bd859a58   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: throopw@sheol.org   
      
   : Bill Patterson    
   : There are, of course, two answers to that, one which follows the   
   : mathematics literally (i.e., all the energy put into drive gets   
   : converted into mass, etc.), and one answer which steps back and looks   
   : at the theory as a whole and says "we don't really know what the   
   : physical correspondence of that point in the equations might be, since   
   : there isn't any actual evidence to go on."   
      
   Well, the former is the usual popularization, but IMO misses the point.   
   The dynamics isn't what *prevents* you from accelerating to FTL, the   
   kinematics of what's going on as you accelerate is what *results* *in*   
   those dynamics.  But hey, it's the usual popularization, misleading as   
   it is. Though it would have been interesting to see *some*body approach   
   it from the standpoint of kinematics instead of dynamics, maybe show   
   (or at least mention) the way velocity addition works.   
      
   The latter "nobody knows" bit is also missing the point; the the velocity   
   addition formula shows that there's really no "that point in the formula"   
   involved.  It's not that the equations don't say what happens at that   
   point, the equations say that no matter how hard you accelerate, you   
   get no closer to that point than you were in the first place. It's not   
   that you're getting closer and closer and being held back harder and   
   harder.  You're getting no closer in the first place.  The whole point of   
   relativity, which is to say, of "lorentz invariance", is that no matter   
   how fast you go, the physics is the same as if you were standing still.   
   A red queen's race on steroids, so "accelerating harder" and "running   
   the drive full out" are completely irrelevant... futile, as the borg say.   
      
   The whole schpeil about "time slows down" and "mass increases" and   
   "you get compressed lengthwise" is barking up the wrong tree.   
      
   All in all, it's quite misleading to say "we don't know what would   
   happen if you ran the drive full out near lightspeed".  Both theory and   
   experience says the same thing would happen as when you run the drive   
   full out from "at rest".  Which is to say, you're as far away from   
   lightspeed as you ever were.  Nobody's tends to expect to be able to   
   exceed "infinite speed", and the thing is, relativity is saying people   
   should not expect it to be any more likely to exceed lightspeed.   
      
   So at the very least, "the theory says nothing would happen, and you're   
   as far from lightspeed as always" (just as in newtonian mechanics you'd   
   be just as far away from infinite speed as always, and this has nothing   
   to do with "mass increase") really ought to get in there somewhere, even   
   if you go on to speculate that maybe the theory is wrong.  Saying "nobody   
   knows" and letting it go at that is a total cop-out, highly misleading   
   in the context of pedagogy.  IMO anyways.   
      
      
   Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org   http://sheol.org/throopw   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)