• Faster-than-Light Travel is Impossible (Revised 2nd Edition)
    303 replies, posted
[QUOTE=catbarf;32321749]Some people need to pay more attention in science class. It's not 'exorbitant', it's [I]infinite[/I]. Meaning, it is not possible to have enough energy to reach the speed of light, let alone pass it, which relativity shows is impossible. Now, if you want to talk about wormholes or some other sci-fi technobabble, fine, but that's not faster-than-light because there is no movement involved, rather a teleportation of sorts. There are other problems with that. It is not theoretically possible to go faster than light. Every piece of available evidence shows it to be impossible. Any new theory that renders Einstein's obsolete will still have to account for those experiments, which makes it highly unlikely that relativity will be replaced with something that conveniently allows FTL. Tau Zero by Poul Anderson should be required reading for this thread. You don't need warp drive to have space travel or engaging, interesting fiction.[/QUOTE] Looks like you didn't listen to a word I said. I said that the energy requirements for a WARP drive are exorbitant. Don't tell me to pay attention in science class, mate. I'm doing a fucking degree in physics and nanotechnology at university; I know what I'm talking about when I talk physics. Technically FTL travel is impossible, yes, but that's why I surrounded FTL in my post with two little apostrophes, they're like little air-finger quotes if you will. APPARENT faster than light travel is possible (as in wormholes let you cut across a shorter area of space to get to a destination faster than light could otherwise get there, warp drives allow you to move space ITSELF faster than light (which is totally allowable according to our current physical laws and HAS in fact happened in the past (Inflation). Neither of these methods lets you travel locally faster than light with relation to space itself around you, but you still end up reaching your destination faster than light itself if it took the 'normal' path, hence why I decided to call it 'FTL' travel: because it's a shit load easier simply to say that than to post what I just posted.
I like how humanity thinks FTL-Travel is impossible just because they can't do it yet. Reminds me of the days when it was impossible to travel through the air at all ..or explain thunder correctly..
According to the current theoretical model we can't... [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=sltungle;32332101]Looks like you didn't listen to a word I said. I said that the energy requirements for a WARP drive are exorbitant. Don't tell me to pay attention in science class, mate. I'm doing a fucking degree in physics and nanotechnology at university; I know what I'm talking about when I talk physics. Technically FTL travel is impossible, yes, but that's why I surrounded FTL in my post with two little apostrophes, they're like little air-finger quotes if you will. APPARENT faster than light travel is possible (as in wormholes let you cut across a shorter area of space to get to a destination faster than light could otherwise get there, warp drives allow you to move space ITSELF faster than light (which is totally allowable according to our current physical laws and HAS in fact happened in the past (Inflation). Neither of these methods lets you travel locally faster than light with relation to space itself around you, but you still end up reaching your destination faster than light itself if it took the 'normal' path, hence why I decided to call it 'FTL' travel: because it's a shit load easier simply to say that than to post what I just posted.[/QUOTE] Keep this shit attitude of yours in your physics classes. I am a almost CS major and math minor graduate and I have taken my fare share of physics courses. I hate when faggots like you come out of class and think you fucking know it all because "science tells you so". We model the word with math so we can internalize and understand our existence, but since we can only make observations and not cannot directly internalize the universe we cannot truly describe it. Sure you can solve problems and quote theory, but can you look at the world and model your own? Einstein surely wasn't bound by what current science thought. In fact, most scientific breakthroughs disprove current theory. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("" - JohnnyMo1))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - JohnnyMo1))[/highlight]
ironic [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] pretty much what you just said is "look i can do math" because there was no correlation at all between your flaming and what he actually said
[QUOTE=newbz;32332347]According to the current theoretical model we can't... [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] Keep this shit attitude of yours in your physics classes. I am a almost CS major and math minor graduate and I have taken my fare share of physics courses. I hate when faggots like you come out of class and think you fucking know it all because "science tells you so". We model the word with math so we can internalize and understand our existence, but since we can only make observations and not cannot directly internalize the universe we cannot truly describe it. Sure you can solve problems and quote theory, but can you look at the world and model your own? Einstein surely wasn't bound by what current science thought. In fact, most scientific breakthroughs disprove current theory.[/QUOTE] You're an idiot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - JohnnyMo1))[/highlight]
So if FTL travel is impossible, why not tell us an alternative that would be just as useful? 'Till we either get it into our heads that it's impossible - a generation of idealists and possibily scientists dying with the idea - or find a way to create it, we just gotta keep reaching for the stars. Even if it's impossible, it's basically our only hope. What else can we do?
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;32332483]ironic [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] pretty much what you just said is "look i can do math" because there was no correlation at all between your flaming and what he actually said[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that I have a background in science and mathematics and that I've come to realize that theory is extremely useful but not the definitive answer to a problem. Sure I flame, but at least I have some content compared to quoting me with a three word insult.
[QUOTE=newbz;32332612]No, I'm saying that I have a background in science and mathematics too and that I've come to realize that theory is extremely useful but not the definitive answer to a problem.[/QUOTE] And you also called him a faggot within the first sentence of your post. I don't care how much maths you've studied, that's ad hominem and it makes you look like a retard.
[QUOTE=Cone;32332625]And you also called him a faggot within the first sentence of your post. I don't care how much maths you've studied, that's ad hominem and it makes you look like a retard.[/QUOTE] Way to look past any relevance in my post because I made a petty insult. Real mature.
too bad there's no relevance
[QUOTE=Cone;32332625]And you also called him a faggot within the first sentence of your post. I don't care how much maths you've studied, that's ad hominem and it makes you look like a retard.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Besides, two points: One: I don't think you realise how good of a theory relativity is, newbz. It is one of the BEST scientific theories ever developed and has a ridiculous amount of experimental data verifying the mathematical theory. Yes, it COULD turn out that it's not the best theory to describe the universe, but at current it can more or less be taken as a fact ('theory' in science is as close to fact as you can get). Second: If you're gonna go with the whole, "we might discover more evidence in the future!" argument then we might as well never make another scientific prediction EVER, because according to you anyone who makes any kind of prediction AT ALL (even if it's based on the best scientific theory ever produced) could possibly be wrong in future and so they're immediately a 'faggot'.
[QUOTE=newbz;32332653]Way to look past any relevance in my post because I made a petty insult. Real mature.[/QUOTE] I'm not ignoring your post because it goes against what I think, I'm ignoring it because you made a logically fallicious move. If you want me to listen, don't randomly start swearing when it is neither necessary nor helpful to your case.
it's okay to ignore his posts anyways, it's got nothing to do with the conversation
Yeah I'd wait ~250 years before I make that conclusion.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;32298413]Second? Yeah, my first one was years ago. But, I digress, there is a very real reason that any type of faster-than-light travel simply cannot happen within or without our spiffy little universe. It's simply causality. So long as this law holds true as it is assumed, no event that would breach causality could ever hope to occur. For quite possibly the same reasons it's impossible to directly observe an object of infinite density (the theorized "local singularity" of a black hole), time dilation increases acutely the closer you get to the speed of light so that you can't arrive at your destination before the light proving your existence on Earth gets there (enjoy traveling to α Centauri in 50 years, human civilization might be extinct when you get there), and energy requirements to get there simply can't be obtained or don't exist (Alcubierre drives requiring magnitudes more energy than the combined mass of the universe, and there is of course the problem that there's no way to escape the warp field; also, exotic particles like tachyons which are largely theory and fiction). Hyperspace, the Empyrean, the Warp, Slipspace, these are all gods out of the machine, deftly allowing the creation of interstellar sagas of human exploration for our entertainment. But none of it is real. The multiverse might be real. The genesis singularity might not have been the absolute beginning for what lies beyond. Time might have more than one dimension, or all exist at once. There are various wondrous things to still be discovered about everything and nothing. But don't think too hard about FTL travel. That'll be science fiction for a very long time.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/128/418/sm%20wtf%20is%20this%20nerd%20shit.jpg?1306745792[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Mr.face;32335634][IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/128/418/sm%20wtf%20is%20this%20nerd%20shit.jpg?1306745792[/IMG][/QUOTE] CLOCKS Also, it's quite easy. Why, I'm probably younger than everyone else here and I've wrapped my head around it.
I will never believe that faster than light travel and time travel are impossible, they must be possible.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32331533]Uh, science is ABOUT being closed-minded. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism[/url][/QUOTE] No here: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbjPxQy_cIo[/media]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;32336529]I will never believe that faster than light travel and time travel are impossible, they must be possible.[/QUOTE] Whilst I'm not exactly sure where you get this idea, it's silly to say that it's impossible so I mostly agree. Besides, everything we're talking about could be bullshit anyway. For all we know, up is down, short is long, and cats can live with dogs. Humans are stupid like that.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32339782]No[/QUOTE] Great argument you showed me. That's not FTL travel btw. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] Whether or not you like it, science's foundation is skepticism. If people just threw out and idea and everyone accepted it until it was proven impossible, science wouldn't be nearly the powerhouse knowledge generator it is. It's the job of someone arguing a point to prove it before people are supposed to accept it.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32340565]Great argument you showed me. That's not FTL travel btw. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] Whether or not you like it, science's foundation is skepticism. If people just threw out and idea and everyone accepted it until it was proven impossible, science wouldn't be nearly the powerhouse knowledge generator it is. It's the job of someone arguing a point to prove it before people are supposed to accept it.[/QUOTE] closed mindedness is not skepticism. closed mindedness is the inability to look for ideas outside of the box p.s. how is it not an ftl drive?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32340888]closed mindedness is not skepticism. closed mindedness is the inability to look for ideas outside of the box p.s. how is it not an ftl drive?[/QUOTE] Because you're not actually travelling faster than light, you're warping space. It has the effect of making you appear to travel faster than light would if the spacetime you used it in was flat. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] It's practical FTL for our purposes but not true FTL. But it's not actually practical at all, it's mentioned in the OP as being impossibly inefficient.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32339782]No here: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbjPxQy_cIo[/media][/QUOTE] its cool how you posted a video from the same network conglomerate that puts shows like ANCIENT ALIENS on the HISTORY CHANNEL.
Yeah anything Michio Kaku says needs to be taken with pretty much an entire salt mine. Some of his books are good and informative about the cutting edges of physics but he is quite out there.
Don't get me wrong, Michio Kaku is a cool dude, but when he's talking about Sci-Fi stuff the networks always frame his words like he's saying shit is plausible, when he's only really saying it's theoretically possible.
[QUOTE=BCell;32321483]Tell us something that used to be impossible but is now possible[/QUOTE] He said considered impossible, but turned out to be. People used to think going to space was impossible. They also thought going around the Earth was impossible because they thought it was flat.
but, it is faster than light travel... you travel... and you are moving and would reach targets... FASTER THAN LIGHT
If I shine a flashlight at the back of a space ship using an Alcubierre drive, which is going faster, the ship or the light? (Hint: still the light)
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32341355]but, it is faster than light travel... you travel... and you are moving and would reach targets... FASTER THAN LIGHT[/QUOTE] You're traveling faster than the relative speed of light when you're standing still, not faster than light.
you would reach a planet for instance, faster than a normal beam of light would
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.