Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation

[Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl>]

> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Aug 24 04:11:09 2001
> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
> 
> 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.
> 
According to the current state of physics theory, it isn't.
As yet no convincing alternative theory making it meaningfull
is available. When it appears, and is experimentally
confirmed, then we can return to the subject.

> >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.
> 
I, for one, am not particularly interested. Partly because any
mention of this subject here starts an avalanche of gibberish from
some <STAR1SHIP@aol.com>, who is not even able to edit his posts
so that they are moderately readable...

> Now how about some real discussion on this subject?
> 
The problem is, there is not much to discuss, as yet.
Ungrounded wild speculation is not particularly interesting,
especially in this list which has quite clearly delimited scope.

-- Zenon