Where can I contact scientists about my theory of light speed travel?

Question

I do not want to go into details, but I developed an idea for light speed travel that I have never seen before, nor anything even close (hence the I developed it claim).

I would like to hand it off to some physicists, but I want my name attached to the published works, due to MY HAVING come up with the idea!

any leads?

Actually, I have developed the theory to the point that I need a person, like Fermi, to do the math.
I think that a constantaccelration of 1.2 Gs would be very attainable from launch (space stationed vehicle) and a constant acceleration could be held until light + 70% is achieved.
however this would have to end by the 1/2 way point in the journey. I designed a rough outline of a ship with 4 pods that would rotate (2 in each direction) 180 degrees at that point. then the FTL engines would reverse and negative acceleration of the same (up to 1.2 G) during the 2nd half of the trip. normal life (walking etc.) would function except for the monents b4 and after the trip and the 1/2 way point where the ship would be only coasting during the rotation phase.

The theory would be only point to poit between two stars, but course changes could take place anytime the ship passes between any two other stars.

I did not state 70% OF light speed, I said light speed PLUS 70% or 170% light speed.

I give more etails here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060706072343AAqPIDa&r=w

Answer 1

I'm with swbarnes2 on this one, I discussed this topic with one of my lecturers a while back who IS a prominent scientist in this field, her advice was that most of these great/unique ideas can be shot down with some basic understanding of physics which people have just not bothered to find out about before sending her their grandiose theories (she gets a few every month and finds them a bit annoying now). If your work is thouroughly researched then a journal will consider publishing it (they get peer review before publication so if your work can be taken seriously they will give you feedback too).

Answer 2

Responder tpjunkie's answer has some correct elements, but at (only!) 70% of the speed of light, relativistic effects are not very strong. The more crucial problem is the question of propulsion. So far as we know, the only way to achieve propulsion is by ejecting matter, as in a rocket exhaust, and relying on Newton's third law. Now the propulsive force depends on the momentum of the exhaust, so you can increase either the amount of mass ejected, or its velocity. We need to look at a concept called 'specific impulse'; this, which is measured in seconds, is the amount of time a rocket engine can provide a thrust "x" using an amount of fuel "x". Typical values for today's engines are on the order of 250-300 seconds, and these can't be much increased because the hydrogen-oxygen reaction used in the highest performance rockets is already about the highest energy reaction there is. Now it is obvious that a few hundred seconds falls far short of the propulsion time you are talking about. And, although what you need to buy is momentum, which increases linearly with exhaust velocity, what you have to pay with to get it is energy, which goes as the square of the exhaust velocity. This means that to go from a specific impulse of 250 to one million requires not 4,000 times as much energy, but 16 million. We're talking nuclear energy here. I sketched out a design for a spacecraft along these lines, using a thermonuclear reactor (maybe some day we will actually be able to build one!); the power generated is on the order of terawatts. (The total electric generating capacity of the United States is slightly under a terawatt.) Not gonna happen anytime soon.

Answer 3

If you don't know the math behind your theory, you don't have a theory on your hands, you have a day dream. You can only tell if your theory works if the math follows it and confirms it to be realistic.

Your theory, i guarantee is wrong. If you do want to look by the absolute lowest standard that physicists set others theories by (whether or not they have any math involved), you can send your theory off to a journal such as Nature or Science or the APS. They will then promptly reject it because there is absolutely no math (and they've probably seen it before). What you're doing is equivalent of saying that you are positive you can fit 1000 oranges into an everyday soda can. Sure anythings possible... but the math is going to tell you that wait, no that's not probable. Math and physics go hand in hand. The math follows from the situation, you don't just tell the situation to obey the laws of mathematics.

Answer 4

Document everything with ink and time date stamps including stuff leading to the idea. Use a bound notebook and not loose leaf papers.

You must have a practical implementation documented - it doesn't have to be built but it has to be able to be built or implemented - figments won't fly.

Find a patent attorney and pay them huge sums of money. You may have an innovation worthy of a patent and you'll own the rights for 17+ years. Or else you'll find out it is a pipe-dream.

Once it is in the system if it is worth it someone may be willing to purchase the rights to your intellectual property.

It probably won't be accepted.

Answer 5

From your statement "accelerate to 70% of light speed" I can see you haven't taken much physics, certainly nothing beyond basic kinematics. First off, at constant acceleration at 1.2 G (12 m/s^2), to reach 70% the speed of light (210,000,000 m/s), it would take you over 33 ([210,000,000 m/s]/[12 m/s^2]/[1/60 minutes/hr]/[1/24 hrs/day]/[1/365 days/yr] years, assuming classical newtonian physics. However, as you begin to approach the speed of light, the classical equations cease to be accurate, and it turns out that more and more energy is required to accelerate an object at constant acceleration. Put another way, it becomes harder to accelerate the faster you go. I advise checking out "General Relativity" on wikipedia.org for more on the subject.

Answer 6

that is that inertial relax mass m can't go back and forth speedier than mild. If the something has no inertial relax mass, then the sky is the reduce. and on account that the speedier than mild enhance of the universe exhibits, the universe itself has no inertial mass. The so-called inflationary epoch befell even as the universe become extremely a consider null area and stronger speedier than mild to about the dimensions of a grapefruit. yet because it become so very tiny even as that enhance befell, that a million with all those zeros multiplier you propose nonetheless ended up with purely a truly warm grapefruit of potential. In different words, because it began so small even as it stronger at mild p.c., it stronger billions and billions of situations over its unique quantity and nonetheless ended up no higher than slightly of fruit interior the food market even as that speedier than mild enhance become over. Cosmologists got here up with the inflationary epoch because they got here upon the universe is a procedures from uniform for the time of. surely, with extra precise gadgets, we are able to work out even the historic past temperature varies significantly over the universe... that is opposite to beforehand beliefs that idea the historic past temperature become uniform. Had the universe stronger at a uniform, sub mild velocity for the time of its enhance, it would were completely uniform. There would were no galaxies, galactic clusters, etc.. and no variance in historic past temperature. yet there are. something had to have led to the non uniform nature of the universe we are able to now observe. the speedier than mild enhance become the answer. At speedier than mild, a number of the potential contained in the tiny ball might want to not save up. So aspects of the grapefruit pulled faraway from different aspects. And that led to the non uniformity that has persevered some 14-15 billion years later. shortly after the universe bogged right down to sub mild p.c., it cooled to a temperature that allowed photons, quarks, strong and susceptible atomic forces, and gravity to seem. yet they did so at various prices because by using then the universe become non uniform. final analysis, Einstein's mild p.c. reduce become not damaged by using the tremendous bang because the reduce applies purely to inertial relax mass and the universe isn't inertial relax mass.

Answer 7

put your theories in a sealed envelope that you have dated by a notary public, then deposit it with a law firm.

Now you can submit your ideas to the world for discussion, if anybody 'steals' from you, you have proof of ownership.

Try NASA, MIT, or any other Institute of Tech.

Answer 8

Dr. Stephen Hwawking is on Y answers now ! There is no e-mail address, but maybe he will see your question. Good luck!

Answer 9

im not sure
but if your willing to share your theory i would love to hear it
(i like hearing new theorys rather than the einstien stuff that is usually preached in schools)

Answer 10

does it involve rapid spinning and compression or paperclips those ideas are already taken but if you serious try calling the department of science