61–70 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is easier? 1) Faster than light travel. 2) Extend lifetimes so 1) doesn't matter.
I'd rather predict 3) A spaceship large enough and self-sufficient enough that many generations of society can live and die on the spaceship at sub-light speeds. Not the flashy sci-fi solution, but the most likely.
Please Lord save me from this ridiculous clickbait headline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no causality paradox with warp drives.
Nope. Literally any method of getting from A to B faster than light would, has a causality paradox. it does not matter if you cover the miles between FTL, or pop out of a hypothetical wormhole gate: If you end up outside of your own light cone, no matter how, there's a causality paradox.
One possible solution to the problem is time expansion in the bubble: taking a 200ly trip would age the universe by 200 years outside the bubble (from the frame of reference of those inside).
What is impossible in 2D (e.g. escaping from inside a circle) is possible and trivial in 3D. Is moving faster than speed of light a limitation that can be overcome in a higher dimension? Does it really require a lot of energy or is that only so under certain circumstances? There is a lot we still don't know
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can imagine this type of reaction when people started to suggest time past at different rates for different observers.
That's something you can literally demonstrate with accurate clocks and a mountain. This is a mathematical construct that is interesting but it is zero percent closer to any sort of demonstration of the effect let alone an actual implementation. It's frictionless pullies and spherical cows in terms of actual demonstration. Once something requires more energy than fusion reactions can provide you are at energy levels…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could be wrong, but I think the GP was commenting specifically about time of day? At idealized midnight the vector between you and the sun goes through the center of the Earth, indicating that increasing altitude takes you away from the Sun, instead of towards it. At idealized Noon, the opposite is true.
But the speed at which the earth is approaching the sun makes a biggers difference than your flight of stairs?
(Sigh) this is why I'm poorly suited for Twitter...
Instead of negative energy this warp drive idea requires 10^30 more energy than the matter contained in Jupiter, so we aren't quite there ;-). The additional issue is whether something going faster than the speed of light violates causality, like a warp drive. I've never understood how to reconcile causality with the fact of so called 'spooky interaction at a distance'. If it's faster than the speed of light, and you…
Not when the system requires energy equivalent to many Jupiters. To create a useful system you'd need to consume a Sun-sized star of mass on a monthly basis. We aren't there and honestly I don't see us ever being there.
My feeling is that interstellar travel will be slow and require many generations of travelers -- or not done by human beings at all.
That's the twin paradox btw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Literally any method of getting from A to B faster than light would, has a causality paradox. it does not matter if you cover the miles between FTL, or pop out of a hypothetical wormhole gate: If you end up outside of your own light cone, no matter how, there's a causality paradox.
The article calling it FTL isn't entirely correct. You aren't travelling faster than light. Spacetime can, and routinely does, exceed c. One possible solution to the problem is time expansion in the bubble: taking a 200ly trip would age the universe by 200 years outside the bubble (from the frame of reference of those inside).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are willing to follow religions because of society, family and peer pressure,I take it they will be willing to do so under the same pressure and for something that can at least be scientifically proved to exist.
If the year 2020 taught me anything, it's that an alarmingly large number of people can all as a group reject something that's scientifically proven.
Indoctrination taken to religious levels, in a confined and controlled environment, would be more than enough to propagate programming for hundreds if not thousands of years.