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

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 
>  >  > aproaches the c asomtope.
>  >  > Now if you graph the Ereal curve you will find it a first order 
>  > 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 
> a 
>  > rest
>  >  > frame to a moving object like a partical accelerator and the second 
> 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 
>  > 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 
> 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. 
> 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 
> light speed trip returns to earths distant future. At c and greater 
> velocities he returns to his anchient relativites on earth finding them 
> 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 
> frame of reference. 
>  It is indeed possible to calculate with negative velocites and time just 
> 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 
> 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), although the effects are observable when both frames of reference 
> coincide when rocket man returns to his earth twin or his ancient twins 
> as the case may be.
>  True grist for your sci.faction novel.
>  Tom 
>  Tom 
>  This is simple analytic geometry and requires no calculus.