[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Faster than light? hmmmm. . .
In a message dated 7/22/00 2:35:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> lot of this refers to a message dated Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:33:50 EDT
> Dear all,
> Amazing. . . Never did I imagine that such an interesting event would
> by me simply writing a message trying to dispel some of the
> dealing with the “gain-assisted superluminal light propagation”
> Never the less, I will endeavor to offer any insight or offer any help
> possible. I hope you may find me equal to the task.
> In regards to the comment, “Mass would not limit a object to below light
> speed. . .” here goes nothing. As has been pointed out to me, my thoughts
> are hampered by my own math and experience limitations. My recourse is
> simple but I believe it to be correct (if not, please correct me).
> Einstein’s STR defines kinetic energy as the following:
> K.E. = (mc^2)/ sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))
> To quote Einstein from his own book entitled Relativity: the Special and
> General Theory, “ This expression approaches infinity as the velocity v
> approaches the velocity of light c. The velocity must therefore always
> remain less than c, however great may be the energies used to produce the
> acceleration.” You can’t argue with a definition unless you make a new
> (if someone has done this, let me know).
Einstein defined both velocity and velocity real in Spcial Relativity
Einstein equations list both real (not subscripted inertial frames of
reference) and relativistic[rel. or '(prime) terms as an external observer
E and E'
L and L'
T and T'
M and M'
V and V'
Infinite E' you calculated is not needed to exceed light speed for mass. A
small amount of E delivered from the inertial frame of reference and not the
observer frame is sufficient to exceed C.
V' has a light speed limit as velocities relativistic at c and above are not
defined since they are unobservable and in the real realm of negative
velocities and negative time. expressed as velocity relativistic=distance
traveled/time. V=0,>C do exist but are unobservable from the law of
Velocity real or Velocity=distance traveled / time dilated has no limit at c
though it may have a practical limit far beyond C.
>From the derivative proof (not shown) of your KE equation when v=c of
1/v^2-C^2 the equation returns 1/0 this term is undefined, but not
meaningless. It is not infinity as commonly taught. For relativistic v>c your
given equation returns imaginary numbers of a real number set.
In any case, Einstein stated in 1955 he was referring to the energy required
to be delivered from the rest frame of a partical accellerator or energy
relativistic. He knew other machines could be found to accelerate mass beyond
light speed. A atomic rocket converting some small fraction of ship mass to
energy requires much less energy. This energy does not hit infinity at v=e
relativistic. It becomes unobservable and in the set of real numbers Vrel.>c
is calculatable though not observable.
What part of velocity=distance traveled/time did you not understand?
What part of E and E' did you not understand?
Were you taught the meaning of negative velocities and negative time?
Aaron, negative velocities were taught me in Physical Science 101 in college.
Negative time of Special Relativity equations occurs at relativistic
velocities at c returning -0, and >c returning the set of velocities of
(-0,-1,-2,-3,.....-n). As V=Distance traveled/ Time dialted, negative
velocities have the minus sign placed on time in special relativity equations.
> It was said (by Dr. Jackson),
> however, that Einstein forbid only the observation of this event and on
> I would like to hear more.
An observer light from a moving velocity rel. c object sent to an earth
observer at c will not reach earth as it will "hang" relative to earth where
it was ommitted. The light sent from a Vrel. >c rocket though traveling
towards earth at light speed never reaches it as it has some negative
velocity wrt earth so is in fact traveilng away from the earth observer never
to be observed. Einstein said of this event 'just because we cannot observe
something does does not mean it does not or cannot exist'
> If something has mass, it seems to me (based on
> this definition of K.E.) that in order to reach c one would need an
> amount of energy. This also means that as you approached c, and you had
> mass, it would take more and more energy to increase one’s speed by even
> tiniest amount (but I assume that most people reading this probably know
> I could arrive at this).
That is true only with mass undergoing instaneous acceleration. A craft at
constant 1 g acceleration would have no problem exceeding c within a years
> However, there is nothing in physics (again, to my knowledge) that says
> can’t go faster than the speed of light if you cross the light barrier in
> less than planck’s time, but, again, the energy considerations for this
> would be astronomical, I can’t begin to fathom it.
Einstein said Max Planck was a poor student of Special Relativity,
> Again, I must stick to my original statement, “So you wanna go faster than
> light. Ok. Just make sure you don't have any mass. ;)” However, this
> doesn’t mean we can’t go faster than the speed of light if we can distort
> space-time in some way I’ve never heard of. (i.e. find a loop whole in the
> equations which can bring about zero mass or some other outrageous
Do not try and get around laws of physics. It is scientific unethical. Work
work with the Laws. There is no scientific Law stating notheing can exceed
> I am not convinced by the statements you gave concerning faster than light
> travel and mass. Not that I am not open to the idea of FTL, but I need to
> see some real proof. *Sorry*
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexC.htm">MATH PROOFS</A>
> And on to the experiment. Just to clear up any confusion, I didn’t
> this experiment. However, I do believe in the validity and repeatability
> the experiment.
I agree also. Thsoe that see any velocity greater than c as impodssible,
dispute the experiment with speculation not supported by the facts.
> >1. Do you have a web page outlining a physics theory?
> Its not my page, but here is the address. This experiment is based on
> calculations, given at this address, from QM and is described there.
Einstein taught (1955) Quantum theory was matematical gobbley gook
containg fatasy world phyical dimensions greater than the four valid ones.
> >2. Are you the sole author of this theory? If not, how many other
> >people collaborated in its formulation?
> Again, not my theory (and it was an experiment, not theory). I believe
> experiment is being published under three people.
> >3. To your knowledge, is your theory known to the academic community?
> The results are being considered for publication in Nature as I write this.
> >4. Does your theory contradict a currently accepted theory? (If so,
> >please briefly explain.)
> No, this experiment doesn’t. The equations were derived using Einstein’s
> own equations as well as QM.
I also use Einsteins equations, but not quantum mechanics.
> >A few prolific authors and interpreters of Special Relativity Theory
> >Millions of a >light speed limit for Mass. Einstein taught to a select
> >his special relativity theory >allowed for faster than light travel(FTL)
> >for mass objects.
> FTL is not a contradiction of Special Relativity, but clarification and
> derivations of velocity equations beyond light speed.
> (And as a side note on faster than light travel. It is interesting that
> faster than light particles, called tachyons, have already been predicted
> theory. For tachyons, it takes energy to move slower. In fact, tachyons
> have the same problem with the speed of light that we do. Much like we
> problems going faster than light, tachyons have problems going slower than
> light! This is just a hypothesis and has not been proven, and can’t be
> the experimental methods we have used thus far.)
> >5. In your opinion, on a scale of 1-10 (10=absolute certainty), how
> >likely is it that your theory correctly explains physical phenomena in
> >our universe? (i.e., do you just think it should be considered as a
> >possibility, or do you think it's definitely the answer.)
> Again, its just a neat experiment that proves what we already know.
> >9.99 as I consider Einstein a credible source and his FTL theory as
> >testable by >unobservable experiment and provable by logic. A theory of
> >velocity limit at c is >speculation unsupported by factual evidence or
> >credible logic. A limit of c is not even >a theory but only uneducated
> >guess at best.
> (As far as this goes, I believe this to be, at best, wrong. But, than
> it was kind of a subjective statement. Einstein is a credible source, I
> agree. “A theory of velocity limit at c is speculation unsupported by . .
> credible logic”- very doubtful. Einstein’s own equations, indeed, seem
> suggest a difficultly of reaching “c”. i.e. The energy you need to
> accelerate increases exponentially as you approach c. In fact, remove the
> speed of light as a constant and Special Theory of Relativity falls
A translater of his german work to english early 20th century made the
misconclusion and placed his interpertation as Einsteins word. By the time he
arrived in America and discovered the mistranslation had been taught to
millions, To conserve energy he taught correctly his personal SR students and
non academia in his 1955 childrens book.
> cannot speak to the general theory yet because the math is at too advanced
> of a level for me at the present time.) STR was created with this (light
> a constant) as one of the original, assumed postulates! If you accept
> the idea that “c” requires an infinite amount of energy to reach
E relativ. wrt earth observer only like a partical accelerator c limit.
not Energy wrt the a moving rocket.
Again, *sorry*. I don’t buy it (but I am open to suggestions that
> would lead me to a different conclusion).
I am not selling having no desire to teach the mistaugt. I teach what I was
taught by Einstein, plus some things discovered on my own
> >5. What is your physics background? Please indicate how much formal
> >academic training you've had (high school, college, etc.), as well as
> >other resources you've used to learn physics.
> Yes, I’ve graduated high-school. . .he he he. Presently, I am earning a
> degree in Physics and Astronomy, with minors in Math and English @ Drake
Very good Aaron, please do not set in class dewey eyed learning by rote
memorizatrion without understanding question all as Sturgeons Law is 90% of
every thing is crap.
Do understand, Universities are only allowed to teach to level 6 as highy
technical and specialized training is reserved for laboratories and formal on
the job training.
Seek future employment at state and federal level where all training expense
and living expenses are paid for. -Just a recommendation.
> >6. How old are you?
> I really believe that age should have very little to do with credibility.
> Because this question implies (to me) that the older you are, the more
> credible you are, I will not answer it. Credibility has nothing to do
> age, but deals with experience. (Based on my responses, however, you can
> probably guess my age, and I have already given you my experence).
I agrre age is not factor for telling the truth. I have taught faster than
light since the age of 13 when I read Einsteins words on its possiblility.
Establishing credibility is another matter. I use Doctor James Randi's
(magician) debunking approach. I ask physics to prove their light speed limit
> >7. What do you do for a living?
> Based on how things look now, I’ll probably be a student for the rest of
> life (or at least the next 6 years.) ;)
> >8. Do you expect to be eventually recognized for your work? (If not
> >credited during your lifetime, then at least historically vindicated.)
> Again, not my experiment and yes. I hope I can play a part before I pass
> on. ;)
> >9. Briefly, why do you study physics?
> I can’t hope to answer that. ;) I’ll let Q do that, lol.
> “We hoped to open your mind and your horizons and for one
> brief moment you did. In that one fraction of a second you were open to
> possibilities you have never considered. That is the exploration that
> awaits you. Not charting stars and exploring nebula, but exploring the
> unknown possibilities of existence.”
> Wow. That was a lot of work. Most of you probably know much more than
> ever wanted to know about me. Again, sorry about that. Now on to
> I believe that a star ship design based merely on the use of fission for
> energy (i.e. fission bombs) is simply much to energy inefficient for
> to dream of investing in for any kind of interstellar journey.
Do the math and you will not agree. This time use Einstein's Energy instead
of Energy relativistic equations.
> I believe
> that fusion and antimatter are really the only methods that provide enough
> energy based on the amount of fuel needed (this means I stray away from
> projects like the orion, because nuclear fission bombs simply do not
> enough matter to energy,
My engine uses fission and fusion to provide the energy required. Rockets
with bomb exhaust do instantaneous acceleration so cannot excced light speed.
>while antimatter/matter reactions have a
> theoretical 100% matter to energy rate. . . .and yes, I realize the
> limitations in creating antimatter).
Opps, you just left applied physics with known technology and entered
theoretical physics.- Shame
> I believe that a system proposed at
> the address
> has some real promise. The following is the gist of what I believe,
> currently, holds the most promise for an interplanetary method of
He lists his antimatter.fission/fusion/ specific impulse at 1000,000 seconds.
Nasa has other plasma rockets with projected specific impuses of 1,000,000
seconds. `10 times more powerful. My engine exceeds Nasa best on drawing
<Poor performing theoretical engine idea with 20,000 seconds specific impuse
> Well, everyone who read this entire thing. . . .congrats. It was long and
> I’m very tired. I hope this helped someone learn a little more about
> something or at least provided some entertainment at my expense. ;)
I am not laughing an welcome any serious inquiry, I hope I was able to
dispell some commonly taught misinformation.
Doctor Thomas H. Jackson
> PS: My hats off to you Dr. Jackson.
Thank you, It was quite an effort but most enjoyable ;-).