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

*To*: starship <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>*Subject*: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]*From*: Curtis Manges <clmanges@worldnet.att.net>*Date*: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:35:21 -0400*Reply-To*: Curtis Manges <clmanges@worldnet.att.net>*Sender*: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu

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

- Prev by Date:
**Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]** - Prev by thread:
**Re: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Fwd: starship-design: re: so you want to go faster than light . . .]** - Index(es):