From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:31:10 -0400 Archived: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:02:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Update To Our View Of The Drake Equation >From: Edward Gehrman <egehrman.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:08:53 -0800 >Subject: Re: Update To Our View Of The Drake Equation >>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:22:33 -0800 >>Subject: Re: Update To Our View Of The Drake Equation >>Quite! There is the hidden assumption in these calculations that >>interstellar migration is impossible. This is not a scientific >>assumption but dogma. There are many conceivable ways that such >>migrations could take place without resorting to assumptions of >>Star Trekian warp drives, but at sub-light speeds. >>E.g., assume machine intelligence and length of travel doesn't >>really matter. Time to nearest star at a very modest 1% light >>speed is then less than 500 years. NASA propulsion experts for >>years have been thinking in terms of 10% light speed for a >>probe. >David, >If Einstein is correct, then travel by even a grain of sand, >using external energy (so fuel wouldn't have to be carried), at >the speed of light would require all the energy in the universe. >So if we travel at 10% of the speed of light, does that require >10% of the energy in the universe? And that's just to power a >grain of sand. >Under these circumstances, I don't think star travel is probable >or will ever be possible. Yes we have visitors, but a more >mundane explanation is possible: we share our planet with an >ancient civilization. Ed as I have commented before please do your homework about space travel before saying really stupid things. The time and energy involved in space are completely dependent on the assumptions made. Dr. Campbell an astronomer, in 1941 calculated that the required initial launch weight of a rocket able to get a man to the moon and back would be a million million tons. Apollo got three guys there with an initial launch weight of 3000 tons. But Campbell assumed a single stage rocket, limited to 1 g acceleration with much too low an exhaust veloicty using a deadweight retrorocket to slow it down upon return... We used the atmosphere to slow down, much higher accelerations and 3 stages. All our deep space rockets use cosmic freeloading. Fusion rockets produce particles having 10 million times as much energy per particle as a chemical rocket. They are born that way not accelerated... mass increase doesn't matter. There is a 33 page chapter You Can Get Here From There in my book Flying Saucers And Science Stan Friedman Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp