Re: Re: Re: Re: High Speed Projectiles

Boy, when I start something I really start something...

Ok, now I see where Bertil is coming from:  use a % of the ship's mass
in the equation E=Mc^2.

Right.  The ship has 1/200th the energy required to reach .1C.  I see your
point.  But your analysis of how an object accelerates is a bit off.
As the ship accelerates it burns off hydrogen:  This is negigible.
As the ship accelerates it encounters relativity:  This also is negligible
at .1C (@ .1C you only encounter a distortion of 0.5%)
	(@ .5C you only encounter a distortion of 13%)
So Basically we have an object under a constant acceleration 2G.
(Sorry guys but you can leave Einstein at home, this is strictly Newton's
turf.)
Now, Newton's second Law F=MA (no trouble here... mass stays approximately
constant, force stays constant, Acceleration should stay constant.)

after 18 days acceleration we hit .1C and see that KE=1/2*MV^2 and there you
are with the .1kton of TNT per gram kinetic energy figure I mentioned
that started this free for all.

Ooops!  Insufficent potential energy in the ship's fuel to reach that figure.
Well, If the ship has only 1/200 the energy then it can only reach 1/200
the kinetic energy of .1C.  Buy some quick envelope calculations, that
means that the ship can only accelerate at 2G's for 2.1213 days.  There is
no unknown deceleration force.  The ship doesn't run until it reaches
a certain speed and then have it's acceletation die off slowly,  It runs
until it's Kinetic energy equals it's potential energy and then
the engines thrust stops.  You are now going ballistic.

So, we come out with a new endurance for the scoutship:  2 days.
that is the point at which all it's potential energy will be used up.

If we accept that then scoutships will never get anywhere.

Ok, look.  We already know that traveller drives by definition (reactionless)
violate conservation of energy.  Any and all ships using what ever drive
you like (fusion flame, grav, thruster) that are designed in the trav
system will violate conservation of energy because they were written by
and designed by someone who never thought of this idea and never thought
anyone else ever would.  We have gone off the board.  Here there be Dragons.
But if we impose conservation of energy then all the trav engines will come
tumbling down like the house of cards they are.

You can't say "conservation of energy applies here, but not over there."
If conservation of energy holds at .1 C then it holds for lower speeds as
well.  so Dur=2.  In order for trav to work Dur should be more than that.

About flying blind... (ie insuffiecent time for collision avoidance @ .1C)
Well, as I said before... "Fred, you knew the job was dangerous when you
took it" - SuperChicken.  I think that while space is not exactly totally
clean, outside the eccliptic plane of the solar system you'd have a better
chance.  On the other hand.  Space is Big.  You can't believe just how
mindbogglingly big it really is.  You may think it's a long way down to...

Sorry.  (Too much Douglas Adams)

Well sure there's a chance you won't make it to the target.  But imagine the
thrill of hitting .1c and getting that tite "Fastest Being alive"
heck even postumously it sounds COOL!  Put that on your tombstone.
(oops nothing left to interr...)  I know a few Vargr who would try it...

And if you are really nervous, that's what auto pilots are for.  Dig?

By the way, this really is metaphysics aien't it?  After all here we are
arguing about when we can and can't violate conservation of energy.

I am reminded of a line I once read and hated...
Changing the laws of physics is one of my hobbies.

I still hate it.

Scott S. Kellogg