Re: Distribution & Redistribution

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:57:31 GMT

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:45:57 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> Already refuted. A very small receiver could be sent at very high
>> speed
>
>First of all no one knew how to build such a recieve and a transmitter,
>so you don't know how small it will be.

Neither do you. But unlike me, you _claim_ you do...

>> (if the payload fraction is orders of magnitude smaller, its
>> achievable speed becomes orders of magnitude larger, especially if
>> total conversion allows the fuel tanks to be used as fuel, too), then
>> larger receivers transmitted in an iterative bootstrap process. Or
>> there could be a method of making the transmission "self-extracting."
>
>There still has to be a machine to translate the data into construction
>steps for the body to be reconstructed.

Remember, it's not just data, it's energy. There may be a form of
energy that will spontaneously reconvert into matter under certain
naturally occurring conditions, or after a certain amount of time has
elapsed, etc.

>An algorithm and is require to
>extract the information and that must transformed into physical
>operations to reconstruct the transmitted body from matter already at
>the recieving end.

No. That is the point. The energy transmitted becomes the
transmitted matter at the other end.

>By the way, how do you make sure that the necessary
>matter is available at the recieving end without sending it in the first
>place, which gets you to the primary problem of transporting mass.

See above.

>A massive body cannot acheive light speed. The problem of sending a
>receiver at near the speed of light is the same as sending a manned
>craft at near the speed of light.

That is of course self-evidently false if the receiver can be made
orders of magnitude less massive than a manned craft. Even
_chemical_rockets_ can achieve very high speeds if the payload
fraction is 10^-20.
 
>> Or there could be a quite different process: consider what happens
>> when a tree seed is transported over a long distance and comes to rest
>> on fertile ground. How do you _know_ that an advanced biological
>> device similar in size to a human cell, and containing human and other
>> DNA, could not be transported at a substantial fraction of c to the
>> vicinity of another star, there to implant itself on a rocky body and
>> begin growing into a habitable environment inhabited by human beings
>> ready for memory download?
>
>Are you talking about send people to another place to take up their
>lives or planting daisies.

I am pointing out to you that _effective_ interstellar travel need not
involve transporting physical human bodies near c.

>A seed has the instructions to reproduce the
>entire plant in it provided nutrients and energy and material to
>assimilate are in place. Drop a seed in to sterile soil and it perishes.

False. Seeds were planted in soil made from moon rock and they grew
perfectly well. How do you _know_ that a seed-like device can _never_
be created to do as I described?

Well?
 
>>>3. If you tried to reconstruct a body you need the relative location of
>>>all its subatomic parts and their momenta.
>>
>> Assumption without evidence. Again, you are simply claiming knowledge
>> you do not possess. Even art forgers manage to reproduce complex
>> objects with sufficient fidelity to deceive experts. And they have
>> been doing so for _millennia_.
>
>I am talking about duplication. To duplicate means to recreate all the
>relative positions and mementa of the parts of the original. I point out
>that it cannot be done because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

And I point out that that is completely irrelevant, because no
_current_ form of transportation results in the transported person
arriving at his destination with all his component subatomic particles
having exactly the same positions and momenta as when he left, either.
 
>>>4. But--- here is the but, finding the location of the parts means
>>>loosing information on the momenta. That is an application of the
>>>Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Position and momentum are
>>>non-commuting observables and cannot both be measured with arbitrary
>>>accuracy.
>>
>> Where is there _any_ evidence (let alone proof) that arbitrary
>> accuracy is necessary? Of course, you have none. Again, you are
>> simply claiming knowledge you do not possess.
>
>Considering that atoms are 10^-10 meter accross, get the positions that
>small means the momenta are off by ten orders of magnitude. Look at the
>formula for the Heisenburg principle.

Look at the images produced by scanning tunneling microscopes.
 
>>>5. Which means with the information beamcast to the other end, the body
>>>could not be reconstructed as it was.
>>
>> But of course, there is no reason to think it has to be reconstructed
>> _exactly_ as it was. When you get on a plane, you do not arrive at
>> your destination _exactly_ as you were when you left. The ocean
>> voyages undertaken by our ancestors often produced substantial changes
>> in their bodies, and killed many of them.
>>
>> Please present any sort of argument at all, no matter how stupid, that
>> the proposed method of matter transmission _could_not_possibly_
>> transmit human beings with fidelity comparable to that achieved by a
>> typical year-long oceanic exploration/colonization voyage of the 16th
>> C.
>
>Already done.

Lie. Of course.

>The Heisenbberg principle prevents anything like a -Star
>Trek- transporter from working.

That is not an argument. It is merely an unsupported claim.

>Then there is the matter of the pure amount of information to be sent.
>Forget the transmission interval. The only beamcasters we have the the
>requisite accuracy are laser beams (the produce light signals that do
>not disperse). We would have to redundantly code the data so there is no
>loss in transmission. Given the available bandwidth that means messages
>of very long duration.

OK. So you don't know how to do it. Neither do I. What a surprise.
Lots of respected physicists maintained that nuclear power was
impossible even decades after Einstein published e=mc^2. They didn't
know how to do it, and like you, they assumed that _proved_ no one
else ever would, either.

>There is no scientifically feasible way (based on current physics) of
>broadcasting the data necessary to reconstruct a massive body at the
>other end. To do so would require an entirely new kind of physics, which
>is nowhere in sight.

Just as relativity was nowhere in sight in 1904, but just _40_ years
later it flattened two cities.

>How about presenting some citattions from refereed physics journals that
>even hint or suggest that such a process as you propose is feasible.

I'm still waiting for you to cite anything from a pre-1905 refereed
physics journal hinting that matter can be transformed into energy.

And waiting, and waiting....

>I have given principled reasons which it is difficult.

Of course it's _difficult_. So was nuclear power.

>You owe some
>scientific hints on how to overcome the difficulties.

I have described a number of alternatives. Now you apparently insist
I also describe how to build them.

>Do you have any
>physics to back you up? Yes or no. Put up or shut up.

Back atcha, pal.

I have provided a number of different scenarios to implement effective
interstellar transportation which do not violate known physical laws.
You raise _technical_ difficulties, but cannot prove that any of these
methods is impossible _in_principle_.

-- Roy L

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gearing
    ... Which says that acceleration is proportional to power and inversely ... been mentioned here many times in the past, for an ideal transmission, ... differing overall gearing & maximum engine speeds. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Factory hitch vs. add on
    ... Undoubtedly the biggest news in the mechanical department for 1949 was the availability of the M-6 hydraulic-shift transmission on the senior Dodge models. ... The low range was designed to be called on only when extra pulling power was needed at low speeds; therefore, the normal range was used for most driving. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Vintage aesthetic
    ... I like gold Gotoh 510s with the pear shaped plastic faux ebony knobs. ... I have Waverlys on a couple of guitars and like them very ... To put it automotive transmission terms, the Waverly gear design is like ... was basically two Model T transmissions which gave it four speeds. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Vintage aesthetic
    ... I like gold Gotoh 510s with the pear shaped plastic faux ebony knobs. ... I have Waverlys on a couple of guitars and like them very ... To put it automotive transmission terms, the Waverly gear design is like a Model T non synchro tranny compared to a 6 speed Getrag that the Gotoh represents. ... The hydromatic was basically two Model T transmissions which gave it four speeds. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)