Re: starship-design: Re: Why go to the stars? - Kyle

[kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

Steve VanDevender wrote:

> Actually, I think your numbers are completely bogus because your
> equation isn't grounded in reality.  Even if you are using some sort of
> FTL drive (and that FTL drive actually worked) it won't be immune to
> relativistic effects.  FTL won't eliminate time dilation effects even if
> it did allow travel faster than light.

You obviously haven't studied Alcubierre's paper. I on the other hand am
limited in my knowledge of relativity. Therefore that makes us equal. If
you would like it, I can give you Miguel Alcubierre's E-mail address. 

Relativity does not concern FTL travel. As a matter of fact, it doesn't
even consider it. Placing a limit on lightspeed does not forbid FTL
travel at all. Besides, the speed of light CAN be increased by many
factors. Newtonian physics deals with low velocity.  Relativity high
velocity (near-c). What deals with FTL? FTL apparently is possible. We
haven't figured it out yet. I know everyone will eat me alive for using
not-so-exact terminology, but I ask everyone: have you sent a
MACROSCOPIC object up to relativistic speed? Here's where I really get
demanding: With an engine attached? I believe the answer is no. See my
point?

Steve: If you want to disagree with FTL, thats fine with me. I don't
take it personally. Frankly, I just keep working on it.

As I've said earlier, I will be posting a design for an FTL-driven
starship. My co-designers are: Ben Bakelaar, and Kevin Houston. Much
help and thanks to Kelly Starks.
If IPS listened to FTL theory, and LeRC listened to FTL theory, than LIT
needs to.

Kyle Mcallister

"The suppresion of hard ideas is not the road to knowledge"
			-Carl Sagan