New Mars Forums

Well hello old friend from Mars forum A.K.A. GNCavenger.
As you are anonymous, you can say anything and often do. Best I can tell you are at the undergraduate level as you have a sophomoric attitude who dose not believe my dozen plus diplomas hanging on my wall are real nor my atomic bomb design. I do not know if it is high school or college level sophmoric but you do act like a teenager.

I can just say were I to alter or forge a government diploma or even misrepresent it, I would be subject to fine and imprisonment so I do not.

Myself, all I really needed to know I learned in kindergarten like how to wipe my nose, be polite, and respect my elders as they must have learned something to get so old. Apparently you were playing hooky when that was taught you.

I did not come her to teach popular science or make new friends.-I came here to discuss atomic rocket science math and
found none able to do the math or physics or even appear interested. There are plenty here who share your character assesment for you to chat with I am sure.

It is indeed a crying shame the man who invented the atomic rocket that can take mankind to the stars appears such an unlikable person with plenty of facial warts and clearly not a man of the fantasy image you would hope and can imagine to provide you  with an engine for star travels in some far distant future. I assure you I am a very nice guy once you get to know me though I care less about first impressions.

I just state the fact and evidence as I find them providing credible reference as I go. Like so:

1. The patent office assessment of my engine.
2. It was not Einstein who claimed nothing could exceed light speed
3. Einstein wrote the book on how to make an atomic bomb- I read
4. Einstein did complete his unified gravitational field equations taught as incomplete in ever major university today and he considered it his greatest work.
5. Scientists in the 1950's claimed Einstein made the claim he invented the bomb considered by most the US government built invention of Leo Silizards invention. So Einstein was called a Fake (actually Faiker-eastern mystic but the newspaper mispelled it)
6. Einstein in 1913 told his friend HG Wells how to build the atomic bomb and told no other till Enrico Fermi in 1938.

Bibliography:
(1)As the United States Patent Office has determined in Form PTOL-456 mailed Oct 13 1988 that the subject matter of my application appears to:

1. be “useful in the production or atomic energy” as recited in 42 U.S.C 2182 (Department of Energy (DOE).
2. “have significant utility in the conduct of aeronautical and space activities” as recited in 42  U.S.C 2457 (National Aeronautical and Space Administration(NASA)

Reference 2
http://65.108.189.168/Docs/WAS%20DR%20N … 0RIGHT.pdf
Dr. Paul Karl Hoiland

"When Einstein wrote down his postulates for special relativity he did not
include the statement that you cannot travel faster than light. There is a
misconception that it is possible to derive it as a consequence of the
postulates he did give. Incidentally, it was Henri Poincare who said "Perhaps
we must construct a new mechanics, ... in which the speed of light would
become an impassable limit." That was in an address to the International
Congress of Arts and Science in 1904 before Einstein announced special
relativity in 1905."

There is zero evidence such a mechanics was ever constructed

3-The reference below is not at the Gainsville (Florida) Sun's website.
It has been long since moved to the newspapers library archives. I got the permission of the author to post in physics groups years ago by email if I made sure I said the name of the paper. I have the complete article and Karen’s phone number and email address, if you want it.
I underlined the significant parts if you just want to scroll down.

Quote..
Gainsville Sun's website link at;
http://www.sunone.com/news/artic...-99h … -99h.shtml
Tuesday, December 28, 1999
Einstein fondly recalled by area woman
By KAREN VOYLES
Sun staff writer
Garland had joined the WACs -- Women's Army Corps -- shortly after it was formed in 1943. She got a top secret security clearance and was sent to work with the Atomic Energy Commission. She had been working on the 59th floor of the Empire State Building handling various clerical duties when her supervisor asked for volunteers.
............"They wanted us to do some typing for him (Einstein)," Garland said. "He wanted to put together what he knew about the atomic bomb in book form so he doled out what he wanted typed, and there was no way someone could put it all together after that."

"He would hand it (the day's work) to you and tell you what he wanted and he would tell us not to worry about punctuation or capitalization or anything right then, said."He wanted universities to be able to study how they had made the atom bomb and he said other people would do all that punctuation." Garland recalled that she was one of about 10 typists who volunteered to work on Einstein's project, a task that took a couple of weeks.
end quote

Reference four
foia.fbi.gov/
link Electronic reading room-famous persons-Einstein, Albert; 11 indented
See link part 9b page 17,18 contained in a .pdf file.
Washington Star Dec 27,1949
Also Einstein Presents New Theory of all motion in the universe -Extending Relativity Theory

foia.fbi.gov/einstein/einstein9b.pdf

Einstein presents New Theory of all motion in Universe

"The unified field theory" It was reveled here yesterday on 20 mimeographed pages-a mixture of typewritten words and squiggly mathematical symbols that even scientists hesitated to interpret. It was the English translation of Doctor Einstein's original German........

................

......In earlier theories Dr. Einstein linked up space and time, matter and energy and gravitation and inertia, but one great force was left out-electromagnetism, an invisible force field that can act at a distance.

The new theory now includes electromagnetism and it and gravitation are viewed as two forms of one overall force.

In his general theory of 1915 Dr. Einstein showed by mathematics that gravitation and inertial were equivalent. This theory was proved when astronomers were able to detect the suns gravity bending light from a distant star.

end quote---------------------------

refrence 5.
http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.htm]http:/ … nstein.htm
link Einstein, Albert; part 1a gives page 88
Rankin Denies Einstein A-Role
By United Press
Reb. Rankin (D) of Mississippi said yesterday that professor Albert Einstein "had nothing to do" with the atomic bomb and "should have been deported for his Communistic activities years ago" He denounced as "bunk" Einstein, proposal for a world government to prevent an atomic war that might wipe out mankind. Scientists declared Einstein, A naturalized citizen of German birth, had "just about everything to do" with making possible the US development of the atomic bomb.........
....................Rankin concludes with "Every since he published the book on relativity, to try to convince the world that light had weight, he has capitalized upon his alleged reputation as a scientist." Rankin went on. "He had no more to do with the development of the atom bomb than if their hadn't been such a thing Rankin. American scientists developed the atomic bomb and old faker Einstein had nothing to do with it."
end article------

6.
Reference
Citation H.G. Wells The World Set Free, 1914
quote ...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night
were strange even to the men who used them. end quote.....

In 1963,I read the 1955 dictations signed by Einstein, I read what Einstein said about "how they made an atomic bomb at the Manhattan project" as referenced in citation 3 above regarding His meeting with H.G. Wells in 1913 leading to reference 6 above.

Einstein-Explained how his bomb worked and could be built to his friend Wells. Wells then coined the term "atomic bomb". Einstein liked it so much, that he asked if he could use the name to entitle his invention. Wells agreed if he could use the name in  his Next novel. Einstein agreed if Wells left out the "how to" part. Wells protested as his readers required technical details in his writing. Einstein understood, So he came up with alternate technical babble details that sounded like science but was fiction similar to the star trek babble of today so the readers could suspend belief long enough to enjoy the work. And so it was done.

Shortly after Wells published, apparently Fermi read the book and contacted Wells for more information learning Einstein invented it.

Fermi then went to Einstein's house insisting to know how to build the atomic bomb.
Einstein then angrily told Fermi to get out. Shouting, no one will ever use my theories build an atomic bomb as Einstein had decided it to keep it a secret.

An eye witness account was reported by Mae Freeman in her biography of Einstein as she interviewed his house keeper at the time. She said it was a pesky reporter Einstein ejected. Einstein corrected the housekeepers report only after it was already published saying it was Enrico Fermi.

Fermi badgered Einstein for years to get him to tell "how" than in 1937 when Fermi asked well can you at least tell me what the casing was made of. Einstein replied "Iron".  So in the graph Fermi fabricated below "iron" was to play a predominate role in Fermi's fraud and fabricated evidence. As both Fermi and Silizard speculated for years how it could be built, in 1945 as propaganda officer for the Manhattan project, Fermi released their unworking speculation (neutron chain reaction" on how it could be built to the public stated as fact to keep other countries scientist from building one.

reference 7
my atomic bomb design
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TgAAAKQX … 7795]Genie Bottler

The readers are free to verify any of the above references or ignore them like GNCAvenger habitually does when they do not fit his preconceived notion of what is so.

example: reference 8

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/]The Case Against The Nuclear Atom

By the way, The Cia did hire thousands of Nazi's giving them new identities after the war as many were allied with our intelligent service (Office of Strategic Services (OSS)" during the war for as long as the just killed communists and jews no one in the state department cared.

The Aamerican soldiers in the field, were dismayed to find their friends crushed under the wheels of Nazi trucks carrying the ford logo of Fords manufactured from 1940 to 1949 and made in germany with a dummy leadership placed in charge by American Tycon Henry Ford to give him plausible deniability while Russion and Jews were used as slave labor.

As they soon became the dirty tricks squad, and I encountered their desendents in 1975 when I was attacked twice on a american miltary base by the Nazi thugs.

One stabbed me in the back (of the leg) but I let him go as he showed courage when eyeball to eyeball, and besides he hit a major artery I had to stop from spurting by applying pressure with both hands learned in my martial arts training.

The second one, I recognized his martrial arts approach so was able to move the lethal target of his attack a few inches so he just missed killing me. He got clean away.

I stayed at work recovering from my wounds for a year till I wrote my supervisor a performance report forcing him to resign. I then left government service keeping my security clearance though it was inactive.

So Rick Dobson does have credibility with me refering to cia nazi thugs plaugeing whistle blowers today as we bear the scars of battles well faught and won. Many world war two veterns will not by a ford even today.

The rule of thumb for common law doctorates is that if you cannot list and count your own educational hours, grades and level than they do not count or if you do not know what common law is your education does not count.

I count my higher education at 8,000 plus classroom hours evenly distributed between course levels 1 to 6 in the four major subject areas of math, physics, computer science and general education using the accredited standardized equivalent education equation:

1 formal semester hour = 16 classroom hours or 36 laboratory hours or 72 hours of formal on the job training.

A formal PhD in physics is required to have 4,000 classroom hours or 250 formal semester hours of which approximately 1000 hours is core physics subjects and 3000 hours is spent in fulfilling general education, minor, and optional requirements.

That boils down to just 6 months of actual physics training based on a 40 hour work week with one weeks off for vacation and one week off for sick leave.

One of my universities attended and all my federal diplomas were issued by the United States Air Force Air University (USAFAU) and the Federal Aviation Administration Academy (FAA Academy-1400 classroom hours in advanced electronics) also under the auspices of the USAFAU as it was a USAF military contract for training. The USAFAU is fully accredited to the doctorate level though it was not while I attended school (67-68). As I was employed by the USAF when it was accredited, the schools were evaluated for accreditation and I was given the opportunity to take bypass tests on the areas lacking in my prior school to gain accreditation and formal credits. I did so and passed those with all A's. I graduated in 1968 with and Honors diploma and advanced graduate level course credits. I continued in post graduate school for three and a half years, graduating at the seventh skill level with straight A's.

Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson
Common Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education

My master's thesis in physics was "A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power"
My doctorial dissertation in physics was "A Plasma Rocket Engine"
My doctorial dissertation in Math was "Calculating The Relativistic Effects for Sub C, C , and Super C Objects of Mass"
No thesis in math required.
My doctorial dissertation in computer science (1993) was as 1 of a team of 7 building a super computer from scratch that first passed the terabyte data barrier processing it in 24 hours in 1993 by wiring in parallel and series 100 Pc's and 600 hard drives reducing the PC's processor time (pct) using the equation pct=1/(pct1 plus pct2 plus pct3 plus pct4............pct100) using the technique known today as massive parallel processing invented independently by others at a later date.

As an unintended consequence of my action, while it was working unattended one weekend the computer's housing was struck by several lightning bolts slowing it to 97% speed. Monday morning I reset a few surge suppressor and it returned to 100% speed amazing even myself.

My General Education Doctorate requires no thesis or dissertation as it shares a thesis and dissertation from the other doctorates as they also share the general education requirements of the general education doctorate and any minor requirements are fulfilled by the other majors. I am certified to practice only on doctorate at a time as I can wear only one hat at a time.

A few for refreshment as a year out of high school I made a hundred percentile on the Air Forces Math/Physics bypass test becoming the first in history to 100 percent it. It contained 50 multiple choice problems taken from middle of the book problem selected from college undergraduate and graduate math and physics text books. To keep my certifications current, I did recently take a "discrete mathematics" course as it did not exist when I went to school.

Pausing...to refresh before tackling your questions - did I miss any question from you or Euler or do you want to add to the following list?.......................

Goolge search for "Rick Dobson"...ISA...finding .......
No relative though brothers as we are both military vets and both former officers. I cannot find him claiming to be a doctor, though examining his bio at
http://www.international-space-agency.n … ...hy.html

I have no problem addressing him respectfully as "Doctor" as he obviously has the the required semester hours and thesis requirement completed by compiling other's prior research and he has meet the disseratation requirement demonstrating outstanding performance in the field by advancing the field with his independent work in the field of Aerospace Technology and he does have the military security clearance so keeps much secret though the clearance is inactive.

He clearly has you pegged correct.

"Never Stop Dreaming And Never Stop Trying, And You Will Suceed In Spite Of YOur Personal Short Comings And Failures in Life, And Never Buckle Under To The Nay Sayers And Critics, As They Draw Satisfation From Attacking Others Nobel Efforts, Because They Themselfs Have No Dreams Or Visions!"

I agree.

A plasma's (fire's) power is proportional to both mass and temperature as any fire walker can tell you as the light coal ash even at many thousands of degrees will not transfer enough heat from the conductive path to their much more massive foot to burn it.

Heating a heavy liquid many times more massive than your hydrogen gas to many times the maximine temeperature your engine is rated for, mine gets close to one hundred percent efficient at converting mass to energy while your best is .0001 percent efficient. That is if you can make some future discovery keeping the gas plasma in it's engine casing long enough to do much work.

Your GGNC' (NTP) max efficiency is measured at
Project Orion (pulse drive)
=.00025 %
Nuclear electric Propulsion (NEP)(ion drive - Project Vasimar)
.001 % efficiency
Nuclear thermal Propulsion (NTP) (solid core - Project Nerva and gaseuos core such as GCNR)
= .0001 % efficiency
reference http://www.islandone.org/APC/Nuclear/ch … emnuke.gif
http://www.islandone.org/APC/]www.islandone.org/APC/

The convergent/divergent nozzle was invented by 1900 for chemical rockets and since then its efficiency has increased only 5 or 10 percent over what it began with up to todays space shuttle main engine operating at >99% efficency.
The exhaust velocity in the chamber is limited to below the speed sound (Mach1) at the convergent nozzle as the shock wave blocks the nozzle throat causing the chamber pressure to increase till the nozzle explodes. Super Mach exhaust velocities are obtainable by the divergent nozzle after the throat allowing the the gas to expand and increase velocities.
Because chemical rockets have servere mass limitations the combustion chamber and nozzle are relative light weight so cannot withstand the mach 30 internal chamber velocites of my design as my casing is two feet thick of water cooled cast iron surrounded by I foot thick wrapping of 1/4 inch iron cable. As the reduction nozzle's walls are expanding liquid multiple mach velocites shock wave is simply not a problem as the liquid walls go out with the shock wave becoming part of the exhaust momentum.

At any time the rocket man can determine his velocity wrt his ship knowing the distance he has traveled and dividing that distance by his own watch to determine his velocity as v=D/T. He can even use a scale and his watch as V=AT.

Imagine a race car driver on an oval track. Einsteins relativity eliminated the need for the offical at the edge of the track measuring the lap time to calculate the veleocity as he eliminated proper time of Lorentz relativity saying there was no absolute frame of refernce. The race car driver can use his own watch and knowing the lab distance calculate his own velocity. From time dilatation effects appearing on the drivers clock his velocity will always be calculated faster than the official velocity and both velocites are valid as there is no offical or proper time or absolute frame of reference.

Mine gets a millon times the velocity of a regular NTR system as their limitations and reasons for it are well known and efficiency caclulated at best .0001% as theoretical max power/actual power =.000001. that fraction in chemcial rockets is >.99 or >99% having increased only 5 to 10 percent since the invention of the combustion chamber and it's convergent /divergent nozzle. There is simply no reason to accept such low effeicencies in atomic rockets. My engine does not work on the the same principles of the NTR as the plasma is contained for much longer time and at higher temperatures then the NTR as theoretical max power/actual power is close to one. Mine passed all the proof of pricipal tests it does operates on.

The masters thesis "A Definitive Analysis Of Atomic Power" was assigned in a signed open commision by Albert Einstein in 1955 dictating instructions to the reader on how to continue his work in atomic physics open to anyone who could do the job. I accepted the commision after he died and completed the work and completed his work designing a 10 megaton atomic bomb compiled for other's work.

Normally these works are listed in a bibliography at the end of a thesis givening proper credit and demonstrating the student has moved to a skill level in the field and in my case a masters level. The exception is all "A Defintive Analysis of............." works as they are written from memory with no references or bibliography allowed an it written usually only after many years of research into the historical publications.

University "closed" commisions are closed to those attendending the university and they result in a "formal degree" from that university. When the asigning doctor dies before the work is complete, it is rare for one to find another doctor or university wiilling to accept the work; thefore the students work is lost. I my case I accepteted the open commison by Einstein who had already died as he left very detailed instructions on how the work was to be performed after he died. The comman law doctorates titiles  are awarded by any common man reading the works of disseration calipar indication independent work in the field advancing the as the research is at the forntiers of the field while the masters thesis is based on past works compiled from historical research. My Doctoriall dissertation in physics was "A plasma rocket engine" bering an invention of my own advancing the field.

Universites are limited to level 6 instruction by an acreditation board. levels 7-10 are reserved for the field and all universities are required by law to recognize outstanding performance in the field. As Oklahomas universities are considered substandard in computer science doctorates, Certification is made by the state of oklahoma and after evaluating four years of computer science formal undergraduate and graduate course work plus 4 years experience in a computer engieering lab plus the super computer I built from scratch I was certified Computer Systems Specialist 1. I used my previous doctorates to award myself the commmon law title doctor as  PhD in Computer Science as I recognize outstanding performance in the field and I am a common man. Though the Air Force Community college did not exist when I was a non commission officer of SSGT rank. I do have a formal transcript there as they were acredited to evaluate part of one of my diplomas, transfering some graduate course work to Oklahoma Central University for formal credits.

Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson
Common Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education
Your Academioc Superior
Na Na Na Na Na
  :laugh:

continuing
Reference Einstein's General Relativity field equations for constant
1 g accelerating rocket
C- ship our sturdy craft (The Lorentz)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.htm … craft.html
This applet below lets you make your own time dilation calculations.

The applet)
The Relativistic Rocket Applet
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applet … oyage.html
lets you plan how long a trip will take on a rocket that travels near
the
speed of light. You type the distance of the trip (measured in light
years)
and the acceleration of the rocket (measured as a multiple of Earth's
gravity). The rocket will accelerate at that rate for half of the
trip, then
decelerate at the same rate for the second half of the trip.
The time for the trip is measured in two ways: (1) As seen by a
person who
stays behind on Earth, and (2) as measured by you on the ship. For
your
convenience, space-sickness pills are available aft of the
observation
lounge.
end quote..............................

For a one way trip to the closest star at a constant 1g wrt earth to
midpoint and decelerating at 1 g the remainder of the journey.

Trip length: 4.25 light years.
Acceleration: 1.0 g.
Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years.

If Christ was resurrected after death and did ascended to the heavens
on a 1 g rocket ship to visit his father at a 1000 ly distant star he
could return today Obeying Einstein's laws some 27 years older and he
might be ticked off so behave as:

Trip length: 1000.0 light years.
Acceleration: 1.0 g.
Time on earth: 1002.2235407106124 years.
Time on ship: 13.453214568643295 years.

For a one way trip to the edge of the observable universe measuring a
constant 1g wrt earth to midpoint and decelerating at 1 g the
remainder of the journey.

Trip length: 1.7E10 light years.
Acceleration: 1.0 g.
Time on earth: 1.7004884192539843E10 years.
Time on ship: 45.71651222563561 years.

Velocity average with respect to (wrt) earth =
17E10 light years /1.7004884192539843 years =
.99971277707718905089055716347216 C
Velocity average wrt ship
1.7E10 light years/45.71651222563561 =
371856888.73411523778926486148209 C

1 g acceleration wrt earth wrt earth Velocity
= .99971277707718905089055716347216 C
Velocity average wrt ship = warp speed 371856888.7
Known as faster than light or warp speed due to warping time.

Which is also the velocity wrt earth when measuring the constant 1 g
wrt ship. As Einstein's equation for relativistic acceleration is:
A'=A (gamma cubed)from extended relativity theory(ERT) of 1949.

When A' is substituted for A in the deasy site equations inside the
present Java Calculator at the beginning of this post, Instead of the
rocket man in case one "feeling" a one g acceleration at the
beginning of the trip tending to zero as his velocity wrt earth tends
to C. In case two the rocket man accelerates his ship at a constant 1
g wrt the ship so he feels the constant one g the entire trip. When
the rocket man returns to earth in case two he finds his left behind
earth twin his same age rather than the ancient bones of case one. In
case two both space and time are warped from Einstein's equivalence
principal of general relativity equating gravity and acceleration as
being indistinguishable from one another.

So the ERT theory goes, however Einstein did not know of a way to
test his ERT theory when he completed his gravitational unified field
theory of 1949, calling it his "greatest achievement to date".
However it occurred to me that such a time dilatation warp and space
warp combined effect can easily be measured as sub speed light
velocities, just as time warps are measured in rockets today.

Hence my topic of my proposed engine capable of maintaining a
constant acceleration for extended periods of time.

Chemical rockets at best with adjustable thrust capabilities can
maintain 1 g for several hours, based on maintaining 15 g's for
approximately 15 minutes and atomic rockets have the potential power
of millions times more that so much faster velocities are possible
for any given payload up to any sub light velocities and beyond C, if
Einstein's theory was correct.

I will leave it to the group members if they wish to discuss the
possibility of true faster than light as Einstein's equations permit.
or if they want to discuss my atomic rocket engine.

As I have already commented and given the required equations above
making faster than light travel possible. I prefer to discuss my
rocket engine,(18 page patent application with drawings and animated
gif of engine starting showing internal mechanism. But will yield to
the groups interest if they would rather discuss just the math.

I do ask that the group for this message thread at least stick to
Einstein's field theory and not discuss quantum theory as it is
Einstein's theory and not quantum mechanics that I understand best,
as I discarded quantum mechanics in 1963 as mathematical gobbley
gook, and not a theory one can actually do anything with thereby
following Einstein's instructions to discard it.

Sorry group I do not have that reference to give you as I lost it
in 1968.

I can only give you what I do have. Is it enough?

My patent application of engine caple of testing Einstein's faster
than light theory at above light speed or below light speed though in
any case capable of star travel and Einstein's ERT reference:

foia.fbi.gov/
click on electronic reading room, famous persons, Einstein, Albert,
Part 9b
foia.fbi.gov/einstein/einstein9b.pdf
page 18 and 19
Washing Star Dec 27,1949
Einstein presents New Theory of all motion in Universe

"The unified field theory" It was reveled here yesterday on 20
mimeographed pages-a mixture of typewritten words and squiggly
mathematical symbols that even scientists hesitated to interpret. It
was the English translation of Doctor Einstein's original
German........

'my greatest achievement to date'..............
................

......In earlier theories Dr. Einstein linked up space and time,
matter and energy and gravitation and inertia, but one great force
was left out-electromagnetism, an invisible force field that can act
at a distance.

The new theory now includes electromagnetism and it and gravitation
are viewed as two forms of one overall force.

In his general theory of 1915 Dr. Einstein showed by mathematics that
gravitation and inertial were equivalent. This theory was proved when
astronomers were able to detect the suns gravity bending light from a
distant star.

end quote---------------------------

regarding relatvistic mass
quote Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote...http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body 

for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

end quote

As there can be an infinite number of external observers traveling at an infinite number of velocites and angles wrt the the ship each would calculate a different relativistic mass for the ship so all relativistic masses calculated are considered incorrect as there is no absolute frame of reference in special relativity theory (SRT)(1904) and general relativity theory (GRT)(1912). the lorentz relativity theory (LRT) equations are range variable equations valid only within limits specified for velocites below C. You have to do the extended relativity equations of 1949 to correctly calculate the relativitic effects for objects of mass traveling at light speed and beyond.

Using the Java calculator to figure trip time found at:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applet … oyage.html also see http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.htm … craft.html
Trip length: 4.25 light years (ly)
Acceleration: 1.0 g wrt earth mid way to decelerate at one 1 g to arrive at
Alpha Proxima at rest.......
Trip length: 4.25 light years (ly)
Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years
As Velocity = distance traveled/ time traveled
Velocity average wrt earth = .732 C and c =299,792.458 km/s
Vavg=219448.079256 km/s

Vaverage wrt ship = 4.25 ly/3.544401860293398 years
     = 1.1990739672075993369920037141966 C

In the case above of warping time, the rocket man feels a artifical gravity field of 1 g starting out decreasing to zero g as the ship approaches light speed as the constant one g is measured wrt the earth leaving the rocket man to calculate his distance traveled/ ship time to get warp speed.

unit time versus unit light speed gamma factor graph

Using the same equations used in the java calcultor and replacing the 1 g with realtivistic acceleration of 1 g, the rocket man feels a constant one g accleration throughout the trip as
A'= A(gamma cubed) and gamma = 1/(1-V^2/C^2)
as a little known and little appreciated fact of general relativity theory. Only algebra and trig is needed to do the math. In this manner the rocket warps both space and time obtaining warp speed wrt to the earth. I will look up the reference later. I will look up the reference later using google serch for "relativistic acceleration" with also "little" and "unappreciated" maybe.

The rocket man returns to earth finding his left behind evil twin his same age instead of ancient bones by warping both time and space from Einstein's equivelance principal of genral relativity unifying gravity with acceleration and as earth's gravity warps space visulized in gravity wells, so he artifical gravity well visulised as a crease in rubber sheet model of the universe as it is created by a constant accelerating rocket at one g warping space also.

All of Einstein's special relativity equations (SRT) of 1905, and General relativity theory of 1912(GRT) and this Extended realtivity theory (ERT) of 1949 are derived with algebra from him defining time as the forth dimension in T'=T(1/1-v^2/^2) of the graph above and time dilation gamma factor is derviable with algebra from his E=M^2 discovery.

In his ERT all mass, motion, and forces in the universe including inside the atom can be expressed with simple algebraic equations of third dgree or lower of variables with whole exponents 0,1,2,3, with the exponents representing the three spatial dimensions of heigth, width, length and the forth temporal dimension of time as he completed his gravitaional unified field theory (UFT)uniiting gravity with the elctromagnetic forces seeing them as one overall force.

He told assosiates his his completed theory in 1949 was his "greatest achievment"

foia.fbi.gov/
click on electronic reading room, famous persons, Einstein, Albert, Part 9b
foia.fbi.gov/einstein/einstein9b.pdf
page 18 and 19
Washing Star Dec 27,1949
Einstein presents New Theory of all motion in Universe

"The unified field theory" It was reveled here yesterday on 20 mimeographed pages-a mixture of typewritten words and squiggly mathematical symbols that even scientists hesitated to interpret. It was the English translation of Doctor Einstein's original German........

................

......In earlier theories Dr. Einstein linked up space and time, matter and energy and gravitation and inertia, but one great force was left out-electromagnetism, an invisible force field that can act at a distance.

The new theory now includes electromagnetism and it and gravitation are viewed as two forms of one overall force.

In his general theory of 1915 Dr. Einstein showed by mathematics that gravitation and inertial were equivalent. This theory was proved when astronomers were able to detect the suns gravity bending light from a distant star.

end quote---------------------------

Star ship sez,
Shhh. Do not tell any one that :-)as the government who spent almost a quarter of a million dollars in todays dollars educating me on the physics of "most" all machines known to man, might get the idea I do not know how a simple bomb machine and a rocket machine work and they might just want their money and diplomas back stripping me of all my credentials.

Aerospace Technology Certifications (Rocket Science)
*Federal, **State, ***Industry **** Common Law
--------------------------------------
* Computers Analog/ Digital
* Communications Electronics
* Automatic Pilot Systems (Inertial Guidance Systems)
* Radar Electronics
* Traffic Safety Certificate
* HI-Value Soldering
* Communications Repairman
* Electronic Warfare Repairman
* Upgrade General Subjects
* Non-Destructive Inspection
* Communications Technician
* Management AF Supervisor
* Electronic Warfare Technician
* War theory
* Marksmanship (Sharp Shooter Medal)
* National Defense (Medal)
* Special Force (Commendation)
* Journeyman Electronic Auto Pilot Mechanic (B52)
* Atomic Propulsion Systems (Accepted patent application)
** Computer Operations Technician I
** Data Processing Support Technician II
** Data Processing Systems Specialist III
*** Pre production Training (Data Storage Systems)
*** A+ Certified Computer Service Technician
____
****Total Comman Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education

And that is not even counting the fact that I aced the Air Forces Math-Physics bypass test in 1968 becoming the first in history to ace it, nor does the above list include schools I attended so secret even the course names could not be listed on any official transcript.

GNcavenger your comments and questions are always welcome. 

Incorrect assumption- Above 50,000 K, my metalic plasma remains a solid as the pressure on it keeps it confined to the metal volume as explained in a previous post.

Nope I demonstrated in my labortory that physical seperation nor a magnatic field is required to keep the casing from melting by the heat of the plasma. I simulating a 3000 degree centigrade plasma(fire), I  placed it under a container of water, boiling it to steam and sent the steam into a reduction nozzle increasing it's specific impulse at the exhaust port by a factor of 100.

As the container was a paper cup and the reduction nozzle was a snow cone cup it did not burn though over the candle flame as all radiant, conductive and convective heat paths were under control limiting the temperature on the container to below the flash point of the paper. Using a waxed paper cup I lost control of the heat paths as the wax on the paper ignited at a lower temerature and ignited the paper container resulting in a loss of propellant accident as I lost control of the heat paths.

In the same manner and with enhanced radiant heat path control, my rocket engine casing does not melt despite the 50,000 plus K tempertures contained.

Therefore at a minimum power ratio of 10 million to one representing the ratio of atomic powered rockets versus chemical powered rockets of the same mass one can reasonably expect to go 10 million times faster than chemical rockets with the same payload size with the same engine mass and with engine efficiencies near 100% not obtained until 1988 with my invention of a Hybrid Fission/Fusion rocket engine.

Your infinite energy argument limits only particle accelerator particle speeds and the exhaust particle velocity to sub light speeds of my engine estimated at only .44 C for the Mars trip engine. Simply reducing the 100,000 ton payload to 10 tons the rocket exceeds light speed. The infinite energy argument does not limit the rocket's final velocity as an infinite number of observer traveling at an infinite number of velocities with respect to my ship would calculate a infinite number of relativistic masses and relativistic energies required so relativistic mass and relativistic energy are considered meaningless in Einstein's extended relativity theory (ERT) of 1949 as they are observer effects only as all is normal in space and time aboard the moving rocket.

It's not suprising that at low temperatures contained in reactors limit the percentage of matter turned to energy limiting the efficiency like so:

The equations to calculate Engine efficiency

These equations give:

Nuclear electric Propulsion (NEP)(ion drive - Project Vasimar) .001 % efficiency
Nuclear thermal Propulsion (NTP) (solid core - Project Nerva) = .0001 %
Project Orion (pulse drive) =.00025 %
Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) = 32% (d/t fusion engine )
Beam Core = 16% (antimatter engine)
Chemical powered rockets >= 99% (space shuttle main engines)
Hybrid Fission/Fusion Reaction Engine >= 99% (Americium 241 plasma rocket engine)

above efficiency data reference
http://www.islandone.org/APC/]http://ww … e.org/APC/

Project Orion has higher operating temperatures but it is a pulse engine limiting it's efficiency like so:

Project Orion (pulse drive) =.00025 %

The shaped charge concept for Orion below

From above quote
The 141 kg shaped charge consists of a: propellant; radiation case; channel filler; delivery case; fusing and firing, mass

The pulse mass (Pm) goes one direction at a velocity(V) towards the pusher plate. The charge shaper mass(Csm) consisting of The fusing and firing, delivery case, and radiation case masses goes the opposite direction an equal momentum as PmV = CsmV conserving momentum.

The energy is also conserved As PmV^2/2 =E= CsmV^2/2 therefore only the Pm's momentum is transferred to Orion causing acceleration.

I/2 the energy available is wasted accelerating the shaped charge the opposite direction of the ship. Turning the shaped charge around makes no difference as one now has to accelerate it's casing mass as payload mass requiring equal energy so the pusher plate best efficiency is 1/2 available at ideal and in practice much smaller fraction is calculated and the pulse momentum transferred is always less than 100% as you have heat, light, radiation, particles impacting the pusher plate at other than 90 degrees angle and other losses making the figure a small fraction estimated at 1/4 being generous.

In addition while it is cooling some between pulses time it is not delivering acceleration to Orion so the duty cycle for pulse engines of Pulse time on / (pulse time on pulse time off) is a very small fraction estimated at 1 / 1000 being very generous. These, two small fractions multiplied together give a very small efficiency in converting exhaust(e) energy from mass to get the rocket® momentum(P) of some mass(M) to velocity(V) as Pe=Pr=MeVe=MrVr.

This duty cycle in a 4 cycle auto engine is 1/4 as only one of the 2 cycles of two piston up and down strokes is the power stroke causing at ideal 25% of the chemicals power to transfer to the wheels though in practice 17% is common from other power losses such as sound, heat, friction etc.

Therefore Orion's efficiency is estimated generously at:
1 / 4000 or .00025 % percent versus the 100 percent available for payload were a different atomic engine of near 100% efficiency like most chemical rockets of today like liquid oxygen rocket engines.

Thanks for your most welcome comments and questions.

Give me just a bit of time and I will address fully the 8 issues raised including the beginning paragraph not numbered so renumbered issues 1 to 9. I have to look up some references by Einstein regarding the possibility of faster than light as it was his theory and not mine and look up my proof of principal tests for my engine as all required to date have completed and passed.

True, the GCNR is not practical as it looses the radioactive fuel with the propellant. My invention solved that problem by keeping the fuel under high pressure so that it remains confined as solid the consitancy of asphalt on a cold day.

...

Note 1 :
Einstein explained the above given equation as a limit on particle accelerator to accelerate the particle to only sub C as proven mathematically and by particle accelerator experiments. He then said "because" a particle accelerator has to provide the energy to accelerate the particle from a rest frame base to a relativistically increasing mass towards infinity so the energy required tended towards infinity. "In relativity calculation do not mix frames of reference. "It did not rule out a different machine being found that provides the energy from a different frame reference so would require the energy calculation being redone with the proper frame of reference" "Experiments can be poorly designed so as not to prove what they are intended to such as particle accelerator experiments and the Michale-Morleson experiment" -Einstein (1955)

I can fairly assume that Einstein was the leading authority on relativity till 1955, and not Gibbs or others before and after who interpreted his equations some other way to mean a machine cannot be found to exceed C. There is zero evidence such a velocity of light speed limit mechanics was ever constructed and Einstein denied in 1955 that he ever constructed such mechanics as he taught that a massive object could be accelerated beyond light speed. He than explained "How" it could be done.

He then explained the wide spread public misconception tying his relativity theories to a C speed limit to a "German to English" translator he hired to translate his relativity papers to English.

The Translator knowing basically as a second language German and some basic physics and less relativity physics and some of Henry Poincare's workwas looking for a C speed limit mechanics so Jumped to the conclusion he had found it translating some of the equations adding his own interpretation comments to appear falsely as from Einstein to say:

"It appears we cannot accelerate an object beyond light speed" in the English translation. By the time Einstein came to America and had learned enough English to correct the mistranslations he found the misinformation so widespread that correction was found impractical so then he confined his teaching of the possibility of acceleration beyond light speed to his personal students at Princeton and private students and from that time on authorized only those works signed by
him to be published. The one signed in 1955, I read in 1963.

So my list of math or experimental proofs of any C limit for massive objects velocity contains no data.

Universal speed limit at C Proof list
.............................................
(Empty-Null Set)
.............................................
like the possibility of Einstein's faster than light theory, popular science often contridicts Einstien' statements as it is populary taught Einstein did not complete his gravitaional unified field theory . foia.fbi.gov/
click on electronic reading room, famous persons, Einstein, Albert, Part 9b
foia.fbi.gov/einstein/einstein9b.pdf
page 18 and 19
Washing Star Dec 27,1949
Einstein presents New Theory of all motion in Universe

"The unified field theory" It was reveled here yesterday on 20 mimeographed pages-a mixture of typewritten words and squiggly mathematical symbols that even scientists hesitated to interpret. It was the English translation of Doctor Einstein's original German........

................

......In earlier theories Dr. Einstein linked up space and time, matter and energy and gravitation and inertia, but one great force was left out-electromagnetism, an invisible force field that can act at a distance.

The new theory now includes electromagnetism and it and gravitation are viewed as two forms of one overall force.

In his general theory of 1915 Dr. Einstein showed by mathematics that gravitation and inertial were equivalent. This theory was proved when astronomers were able to detect the suns gravity bending light from a distant star.

---------------------------
 
Einstein destroyed the infinite energy and mass argument against faster than light by teaching light had mass.

I use water as propellant as it has more mass than hydrogen so gives more momentum to the rocket as momentum = mass times velocity and the momentum of the exhaust = momentum of rocket. high specific impulse alone as not a good indicatior of a rockets performance as my flashight will acclerate in deep space with a photon velocity of light speed but not the mometum or mass required to be practical.

I do, as my normal engine operating temperatures are over 50,000K-proof of principal test
My engines liguid reduction nozzle has been tested to 50,000 K or nine times the temperature of the surface of the sun, by using electric arc to simulate the supercritical mass temperatures contained by my engine like so:

I do not generate a plasma in LH or LE. I generate a plasma by stacking radiaoctive metals above critical mass.

As the plasma chamber is a eleptical chamber of 1:4 to width to length ratio, by the law of reflectivity, all forces generated from one foci are focused to the second foci in this case the reduction nozzle input whose output velocity is .44C with an Isp of 1,400,000 seconds after a thousand to one reduction for the plasmelt as the liquid walls of the reduction nozzle expand. That leaves the averge particle velocity colliding with the liquid wall of the plasma chamber at mach 30, the reflected force therefore on the surface of the metal plasma is mach30 times the (surface area of the chamber)/(surface are of the plasma) This high pressure keeps the plasma solid and inplace at greater than 50,000 k from the hydrodynamic forces present as stated in the patent application.

Yes stacking metals above critical mass increases the decay rate as evident by the heat generated stacking atoms to critical mass as the heat melts the mass at that critical mass point. Stacking them above critical mass further acceleration of the decay occurs as evident by the dozens of supercritical accident reports. BTW not one accident resulted in an expolsion.

My engine casing is made of water cooled iron with the water preheated by the engine prior to injection in the plasma chamber. I can also use part of the engine casing heat to heat the junction of a thermocouple producing electricty to power the paylaod and crew. It has no moving parts so long life expectacy and reliable as my engine is on all the time.

Like any armor it has some limitations though remains useful. In my case it is most useful in protecting the engine and ship from low velocity orbiting space junk placed in earth's gravity well by the chemical rocket industry, in which case as my rocket launces from earth at a constant 1.2 g acceleration for 97 minutes to achive an escape velocity from earth of 11.2 meters/sec.

In deep space at high velocity I use other methods of protecting my engine and crew from high velocity impact, such as steering for one avoiding the asteroid belt and  ort cloud of comets, by plotting a trajectory perpinducular to the sun's ecliptic orbital plane where all the planets, moon, asteroids, and 5/6 of the comets are known to exist in.

I am new to the group and want to know if my fuzzy math solution below is in the ballpark?

Probability of collision of my constant 1 g accelerating plasma rocket engine with space debris in journey to near star.

google search term...Poisson "probability of collision"......finding
quote..........

ON-ORBIT COLLISION HAZARD ANALYSIS IN LOW EARTH ORBIT
http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/poisson.pd … oisson.pdf

The equation one Poisson probability distribution function is given by the equation
Pk=-(R^k)(e^-k)/k!
P= probability of k events
k=number of events
R=rate of occurrence parameter

equation four (partially derived from Poisson)
PC =1 -exp (-AC*SPD*VR*T)
PC = Probability of collision for the duration of time T
AC=cross sectional area, km
SPD = Spatial density, objects/km
VR = relative velocity, km/s and
T=Time at risk seconds

Therefore making velocity faster reduces the time at risk and the smaller the cross section the better as is the lower the density. however I am getting a contradiction as higher velocity makes the number in parenthesis bigger instead of the expected smaller. So I do not use the equation with confidence at this time until I read more.
On-Orbit Collision Hazard Analysis in Low Earth Orbit Using the Poisson Probability Distribution (Version 1.0)

http://ntl.bts.gov/card_view.cfm?docid= … ?docid=219

Probability of Collision Error Analysis

http://jungfrau.tamu.edu/~html/alfriend … ...per.pdf

I could be only a partial derivative equation and I am misreading the exp notation as inverse natural log as sometimes exp notation works only in base 10 and the natural log is 2.7128 something base as I fuzzily recall.

Brushing up on my probability theory and log math, unless you want to take a stab at doing the probability collision calculation yourself with the values I give in this post unless you have some others you prefer

My gut feeling in any full derivative equation, I have to divide the length of trajectory (4.25 light years) by the length of the ship (approx 300 meters )getting a denominator under the nominator of 4.25 ly times ship width estimated at 6 meters 6 meters/10,000,000 objects to get the spatial density low requirement--if that is some help and you want to give it a try.

I have a exp button on my windows scientific calculator, but guess it just gives a the scientific notation of a number. I used the ln and inverse ln (log number) button recently with good results if I trust a calculator - How's your math? I have some reading to do from the google search term above.

....reading....Okie dokie I will take a stab at it now. Jumping in.....

exp is indeed the inverse natural log function (ln) as
exp(x)=1/ln(x) so to use my inverse ln button as I do not have a exp button

PC =1 -exp(-AC*SPD*VR*T) becomes
PC =1 - (1/ln(-AC*SPD*VR*T)

PC = Probability of collision for the duration of time T
AC=cross sectional area, km squared
SPD = Spatial density, objects/km cubed
VR = relative velocity, km/s and
T=Time at risk seconds

checking first physics units 1km^2 * 1/km^3 * 1km/s * 1sec = 1 so units are correct leaving a real number as dimensionless value.
AC = pi * radius of ship squared = 3.14 times (.003 km)^2 = 0.00002826 km^2
That was easy enough giving me confidence to figure the next three variables

Java calculator to figure trip time found at:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applet … oyage.html also see http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.htm … craft.html

Trip length: 4.25 light years (ly)
Acceleration: 1.0 g wrt earth mid way to decelerate at one 1 g to arrive at
Near star at rest.......
Trip length: 4.25 light years (ly)
Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years

As Velocity = distance traveled/ time traveled
Velocity average wrt earth = .732 C and c =299,792.458 km/s
Vavg=219448.079256 km/s

T = 5.8780560467144 years times 365.25 days/ year times 24 hours/day times 60 minute/hour times 60 seconds/ minute
= 185497341.49979434944 seconds as Time at risk

two easy down two to go.......

SPD = The Local Bubble extending out 500 light years is not only relatively empty (with a density of less than 0.001 atoms per cubic centimeter); it is also quite hot, about one million degrees Kelvin. By comparison, the interstellar cloud around the solar system is merely warm, about 7,000 degrees, with a density of about 0.3 atoms per cubic centimeter..........the relative sun/cloud velocity is 26 kilometers per second..........

citations for above paragraph-http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21173/page/2
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0305/30 … 5/30map3d/

Picking a good number between .001 atoms/cc and .3 atoms/cc, I pick .003.cc or three times the known installer density accounting for a little of the higher density in the cloud around the sun averaged over the distance to the star multiplied by the higher velocity number applied to the solar cloud to gives a very conservative estimate

SPD = objects/km^3 = .003 atoms times1,000,000,000,000,000 cc =3000000000000 atoms/km^3
as the trajectory total volume = area times height
= 0.00002826 km^2 times 4.25 light years
Vol.tot = 0.00002826 km^2 times 299,792.458 km/s times 185497341.49979434944 sec
= 1571558493.9290642025410120746752 cubic km atoms = 3000000000000 atoms/km^3 times
1571558493.9290642025410120746752 /km^3
= 4714675481787192607623.0362240256 atoms crossing my path

side bar........how much mass?....
There are 6.0225x10^23 hydrogen atoms in 1 gram of hydrogen
so grams of hydrogen atoms in my path
= 0.0078284358352630844460324387281445 grams

So if I hit every single atom in my path at an average angle of
45 degrees
Ekinetic= (0.0078284358352630844460324387281445 grams times
216822.079256 km/sec times 216822.079256 km/sec)/2
= 184014484906.20450984639531873246 kilograms-m^2/sec^2
= 184014484906.2 watts over 5.8 years
= 0.99200604935035425532482688826712 watts per second

That amount of energy released in atom collisions my ship can withstand.
Note at .72 C relativistic energy kicks in so multiply that by approx
1.5 to guesstimate the gamma factor Ek=EC^2 *gamma/2 and
gamma =1/ square root(1-V^2/C^2) maybe? .72 times .72 ~= .5 ? I will look it up later

Back on topic- since I guess the velocity of the atoms is proportional to the temperature and I know the average velocity of the sun cloud atoms at 7,000 K, I can calculate the higher velocity of the interstellar atoms at 1 million K by multiplying the velocity of the solar cloud atoms by the ratio 1,000,000/7000 to get the higher velocity of the interstellar atoms

VR = velocity of ship - velocity of objects= (26 km/sec)(1,000,000K/7,000K)
      =ship velocity - 3714.2857142857142857142857142857 km/sec ship velocity
      = Trip length: 4.25 light years (ly) / Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Velocity = distance traveled/ time traveled
Velocity average wrt earth = .732 C and c =299,792.458 km/s
Vavg=219448.079256 km/s
VR = 219448.079256 km/s - 3714.2857km/sec
      = 215733.79354171428571428571428572 km/sec

however as the objects move at various angles to the trajectory path I will
assume average of 45 degrees so correct the velocity by the
sine of 45 degrees = .707 and correcting
VR = 219448.079256 km/s - 2626 km/s = 216822.079256 km/sec

knowing now AC, SPD, VR and T; I solve for PC

PC =1 - (1/ln(-AC*SPD*VR*T)
= 1 - (((1/ln((-0.00002826 km^2 )(3000000000000/km^3)(219448.079256 km/sec)(185497341.49979434944 sec)))
= 1 - (1/ln(-3451142452668224988780.0625159867)

Note: ln(minus x) returned invalid input so I dropped it recalling that velocity is not a unit vector but scalar vector having both magnitude and direction with the direction noted by the minus sign so I should have subtracted the larger ship velocity from the objects smaller velocity getting a negative velocity to multiply the minus sign by making the ln(-x)= ln(x) if I recall my analytic geometry class from 1973. That solves the previous contradiction I found of a high V when expecting a low V as minus numbers are lower than positive numbers. Besides I could not conceive of a way to make time at risk a negative number or understand negative objects or imagine a negative density leaving only velocity to change and relative velocities are often negative
therefore..............

PC = 1- 1/49.592992274802526103814870677229
= 0.97983586079140287384216440679304 times 100 percent
= 97.9835860 percent probability I will hit at least one atom

Recalling my combinations and permutations probability math from 1968
The PC of n number of objects
=PC of one object raised to the nth power
= PC^n
Probability for hitting 10 atoms
PC^10 = 0.81570533089286596506609074604119 =81%
PC^100 = 13.041663959514299452836762753626 %
PC^1000 = .00000001423410145081292721735445731557 percent
considered insignificant if not zero therefore

of 1000 atoms hit /4714675481787192607623 atoms available = power of collision / power available of 184014484906.2 watts over 5.8 years
power of collision = 1000 atoms times 184014484906.2 watts
/ 4714675481787192607623 atoms
= 0.000000039030148653295137686211255652988 watts
also considered insignificant if not zero as the probability of releasing that energy in hitting 1000 atoms is considered insignificant if not zero.
care to check my math as I notice instead of  The PC of n number of objects
=PC of one object raised to the nth power

it may actually be
Pk=-(R^k)(e^-k)/k!
P= probability of k events
k=number of events
R=rate of occurrence parameter

however just looking at some x/K! with out knowing x with K a thousand atoms its a very big number calculating at 4.02387260077093773543702433923e+2567 or 4 times ten to the 2567 power so Pk for 1000 atoms is also considered insignifigant if not zero.

How do you like my fuzzy math calculations?

It would seem the same equations can be used to protect the crew from alpha, beta and gamma radiation known to be present by simply moving a large quantity of the propellant water at high velocity in a hollow ship skin a few inches thick as a shield around the crew. Increasing the velocity of the water molecules would increase the probability to near 100% of those high velocity particles of postive, negative and neutral charge colliding with the water instead of the crew.
As the permissible radiation dose is 25 REM over the life time of the crew and current measurment of radiation in  space is  unknown by me.

For delicate electonics the dose is http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo … /app-1.htm
"For space applications, the recommended dose rates should be kept as low as possible, preferably 0.01 - 2 rads(Si)/sec.
care to to plug in other numbers and do that math anyone?