[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re: Why go to the stars? - Kyle
Steve VanDevender wrote:
> 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.
I read ALL my E-mail. Maybe it is inconsistent. There are things in
nature that are incosistent with science (as we know it), but they still
happen.
> > Besides, the speed of light CAN be increased by many
> > factors.
>
> Which are not demonstrably relevant to space propulsion.
Untrue. Several ideas (which I won't even quote, since no one will
listen) have shown such potential. Oh, Id like to ask: did blowing up
the Bikini Atoll with an H-bomb show relavant potential for starship
engines? Not at the time. See my point?
>
> > 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 don't wish relativity to be invalidated. But there can be additions.
>
> > 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.
Oh, I see. I'm unsure of this: Do these phenomena have Engines? ONBOARD?
>
> > 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.
I have already been given permission to post my design. And my theories
are NOT nonsense. Perhaps this trouble is due to the fact that I'm just
a kid?
>
> > "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.
Have we propelled objects, ARTIFICIAL objects up to .9XXC? No. Therefore
that, if what you say is true, is not applicable to starship design. I
know my ideas are speculative, but if we cannot speculate, then we are
unworthy of being called scientists. No offense to anyone: You shoot
down all my theories, but an even more speculative theory, the "cellular
automaton universe", you do not attack. Something doesn't add up...
I don't wish to dissapoint you, but you haven't made me feel like an
unknowing idiot. Maybe I don't know as much as some in this group, maybe
I'm not a colledge grad (yet), with a big degree behind me, but I'm not
stupid. I'm beginning to feel a lot like Nicolaus Copernicus. And no, I
won't shut up and be a nice little boy. I, unlike some people (I'm not
refering to anyone in LIT, so don't get me wrong), am not easy to give
up.
Regards,
Kyle R. Mcallister