FTL Travel

James Wynn · 20 Nov 2002, 00:14 · from urth-v0211.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at HotPOP.com>
Subject: RE: (urth) FTL Travel
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:14:54 -0600
Message-ID: <urth-v0211-2199 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0211/2199.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Don asked:
Please explain.  Is this the usual SF take on FTL or is there a physics
explanation that makes backward time travel the most likely?  I'm pretty
ignorant on this.

Crush does his best to help:
As one moves faster and approaches the speed of light, time slows down,
exponentially, until time stops at the speed of light. I am informed by
Stephen Hawking (not personally) *that it takes* an infinite amount of time
and an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light.

Jerry Friedman asks facetiously:
"...that it *would* take..."?

Crush explains to Mr. Friedman:
Why no. Everyone knows that Hawkings has a FTL wheelchair. ;-)
Nit. nit. nit.<g>

Crush goes on responding to Don's question:
It is simple mathematics that as one moves faster than the speed of light,
time moves in the opposite direction.

Jerry Friedman bristles at this bowdlerization of the theory of Relativity:
I wouldn't call it simple mathematics.

Crush responds to Jerry Friedman:
Neither would I, as my response to Hartshorn was intended to convey. But the
general concept of why a *possible* implication of FTL travel is that one
would move into his own past is one of the most straightforward concepts in
this realm. I believe Don's question was whether or not all this had the
scientific pedigree of dililthium crystals. I don't think my answer was
misleading given the context.

You have heroically attempted to clarify Hartshorn's beautiful explanation,
but I've got a dollar that says that a majority of the readers of this
list -- still - have no more than the vaguest understanding of what you are
describing or its implications (unless a majority of the people on this have
a B.A. in Physics).

Remember Kypris explaining possession to Silk?

-- Crush

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net