Re: Fermi's Paradox and FTL drives

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
> news:47AA982B.10608@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
>>>Why? Something FTL is FTL in all reference frames, 
>>
>>     I'm standing on my FTL ****p; to me, it's not moving at 
> 
> all. There's 
> 
>>at least one reference frame in which it's not.
>>
> 
> 
> How does that work? How do you know you can stand on an FTL 
> ****p while subjective time p*****, and you are in what seems 
> to be space of some kind?

	As we don't KNOW how to make an FTL drive we have to decide on  its 
characteristics in order to talk about it. The vast majority of such 
postulated drives require a UFOR. Which you obviously must know, 
having been on this group as long as you have. I'm utterly at a loss 
as to why you are ducking and weaving on this to this extent.

	You can of course postulate one that does not, and discuss those 
characteristics, but if -- as you did in some other messages -- you 
take whatever definition of FTL you want, and then use it to make 
blanket statements about something else (in this case the Fermi 
"paradox" which isn't), you're going to be called on it, because 
whatever definition you use has no preference over any definition 
anyone else uses.

-- 
                      Sea Wasp
                        /^\
                        ;;;	
      Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com