Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again

["AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>]

Hi Group,
Haven't been on for a while...
-----Original Message-----
From: L. Parker <lparker@cacaphony.net>
To: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 20 October 1998 4:26
Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again


>>
>> You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations,
>> at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values
>> that are complex numbers.  I don't know if I'd call that "legal."
>> Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then.  A quantum
>> mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL
>> particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't
>> have FTL particles at all.
>
>Actually, I think it was AIP News about two weeks ago that was talking
about
>evidence of a type of neutrino with properties that were imaginary numbers.
>( I believe it was spin, but don't quote me.) The scientists who discovered
>the effect even stated that if validated, these would have to be tachyons
>(faster than light particles).
>
>Every analysis I've ever seen of relativity agrees that if you ignore the
>evident causality paradoxes, travel above the speed of light is possible,
>there just isn't any way to get there because travel at the speed of light
>isn't possible.
>
>Lee
>
>
Can you dig up the reference? John Cramer, in his Alternate View column in
"Analog" talked about tachyon neutrinos as a possible drive system - not for
FTL, but as a reactionless drive. Coupled to a suitable power source a
coherent beam of tachyons could act as a "space drive" that'd travel the
Universe. A convenient power source would be either a GUT power-core or some
sort of ZPE system, both of which can produce infinite power. Has anyone
checked out Jack Sarfatti's site at Starship? They all think that some sort
of ZPE power system isn't too far off. Maybe by 2050?

Adam