Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w..

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:34:23 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel.RemoveThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>I think you're right. The drive utterly suppresses interia (I suspect
>a more realistic description is that it suppresses mass.)

Nope. Doc specifically says that it suppresses inertia; the mass has
all of its other normal properties.

At one poiint in "Galactic Patrol", Kionnison and LaVerne Thorndyke
spoeculate that a strange modification to the Berg of a captured
Boskonian ship that they're using may have been an attempt to achieve
"negative inertia".

Neither of them has the slightest what that would be like or be useful
for, but agree that it would probably be interesting...
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:34:23 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel RemoveThis @hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:52:34 -0400, mike weber <fairportfan RemoveThis @gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>What I'm saying is that the velocity you transition at matters. This
>>>means there is some absolute reference point for velocity, you can't
>>>pick any arbitrary frame like is required to produce the time travel
>>>problem.
>>
>>Actually, you have that backward. The Bergenholm implies an absolute
>>frame of reference; otherwise "intrinsic velocity" wouldn't be a
>>problem.
>
>No. Intrinsic velocity is simply the velocity you have. Any
>acceleration you do under the Bergenholm has no effect, when you turn
>it off you have exactly the same velocity you had when you turned it
>on.

Velocity only has meaning if it has a reference.

Therefore for "intrinsic velocity" to have meaning, there must be a
frame of referenmce that is the same at both ends of the trip.

A si said, in Doc's case, it was the ether.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

mike weber wrote:
> Well, yeah - but it had to be in relation to an absolute frame of
> reference so that it could reassert itself at the other end.

I see. No "yardstick" is uneffected by the local part of the universe?

>> How many times do we see that some ship cannot keep accelerating because
>> it might hit a chunk of gravel at relativistic speeds? Doesn't that
>> imply a local "zero velocity", even if it is a mathematical average of
>> all particles and matter in the area?
>
> No, it implies a relative velocity of ship and local object.

Yes, I'm assuming that. But, how would acceleration _increase_ the risk
of a relativistic collision if there is no inverse? What is the risk
increased from?

> Consider this: In the Einsteinian universe, if one ship is travelling
> at .9C in one direction, and another is travelling at .9C on a direct
> reciprocal, their closing velocity is *not* 1.8C, it's something
> greater than .9C, but less than C.

I have that, but don't see the connection.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Apr 29, 10:44 am, mike weber <fairport....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:14:00 -0700 (PDT), "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com"
>
> <rlbell.ns....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Universe described in the Lensmen series has no connection to any
> >universe described by relativity.
>
> >In the lensmen universe, newtonian mechanics reigned supreme and all
> >non-accelerating frames of reference agreed with each other. Space
> >and time were disjoint quantities.
>
> Which is what i said.
>
> However, consider that inertialessness (if achievable) would have
> quite possibly have interesting results under Einstein, also, since
> Einstein essentially distinguishes between mass and inertial mass.


Not that interesting. All that would happen to a "free" starship in
our universe is that it would instantly accelerate to lightspeed.
Impressive as lightspeed is, it does not hold a candle to what was
described in the lensmen books.

In some ways, the inertialless drive is worse than useless. Once you
turn it on, you cannot turn it off(ship time stops); unless, something
impedes your forward progress in a way that stops the ship from
moving (going intrinsic in the middle of a collision strikes me as a
bad thing). Turning it on for any non-zero amount of time is
activating for the rest of eternity for all outside observers not also
travelling at lightspeed The shutoff problem means that while you may
end up someplace, you cannot actually go to a specific destination.
If you miss the catchers' mitt at you destination (which not only has
to be set up before you go, but be big enough to aim for from your
departure, as course corrections in flight are impossible), there is
no telling where you end up.

I think inertia is the effect we experience by trying to push an
object out of its own gravity well. Going "free" negates the effects
of the object's mass on spacetime.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:39:18 -0400, mike weber <fairportfan.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:47:05 -0800, Offbreed
><offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>mike weber wrote:
>>> Actually, you have that backward. The Bergenholm implies an absolute
>>> frame of reference; otherwise "intrinsic velocity" wouldn't be a
>>> problem.
>>
>>I don't think it was meant that way. As I recall, the intrinsic velocity
>>was the velocity something had before the inertialess drive kicked in.
>>(On the other hand, I have not read that series in many decades.)
>
>Well, yeah - but it had to be in relation to an absolute frame of
>reference so that it could reassert itself at the other end.

Unless the inertialess state was somehow a parallel universe.

>And that something was the ether, the motionless medium through which
>electro-magnetic radiation propagates, the existence of which was
>more-or-less disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiments, which
>some handwaving by Doc explained away.

Yeah, the books definitely believed in the ether.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:11:42 -0800, Offbreed
<offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Yes, I'm assuming that. But, how would acceleration _increase_ the risk
>of a relativistic collision if there is no inverse? What is the risk
>increased from?

It's the relative velocity between you and the object.

If you're going .99c you're in as much danger from the local medium as
you would be standing still and facing stray debris whipping past at
..99c.

Alternately, you're standing still on the debris and facing the risk
from the local star system whizzing by at .99c.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:14:00 -0700 (PDT), "rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com"
<rlbell.nsuid.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>The Universe described in the Lensmen series has no connection to any
>universe described by relativity.

Agreed.

>In the lensmen universe, newtonian mechanics reigned supreme and all
>non-accelerating frames of reference agreed with each other. Space

Supreme despite the Bergenholm?

>and time were disjoint quantities. The speed of light was not a
>limit. The most devastating thing known was the chemical explosive,
>heptadetonate (before they started lobbing planets and found two
>planets with superluminal intrinsic vectors 180 degrees apart).

Sure it's chemical?? The yields seemed like low-end nuclear.

And you're forgetting negabombs and their ultimate manifestation, the
negasphere.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:32:20 -0700 (PDT), "rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com"
<rlbell.nsuid.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think inertia is the effect we experience by trying to push an
>object out of its own gravity well. Going "free" negates the effects
>of the object's mass on spacetime.

I wonder on that. Kinetic energy can be explained by SR without any
concept of inertia. The only place you need inertia is to explain why
you can't make a no-energy U-turn.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

Loren Pechtel wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:11:42 -0800, Offbreed
> <offbreed_106.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I'm assuming that. But, how would acceleration _increase_ the risk
>> of a relativistic collision if there is no inverse? What is the risk
>> increased from?
>
> It's the relative velocity between you and the object.
>
> If you're going .99c you're in as much danger from the local medium as
> you would be standing still and facing stray debris whipping past at
> .99c.
>
> Alternately, you're standing still on the debris and facing the risk
> from the local star system whizzing by at .99c.

Yup. So, why does accelerating increase the hazard?
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:11:42 -0800, Offbreed
<offbreed_106 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>mike weber wrote:
>> Well, yeah - but it had to be in relation to an absolute frame of
>> reference so that it could reassert itself at the other end.
>
>I see. No "yardstick" is uneffected by the local part of the universe?

Not in Doc SMith's universe, anyway.
>
>>> How many times do we see that some ship cannot keep accelerating because
>>> it might hit a chunk of gravel at relativistic speeds? Doesn't that
>>> imply a local "zero velocity", even if it is a mathematical average of
>>> all particles and matter in the area?
>>
>> No, it implies a relative velocity of ship and local object.
>
>Yes, I'm assuming that. But, how would acceleration _increase_ the risk
>of a relativistic collision if there is no inverse? What is the risk
>increased from?

I dunno. I didn't say it was.

>
>> Consider this: In the Einsteinian universe, if one ship is travelling
>> at .9C in one direction, and another is travelling at .9C on a direct
>> reciprocal, their closing velocity is *not* 1.8C, it's something
>> greater than .9C, but less than C.
>
>I have that, but don't see the connection.

Well, it says there is no"zero velocity" - in fact, onemay assume that
chunk of gravel is doing.9C and the spaceship is standing still.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

mike weber wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:11:42 -0800, Offbreed

>>>> How many times do we see that some ship cannot keep accelerating because
>>>> it might hit a chunk of gravel at relativistic speeds? Doesn't that

>> Yes, I'm assuming that. But, how would acceleration _increase_ the risk
>> of a relativistic collision if there is no inverse? What is the risk
>> increased from?
>
> I dunno. I didn't say it was.

No, but several authors keep saying accelerating increases risk.

I wonder if I just answered my own question while trying to clarify what
I'm trying to figure out:

Most junk in a star system is going to be orbiting the local star, and
that junk cannot be traveling too fast without leaving the system. The
authors don't mention the junk that poses a hazard is orbiting.

If they are talking about junk loose in interstellar space, then they
are wrong. Accelerating will not increase risk.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Thu, 01 May 2008 20:04:14 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel RemoveThis @hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:39:18 -0400, mike weber <fairportfan RemoveThis @gmail.com>
>wrote:
>

>>Well, yeah - but it had to be in relation to an absolute frame of
>>reference so that it could reassert itself at the other end.
>
>Unless the inertialess state was somehow a parallel universe.

Nope; definitely the same universe.
>
>>And that something was the ether, the motionless medium through which
>>electro-magnetic radiation propagates, the existence of which was
>>more-or-less disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiments, which
>>some handwaving by Doc explained away.
>
>Yeah, the books definitely believed in the ether.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Thu, 01 May 2008 20:04:14 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel RemoveThis @hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:14:00 -0700 (PDT), "rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com"
><rlbell.nsuid RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:


>>The most devastating thing known was the chemical explosive,
>>heptadetonate (before they started lobbing planets and found two
>>planets with superluminal intrinsic vectors 180 degrees apart).
>
>Sure it's chemical?? The yields seemed like low-end nuclear.
>

Yes, it was chemical, but, no, it wasn't (as i've said) heptadetonate,
it was duodecaplatylatomate.

A giant molecule consisting of twenty-six atoms of nitrogen.

Not gonna be stable at any real-world conditions, i think, but the
potential energy release...

Remember, as i also said, Doc was an organic chemist, and organic is
where the explosives live.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w..