Bugtraq mailing list archives
Error in the Lorenz-Fitzgerald assumption.
From: padgett () tccslr dnet mmc com (A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security)
Date: Wed, 10 May 95 20:23:53 -0400
From: fc () all net (Dr. Frederick B. Cohen) But according to current physics, there is a finite amount of total energy in the Universe, and thus it is impossible to get the infinite energy required to do this - again, impossible, not infeasible.
Hovever if you will examine my paper of 1957 which was reprinted in an abbreviated version in the "Mensa Bulletin" c.a. 1979, you will find that the L-Z equation is actually the result of an integral taken to the limit and that the mass goes to infinity only if the light (and gravitational) vector and speed are held for an infinite duration. The actual equation, which is really very simple for lightspeed though it gets somewhat more complicated about but not at C. Basically, at exactly lightspeed, the normal mass equation (rho)lwd where d is aligned along the vector of travel becomes (rho)lwt where t is the duration exactly on the vector and at C. Further, this exists only for points directly in the path of the object. The result is that for any object in the path of such a projectile will experience an energy flux at the moment of arrival of the kinetic energy of the object (not inconsiderable at lightspeed) plus the gravitational effect of an item of the mass given above as a function of the distance at each point in time (would be an integral but would have specific limits). The kinetic energy would have to be placed on the item, the flux would be free. Thus to achieve an effect of infinite mass, t would have to close on infinity but the flux duration would still only be d/C. So should Ignatz throw a brick of dimensions 2"x4"x6" from the moon at lightspeed, the effect on the proximity of KKs head on the earth would be the same as a mass closing on 1/4 (rho - say 1 lb/cu inch)*2*4*250,000*5280*12 suddenly appearing and existing for a duration of 6"/(186000mps*5280*12) seconds or about the same as a mass of 30,000,000,000 lbs for a duration of about a half a nanosecond. (Plus the Ke of course and the plasma effect of any surface area of that size and speed through air so probably sustainable only in a vaccuum). Significant, yes. Devastating on objects, probably, but hardly infinite. Warmly, Padgett
Current thread:
- Re: impossible vs. impractical Melvin Klassen (May 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: impossible vs. impractical Mike Neuman (May 07)
- Re: impossible vs. impractical Dr. Frederick B. Cohen (May 08)
- Re: impossible vs. impractical Perry E. Metzger (May 08)
- Re: impossible vs. impractical Dr. Frederick B. Cohen (May 08)
- Re: impossible vs. impractical Mike O'Connor (May 10)
- password backdoors System Admin (May 10)
- Error in the Lorenz-Fitzgerald assumption. A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security (May 10)
- Re: password backdoors Nathan Lawson (May 10)
- Re: impossible vs. impractical Perry E. Metzger (May 10)
- Re: impossible vs. impractical Dr. Frederick B. Cohen (May 08)
- and now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion topic... robert owen thomas (May 08)
- Re: impossible vs. impractical Aleph One (May 08)
- R. Thomas's NFS question PETER.T.WHITING () sprint sprint com (May 09)
- Re: R. Thomas's NFS question Marek Michalkiewicz (May 10)
- RE: Anon site needed for FIP[S] PUB 190 Lawrence E. Bassham (May 09)
- unsubscribe bugtraq parkerm@cs49.holloman ParkerM,TSgt,49CS/SCSC (May 09)
- Please, please, _please_ (was Re: impossible vs. impractical) G.J.W. Hagenaars (May 08)
- Re: Please, please, _please_ (was Re: impossible vs. impractical) ATM_Feel_the_Power (May 09)