Re: A89: What's Wrong?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: What's Wrong?
I have to give TGaAardvark quite a bit of credit. I'm liking his way of
thinking, and his creativity gives this extremely off-topic thread much
interest. I can't argue that point-you win!
:-)
Peter
If one is travelling faster than light, would he really travel back in time,
or just be able to view past events again without being able to change them?
----- Original Message -----
From: <TGaArdvark@aol.com>
To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: A89: What's Wrong?
>
> Ah, but that is only the spot at which gravity is zero.
> I'm sure you are aware that humans can survive quite
> comfortably when the gravitational pull is greater than
> zero. After all, most of us are pretty darn close to a
> good-sized gravity generator that is not significantly
> canceled (AKA Earth). It should not be extremely
> difficult to make a modest living quarters with very
> Earthlike conditions inside that area, assuming it's
> properly designed. But then there are a few other
> problems, like what we would make the generators
> out of. Most of the substances we have now tend to
> bend or break under the force of your average planet.
> This does not, however, eliminate the possibility.
> Just eliminates the possibility of having one built
> and launched by Tuesday.
>
> In a message dated 1/13/01 8:11:01 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> lilpjd@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > I do have to admit that your demonstration of it is more easily
understood.
> > However, it is too much of a simplification. That "safe" zone that you
> > mention will only be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a mm,
and
> > therefore, it is only a theoretical "safe" zone, for something with
_no_
> > volume. Also, expanding that "safe" zone into 3D, you would only end
up
> > with a point in space that is "safe" and therefore nothing useful could
> come
> > of it.
References: