FTL is impossible

Why would bending space only around spaceship make it FTL?

Wouldn't you need to bend space of entire distance (from spaceship to destination)?

If you went back 200 years they would have said space rockets are impossible even if you handed them blueprints for the Saturn V. Why because at the time the following things couldn't be done: Liquifying oxygen, Making a ceramic capable of withstanding re-entry, speeds, extracting aluminium, controlling it (no computers existed), machining the required tolerances for the turbopump, an alloy that would stop it from melting

But guess what? over time these capabilities became available due to work in other areas.

Yeah, those were engineering limitations, not physical ones.

Exotic particles can do FTL tachyon

You can FTL with tachyon exotic particles

So?
That doesn't prove anything.
I can spread an idea: "PCs with dicks are impossible", then 5 years later we could see some chinese company building those sexual devices.
>"If you went back 5 years they would have said computers with dicks are impossible even if you handed them blueprints for the Longgang Pinghu.

>You can
[citation needed]

Where do I get tachyons, user?
Walmart?

Antimatter doesn't have negative mass.

Bullshit

FTL is possible right now.

Those are engineering limitations, not physical limitations.

Someone best be baiting me...

Tachyons are made up

Hardy har har.

Clever, user.

Oh fuck

dude..

Name one physical limitation to FTL. Speed of light? We already got around that by warping spacetime.

...

see

that was a ftl post

> We already got around that by warping spacetime.
You did ? Show me where you did that.

well played

>Name one physical limitation to FTL. Speed of light?
We *just* had a thread about this last night, see:
>If you read further, you'll learn that ANY form of FTL creates a situation where (in some frame of reference) you arrive at your destination before you leave your point of origin.
>And while you can't necessarily use this to go back in time and kill your grandfather before you're born, it would mean you can send messages to yourself before you start your trip.
>It's worth noting that GR itself is fine with this, but it still violates our axiomatic beliefs about cause and effect.

Isn't that just observational wordplay?

>it would mean you can send messages to yourself before you start your trip.
Not other user, but I don't see why that would be the case. Exiting your own light cone doesn't necessarily mean you can send a message to yourself.

>We already got around that by warping spacetime
Nobody has ever produced anything that could curve spacetime in such a way as to allow for FTL travel, even in principle.
It would require negative energy, and would violate causality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

>Isn't that just observational wordplay?
???
Do you mean "it just looks that way because once I arrive in alpha centauri, I'll be LOOKING at Earth as it was before I left"?
Then no, that's not it at all. You really can't get from here to there faster than light would have without creating a sort of time machine.
See:
>>Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds
>>More generally, it is normally impossible for information or energy to travel faster than c.
>>One argument for this follows from the counter-intuitive implication of special relativity known as the relativity of simultaneity.
>>If the spatial distance between two events A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by c then there are frames of reference in which A precedes B,
>>others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous.
>>As a result, if something were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling BACKWARDS IN TIME relative to another frame, and CAUSALITY WOULD BE VIOLATED.[Note 5][37]

anything over 1/2 C is FTL... for the traveler... Lrn Realitivity.

>anything over 1/2 C is FTL... for the traveler... Lrn Realitivity.
If you're describing time dilation, you've got a funny way of saying it.
At 0.5c, tau is 0.866.
For every year the outside world sees, the traveler experiences 0.866 years, or 316 days.
At that speed, it would still take 8.8 years to cover the 4.4 ly to reach alpha centauri, and those on board would experience 7.6 years passing.

Ok my bad, I never understood how the math worked with time Dilation... however that said there is a point where you would travel fast enough to seem to go FTL

>traveling FTL with my brand new spacecraft
>hit an hydrogen atom

SHHEEEIT

If the physics bros are saying it's impossible...well I'm likely to believe them.

If light travels aprox 186,000 mile per hour, and you found a way to create a temporal bubble that allow you to travel twice that speed [energy requirements are impractical btw], it would still take forever to get anywhere.

So it's pointless.
FTL = Still takes forever to cross star systems

No there isn't. No matter how fast you're going, light will travel c faster than you in your frame if reference.

But the distance you travel will appear faster then light because time slows down from your referance point.

I'll take "what is space contraction" for $ 500 Alex

...

>still using Imperial units

And it arrives at the hydrogen atom before it leaves because FTL is time travel.

An Alcubierre drive doesn't necessarily require tachyons.

>186,000 mile per hour,
>186,000 mile per SECOND,
FTFY

>But the distance you travel will appear faster then light because time slows down from your referance point.
Yeah, at about 0.7c.
Let's say you want to travel 1 light year at 0.71c.
At that speed, tau = 0.704
So in a stationary frame of reference, it takes you 1.41 years to cover that distance.
On board, only 0.993 years go by, (1.41 * 0.704 = 0.993), and you save enough time that takes less then one year in ship-time.
You still can't get there in time to beat light or radio in a race, but yeah, I think we're all familiar with the idea that time dilation can have a dramatic effect on "passenger time".

>An Alcubierre drive doesn't necessarily require tachyons.
Check out the linked article:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone
Despite the name, the effect doesn't require any actual tachyons. Any form of FTL will do.

...

...

w-...what?

Even if it was possible to break the light barrier, I suspect that to transport anything of note you would need energy levels measured in planetary masses.

Real talk, are there any users of Linux that aren't autistic?

Inb4 muh botnet

>beliefs

...

>FTL
>impossible

But user, it's right in pic related.

>>beliefs
The idea is, we'd have to be really really wrong about how we think the universe works for FTL to work.
Besides, "axiomatic beliefs" makes sense here. The best we can say about cause preceding effect is that we've never seen it go the other way around, AND that causality appeals to our "common sense".

copypasta so i know i'm baited, but linus btfo of rms when he tried making the same points. and linus is a better man than rms in every way that counts even if he is autistic.

I-is this aliens??

>Humans can't be wrong
You're just digging a hole for your argument here...

>>Humans can't be wrong
I never said we can't be wrong.
Just that that's a prerequisite for FTL.

>arxiv.org/abs/1303.0195
>Living in Curved Momentum Space

Basically, the idea is that momentum elongates and contracts space. That is, if you're moving the space in front of you contracts and the space behind you expands. So, the faster you go the less distance there is to travel. This can explain quite a bit - like why the M87 jet appears to have superluminal motion.

But the bigger lession is that energy bends space, since momentum is a type of energy. Consider how this might explain why matter has four different states - solids can melt or vaporize just from depressurization. Could the air pressure be the energy that contracts the matter? Why does adding other forms of energy cause it to expand? When you melt something with a laser, are you really just untying tight knots, causing the energy to go elsewhere?

Energy also relates to distance - the further two things become, the more potential energy exists in the system since to be apart implies some force opposing their attraction. So literally, distance is related to commonality of energy levels - lower E objects are closer to you than higher E objects.

Change E and you move toward or away from things. Everything will be split, with bluer things appearing closer and redder things appearing further. Coincidently, changing your position relative to a blackhole will change your E - and thus your distance.

Go into the blackhole, and the rest of the universe turns red - leave it, and the universe gets bluer. It would appear that the universe got younger the further you got from the supermassive blackhole - you'd go back in time.

And how does one define time, aside from the positions of particles? And those positions can be modelled in terms of E, and their distance from an arbitrary center in terms of the three physical dimensions. Any moment can be defined in terms of the E of every particle relative to every other particle in three dimensions, and by recreating this state the moment is recreated

Every moment thus can be said to exist simultaneously - time is an illusion, in the sense that causality exists outside of a linear script. Events and causes are independent of anything else - the chicken and the egg exist eternally, and neither came first.

You can make particles by shooting an imperfect vacuum (The only real kind of vacuum) with two lasers and 'crossing the streams.' The energy difference between the photons composing the lasers causes waves in space, which manifest as particles.

Hypothetically, you could make a big bang with a particle collider - but you'd need a lot of energy. To get it, you need two objects with as great a difference in E possible. Slam them together, and conservation of energy demands that some of that E goes into other particles - the efficiency is about 3% for photon-to-proton conversion;

>scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/15/5/10.1063/1.2928161
>The conversion efficiency from the laser energy into the proton kinetic energies is achieved to be ∼3%

I think it's not only possible to travel time, but to create universes. Since we can recreate a big bang, it stands to reason that it occured more than once - beyond the observable universe is the inter-universal medium, which still isn't a perfect vacuum, in which big bangs occur either on their own or through the hands of old white men with beards.

God is literally just a man - he may not even have super powers, though I find it hard to believe he didn't aquire them before becoming god. Or perhaps our universe was made by a team, or a committee - like CERN.

>Linus
>Autistic
He's a complete asshole, but he's anything but autistic. RMS is clearly more autistic than Linus.

I CAN DREAM CAN'T I?!

I was going to say me, but I'm pretty autismic myself.