# Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel

```Steve VanDevender wrote:

>  > > It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read;
>  >
>  > that's scary . . .
>
> I suspect that if physics texts contained the amount of philosophical
> hand-wringing needed to satisfy you, they'd be twice as big and even

Pity's sake, Steve, I was trying to have some fun there. Excuse me for failing to append
the ;-)  to it. And, no, I don't want philosophical hand wringing (whatever that is) any
more than I want dogma, I want _information_, I want _instruction_, and I want it clear,
concise, and step by step, with each step explained fully, so that when I'm done working
through it, I have understanding and confidence.

>  from what I can tell he [Gaasenbeek]
> isn't even making substantially different predictions than conventional
> theories, just trying to explain them in a different way.

If he refuted time dilation, would that be different enough? Go back and read "Time
Dilation: Fact or Fiction?"

> You apparently don't understand the idea of spacetime interval well
> enough to properly criticize it.

Again, I do understand what Lorentz did: he took a right triangle, labeled "a" as space
and "b" as time, or vise versa, applied Pythagorean theorem, and got space-time as the
hypotenuse, "c". Very elegant, very simple.

What I _don't_ understand is how he _got away_ with it. Here's how I see it:

(1) time is not a property of space (otherwise you could answer the question, "How many
seconds are in a cubic meter?", or, for that matter, even "How many seconds are in a
meter?")

(2) time and space are, therefor, unlike terms

(3) the last I recall, it was illegal to combine unlike terms in an equation

therefor,

(4) the Lorentz space-time equation, and its resultant invariant interval, are illegal.

I can't get any more concise than this in my presentation of my misunderstanding, and this
should now allow you to precisely target my error and correct it. Whoever does so will get
a gold star for the day, I will immediately buy the whole ball of wax, and we can all be
happy together and go on to other things. Okay?

Now, before I close for the day, I want to apologize to all of you, for what I'm sure has
been one of the most exasperating series of exchanges in, oh, at least a couple of weeks.
I know that you're all well intentioned, conscientious folks, just trying to accomplish
some meaningful work in this life, same as me, and you're probably all pretty good at what
you do. I have no ill will towards anyone, but sometimes I get a little abrasive, and I
apologize. I'm working on that.  Steve, I owe you a personal apology for my unjust
harshness in my first post about the book. Please forgive me for that.

Keep looking up,

Curtis
```