May be someone wonder who is that guy who agrees with fastline but disagrees with an article written by a scientists [...]" more than 10 years' experience in media, arts and communications "
It doesn't take a science degree to find holes in an arguement... anymore than I would blindly believe someone just because they have a science degree. This person, regardless of his credentials, brings up valid points against his theory. You Alberto however chose to attack his credentials instead of his ideas.
Maybe someone wonders why you chose to attack this persons credentials instead of his points. Usually it's because you can't attack his points and thus are only left with attacking a person. Is this the case here?
Otherwise, how about you address his and my points instead of our credentials, ok?
Mr Bjork choosed 10 % because this is the best compromise [...]If speed further increases than also the mass of probe increases exponentially
If that is what Mr. Bjork said then there are obvious flaws to his arguements since mass doesn't grow exponentially with speed. Traveling at .5 c, the gamma factor is 1.1; at .9 c, the gamma factor is 2.2.
It grows large. Don't get me wrong, I take your meaning. But if this is the basis of his reasoning for choosing 10%, then there is no physical reason why it couldn't be 50%, 70%, or 90% c as well. Hence there is nothing physically special about 10%.
I've addressed your points, how do you address one of mine? -- > Are my choices of parameters that change a 10 B year exploration down to 2.5 M years physically reasonable and why not if not?
