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

RE: BOUNCE starship-design: Non-member submission from [Kevin C Houston <hous0042@garnet.tc.umn.edu>]

Steve or Kevin,

I'm not sure who this message came from...

> It is a good theory though.

but it is not provable, it is only disprovable (all in all, better than
most wild theories) IT is disporovable by noting that the speed of light
is not constant but a function of the "curvature" and the "limit of
elasticity" (for want of a better term) of the space-time.

[L. Parker]  No, the speed of light IS constant, within the frame work 
of space-time. TIME and SPACE are not constant. But to say that it is a 
function of space time would be misleading. I'm not sure how to say 
this without contradicting myself, or at least seeming to, and I don't want 
to tell the story of the balloon again (someone who has it archived can 
feel free to repost it), but here goes...As space expands or contracts 
and/or time varies the speed of light WHICH IS A CONSTANT within the 
frame work of space time must vary EXACTLY with it. Speed, or velocity 
if you prefer, is ALWAYS measured in the context of space time and since 
the change in space time and the "change" in the speed of light are 
exactly the same YOU CAN NEVER MEASURE A CHANGE in the velocity of light.

Clear as mud, right? Oh well, I tried.

The up shot is, as the universe expands (or you manage to make the local
space-time flatter... Cassimir?), the speed of light should increase.
This increase may or may not be detectable with our current tech.

[L. Parker]  The Casimir effect does not have anything to do with 
flattening space time. It simply creates a region of space in which 
few if any atoms can exist and in which virtual photons seem to turn 
into real photons spontaneously, due to a "negative" energy gradient 
which exists between the plates. Nature abhors a vacuum...

The key value would be the percentage increase in the universe in a given
time period, and whether or not we could detect such an increase in the
speed of light (assuming we weren't blinded to such a possibility).
If you ask why we haven't detected such a drift before, I'd say that it's
because we never looked for it, and if the speed of light was faster than
the accepted value, most scientists would adjust their clocks than
re-write the physical models.

[L. Parker]  We have looked for it and there is recent experimental 
evidence, which has yet to be verified, that there is a difference 
in the rate of expansion of the universe in different directions.

Anyone know how fast the universe is expanding?  as a percentage of total

[L. Parker]  No, but there are lots of guesses. It depends on which set 
of assumptions you make for the initial (starting) conditions. Scientists 
can't seem to agree.

> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- BEGIN STUPID IDEA-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- DO NOT TRY THIS -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- IT WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS -=-=-=-=-
> > 
> > I suppose if you had a *really* strong spherical container, with a very
> > powerful explosive inside, the force might be great enough to rip a hole
> > into the w direction thereby producing a noticeable temporary increase
> > or decrease in the local gravity.
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- END STUPID IDEA -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Really strong: does this mean stronger than stainless steel?
> Powerful explosive: how powerful? an A-bomb??

Container must be stronger than the space-time.
the explosive must be stronger than the spacetime, and not as strong as
the container.

> Don't worry, I won't try this. Just gathering info.

glad to hear it, the consequences of having a strong, but not strong
enough container would be a catastrophic explosion (with shrapnel)  and
the stronger the container, the more damage.

[L. Parker]  Please don't, and I thought Kyle was dangerous...(sorry Kyle ;-)

Lee Parker

                                                          (o o)
I stared into the sky,
As wondering men have always done
Since beuty and the stars were one,
Though none so hard as I.

Ralph Hodgson, 1871 - 1962, Song of Honor