Re: [Para-Discuss] faster than light?

From: Randall Randall (randall@randallsquared.com)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 21:10:02 MDT

  • Next message: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: PHYSICS: force fields"

    On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 03:02 PM, Hal Finney wrote:
    > Randall wrote:
    >> If this were true, wouldn't it follow that one could build an FTL
    >> communications device consisting of a sufficiently precise detector
    >> and a movable highly charged object? For this reason alone, it seems
    >> implausible that electric fields behave as perfectly rigid objects, as
    >> you describe.
    >
    > Sorry, I wasn't completely clear. The electric and gravitational
    > fields
    > move along with the star only while it is moving uniformly. If the
    > star
    > gets bumped, the *change* in the field propagates outward at c. At
    > time
    > t after the bump there is an expanding sphere of size c*t, where inside
    > the sphere the field has changed due to the bump, but outside the
    > sphere,
    > nothing has changed yet. Outside of the sphere, the field points to
    > where the star would have been at that moment if it hadn't been bumped.
    > This part of the field doesn't know yet about the bump.

    So since two orbiting stars are continually being "bumped" by each
    other, your explanation seems to imply that each star is orbiting
    around a location which trails the actual star. As long as orbits
    work anyway, this is fine, but wasn't the Flandern (sp?) fellow
    saying that in this event orbits couldn't be stable? I don't know
    anything like enough math to work this out myself, so I'll eventually
    take someone's word for it, I suppose, for the time being.

    -- 
    Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com>
    "Not only can money buy happiness,
      it isn't even particularly expensive any more."  -- Spike Jones
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 21:22:08 MDT