chems on Urth and a FTL Whorl

matthew.malthouse · 18 Aug 2003, 09:10 · from urth-v0308.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: matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk
Subject: Re: (urth) chems on Urth and a FTL Whorl
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:10:51 +0100
Message-ID: <urth-v0308-3926 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0308/3926.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 16/08/2003 18:50:29 "James Wynn" wrote:

>Crush responds:
>I think the argument is that a generational ship is unnecessary for a FTL
>ship. If it can travel at the SoL, then any trip would be instantaneous=20
for
>the passengers.

Nit-pick.  Any part of the voyage at the speed of light would be=20
instantaneous for the passengers.

Any requirement for acceleration to or deceleration from that speed would=20
occasion subjective duration for those aboard.  Viz the light-huggers of=20
Alastair Reynolds trilogy.

More "speed of light" isn't sufficient.  A 30 light year journey would=20
still take minimum 30 years in the external time frame.  Practically=20
speaking to make interstellar travel no more an obstacle to empire than=20
say sailing across the Atlantic would require superluminal travel and I'm=20
not sure we even have a theory to suggest what subjective duration would=20
be for those concerned.

Matthew

--=20

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