Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 09/30/2003 View Mon 09/29/2003 View Sun 09/28/2003 View Sat 09/27/2003 View Fri 09/26/2003 View Thu 09/25/2003 View Wed 09/24/2003
2003-09-30 Home Front
Wesley: I willan on-win!
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Katz 2003-09-30 1:51:43 PM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [311 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Well General Clark is getting well deserved ridicule for saying he believes in faster than light travel. However, one set of theories using a little used solution to Maxwell's equations, do require photons to go faster than the speed of light.
Posted by mhw 2003-9-30 3:37:22 PM||   2003-9-30 3:37:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 The Wired article has been changed...
The part about time travel was an error on the reporter's part.

As are as FTL is concerned, neither 'Tachyons' nor 'Warp' have been proven impossible.
Relativity doesn't say that FTL is impossible, it simply says that you don't get there by going faster.

I helped remedy the reporter's error. Reading the Clark quotes, I couldn't see where time-travel entered into the story. Here was my e-mail:

>I'm no fan of Clark's (to put it mildly).
>I disagree with your interpretation of his words as
> indicating he believes
>in the possibility of time travel. I take his
> words as meaning he
>believes faster-than-light (FTL) is possible. That
> is a very different belief.
>Relativity does not preclude FTL per se. It only
> states that you cannot
>achieve it by simply going faster. If FTL is
> possible, it is equally
>likely that it could be achieved from 'standing
> still'.
>In summary, while I believe that Gen. Clark has at
> least his share of
>loose screws, I don't think he's quite as crazy as
> your article seems to

I believe that any improvement in the accuracy of reporting is a good thing.
Posted by Dishman  2003-9-30 4:00:32 PM||   2003-9-30 4:00:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Proven impossible? Can you prove a negative now?

The Lorentz transformation does seem to indicate that, since distance in space = distance in time (c being constant), FTL travel does involve moving backwards in time. That's one of the "little problems", along with having infinite mass and 0 length...
Posted by mojo  2003-9-30 4:06:09 PM||   2003-9-30 4:06:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 See:
Posted by mojo  2003-9-30 4:19:18 PM||   2003-9-30 4:19:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 The Lorentz Transform is a tool for translating the space-time coordinates of events from one inertial frame to another. It does not in any way describe the actual events.

Einstein's equations produce a number of interesting results. All mass we know of exists in the vc with imaginary mass. Typically, these are called Tachyons. Nobody has ever found one, nor is there any solid evidence that they cannot exist. There are simply no good models for how they would interact with solid matter.

I don't think Clark is actually all that far out on a limb on this one. It's my understanding that NASA is actually devoting some small amount of money to researching various possible techniques.
Posted by Dishman  2003-9-30 4:41:08 PM||   2003-9-30 4:41:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Lead investigator: Zefram Cochrane?
Posted by mojo  2003-9-30 5:44:15 PM||   2003-9-30 5:44:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I would propose we send Fmr Ambassador Wilson to investigate - you know, his wife works for the CIA, but sshhhhhh -it'll be our secret

Posted by Frank G  2003-9-30 10:42:14 PM||   2003-9-30 10:42:14 PM|| Front Page Top

09:41 Raptor
09:34 Daniel King
00:56 R. McLeod
00:53 R. McLeod
00:42 R. McLeod
00:38 R. McLeod
00:11 Igs
23:44 Old Patriot
23:24 Bomb-a-rama
23:22 Bomb-a-rama
23:15 Old Patriot
23:10 Not Mike Moore
23:08 Grunter
23:05 Old Patriot
23:04 Old Patriot
23:03 Alaska Paul
22:42 Frank G
22:41 mojo
22:37 mojo
22:37 Tokyo Taro
22:35 Charles
22:35 Frank G
22:28 Anonymous
22:27 Frank G

Search WWW Search