Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>> we can control gravity without using a
> >>> centrifuge. I think this is more unlikely than FTL travel
> >> Given these are both based on relativity, why would one be more likely than
> >> the other?
> >
> > I wasn't aware we had any theories at all that might give us arbitrary gravity
> > control. I'm a bit behind on my cutting-edge physics though so perhaps I missed
> > it.
>
> Well, we're looking for the Higgs right now. We have zero theories that
> would give us FTL.  The closest we have, "Warp drive," assumes you're going
> to frob gravity around to make it happen.

Ok, I see what you mean. (I don't like warp drive personally, it's a retrofitted
contortion that, as you say, requires quite fine gravity control. I rate it
alongside star wars' hyperdrive to be honest. I was thinking of wormholes etc.)

> Actually, there's also the wormhole bit with "exotic matter", but it turns
> out "exotic matter" means matter with negative mass, so again it's
> intertwined.

Yeah, I guess that does push it into hyperdrive realms doesn't it. It just feels
a bit better developed because you can hide the detail in the exotic matter,
whereas I've not heard of any engineering applications of the Higgs Boson yet!

> > I've certainly not read any SF that offered any explanation for gravity other
> > than sheer mass, whereas there's lots of genuine relativity-driven FTL travel
> > ideas knocking around.
>
> I haven't seen any well-founded FTL mechanisms that don't assume it's done
> through manipulation of gravity. Wormholes, black hole travel, exotic
> matter, space warps... all gravity effects.

Hmm, the 'manipulation of gravity' that I was thinking about wasn't any cleverer
than piling big fat masses up in interesting ways - ever read any Stephen
Baxter? He's a big fan of going to the end of the universe to watch the last
protons of humanity decay... :)

Post a reply to this message