addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [Interstellar-Travel-100-Year-Starship]

From: M
Sent on: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:46 AM
That sounds fabulous Chris.  Regarding Alcubierre, after studying with you and the others, I was hoping to be able to reasonably tackle his paper and make an informed opinion if I think it is a) credible or b) as impossible as some apparently feel it is.  My limited understanding is that his theoretical construction doesn't exactly violate relativity, but in order to work, it postulates something "exotic" (negative energy, and a lot of it), which no one has ever seen.  However, this should not be considered to be a deal-breaker because predictions made previously by relativity (and quantum mechanics) that sounded pretty wild initially, panned out once someone figured out an experiment to prove it, and/or a suitable method of detection.  Game on, right?

Trying to get up to speed on the theories relativity would be great in and of itself, and I am willing to put a bit of effort into it.  I am told that the speed of light is a universal, absolute (not relative) limit, but I really don't know why (I have a much better handle on evolution).  Be great to be able to understand why so many are of that opinion.  Regarding tensor math, the reason I raised it is that it is my understanding that this is what was used by Albert to develop at least one of the relativities, and it is pretty much needed to understand it in any reasonable depth.  I hear it is sort of advanced linear algebra that expands the dimensional perspective of regular old matrices.

Regarding online or in-person groups, I am guessing there are not going to be all that many participants.  It would seem starting out online would be the way to go at first, let folks digest a bit.  We could then try to assess how many are interested and figure out the best way to proceed.  Personally I am sure I would need some tutoring to make meaningful progress, if that would be possible.  Could be by phone, hangout, or in-person, maybe with a group.  We could think about that as we go along.  Need to make sure we are respectful of your (and others who might be "teachers") time and effort.


On Jul 2, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Chris Ramos wrote:

I'm glad to see so much discussion has been generated.  I tend to move a bit slower than that.  I can prepare some basic introductory material (and then move on to tensor math if people are that interested).  My goal is to make sure we are all on nearly the same page with our discussions and understanding of general relativity, special relativity, and what research makes sense to follow in the case of thinking of warp drive and the issues associated with them.  Let me know if people would prefer this to be online or if folks want to meet up in smaller groups.

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Chris Ramos ([address removed]) from Interstellar Travel 100 Year Starship.
To learn more about Chris Ramos, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy