/sci/ - Science & Math

There is no reason to believe it will ever be possible.

Never. We can't just wish into existence things that cannot exist. Stop watching star trek OP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myjaVI7_6Is

>>2442851
>>2442851
>>2442851

This is really stupid.

the entire modern physical paradigm, which i readily admit i do not understand at all; that's an intentional part of it, is bunk. light is not anything special, it is just another kind of radiation, which is just another kind of extremely small particulate matter.

>>2442841
Probably not, unlike we can find ways to play with the geometry of space (for example by using gravity to alter it, or some for of exotic matter). Even then, you would still be moving slower than light, you'd just be getting faster to your destination due to changes in the fabric of space.

Unlikely to ever happen, unless we find theoretically possible exotic matter not unlike the example you posted.

Since us humans are too stupid to fully understand how the laws of the universe works, probably never. But who knows.

The bigger question is- WHAT FOR? A speck of dust would hit the spaceship with the force of a nuclear bomb. Do you actually want that?

>>2442889
FTL communication would be pretty sweet.

what part of FTL is not possible you don't fucking understand?

>>2442895
HURR DURR JUST LIKE HUMANZ WONT BE ABLE TO FLY EVER RITE?? HURRRRRR

>>2442891
Quantum entanglement communication!

>>2442901
Hurr Bifgoot and Nesi IS REALZ because Scienosts thawt Coelacanth was extinkt.

All it would take is for the powers to control the 4th Spatial dimension. With that, we could bend our 3rd dimension and travel "faster" than light by making our distance tiny.

Think of it like folding a piece of paper so that 2 ends are really close.

>>2442895
>>2442847
>>2442846

>"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]...presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished"

If Richard Woolley and Harold Spencer, Chief Astronomers of the Royal Society in the forties and fifties, can declare space travel with rockets impossible (after all, there's nothing for the explosions to push against! And they're a hell of a lot smarter than you!

Oh, hang on...

>>2442841
So if it's proven that the universe is expanding, given we have enough energy, we can shrink the distance of a piece of space. Since spatial expansion is not limited by speed of light, we can move at "faster than light speed" in the relative sense, or set up universal highways.

FOLDING SPACE!

> The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be.

- Sidney Newcomb, professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins

>>2442948
This is bullshit and you know it. You can't compare this to FTL.

FTL travel is just the hope of some neckbeard who played too much Mass Effect. It will never happen. However, that isn't to say people won't end up colonizing other planets.

> As it is not at all likely that any means of suspending the effect of air-resistance can ever be devised, a flying-machine must always be slow and cumbersome. . . . But as a means of amusement, the idea of aerial travel has great promise.

- T. Baron Russel

>>2442895
Maybe if you are a short sighted faggot.

>>2442917
nope.jpg

> All attempts at artificial aviation are not only dangerous to human life, but foredoomed to failure from the engineering standpoint.

- New York Times engineering associate

> No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris ... [because] no known motor can run at the requisite speed for four days without stopping.

— Orville Wright, c. 1908

Don't need to go local FTL. Go global FTL, using a wormhole or something.

> The popular mind often pictures gigantic flying machines speeding across the Atlantic, carrying innumerable passengers. It seems safe to say that such ideas must be wholly visionary. Even if such a machine could get across with one or two passengers, it would be prohibitive to any but the capitalist who could own his own yacht.

— William Pickering, Harvard astronomer, 1910

> There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the Moon because of insurmountable barriers to escaping the earth's gravity.

— Dr. F. R. Moulton, University of Chicago astronomer, 1932.

>>2442948
>>2442968
>>2442974
>>2442977
You do understand the difference between impractical and impossible, right? No physical principle has ever said that people couldn't build flying machines. FTL is a quite different case; like perpetual motion, it would violate a well-tested physical law. Now it may be that we will eventually find relativity to be an approximation to a better theory in which FTL is possible. But it could also be that FTL impossibility is a fundamental fact of nature. And if you're not open to that possibility, it's you who are being closedminded.

>>2442948
>>2442957
>>2442960
>>2442974
>>2442977

>>Person X was wrong about concept Y.
>>Therefore person Q must be wrong about concept R.
>>Therefore R.
makes perfect sense.

>>2442959

/sci/ really can't have a civil discussion without some faggot with a superiority complex calling other people names?

i know many great scientists with a neckbeard.

>>2442841
when your comfortable with your mass being infinite.

>This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd length to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists working in thought-tight compartments. Let us critically examine the proposal, For a projectile entirely to escape the gravitation of earth, it needs a velocity of 7 miles a second. The thermal energy of a gramme at this speed is 15,180 calories. . . . The energy of our most violent explosive—nitroglycerine—is less than 1,500 calories per gramme. Consequently, even had the explosive nothing to carry, it has only one-tenth of the energy necessary to escape the earth. . . . hence the proposition appears to be basically impossible.

— A. W. Bickerton, Professor of Physics and Chemistry, Canterbury College, Christchurch, 1926.

>>2442992
>some faggot with a superiority complex calling other people names?

Not the guy you're replying to, but I lol'd.

>>2442988
your alright Krakengineer so here's why people parroting that FTL is impossible are wrong: they're thinking acceleration on a straight line.

>>2442995
Your mass would only appear larger to others you are moving fast relative to you. It would appear unchanged to you.

>>2443001
This. Seriously.

>>2442987
No physical principle *as we understand them now*. When people were making serious objections to the concept of heavier-than-air flight, some thought it impossible due to the level of understanding they then possessed of the physics of the matter.

As we constantly develop and refine our own understanding of how physics works, who's to say what loopholes we may find?

So what is the actual argument against folding space?

And no energy reasoning please. For this, I reference to the citations.

>>2443014
Loophole != FTL travel

I'm okay with the thought of bending spatial dimensions like a piece of paper, but simply accelerating past c is impossible.

>>2443023 argument against folding space?

That's even worse than asking for the argument against the existence of a teapot floating somewhere between the orbit of Mars and Earth.

>>2443023

Essay on why all FTL travel methods required negative energy densities and why negative energy is impossible to handle:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm

>>2443014
There has *never* been a physical principle (as it was understood at the time) that says heavier-than-air flight is impossible. You know how I know that? Because BIRDS, that's why. Every quote you provided was about the impracticality of flight. They said it could be done, but it would cost too much, and wouldn't work very well, and would risk killing the passengers. Anyone who claimed that flight was impossible would have had to have been retarded.

There could be loopholes; I'm not omniscient. But there's also a very good chance that there are no loopholes, and that FTL will never be achieved.

>>2443031
>I don't have an argument against it so I'll resort to ad hominem

>>>/x/

Don't come back

You guys DO know that a fast-spinning superconductor warps space significantly more than it's mass alone, right?

>>2442996
What he said is still true today. It is impossible to hit the moon with a projectile from earth's surface.

I'm tired of the argument "lol you guys so stupid you were like the people who said flight and rockets were impossible."

There are engineering barriers and physical barriers. Heavier-than-air flight, rockets, supersonic flight, even relativistic flight, are all engineering problems. They can be worked out. The people who speak against them are, plain out luddites.

Physical barriers, like FTL, time travel, and such, cannot. Having FTL/Time travel would either require us getting rid of Relativity (The framework of the universe) or Causality (Causes before effects. Time would have no meaning). And please stop talking about quantum entanglement, all QE communication is indistinguishable from noise.

>>2443042

Call back when the effect is greater than 0.000000001% increase and we have proven Heim Theory.

>>2443040
That was not at all an ad hominem. It was a thinly veiled suggestion to learn how the fuck burden of proof works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

You can't make up any bullshit you want then insist it's accurate until someone else proves you wrong. Especially when you don't even include falsifiable claims.

>>2443042
Duh. Electromagnetic force is way stronger than gravity.

>>2443047
Since relativity isn't fully proven (despite decades of testing) then there is no reason to bow down to everything it says

>told it can't be done
>give up

People like you are the reason we don't have FTL right now.

>>2443053
>I still have no arguments against folding space so have another ad hominem

>The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

>>2443055

>Satellites depend on relativity, every day we crash particles and measure results, all modern particle research depends on it, all physics relies on it
>hurrrrr relativity has not been proven dur

>So keep me in this cage until you run that mouth, then I might have to play and break the fuck out. Then we'll see who's left after one round with X. What am I bringing next? Just know it's Red and Meth. So where the fuck you at? Punk, shut the fuck up and back the fuck up while we fuck this track up!
— William Frederick Durst, Musician, Director and Actor, 2000

>>2443053
>someone just learned about falsifiability and burden of proof and russell's teapot and is now applying them inappropriately.

>>2443053
Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.

>>2443042
I seem to remember that, let me look to see if it was reproduced or discredited...

Wikipedia says:
>The Russian researcher Eugene Podkletnov claims to have discovered experimenting with superconductors in 1995, that a fast rotating superconductor reduces the gravitational effect. Many studies have attempted to reproduce Podkletnov's experiment, always to no results.[21][22][23][24]
citations in the article at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity#Gravitoelectric_coupling

>>2443053
>use ad hominem
>say it is not because of the original question
>namefaggotry

figures

Also, I started reading the content of the link the nice gentleman sent (not you). So negative energy would be needed. Still have to read the part about negative energy though.

>>2443064
>Implying gravity waves have been detected
>Implying relativity has been proven

>>2443055
>[scientific theory] isn't fully proven
>>>/b/

>>2443047
I think FTL itself is impossible, but I think bending the fabric of space may be possible (exotic matter, gravity, etc), which would just mean that you could take a shortcut between location A and B, and appear to have travelled faster than light, when you actually traveled slower or near the speed of light.

The problem is that OP didn't specify what kind of travel he meant. We know the speed of light is a physical limitation, but we don't yet know the exact nature of the fabric of space (although, general relativity is probably accurate enough for now).

>>2443073
>theory
>prove

choose one

>>2443061

And here's a fun fact, Columbus *was* wrong. He never argued that the earth was round, every idiot knew that, he argued that the earth was actually smaller than was calculated, and that therefore a contemporary ship could sail to India on its own.
The calculation he argued against, by the way, was around 1% off of the actual value.

>>2443069
No, there was something more recent in 2006-7, and I wasn't talking about anti-gravity, I was talking about warping space.

>>2443071 ad hominem
Do you even know what that means? An ad hominem is where a person's character is attacked when that is unrelated to the argument they are presenting.

Explain how I could even make an ad hominem when you are an anonymous person on the Internet.

>>2443082
>choose one

Why?

>>2443105
Ah, found it.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

>>2443114
...says the luddite

>>2443114
Actually it's an appeal to emotion and belief instead of logic and reason. Personal attacks are a part of that.

Due to your ignorance on the matter it is logical to suspect that you are lacking a proper education

>>2443114
So you implicitly agree that you attacked me? OK, so I just have to argue how my character was attacked.
Your argument is that I'm anonymous here and thus my character cannot be attacked. I'd say a character without a name (anonymous) or a character which is publicly unknown still is a character. Furthermore, through the conversation in this thread my posts can be revealed with a probability and thus, with my personal opinion, a kind of proxy character is created. Even if you argue that my posts in fact cannot be identified, a character is still existent because of my opinion, even in this post right here.

>>2443151
Am I going to have to copypasta a dictionary for you? The ad hominem fallacy is specifically a personal attack; not any general appeal to emotion. It translates from latin as: "Argument to the man".

Besides that there was no appeal to emotion in the post you are calling "Ad hominem" anyway.

>>2443143

Well, shit. There goes general relativity.

>>2443164
The only thing I can know through the posts of an anonymous person in this thread are their opinions related to the concept at hand. These are relevant to the concept at hand. Attacking them is not attacking something personal and unrelated.

>>2443143
>>2443143
>>2443143
>>2443143
>>2443143
>>2443143
>>2443143
>>2443143
>>2443143
>>2443143

/thread

>identify the approximate location of the center of the universe
>point vessel at center of the universe
>"slow down" through whatever means
>Through manipulation of the properties of time, you are now traveling "faster than light."

The only real problem is getting back. But the universe will begin to constrict one day.

We are inside a universe and universes expend faster than light, so we are actually on a FTL vehicle.

>>2443194 identify the approximate location of the center of the universe

Implying such a location exists.

People who said flight was impossible were idiots. They ignored a world full of things that could fly.

If you could provide me with even one example of a phenomenon that traveled faster than light you might be forgiven for drawing the analogy to FTL travel.

It would probably be better to say that causation happens at 'c', which is why light travels that speed in a vacuum. It just doesn't even make sense to be able to observe anything before it happened.

>>2443195
>universes expand faster than light

No. Expansion is not motion.

>>2443209
Light itself can be manipulated into traveling faster or slower than what was thought to be the universal constant.

>>2443212
The what the hell is it?

>>2443023
How can you argue against something that you have not even defined?

Sounds like you mean to fold two places closer together like some dirty sheet so a flea would have an easier time jumping from one part to another. But this assumes some sort of meta-space that the sheet is in for the flea to jump across. Maybe you could sew the parts of the sheet together? But what the fuck does that even mean?

General Relativity allows us to mathematically describe all kinds of strange space time configurations. But that does not mean there is any way to actually construct such a space.

Until such a theory exists it is right for people to consider such things as fictional as dragons. Since being able to describe dragons does not mean they exist. (Sorry Michio Kaku fans).

>>2443225

It is an increase in the metric, of course.

Motion is traveling from point A to point B.

Expansion is the distance from A to point B increasing.

>>2443212
Yes, it pretty much is. And it can expand faster than light, and does, relative to us at the edges of the observable universe, and it contracts faster than light at the event horizons of black holes.

>>2443229
>Since being able to describe dragons does not mean they exist.

yea, but what about dragon dildos..?

>>2443223
Light travels at 'c' in a vacuum, period, full stop.
Light travels more slowly through matter, that is fine, because 'c' isn't the 'speed of light' so much as the absolute fastest any signal can travel.
Things that are not light or signals can travel faster than the speed of light, but so what? An example would be, point at a star, then point at another star, your finger traversed an imaginary distance way faster than light. Everything that has been said to go faster than light is like this, imaginary, some non-physical measure, that cannot carry any information.

tl;dr - don't confuse optics and phase speed for violations of c

>>2443229
>>2443229
Bro Fist.

>>2443232

That doesn't make it motion. It does not have a velocity. Though at a given distance, the distance will increase at a certain rate, and by necessity if that distance is great enough than it will increase faster than C.

>>2443195
This is true. We are moving FTL with respect to almost everything in the universe. The only thing we can't do is move FTL with respect to local spacetime.

>>2443138
Because you don't prove theories in science. That's not how science works. Proofs only exist in math.

>>2443237
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
this is going to hurt you more than me

>>2443238

IS THIS FROM THE FUCKEN ROBOT JOX

>>2443168
Go find a dictionary then, it'll prove me right. Protip: urban dictionary is not reliable.
Cool cherry picking brah, there was an appeal to belief in your ad hominem

Is it just me or does cosmic inflation seem like a hack? I've been waiting for a better explanation.

It really seems to be saying that where stuff started to exist expanded faster than the speed of light. That seems far fetched, but my main problem with it is that it seems to remove any need for a Big Bang at all because in a universe with infationary expansion it doesn't seem like galaxies absolutely have to be moving away from each other.

Just say'in...

ITT faggots who confuse Star Trek physics with real physics.

>>2443246
And this contradicts what I said how?
I was arguing against anything real going faster than c, did you misunderstand?

>>2443250
That makes no sense. Galaxies ARE moving away from each other, and at an accelerated rate, approaching the speed of light the further we can look. That's expansion.

Super-conductors are impossible.

>>2443143
From the same Wikipedia article:

In July 2007, Graham et al. of the Canterbury Ring Laser Group, New Zealand, reported results from an attempt to test the same effect with a larger rotating superconductor. They report no indication of any effect within the measurement accuracy of the experiment. Given the conditions of the experiment, the Canterbury group conclude that if any such 'Tajmar' effect exists, it is at least 22 times smaller than predicted by Tajmar in 2006.[31] However, the last sentence of their paper states: "Our experimental results do not have the sensitivity to either confirm or refute these recent results [from 2007]".[32]

There's reason to be very skeptical about this.

>>2443259
I'm talking about inflation (sorry, maybe I shouldn't say inflationary expansion, to be clear).

Inflation a hypothesis that there was a phase of the universes growth where parts of it came into being in such a way that you might interpret it as expanding faster than light. Note how I dance around the idea that anything was actually moving faster than c.

Its this slight of hand that I'm uncomfortable with, because scientists are being careful not to make an exception.

My argument is that if the universe could come into being this way, doesn't that mean that it could have come into existence with no expansionary motion? Move the edge of the universe out, and stuff comes into being, but that stuff doesn't have to be moving.

I'm not saying I believe this, because obviously the universe is expanding. It is just that if scientists want to propose that there is inflation, they need to say why it is also necessary that things also expand.

Of course, if I could just find a better explanation of inflation I'd probably be satisfied.

>>2443264
There's reason to be skeptical of the Canterbury Ring Laser Group, if they didn't bother to use the needed apparatus to measure the effect they were looking for.

>>2443278
>they didn't bother to use the needed apparatus to measure the effect they were looking for.
Can you elaborate on that?

>>2443280
"Our experimental results do not have the sensitivity to either confirm or refute these recent results [from 2007]"

>>2443233
Sounds like a purely academic distinction.

>>2443264
One experiment is reason to be a little skeptical about it. Scientists are always a little skeptical.

The problem here is people who are very skeptical of things they shouldn't be.

Being a true believer in faster than light travel is not going to help you discover how to do it because it will hinder your ability to properly do the science necessary. This is because you can't go around dismissing 200 years of science and still learn anything from it.

It it IS possible, it will come about from somebody who understands the science so well, that when they do an experiment that violates 'c' they will be able to notice it, say 'wtf, thats not right, i'll rerun the experiment, wait, it happened again!', then go on create a new theory.

Otherwise you are just a crackpot.

>>2443293
>>2443293

Its people like you that made me want to study science and give up my humanities education. Well said, and please never stop trying to make other people see reason. It is an end in itself.

>>2443293
The problem is that when you do replicate it people call you a fraud and your funding evaporates

>>2443315
Cold fusion is fraud, though.

>>2443290
The sentence in Wikipedia was a bit confusing, but from the paper it looks like what they did was rule out Tajmar's theory which was the reason why he was doing the experiment. It doesn't have any bearing on the experimental results Tajmar found, which were a lot smaller than what his theory predicted. So that may still be some sort of unexplained new effect. But we won't really know until someone reproduces it.

>>2443290
>>2443290

This.

Also, awesome article, anon.

>>2443337


LOL, in footnote [6], they spelled it "Superconfuctors".

>>2443315
I am assuming a non-crackpot discovers it. Which means he will probably keep it quiet and only call a press conference after he and his colleagues are absolutely sure it isn't an equipment malfunction.

A better complaint, which I think is sadly more likely, is that the moment of discovery goes more like this.

"Wait what? Something must be wrong, let me rerun this. Fuck, it happened again, I'll just adjust some parameters.... Ah, its within tolerance now, for a second I thought I'd lose my funding."

I wonder how often an interesting result just disappeared because it was too interesting.

>>2443377
>I wonder how often an interesting result just disappeared because it was too interesting.
No, you fuckface. It's every scientist's dream to discover something very interesting.

To everyone saying galaxies "move away from each other" faster than light:

NO.

They do not MOVE. Space itself is expanding. Expansion is not motion. Galaxies remain more or less stationary, while the space that binds them expands. Therefore they do not actually move faster than light.

>>>2443436
>Galaxies remain more or less stationary relative to the aether

>>2443315
No, the problem is when you 'replicate' it, but nobody else who follows your stated procedure can. THEN you get called a fraud and your funding evaporates.

>>2443395

Aah, the young, naive ones...

And how do you expect them to fund the research? Seldom it will be something they were explicitly looking for. They either lie to their funder about what they are researching or the lose the money.

So I've been reading this thread. A few anon claim, for good reason, that FTL travel is not possible due to physical limitation in our universe.

Then other faggots jump right off the bridge and propose something even more improbable "Bending space and time" as if this was a more reasonable idea.

Here's what you fuck heads sound like:

>"A perpetual motion machine is impossible. It violates the laws of physics"

>"WE'LL JUST MAKE PERPETUAL MOTION FUEL AND IT'LL RUN FOREVER!"

the

>>2443436
If a galaxy WAS moving away from us faster than the speed of light, how would you see it?

>>2443452
>Perpetual motion

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...

>>2443454
With the light it emits in our direction, which would travel to us at the speed of light.

>>2443452
Super-conductors are physically impossible.

>>2443395
I'll ignore being called a fuckface...

Anyway, I was thinking, a little interesting, like a repeatable anomaly that is very small and easy to dismiss. A counter example to this kind of thing not being overlooked would be the Pioneer anomaly.

Not the kind of interesting that goes: "OMG my test tube levitated off the lab table, cured my cancer, and then exploded in a blast of free energy!"

>can't move faster than light
>expansion is not movement
>thus, "ftl travel" will be possible by expanding after than light, then contracting

>>2443468
It doesn't emit light in our direction. It's moving faster than light AWAY from us.

>>2443480
>It doesn't emit light in our direction.
Why not?
>It's moving faster than light AWAY from us.
And this prevents light being emitted towards us how?

So wait what's the definition of FTL travel here? Does it need to be an actual craft traveling faster than the speed of light in a classical sense, or would any travel from point A to B which would result in a NET speed faster than the speed of light qualify?

To my knowledge, doesn't the space around say black holes curve in such a way that FTL travel should theoretically be possible so long as you don't pass the event horizon? I may be wrong though but it seems, at the very least, somewhat plausible.

>>2443491
Basically, the light emitted by that galaxy will take longer than the life-age of the universe to reach us.

I think general relativity allows things to be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. Such things are not causally connected however, so whatever situation allows it, the two objects would not be able to detect each other.

But I'm not sure.

>>2443532
Why would it take that long? It is still moving at the speed of light. What if the galaxy was very close, just moving away very fast? Would it still take quadrillions of years?

>>2443436
Pedantics. The distance between them is increasing faster than the speed of light. They therefore cannot see each other.

>>2443556
The only way this could happen is if one of the galaxies was inside a black hole. But yeah, basically correct.

>>2443551
Try and imagine the other galaxy as being stationary, and our galaxy moving away from it at faster than the spead of light, while it beams light at us...obviously at the speed of light, it's like we're outrunning the light.

Super-conductors are physically impossible.

Anyone saying that they are possible can't an thermodynamics.

>>2443551
Try and imagine the other galaxy as being stationary, and our galaxy moving away from it at faster than the speed of light, while it beams light at us...obviously at the speed of light, it's like we're outrunning the light.

>>2443567
Ok, I was still thinking special relativity when I was trying to reason out what would happen. But that forbids things moving away from each other faster than light, so obviously I'd reach the wrong conclusion.

If objects are moving away from each other that fast it is like one of them is in a black hole, it cannot get a signal to the other one because of the event horizon. This is why it is called an event horizon, there can be no cause and effect between the two regions moving away from each other faster than light.

>>2443454
You couldn't.
>>2443468
Light would not reach us from something traveling away from us faster than the speed of light.

>>2443551
Light only moves at c relative to the local spacetime. But in expansion, the local spacetime is moving faster than c away from the intended target. In other words, the light is moving at c, but additional space is getting inserted between the light and the target faster than c, making the light get further and further from its destination.

>>2443564
No, this happens between our galaxy and every galaxy that is further away from us than 48 billion light years. That is called the radius of the observable universe for that reason.

>>2443570
Superconductors are materials with resistance very close to zero, not actually zero.

>>2443610
It is still equivalent to being in a black hole.

All I'm really saying is that space-time curvature is the only way things can appear to be going away from you faster than light. If light can't reach you, you are on the other side of an event horizon. We are basically in a black hole with relative to anything beyond 48 billion light years.

Without gravity, we can use special relativity, and that means no matter how fast something is moving away, the light can still reach me.

>>2443616
>nope.avi

>>2443616
>Superconductivity is an electrical resistance of exactly zero
nope.avi

>>2443635
Your reading comprehension needs work.

>people using the "Well we used to think we couldn't fly" trick to say FTL travel is possible.

You guys advocating it are retarded.
OP asked when we will achieve it. According to modern physics we can't.

This does not call in your bullshit fantasies to try to justify it. Yes, we could possibly discover something to allow us FTL drive, or even make some unknown discovery in Science.

Either way OP's question was answered and from what modern Physics says, it is impossible for FTL drive as of now and we won't ever achieve it.

Stop arguing shit you have no basis for.

>>2443640
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity

Can't believe how many posts are here in this fucking thread.

You guys are all hypothetically analyzing something that we don't have the knowledge or capability to understand.

5000 years ago, the people alive may have thought flying could have been possible, they all had theories too; but they didn't have the knowledge or capability to bring it forth, and only a few centuries ago, we did.

FTL travel may or may not be possible from our current understanding, doesn't mean it is possible; but it doesn't mean it could not be.

>>2443652
Don't piss on people who want to see the stars close up in their lifetime, unless you like selling drugs to fund your research projects.

>>2443652
We also know modern physics is wrong and incomplete

>>2443659
>analyzing something that we don't have the knowledge or capability to understand.

Just because YOU can't figure out the loopholes in the laws of physics, doesn't mean they're not there.

>>2443663
Bro, I am studying to be an Astronomer, i want to travel faster than light too, so i can see all of the amazing stuff the universe has.

But i don't cloud reality with fiction. I realize Physics today says you can't travel Faster than light. I am not gonna get my hopes up that we will discover some breakthrough in my lifetime.

>>2443673
Impossible things are so common, they occur 9 times out of 10.

>>2443673
>I am not gonna get my hopes up that we will discover some breakthrough in my lifetime.

That's your problem. You stopped trying.

>>2443693
You are still missing the point of OP, he asked when we will ACHIEVE it. As of now we can't achieve it.

Please though if anyone here that is doubting physics can explain how we can achieve it ourselves using current knowledge please tell me.

Otherwise OP's question has been answered and the rest of the discussion is science fiction.

>>2443693
Honestly, you just hear about the ideas that turned out to be possible but people originally claimed they were impossible.

9 times out of 10 the impossible things just get forgotten because they really were impossible

People thought they couldn't cross fast flowing rivers, but they invented bridges.
They thought they couldn't cross lakes, but they invented boats.
They thought they couldn't cross <x>, but they invented ships, trains, cars, aircraft, spacecraft.

It took us a 1000 years to go from a river boating/coastal boating species to an ocean crossing species (aside from a few viking pioneers). So I'm going to give us a 1000 years to go from todays various spacetime folding theories to actual practical FTL travel, Einstein be damned.

>>2443707
There's lots of evidence to suggest romans, egyptians and africans had contact with the americas

>>2443698
How can you not tell the difference between arguments from ignorance against flight and the sound barrier and arguments from evidence such as relativity?

There is a difference between "we don't know how" and "all evidence says no"

this thread fucking sucks

>>2443707
There isn't any evidence that anybody ever thought any of those things. There is no systematic scientific theory that says you can't cross a river, but turned out to be wrong.

You just went full retard.

>>2443715
If by a lot of evidence you mean no evidence at all. Even if they did, it would be the equivalent of us (in the modern day) sending unmanned probes which take many years to get there.

Totally different from having commerce/colonization going on between two star systems at FTL.

>>2443716

It was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound at one point in our recent history.

You don't do the impossible by sitting on your ass while pissing and moaning like a little bitch.

>>2443734
If by no evidence you mean, thousands of artefacts and giant stone carvings of african faces then you're right

>>2443736
The speed of sound-barrier was mainly an engineering problem, not one related to science.

Yes, easily you dumbasses.

Heim THeory is real theory
http://news.discovery.com/tech/travel-mars-three-hours.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

>>2443733
Scuse me? Ancient persians were afraid to cross FAST FLOWING (left that out Mr. Troll) rivers because they couldn't swim very well and their boats couldn't take it.

Go suck dick gayfag.

Bitches don't know about my folds. We know space can expand, so we can compress it.

>>2443744
WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR GODDAMN PROBLEM?

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE A WHINY, HAIR-SPLITTING LITTLE FAGGOT?

Humanity will leave this planet of I have to throw you off myself using rage-powered catapults.

>>2443746
They may have been afraid to cross but they weren't faggots enough to say it was scientifically justified.

>>2443744
It was an actual scientific problem, people thought the air would explode.
Same with hydrogen bombs...

It had never been done before, so no one knew what would happen. People are making some good tries at finding creative solutions to FTL even today.

>>2443743
What you THINK are African faces. People thought the ancient sumerians were Asian because their sculptures always had squinty eyes, turns out it was just their makeup.

Law of parsimmonious relationships friend.

>>2443745

>>2443754
Lulz. This was my first post in this thread.

>>2443759
Because they didn't have science...

>>2443736
Considering that scientists observed things going faster than the speed of sound all the time I really do not think their was ever a theory of how nothing could go faster than sound.

The "sound barrier" mainly refers to the fact that supersonic flight is almost a different problem then sub-sonic flight because of the way fluid flow changes.

>>2443761

>It was an actual scientific problem, people thought the air would explode.

Idiots thought the air would explode. A real scientist posting actual figures would've realized that was not the case.

>>2443761
>people thought the air would explode

Because if people thought the air would explode, they would do it anyway.
That was a minority view.

>>2443761
>Implying these aren't african
>Implying the africans don't have stories about going to the americas and trading

>>2443768
How smart you are...

If they didn't have science then what the fuck doesn't it matter what they thought?

Also, my original claim is that people didn't have scientific theories that said rivers were impossible to cross.

Thank you for agreeing with my original premise.

>>2443770

Considering that scientists observed particles going faster than the speed of light all the time I really do not think there was ever a theory of how nothing could go faster than light.

The "light barrier" mainly refers to the fact that superluminal flight is almost a different problem then subluminal flight because of the way spacetime flow changes.

>>2443603
It's a little more complicated than that because the rate of expansion of the distance between us and the light doesn't just have to be superluminal; it has to stay superluminal. It will stay superluminal in the case of a cosmological constant because Hubble approaches an asymptotic value, and the rate of expansion only depends on how far away the light is. But without any cosmological constant or dark energy (and assuming no big crunch), the rate of expansion would decrease, and the light would eventually get to us. Same if the dark energy for some reason goes away.

>>2443776
>Implying there is no chance of making blackholes at the lhc

>>2443770
>Considering that scientists observed things going faster than the speed of sound all the time

Prior to 1900 citation needed.

Yeah, the air exploded every time a bullet was fired or a meteor fell to Earth. Nobody thought this!

>>2443776
The scientists working on the H bomb project thought it would cause a chain reaction with waters in the ocean and cause a massive, planet ending explosion.

>>2443780
Yes, the proud Atlantis was in Africa.

>implying this isn't a mans face
>implying we don't have stories of colonizing mars

>>2443791
Show me -ANY- gun that could shoot a bullet faster than the speed of sound before 1900.

>>2443788
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach#Physics

>>2443795
>Can't counter evidence
>Ad hominem

Typical creationist

>>2443783
You are claiming that fluid dynamics excluded faster than sound flight but those plucky engineers did it anyway!

>>2443804
The SoL does not equal a lump of matter breaking the sound barrier.

Everything he measured that wasn't matter traveled faster than the speed of sound.

>>2443798
They weren't trying to break the sound barrier in 1900, it was in the 1940s.

>>2443831

Yes. And?

>>2443798

it's a moot point, we see various things going faster than the speed of light all the time

>>2443809

ad hominem is when you attack a person, not an argument

he's attacking your argument

>>2443831
That was controlled flight faster than sound. They had photographs of projectiles moving faster than sound a long time before that.

>>2443843
If you were going to theorize that people thought super sonic flight made the air explode then they would have known that super sonic bullets did not do this by the time they were trying with airplanes.

>>2443856
So we did the impossible.

VERY GOOD, VERY GOOD INDEED!

>>2443848
[Citation Needed]
What real thing travels faster than light?
Not phase velocity or something that doesn't carry any information please.

>>2443867
Try adding "in a vacuum."

>>2443863
wut?

There is not and was never a scientific theory that said super sonic flight was impossible.

>>2443867
Neutrinos.

>>2443878

>>2443870
FIne but I'm pretty sure the argument isn't about firing weapons through the atmosphere of some planet at c where they just might somehow outrun the light.

>>2443878
not faster than light *in a vacuum*

Neutrinos from supernovas reach us first because light has to get through the matter that makes up the star.

>>2443878
neutrinos have mass, they travel less than c

>>2443876
>a scientific theory that said super sonic flight was impossible.

No, just people like you that said it's impossible.

The problem here is your preconceptions placing limits on your lateral thinking.

>>2443905
People who just say something is impossible without science turn out to be wrong. </slowpoke>

That is not the case here. Here all of modern science is predicated on the fact that the speed of light or anything else in a vacuum is c.

I put 99.9 percent certainty on this being correct. I'm not elevating the fact that some people were incorrect about so called "barriers" were proven wrong while forgetting all the times that the prevailing view was correct.

I am not going to see a pattern of barrier breaking and say, without any evidence at all, that yup, this light barrier is just another one of those.

Your failure isn't that you are thinking laterally, it is that you are not thinking AT ALL.

>>2443856
Explode the air around the aircraft and kill everyone inside, the "explode everything" theory was for the H bomb, pay attention.

>>2443867
QUESTION, WHAT TRAVELS FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF SOUND

CAN'T ANSWER WITH AN OBJECT THAT TRAVELS FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF SOUND

>>2443939
>That is not the case here. Here all of modern science is predicated on the fact that the speed of light or anything else in a vacuum is c.
In normal spacetime that is absolutely correct.

>>2443939
No, the problem is you want a form of travel that obeys general relativity.

>>2443961
Phase velocity and things that do not carry information are not OBJECTS.

Basically I asked for something REAL, if you can't provide that then you have to cede the point.

>>2443954
Evidence for non-normal space time?
Keep in mind that people who encountered other barriers never had to invent and entire new, unthought of thing, in order to overcome the barrier.

What is the difference between faster than light travel with imaginary space times and objects and no faster than light travel at all?

>>2443971
The thing is, there isn't even a loose thread you could pull that would unravel Einstein's theory enough to make that an unreasonable request.

The next theory isn't going to magically make Einstein look like a fool anymore than Newton was made a fool (for the logic impaired, Newton came out just fine).

If something travels faster than light, how the living FUCK are we supposed to be aware of it, never mind detect it?

The speed of light is the "hard wall" for our current level of scientific achievement. Stay here or progress, conservatards.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that I am saying that no matter what, faster than light travel is impossible.

The instant I am presented with the evidence though my mind will change. I'm not religious about this. I'm not refusing to "see the light", excuse the pun.

Maybe there is a way, and just like man may have never imagined he could fly if there were no birds/insects/bats, maybe we cannot imagine it because nothing in the universe shows us how.

But I'm not gonna hold my breath. I'm done. Fuck off.

>>2444035
That's just crap. We also do not have electronics working on an attosecond level, still we have mechanisms to detect femtosecond lasers ..

>>2444011
Except gravity waves

>>2444011
General relativity describes observations, it is only what we perceive. Quantum mechanics describes more, but we can see less.

>>2444035
If relativity doesn't work then gravity could be superluminal

>>2444055

If you rely on technology based on EM, you are limited to the same limits EM has.

>>2444078

Black holes, black holes everywhere.

I never understood why this was important anyway. Because of time dilation, an astronaut in a starship feels as if he is going faster and faster, almost as if he was going faster than light. In fact, the trip will be shorter to him, as if he had gone faster. So why does it matter if people observing him from the outside see him moving very slowly?

From an astronauts perspective, get close enough to c and he would watch as the (very red shifted) galaxy receded into the distance and millions and millions of years passed.

>>2444092

Because I want to see Tau-Ceti and get back tomorrow.

>>2444092
What about those people who stayed on earth? We want everyone to be able to travel like that, not just few astronauts (not to mention, when they get back, many generations will have passed)

>>2444103
Yeah, I know, everybody just wants their space opera to be true. Never mind that to the person on the space craft it doesn't even feel like they are hitting any kind of barrier, they just keep going faster and faster.

>>2444080
No, buddy. Trust me, if there were something that actually travels faster than light, there'd be quite a few ways to detect its speed.

>>2444114
Yeah, reality sucks doesn't it.

How many people who crossed the atlantic in the early days of colonization ever expected to go back home?

There may not be any way to overcome this, dealwithit.jpg

>>2443998
>particles are not object
>Evidence for non-normal space time?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahaaa

how old are you?

>>2444114
Who cares about them? The point is that relativity doesn't make it hard to populate other solar systems or even galaxies. It actually makes it easier. The fact that we can't then communicate, or come back to the same people? Not a big deal, imo. Don't leave behind anyone you care about.

>>2444138
Wait what? Nobody gave an example of a particle that goes faster than light. Only non-real things like phase velocities.

The only thing we have evidence for is normal space time. What kind of space time do you consider abnormal?

>>2444119

Sorry, but I have no confidence in general relativity if I want to see the stars. It is limited by the EM spectrum.

If what I have to do to see Tau-Ceti is create a copy of myself there, then copy that copy back to here, I'll tolerate living with my twinned who saw Tau-Ceti.

Keep on living on the EM bandwagon, faggots.

>>2444120
[citation needed]

>>2444182
>> Fails to understand what general relativity is, argues anyway.

>>2444204
So you're saying that relativity covers forces and observations OUTSIDE the EM spectrum? Where?

>>2444234
No, I'm not saying that. Your question isn't even wrong.

itt idiots who think general relativity is more than just a tiny piece of the universal theory

>>2444255
Right, GR doesn't even cover electromagnetic or weak/strong forces. It covers mass/energy/time/space on a cosmic scale.

But how'd you get the idea that is what people were claiming? The one person making any claims about what GR covers says its a theory of electro magnetism...

>>2444276
>its a theory of electro magnetism...

No, it is physics based off of EM spectrum observations, from radio waves to gamma rays.

>>2444444
>>2444444
>>2444444

>>2444342
PIME TARADOX!

Oh noes, its a worm hole to the future!

OP should come and fuck me.

>>2444342

>>2444444 will be the answer to life, the universe and everything.

>>2444276

>But how'd you get the idea that is what people were claiming?

idk they seem to think general relativity is the only theory that matters
could be wreong just read the thread once

we could fill whole libraries with what we dont know about the universe

>>2444396

rollin'

Just to remind you guys, there are a suspected 20 force/particle pairings that we have yet to detect.

We could try discovering some more of the forces that operate our universe.

>>2444396
Holy fuck!
>>2444444

So, /sci/

When do you think we will be able to archive aerial flight?

>>2444486
Clearly impossible! If God wanted us to fly, He would have given us wings!

>>2444486
unpossible. air weighs more than light.

>>2444418
And that's just for matter. We haven't really looked at what makes spacetime behave the way it does.

>>2444519
How does spacetime limit the speed of light to 186000 miles per second?

When we find a way of creating dark matter, anti matter and dark energy
prove me wrong

>>2444526
If anybody tries to answer this seriously I will slap them.

This is an axiom of the theory, everything follows from this assumption. The theory works so well, there is a high probability that the axiom is correct.

But no, there is no mechanism supposed. Maybe the next theory will have an answer.

Come on, /sci/borgs.

What is it about spacetime that limits the speed of light?

>>2444526
gravity holds light back

>>2444551
>>2444526

>>2444538
>>2444526

The smallest unit of space, the planck length, will have to transmit anything moving trough space to it's neighbour planck length unit.

The fastest speed the planck length can operate at is the planck time.

What is the speed of one planck length per unit of planck time? Oh, it just happens to be 1c.

>>2444538
You're using the limited EM spectrum to make your relative observations. Are you saying that spacetime has no properties? It exists outside the boundaries of our universe?

Yes
Alcubierre drive. etc...

>>2444554
>Planck length
>It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.
>MOAR EM SPECTRUM MEASUREMENTS.

yawn

>>2444554
Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

>>2444572
There are problems with AC drive, but its a good first step

>>2444557
Honestly if you are asking me personally this question. I don't believe in space time, I believe it is a construct for doing calculations. So to me, it isn't 'real'

That is why if you can give me evidence that some formalism can be used to let us build starships or communication systems that work faster than light, then I'm game for that.

But the space time level is the first assumption of relativity, it does not arise from other principles. You may take that as a victory in your quest to convince everybody that FTL is possible. But this isn't a political argument where I ignore the truth.

YOU cannot convince me that FTL is possible. You have to provice EVIDENCE.

/sci/ should have as its motto: Evidence or GTFO

You keep going on about EM measurements. Speaking loosely (take note, I'm speaking loosely), there is nothing else that you could use to measure the universe.

Just supposing there COULD BE without saying what that is. Well, thats just the same thing that fiction writers do. Science is not a game of lets pretend.

>>2444610
Distance isn't real? Dimensions aren't real?

Fascinating.

>>2444610
>I don't believe in space time
>I ignore the truth#

Yup.

>>2444526
I think of it like this:
A massless particle can move from its current slot (its position in space) to an adjacent slot (think of it like an array a matrix, even though reality is a bit different). This minimal distance is 1 plank length. The time this massless particle would take is 1 plank time, however by time this just means one transition of state in the universe (be it local or not). What is the speed of light? 1 plank length divided in 1 plank time. Minimal distance divided by minimal "time" (state transition). An analogy: Imagine if you had some array and each dot represented a particle, and for each transition in the array (if you applied a function to the array), this dot (particle) can move in some direction (let's say right) , then applying the function once to the array means the passing of one time unit, and the dot moving from one slot to the adjacent one would be a length of 1 - the function ("laws of physics in this system") can only move these dots by distance of 1 (adjacent slot). Thus the speed these dots move at each transition (function application, 1 time unit) is 1 length unit, meaning the maximum (and minimum) speed this dot can move at is 1 length unit/1 time unit or 1 "speed of the dot". Leaving the oversimplified analogy aside, you can imagine the speed of light being such a terribly simple limitation built into the theory-of-everything of this universe, which means a massless particle is limited to traveling at this constant speed of light - as it's how the universe works.

planck length = pixels in gods computer screen

when will he get sick of playing sims and go play outside?

>>2444609
>Chris Van Den Broeck, in 1999, has tried to address the potential issues.[10] By contracting the 3+1 dimensional surface area of the 'bubble' being transported by the drive, while at the same time expanding the 3 dimensional volume contained inside, Van Den Broeck was able to reduce the total energy needed to transport small atoms to less than 3 solar masses. Later, by slightly modifying the Van Den Broeck metric, Krasnikov reduced the necessary total amount of negative energy to a few milligrams.[2]
I dare you guys to find something wrong with that theory

>>2444634
> continued
Also, we're slow-as-fuck, so we move a lot slower than everything else, thus speed of light appears very fast of us, when it's just the standard speed that massless particles travel at. All those huge numbers you see? They appear when you translate 1 plank time to seconds and 1 plank length to meters.

However, just being limited by the speed of light does not mean apparent FTL is impossible - if you find a way of altering the geometry in such a way that you could take shortcuts of sorts (such as compressed spacetime, for example, by using whatever is driving expansion, or gravitational effects), you would effectivelty travel FTL. However, all of this is speculation, since there is no pratical demonstration yet that we can do any of this, it remains to be seen in the future when/if we actually have a complete Theory of Everything.

>>2444610
Casimir effect.

>>2444650
It's not practical for FTL now, maybe some physicist will get it down to more normal energy requirements and feasible masses

>>2442841
Never, I hope, until the entire Human race can become mature enough to not shit up the whole Galaxy the way we've done Earth, and also not spread hate and violence everywhere we tread.

>>2444626
Do not confuse the map for the territory outlined by the map.

I'm not sure what I can say if you took me for saying that distance and dimension isn't "real" to mean what you seem to think I meant.

I am saying that it is a formalism. A way to speak about things. It works well. You and me would sit down and have a discussion about things and we'd come to the same conclusions.

The difference I guess is that I do not consider the points/sets/lines/distances/dimensions to be literal platonic objects out there in the world. I still believe it is the best way we have to talk about it though.

>>2444610
Well all the aliens must be using FTL drive to be so fast that we can't detect them while in space.

>>2444666
>Krasnikov reduced the necessary total amount of negative energy to a few milligrams.[2]
>a few milligrams
>milligrams

>>2444630
/sigh

I believe in time dilation, lorentz shortening, that gravity distorts the way light travels, and that time flows differently in a gravity well. What I do not believe is literally real is the mathematical formalism. It is the formalism that contains things like spacetime and geodesics and the like.

This is a PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE ONLY.

We'd still get the same answers when applying the science because my INTERPRETATION of general relativity is immaterial.

The only difference is that I tend to think that wormholes and time travel and the like are most likely bullshit and we need a better theory to exclude them (or make it clear how they would actually work, either way)

>>2444670
WUT? I explicitly said there is almost certainly no such thing as FTL so you need to provide me with evidence that there is.

I didn't suppose some reason why we do not have that evidence (except that GR is correct)

>>2444669
Actually, I'm saying we're only using the map.

The geography is what we have little understanding of, as it pertains to spacetime, and for that matter, I have issues with how we think of time.

>>2444706
We have no choice but to only use the map.

Honestly, really, the only difference I think we really have is that you attach a higher probability that FTL travel is possible than I do.

I am saying that GR is the best map we got, and it ain't got to way to travel FTL without doing some really funky unlikely shit that is only there because the map is not perfect.

You are right, the territory may contain a way to travel faster than light. But we can never do anything except make better maps.

You are in a deeper bind because no matter how detailed the map becomes you can always say 'if we just had more detail we could find a way', but I'm satisfied that the map will never contain a way.

There isn't any way for you to convince me but produce some evidence. There may never be a way to convince you however because the next or the next next theory will never be enough.

>>2444703
GR -IS- correct, for everything effected by EM radiation.

I don't think electromagnetism can collapse a star, for example.

Spacetime has properties that are different from matter, otherwise the entire universe would be made of matter.

>>2444732
No, actually, we can go ahead and investigate what spacetime is made of, because it is not made of matter.

>>2444732
No, actually, we can go ahead and investigate what spacetime is made of, because it is not made of the map.

>>2444745
My interpretation of GR is that space time is just a formalism used for description that makes the math work. It is a description of the relationship between different objects.

In that sense, it isn't "real" to me in the sense that it is made of anything.

For that matter (no pun), time is a formalism used to describe how things change. Special relativity is just a theory of how clocks measure time.

The theory implies a 4 dimensional universe, but it really does not prove that. It only shows that the math works. For that reason I do not give much credence to time travel because I believe we only have real evidence that the present exists.

In short, I believe that the math has been tested and it works but that everything else that people thinks follows from the theory is PHILOSOPHY.

>>2444755
I assume this would be every experimental physicists dream, however since we are part of reality we can only interact with reality within reality, which to say in simpler terms means that we can never really tell what's really down there, except how it behaves when probed in various ways (for example, if you fire electrons or photons at it). Go further and you'll invent QM, the uncertainty principle and all that.

>>2444795
I think you're an idiot, and you've never really studied special or general relativity, and you don't understand how science works.

>>2444755
Then we'd eventually have a new better map. But its still a map.

>>2444813
I am an idiot because I believe GR is the best theory we have but I am skeptical of the things GR predicts that haven't been proven (like time travel and worm holes)? Because I do not believe the theory is the final answer? I'm not supposing to have that answer and I'm not claiming anything that is not GR.

How many people have you encountered in your life that have a different opinion on a matter of philosophy and you called them an idiot?

How many people do you call idiots when they ask for evidence of extraordinary things?

>>2444795
>>2444800

Most of what you describe are things that effect matter.

If you want to go from point A to point B in an instant, you have to examine spacetime, not matter, and matter is what most of our observations of spacetime are based on.

>>2444800
What you said:
>however since we are part of reality we can only interact with reality within reality,
What I heard:
>however since we are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, we can only interact with the electromagnet spectrum within the electromagnetic spectrum,

Also, replace "electromagnetic spectrum" with "religion" for trolling.

>>2444813
100/10, fuck!
If you intended to troll me you succeeded.

I completely fail at communication if my posts can be interpreted this way. My interpretation of GR is incredibly conservative because I draw a line exactly around the parts demonstrated by evidence.

Fuck... I MAD

>>2444873
Logically, saying we can only interact with reality from within reality is a tautology.

This is because we are real and anything we can interact with is real and all these things make up reality.

By definition.

>>2444846
No, saying that there will probably come along a better theory than GR is reasonable. But the things you said before were kind of retarded. Claiming spacetime isn't real is a philosophical claim, but it cannot be more true than saying electrons or atoms are not real.

>>2444880
Outside the lines are the parts we have not explored, the undiscovered countries.

Maybe you should take some risks, neh?

>>2444906
The universe is not a tautology, because we don't know how everything works.

>>2444934
Maybe it would be better if I stated it as I do not believe that a 4 dimensional block universe as implied by the formalism of relativity how things really are but is an artifact of the maths. And until you do an experiment that shows that the past and future exist as we imagine them then I will assume only the present is real.

I stand by special relativity being about how you should expect your time measurements to come out between different points in space. That is almost all Einstein goes on about in his book. Assuming anything else from it is not completely warranted.

As for GR, I do not have fantasies of spacetime being like some rubber sheet that can be changed from a sphere to a torus and other odd things until somebody actually figure out how to do it. Just because you can plug in some numbers and get GR to work doesn't mean any real universe like that exists.

As for atoms, they are real, but they are not identical to the formalism of quantum mechanics (do not get me into the strangeness of those interpretations).

math is not equal to something real
the map is not the territory

If this was QM, you would probably be more forgiving. People seldom question the interpretation of GR because it is less strange (don't get me started on multiple worlds).

>>2444952
headexplode.jpg

>>2444935
Maybe you have stretched the metaphor too far, but here goes...

You have to actually go out and explore. That I agree. But the territory we are mapping is amazingly huge, so we can never hope to see all of it, so no matter what we will fill in the unexplored areas with a best guess.

Any further and the metaphor will break I think.

>>2445036
Knowing every atom of geography is not necessary if you only need to know how to dig a train tunnel through the mountains.

Space is our new geography, but yeah, much beyond this point, and the analogy breaks down.

>>2445128
Yup.

Literally, the map/territory analogy is experiment/reality. So by vastness I mean the space of everything that is possible vs. the experiments we've done.

But anyway, good luck breaking the light barrier. I have to go, so I'll be leaving the discussion.

I still mad... I gotta find a way to express that I don't believe in space time the way everybody else does without sounding like an idiot...

>>2445163
And I'll try to find new ways to express that spacetime is a creation that accompanied the creation of our universe

I hope you have a good day, because I had an enjoyable discussion.

Motherfucking 4chan.

I have never fallen so low, or flown so high.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Late to arrive in this thread, but a couple thoughts.

1. To guy that was asking about something that broke the sound barrier prior to 1900, how about a whip? Broke the sound barrier back in BC.

2. I don't get the "its expanding faster than the speed of light, but not traveling faster than light." I once asked my physics professor if I'm moving North at the speed of light, and something else is moving South at the speed of light, then why doesn't the person moving South appear to be moving at the speed of light? c-(-c)=2c. Relativity forbids this of course, but wtfman.jpg

Also, "space is being inserted" between the galaxies, giving them the appearance of moving faster than light. What the hell is inserting space? Some magic space insertion being? It just appears out of nowhere, making the distance of a mile all the sudden the distance of 100 miles, without anything moving?

I am confuse

>>2445523

Should read "Why doesn't the thing moving south appear to move at double the speed of light."

>>2445523
1. I thought of that, and disregarded it because they couldn't know they were breaking the sound barrier.

Sage grows in every field.

>>2445523

lrn2expansion