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

[STAR1SHIP@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/25/00 4:07:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes:

> Okay, now let's look at something else for a moment. Let's just assume an 
> analogy
>  between the experiences of breaking the sound barrier and breaking c. We 
> know
>  that when an airplane is pushing through the sound barrier, it's flight 
gets
>  rough for a while, then smoothes out once past Mach 1. And we know that the
>  airplane is then making a sonic boom; a concussion wave of sorts, right? 

correct

>Now 
> --
>  are there any sorts of analogous phenomena that we might guess at or 
expect 
> for a
>  ship breaking through c? 

Not compared to the shockwavecreated by sound. A board the ship all appears 
normal is a basic postulate of special relativity. wrt an earth observer the 
ship would vanish from observation. 

>Has there even been any serious speculation on this?

Not speculation but calculations show that behind ship objects reaching -c 
from the ship disappear from view and forward objects entering from greater 
than c enter into view with side objects viewed from the shop in a shfted 
cone of doppler and lengt contraction cone. Speculation about the big bang 
theory suggest distant stars are nearing light speed due to expansion; 
therefore those "edge" stars outside the visable universe would come into 
view. My self I do not subscribe to the big bang thoery for star distantce 
measurements used in the theory are not corrected to account for the doppler 
shift caused by distant light traveling through thousands of gravitational 
fields till they reach earth. Einstein equations included a doppler ship for 
mass atraction effects that would be accumulative summed for distant star 
light accounting for the earth observed doppler shift
>  I
>  know of one physicist who postulates that GRB's are produced by 
superluminal
>  stars, which is why I asked.
>  
>  His website is at:   http://www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents

I read much of the sight and missed the GRB jargon you did not define, So I 
will answer on what I saw. Einstein claimed poorly designed experiments like 
miclal morleyson and others could prove noting either way so it would seem 
Gassbeek relying on them to support his theory is not valid. His 
understanding of relitivity in mor from the Lorents scool of closet etherist 
whose ideo of scientific thought is that if sound needs air to travel through 
then light needs something to travel through therefore the conjur up "ether" 
and spend time and grant money looking for it. They did not know enough to go 
back to the basics and see why sound needs air to transfer mechanical 
vibration and light propogates through a vaccum as an electro/magnetic wave. 

Time dilation was not proven by later experiment after Eintein died in the 
orbiting atomic clock and the earh twin clock returning time consistant with 
Einsteins equations' and in addition returning velocity real and velocity 
relativistic, therefore Gaasbeeks alternate relativity based on no time 
dilation is proven false by default as the counter proof does exist. His 
speculation about subatomic particals is not supported by experiment and his 
idea for a grand unified field theory contridicts Einsteins instructions for 
developing it. 

Provide GRB definition and I may revise what I say.
>  
>  I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

I like his attidude to seek alternative theories when SR is no mistaught that 
the logical inconsistancies require questioning the SR theorys crediblity. 
Unscramble the misinformation of SR and stick with Einsteins understanding of 
it and Geesbeeks alt theory fails easily.

Tom
 
>  
>  Curtis