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

*To*: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu*Subject*: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel*From*: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>*Date*: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:01:18 -0800 (PST)*In-Reply-To*: <35.30022b8.261034f5@aol.com>*References*: <35.30022b8.261034f5@aol.com>*Reply-To*: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>*Sender*: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu

STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > I previously pointed out why and how the relativistic rocket equation MV > times gamma of payload=MV times gamma of exhaust converts to the real > equation MV of exhaust= MV of payload by canceling the gamma factor out. You can't cancel out the gamma factors because the payload and the fuel are travelling at different velocities, hence have different gamma factors. > > In the situation where your 5 ton payload _instantaneously_ reacts 100 > > tons of fuel which is ejected in one direction at 0.1 c, then we would > > have: > > > > Mp * Vp / sqrt(1 - Vp^2) = Mf * Vf / sqrt(1 - Vf^2) > > First my engine does not use instanteous acceleration. It ejects propellant > gradually or I would have to use the particle accelerator equation. Which is why your "Mp * Vp = Mf * Vf" is still wrong. That equation is inherently about an instantaneous reaction. In any case the payload velocity obtained by gradually reacting the fuel is always _less_ than the velocity you could obtain if you reacted it all instantaneously. In a rocket that carries its fuel along with it, reacting the fuel gradually means that some of that energy goes into accelerating the remaining fuel along with the payload, so overall less energy goes into accelerating the payload itself. > Einstein found and saw the problem with relativistic equations containing a > sqrt term as some root solutions from square roots gave invalid results of > imaginary solutions so corrected his relativistic equations to eliminate that > problem. I suspect you learned that equation in historical sequence without > examining and using his later corrections. Many relativistic equations give imaginary results if you plug velocities greater than c into them. Since relativity is not intended to make any predictions about what will happen should something move faster than c, it's physically meaningless to talk about using velocities greater than c in relativistic formulae. > What part of Velocity real = distance divided by time dilated did you > not understand? I understand that it's a physically bogus concept. You're combining measurements made in different reference frames, which is relativistically invalid. > You can repeat making unsubstaniated claims (arrogance) a thousand times and > they do not become true. Yes, I wish you'd figure that out. > I have the patent rights to a star ship and you just are not going to get to > heaven(s) unless I decide you are behaving. Chortle. Given the combination of wishful thinking, wild handwaving, and garbled math you keep throwing around, I doubt you're going anywhere. If you think I'm misunderstanding relativity, take it up with Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler. I'm much more willing to trust their scholarship and their coherent explanation of relativity in their book _Spacetime Physics_ than I am willing to trust your frequently contradictory and self-aggrandizing statements.

**References**:**Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel***From:*STAR1SHIP@aol.com

- Prev by Date:
**Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel** - Next by Date:
**starship-design: Save Iridium?!** - Prev by thread:
**Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel** - Next by thread:
**Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel** - Index(es):