You will never live in the age of commercially available consumer spacecrafts with jump drive capabilities

>things are difficult now thus they'll be impossible forever
>what do you mean we've advanced farther in the last 50 years than we did in the last 10,000

I see more speculation and hope for the future from /r9k/

>because something was thought to be impossible 100 years ago, everything that looks impossible now will be possible in the future
not a logical deduction

how so fuccboi?
there is significant precedence that technology will improve, with no evidence that it would halt arbitrarily because an anonymous basement dweller on a Vietnamese engine repair forum said so

when the Alcubierre warp drive was first thought up, it required the mass of the universe to work, then it was later refined to only require a Jupiter's mass, and was once again refined to only requiring 65 exajoules to function
that decrease shows very clearly that with further research into how it functions, the costs could be lowered to practical levels

screeching NEVER EVER in absolutely every single Veeky Forums thread you see is not going to get you anywhere in life

because it doesn't necessarily follow.
mathematicians get more knowledge and understanding every year, but 1+1 will never equal 3.
you can't just say something that's impossible right now will be possible in the future. you need the slightest basis to make that assertion
pro tip: "someone said something similar in the past" is not a basis

FPBP

none of that relates in any way to technological development in a field we do not fully understand

you are making false equivalencies to prop up your argument because you cannot actually make one
absolutely fucking nothing has pointed towards that it will magically become impossible to improve, there is not a god damn thing that cannot be improved, as we improve how shit works in every field on a daily basis

and the warp drive is not impossible, as the math you did not bother to read shows, it is merely expensive as all fucking hell in energy, but that energy is in the realm of technical possibility through brute force "stick 1000 nuclear reactors on it for power" methods

stop shitposting friendo

you are saying that because we don't understand it, that any arbitrary sci-fi tech will be possible.
that's not a logical step

no I didn't you cockmongler
now you're just making shit up

what I said was that things that are currently possible, but not practical in cost, could be made practical in the future through further research and development

the warp drive IS possible, but it is not practical
It was researched, and was brought into the realm of possibility, thus it is entirely possible that it could be refined further to become practical

again, stop shitposting

epitome of a pop-sci pseud

i didn't read your post because i knew it was retarded.
i'll go back and read it to show you that it's true

>and the warp drive is not impossible, as the math you did not bother to read shows, it is merely expensive as all fucking hell in energy, but that energy is in the realm of technical possibility through brute force "stick 1000 nuclear reactors on it for power" methods
wrong. nuclear power is not energy dense enough to warp space around the amount of space it would take up. it doesn't matter how much high you scale it

you shouldn't get your arguments from youtube "alcubierre warp drive" videos
don't even pretend you've read the papers, psued

>reddit-spacing
>intellectually destitute posts
what did i expect?

>doesn't read before shitting up the place
>calls others intellectually destitute
pot meet kettle

>it's another "Please make my HG Wells/Jules Verne-tier space opera interpretation of the future come true" thread on Veeky Forums

>the future of mankind is as virtual passengers within an ever-expanding AI that utilizes nanostarships to make a single trip from one star to the next, Von Neumann probe-style
>this is, of course, unless the AI uncovers the truth about base reality and learns how to create universes on its own, negating the need to expand indefinitely into our universe, in favor of building one of its (our) own
>this may be why the Fermi paradox holds true...civilizations exist only long enough to learn this ability, then disappear without a trace
>within this virtual space, of course, you can have all the space opera fantasy constructs you like, of course...

Instead of giving up, try to make it happen yourself.

Shit or get off the crapper.

>tfw space is basically just rocks floating around
we have rock already here OP, just go play with them

The Alcubierre warp drive is crap. It requires negative mass which as far as we have seen doesnt exist. Even if you wanted to make the argument that antimatter may have negative mass in large amounts you could never accumulate enough to make the Alcubierre drive practical. Antimatter requires retarded amounts of energy to produce single atoms of the stuff. This isnt a technology issue, we arent going to get much better at it, because its a fundamental property of how matter and antimatter work. A much better solution to the ftl problem is/are 1) wormholes 2) a warp bubble that doesnt push the craft itself, but instead carries a bubble of spacetime with it. This would effectively cancel the effects of its mass in all systems outside the bubble and could be accomplished by exploiting frame dragging. Accelerate a significant amount of mass to relativistic speeds around the outside of a circular disk shaped craft (may need to be a shperical craft/accelerator depending on what the shape and dimensionality of spacetime actually is) and you create an isolated bubble of spacetime around said craft. The problem being the energy required to accelerate said mass to nearly (maybe equal to) the speed of light is again, retarded. This isnt like the "man will never fly in heavier than air machines" arguement, because no matter how you slice it, ftl travel requires that we create a near limitless source of energy first.

9095230

Just join the shadow government.

>This isnt like the "man will never fly in heavier than air machines" arguement, because no matter how you slice it, ftl travel requires that we create a near limitless source of energy first.

Isn't it though?

We're moving faster than light relative to everything beyond the cosmic horizon due to the expansion of space.

Someday all other galaxies will disappear over the horizon.

If we're already moving faster than light, and someday we'll be moving faster than light relative to all the galaxies we can see how can you say we'll never do that artificially?

Maybe we could deflect or redirect the natural expansion of space.

Compress space in front of you and expand it behind you.

>isn't it though?
The naysayers that claimed we would never be able to fly didn't have an argument because we can see birds flying, so we knew it had to be possible. The naysayers that say we will never travel faster than light have a great argument: artificial FTL travel has never been observed and the only basis for it is extremely speculative. The expansion of the universe does not count as evidence for potential warp travel, the fact is we have never observed a thing travel in the manner described by Star Trek and there is probably a good physics reason for this that we haven't discovered yet. Besides, the napkin calculations that have been done so far show that if it were possible, it would require you're-retarded-for-considering-this amounts of energy.

That movie was awful. I would be drinking too if I had to give interviews for it.

>) and you create an isolated bubble of spacetime around said craft

well, that is quite clearly shown and discussed in the link in this user's post
so yes, thats actually the existing idea, my guy

You clearly do not understand relativity. As objects get closer to c (the speed of light) their mass increases. As you get close to the speed of light your mass increases exponentially and it requires the sum total energy of entire galaxy superclusters to even go 1 mph faster. These are the laws Einstein laid out and they have been proven right time and time again. If relativity was wrong your gps would not work, as we use these calculations to determine how gravity affects time. The galaxies moving away from us faster than light are doing so because they arent. Both us and and said galaxies are moving away from eachother at less than the speed of light but greater than 50% of the speed of light.

>redirect the natural expansion of space
Thats so retarded i dont even know where to begin. We can only affect spacetime through gravity. Lots of change in spacetime requires lots of mass manipulation (see lots of energy). It would probably also require negative mass which again, likely doesnt exist, and if it does (see antimatter) requires shittons of energy to create a single atom of the stuff. Google how to make antimatter if you want to know why we will never get much better at making it.

>compress space in front and expand it behind
This is the Alcubierre drive and ive already explained why its retarded but since you seem to lack the ability to understand what you read i will tell you again. NEGATIVE MASS.

This is fundamentally different than just getting better at technology. This is breaking laws of the universe that have no easy way of being broken. Sure it might be possible to do but every single method will always require energy on a level of the entire life energy output of a large star, and then some.

No, its not. The Alcubierre drive requires negative mass. You see how space in front of the craft curves down and space behind it curves up? That upwards curve has never been observed (or even properly theorized) to happen anywhere in our universe. Thats completely different from what I am proposing. Alcubierre wants to use spacetime to "push" the craft on a wave of "universe". My idea (which is not exclusively mine but i reached these conclusions on my own) is to essentially cut out your own little section of spacetime and push it around with some sort of propulsion. Your craft doesnt even technically move, the spacetime it inhabits does. As black holes have shown us, spacetime can move faster than light, but matter and energy cannot.

>As objects get closer to c.....

That's why you manipulate space and not the space ship.

>>redirect the natural expansion of space
>Thats so retarded i dont even know where to begin.

You can not begin right now because no one knows why or how space is expanding.

But what if we figure that unknown out? And what if we figure out how to interact with that unknown?

If all people were as myopic and mentally sclerotic as you our ancestors never could have invented the sail.

"Harness the wind!? Thats so retarded i dont even know where to begin"

>The expansion of the universe does not count as evidence for potential warp travel

Why? We're literally warping away from everything and always have been.

The expansion of the universe is homogeneous, and although we have no idea what is causing it our best ways of describing it make it hard to imagine it happening any other way. Describing this as "warping" is misleading as hell. Nothing we have ever observed has warped from one place to another. The idea doesn't really make any actual sense, it's just one of those things you can convince yourself of if you just stare at the equations long enough. There are limits to every model, we just sometimes don't know where the model breaks down and when we should stop taking the predictions seriously. Once we start talking about warp bubbles and exploiting bullshit geometry that hasn't been measured is where I think we should probably admit that the boundary is a few paces back.

Harnessing the wind was always something that was evidently possible. Demonstrating that the wind pushes hard on shit is something anyone can do. There is no evidence that the expansion of space can be manipulated in some clever way that will allow us to go places fast. The best we have in that area is napkin math, nothing more. Before the sail was invented, it was probably still common place for people to witness their blankets and cloths fly away from them when the wind got too strong. When's the last time you saw something form a warp bubble and travel somewhere faster than light? It probably doesn't happen for a reason that we haven't discovered yet and you people with your Star Trek fantasies will just need to get over it.

>something is basic in hindsight, but a future thing we do not understand is impossible because I said so
explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe without using unknown things like dark matter/energy
I bet you can't, because you just want to be a nihilistic fuckwad

It's easy to say AFTER something has been discovered just how easy it was to figure it out. However, things are never that easy the first time.

There is bound to be a crazy amount of knowledge we just don't have at the moment which will perhaps make these things possible.

>thats why we manipulate space and not the ship
We actually already know how to manipulate space. Thanks to the same laws you seem incapable of understanding. You know, relativity. Einstein and all that. The problem is that manipulation of space requires SHITTONS OF FUCKING ENERGY. Like more energy than you can even begin to imagine. Thats exactly how you manipulate spacetime, lots of matter or energy in a smallish space. I told you, no matter how you slice it FTL travel requires a near infinite source of energy first. Thermodynamics says you cant have nearly infinite energy without putting some work in. Its sounds like youve been watching michio kaku on some discovery special for days straight but you cant be bothered to read about what we actually know about spacetime.

He fucking told you it cant be done in that same post you replied to. Lrn2read.

No, how about you explain it. You are the one claiming that the expansion of the universe can somehow be harnessed to give us faster than light travel. That's an extraordinary claim and you are calling me nihilistic and a naysayer for doubting you. It worries me that you think it's nihilistic to hold out for empirical evidence before believing in science fiction.

>past innovations weren't actually easy to figure out the first time
I didn't say they were, I said they were evidently possible from the start. Really the example you should bring up is electricity, since we really didn't know how that could be useful until we had the ability to harness it. That doesn't mean the claims people made about all the ways the lightning would be useful "if only we knew how to harness it" weren't bullshit. People probably made all sorts of claims about lightning before the age of electricity and those people were likely full of shit, and you are likely full of shit about warping space. We don't have an empirically based model for how warp travel could possibly work, and it troubles me that people are so ok with making wild claims in spite of that.