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

*To*: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list)*Subject*: Re: starship-design: Many things...*From*: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)*Date*: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:29:24 -0500 (CDT)*In-Reply-To*: <3405D8FF.19AD@sunherald.infi.net> from "Kyle R. Mcallister" at Aug 28, 97 01:01:04 pm*Reply-To*: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)*Sender*: owner-starship-design

Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: >Have we measured Time dilation directly? Speed (.01C+) Yes. We've confirmed it in clocks on aircraft travelling around the world, on the space shuttle, GPS satellites (which simply wouldn't work right if our calculations on time dilation were wrong). Also, we've confirmed time dilation in subatomic particles in that their decay times dilate according to relativity. >What if you carried your light/lightcone with you at FTL, in a way that >eliminates TD and Lorentz contraction? The problems with FTL causing communication back in time have nothing to do with the light cone of the travelling messages/ships /beams/whatever. It has everything to do with the reference frames of the SUBLIGHT ships/persons/whatever which send the messages/ships/beams/whatever. >What if you were in an alcubierre ship, travelling FTL, and your power >source died? Would you eliminate? It depends upon exactly how the Alcubierre metric was accomplished in the first place. Alcubierre never noted how it might be done, although Pfenning and Ford proposed a rough method (which requires more energy than their is in the universe, so...). >What causes Centrifugal force EXACTLY? Centrifugal force exactly does not exist, except as a useful mathematical construct for use along with the Coriolis force in doing calculations within a rotating frame of reference. >What causes inertia EXACTLY? No one knows. That is exactly how far our understanding of inertia goes. We don't even know why inertial mass and gravitational mass seem to be absolutely identical as far as we can measure. It's a useful factoid, of course, but there's no proposed theoretical explanation. >Is it at all possible that there is something we have yet to find which >would provide a loophole for FTL? (not by 2050) Of course. >Kyle Mcallister >Here's a dreadful thought: what if someday at .99999+C we find out that >Einstein was wrong there? Bad news for timetravel. What's so dreadful about that? Time travel examples don't need speeds that fast. The one I posted didn't. The FTL signal travels faster, of course, but I only needed the Lorentz transformation for the sublight ships A and B, which were going sublight. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: starship-design: Many things...***From:*Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>

**References**:**starship-design: Many things...***From:*"Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: starship-design: FTL** - Next by Date:
**Re: starship-design: FTL and time travel** - Prev by thread:
**starship-design: Many things...** - Next by thread:
**Re: starship-design: Many things...** - Index(es):