From: Randall Randall (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 29 2004 - 02:28:31 MDT
On Sep 28, 2004, at 5:55 PM, Dani Eder wrote:
To clarify, my assumptions are a .1c escape "pod".
> (2) It can be shown that the energy to send the
> description of an object atom by atom is much less
> than the energy to send the object itself at a high
> fraction of c. Given nanotech level capabilities,
> the fastest way to get from here to there is to
> send a small fast probe to a destination, then
> have it build a receiver/assember factory. Then
> you FAX yourself to the destination.
This isn't strictly a method for getting from
here to there, if one cares about the future
of one's current process. :) It's worth a plan
B, of course.
> (3) If your back end is a cold (<3K) conical
> mirror, you will look like another patch of
> cosmic background to someone trying to chase you.
> If you can get some uncertainty in direction
> when leaving, you will be damn hard to find.
I'm counting on this. Of course, since UFAI in
the solar system may have the resources to spit
out a stream of .8c observing platforms on four
(or more) vectors, we'd have to pay attention to
the view from all directions that could be
plausibly observed from such.
> Another way to look at it is as seen from the ship,
> the Earth experiences a time dilation of 7x (it's
> all relative you see). So it takes that much
> longer for an AI to get built and start chasing
> you, from your perspective.
The ship is in a more more highly accelerated frame
-- Randall Randall <email@example.com> 'I say we put up a huge sign next to the Sun that says "You must be at least this big (insert huge red line) to ride this ride".' -- firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT