Re: starship-design: FTL

[kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)]

L. Parker wrote:
>Isaac,
>> But you have to remember that "instantaneous" is a relative notion.
>> Assuming relativity is valid and there are no special frames of
>> reference, what you can do is thrust a little bit (sublight)
>> before making your trip back.

>> With your new frame of reference, "instantaneous" correlates
>> different points in space-time.  When you "instantaneously"
>> travel back, you travel back instantly in your _new_ frame of
>> reference.  This will let you travel back to meet yourself
>> before you left.

>Ahh, there is the point though, it lies in the concept of simultaneity, 
>which really depends on whether space-time is Minkowskian or Galiliean 
>doesn't it? Despite the lack of proof for or against either one, I 
>prefer Galilean because a) time is absolute and b) I can understand it
>without getting a headache...<G>

I gather you're using the definitions by that guy whose web page you
forwarded.

His notion of "Galilean space-time" is either:

1) Wrong.  That is, the numbers don't fit the facts.

or

2) Not useful.  That is, the numbers do fit the facts, but they are
   essentially identical to general relativity.  They do, however,
   needlessly introduce an extra concept, "absolute time" in a special
   frame of reference.

There is an almost unimaginably large body of real life data and
skeptical experiments confirming General Relativity, but of course
it is not and can never be _proven_.  Scientific theories are ones
which can be disproved by finding phenomena which don't conform to
the theory, but no amount of conforming phenomena ever absolutely
proves a scientific theory.  There is always the possibility
that tomorrow some bizarre phenomena will pop up which doesn't
conform to the theory.
-- 
    _____     Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo
 __|_)o(_|__
/___________\ "Mari-san...  Yokatta...
\=\)-----(/=/  ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi