starship-design: FTL/inertia

["Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

Greetings:

I should have elaborated on my FTL idea better to avoid confusion.

If you warp space correctly, you can travel globally FTL, while not
violating causality as with local FTL. Imagine a warp that can be
propulsive, and all surrounding of the vehicle. The ship generates this
field/warp/whatever by some means (I have some ideas), which allows the
ship to remain in locally flat spacetime, and remain stationary, while
the warp travels FTL. The ship itself isn't moving at all. Therefor it
is possible to be moving, yet stationary. Since the spacetime inside the
warp is flat like the space outside the warp, and the light cone is
carried with it, there is NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in the time measured
in the ship AND on earth. The Lorentz problem of causality violation is
no longer relevant, so the FTL is perfectly legal in our universe. This
kind of drive system could get you to a star in, say 5 months (just an
example) as measured on the ship and 5 months as measured on earth. 

The idea on how to generate this warp: electromagnetic gravity control.
This seems impossible at first, but think about this: ZPF affects
gravity/inertia. EM affects ZPF. So logically, EM affects gravity.
Inertia is not just some 'trick', but a real force that can be used to
propel something. If anyone calls this a perpetual motion machine, we're
in real trouble, since motors would be! (as long as power is applied, it
goes). Even if you used negative matter (assuming there is such a thing)
and regular matter, this still is not perpetual motion.
Perpetual=infinity, 10^12 years is long, but not perpetual. Gravity
radiates away. If the signal scenario with the receding ships going at a
combined velocity of 1.8c as posted earlier produces FTL
signaling/causality violation problems, this shows that we need a
complete revision of relativistic physics and ways of looking at
causality. I still don't see why causality violation is forbidden.
Because it makes no sense? Does most of what we think we know make
sense? No.

Kyle Mcallister

P.S.: When you (everyone in the group) were a kid, did you ever fill a
bucket with water and sling it over your head? And not get wet? If you
did it right you wouldn't get wet. There may be ways of taking this
force of inertia and making it assymmetrical. That would be a good
thing.