RE: starship-design: FTL Navigation

[Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>]

L. Parker writes:
 > 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.

Let me clarify that as a list member, I feel that discussing FTL travel
is inappropriate to the extent that there is no accepted theory for how
FTL travel can be achieved and in particular no accepted demonstration
of FTL transmission of mass.

As the list maintainer my position is neutral; I feel my role as list
maintainer does not extend to dictating what may be discussed on the
list in relation to interstellar travel.

How do you tell which hat I'm wearing?  I post from my stevev@efn.org
account when participating in list discussions.  I post from my
stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu account for things relating to list
management (such as discouraging off-topic postings such as virus
warnings, as I did earlier today).

 > 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.

As far as I'm concerned (temporarily speaking as the list maintainer)
you can discuss FTL travel on the list.  As a list participant I will
tend to be very skeptical about it, though.