[TML] White Dwarfs, Black Holes & 100 Diameters

[Jerry W Barrington]

On 10/28/07 3:20 PM, Leonard Erickson wrote:

>> Given that both masses are gone from *this* universe for approximately 1
>> week, and don't come to exactly where the other left (or jump exit variation
>> would go away), conservation fails.
> 
> Nope. They take equal and opposite angular momenta with them. And
> they pop out at the same time, because they were put in by the same
> jump drive initiation.
> 
> So while different jumps have different durations (and lengths) the
> *paired* ship+balance_mass will travel the same distance (in opposite
> directions) and take the same amount of time.

But there's still a time period of about a week where both masses &
associated energies, momenta, etc., are missing from this universe.  That
screws up interaction for that time period, and because gravity has infinite
range, it does so over the whole universe.

Now maybe if the balance mass traveled back in time to appear *as* the ship
is leaving...  But then why couldn't the J-Drive "aim" at the past as a
destination, since it's symmetric?  :)

>> Imagine, a mass pops into system A, because a ship is leaving tomorrow!
> 
> That makes no sense with either interpretation of the "equal mass in
> oposite direction" idea.

I was thinking of the balance mass leaving the future and traveling back to
the "start" point, but with it's own variation in duration ending up
overshooting into the past.

Yeah, I think of weird things.



On 10/28/07 3:20 PM, Garry Ward wrote:

> hence my growing inclination to make jump instantaneous but make the point
> at which it can occur far, far, far out into the star system so that the
> travel time from planet to jump point and back is on the order of several
> days.

But how do you define "instantaneous" within relativity?  Simultaneity
depends on speed.  I suspect the only fast drive that could possibly be made
to fit with what we know so far of physics would travel *at* light speed.

> Gotta set aside some time to get back to the idea of the jump relative
> parsec based on the parallax of the distance from the primary to the jump
> boundary.

Say what?!?