[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, stk@sunherald.infi.net*Subject*: Re: starship-design: Cellular universe? Not!*From*: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>*Date*: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:48:55 +0200 (MET DST)*Cc*: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl*Reply-To*: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>*Sender*: owner-starship-design

> From: kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net> > > No offense to anyone, but I'm not buying this 'cellular automaton' > universe theory. It doesn't hold up in terms of what has been observed. > (i.e. warping of spacetime, etc.) There have been instances where space > has been warped in a laborotory environment, although very inefficient. > If the cellular theory held up, then the transmission projects of > Günther Nimitz would not work. > Do not flame up, Kyle, the "cellular automaton" theory is just a speculation. I am afraid, not much more speculative than the space warping theories. > I think that a fair theory incorporating > ZPF is this: Space has structure, not just chaos. Space itself is made > of something firm yet bendable. We simply haven't _quite_ mastered how > to bend it the way we want to allow us to exceed the speed of light. > Just another speculation... > If you like, consider it not FTL, but increasing the speed of light > itself to allow travel at reasonable time periods. > The "cellular automaton" speculation predicts the unbreakable limit speed, but before the exact topology of space quanta arrangement and the value of time quantum is firmly established, it cannot calculate what is the exact value of the limit (possibly, it is much more than 300,000 km/s ?). -- Zenon

- Prev by Date:
**starship-design: Cellular universe? Not!** - Next by Date:
**starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity** - Prev by thread:
**starship-design: Cellular universe? Not!** - Next by thread:
**starship-design: http://newton.umsl.edu/infophys/a1examp2.html** - Index(es):