[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

>  > 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

Kyle R. Mcallister