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

```In a message dated 7/22/00 11:38:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes:

> > 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?

That is basically correct and I find no fault with your logic to that point.

> 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.

You logic fails at that point with graphical analyisis of the E rel. curve on
mass, velocity or a graphs x,y axis. You do see clearly the curve as it
aproaches the c asomtope.
Now if you graph the Ereal curve you will find it a first order linear curve.
(straight line is in set of all curves).  That second graphed line on the
same set of axis, extends from the origin through the c asomtope to
velocities greater than c. The first graph is of energy delivered from a rest
frame to a moving object like a partical accelerator and the second is of
energy delivered from the moving object or the inertial frame of reference
like an atomic rocket.

>  >
>  > 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 have not objection of anyone finding another type of rocket to exceed light
speed besides my own. It is clear to me your proposals are not applied
physics but theoretical physics. Not a bad thing but a limiting one as it
requires some future discovery rather than existing knowledge. Man had the
theory of needing a machine to open a tin can invention for 75 years after
the invention before he invented one.

>  > 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.

You have no trouble writing convincingly as you are convinced of FTL
possiblity.

>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,

You are going to have to trust me on this. "All of the equation of the
science of physics contain no calculus as Newton warned of its application.
Calculus is only an engineering math and has no place out side of
engineering. You can create in your writings and drawings a working diagram.

>  and I
>  > all but flunked it back then.

Einstein did flunk calculus. It is not logical and so does not coexist well
with physics thought. I.e. it is from an imaginary math coordinate system of
arithmatic. Physics is  real world measurements and calculations using
algebra.

>  >
>  > > 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.

That is correct. Follow it through to see for E or V there are two valid
frames of reference. That of the observer and that of the observed. Both
frames require both set of equations giving calculations be made to
completeness before you attempt to speculate what one set of equations (used
for partical acellarators) mean and and limits as inclusive to the entire
universe and all machines including rockets.

Apply the equations to diferent machines. A bicycle has a practical limit
less than c for non relativistic reasons. A atomic rocket has no c limit for
special relativistic reasons.

Regards,
Tom
>  > Thanks,
>  >
>  > Curtis
>
```