere with explosive charge to focus as a lens 
system (external spherical casing) the impact shockwave at the center of the 
mass. Sufficient force could then to cause the already unstable isotopes of 
radioactive metals to split (fission) and release the energy of converted 
mass and energy of smaller elemental parts given high velocity. This reaction 
would build to a point where the container would burst releasing the energy 
in an instant of time.

Enrico Fermi had figured out near 1920 that Einstein knew how to build such a 
bomb from reading Einstein's work and when He went to Einstein's house to ask 
him how to build it. Einstein angrily threw him out stating 'No one will ever 
build such a device from my theory.' Fermi kept after him till the 1930s and 
Einstein finally agreed to tell him only if evidence was found that Hitler 
was working on the device. Fermi then got with German scientists allied with 
our intelligence agencies throughout the war and fabricated the evidence 
including cloud chamber drawings and presented the evidence to Einstein. This 
led to the phone call, I mentioned. Fermi then hand wrote a letter request 
for funding delivered by Leo Silizard to Einstein. Einstein then typed and 
signed the letter to Roosevelt much to his regret and under duress as Fermi 
was working for army intelligence (SS). Einstein was a German National and 
Foreigner that could do nothing but surrender his personal writing to him.

>   > http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/Einstein.html
>  That wasn't written by Einstein himself; it's a somewhat inaccurate
>  summary of Einstein's work written by some students.  See the URL
>  http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/ for the context.

Wrong, the text matches what I read in 1963 of Einstein's near death bed 
confession of 1955.  The see the quotation given 

"Einstein, Albert." Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (1994 ed.)

Kett, Joseph. The Dictionry of Cultural Literacy, Second edition, Revised and 
updated. 1993.

The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language, Third Edition. 1992 

The next link I am providing you is quoting a women with a top secret 
clearance from the middle 1940's whose job was to compile for publication 
Einstein's information on how to build an atomic bomb. She states they failed 
to do so. He succeeded in early 1955, by finding a female author who took his 
dictated work, and waited (from fear) before publishing his work in 61 or 62 
as he had instructed to publish in juvenile book form to avoid the censors. 
That is book I read, and these are the links verifying.

Note! Einstein wrote very little he dictated most of work.

The link;
 <A HREF="http://www.sunone.com/news/articles/12-28-99h.shtml">Einstein 
fondly recalled by area woman</A> 

Partial quote----
  Tuesday, December 28, 1999

Einstein fondly recalled by area woman
Sun staff writer 
A former military enlistee who once did some typing for Albert Einstein was 
thrilled to hear that he had been named "Person of the Century" by Time 
magazine. She would like to read the article but the magazine is not sold in 
her home county in rural Florida except by subscription. 

"I already had him pegged -- to me he was the greatest person on this earth," 
said Jo Garland of rural Gilchrist County. Now 78 and a widow, Garland said 
her impression of Einstein when she was a young woman was that, "He was a 
sweet man." 

This week's Time magazine cover story is about the late scientific genius who 
won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921, developed the theory of relativity 
and helped convince President Franklin D. Roosevelt to build the atom bomb. 

Garland had joined the WACs -- Women's Army Corps -- shortly after it was 
formed in 1943. She got a top secret security clearance and was sent to work 
with the Atomic Energy Commission. She had been working on the 59th floor of 
the Empire State Building handling various clerical duties when her 
supervisor asked for volunteers. 
Albert Einstein was named Person of the Century this week
by Time magazine.
Special to the Sun  

"They wanted us to do some typing for him (Einstein)," Garland said. "He 
wanted to put together what he knew about the atomic bomb in book form so he 
doled out what he wanted typed, and there was no way someone could put it all 
together after that." 

Garland said she and the other volunteer typists did their work for Einstein 
in another building a short walk from the Empire State. Security in the 
mid-1940s was much more lax than today's world of walk-through metal 
detectors and fingerprint recognition programs. 

"The security people would be standing outside the door, but they recognized 
all of us from the other (Empire State) office and so they would let us in," 
Garland said. 

Once at their typewriters, Garland remembered that the WACs got their 
instructions from a man in baggy clothing with unruly hair -- Einstein. 

"He would hand it (the day's work) to you and tell you what he wanted and he 
would tell us not to worry about punctuation or capitalization or anything 
right then," Garland said. "He wanted universities to be able to study how 
they had made the atom bomb and he said other people would do all that 

Garland recalled that she was one of about 10 typists who volunteered to work 
on Einstein's project, a task that took a couple of weeks

end partial quote----

And his description on how to build and atomic bomb at this link.

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexda.html">A Definitive 
Analysis of Atomic Power</A> 
>   > 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 
>   > underestimate the velocity obtainable by my machine.
>  But if the fuel gets heavier as the ship goes faster, so would the ship,
>  and therefore that increasing amount of energy you think you'd get would
>  have to be applied to an equally magnified payload mass.  The effects
>  cancel out.

You skipped a step the mass that needs to be converted to provide the 
relativistic energy you calculated was the relativistic mass. To get the mass 
wrt the ship you have to use the mass transform the other direction (that is 
why the are called transformations as they go both ways with equal validity) 
to arrive at the 1/2 ton mass I did unless you made some sort of math error I 
did not catch. 

Cancellation of the gamma factor is common with the general rocket equation 
as (gamma times mass times velocity)of payload=(gamma times mass times 
velocity) of propellant. Although the respective gamma variable are different 
letters the values calculated are the same so as gamma subscript payload 
(gp)=gamma subscript(ge) exhaust then  ge/gp = 1 and makes the cancellation 

>  The term "relativistic mass increase" is actually a physical misnomer
>  that resulted from a misunderstanding of Einstein's writings.  Timothy
>  van der Linden gave us a citation of a very nice article explaining the
>  history of the term "relativistic mass" and why it's often currently
>  discouraged; see
>  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive/sd-1999-1/msg00129.html

Mostly nonsense for the reasons I give. Widely taught through rote 
memorization without understanding the theory falls with methodology of 
science, logic and deductive reasoning. Relativistic mass causes students to 
ask questions the professors have no answer for. Saying "I dunno" makes poor 
teachers feel ignorant. They found it betters to teach without allowing 
questioning and at test time flunk those who do not agree (captive audience 
is the student body of academia)

>  You can get a seemingly large amount of energy from 1/2 ton of
>  radioactive material.  But you can't get more than 1/2 ton * c^2 joules
>  from it, and much less than that if all you do is let is undergo normal
>  fission.  You need much more than that amount of energy to accelerate a
>  multi-ton ship to a high fraction of c, whether you do your calculations
>  with Newtonian or relativistic equations.
>   > It is time for you to put up or shut up and listen.
>   > Show me other wise.
>   > 
>   > Respectfully.
>   > Tom Jackson
>  Honestly, I'm not seeing you showing anyone here much respect. 

Only you and Kelly have responded with the attitude that I came to my 
opinions as they differed from yours from lack of knowledge. Without any 
anger or disrespect, I patiently provided you with the documentation you 
alleged did not exist.

> If
>  anyone questions the contradictions or logical errors you make, you just
>  start making more grandiose and flawed statements and citations, or
>  referring to erroneous citations. 

I have only said what I have verified carefully over many years and compiled 
into my work in an authoritative manner some do find offensive. I have read 
many of this lists archives and have the highest respect for the differing 
opinions expressed.

> I'm listening, but you're not going
>  to convince anyone with internally inconsistent bluster.

No brag just fact. Ignoring the documentation I offer does all members 

Proper scientific examination of any new idea does not begin with your 
methods of denouncing as false, fraud, confusion or in Kelly' case "Hoax"

Proper scientific examination begins with a simple question such as "If this 
is so then why .....?. This gives the person the reasonable opportunity to 
provide reasonable explanation or at least save face and change position. 
Your strong declarative statements immediately attacking the intelligence, 
training and probably parentage of those not sharing your belief system is 
nonscientific nonsense. You or anyone here has yet to make me angry ;=) as I 
am a veteran of sci.physics news group. This group is very well read and 
behaved and only a breath of fresh air to me...

>  If you're convinced that we're sticks-in-the-mud brainwashed by the
>  scientific establishment, then I recommend that you unsubscribe from
>  this mailing list. 

No need as only one or two try to shout me down and even those I respect from 
their accomplishments, even though they do not return the respect.

> Let me remind you again of the statement you should
>  have seen when you signed up for the list:
>     Although clearly there is much speculation involved in the
>     development of future technology, this mailing list is
>     practically oriented and proposals should be justifiable using
>     presently-known engineering techniques and scientific knowledge.

That is all that I have presented in my responses. Practical and presently 
known engineering techniques and scientific knowledge. 

>     Proposals involving highly speculative topics such as FTL
>     (faster-than-light) propulsion or novel energy generation
>     techniques will be treated quite skeptically by list members.

Any idiot can be a skeptic.
I treat people with reason being a reasonable man and expect the same. 

I was forewarned but do not expect when I am attacked with skepticism and not 
reason, I should not defend with the minimum force required (verified source 
and credentials).

Although I have more than a dozen diplomas from universities I care nothing 
for the titles bestowed. I do not use my titles in my published work. When 
readers of my work correspond and start their letters with Dr. Jackson, that 
is a bestowment of title from peers, that I am most delighted and pleased to 
acknowledge with the returned legally defined signature.

Doctor Thomas H. Jackson,
Common Law Doctorates,
Math, Physics, Computer Science, General Education