Mark Tapley wrote:
>
> Ward Griffiths wrote:
> >...I really wouldn't expect a modern computer to manage more
> >than a few decades at best unless somebody developed a functional
> >"stasis field", and we need a major breakthrough in theoretical
> >physics -- and the followup engineering -- for that to happen.
> >...
>
> Ward, I'm surprised! There are at least two ways to do this with current
> physics:
>
> 1) put it way down deep in a gravity well. It'll have to be a *big* gravity
> well to get the potential difference without generating tidal stresses
> severe enough to threaten the structure of the computer. Pull it back out
> when you are ready for it.
>
> 2) Accelerate it up to near 300,000 km/sec. Take a couple of months, of
> course, else you'll generate acceleration-induced specific forces which
> again might be dangerous to the classic computer. Run it in a big circle,
> then decelerate it again at the destination date. It'll be in *much* better
> shape than its twins left at home, per Al Einstein's classic.
Pulling something out of a black hole's gravity well or acceleration
to near light speed would require theoretical breakthroughs as well.
No matter what you read in SF novels that I also read from childhood.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram_at_cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
WARNING: The Attorney General has determined that Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms can be hazardous to your health -- and get away with it.
Received on Tue Jan 19 1999 - 22:13:51 GMT