/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 33 KB, 400x400, 1289027723308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:07:42 2011 No.2907514 [Reply] [Original]

The amount of energy required to mess with space time (I'm sure there's a name for it) is 10 trillion times the energy output that we can harness currently.

Is anyone else happy that we can quantify the amount of energy necessary to fold space time and that while we are nowhere close to that number, it's also nowhere near an infinite amount of energy required?

EG I feel like it's something we can accomplish eventually and this is really cool.

Can someone give me more information on the amount of energy necessary to fuck with space itself, what one unit of this amount of energy would be called/is called, and examples of cosmic objects that produce this amount of energy in a reasonable amount of time?

Do some stars produce the necessary levels of energy to warp space itself (eg being able to fold space so that you can get somewhere faster than light, also correct me if that would still be impossible).

Anyway to me this stuff seems really amazing and eventually possible because it's a finite amount and I actually expected it to be a lot more than only several trillion times our current output.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:13:42 2011 No.2907532 my left testicle contains the energy needed to mess with space time, it just warps it a little. what the hell do you mean "mess with space time"? you cant link a qualitative discussion with a quantitative discussion like that.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:14:42 2011 No.2907536

I think you are referring to the Planck energy. Some guys calculated that you could probably make small black holes with far less, with structures in space smaller than structures already built by human (albeit on Earth). To achieve the Planck energy you'd need a ~10 ly long particle collider assuming it could work at current maximum efficiency all the way. For reference, the closest extrasolar star is about 4.8 ly away.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:16:42 2011 No.2907543 >that you can get somewhere faster than light Nope. As far as we know even with all the energy in the universe you cannot accelerate an object to exceed the speed of light.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:20:42 2011 No.2907560

>(eg being able to fold space so that you can get somewhere faster than light, also correct me if that would still be impossible).

If you found a wormhole, you could take shortcuts through space time which would allow you to get from point A to B faster than light would if it traveled in a straight line. You'd never be faster than light locally though. Making a wormhole is nigh impossible unless you're a type 3 civilization or something, but there could be naturally occuring ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:22:42 2011 No.2907564 >>2907560 i think OP is asking what the energy consumption of making a wormhole is

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:23:42 2011 No.2907571

>>2907536
Thank you for not being retarded like:
>>2907532
and actually understanding where I am coming from.

I was listening to Dr. Michio Kaku talking about this, saying that it would take 10 trillion times the current energy output of mankind (is that plank energy?), but if we could harness that much power, we'd be able to do crazy badass shit like fold space time in order to shorten the distances between two points (so light going through our fold with us would still be faster than us, but light trying to travel the distance conventionally would be beaten by us, not in speed, but in efficiency of travel).

It sucks because I have to go off of memory on what he said, so I came here to hear more about this shit. I'm not at all a physicist but it just seems really cool to me so I wanted to hear more about it. Thanks again for telling me the name of what this amount of energy is called, I've heard of Plank energy before but I didn't realize this is what it referred to.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:25:42 2011 No.2907576
File: 34 KB, 450x268, 1285771622456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2907543
but what would happen if you are in a spaceship going at 0,999999 speed of light, then you fire a laser beam forwards? wont that beam of light move at 1,999999 speed of light then?

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:25:42 2011 No.2907581

>>2907564
Op here, yes, this among other things. Michio said there was a bunch of crazy shit we could do if we could harness that amount of energy, so I'm really excited because the figure he gave was way lower than the amount of energy I expected would be required.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:27:42 2011 No.2907590

>>2907560
Yeah, I understand this, sorry if my question was worded poorly.

I just meant that light traveling the distance conventionally (actually traveling the full distance), even though it's "faster" than our machine, would arrive later. Light that beamed through our "wormhole" or whatever we called it would still arrive faster than us, but it would be irrelevant to us, we wouldn't 'need' to be faster than light if we could do this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:27:42 2011 No.2907593 >>2907576 Nope it just goes at the speed of light. Plus because time is dilated for you it appears to move away from you at the speed of light.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:28:42 2011 No.2907594 >>2907576 No, it would seem like it wouldn't go anywhere. The photons would be going just a liiittle faster than you.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:29:42 2011 No.2907603
File: 16 KB, 250x217, 1286104818587.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2907594
alright then

if lightspeed is the fastest possible speed you can travel at, if you are in a spaceship going at lightspeed, you woulndt be a ble to walk forward in the spaceship as you would be exceeding the speed of light?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:29:42 2011 No.2907604 ITT: misconceptions about shit simplifications of science fiction technologies

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:30:42 2011 No.2907605 >>2907594 No. Light travels at C for all observes, no matter how fast you're travelling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:31:42 2011 No.2907611 >>2907603 No, you won't be able to move forward. Your dilated mass would be too extreme, you couldn't move a limb if you wanted to. Remember: things get heavier if they move faster.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:31:42 2011 No.2907613 >>2907603 Nope. you would weigh more than infinity universes of mass.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:32:42 2011 No.2907617 >>2907611 Oh, and if you're already going AT lightspeed (not 99.howevermany9syoucanfit%), your mass hits infinite and you implode. Actually you'd probably implode awhile before that but still.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:33:42 2011 No.2907625 >>2907611 >>2907613 haha, so if i were in that spaceship, accelerating it to lightspeed in lets say 10 seconds, walk back, and once it hits light speed i cant decrease the speed >doomed

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:34:42 2011 No.2907629 >>2907625 Congratulations, you're starting to figure out why space travel is such a bitch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:37:42 2011 No.2907640 >>2907625 Well before you reached lightspeed you would be unable to lift a finger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 10:37:42 2011 No.2907642 I don't know whose trolling who anymore, OP must be shit confused

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:33:42 2011 No.2907936

>>2907642
I'm confused as fuck, yes.

Here's a question. If you were in a vehicle moving at light speed, but inside the vehicle you were just moving around at normal speed, is that possible?

Like if I am in a space ship going 5,000 mph through space (nowhere near light speed, not even that fast for a space ship), inside the ship it doesn't feel like I'm going 5,000mph.

Eg my speed is relative to to the bubble I am inside of.

So if I am inside a bubble moving at light speed, for all intents and purposes, I myself should still be able to move around and shit inside the bubble, right?

For instance is my mass increased based on the speed the earth is flying through space, since I'm on the Earth? I don't feel like I'm traveling at high speed through space though, I feel like I'm sitting in my chair stationary as fuck.

Inside a bubble moving at near light speed, would I still implode and such, even though from my perspective inside the bubble I'd just be moving around at normal speeds?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:36:42 2011 No.2907950 >>2907560 >type 3 civilization Go on...

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:41:42 2011 No.2907972 >>2907936 #1 No massive object can be accelerated to light speed If we swap "light speed" to "near lights peed", then you can move freely in the bubble, at any speed smaller than c. This is the magic of inertial reference frames.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:43:42 2011 No.2907987 >>2907936 Things moving at the speed of light relative to something have no rest system.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:43:42 2011 No.2907988

>>2907950
I'm not the guy that wrote that but I know what the civilization type classes are.

Mankined is a type 0 civilization. We have not yet harnessed the Earth's potential.

Type 1 civilizations have harnessed the power of their planet, they are (from a type 0 civilization's perspective) immortal. If a meteorite is going to hit their planet, they can deflect it. If their sun dies, they can reignite it or migrate successfully, etcetera. They aren't literally "immortal" in that technically if some crazy unexpected bullshit happened, they could still go extinct, but it's exponentially less likely than a type 0 in the same situations.

A type 2 civilization has harnessed their star/s. They have the energy output of a star at their command, if humanity met a type 2 civilization they would nearly seem like god/s.

A type 3 civilization is an galactic civilization, they have the energy output of a galaxy (think about how many stars are in a galaxy and how much energy they produce).

There is a type 4 possibility as well, but it's pointless to quantify such a civilization, the level of energy at their command would be absurdly massive, they would have dark energy at their disposal.

Michio Kaku said that a type 3 or possibly even a type 2 civilization would be able to use wormholes.

He also says mankind is transitioning from type 0 to type 1 within the next 200 years, and that the internet is a type 1 civilization technology (a type 1 telephone system was his exact words).

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:45:42 2011 No.2907996 >>2907988 Thanks man, that's pretty awesome. I will always wish I was born 500 years later.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:45:42 2011 No.2907998 >>2907988 Protip: Don't believe pop-sci tards.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:45:42 2011 No.2908000

>>2907936
to start off, you cant actually travel at lightspeed, as it would require infinite energy.

Anyway, assuming you travel with 99.99% of light speed, the time is slowed... thats right, the time is slowed... to 0.01% of its previous speed. Taking the analogy to the lightspeed, time would have stopped, and you couldn't have moved.

Amirite /sci/?

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:45:42 2011 No.2908001

>>2907972
Alright I understand that, but just because no massive object can be accelerated to light speed, does that necessarily mean that no massive object is already moving at light speed and doesn't need to be accelerated?

If a massive object is already moving at light speed, let's call it a bubble and assume shit is inside of it (say, a universe), can the stuff inside that bubble that's already moving light speed move around, or is it all imploded and shit?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:46:42 2011 No.2908007 >>2908000 Well I'm no physicist but that's not how I understand it. I understand it as "it would require infinite energy to ACCELERATE to light speed," not that it would require infinite energy to be moving at C. Am I wrong?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:46:42 2011 No.2908009 >>2907996 Why? You have the opportunity to _create_ exactly that future you're picturing _now_. Why can't you find fun in changing the world right now? Making it a better place?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:47:42 2011 No.2908013 >>2908001 No massive object moves at the speed of light.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:48:42 2011 No.2908022

>>2907998
Michio Kaku graduated at the top of his class in Physics at Harvard and then got his PhD at the radiation physics lab at Berkley. For you to call him a pop sci tard without declaring your own qualifications is absurd as fuck.

"Her der I don't like what someone way more qualified and well respected in his field than me has to say, so I'll call him retarded arbitrarily!"

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:48:42 2011 No.2908023

>>2908000

> assuming you travel with 99.99% of light speed, the time is slowed

No, you got that wrong. Time passes by just like always.

If yomeone compares his rate of time with your´s, then it seems to him your time passes by slower than his. This is something very different.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:49:42 2011 No.2908032 >>2907988 If we were type 4, could i go back in time and unread that post and thereby NOT facepalm?

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:50:42 2011 No.2908043

>>2908022

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

"co-founder of string field theory, and a "communicator" and "popularizer" of science. He has written several books on physics and related topics, he has made frequent appearances on radio, television, and film, and he writes extensive online blogs and articles."

Pop-sci.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:50:42 2011 No.2908041

>>2908013
How do we know?

Am I wrong to say that it only requires infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, but not to just be moving at that speed?

From what I understand, if you are already moving at x speed, to continue moving at that speed requires no energy unless there are forces opposing your movement.

Because acceleration to the speed of light requires infinite energy, If a massive object was already moving at the speed of light, would it not also require infinite energy to slow it down to slower than the speed of light?

If that's the case how can we be certain there are no massive objects doing this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:50:42 2011 No.2908048 >>2908022 And he has had no accomplishments outside of silly strings and television since then.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:51:42 2011 No.2908053

>>2908007

That's right. It takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a non-zero mass object to the speed of light.

Also, to the other guy, if an objective observer was not travelling at the speed of light, the astronaut travelling at the speed of light would be observed to move over a period of time.
The subjective observer, or the astronaut, would not experience any change in time. He would still displace his position. I think.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:51:42 2011 No.2908056

>>2908032
No you couldn't, but these are just classifications of hypothetical intelligent civilizations, Michio was not saying they necessarily exist.

I'm not sure why you would facepalm over a hypothetical civilization classification system made by someone extensively more qualified and intelligent than you.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:55:42 2011 No.2908080

>>2908043
What are your accomplishments in the field of physics that you can speak as though he's less of a physicist than you?

Again I'm asking for you to give us your name because clearly you are one of the leaders in the field to be able to talk down on Michio who was at the top of his class in Physics and who has his PhD.

How many of the books that you've written on physics are required reading for Physics PhD students? Several of his are.

Yes he popularizes science and simplifies physics in the public sector, this does not mean he doesn't also do serious work and serious writing you imbecile.

You don't have shit on Michio Kaku, you're probably not even University and you if you are/were you're probably a bachelor of the Arts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:55:42 2011 No.2908084 >>2908041 Energy of relativistic particles: E = mc²/sqrt(1-v²/c²) sqrt(1-v²/c²) = mc²/E v²/c² = 1 - m²c^4/E² v² = c² - m²c^6/E Only possibility to make v = c is to have m = 0.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:57:42 2011 No.2908093

>>2908053
Okay but let's assume there is a non zero mass object already moving at the speed of light.

It would not require infinite energy to keep doing so, correct? Am I correct in saying that on the contrary it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to below the speed of light?

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 11:58:42 2011 No.2908107

>>2908080

I didn't claim he was less of a physicist than i am. He is a pop-sci- author. Proof was given.

Where did i talk him down please? I just said you should be careful and not trust pop-sci. It's a commonly know fact that pop-sci literature simplifies things ridiculously to the point of being plain wrong.

So, how come you make these assumptions about me? Who are YOU to be able to say all that?

You sound like you're not happy with your current life style and accomplishments. I sure am by the way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:00:42 2011 No.2908114 File: 29 KB, 477x360, umad1301443702486.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2908080

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:00:42 2011 No.2908121

>>2908084
Alright I concede regarding a non zero mass object moving at light speed then, thank you for this explanation it helped my understanding a lot.

Near light speed if you were in the bubble, you wouldn't necessarily feel like you were moving at all though. Why does this change with just a small increase in speed (say you were right below light speed), like why isn't the increase in required energy more uniform? Or rather how does the requirement exponentionally increase right as you reach that limit, but not right before?

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:03:42 2011 No.2908147

>>2908107
I'm not talking down on a respected Physicist, you were. I'm constantly improving myself, learning new things, and accomplishing life goals. I'm very glad for you that you are happy with your lot in life and wish you the best, but I just don't think you've demonstrated in any way that you should be taken seriously when you try and claim that Michio Kaku's public statements are "just plain wrong" without you substantiating your claims.

Saying "everyone knows" is not substantiation, it's just you expecting me to believe you anonymously and arbitrarily based on your appeal to popularity, which is actually ironic considering your argument is that all "pop sci" is bullshit.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:05:42 2011 No.2908161

>>2908121

No problem, you´re welcome.

Having constant speed always means you cannot say you're moving or not. That's what relativity is about. The only question that has any meaning is "What am i moving relative to" or "what is moving relative to me?"

The reason for the non-uniformity of necessary energy for speed increasing is that we are using the Newtonian concept of speed.
When speaking about relativity, it would be much more sensible to talk using rapidity, the generalisation of speed/velocity. It increases jsut like expected and has no limit.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:06:42 2011 No.2908167

>>2908107
btw, and I quote:

"Protip: Don't believe pop-sci tards."

Now you are changing your tune and saying:

"I didn't claim he was less of a physicist than i am. He is a pop-sci- author. Proof was given.

Where did i talk him down please? I just said you should be careful and not trust pop-sci. It's a commonly know fact that pop-sci literature simplifies things ridiculously to the point of being plain wrong.

So, how come you make these assumptions about me? Who are YOU to be able to say all that?"

How quickly you forget your own words. Maybe next time you should actually think about what you say before you say it.

The fact that you can't remember your own post from ten minutes ago leads me to believe you have no place in saying not to trust Michio Kaku.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:08:42 2011 No.2908180

>>2908147

> I'm not talking down on a respected Physicist, you were

Where?

> you try and claim that Michio Kaku's public statements are "just plain wrong"

Where?

> Saying "everyone knows" is not substantiation

Agree on that part, but not the following. What is the definition of pop-sci? Look it up. It is synonymous with "be careful when reading this stuff".

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:10:42 2011 No.2908192

>>2908161
Woah, are you saying that velocity and "rapidity" are different things because one is based on relative movement and the other is based on something else?

I'm confused as to how rapidity could be different from velocity, and how one could have a limit but not the other.

Can you go into more detail on this, is rapidity just a hypothetical term or is it a real value in the physical description of the universe?

Learning a lot from you so far.

"The reason for the non-uniformity of necessary energy for speed increasing is that we are using the Newtonian concept of speed."

Can you elaborate on this a little more as well, are you saying that it is because I am thinking of it in a conventional (Newtonian) way, but if I thought about it in a different way, it would indeed be uniform?

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:11:42 2011 No.2908202

>>2908180
I specifically referenced Michio Kaku, you responded saying that it was popsci "tard", I've already quoted this. Anyway, for the sake of my thread I'm going to concede.

You win, now let's not continue derailing the thread I'm having a good discussion with someone else.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:11:42 2011 No.2908200

>>2908167

Oh please. We're on 4chan. The word "tard" shouldn't be confused with a real "talking someone down" word.
I still maintain that position not to trust pop-sci without verification.

I was referring to

"Michio Kaku said that a type 3 or possibly even a type 2 civilization would be able to use wormholes.

He also says mankind is transitioning from type 0 to type 1 within the next 200 years"

by the way. Where is evidence for his claim? Where is evidence for the concept of wormholes to be true?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:12:42 2011 No.2908208 >>2908202 Ok. Didn't mean to offend you.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:25:42 2011 No.2908273

>>2908192

Yeah well, Newtonian velocity is, so to speak, the spacial component of the relativistic 4-vector velocity. Where the Newtonian velocity is defined for objects moving relative towards each other in space, relativistic 4-velocity is the relative movement of things in Minkowski-space (or generally space-time, if we're not specifically talking about special relativity).

Now rapidity is defined as (I´m trying this [ma*th] stuff for the first time, don't blame me if it doesn't work)

<span class="math">y = \artanh{\frac{v}{c}}[/spoiler]

which is for small speeds v just v/c (so rapidity is actually a generalisation of relative speed. I usually set c = 1, so i forgot to write that).

take a look at http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+tanh%28x%29

where the y-axis is the Newtonian (relative) speed and the x-axis is rapidity. While speed is bounded, rapidity is not.

The full usefulness of this concept reveals itself in the geometric concepts one can use when dealing with relativity, for example in Minkowski diagrams. You can read up on that here for example:

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

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:27:42 2011 No.2908288

For all those who are confused about light speed limitation and have questions about being in a car near light speed and... There is a measurable quality to the universe Einstein deduced called relativity. Time is part of the equation of speed. If you increase one side you decrees the other. The faster the rest of the world goes by you the slower you move compared to the rest of the world. Until you approach singularity where you do not move at all compared to the universe around you. That is light speed. It is akin to why boiling water never goes above 100 c. As you add more heat it escapes as the water boils out. As you approach C you slow down like things approaching a black hole to keep the equation balanced. Hope this helps

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:28:42 2011 No.2908296 >>2908200 Civ type defined by amount of energy they are able to use. Wormhole takes X amount of energy, therefore if you can harness that much energy you could use wormholes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:30:42 2011 No.2908304 >>2908296 > implying wormholes exist

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:41:42 2011 No.2908346

>>2908273
Thank you and I will read up on it, this is a completely new concept for me, it's my first time hearing of it.
>>2908288
"Time is part of the equation of speed. If you increase one side you decrees the other. "

This helps a lot but it still doesn't sit well in my head. Is time spatial? How is time a tangible thing, when it's just an abstraction of movement of objects?

If one object is moving at near light speed, and another object is moving at near light speed the exact opposite spatial direction:
--->
<---

As they pass each other, since it's been said earlier that speed is a worthless measurement except as "relative" to other objects, then by that understanding of motion (you aren't moving except relative to other objects), why aren't these objects moving at faster than the speed of light relative to each other (and why isn't that the important distinction?)

In other words, while I get that neither object is actually going faster than c in its direction, if we go by relative terms, aren't they both doing so as they pass by each other, since speed is relative?

How would this effect time dilation? What is time as a tangible thing that it can be dilated, by the way? Is time "spatial" in its own way, and that's why you are referencing multiple axis and saying that as you increase the one (velocity in space) you decrease the other (velocity in time)?

So time and space have a directly oppositional relationship?

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:42:42 2011 No.2908350

>>2908304
They don't need to naturally form to be artificially created, but that said there is a lot of research which suggests that with sufficient natural gravitational lensing, they could have been formed in the big bang naturally.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9409/9409051v1.pdf

As example.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:58:42 2011 No.2908385

>>2908346

That's where rapidity comes in handy. On the space ships you used (one say flying at rapidity y = 2 relative to us, the other y=-2 relative to us), let's say a person on one ship wants to measure the rapidity of the other ship relative to himself. His result would be, naturally, y = 4.
If you'd like to use relativity in order to calculate the Neqtonian speed, you'd have to use the relative speed of the space ships in spacetime, which gives you this ugly velocity addition law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

Time is not "spacial" (hence, manifolds in relativity are only pseudo-Riemannian, if that means anything to you), it is treated like a geometric entity similar to a spacial dimension, but the "-" sign gives it a completely different nature.
What time is philosophically, I can't explain. In Newtonian physics it was "just" a parameter to be able to separate certain "chunks" of euclidean space by which one could describe motion. In relativity it is a fundamental aspect of our universe. I'm unfortunatley not able to give a more detailed answer on that one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 12:59:42 2011 No.2908388 >>2908350 > Introduction: Wormholes and negative mass Not sure if i want to consider reading further into this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 13:33:42 2011 No.2908481 >>2908385 I just torrented like 30 different books on physics and I'm reading all day and night till I finish fuck this shit I want to understand reality. Thanks for sparking my interest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 13:43:42 2011 No.2908517 >>2908481 Just reading wont make you understand, you have to do the experiments, derive the equations, measure the constants, only then will you be able to snatch the pebble.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 14:01:42 2011 No.2908581

What Op is talking about is an Alcubierre drive.

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

It's basically a Warp Drive, it warps space in front of and behind the ship, allowing you to travel at effective speeds above the speed of light by warping the fabric of space so that although your speed is less than C in a local sense, your speed relative to the rest of the universe in terms of distance covered is greater than C.

This and wormholes are really the only viable FTL methods we've thought up in theory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 14:05:42 2011 No.2908597 >>2908093 It would have infinite kinetic energy. Not to get into the gravity effects of such a thing, but if it ever slowed down even by 1 m/s it would create a new Big Bang.

Anonymous Mon Apr 18 14:17:42 2011 No.2908652

>>>2908093
>let's assume there is a non zero mass object already moving at the speed of light
>let's completely ignore the laws of physics and then try to apply the laws of physics to it

That puerile false premise aside, such an object would have infinite energy and therefore infinite mass, while simultaneously occupying every point in the universe.

The universe as we know it would be effectively destroyed, nevermind trying to slow down something with infinite mass.

>>	sage Mon Apr 18 22:47:42 2011 No.2910855 What about a type 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 civilization?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 18 23:03:42 2011 No.2910939 File: 40 KB, 571x619, 22.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2907988 >reignite it back the fuck up, nigga you serious?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]