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

starship-design: Is A Star Ship Practical Today ???



Quote------------------------------:
[Relativity FAQ] - [Copyright]
Updated 14-January-1998 by PEG
Original by Philip Gibbs 14-April-1997
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/FTL.html

"When Einstein wrote down his postulates for special relativity he did not 
include the statement that you cannot travel faster than light. There is a 
misconception that it is possible to derive it as a consequence of the 
postulates he did give. Incidentally, it was Henri Poincare who said "Perhaps 
we must construct a new mechanics, ... in which the speed of light would 
become an impassable limit." That was in an address to the International 
Congress of Arts and Science in 1904 before Einstein announced special 
relativity in 1905."


"It is a consequence of relativity that the energy of a particle of rest mass 
m moving with speed v is given by

           E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)  
As the speed approaches the speed of light the energy approaches infinity. 
Hence is should be impossible to accelerate an object with rest mass to the 
speed of light and particles with zero rest mass must always go at exactly 
the speed of light otherwise they would have no energy. This is sometimes 
called the "light speed barrier" but it is very different from the "sound 
speed barrier". As an aircraft approaches the speed of sound it starts to 
feel pressure waves which indicate that it is getting close. With some more 
thrust it can pass through. As the light speed barrier is approached (in a 
perfect vacuum) there is no such effect according to relativity. Moving at 
0.99999c is just like standing still with everything rushing past you at 
-0.99999c. Particles are routinely pushed to these speeds in accelerators so 
the theory is well established. Trying to get to the speed of light in this 
way is like trying to get to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

This explains why it is not possible to exceed the speed of light by ordinary 
mechanical means.

End quote------------------ 

Einstein explained the above given equation as a limit on particle 
accelerator to accelerate the particle to only sub C as proven mathematically 
and by particle accelerator experiments. He then said "because" a particle 
accelerator has to provide the energy to accelerate the particle from a rest 
frame base to a relativistically increasing mass towards infinity so the 
energy required tended towards infinity. "In relativity calculation do not 
mix frames of reference. "It did not rule out a different machine being found 
that provides the energy from a different frame reference so would require 
the energy calculation being redone with the proper frame of reference" 
"Experiments can be poorly designed so as not to prove what they are intended 
to such as particle accelerator experiments and the Michale-Morleson 
experiment" -Einstein (1955)

I can fairly assume that Einstein was the leading authority on relativity 
till 1955, and not Gibbs or others before and after who interpreted his 
equations some other way to mean a machine cannot be found to exceed C.

Note 2 :

I found that machine in an atomic rocket so calculate the energy requirements 
from converting a small part of exhaust mass to energy via M=E/C^2. This 
calculation uses the proper frame of reference taught Einstein as the "local" 
frame refereed to only in particle accelerator physics as the misnomer 
"target frame" as in common use today. Switching from particle accelerators 
to rocket engines "local" is the correct terminology.

Just in last 50 years a math error was found that changed the calculated 
distance to the stars by a factor of "TWO" changing the size of the known 
universe to twice or 1/2 it's former size.

No telling what math errors will be found in the future. It would seem wise 
not to consider a minimum energy requirement journey to any star for the 
reasons you gave. Perhaps a craft would have to have enough energy to go 
anywhere in the universe and back to succeed. I found some good numbers 
indicating that very possibility even if the speed is limited to just below 
light speed. The only difference from  C + V travel is your earth twin would 
be ancient bones if you return with the C -V ship.

Here are the numbers for C -V ship dilated time near c Vs earth time at 10 g 
acceleration. 

Reading C- ship our sturdy craft (The Lorentz)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html
 
Alpha Centauri   4.36 ly       268 days      0.999128      4.56 years
     Sirius        8.64 ly       314 days      0.999769      8.84 years
     Polaris        783 ly      1.71 years    0.999999997   783.4 years

  ...and onward to the heart of the galaxy...

Nucleus, Milky Way 32616 ly     2.43 years  0.9999999999830  32637 years

  and into the realm beyond.  The velocities start to take so
  many digits to write I have write them on the next line!

Andromeda galaxy  2,180,000 ly  3.22 years 0.999999999999996 2,181,447 years
Virgo cluster   42,000,000 ly  3.78 years         V        42,027,876 years
                                           0.99999999999999999
Quasar 3C273  2,500,000,000 ly 4.56 years         V     2,501,659,318 years
                                          0.999999999999999999997
Universe edge 17,000,000,000 ly 4.93 years         V    17,011,283,360 years

Grasshopper,
Star travel is no place for girlie boys.
Yoda
 
How did yoda get in here?
Here is the energy available for star travel calculations.for C plus or minus 
v ship.
 
An ordinary chemical rocket can control by throttle an exhaust flow rate to
give 1 g acceleration for several hours based on tests of rockets reaching an
average 15g for many minutes such as "Helios".
At less than 1 year = 356 days time 24 hours =8544 hours of 1 g acceleration
are needed to exceed c.
Versus present chemical rockets, 8,544/3(several) times more power is needed 
so
that acceleration time can be measured at greater than 356 days to exceed c.
The chemical Vs atomic power to mass unit ratio based on atomic bomb and
reactor test measurements are best "guesstamated" at 1,000,000 to 100,000,000
times the power possible with chemical rockets so atomic rockets of good 
design
can maintain 1 g acceleration for 351 to 35100 years.

The apple(t)

The Relativistic Rocket Applet
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html


 lets you plan how long a trip will take on a rocket that travels near the 
speed of light. You type the distance of the trip (measured in light years) 
and the acceleration of the rocket (measured as a multiple of Earth's 
gravity). The rocket will accelerate at that rate for half of the trip, then 
decelerate at the same rate for the second half of the trip. 

The time for the trip is measured in two ways: (1) As seen by a person who 
stays behind on Earth, and (2) as measured by you on the ship. For your 
convenience, space-sickness pills are available aft of the observation 
lounge. 


Plugging in 4.25 light years to near star at 1 g acceleration the calculator 
gives: 

Trip length: 4.25 light years.
Acceleration: 1.0 g.
Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years.

The distance between the earth and a near star does not change.

Next make some effort on your part to calculate with v = d/t and v'=d/t'

the different velocities as v=d/t measured by the earth observer and v'=d/t'

Calculate v as always less than c and v' can be C-Vx, C or C + Vx. In the 
short trip given v'= C+Vx with Vx being some calculated velocity added to C 
or subtacted from C.  


Bon Voyage!

Rocket simulations
http://www.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/rckt_sim.html

Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson
Common Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education

Star1ship@aol.com
--------------------------------------
Note: the Number 1 in Star1ship
 
Universal Patent and Trademark(UPT)
UPT Patent number 1
Star Ship- Plasma Rocket Engine
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm
 
I boil water in a paper cup over a match by controlling the radiant, 
convection, and conductive heat paths using only match, water, and paper cup. 
 I contain the 10,000,000 degree plus plasma many times hotter than the 
surface of the sun generated by radioactive metals above critical mass in my 
rocket engine preventing it from melting the walls of my engine by the same 
method of heat path control. using only liquid, engine casing and plasma.
 
Matter exists in 4 states known from ancient times as earths, waters, winds, 
and fires known today as solids, liquids, gases and plasmas
 
My engine, when starting, at the time that the plasma is hot enough to melt 
the mechanical supports and before the liguid propellant transitions to steam 
from the heat energy provided and before the steam transitions to the fourth 
state of matter(a plasma) a period of plasma position instability existed. 
That required I use a magnetic field to hold the metal plasma for the short 
time until the propellant transitions to plasma. After that point in time the 
position of the metal plasma is confined by hydrodynamic forces of liquid, 
steam and plasma much like a pig pong ball is contained in an air stream 
aimed at it. Ejected from the exhaust port at various high velocities, are 
radioactive metal decay products, liquid, steam and plasma with the total 
exhaust coined (Plasmelt).
 
Like so:
 
See working diagram picture at this link 
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Page1.html 

Click blue transporter bar to transport to table of contents and cyber space 
ship.
See Cyber Ship 2 under construction 
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Page7.html