[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re: Why go to the stars? - Kyle
kyle writes:
> 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.
Wrong. Did you actually read Ken Wharton's explanation of _why_ FTL is
inconsistent with relativity? It's not something you can dismiss
because you don't understand it.
> Besides, the speed of light CAN be increased by many
> factors.
Which are not demonstrably relevant to space propulsion.
> 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.
Just as relativity did not invalidate Newtonian physics at low
velocities, I do not expect any working FTL theory (should one be
proven) to invalidate relativity in its domain.
> 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?
Several astrophysical phenomena demonstrate relativistic effects on
macroscopic objects that are completely consistent with the theoretical
predictions.
> 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.
If you spout nonsense in this forum, you will be called on it. That's
all there is to it.
> "The suppresion of hard ideas is not the road to knowledge"
> -Carl Sagan
You take this quote entirely out of the context and spirit in which it
was offered. If you have a real FTL theory, then you can justify it by
experiment. Until you've done so it's not science and it can't be used
to build a working spacecraft. If you're feeling suppressed because I
keep asking you to put up or shut up on your FTL imaginings, then too
bad.