all 23 comments

[–]HongKongPhooey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It proves him wrong that there is no workaround, but also right about the principles if this was to work.

Technically it is following relativity, and only works if relativity works. I'll give an example.

Let us say that it will take light 1 second to travel from point A to point B, i.e. its 1 light second in distance. This warp drive temporarily warps the space in front of the ship to make it smaller, so that the ship gets from point A to point B in less than 1 second, but thats really because it traveled less than the full distance, its sort of like tunneling or wormholing, not because it actually moved faster than the speed of light.

For this to work, Einstein has to be correct that Gravity is not a force, but actually the warping of space, as this warp drive depends on the ability to warp space in front of the ship and shrink the distance temporarily between these points as it travels. If gravity is in fact the result of a theoretical Graviton particle and not the warping of space by mass Einstein claims, then this will turn out not to work at all

[–]FuckYourMom[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why do you know about this in such detail?

I just learned about it two weeks ago.

[–]HongKongPhooey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just a combination of having nerdy sci-fi interests and a science degree. At least those physics classes came in handy for something

[–]FuckYourMom[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I diddnt know that it proves him right.

I did sort of get the concept.

Did you know supposedly we all ready have this tech? You spin mercury m?

[–]HongKongPhooey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I've heard conspiratorial claims about tech like this being real, I have no idea if those are credible are not. It's an idea I've seen in sci-fi that I understand the basic theory of why it would be possible, but thats about it. How they might accomplish this with Mercury is over my head, I just know the gist of Einsteins theories of relativity and special relativity

[–]FuckYourMom[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

When we place electric in mercury, it spins, creating a field. And when we do it in the other direction, it makes another field.

And placing the two fields on top of each other cancels gravity.

[–]HongKongPhooey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Interesting, I'll have to read more about that that. But yeah if scientists theoretically know how to do this, its not out of the realm of possibility that our military could build it. I've often wondered if those UFO's are them testing super secret tech

[–]FuckYourMom[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Conspiracy theory realm: they have the tech, and they kill everyone that have reproduced it.

You should check out that video I posted. It’s covered it well.

[–]HongKongPhooey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah I'll give it a watch

[–]FuckYourMom[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I watch these videos in the car, while commuting. They don’t get my full attention. But I pick up a lot.

[–]FuckTardMonkey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can travel faster than light if I have a slow light

[–]iDontShift 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

it also means tesla was right.

einstein used his bullshit theory of relativity to deny tesla's reality of ether being what is

in essense, because of einstein .. many people stop studying tesla

aka fuck einstein he is a gatekeeper

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Einstein was right, but it's really hard to wrap your head around. Once you do it makes a lot of sense.

There's still in aether, but the aether is space itself, which is synonymous with time. Or rather, the rate at which time progresses, which is simply the rate at which light propagates.

As such the "speed" of light is a bit of a misnomer, we can measure light traveling at a constant speed but it's very easy to travel faster than that, you just need to keep "hitting the accelerator" as it were, and you'll go faster and faster forever. You can fly to the nearest galaxies, or the farthest galaxies, in an instant if you can go fast enough, but the thing is, you'll still see light traveling past you at the same speed it always has, because light speed is always going to be measured at about 300,000 meters per second locally, because that's just the rate at which time works. You can't go faster than time. The very idea that you experience time at different rates is meaningless because 1 second measured for you is always going to be 1 second for you no matter what. You can't imagine measuring time faster or slower for yourself, it only affects the rate at which you perceive other things happening but you still experience one second per second, which is the speed of time which is the speed of light.

Light travels from one point of the universe to the other instantly. From it's point of view. Because light is indeed traveling at the maximum speed, which is infinity, you see the light coming from distant objects to you at "instantaneous speed" or rather think of it like this.

There's a pitcher on the moon that can throw a baseball past the earth at the speed of light. You are watching him with a magic telescope. The instant you see him throw the ball it instantly appears at you, you don't perceive it's journey, all the information of his wind up and the balls journey towards you arrives at exactly the same time, which is now. Light always arrives at your now. Always. Once it passes you, you'd see the ball slow to exactly 1/2 the speed of light as it moves away. Since it takes twice as long as the information to reach you. You could attempt to fly after it of course. But since it appears exactly at 1/2 the distance from you than it actually is, no matter how fast you accelerate it's always going to just be a bit ahead. You can never reach it.

It's all very intuitive once you understand infinities and why light and time are inexorably linked.

[–]RaverJodes 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The maximum speed, the speed of light, is definitely not infinity

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It depends on your point of view. If you accelerate the speed of light will always be about 300,000,000 meters per second. compared to you. No matter how fast you accelerate. It will always be that fast compared to you. So it's speed is "infinite" from a certain point of view.

The catch is of course that the rate at which time passes can also be relative. You can theoretically fly to distant galaxies in seconds at speeds close to the speed of light, but you'll arrive there millions of years in their future from your current reference frame.

[–]RaverJodes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah that stuff always does my head in 😂 but you explained that much really well actually, I think I get what you said, just putting it all together makes me scratch my head

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's not the speed of light you need to be so concerned about but time. Time always progresses for you at the same rate. Now the time elapsed between various local reference frames is variable compared to yours (and indeed the speed of light is as well) but for everyone everywhere they experience their own time at the rate of , one second per second, one cannot even imagine experiencing their own time as anything other than that, the idea is meaningless.

Light is similar, light always propagates through space at the "speed of time" which is 300,000,000 meters per second. This isn't the speed of light, this is the speed of causality, light just happens to propagate at the maximum speed, along with gravity, which can be understood as a kind of flow in space itself. Much like ripples in a pond. Or how sound travels in air. There's a maximum speed that phenomenon can travel through a medium, and that medium of the universe, the aether, isn't a medium in the traditional sense but space itself. And the speed at which it propagates is the speed of time. We can't go beyond this as to do so would mean going outside of the universe. Which is in and of itself a notion that we cannot fathom.

So in air, weird stuff happens when we start to travel faster than sound. But since matter isn't propagating through air but space, it's easy to go faster than that. But with the speed of light we are going at the propagation speed of energy, we can't go faster than that anymore than we can travel slower than zero. The idea with a warp drive is essentially to somehow move the space between places. Think kinda like how you could be in a wind tunnel where the airspeed is going at the speed of sound but so long as you are moving along with it at the same speed, the air will appear to be at rest to you. Similar concept. Except we are dealing with something, in this case space/time, which we don't fully understand, nor do we have the ability to manipulate it in that way.

I find one of the easiest ways to visualize this is the light clock idea. You have two mirrors on a spaceship and it takes the light a second to travel between them. As this spaceship accelerates the light from the light clock has to travel farther in terms of absolute distance in the perspective of a distant observer, and they'll begin to see that "time" on the spaceship is moving slower because of this effect, while on the spaceship itself they'd not notice a difference locally for them, but the outside universe would appear contracted, in both elapsed time and space itself, to make up for the fact that the light has to cover a longer and longer distance each second that elapses as the ship goes faster.

Once the ship reaches the speed of light it would appear frozen in time to the distant observer, and therefore unable to accelerate further. Of course reaching this point takes an infinite amount of time itself as any ship approaching the speed of light will appear more and more massive and will accelerate slower and slower as a result to the distant observer. For the people on the ship they just continue to accelerate at the constant rate forever as the universe outside appears more and more contracted in time and space towards infinity.

I think the infinities are what get people with these ideas. The very idea of simply adding more forever, itself being impossible, is hard for the human mind to grasp due to the boundless nature of the numbers involved. It's very much impossible for someone to even achieve the speed of light because of this as it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so. And an infinite amount of anything is of course impossible as we can always simply add more. As such I do say that the speed of light itself is indeed infinite. No matter how fast you go it will always be faster. Even though we can clearly measure the speed at which things happen, including light. That's the speed of causality more than anything. Which despite the name relativity is the constant upon which the entire theory relies.

This is one of the reasons why I suspect that the idea of black holes aren't exactly as our current mainstream scientific theories describe. They certainly seem to exist but relativity does mean that from our perspective it would take an infinite amount of time for one to form. So the ones we see I suspect are stars still in the process of collapsing into black holes but collapsing slower and slower as time goes on but never quite reaching an event horizon or singularity.

Since an object at rest falling into a black hole would reach the speed of light when it hits the event horizon, and since we know that would require an infinite amount of energy, is it not impossible?

I very much doubt that a black hole consists of such a simple idea of an event horizon and singularity, I suspect they are more like an extremely complex lattice of extremely dense matter right at the edge of forming an event horizon though from perspective of the distance observer.

From the perspective of the black hole itself, as we as the perspective of anything falling in, I suspect they are extremely short term objects. If hawking radiation is real then they'd evaporate out from under you before you hit them and you'd likely get fried by the now extremely blue shifted radiation coming at you.

Of course this is the problem with lights speed thought experiments in general. If you actually used some kind of infinite acceleration engine in real life you'd quickly get pummeled by now relativistic space dust and blue shifted to hellish levels of radiation that it would just utterly destroy any and all matter achieving the insane relativistic speeds required for the kind of time dilation necessary to traverse galaxies.

[–]RaverJodes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now I'm gonna have nightmares about space around me shrinking and light rays bouncing everywhere 😂 I think my head nearly exploded trying to understand that. My brother studied astrophysics at uni and he gets it, he's tried to explain this stuff to me a number of times over dinners and such but I just can't wrap my head around it. I'm definitely more of a Newtonian physics guy 😂 thanks for trying though! Maybe one of these days I'll get it. It's just so unlike what we experience in everyday life. Nothing really compares. I probably follow maybe half of it 😂 but then I lose it pretty quickly as well. Glad I never had to study it, I'd have been screwed!

[–]HongKongPhooey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As such the "speed" of light is a bit of a misnomer, we can measure light traveling at a constant speed but it's very easy to travel faster than that, you just need to keep "hitting the accelerator" as it were, and you'll go faster and faster forever.

No, thats not right, relativity sets strict limits on velocity, not possible if you accept Einstein. Thats why the theoretical warp drive warps the space in front of it, shrinking the space in front of the craft as it travels, reducing the distance traveled, rather than breaking the speed limit, similar to the idea of a wormhole.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes you refer to the Alcubierre drive. The problem with that is while the math and geometries check out there's no practical theory on creating one.

I'm talking about the consequences of relatively. It's not quite as simple as saying there's a strict limit on velocity. As time and space are inexorably linked.

Not only can we observe objects traveling faster than the speed of light. As we see with the jets from pulsars pointed at us, but this in no way breaks relativity despite people being confused when they initially learn about this.

In addition you can indeed keep accelerating forever if you've got enough fuel. People see the speed of light as this hard "speed limit" you'll hit and be unable to surpass. But in reality the speed of light is always going to be C relative to you. That means that, if you accelerate to say 50% the speed of light. You won't measure the speed of light as 150,000,000 m per second. You'll still measure it as 300,000,000 m per second relative to you. And no matter how fast you accelerate you'll continue to measure it as C in your reference frame. You can by consequence continue to accelerate forever. You'll never hit the speed of light because it's always going to be 300,000,000 meters per second faster than you. You will be a consequence of time dilation and spacial contraction travel distances you initially considered to be substantial in increasingly short periods of time, and distance, towards infinity. There is no "strict limit on velocity" in this manner, that only applies locally.

If you consider a spaceship that accelerates away from earth at a constant acceleration of 1g towards the Andromeda Galaxy. The people on that spaceship will arrive in the Andromeda Galaxy, a distance of 2 and a half million light years. In about a decade or so. The observers from earth will see the ship accelerate to but not quite reach half the speed of light, and arrive in Andromeda about 5 million years in the future from their pov.

But should a ship from the Andromeda Galaxy leave at 1g acceleration towards the earth, we would see the journey taking approximately 10 years. And we would measure the speed of it as a huge multiple of light speed. And this wouldn't break relativity at all, as the information from the ship, the light emitted from it, is arriving to us long after the ship has "left" the result is of course we see the ship and measure a velocity that exceeds C.

It's quite simple that from any reference frame the maximum apparent speed of any approaching object is infinity because light appears to us to instantly appear from its source. The maximum apparent speed of any object moving away from us is half the speed of light because for an object traveling away from us at C it takes the light from that object an equal amount of time to get back as it took to get there in the first place.

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

no, it is bullshit theory that can't be proven .. and it WAS USED TO DESTROY THE ETHER ..

it is what propelled us into our era of disconnected retarded theories like the word garbage you laid out. yes I have read it and once bought into it. now i KNOW it is flat out fraud.

and gatekeeping.

and faster than light transmission of information was proven with quantum mechanics via entanglement

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Information is neither matter nor energy so it doesn't break relativity if you find a way to get it somewhere faster than light. Problem is we transmit information via matter or energy.

Quantum entanglement works by having two entangled bits essentially, (how you entangle stuff is far beyond my ability to comprehend) You essentially get a state where you've got two objects in opposite states. Say one is up and one is down. But you don't know which is which. You only know they are in opposite states.

So if you take the two objects to opposite ends of the universe they remain entangled and you can "see" what the other one is by measuring yours and figure out what yours is not. But this is like sending information faster than light by say, cutting a standard deck of playing cards in two, and figuring out what is in the other deck by a matter of deduction. Or taking two lotto scratchers one winning and one losing and randomly giving them to two people, once someone scratches that they instantly know what the other one is. But no matter or energy has traveled faster than light.

Now if you can find some way to manipulate a quantum bit back and forth in a way that manipulates the other bit. Yeah you'd be in possession of some weird FTL communication device. That would open up some freaky causality issues though. The least of which is the question of when. When do the bits flip? Do they flip in your reference frame of now? The reference frame of a distant observer? Perhaps the initial reference frame they shared when originally entangled?

It's pretty much impossible to say as I don't think we've managed to make anything like that yet. We can just entangle stuff and see what it is and then guess what the other one is.