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

[Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>]

STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes:
 > In a message dated 2/18/02 2:31:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
 > lparker@cacaphony.net writes:
 > 
 > << As you usual, you have totally mixed up your math. Frames of reference do
 >  NOT enter into the calculation in any way. It doesn't matter where (or what
 >  frame of reference) you get your energy from, the equation still tends to
 >  infinity. Since there isn't an amount of energy GREATER than infinity in any
 >  frame of reference, you are NEVER going to accelerate any ship to the speed
 >  of light. Period. >>
 > 
 > Your mixing machines. Particle accelerators have nothing to do with atomic 
 > rockets.
 > Do the math, use the correct frame of refernece for delivering energy to a 
 > payload. It moves and is not a rest frame like a acclerator base.
 > 
 > Einstein and I agree as would you if you stoped mixing frames and machine and 
 > could actually do some math. which is an ability not demostrated by you.

I don't think Einstein would agree with you, particularly since you
think there is a difference between a "moving frame" and a "rest
frame".  The underlying principle of relativity is that the laws of
physics are the same in any frame of reference.

We've done the math, and your ludicrous "atomic rocket" won't even be
able to achieve 0.1 c given the amount of fuel you specify.