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

Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation



In a message dated 8/22/01 10:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hubbard_ron@hotmail.com writes:


Subj:starship-design: FTL Navigation
Date:8/22/01 10:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:hubbard_ron@hotmail.com
To:starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
BCC:STAR1SHIP
Sent from the Internet




I grew up reading E.E. 'Doc" Smith's Lensman novels and have always been
fascinated by the concept of the inertialess space drive. I think that with
the various new theories of inertia, such a space drive might be technically
feasible within a couple of decades.


Ron,
Liked Doc Savage novels myself/ Probably read at least some of the lensman
set but cannot remember them. Pardon the copy to your private mail but
starship lists sometimes have trouble reading my emails with AOL bue line
notation for parseing your comments as they were set up to read like so:

>> your comments

mine

>> yours again.

I do not know the switch to toggle back to the old style for starship lists.
Oh well..........


The majors of this list of probably do not agree with future FTL within
decades or far future feasability, but I see it as feasable now with exiting
technology I patented.

If by some miracle of "voodoo technology" such a drive becomes a reality,
would faster-than-light navigation be a problem?


No all is normal in space and time near C, at C and above C aboard the craft.


>From the little I care to understand about special relativity, as an object
accelerates time slows down, mass increases (thus requiring more and more
energy to push it),


You are thinking of particle accelerators, rather than rockets. The infinite
energy requirement falls when the energy is provided from the reference frame
of the rocket rather than the rest frame of the particle accelerator. Example
to accelerate 5 tons to twice light speed requires converting only of 1/2 ton
of the 95 tons of propellant to energy giving the energy required to
accelerate the 95 tons to 1/10 light speed whereas from conserving momentum
laws propel the 5 ton payload to its C + V velocity of 2C as the mass times
velocity of exhaust must equal the mass times velocity of payload with
velocity measured in a point fixed in space twixt the exhaust mass and
payload mass expressed normally as MrVr=MpMp from Newtons third law of action
equals reactions law regarding momentum and also valid in Einstein's. Special
relativity equations.

and the universe appears to shrink down ahead of it--

Yes, Also.
At c and above c rest objects behind vanish behind the ship, and objects
ahead traveling faster than light become visible. These are effects only an
observation effects caused by the limit of the speed of observer light and
not a limit on rockets velocity.  


but since Einstein had decided nothing can travel faster than the speed of
light, there doesn't seem to be any speculation on what the view would be if
all of the relativistic hindrances Einstein foresaw were removed.


Einstein in 1955 claimed he never said objects could not travel faster than
light cause he did not believe it was impossible. Newsgroup
sci.physics.relativity FAQ states it was Henry Pointcare that said it and NOT
Einstein. I agree with Einstein.  
 

hypothetical inertialess spaceship was traveling at ten times the speed of
light, would it see the universe rushing towards it or nothing at all? Or
would FTL navigation be an immensely complicated proposition?


There are two cases of FTL allowed with Einstein's special relativity.
Accelerate at one g with respect to (wrt) the ship for 355 days and one
exceeds light speed wrt earth.   Accelerate at 1g wrt the earth for 355 days
and time dilates giving a sub c velocity wrt earth and a c + v velocity wrt
the ship and one easily at that rate crosses the galaxy in 12 years ship time
though many thousands of years pass on earth. In the former case the earth
twin is much younger than time dilation permits in the later as at  c and c +
v time wrt to earth has stoped though all remains normal aboard the sship.
Time does not run backwards at c and c + v as velocity =distance
traveled/time and a vector with magnitude and direction so the negative sign
is on the nominator as distance traveled and not the time denominator.  

Tom
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Page5.html


Ron Hubbard


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp