Re: starship-design: starship design: Alcubierre Drive... How?

[bfranchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>]

"Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote:
> 
> KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >==Once we understand these factors, we may be closer
> > > to knowing what it takes to travel faster than light. Who
> > > knows? It might turn out to be simpler than what we
> > >  currently think. But I don't think we will be able to
> > > do it for at least a few hundred years.
> > >
> > > Kyle R. Mcallister
> >
> > Don't bet on that.  Now-a-days things go from weird physics concepts, to
> > marketed products REAL fast!  NASA's funding research into this stuff.  They
> > obviousl expect something far less long term then centuries.
> 
> Well, to do that we will likely need to know about the following:
> 
> 1. Inertia control. Such as preventing it from skyrocketing when C is
> approached. It has been suggested that relativistic 'mass' increase
> might be circumvented if we knew how to 'mess' with the cause of
> inertia. Note: many top physicists are beginning to doubt Mach's inertia
> theory. It would also be nice to accelerate at 1000g's and not be turned
> into chunky salsa.
> 
> 2. Space-time modification. Pretty obvious.
> 
> 3. Learning more about light speed and what it is based on. Or: how can
> we exceed C and live to tell about it? Like I said, when we know the
> fundamentals, FTL might not require warps as complex as Alcubierre's.
> Something simpler might exist.
> 
> Less than a century to do this? It would be nice, but I don't know...
> Kyle R. Mcallister

As a believer in autodynamics but while not knowing a great deal of math
would not many of the ideas based on Special reltivity and ways to get
around
light speed now be outdated because what was thought to be loop holes
in SR but really SR was wrong? Ben.