BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 01:58 PM

The gettin in a diaper and drivin across the country to kidnap her boyfriend's girlfriend thing set the credibility of astronauts back a tad.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 09:21 AM

Here we go...Jackie and Dunlap weigh in on the Edgar Mitchell story and give us their opinion.

"Them astronauts think they're so damn smart! They don't know nothin'! "

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 01:16 PM

JtS and I were discussing this last night. He was having some problems with my use of the word 'primitive' also, and he was asking some questions about it. He wanted to know if being primitive in the way I was using the word, suggested lesser intelligence than less primitive. I told him that it did not. Birds are more primitive than mammals (in terms of development), but many kinds of birds are far more intelligent than some mammals. I think some people just don't understand how the word primitive is used in this kind of context.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 01:11 PM

I think the problem is that some people are placing a value judgment on the word "primitive" that doesn't exist in the way I am using it.

In the training that I have received in the natural sciences, the word primitive in contexts like this one simply means - closer to earlier forms in development than those that are not being described as primitive. There is no value judgment implied.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Stu
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 07:37 AM

I thought before I chose Platypi - apparently it's the the word the locals use (although I actually read this on the internet, so stand to be corrected by anyone who lives near a Platypus).

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 05:35 AM

Platypuses, or if you insist on Greek, platypodes (with the E pronounced).

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Stu
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 05:08 AM

CarolC: Thanks for those links, but I still disagree. This idea of 'primitive' is not accepted in modern palaeontological circles; This article explains it about as well as any and centres around the derived characteristics of Platypi (?). Note that it's thought the marsupials and placentals branched off the mammalian lineage at the same time, so one is not more advanced than the other, they're different. It's worth checking out his other blogs too.

Actually, I am wondering if we're arguing slightly at cross-purposes here because when I was reading this blog on the mammalian family tree I realised we're both right in a sense, although I still dispute the fact modern montremes and marsupials are more primitive than placentals.

Good debate : )

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 01:29 AM

and 200

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 01:13 AM

This is all very well as it were but probably never was, but none of it explains alien life forms like Hawk or WalksaboutVerse which they are or might be for reasons both known and unknown in all regards for which I have none and why Walksabout will nwever have a satisfactory boner til rigor sets in and he steps out.............or not, probably.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 10:39 PM

It might be. But the most primitive placental mammals are also primitive mammals. As are marsupials and monotremes.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:05 PM

This link is to a long, complex, semi-interesting talk on the convergence in evolution between large, highly evolved and specialized placental mammals, such as elephants and manatees large highly evolved and specialized marsupials such as kangaroos.


Convergent evolution

It seems that in many ways the kangaroo is just as specialized and well adapted as any other large mammal.

Would it be fair to say that the kangaroo, while perhaps more primitive reproductively, is less primitive than the most primitive placental mammals in other areas?

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:43 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:38 PM

LOL!

You have them staggering away in confusion now, Carol.... ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 02:35 PM

Google search on the phrase "marsupials are primitive mammals"...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22marsupials+are+primitive+mammals%22&btnG=Search


A few excerpts...

Marsupials are primitive mammals
that bear their young prematurely
then shelter them in the mother's
pouch (the marsupium) until they
are fully developed.

US Fish and Wildlife Service


Marsupials are primitive mammals from the time of dinosaurs.

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Journal


Marsupials are primitive mammals with pouches in which the young develop after what would be considered premature for other animals a premature birth

Textbook - The Biological Basis of Cancer


The marsupials are primitive mammals and comprise numerous different families

Wildlife Resources


From a slightly different search...

In order to understand the evolution of mammals geneticists have to compare the genetic code of various mammals with that of fish and birds. But the genetic codes of most mammals are too similar among each other while being too different from those of fishes and birds. However, marsupial mammals and monotremes (egg-laying mammals) are primitive mammals that allow such comparisons.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Marsupial-genome-reveals-insights-into-mammalian-evolution-17395.shtml


The reason they are considered primitive in relation to the modern placentals is because, regardless of whether or not placentals share any ancestors at all with monotremes and marsupials, monotremes and marsupials retain many characteristics that were originally found in birds, reptiles, and the earliest mammals, including their means of reproduction, gestation and lactation, their dentition (in the case of the monotremes), and the articulation of their shoulder and hip joints (and some others); characteristics that were replaced with other (further evolved) characteristics in the modern placental mammals.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 09:18 AM

They don't hate Einstein, they just chuckle knowingly when his name comes up... ;-)

Man, I pity you folks...goin' on and on about sub-light speed as if it was the only way to travel. Next you'll be telling me that the horse and buggy are still the most reliable form of transport.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:24 AM

No, I am not assuming that placentals evolved from marsupials and marsupials evolved from monotremes. To say I am making this assumption is itself an even bigger assumption, and it shows a lack of understanding of what criteria are used to determine which species are more primitive than others. It has nothing whatever to do with which species evolved from which other species. It's all about the body parts and their functions.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:55 AM

"Why do these Aliens hate Einstein?"

I think its because they fail to acknowledge any form of humor so his Super Dave act never plays well with them. Why they have no sense of humor is not known although many non Aliens find no humor in Super Dave either.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:47 AM

Bruce is right on the 1g acceleration- from the ship's point of view. As the ship gets nearer the speed of light, to an Earth- bound observer, it seems to almost cease to accelerate as it asymptotes to c. But from its own point of view, it keeps on accelerating.

_________________


Bruce may be right on that point. But it assumes perfect conditions, No drag, no inertia, and a light speed exhaust velocity.

That is certainly not the case with bussard ramjet. I just read Bruce's Wiki link. The 1978 the the bussard ramjet was rendered infeasible due to new data about interstellar hydrogen. There was some more work done in 1985, Bottom line, Our Aliens would have had to launch the fuel ahead of the their ship.

I think that perfect trip with constant 1 g acceleration is out of the question with any technology deemed feasible in our science.

Why do these Aliens hate Einstein?

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Stu
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 04:34 AM

"The order of most primitive to least primitive (mammals) goes like this...

Monotreme
Marsupial
Placental mammal"

This is wrong - you are assuming placentals developed from marsuipals and marsuipials developed from monotremes - this is not currently supported by the fossil evidence.

Evolution is not a ladder or a cone-shaped bush with the simpler and older forms at the bottom and more advanced forms at the top, with one species being more advanced than another; it's a branching, sprawling climbing plant throwing out runners in many directions with many dead ends pruned by natural selection. In the mammalian runner placentals, monotremes and marsupials are all offshots of different twigs, not buds on a single twig with monotremes at the bottom and placentals at the top. They are the result of diversity within a monophylectic group, not a indication of evolutionary status as 'primitive' or 'advanced'.

The old ladder view, taught for so long in schools and still in some textbooks now has long been shown to be defunct; the idea that if a genus is older it must be simpler is not taken seriously by modern students of palaeontology.

It might be worth having a look at the wikipedia page on cladistics which explains it far better than I can (although it does use the term 'tree of life').

Of course, when the aliens finally land they can prove all this wrong with their far superior knowledge (assuming they have DNA etc).

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 03:15 AM

Bruce is right on the 1g acceleration- from the ship's point of view. As the ship gets nearer the speed of light, to an Earth- bound observer, it seems to almost cease to accelerate as it asymptotes to c. But from its own point of view, it keeps on accelerating.

There are still big problems- although they can travel 60 or 70 thousand light years in a few generations, by the time they got back here, 120000- 160000 years will have passed on Earth, which is as long as modern humans have existed. Goodness knows what kind of reception they'd get. Even assuming they didn't bang into anything on the way, and 5 or 6 generations down the line, they've remembered what they set off for. Just navigating back to Earth will be hard enough, as it will have moved.

Perhaps the Neanderthals developed an advanced civilisation, the traces of which have been destroyed by glaciation, and the UFOs we see are their deep- space probes returning to report back....

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 02:05 AM

I guess that might be.......I think its forerunner, the Arkjet, was far less powerful and only came in pears.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 01:13 AM

Absolutely not! 'Spaw, =they had chemical rockets in their asses. Everyone knows the ramjets go in the pouches.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 01:10 AM

Actually it was a flight of marsupial-like aliens with ramjets up their asses that crashed into the WTC & the Pentagon on 9/11..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 09:13 PM

"Why couldn't it have been something two guys from Cambridge, MA welded together in their spare time?"

Yeah, right. ;-D

Man, I don't know what the heck it is that you're on, Jack, but you really need to look into changing your meds...or your recreational drugs...whatever. (chuckle) Talk to Shane when he gets outta the joint. He has a connection to some incredible homegrown.

How the heck Carol puts up with you is more than I can make out. The poor woman must have the patience of a saint. Count your lucky stars, son. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:59 PM

What about the Click and Clack theory?

Why couldn't it have been something two guys from Cambridge, MA welded together in their spare time? They invented the drive, built the ship and are using it to play pranks on people.

That theory would fit the observations as well as yours and would not require interstellar travel.

Or even more intriguing, the CIA could be directly projecting these images onto the receptors of your optic nerve. Have you been forgetting to wear your tin foil hat?

;-)

ps, I read the "tinfoil hat" thing to Carol and she rolled her eyes.

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:21 PM

You're darned right it looked like a spaceship, Jack. ;-) You shoulda been there. What was more impressive than its looks, though, was its performance, let me tell you. Those guys definitely could teach us Earthlings a thing or two about speed...and rapid deceleration, not to mention right angle turns.

That's why I think they're using some complete other method of travel than anything we know about.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:01 PM

>>seein as there's 176 posts, so there might be an intelligent discussion goin on.

I think the discussion has been intelligent, do you need it to be sensible or practical?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM

Little Hawk,

What you have seen, is something that subjectively, looked like a space ship, to you. The rest of the details are coming from speculation and imagination.

A better analogy would be to say that you saw a cloud that was shaped like a fish and now you are telling us which body of water it came from and what kind of bait was used to catch it.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: gnu
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM

Never did, LH... and I've left many places many a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:54 PM

Wal...don't let the danged swingin' doors hit ya in tha ass when yer leavin', eh, gnu? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: gnu
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:49 PM

Gee... 176 posts... never read a one... kinda figured I didn't need to on accounta I am from Kent County and there's enough strangers up there fer me. I might back track a might, tho, seein as there's 176 posts, so there might be an intelligent discussion goin on. Iffin there is, I won't be back.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:30 PM

Well, Jack, I've felt for some time that the aliens are using a method of propulsion that:

1. does not use fuel
2. is not subject to our laws of inertia (no "G" forces to contend with)
3. either operates quite independently of gravitational forces or has a way of utilizing them or reversing them at will to propel the vessel
4. may involve what we would term interdimensional or even time travel
5. may therefore be effectively instantaneous when crossing great distances and would place the traveller safely at a predetermined junction point which would be accurately chosen and calculated
6. after you arrive at that point you do local maneuvering, using the same basic system (or another), but at manageable speeds for local manuevering



Now...Jack...if that is so, then Einstein and Newton knew nothing about it. This would not mean that their laws are wrong, it would simply mean that their laws only go so far and are not adequate to cover all situations.

And if it is so, then it would explain the things that you can't find an explanation for.

What makes you so sure that you already know enough to say that it can't be so?

I'm not saying it is so...I'm simply saying it might be.

You see, when I am already convinced about 99.9% that aliens have visited us and are doing so, I do not look for various ways to convince myself that it's impossible that they could travel here...or extremely improbable. Why bother to waste my time doing that? No, I look for theories as to how they did manage to travel here. It's much more productive than trying to disprove what I already regard as a virtual certainty: alien contact with this planet.

The reason we are arguing in different directions, you see, is we're proceeding from entirely different initial assumptions.

My assumption: They are visiting us. I regard that as a given.

A number of you don't see it that way at all. Therefore you argue in different directions and with entirely different purposes in mind. To me, it's like you're trying to explain why fish can't swim....but I already know they can! ;-)

We all agree about the fish. We don't all agree about the aliens.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:25 PM

>>"Though it would be difficult to PROVE that the Pak are NOT the cause of human evolution."

I think it would be pretty easy to prove.

"Hey Larry Niven! Where did Pak come from?"
Larry Niven:"I made them up."

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:16 PM

Monotremes, by the way, are a more primitive form of mammal than marsupials. Here's the way it works...

Monotremes - have mammary glands, but no nipples: only holes from which milk oozes, and no placentas.

Marsupials - have mammary glands and nipples, but no placentas.

Placental mammals - have mammary glands and nipples and placentas.


The order of most primitive to least primitive (mammals) goes like this...

Monotreme
Marsupial
Placental mammal

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:15 PM

Thanks for the link Bruce.

I forgot to mention this limitation on the speed of the space ship.

>>>The ramjet's exhaust velocity, and the net thrust level obtained from the exhaust jet. The generated thrust can be calculated as the mass of ions expelled per second multiplied by the ramjet exhaust velocity (Ve)<<

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:11 PM

>>>Certainly minor compared to a "fuel-less" drive or FTL.

Minor as compared to impossible by any known science.

Relativity that Einstein would be proud of

But it seems it would be a more minor advance to play dice with God and ask for a magical interplanetary unicorn when you win''

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:04 PM

Marsupials are a primitive form of mammals. Marsupials are a kind of mammal, and they are a kind that is more primitive than placental mammals. The idea that placental mammals didn't evolve from marsupials is entirely irrelevant to the statement that marsupials are a primitive form of mammal.

A mammal is an animal that has mammary glands. Marsupials have mammary glands. Marsupials are more primitive than placental mammals because they don't form placentas. Therefore, marsupials are a primitive form of mammal.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:00 PM

>>>Nope. To the pilot, it will be 1g at all times. Got to look at it relativistically.- His speed will approach cee, but never reach it- and time will slow down as he gets faster. in HIS ( or her) frame, it will be constant acceleration at 1 g, to an observer on Earth it will look like he is traveling just below cee ( need to have the light-cones to see the actual "apparent" velocity, as the light from the moving spacecraft will be both frequency shifted and seen at some time later ( based on distance from the observer.)<<

Nope. you also have to look at it from the point of view of the Ship. The faster it is going the more energy will be required to gather fuel and accelerate.

Think of the electromagnetic field as a windsock on a motorboat. Think of the motor of the motorboat as the engine on your space ship. At low speeds the motorboat's engine can over come the drag of the windsock. But the more you accelerate, the harder it will become to accelerate. For any given motor and magic field there will be a terminal velocity and diminishing returns will set in once that velocity is approached. Up to a certain point the faster you go the more fuel you can collect, but once you pass that will also diminish once you start to a approach a high percentage of C.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:58 PM

"I don't think that the required advances would be minor in any way. "

Certainly minor compared to a "fuel-less" drive or FTL.

The basic theory is to take a metallic asteroid that is about cylindrical, bore a hole in the long axis, pack it with ice ( from Saturn's rings probably) and seal both ends. Make a large mirror ( use the material you will later make a light sail of) and heat the entire asteroid until the metal is malleable and the water turns to steam, puffing the asteroid out into the shell of your ship. add the motor and life support, attach the light sail to get you up to ram speeds, and go where you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:41 PM

>>Why would they go home, if they were short-lived? Colonists, etc. would not need to return home. If they had longer lifetimes it would not matter that they were gone a few hundred. LOTS of SF written about the effects of time-dialted travel on civilizations and people.

Sorry Bruce, you seem to have missed part of the conversation.
We're talking about the alleged aliens visiting Earth in UFOs please note the thread title.

Aside from the behavior of John Tesh and Tom Cruise, I see no evidence of Alien colonization of the Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:39 PM

"And you cannot assume constant 1g acceleration the whole way. As you get closer to C acceleration will get exponentially more difficult. "


Nope. To the pilot, it will be 1g at all times. Got to look at it relativistically.- His speed will approach cee, but never reach it- and time will slow down as he gets faster. in HIS ( or her) frame, it will be constant acceleration at 1 g, to an observer on Earth it will look like he is traveling just below cee ( need to have the light-cones to see the actual "apparent" velocity, as the light from the moving spacecraft will be both frequency shifted and seen at some time later ( based on distance from the observer.)

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:34 PM

>>>the Bussard Ramjet is something we COULD build with just minor advances

I don't think that the required advances would be minor in any way.

Newton's first law and the inverse-square law for electromagnetic force are pretty significant obsticles.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:33 PM

"If you look at it relativistically the you ignore my point about their family being hundreds of years only when they get home."

Why would they go home, if they were short-lived? Colonists, etc. would not need to return home. If they had longer lifetimes it would not matter that they were gone a few hundred. LOTS of SF written about the effects of time-dialted travel on civilizations and people.


"Not to mention the danger of hitting some non magnetic object while traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. "

One can always use a large ball of frozen water as a shield ( also useful as emergency fuel for low-speed operations) ( See Clarke et al)




"It still remains an awful lot of trouble to go to buzz airports and make circles in cornfields. "


You are presuming that is what they are doing. What would an ant say about humans- " Seems like a lot of effort just to step on us." Perhaps thay have some pupeose that you are not aware of.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:28 PM

>>being hundreds of years only when they get home

Corrected their families are hundreds of years older by the time they get home.

And you cannot assume constant 1g acceleration the whole way. As you get closer to C acceleration will get exponentially more difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:25 PM

Might want to have a light-sail and launching lasers to get up to speed, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:23 PM

Well, there is some discussion of the basic energy in the fabric of space- but the Bussard Ramjet is something we COULD build with just minor advances and a lot of effort- Might want to do that if we find that the "global warming" is really the sun entering a pre-nova phase.

Nothing new would have to be invented- just a straight engineering problem of scaling up what we presently have.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: Stu
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:21 PM

"100 light years for the nearest intelligent race is being very generous"

I herby concur with Jack lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:19 PM

>>Has anyone considered that other civilizations may have found a form of space propulsion which does not burn any fuel?

Hold on thar amigo!!! Them's fighten words!

Its bad enough trying to get around Einstein. But lets not try to make a liar out of Newton as well!!


LOL!!

Serious answer: Sure people have considered it. In bad science fiction. Or stories about Magic, or Gods.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:12 PM

If you look at it relativistically the you ignore my point about their family being hundreds of years only when they get home. Not to mention the danger of hitting some non magnetic object while traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. It still remains an awful lot of trouble to go to buzz airports and make circles in cornfields.

Subject: RE: BS: Astronaut Ed Mitchell on Alien visits
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:12 PM

OK, got the formula...


Of course, as a general rule starships want to slow down and stop at their destinations, not zip past them at 0.9999 of the speed of light. You need a standard torchship brachistochrone flight plan: accelerate to halfway, skew flip, then decelerate to the destination (which makes sense, since such starships will have to be torchships). To use the above equations, instead of using the full distance for d, divide the distance in half and use that instead. Run that through the equations, then take the resulting T or t and double it.

Example: The good scout starship Peek-A-Boo is doing a 1 g brachistochrone for Vega, which is 27 light-years away. Half of that is 13.5 light-years. How long will the journey be from the crew's standpoint (the proper time) ?

T = (c/a) * ArcCosh[a * d / (c2) + 1]
T = (1/1.03) * ArcCosh[1.03 * 13.5 / (12) + 1]
T = 0.971 * ArcCosh[13.9 / 1 + 1]
T = 0.971 * ArcCosh[13.9 + 1]
T = 0.971 * ArcCosh[14.9]
T = 0.971 * 3.39
T = 3.29 years
That's the crew time to the skew flip. The total time is twice this
T = 3.29 * 2
T = 6.58 years


But if you have more mathematical skills than I have, you could easily derive this short cut:

Tt = 1.94 * ArcCosh[dly/1.94 + 1]

where
Tt = Proper Time experienced during a brachistochrone flight (years)
dly = total distance to destination(light-years)

Remember this equation assumes a constant 1 g acceleration.