[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel
In a message dated 3/26/00 9:02:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
> STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes:
> > I previously pointed out why and how the relativistic rocket equation
> > 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
Nonsense- The velocity used is that of the payload wrt the exhaust and the
second gamma velocity is that of the exhaust wrt the payload. The same value.
Do the math the both gamma variables calculate to the same numeric value.
Quit making unsubstaniated claims.
Laws of math - you can multiply both sides of any equation by any variable or
constant and the equation remains equal. -used to solve problems and clear
denominators of fractions and decimals. If a=b and b= c then a=c and a/c=1
making the factor cancelable.
Law of physics-
Gamma is a complex variable with mass, velocity, time and spacial dimensions.
Momentum (p)is conserved.
Thus momentum of the payoad=momentum of exhaust and gammas cancel.
> > > In the situation where your 5 ton payload _instantaneously_ reacts
> > > tons of fuel which is ejected in one direction at 0.1 c, then we
> > > have:
> > >
> > > Mp * Vp / sqrt(1 - Vp^2) = Mf * Vf / sqrt(1 - Vf^2)
> > First my engine does not use instanteous acceleration. It ejects
> > 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.
nonsense, I never used your Mf equation;=) sometines I use Me * Ve = Mp * Mp
The recation is a law of physics stating for every action there is an equal
and oposite reaction. My engine is a reaction engine and the reaction is not
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.
so much nonsense I cannot correct you.
> > Einstein found and saw the problem with relativistic equations
> > sqrt term as some root solutions from square roots gave invalid results
> > imaginary solutions so corrected his relativistic equations to
> > problem. I suspect you learned that equation in historical sequence
> > 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.
That is just silly as it is well understood as a consequence of time dilation.
What is bogus is you thinking velocites measured on earth of rockets is valid
while velocities measured aboard the craft with their time piece are invalid.
> > You can repeat making unsubstaniated claims (arrogance) a thousand
> > they do not become true.
> Yes, I wish you'd figure that out.
My claims are substantiated- documented.
I. Einstein invented the atomic bomb. -credible sources
2. He taught "how to make an atomic atomic bomb"- credible sources
3. I have invented and patented an atomic rocket engine.- credible sources,
resume -patent office and educational transcript so credible that if I alter
or forge the government document transcripts and dipomas or patent letter
legal documents numbers, it would be punishable by fine and imprisonment and
more so just plain silly.
4. I have built a super computer from scratch. Rocket scientist resume and in
case you missed the post
> > Since the CPU chip used in the first PC's, was one of the many parallel
> > processing chips of the early super computers. All CPU chips today
> > contain the lead input/output pins for connecting in series or parallel
> > other chips. In one case I used a Novel network board connected to
> > lead-in pins and wired many (100) used complete XT (Z-80 chip if my
> > serves) and AT CPU's in parallel. It worked well and passed the "smoke
> > :=). As used and new 386, 486 and pentium CPUs became available the
> > were changed out.
> Tom, you're making stuff up again.
Truth is stranger than fiction and sometimes harder to belive. ;=)
Not only did I build it, I built it on the fly without any plans as my job
was to test hard drives in the engineering lab. It evolved over 3 years
period as I was required to test more and more drives with the same man
power. Peak production was testing 1100 drives at once. Many on Apple and Sun
systems that were not networked had monitors and keyboard and required manual
input to test the 6 drives each on SCSI cable with id 1-6. 600 drives were
networked on IBM clones as described so that the paralleled CPU's could be
run from the single series CPU with monitor and keyboard at my desk.
The team evaluated many network systems before I found that Novel allowed the
parallel connection mentioned by finding the display the same as a test
monitor hooked to the parallel PC. I then used LAN Assist (like PC anywhere
for DOS) to run the proprietary testing software contained on a floppy in
each PC. This software placed the drives in constant read, writes and seeks
and recorded each bit written, seeks, recovered and unrecovered errors. and
placed daily the summary file on the floppies named like A17.txt designating
the drive number rack no and PC no.
I wrote programs on the fly and ran bat files and Useful Macros scripts with
keystrokes and time delays) to automate collecting each summary daily and for
collecting the files, printing. Evaluating unrecovered errors analyzing drive
failures for failure analysis and determining mean time between
failures(MTBF) -goal one million hours. I put the drives back in test after
an hour or so analysis- each drive blinked constantly and the system
evaluated trillions of bits of data on a daily basis.
Before I left all 100 PC CPUs had been moved to stainless steel wire rack
shelves and the drives were on the same type rack in a heat room connected to
the PCs by 20 foot SCSI, ESDI, and IDE cables. The heat room MTBF formula
could then be adjusted for accelerated failure rate causing less testing
time. We moved 5 or six times during building and as 5 or 10 tons of
air-conditioning were put in, when we moved out, offices moved in., thus air
conditioning a large portion of the plant to boot. Even lightning strikes
tripping many surge suppressors could not bring the system down unless
building power went out. Yes (you might ask) when the system powered up daily
after a minute shut down the overhead lights dimmed
5. You are mistaught and misbehaving- obvious
> > I have the patent rights to a star ship and you just are not going 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
I will remind you again. You doubted
1. Einstein invented the bomb,
2. Einstein taught how to build the bomb.
3. The patent office has documented my invention.
4. I build a super computer from scratch.
I proved you wrong each of four times. Doubt:
5. I will exceed light speed
Based soley on your doubt ability- more proof- I cannot fail to exceed light
> 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.
I only contradict you and never my self. More unsubstantiated claimes from
As for Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler. I doubt they read
Einstein's 1955 work (from a children's book)so can know little of velocity
I will make this self-aggrandizing statement-
Math Proves- The length of my education transcript (since high school) is
longer than Taylor's, Wheelers, and Steve email@example.com transcripts combined.
And that is just grand ;+)
You loose, but I will not leave you with nothing left. I will not use a spell
checker so maybe you can find a small grammatecal error or speling error to
try again to discredit a life's work with your arrogant, mean spirited,