starship-design: FTL and current physics

[Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>]

Kyle R. Mcallister writes:
 > Have any of you stopped to think about something just a bit possible: we
 > know less than there is to know? Newton works at low speed. He flunks at
 > high speed, and Einstein takes over. Who is to say that it ends there?
 > Maybe Einstien flunks at FTL, and ??? takes over. Maybe there is some
 > other law or something we don't yet know that permits FTL non-causality
 > violating. Lets drop this argument right here: FTL is impossible with
 > current physics. No additions, no subtractions. Just that.

I'm glad you're finally willing to accept the design limitations that
the rest of us have agreed to work within, but I still wish you'd
realize that this is not a matter of "amateurs" vs. "professionals" or
an attitude that we know all there is to know.  It is simply that we are
choosing to design starships based on what we know, not what we might
someday know or what we wish were true.  That's all there is to it, and
it does you no good to argue against opinions that you think we have
that we actually don't.