101–110 of 168 posts
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.
Since we have never been visited by aliens, or witnessed time travel, these things must not be possible. It they were, there would be proof and it would be documented. It's as simple as that.
> Since we have never been visited by aliens This is a rather large assertion to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Science is (a lot less) powerful than religion. 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.
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
Perhaps but that doesn't bring one side of a circle closer to the other, or help you get out faster. Why would being able to move through higher dimensions help you travel faster through the 3 we're familiar with?
There is a 3D/4D equivalent, but it can't be visualized, and it's unknown whether it has any possible physical meaning.
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.
> Literally any method of getting from A to B faster than light would, has a causality paradox. Pretty much every explanation I've seen as to why this would ostensibly be so would - when applied consistently - consider the average thunderstorm to be full of causality violations because you can see the lightning before you can hear it. It shouldn't matter how long it takes me to go from Point A to Point B. As long as…
Since we have never been visited by aliens, or witnessed time travel, these things must not be possible. It they were, there would be proof and it would be documented. It's as simple as that.
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.
> Literally any method of getting from A to B faster than light would, has a causality paradox. Pretty much every explanation I've seen as to why this would ostensibly be so would - when applied consistently - consider the average thunderstorm to be full of causality violations because you can see the lightning before you can hear it. It shouldn't matter how long it takes me to go from Point A to Point B. As long as…
- There is no real cause and effect.
- Cause and effect are real, but effects can come before causes.
- The laws of physics are not the same in all frames of reference.
Our current understanding/belief is that some things really do cause other things, that causes always precede effects, and that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference.
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.
Why do you need that much energy? The article claims that the proposed mechanism could lower the energy requirements by 60 orders of magnitude: reasonable to have a grid connected prototype. I’m as skeptical about this as the next person, but the universe doesn’t make its rules based on my intuition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My feeling is that interstellar travel will be slow and require many generations of travelers -- or not done by human beings at all.
I don't think humans themselves will travel between stars. If we find habitable planets, we'll send probes with bioreactors that can then be fed a stream of individuals' DNA to populate the planet.
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
If a 2d being escaped their 2d space would the universe disappear from their point of view?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Reversed_Himself
This book covers all sorts of situations about objects in fewer and additional dimensions.