[Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]

[Curtis Manges <clmanges@worldnet.att.net>]

Curtis Manges wrote:

> Tom,
>
> > Curtis,
> > Curious, Was your edition the following or a later translation as Einstein
> > did write with a heavy german accent. It does not sound like the Einstein
> > works I have read including his correspondence with Burtrend Russel.
> >
> >  Einstein, Albert.: THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY. ; Princeton, Princeton U. P.,
> > 1945 (2nd ed.). 135 pp. First printing of this edition. 83561 Science
> > Offered for sale by Q.M. Dabney & Co., Inc. at US$25.00
>
> Mine is the fifth edition of the same book; the publication history matches yours.
> These are the translated texts of the Stafford lectures given at Princeton in
> 1921. This edition includes a second appendix that was added in the third edition,
> so you may want to look into it; also, it was revised for the fifth edition.
> Published by:
> MJF Books
> Two Lincoln Square
> 60 W. 66th St
> NY, NY  10023
> Library of Congress catalog # 96-77139;     ISBN 1-56731-136-9
>
> I got mine from my favorite cheap book resource:
> Edward R. Hamilton
> Falls Village,  CT  06031-5000
>
> write for a catalog. Hamilton keeps prices down by operating on a prepaid-only
> basis. Lots of great stuff; I've gotten hardcover books for $1, and shipping is a
> flat $3 for any order. I looked at the latest catalog and didn't find this book,
> but titles sometimes come and go there, so it may be back, or you could enquire
> about it.
>
> > >  Now I'm perplexed. With the present exception of Dr. Jackson (to whom I
> > > apologize
> > >  for calling "Johnson" in my last post), I really didn't expect any
> > argument
> > > on
> > >  this from this group.
> > >
> > >  Awaiting further enlightenment,
> >
> > Apology accepted, I am informal so do not require people address me as
> > Doctor; However I am much pleased when they do. I have been called much worse
> > ;-)
>
> so have I!
>
> > -Enlightning you as requested-
> > In the above equation E=m/(sqrt (1-q ^2) as q appraoches one, the amount of
> > 1-q^2  approaches zero, The square root of zero is + 0 or - 0. M/+-0 is
> > undefined and not infinity. Appraching infinity is a valid exptression
> > matematically; measured in the real world of physics as a asomtote at c on a
> > x,y graph the rapidly rising portion of the graphed exponential curve never
> > meets c and at values near c run parrell without touching the asomtope. As a
> > real world value of graphs with a top limit  and not a math expression.
> > Clarifying- an x,y graph is the horizontal and vertical bisects of a large
> > square top and sides of graph (normally not shown). Infinity is not on any
> > valid graph, nor is 1/0 defined as infinity.
>
> Okay, I understand asymptotic curves (a bit like Zeno's paradoxes), but my point
> is this: even at some point below light speed, the equations say that, again, the
> faster you go, the harder it will be to go a little faster. Right? And, since the
> curve _is_ asymptotic, it's even harder than it would be if this were a
> first-order equation. All of which makes your rocket, or anyone else's rocket,
> need _way_ more fuel than it could carry in order to approach c.
>
> Believe me, this all is very counter-intuitive and quite hard for me, but it seems
> clear from Dr. E's work that, if we want to get beyond light speed, we will need
> something _very different_ from a simple reaction engine. Which is why I like the
> idea of gravity control: it's the one plausible way that I can think of around the
> problem.
>
> I may as well tell you, I never really wanted to learn any of this stuff in the
> first place. I only began studying it because I was writing a science-fiction
> novel, and wanted to know enough to write convincingly where needed. The fact that
> I continue tells something about me as a person; after all, I've figured out more
> than one way that I could write the book without ever really needing to mention
> space-time relativistic travel. Perhaps I'm drawn by the challenge, but it's more
> frustrating than rewarding, because I haven't touched calculus in 20 years, and I
> all but flunked it back then.
>
> > I could not tell where your words start and the book quote ended.
>
> The quote begins with "We recognize . . ." and ends with  ". . . the velocity of
> light." (the short paragraph following the equation.) Just look for the quotation
> marks.
>
> > In his personal written equations he commonly wrote in the paper or
> > blackboard margin Energy relativitic and velocity relativistic while he went
> > through a chain of calculations using only E and V for ease having previously
> > defined his meaning.
>
> In the book, he uses terms such as K and K',   e and e',   t and t'  -- but these
> seem to refer to different frames of reference, for the most part.
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tom
>
> Thanks,
>
> Curtis