[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

In a message dated 7/4/97 11:38:02 AM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote:

>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
>>  > 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

The "Copernicus" line was a bit over the top.  As to why your geting pounded.
 Its not particularly that your a kid, but:

1- FTL violates a lot of people assumptions about physics.  It doesn't violate
 the laws of physics, just peoples assumptions.  But thats a great way to
generate a lot of heat fast.  (Just imagine that flack the origionator of the
theory is getting.)
2- Your concept is extreamly iffy for a ship engineering design.  Which is
the nominal goal of the group.  Its a speculation, on a possible aplication
of a unproven theory.  Certainly wourth talking about.  But really skating on
thin conceptual ice.  We've been trying to stay on very practical ground and
have avoided concepts that are just theories (regardless of how usefull they
would have been).

In general the concepts are worth discusion and review, and addition to the
site(s).  But they are a definaet lightning rod.