What needs to be done for faster than light travel?

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

Interesting thread , well set out S+F.

We need to carry on in the direction we're going , I'm not sure we're ready for FLT yet and would be more than happy concentrating on putting boots on Mars , once we have reached and colonised our neighbor then then we should look further afield.
If FLT is possible I'm sure we will discover it or the way to achieve it when the time is right , when we're a little more grown up.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

People get wrapped up in what Einstein said just because he was Einstein..

Actually, people get "wrapped up" because observations which he predicted could be made have been made. Weird stuff like "bending" light and time running at different rates.

If someone could disprove relativity they would be...well, they would be the next Einstein. Guess what? No one has.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

People get wrapped up in what Einstein said just because he was Einstein..

Actually, people get "wrapped up" because the observations which he predicted could be made have been made. Weird stuff like "bending" light and time running at different rates.

If someone could disprove relativity they would be...well, they would be the next Einstein. Guess what? No one has.

All of them?
Or some of them?

Anywho, bending light is not the same as bending matter and compressing galaxies to within the space of an inch to travel shorter distances.

But scifi is fun, I won't deny that.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

All of them?
Or some of them?

Many of them. Are you aware of any which have not been observed?

Anywho, bending light is not the same as bending matter and compressing galaxies to within the space of an inch to travel shorter distances.

See, that's why I put "bending" in quotes. Because light doesn't actually bend, it just looks like it does. But if that happens the way Einstein said it would, it sort of adds credibility to the rest of it. That, along with the time thing. That works just like he predicted.

But scifi is fun,

The kind that uses actual science, yes. Fantasy has it's own place as well.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

Here is a interesting pdf-file on th subject

"Progress in revolutionary propulsion systems" (from 2010)

Link

Superluminal flight Page 4 & 7down on the right side

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

All of them?
Or some of them?

Many of them. Are you aware of any which have not been observed?

Anywho, bending light is not the same as bending matter and compressing galaxies to within the space of an inch to travel shorter distances.

See, that's why I put "bending" in quotes. Because light doesn't actually bend, it just looks like it does. But if that happens the way Einstein said it would, it sort of adds credibility to the rest of it. That, along with the time thing. That works just like he predicted.

But scifi is fun,

The kind that uses actual science, yes. Fantasy has it's own place as well.

No but I do fear we are arguing semantics, Phage.

What "bends" from our point of view does not necessarily bend physically and that's what I've been arguing mainly.

Now fair enough that's not intrinsically Einstein's claim and I shouldn't argue his theories because of where others have taken them...


But like I said, semantics.

Bending and warping space, physically, will never occur without mass destruction of the space between two points, physically.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
FTL is pseudo science.

If I said I was working on warping space between my fridge and bed so I could grab a cold one in 0.3secs you'd call me a nutcase and throw away the key...


If I wear a lab coat and say I'm working on warping space and time between galaxies some government douchebag would fund my endeavour...

I'd still be a nutcase.

That was a bit harsh and short sighted Charlie.

Because we know space can be warped.

This very warping of space is what proved Einstein relativity to be correct.

It was kinda a big deal, how did you not hear about it?

a reply to: johnwick

Observational POV and actually physically warping things are different... imo.
I should have been clearer on that, John.

But I did apologise to Einstein later on in the thread.

All this warp drive talk has convinced me to drive for a wrap later today.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

All opinions and or thoughts are welcomed! Though I do find Einstein's situation slowly approaching that of Newton. IE, time for a change.

Yeah I'd agree.

People get wrapped up in what Einstein said just because he was Einstein...
I'd say his speculation was worthy of the time frame...
Not so much now, imo.

If he was around now I'm sure his focus would be on something outstanding & fresh.
Not a century old.

Respectfully speaking.

Einstein knew he was off with relativity.

That is why he spent the last years of his life trying to prove it wrong.

As suggested already, we need to take another step as it were.

Just like the one from Newtonian physics to einsteinian physics.

Some thought string theory might lead to this.

But string theory is a retarded waste of a gimmick used to base a science theory on.

Ya, all the matter in the universe is just music made buy plucking the space time guitar..... What a bunch of #ing idiots!!!

Who even comes up with this crap?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

People get wrapped up in what Einstein said just because he was Einstein..

Actually, people get "wrapped up" because observations which he predicted could be made have been made. Weird stuff like "bending" light and time running at different rates.

If someone could disprove relativity they would be...well, they would be the next Einstein. Guess what? No one has.

You said that right.

Big E was "the man".

The fact he calculated the exact, down to the decimal, distortion of space and time caused by a gravity well before it was even observed.......


That is some hardcore forward thinking.

Especially given, that nobody had even thought of this concept before.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: johnwick

Observational POV and actually physically warping things are different... imo.
I should have been clearer on that, John.

But I did apologise to Einstein later on in the thread.

Ya I saw that, was going to edit it, but I don't like to edit because it can then be made to appear I didn't say something I did, which can cause your subsequent reply to be taken out of context.

Right or wrong, I try to be honest and have integrity .

As for "physically " warping space, that is technically what gravity is.

So we know it is possible, but we don't yet know how to grab space time and warp it.


I think one day ewe will, but not anytime soon.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

All of them?
Or some of them?

Many of them. Are you aware of any which have not been observed?

Anywho, bending light is not the same as bending matter and compressing galaxies to within the space of an inch to travel shorter distances.

See, that's why I put "bending" in quotes. Because light doesn't actually bend, it just looks like it does. But if that happens the way Einstein said it would, it sort of adds credibility to the rest of it. That, along with the time thing. That works just like he predicted.

But scifi is fun,

The kind that uses actual science, yes. Fantasy has it's own place as well.

You a Larry Niven fan phage?

I love every story I have read that takes place in N space.

Ring world most specifically.

a reply to: johnwick

You're much more optimistic than I am, John.

The reason I'd hesitate to compare it to Gravity is when I wonder what would happen between point A & point B...
Every fibre of my (limited) scientific mind says that it would be destroyed in the process of collapsing it to travel that distance in the short time.

But admittedly, I philosophise more than I work through formulas.
I could be wrong.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

All of them?
Or some of them?

Many of them. Are you aware of any which have not been observed?

Anywho, bending light is not the same as bending matter and compressing galaxies to within the space of an inch to travel shorter distances.

See, that's why I put "bending" in quotes. Because light doesn't actually bend, it just looks like it does. But if that happens the way Einstein said it would, it sort of adds credibility to the rest of it. That, along with the time thing. That works just like he predicted.

But scifi is fun,

The kind that uses actual science, yes. Fantasy has it's own place as well.

No but I do fear we are arguing semantics, Phage.

What "bends" from our point of view does not necessarily bend physically and that's what I've been arguing mainly.

Now fair enough that's not intrinsically Einstein's claim and I shouldn't argue his theories because of where others have taken them...


But like I said, semantics.

Bending and warping space, physically, will never occur without mass destruction of the space between two points, physically.

So you believe the ship or object warping space in such a manner would destroy itself?

I kinda think the same, but instead of mass destruction, I think a singularity is the more probable outcome.

Just too much energy in one quanta of spacetime.

I think our best option is to find out the secret "network" that particles use to communicate instantly when they are entangled is gonna be our best bet.

Essentially, instant communication at any distance, not true FTL.

You have got a pretty good brain for science charlie.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: johnwick

You're much more optimistic than I am, John.

The reason I'd hesitate to compare it to Gravity is when I wonder what would happen between point A & point B...
Every fibre of my (limited) scientific mind says that it would be destroyed in the process of collapsing it to travel that distance in the short time.

But admittedly, I philosophise more than I work through formulas.
I could be wrong.

That is how Einstein did it.

The equations came after the concept.

Plz continue

The universe is expanding at greater than light speed already. No one knows why or how. Einstein took years on the General Theory of Relativity considering every basic concept of what to inject in the equation as a constant.He basically pulled a rabbit out of the hat with the speed of light. The theory of time goes slower as an objects speed increases was supposedly proven by 2 atomic clocks. One on the Earth , the other on a plane circling the Earth. What they did not take into account then was the effect of both gravity and magnetic fields on the atomic clocks at different exposures.einsteins theory holds up for the most part . But when it comes to certain theories on space/time , ????

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

The universe in holographic and we are in a simulation. To travel faster then light we need. . . Neo!

Well any other bad acting, programming, hacking genius will do also. Where's Jesus when you need him?

a reply to: johnwick

Lol thanks buddy...

Well this may sound convoluted, something Einstein didn't like in fact...

But when the time and space between A & B is compressed, what would happen to that space upon reintegration, or how rather, would the warp reboot all the space and time it had distorted prior to the compression...

It leaves me wondering that even if FTL travel was possible, it leaves behind a trail of destruction.

But what you say about FTL communication I'm much more inclined to believe possible, and to advocate as I can't think of any hardline problems in the aftermath.

Travelling distances like that does seem like a dangerous thing to do, not to mention the toll it would take on human physiology.


Edit: pressed reply before my phone crashed.


So basically it'd be handy for a recon drone or satellite of sorts, not to put pressure on a pilots body...

But I'm still left wondering about A & B...

A.........B
Warp drive on...
A...B
Between A & B, we're missing 7 full stops that now need to reintegrate...




Tbh even if possible this may be put to bed by ET just like nuclear tech theories...
Like
Human "We've mastered the travel"...
Alien "But can you do it without damage to A & B"
Human "Well, no"
Alien "Then stop right there and work on it further"


Or something like that.





Edit: As to your point of a singularity, if you're talking about a black hole singularity, that's my belief too...
A tear basically that cannot be stitched together due to the compression.

Compression seems a poor term to explain what I'm saying, but it's the best I can do really.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

All of them?
Or some of them?

Many of them. Are you aware of any which have not been observed?

Anywho, bending light is not the same as bending matter and compressing galaxies to within the space of an inch to travel shorter distances.

See, that's why I put "bending" in quotes. Because light doesn't actually bend, it just looks like it does. But if that happens the way Einstein said it would, it sort of adds credibility to the rest of it. That, along with the time thing. That works just like he predicted.

But scifi is fun,

The kind that uses actual science, yes. Fantasy has it's own place as well.

No but I do fear we are arguing semantics, Phage.

What "bends" from our point of view does not necessarily bend physically and that's what I've been arguing mainly.

Now fair enough that's not intrinsically Einstein's claim and I shouldn't argue his theories because of where others have taken them...


But like I said, semantics.

Bending and warping space, physically, will never occur without mass destruction of the space between two points, physically.

So you believe the ship or object warping space in such a manner would destroy itself?

I kinda think the same, but instead of mass destruction, I think a singularity is the more probable outcome.

Just too much energy in one quanta of spacetime.

I think our best option is to find out the secret "network" that particles use to communicate instantly when they are entangled is gonna be our best bet.

Essentially, instant communication at any distance, not true FTL.

You have got a pretty good brain for science charlie.

Entanglement would support superluminal/FTL in theory. Why isn't Entanglement true FTL? Communication is the transference of data. What makes you think that you, and all matter isn't just packets of data? People put too much stock in appearance and scale. Diagnosing the invisible pathways is a good start.

As elegantly put by an old text, "As above, so below. As within so without". The Universe is in constant motion. It is filled with a multitude of eliptical galaxies, spiraling into each other and daisy-chaining. Maybe the key is to unhinge one's self from the corporeal at one point in space, and let the Universe do the work for you through a series of coordinated blinking, to enable hitchhiking the cosmos.

But who knows. The Human population isn't privy to such information yet, thanks to their masters.