Re: [Para-Discuss] faster than light?

From: Randall Randall (randall@randallsquared.com)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 21:12:08 MDT

  • Next message: Brett Paatsch: "Re: `twisted ethics prevalent on the extropy board'"

    On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 04:13 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
    >
    > IANAP. With that in mind, my understanding goes something like this:
    > The instrument is attracted to where the star's projected position is,
    > according to the star's velocity in the past. This is because of the
    > way the star's velocity bends the potential well generated by the
    > star. If you're one light-minute away, you are not attracted to where
    > the star is now. You're attracted to where, one minute ago, the star
    > would have been in one minute, had it continued on at the same
    > velocity it had one minute ago, from the position it had one minute
    > ago. (I'm not quite sure if acceleration is supposed to be taken into
    > account as well, or maybe it was some other property of the star's
    > behavior aside from or in addition to the velocity, but I think this
    > is roughly how it goes...)

    I don't see how future acceleration could be taken into account in this
    scenario, so
    I'll assume that it isn't.

    -- 
    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 - 21:24:16 MDT