/sci/ - Science & Math

fuck you

>>4104868
i've always had a feeling that's the way it will go more or less

Zephram Cochrane laughs at you! Ha Ha!

So most of you guys say FTL is absolutely impossible...but is it really?


I look at most technological advancements in history and all of them seem to be basically humans devising mechanical ways to accomplish things that the universe does naturally, for instance; generating electricity, flight, fission, fusion, etc. So as far as we can tell, there isn't any natural phenomenon where anything ever travels faster than light, so it would seem we can't either. But then there's all that jazz about warped spacetime and bubbles and wormholes. Nature does warp spacetime, pretty severely in some places, so I would think we could eventually come up with a way to artificially warp spacetime and have some measure of control.
So could we?

Fuck you faggots.

how would humans go about warping space artificial the way a celestial object does naturally?

i don't. i just have no idea how one goes about folding 'space' in the first place. To do that I'd think you'd need something with negative mass, and a hell of a lot of it, in order to fold space enough to travel any distance. Now, if there was a way to create and stabilize micro black holes, they might be used to warp space enough to make something like an Alcubierre possible.

>>3561156
so what? no big deal.

>implying FTL is impossible
>mfw

wormholes bitches

>imlying because OP doesn't know about current research, it doesn't exist
>mfw

money and naked women

Got drunk. Invented warp drive. Got drunk again.

make a ton of micro black holes around a ship to warp space


>mfw /sci/ thinks the world is flat