A point has no space or value, but it still has a location. That was what I was refering to by "a single point in time".
------------------
Cuz I'm a 21st Century Digital Boy
I don't know the Monty Python but I've got a lotta toys
My daddy is a Renegade, his name is Hellcat Helian
Wait a second...
Quote
Originally posted by Skyfox:
**This method wouldn't work, e=mc(2) still applies in this case since the ship is trying to propel itself.
Just because tachyons haven't been seen doesn't mean they don't exist. Nearly every theory on this page have to do with one radical untested particle or dimension. Besides, the human race will never truly attain a method of faster then light travel.
**
The trick lies in creating a bubble of space around your ship (a warp bubble, as Gene Roddenberry called it), and then causing the bubble , not the ship, to fall towards the quantum black hole (which itself would be no more than an illusion). If this was done, the ship itself would, as Russell said, remain completely stationary (or as stationary as one can get in reality), and it would merely be the space around it that was moving. And, there is no limit on the speed of space. So you would be able to accelerate to the speed of gravity, which is several millions of times that of light.
------------------
Youre only given a little spark of madness. You mustnt lose it.
-- Robin Williams
I didn't know there was a 'speed of gravity'. How would that work?
------------------
Cuz I'm a 21st Century Digital Boy
I don't know the Monty Python but I've got a lotta toys
My daddy is a Renegade, his name is Hellcat Helian
Wait a second...
Quote
Originally posted by 21st Century Digital Boy:
**I didn't know there was a 'speed of gravity'. How would that work?
**
It depends. We have yet to detect gravitons so we do not know how much mass they would have, assuming they had any. There are a number of ongoing experiments to detect gravity waves, but none of these have born fruit yet. The waves would exist if gravity was merely a curvature of spacetime, and the particles if it was a force like EM. The way I have seen the theory presented has nothing to do with a "speed of space" or "speed of gravity." It is simply that space is compressed in front and expanded behind, so that the area in front gets very close and the area in back very far. This allows you to cover ground very quickly, without the energy problems of relativistic acceleration.
------------------
"Deep in the fundamental heart of Mind and Universe, there is a Reason."-Slartibartfast
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/russell_quintero/.Pictures/home.html")Russell's Homepage!(/url)
Russell for President 2020!
Quote
Originally posted by Russell Quintero:
**It depends. We have yet to detect gravitons so we do not know how much mass they would have, assuming they had any. There are a number of ongoing experiments to detect gravity waves, but none of these have born fruit yet. The waves would exist if gravity was merely a curvature of spacetime, and the particles if it was a force like EM. The way I have seen the theory presented has nothing to do with a "speed of space" or "speed of gravity." It is simply that space is compressed in front and expanded behind, so that the area in front gets very close and the area in back very far. This allows you to cover ground very quickly, without the energy problems of relativistic acceleration.
**
Quite true. I was working under the assumption that gravity was a force, like electromagnetism. It's a very convenient assumption for SF writing, allows you to explain things like space travel without defaulting to hyperspace, or something too slow to be practical.
------------------
Youre only given a little spark of madness. You mustnt lose it.
-- Robin Williams
