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

```
>  >  > 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.

Posted with curtises permission-tom.

>From Curtis
>  >  What you seem to be saying is that the rocket pilot sees E real (the
> linear
>  >  graph) and has all the fuel he needs to surpass c by a simple steady
>  >  acceleration, while the Earth observer sees the E rel graph and thinks
> you'
>  > ll
>  >  never make it. Is this what you meant to say? If so, it implies that
the
>  > pilot
>  >  could accelerate _beyond_ c and not even know he'd done it, while the
> Earth
>  >  observer would simply see the rocket vanish, as though it had suddenly
>  > jumped
>  >  across that tiny gap between the asymptotic curve and the ideal limit.
>
>  Curtis
>  You have an excellent understanding of what does occur ;-).
>
>  > It
>  > seems
>  >  somehow inconsistent . . .
>
>  Consider then negative velocities where though an observer light is
> traveling from the c or >c rocket to the earth observer at light speed.
> Relative to earth the light is traveling away from the earth at light speed
> or obtaining a negative velocity. Light traveling towards the eath and away
> from the earth at the same time is not inconsistant. It is from the two
> frames (wrt ship, wrt earth) by which it is observed, as a basic postulate
of
> relativity validating both frames.
>
>  Your next step in understanding is to break the negative velocity down to
> distance traveled/time and place the negative sign in front of time.
Distance
> traveled(D) is a vector without direction. Time is a scaler vector having
> both direction and magnitude designated in this case by the negative
> direction sign for -180 degrees and a magnitude of c to >c value. Do not
> confuse direction with the temporary Length(L) variable of special
> relativitey for that forshortning occurs on board the moving ship seen only
> in the earth observer eye.
>
>  From there it is simple to see that the rocket returning to earth after
near
> light speed trip returns to earths distant future. At c and greater
> velocities he returns to his anchient relativites on earth finding them
much
> younger than he calculated at sub light speed. The negative time variable
> does not allow him to travel backward in time as the earth twin is still
> older than when the rocketman twin left.
>
>  As time does flow forward and not backward. At sub light speed the rocket
> man can observe his distant twin as he was some years ago as a function of
> the time it takes observer light to reach the ship allowing one to "see"
> backwards in time like we do presently with distant stars. At velocities c
> and greater wrt earth no observation backward in time is possible from
either
> frame of reference.
>
>  It is indeed possible to calculate with negative velocites and time just
how
> much younger the earth twin would be on returning compared to his older
> advanced age; calculated from sub but near c velocities after the rocket
man
> returns compared to his c or > c trip returning. Time travel then is not
> observable except at sub light velocities but calculatable all velocities
(>c,
> c,>c), although the effects are observable when both frames of reference
> coincide when rocket man returns to his earth twin or his ancient twins
bones
> as the case may be.
>
>  True grist for your sci.faction novel.
>
>  Tom
>
>  Tom
>
>  This is simple analytic geometry and requires no calculus.
```