What are the more or less accepted theoretical methods for faster than light travel...

It's an artifact of assuming lightspeed is constant in all reference frames (which so far it does indeed seem to be). Regardless of how fast they are going. So you have to start fudging other quantities such as time, distance and mass to make the equations check out (and experimentally this is true, so far).

remember when you were a hunter wearing skins and the cellphone was the laughing stock of impossible, or was it so impossible so as to not even be a dream?

I do

How can gravitational collapse prevent light from getting out? Pls no bully.

it hasn't got anything to do with "gravitational collapse".

when you put enough mass together in a small enough space it creates a gravitational field so intense that even photons of light can not escape its pull.

>I'm not saying it's impossible, but it likely is.
The same paleolitic man also must have figured that it's impossible to cook and eat sand, and gain sustenance that way. Well, guess what, we still can't do it.

The problem is, the more we learn, the LESS likely FTL appears. The workarounds to known theory get ever more convoluted. Every new theory must produce the same results to the same experiments within the same margins of error as the one it replaces.

when space is curved to such an extreme that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light

Basically, there is no trajectory even with a speed c an object can take that does not lead back into the black hole

every direction past the event horizon points inwards

>"gravitational collapse"
>""
As far as I know black holes are in a constant gravitational collapse.

Wouldn't an Alcubierre drive make the trick in theory?

So in a way that might indicates that FTL is possible. (?)

>So in a way that might indicates that FTL is possible. (?)
light having insufficient energy to escape extreme space-time curvature does not imply FTL travel being possible.

>Wouldn't an Alcubierre drive make the trick in theory?
It would require negative mass, and a rather insane amount of it. As I have stated before in this thread, it's an ad hoc conjecture slammed into an existing equation. It MIGHT be possible, but we don't know yet. And there is nothing to suggest that it is.

Hi I am Matt. I am nothing. Therefore I not only suggest, but I am telling you absolutely, faster than light velocities are not only possible they are guaranteed.

tachyons are literaly just a thought experiment and nothing more. Its akin to saying "what if we just create a wormhole!". All of FTL crap is nothing more than bad conjecture and science fiction.

>hi, im a moron, I talk out my ass about things I don't understand.

dude. it might be possible someday, but, right now not only is there no known theoretical way to do it but we don't have any idea how it would be possible.

Gravity isnt an actual "force". Its a curvature of geodesics which then requires force to then alter. When a black hole curves the geodesic of a light particle so much that its only direction points inwards, then you have an event horizon.

This is the equivalent of just going "REEEEEE". Get out fuck face.

>namefagging in the name section
tolerable if you're the OP
>namefagging in a post
Kill yourself and stop posting on Veeky Forums

Yes I am a moron, thats a fine opinion. But Objects moving faster than light is an absolute fact, regardless of your superiority

drown yourself in semen, goon

>objects moving faster than light is an absolute fact
Holy shit is this bait? Can someone be this stupid?

Oh wow I didnt know you made the rules. Congrats, and please inform the site coders of your demands so I may not offend you with my stupidity

>objects moving faster than light is a fact
>provides no evidence to support his assertion

Yep Im that stupid. And you are Brilliant! I would say you are the winner of todays internet

but the man who says usernames are for suicide already declared himself victor.

>not realizing multiple people are calling out your idiotic trolling.
Wew lad. im not the one shitting on names.
Objects with mass cant move faster than light. Not by standard means atleast. Everything that says otherwise like Memeholes and subspace and dakrshit is all conjecture and thought experiment.

>Objects moving faster than light is an absolute fact
well as we like to say here in the land of the not retarded, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" so... feel free to come back with some evidence to back up that claim of yours.

All you'll do spouting off un-provable garbage like you did is convince people you're stupid.

ANGRY science who demand that the flawed chain of case law of right now is knowledge perfected. Why so mad user?

Are we going to get that example of objects moving faster than C or not?

>i have nothing to support my assertion of FTL.
>FUCK YOU REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!.
nice bait post. Why shit all over the thread?

no, he just felt like taking a shit all over the thread

This is why people hate namefags. FTL is not possible by any standard means. Maybe someday we will figure out some stange loophole to it all but for the long future we will have to abide by the laws of our universe.
Id love for there to be any shred of evidence that FTL is possible just to shit on modern physics, but there is none.

Its a thread about ftl. I say absolute ftl is real. therefore I am fagget moron stupid who should suicide, Good discussion!!!

all opinions aren't equally worthy of time, attention, and consideration user... I know you might have heard they are but in the real world they aren't.

Because there is no evidence for your claim and you follow it up with REEEEEEEE. You're a brainlet highschooler who likes popsci crap. If you want to make a massivr claim like "FTL is absolutly real" then back it up with even the SMALLEST shred of evidence or shut the fuck up.

I'm almost positive you're drunk as a British slag on a Friday evening, at this point.

What if we converted our bodies to light? Or perhaps, were able to raise our bodies natural operating velocity and resistance to said speeds?

If light travels at a specific speed that we can accurately measure it down to, doesn't the question simply become how do we attain that velocity or surpass it?

Doesn't the question simply boil down to how achieve a speed of 300,000,000m/s? If we figured out how to travel at even 1 million m/s, wouldn't it be a walk in the park from there?

>What if we converted our bodies to light?
Disregarding other implications of that, light is still bound by the speed of light, remember?

>Or perhaps, were able to raise our bodies natural operating velocity and resistance to said speeds?
forget physical movement, acceleration, velocity and all that other shit
you are not going to reach speed of light conventional way, you need literally infinite energy for that
so this is meaningless to contemplate

no. Mass exponentially increases as velocity increases therefore it takes exponentially more energy to accelerate with the boundry being 0 and c. By all of our modern understand of physics, it would take an infinate amount of energy to accelerate a massive particle to a speed of c. And thats not even talking about going beyond c, which would take "negative energy" to go beyond c.

I don't know if you're one person or not, but I'm gonna ask you to stop.
No it's not easy "once you make a magic fairy dust rocket fuel"
You are NOT reaching speed of light by pushing something forward really hard. Ever.

But if perversions like this can and do occur naturally in the Universe isn't this a very slight clue that with some tricky and yet unknown mechanics we will be able to reproduce them for our needs? Like 'modifying' space via gravity.

The problem is that no matter how much you accelerate, light is always gonna go at lightspeed relative to you. FTL travel is actually quite trivial, if impractical, if all you want is to get faster from point A to point B than what it would take at lightspeed in your current reference frame. You can go so fast that entire galaxies fly by your ship in an instant. The problem is, when you finally slow down again, much much more time will have passed, since to them light will also be moving at c, even though they're moving much more slowly themselves.

You're used to thinking of time as the constant thing. In our current understanding of physics, it's the speed of light that is constant, time and distance actually depend on it rather than the other way around.

Hooray!!!

point two lasers at each other and consider the speed of particles passing in opposite vector. the light points are moving away from each other much ftl. you can do this sitting in your bed with no measurements or calculations.

FTL is real, and I am possibly a moron stupid fagget namefag hated son of a bitch

If mass increases as velocity increases, does that make velocity mass per se? Or is light not bound by that logic? And also, light is simply particles acting as waves is it not? How exactly does the speed of sound factor into the speed of light?

I've never quite understood how it takes infinite energy; wouldn't getting anything of finite mass accelerated to a finite speed take finite energy? That number may be more energy than we have available in the universe, even, but how does any number times any number equal infinity?

Find an infinite source of energy.

So wouldn't the real question at that point be achieving a distance of 3 million in a relatively short time in our perspective? Not factoring in light?

OP here, it's not necessarily a thread about FTL. More like the current theories or even thought experiments that are bit more grounded scientifically than your average sci-fi space magic FTL. Please don't shit in my thread any further.

It will take an insane amount of energy. But yes, in your own personal reference frame it will indeed look like accelerating past lightspeed. But if you travel 25'000 light years at 0.9999999999999c, and then slow down, everyone you ever knew and loved will be long dead, because to them, roughly 25'000 years will have passed.

>If mass increases as velocity increases, does that make velocity mass per se?
the word you're looking for is acceleration
to go faster you need to put in energy, the faster you wanna go, the more energy you need
it's not about the target speed, ti's about getting there
>Or is light not bound by that logic?
Photons don't have mass.
>light is simply particles acting as waves is it not?
eh, sure
>How exactly does the speed of sound factor into the speed of light?
in no way whatsoever

>it will indeed look like accelerating past lightspeed
sort of...

to put a finer point on it what actually happens it that the distance between where you are and where you're going shortens in order for, from your perspective, the speed of light to remain the absolute limit.

No. light is still moving at a velocity of c. Its just that its path has been bent inwarda towords the center of the blackhole. The geodesics are what we see as "bending" of space. All blackholes are is a bending so greate that light is bent into it. By all our modern knowledge, spacetime does not "rip" or "break".
Well techincally more velocity=more energy and mass is just highly concentrated pockets of energy. Light is bound by that logic but light has no mass but its energy can be concentraited enough to create mass in Pair Production. The speed of sound is just how fast a mechanical wave can travel through a medium. The speed of light can be "broken" sort of when light is psuedo slowed down and highspeed particles travel out faster than it. Look up cherenkov radiation. I work in a facility that deals with this subject. Cool shit.
Thats by newtonian physics which is a heavy simplification of velocity and mass because the lorentz factor is about =1 at very low velocity. But by the correct general relativity equations we can see how mass/length change as velocity increases. This is due to the speed of light being the same in all reference frames so the other factors start to change as you pump in more energy. The graph is Newtonian equatioms vs general relativity as velocity is increased where it is in units of c. As you can see they are identical at low energies but exponentialy get off as they approach c.

>harvest antimatter from star with bigass space constructs, probably doubling up as shades for venus or pluto or something
>stick antimatter on big rocket
>boom your way to 0.99c and make sure to keep some fuel for stopping bro cause you gonna need it i'm serious

Explain why science says this is impossible, Veeky Forums. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

well that is possible. Youre not moving faster than c. It would just take absurd amounts of energy to do. More than our suns worth.

Or we 'just' need a time machine. However I find it more likely that our knowledge about spacetime is incomplete. Time is strange.

>Photons don't have mass.
*rest mass

Assuming you could harvest the max extent or the sun's radiated energy and store tons of it, would it be possible to release it all at once to create that amount of energy?

Well... Maybe.... But youd need a large place to store all that energy or your fuel would turn into a black hole inadvertantly

no rest mass for the wicked

How much do we know about storing energy exactly? How far are we technologically in terms of storing and compacting energy?

More like more energy than the entire galaxy...or even the observable universe.

incredibly terrible. Our current tech is just spewing electrons at atoms that like to half hold onto electrons and then give them up when a potential great enough is given. Its super inefficient and breaks down fast. Battery tech is terrible.

>By all our modern knowledge, spacetime does not "rip" or "break".

I don't say spacetime is breaking there but consider that our theories not yet work with singularities.

A black hole is a very good way of storing energy.

"Speed of light" is a bit misleading. It has nothing to do with light. It's just that light travels at this speed because you cannot travel any faster. If you are traveling at the speed of light, time will be frozen for you. You will reach any point of your path instantly.

I know we use electrons as our main source of energy, but why is it we don't attempt to utilize electrons or neutrons in a manner akin to how we use electrons to produce energy?

Also, how efficient is using fat to store energy?

Energy storing in my opinion is one of the most crucial problems that is waiting to be solved. Batteries suck that's why your average laptop lasts only a few hours.

Alcubierre drive is totally feasible. I was going to read Alcubierre's paper and write a response to it this year, but now I don't know if I'll get to it.

I meant protons not electrons for that second part.

Except there is no way to fuel it.

Yes, it's a much better way to put it.

Hydrocarbons are quite a nice way of storing power.
Assuming fusion or mass solar collection it would be plausible to collect CO2 from the atmosphere and use that...

No, but once you've stored a couple of hundred megatons of mass into a small black hole, you'll have enough Hawking radiation to play with for an incredibly long time.

no. The sun is about 1.3 x10^44 J. By my calculations thatd be enough to propel a small standard spaceship to about 99c.
No its not. Black holes radiate out energy at such an absurdly slow pace. And there isnt any other way to get the energy out of it other than its own evaporation.
Not sure what you mean by use electrons or nuetrons in a similar way to protons? Fat is actually a really good store of energy. The main problem is getting that energy out in a timely manner. Fat takes alot of effort to extract and thats why it is mainly long term storage in the body while the smaller sugars are used up first.

>Except there is no way to fuel it.
what did he mean by this?

Also Kugelblitz black holes are theoretically formed by dumping masses of photons into a single point.

Sounds like the next billion dollar industry to me. Wouldn't you say?

even the smallest blackhole would take longer than the current age of the universe to evaporate so its not really a good option. Plus how do you plan on moving your energy storage unit? thow a lasso around a black hole?

I meant using protons and neutrons like how we use electrons to produce energy and power everything else.

If time is one of the main hurdles there, could you see any way in which the time could be decreased?

because protons and nuetrons are in the nucleus and incredibly harder to move around and control due to their large masses and in the nuetrons case, no charge at all. electrons have such a tiny mass with a very large relative electromagnetic force so they can be easily controlled and directed. Plus they are in the electron cloud.

i assume you are talking about the time for blackholes to radiate out and evaporate? If so, i and everyone in modern physics has no idea. Increasing the mass of the blackhole would increase the radiation amount but its still at such a low pace that it wouldnt be feasable.

I was referring to the issue with fat as a storage method of energy.

Is there any way to utilize energy in the nucleus?

>everyone in this thread is like REEEEEEEE Information cant travel faster than light because thats what some patent office worker said a hundred years ago
What is quantum entanglement?

I tend to agree. It's a pretty good solution already and GR is merely a hundred years old. We will get those asari babes.

Not talking about black holes formed by collapsing stars here, we're talking hypothetical micro black holes or kugelblitz black holes.
The smaller the black hole the faster it evaporates due to hawking radiation.

As for tethering - gravity tractors is one option. Place a reflector at a distance from the black hole so its gravitational attraction to the craft is balanced by the radiation it's emitting.

Depending on how the universe collapses, larger black holes may well be the last refuge for life in the dark future - slowly but reliably emitting energy for trillions of years.

>What is quantum entanglement?

No one knows.

Not really. There certainly are enzymes that help speed up the biological process but the main reason why long hydrocarbons are so good at storage is because it is wrapped in so many steps. It wouldnt be a good fuel source to burn up either.
Absolutly. Fission is just breaking apart the nucleus to turn the bidning energy of the nucleons into velocity of the resultant products ( AKA heat). And fusion just goes the opposite direction to product heat.
Spins are likely determined at the action and not when observed. Its all fucky but to say information travels instantaniously or atleast 12,000 times c is even more fucky.

If you stored energy in a black hole, is there any way to retrieve information from it?

Is fission/fusion or our current method of using electrons for energy more efficient or useful?

>What about a ship without mass?
How would you even enter a ship that has zero mass? It would be intangible for starters.