Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrath
As a side note, be aware that my site requires Javascript to make the menu work. The link you read is page 33 of 64.
Yes, subtleties might avenue of research that fits the mathematics and might have an interesting result, to a S/F writer. But as I point out, there is a better than 50% chance that pursuing that avenue of research will make matters worse with respect to the desires of an S/F writer.
And riddle me this, if one can come to a marvelous result by simply mathematically substituting 1 / sq root (e0 * mu0) for C in all relativity equations, why have you not done so, published your results, and won the Nobel prize for physics? If it was anything so simple, some theoretician would have tried it decades ago.
This is still all beside the point that any FTL drive is the same thing as a time machine, and would thus destroy causality (short of Parallel Universes, Consistency Protection, Restricted Space-Time Areas, Special Frames, or some related way of straining at the gnat but swallowing the camel)
It still all boils down to the S/F writer whining "That meany Einstein and his relativity won't let me have my FTL drive!" |
When I have a few spare million to have the experimental research done, I'll do it.
Question, If
you were in charge of a grant pool, would you fund the research? Not by me, but by a young post-doc physicist starting out? Or would you automatically write it off as impossible.
There are holes in various part of our understanding of physics. I was at a Physics colloqia back in the nineties. The physicist's total talk was on the fact that the standard model, which explains subatomic particles so well, was off in calculating the value of zero vacuum energy, but nobody seemed to care because it was so good at modeling subatomic particles. It was only off on the zero vacuum energy by a order of magnitude of 58... The physicist giving the Colloqia talk was named John Wheeler...