[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel
> 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
> > 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
> 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
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.