From: Jonathan Reeves (JonathanR@mail.iclshelpdesks.com)
Date: Thu Feb 18 1999 - 02:08:47 MST
Anders Sandberg writes:
> I think you mix up things a bit. If I jump into my spaceship and blast
> off from Earth (I have an urgent meeting at Aldebaran) with a constant
> acceleration (as measured with an accelerometer onboard) you will see
> my ship recede with a speed (as measured from Earth, for example by
> observing the rate I pass regular milestones along my way) that
> initially increases linearly with time, but gradually the increase
> slows down and after a long while I appear to move near c. No FTL
> there.
>
> Properly speaking the ship is in no inertial frame - it is defined as
> a frame of reference experiencing no accelerations - but it is
> possible to speak of instantaneous inertial frames for each
> moment. However, in neither the ship frames or the Earth's frame is
> anything seen moving beyond c.
Okay, I take your point.
I'm not actually talking about ftl in the strict interpretation of the
term.
I think the main point of disagreement is the time dilation effect and
whether it is possible to overcome it.
The fact that a ship can blast around the galaxy in within the crews
lifetime is not much use to anyone else if they cannot communicate any
information faster than a direct light signal.
You may like to look at Eric Baird's relativity pages
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eric_baird/homepage.htm
which contain a lot of very interesting ideas about ftl travel and
communication.
Jon Reeves
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:05 MST