reply to post by Diablos
Hello everyone. I've been watching this forum for some time (on and off), but have only felt strongly compelled to join and post by the OP from
Diablos, I respect your point of view and understand that you wish to caution against wild flights of fancy by many who may underestimate the problems
involved with traversing vast interstellar distances.
However, it would be remiss not to point out that FTL does not contravene relativity. Several papers have been written by prominent persons regarding
this subject, without the need for exotic Warp Drive technologies or Bubbles of Space-Time. True, any propulsion system requires extra mass for fuel
- that adds to the inertial mass of the vehicle at journey start.
Paul R. Hill postulated in his 'Unconventional Flying Objects' book that the observed aerial characteristics of UAPs are mostly described by an
ability to manipulate the gravitational field. Something which we do not yet fully understand. Indeed, our knowledge is so lacking that, at this
time, there is some debate on whether gravity (whether as a field, as opposed to gravitational radiation or gravity waves) propagates faster than
For example, our planet orbits the sun based upon its gravity centric location, not its observed location - which is several minutes delayed because
of light speed.
A star of many times the stellar mass of our own collapses to a black hole faster than C, as gravity takes over.
I note that some replies have correctly pointed out that for a vehicle with steady acceleration of around 1G will approximate light speed in a
relatively short time. As Lorenz contraction and time dilation takes over, the on board time in relation to observers 'at home' will diminish.
This you already know.
I am sure that you also understand this allows for traversing vast distances in relatively short 'on board' time since, essentially, the vehicle
achieves faster than C travel (according to its own reference frame) as calculated by distance traveled by on-board time. This does not contradict
Our limitations, thus far, are in the fuel source and in our ability to reduce the inertial mass of the vehicle. If propulsion ever can be based upon
manipulating the gravitational field, then it naturally follows that reducing the inertial mass should be a simple by-product.
We should also not limit the acceleration to 'Earth bound' terms. Paul Hill speculated that a steady acceleration of 10G would achieve light speed
in around 2.5 weeks. Before anyone says that's more than the human body could handle, Dr. Hill also suggested that any intelligent species capable
of using gravity would also be able to make those G forces negligible on any occupant (assuming there are any).
Even if this was not the case, steady acceleration at say 2.5G would be no hardship for an occupant who was the denizen of a planet with 3 times Earth
G. Consequently, taking every current theory as fact, we still do not violate any laws in traveling around the galaxy.
I appreciate your adherence to current postulates as "the be all and end all" of fact. I thought it very amusing, about 20 years ago, when a
student of astrophysics spent two hours of my time attempting to convince me that if the universe ended in a 'Big Crunch', that time would go
backwards, as Professor Hawking postulated. Her belief in what Hawking said out-weighed her ability and objectivity for critical thought. To me, it
was a dumb pseudo science claim, where the math indicated one thing but reality another. I appreciated Hawking saying sometime later, that it was the
dumbest idea he ever had. Amazing how no one remembers believing that now that he recanted it!
At the end of the day, you can believe what you will. If it's based just on the sayings of the great and the good, all you do is regurgitate.
However, critical thinking requires more than crapping on an idea simply because it does not fit your world view. It requires a ponderance of the
evidence available, it requires the ability to examine the evidence in isolation from pre-conceived and pre-learnt ideas. And, before you ask, yes,
there is sufficient evidence, whether or not it fits the changing goal posts that we seem to face.
As for other comments in this thread; not ragging on anyone but ETH is probably the most likely answer. Time travel and pan dimensional causes are
probably more far fetched and less easily theoretically describable. btw, ETH does not require a biological entity and neither does it require human
Hopefully, my first post here has not upset anyone. This is a subject that interested me many years ago, and which I've now come back to, with
possibly more focus. My interest is in the science of the thing, as confounding as it is.
Many thanks for indulging me thus far.