Quote:
Originally posted by GOURDHEAD@May 25 2004, 01:06 PM
Quote:
|
I agree Tom2Mars, nothing is impossible .....* Within a less remote time frame, I think science should focus on 'conning' our way to the stars rather than dragging ourselves by our eyelids to them.
|
Whatever do you mean? Please elaborate. The laws of physics seem to prevent both methods of travel. What the laws of physics do not allow is indeed impossible.
|
Quote:
Dr. Paul Karl Hoiland
http://65.108.189.168/Docs/WAS%20DR%20NATA...RIO%20RIGHT.pdf
"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."
|
Quote:
Refrence Item 16 - The infinite enegy arguement. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...fLight/FTL.html
"It is a consequence of relativity that the energy of a particle of rest mass
m moving with speed v is given by
* * * * * E = mc^2/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
|
Note 1 :
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. There is zero evidence such a velocity of light speed limit mechanics was ever constructed and Einstein denied in 1955 that he ever constructed such mechanics as he taught that a massive object could be accelerated beyond light speed. He than explained "How" it could be done.
He then explained the wide spread public misconception tying his relativity theories to a C speed limit to a "German to English" translator he hired to translate his relativity papers to English.
The Translator knowing basically as a second language German and some basic physics and less relativity physics and some of Henry Poincare's workwas looking for a C speed limit mechanics so Jumped to the conclusion he had found it translating some of the equations adding his own interpretation comments to appear falsely as from Einstein to say:
"It appears we cannot accelerate an object beyond light speed" in the English translation. By the time Einstein came to America and had learned enough English to correct the mistranslations he found the misinformation so widespread that correction was found impractical so then he confined his teaching of the possibility of acceleration beyond light speed to his personal students at Princeton and private students and from that time on authorized only those works signed by
him to be published. The one signed in 1955, I read in 1963.
So my list of math or experimental proofs of any C limit for massive objects
velocity contains no data.
Universal speed limit at C Proof list
.............................................
(Empty-Null Set)
.............................................
Note 1
Of rocket velocity (V)
90.227 % Propellant = 902.727 tons propellant
6.000 % Structure = 60 tons structure
3.773 % Payload = 37 tons payload
u = .90227 = 902.727 tons of propellant / 1000 tons of rocket
Vexaust= 81840 miles/sec therefore:
Vf = (81840 miles/sec ) (LN(1/(1-.090227))
=(.44 times 186,000 miles/sec ) (LN 10.)
=(81840 miles/sec)(2.3255467)
Vfinal =190,322.7 miles/sec = 1.023 C or warp speed 1.02 arriving with 37 tons of payload and 60 tons of structure.
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.
Quote:
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
End quote
|
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.
quote...........................
The apple(t)
Quote:
The Relativistic Rocket Applet
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/R...ket/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.
end quote
|
Plugging in above calculater 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. If you do not want to take the effort
4.25 years light years/3.5 years ship time gives Greater than C for v wrt ship
There are two distinct cases above for calculating faster than light
velocities. One C + Vx value from 1 g acceleration wrt the earth give C + V
wrt ship velocity due to time dilation effects and the second case 1 g
acceleration wrt the ship giving both C + V wrt the earth velocity and
providing the 1 g artificial gravity environment required for crew comfort.
Bon Voyage!
For numeric methods of Rocket simulations see
http://www.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/rckt_sim.html