[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

 > 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