RE: starship-design: FTL Navigation

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

Considering that it is through Steve's effort that the list is even here, I
think a modicum of respect for his rules is appropriate.

The answer/non-answer issue isn't even relevant. The charter of the group
was to discuss ways to build a starship within fifty years. Although I will
grant that there may yet be some unknown or undiscovered loop hole that
permits FTL, AT THE MOMENT, there is not even a theoretically accepted
POSSIBILITY of FTL travel, which puts it outside the range of discussion for
this list. Which is what Steve said.

Kyle is correct however, that it HAS been sort of dead around here lately.

Tell you what, with apologies to Steve in advance, I will offer to discuss
FTL travel OFF LIST with those who are interested. My email is
lparker@cacaphony.net. BTW, I once wrote a physics paper on the possibility
of inertialess drives. Which ARE NOT necessarily FTL and there is some
physics to support the possibility.

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Kyle R.
> Mcallister
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 9:08 PM
> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation
>
>
> At 10:25 PM 8/22/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore
> >it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation".
>
> This is a rather non answer. If indeed FTL velocities are
> possible, which
> we do not know if they are or not (equal chance) then it is
> NOT physically
> meaningless. It is physically meaningful.
>
> >You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says
> >we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel,
> >right?
>
> Who is we? You? I say we ask Kelly, Lee, Curtis, Ben, etc.
> And me. As far
> as I know this is a democracy. As for "we" not being
> interested in FTL
> speculation, speak for yourself. Maybe you're not but that
> does not prevent
> us from doing so. And hell, we're sture not talking about
> anything else.
>
> Now how about some real discussion on this subject?
>
> --Kyle
>