[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel
> Was that an off the cuff bash, an emotional bash, or just a plain stupid
> one? Since you obviously haven't even tried to find out who the people
> who wrote the book, it might help you to know that they are the
> scientists in the field of relativistic physics.
What your status is does not justify the use of dogmatism. I am sorry, but
I have this book, and have read it quite thoroughly, and I agree with
Curtis...it does contain dogma. The basic knowledge the book gives is good,
but the way it is presented can leave something to be desired. Edwin Taylor
and John Wheeler are great scientists, yes. But they are not gods. For one
of them to say "this is possible/not possible because some numbers say so
or I say so" is not a professional attitude. What they _should_ have said,
was something like this: "we don't think this-that-the other is possible,
because of this theory and the evidence which supports said theory."
> Even a simple search turns
> up more papers by these men than almost any others. Not just rehashes
> either, but critical new theories and basic research.
That is all fine and well. But there is more to life that idly theorizing
and tabulating. One should strive to conduct new experiments to find out
how things _really_ work, not how we like to think they work. I don't know
if superluminal travel is possible, but it is certainly more worthy of
investigation that a so-called "theory of everything."
> If you are going to
> bash someone, at least learn who it is you are bashing before you go and
> your foot in your mouth.
I didn't think he was bashing anyone...just the way the book was written.
Example: I can certainly disagree with a friend, but still be their friend
nonetheless. There is a difference.
> Please be so kind to recommend one since you are so certain of this
I can do that: _Relativity_ , Albert Einstein. I found it quite
--Kyle R. Mcallister