|
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)
|
||
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
