Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? | Simplelists

FTL Drive, here we come? David Shaw (19 Apr 2017 15:34 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Jeffrey Schwartz (19 Apr 2017 22:34 UTC)

(missing)

(missing)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Richard Aiken (19 Apr 2017 23:30 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? C. Berry (19 Apr 2017 22:39 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Jeffrey Schwartz (19 Apr 2017 23:32 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? C. Berry (19 Apr 2017 23:42 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Richard Aiken (20 Apr 2017 01:04 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Tim (20 Apr 2017 04:10 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Tim (20 Apr 2017 02:43 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Richard Aiken (20 Apr 2017 02:59 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Tim (20 Apr 2017 04:14 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Richard Aiken (19 Apr 2017 23:24 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? shadow@xxxxxx (20 Apr 2017 15:40 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Richard Aiken (20 Apr 2017 17:38 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Tim (21 Apr 2017 02:41 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Richard Aiken (21 Apr 2017 03:13 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Richard Aiken (21 Apr 2017 03:18 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? Richard Aiken (21 Apr 2017 03:27 UTC)

Re: [TML] FTL Drive, here we come? shadow@xxxxxx 20 Apr 2017 15:39 UTC

On 19 Apr 2017 at 16:34, David Shaw wrote:

>
> The Alcubierre drive is a theoretical FTL drive which, unlike so many
> others, does not violate relativity. Unfortunately, it requires
> negative mass to work.
>
> Well, if http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39642992 is to
> be believed, we may very well have just discovered how to create
> negative mass.

Alas, for that drive you don't just need negative mass. You need
*high density* negative mass. Like core of a gas giant density.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com