5 ms·

I don't think you are understanding the concept here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Physic

I don't think you are understanding the concept here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Physics

nessus42 14y ago
I understand it perfectly fine for the purposes of this discussion. Edit: I can't believe people down-vote irrefutable facts, so let me state this ONE MORE TIME: It is an irrefutable fact of Special Relativity that if you can transmit any information from point A to point B faster than light would travel from point A to point B in a vacuum, then there are inertial frames of reference in which the information arrived at point B BEFORE it left point A. THAT'S JUST A FACT OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY. People can bitch and moan about whatever they want to, and come up with all sorts of creative ways to try to work around this FACT, but YOU CANNOT. c, it's not just a good idea--IT'S THE LAW!
- sentientbicycle 14y ago
  I'm sorry, but I just can't find any sort of citation stating that the Alcubierre drive violates any of these principles. I also can't find any mention of paradoxes incurred by the drive and there is only one mention of where the meta-materials themselves would have to violate the light speed limit. Here is how I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), but it is not travelling in a vacuum, it is crunching that vacuum in front and expanding it in the back. This doesn't violate any laws because we know our universe is actually already doing this (expanding at a greater than light speed). If what you say is true then the galaxies that are currently moving away from us at those "super-luminal" (not actual super-luminal because we all know that's impossible) speeds shouldn't exist, but we know these do exist and we know why they appear to be doing so. Because of the expansion of the universe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 So since this is already done naturally is it not feasible to do so artificially? But aside from all that it seems a little short-sighted to howl about how people can't do something. Time and time again nay-sayers have been proven wrong.
  - nessus42 14y ago
    Did you read the part above where I wrote this: It is an irrefutable fact of Special Relativity that if you can transmit any information from point A to point B faster than light would travel from point A to point B in a vacuum, then there are inertial frames of reference in which the information arrived at point B BEFORE it left point A. Is there a reason why I can write this irrefutable fact a dozen times and people continue to ignore it like it was never stated? Look, I understand that people want perpetual motion machines. And I understand that people want the Earth to be the center of the universe. And I understand the fact that people want one plus one to equal three. But these things aren't going to happen. With FTL, you have to pick two out of these three: FTL, Relativity, causality. It is not a fact of science that you have to pick two out of the three. It is a fact of LOGIC. Unless you've found a way to transcend the laws of logic, then we have to live within this constraint. So, if you want to have FTL, you either have to give up causality or Special Relativity. Is it conceivable that Special Relativity is wrong? Sure it's conceivable. Is it likely? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. And if you're willing to give up on Special Relativity, when why are we designing space ships based on General Relativity??? When Special Relativity goes out the window, so does GR! So, are we going to give up on causality instead? Well, who am I to say yes or no. But if we decide that it's okay to give up on causality, then we have to bite the bullet and decide that we're okay with us being in a universe that is really, really strange. E.g., one that will thwart you somehow one way or another in any attempt you might make to transmit certain kinds of information, etc. One that might be perfectly okay with letting you visit your past self, and yet will suddenly give you a case of laryngitis if you try to tell your past self which stocks to buy. Who knows how weird it could get! Re your space ship being in a vacuum or not: (1) It's still in a vacuum, and (2) it doesn't matter. What matters is if you can use it to transmit information from say Earth to Mars at a speed faster than a laser beam or radio signal would make it from Earth to Mars. Re galaxies moving away from us at FTL speeds: (1) Yes, galaxies that are very far from us do move away from us at FTL speeds. Can you use this fact to transmit information between two points (e.g. two planets) at FTL speeds? No you cannot! Special Relativity says nothing at all about space itself moving at FTL speeds. It only puts constraints on information traveling from one point to another point at FTL speeds. Go read the irrefutable fact at the top of this post again. Read it over and over again until you understand it. I can't keep repeating it over and over again for it only to fall on willfully deaf ears.

I don't think you are understanding the concept here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Physics

nessus42 14y ago

I understand it perfectly fine for the purposes of this discussion. Edit: I can't believe people down-vote irrefutable facts, so let me state this ONE MORE TIME: It is an irrefutable fact of Special Relativity that if you can transmit any information from point A to point B faster than light would travel from point A to point B in a vacuum, then there are inertial frames of reference in which the information arrived at point B BEFORE it left point A. THAT'S JUST A FACT OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY. People can bitch and moan about whatever they want to, and come up with all sorts of creative ways to try to work around this FACT, but YOU CANNOT. c, it's not just a good idea--IT'S THE LAW!

sentientbicycle 14y ago
I'm sorry, but I just can't find any sort of citation stating that the Alcubierre drive violates any of these principles. I also can't find any mention of paradoxes incurred by the drive and there is only one mention of where the meta-materials themselves would have to violate the light speed limit. Here is how I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), but it is not travelling in a vacuum, it is crunching that vacuum in front and expanding it in the back. This doesn't violate any laws because we know our universe is actually already doing this (expanding at a greater than light speed). If what you say is true then the galaxies that are currently moving away from us at those "super-luminal" (not actual super-luminal because we all know that's impossible) speeds shouldn't exist, but we know these do exist and we know why they appear to be doing so. Because of the expansion of the universe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 So since this is already done naturally is it not feasible to do so artificially? But aside from all that it seems a little short-sighted to howl about how people can't do something. Time and time again nay-sayers have been proven wrong.
- nessus42 14y ago
  Did you read the part above where I wrote this: It is an irrefutable fact of Special Relativity that if you can transmit any information from point A to point B faster than light would travel from point A to point B in a vacuum, then there are inertial frames of reference in which the information arrived at point B BEFORE it left point A. Is there a reason why I can write this irrefutable fact a dozen times and people continue to ignore it like it was never stated? Look, I understand that people want perpetual motion machines. And I understand that people want the Earth to be the center of the universe. And I understand the fact that people want one plus one to equal three. But these things aren't going to happen. With FTL, you have to pick two out of these three: FTL, Relativity, causality. It is not a fact of science that you have to pick two out of the three. It is a fact of LOGIC. Unless you've found a way to transcend the laws of logic, then we have to live within this constraint. So, if you want to have FTL, you either have to give up causality or Special Relativity. Is it conceivable that Special Relativity is wrong? Sure it's conceivable. Is it likely? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. And if you're willing to give up on Special Relativity, when why are we designing space ships based on General Relativity??? When Special Relativity goes out the window, so does GR! So, are we going to give up on causality instead? Well, who am I to say yes or no. But if we decide that it's okay to give up on causality, then we have to bite the bullet and decide that we're okay with us being in a universe that is really, really strange. E.g., one that will thwart you somehow one way or another in any attempt you might make to transmit certain kinds of information, etc. One that might be perfectly okay with letting you visit your past self, and yet will suddenly give you a case of laryngitis if you try to tell your past self which stocks to buy. Who knows how weird it could get! Re your space ship being in a vacuum or not: (1) It's still in a vacuum, and (2) it doesn't matter. What matters is if you can use it to transmit information from say Earth to Mars at a speed faster than a laser beam or radio signal would make it from Earth to Mars. Re galaxies moving away from us at FTL speeds: (1) Yes, galaxies that are very far from us do move away from us at FTL speeds. Can you use this fact to transmit information between two points (e.g. two planets) at FTL speeds? No you cannot! Special Relativity says nothing at all about space itself moving at FTL speeds. It only puts constraints on information traveling from one point to another point at FTL speeds. Go read the irrefutable fact at the top of this post again. Read it over and over again until you understand it. I can't keep repeating it over and over again for it only to fall on willfully deaf ears.