>uuuuuum actually you can't go faster than light with warp drives because uhhhhh, you would go outside your "light cone" which is totally real and not made up, and also communication would cause time paradoxes or something because like just trust me broI hate these faggot doomers. We know that spacetime itself can travel faster than light, we know that the "speed limit of the universe" is actually just the speed limit of energy passing through spacetime, not the limit of spacetime itself. I'm not gonna sit here and listen to doomers tell me that FTL isn't possible for some bullshit mathematical reasons that they've conjured up in their depressed schizo minds. Pure demoralisation psyop made to crush the faustian spirit of the White man. Don't fall for it.
>>17034118Actually you can't go faster than light with warp drives because warp drives aren't real.
>>17034118i hate sci-fi tertiaries like OPbtw sci-fi is a subgenre of fantasy, which is called that way because it's made up.I hope millenioids finally grow uo at 40, since they failed to the past 30 years.
>>17034134Most actual scientists enjoy sci-fi and many scientific discoveries have been spurred on initially by concepts from sci-fi, but keep outing yourself as a boring faggot.
>We know that spacetime itself can travel faster than lightUhhh... Ok? So can correlations from quantum entanglement. The point is that you can't use this to make INFORMATION travel faster than light. Why are midwits so obsessed with disproving relativity?
>>17034193>Why are midwits so obsessed with disproving relativity?Nazis opposed Einstein's theory of relativity calling it "Jewish physics." Nazis gonna Nazi. It's as simple as that.
>>17034193>The point is that you can't use this to make INFORMATION travel faster than light.Pulling it outta your ass. As stated, the "speed of light" simply means maximum speed of energy through spacetime as a medium, that's all. Nobody has ever proved that information cannot travel faster, so long as it is not travelling through spacetime itself. Spacetime can exceed this speed limit, and we know it can. There is nothing in physics that forbids warp. This doesn't disprove relativity btw, because relativity is about how matter and energy interacts with spacetime, not how spacetime itself can be utilised.
>>17034118>we know a shadow can "move" faster than light, so FTL is definitely possible!
>>17034273L, nobody is saying that retarded shit. Dumbass midwit demoraliser.
>>17034118I mean wormholes are "plausible" but the matter you need to construct them does not seem attainable to us now or ever. Keep in mind there are a shit ton of wildly unrealistic solutions to Einstein's field equations.>>17034213Nobody really knows what would happen, honestly. But the existence of time travel paradoxes is a pretty good reason to think these things aren't possible in the first place.
>>17034118Okay then build one. Hard mode: don't use nonexistent stuff like exotic matter
>>17034120You're not real on the outside, going faster than light. Same with a black hole.
>>17034156Yes, scientists are human snd thus enjoy reading FICTION. Because most people into science for its own sake are nerds.>many scientific discoveries have been spurred on initially by concepts from sci-fi,The discovery of the molecular structure of benzene was inspired by a dream. Tons of scientists were also Christian and ascribed discoveries to religious woo woo. None of these things have any reason to have predictive power, but cranks and half wits like you have always tried to cram them into science to give their magical thinking credibility.Also, sci-fi was often used as a marketing trick to get funding without having to explain things to clueless faggots that only understand bread and circuses anyway.
Imagine being such a manchild you unironically base your model of reality on a decades old samurai movie ripoff with laser swords (star wars) and a decades old tv drama for giga leftists (trek). Unironically might as well scry barney the dinosaur for insights into physical reality.
>>17034134It's not sci-fi, midwit.It's merely questioning the modern science cathedral you worship without question.>>17034395FTL has nothing to do with time travel. If you think so you fucked up your reference frame definitions along the way.>>17034464What are you talking about? Are you having some kind of autistic meltdown?
>>17034193correlations don't travel, retardjust because two cars were painted from the same paint bucket the paint isn't teleporting between them
>>17034499>What are you talking aboutstar wars and star trek, you know, where most modern concepts of sci fi were popularized? Family friendly entertainment
>>17034464what if he based it on dune instead, would that be acceptable
>>17034510ask yourself why it's never dune. Why it took mindless, mass consumption ready media with no barrier of entry and decades of cultural osmosis for people like OP to emerge.From some nerds going "wouldn't it be cool if this fantasy thing was real?", to retards like this thinking "stupid scientists, they can't even make this fantasy thing real, obviously it must exist like in my pew pew shows".Same kinda person that hasn't outgrown Jurassic Park (and likely never read the book)
>>17034499>it's not sci-fi, midwit.You mean the term "warp drive" from a sci-fi tv show that was invented by a humanities major (Gene Roddenberry) with a passing interest in engineering is somehow a very real thing people must take seriously... because?
>>17034499>It's merely questioning the modern science cathedral you worship without question.nah, involving a warp drive for no reason absolutely makes it sci-fion its own, there's nothing wrong with questioning whether the speed of light really is the ultimate limit, because a lot of modern arguments that support it have become circular dogma, but you'd still need to go against a lot of good arguments to actually succeedexcept there you are talking about warp drives, as if you want to be laughed at
>>17034546Rick and Morty intellectuals like OP love hearing themselves talk, and "win" arguments, but hate listening. So they argue entirely on vibes against something that is consensus because that's what smart innovators do. Except they have no concrete, working ideas, which only leaves shit flinging and name calling. Then they get to feel smart that nobody can formulate arguments against them because they ultimately said nothing falsifiable. It's all masturbatory feel good posturing.
>>17034554i got ambushed by a boomer rattling off conspiracy theories like that the other day, basically irl vagueposting, every time i asked him to actually say something concrete he kept sadly shaking his head and telling me to ge read stuff, and the funny part is he didn't even tell me what to go read
>>17034118>>17034196>>17034134>>17034193>>17034464OP is half correct. Time paradoxes will not happen if the warped spacetime is stable, like a permanent hyperlane/wormhole network.It could have:ordinary relativity for local physicsa hidden preferred frame for FTLFTL permitted only along specific connectionscausality defined according to that preferred frameIt doesn't violate relativity, has FTL, and has causality.Warp drives are harder to pull off because it's a temporary and mobile distortion of space time.
>>17034118> we just need to give up causality.we already have. look at all the information paradoxes in quantum mechanics.
>>17034118If near lightspeed travel is possible it would be perfectly fine because much shorter time would pass for the crew. The only "problem" is you can't return to quite thesame Earth you left. But if we're gonna build our interstellar empire this shouldn't matter, and everyone going at all should be prepared to be a space colonist forever.
>>17034118You can't move at the speed of light or faster because your inertia would become so great that your spacetime trajectory would become infinitely curved and you would just circle the same spot.
>>17034735I would be more worried about acceleration and deceleration
>>17034118Why do they still keep this retarded thing up. Quantum entanglement proves that this causality bullshit doesnt add up and the rest is just a fancy way to write up the mathematics of a lorentzian aether. And yes the fact that "space can move faster then c" just proves its a aether.
>>17034193Actually.... in the case of spacetime moving faster then c you CAN use this to make information travel faster then c from a fixed point of view. Think of spacetime as a luminiferous aether then you see it instantly. But yes you can in GR.
>>17034735>>17034796The biggest problem is the CMB and particles which may destroy your ship at that speed.
>>17035596>>17034193Ok i have to say more to it because strictly with GR you cant, but thats because its screwed definitions of simultaneity. When "spacetime" (aether) is rotating very quickly around a rotating black hole light actually needs way less time rotatiing this direction and way longer rotating the other way. GR defined this away, but its obvious proof that this means from the outsider light in that direction moves faster then c.
Special relativity doesn't forbid FTL travel. It only forbids time travel. Paul Birch has demonstrated this in an article on cosmic censor fields.
>>17034118Following the text on the picture warp drive would expand the light cone, because that cone has nothing to do with light, it's literally an expected max speed of information. If we find out that information could move faster, we adjust the cone. It's not a law, it's a demonstrative model.
>>17035725you're assuming here that the speed would still be finite
>>17034193>Why are midwits so obsessed with disproving relativity?Because relativity requires magic fairy dust to work now. Someone is gonna disprove it eventually.
>>17034118>We know that spacetime itself can travel faster than lightWhat?
>>17037221Around a rotating black hole. But yes its absolutely retarded, in reality the aether is the one rotating.
>>17037331>>17037221um no, not around a rotating black hole, they can't rotate that fast, he was probably thinking of the expansion of the universe over great distance
>>17037496>>17037221stop with your minutiae, the point being is that spacetime can travel faster than C. This is known. Lets not debate such an elementary a point
>>17037643we don't know if it can do it in a useful way though
>>17034118As a physicist, my sincere recommendation is that you stop worrying about physics. It's only going to waste your time and cause you pain. Physics is not for everyone!
>>17034118Frame dragging means that you can actually go slightly faster than light because you're on an airport moving walkway.If spacetime can move than the maximum speed is c + spacetime velocity.
>>17037655Fuck off Gatekeeper.
>>17034118>We know that spacetime itself can travel faster than light,is this 'spacetime' in the room with us right now?what i find interesting is that eisnteidn discovered the speed of light was the fastest thing on earth because he saw a clock tower while riding a tram. if he had been blind and mearly heard the clock, perhaps the speed of sound would be the limit?btw all of this is nonsense you know that right? all muliple universe, cats in boxes, quarks, bosonds whatever. gravity. quantum computers. its all made up crap.the clock in the space ship going round is 'slower' because its pendulum is slower.remember a hundred years ago people sailing on boats got lost because clocks didn't work. they didn't invent physics they invented a better clock. but we are too clever for that. only problem is in space the acceleration affects your body atoms the same ways as the pendulum atoms so maybe time will slow down for you. but it has nothing to do with space time or any fucking made up crap. the problem with physics is that they makeup things like spacetime to explain concepts to simple people. and then simple people extrapolate them past all known sensibility into some outlandish claim like ohhh..there are infinite universes. oooo white holes exist. ooooh. SHUIT TGE FUCK UP.
>>17034118why can't we just go at the speed of dark?
Hello, homosexuals...retard hereI believe it's a two part deal>Part 1 drastically reduces your inertia and therefore effective mass>Part 2 alters the relative permeability and permittivity in your small region of space, not allowing FTL in the classical sense BUT artificially raising the maximum value of c. You essentially can't go faster than light, but you can raise the speed limitI believe part 1 was discovered much earlier than part 2.
>>17037331Do you think there are valid Machian rotating universe solutions to General Relativity?
>>17039966neither of them were discovered
>>17034118Time travel is real. But you’ll never find out how it works. Because a NIGGER in the Marvel Universe is stopping you from doing so.
>>17039984but i already know how it works
>>17036260If it would be infinite than we open the cone fully to pi, and, thus all events now could be casually linked.
>>17040145oh no, not that
>>17034118There is no "spacetime."There is just space and stuff moving around.The "time" part is redundant because "time" is based entirely off of the movements of the things in space.How long do I have to wait until you science fags realize the "time" part is nothing?
>>17034156>many scientific discoveries have been spurred on initially by concepts from sci-fiYou mean they made up fake bullshit in a book and then larped about it later like Renaissance Fair gaywads?
>>17040565>How long do I have to wait until you science fags realize the "time" part is nothing?apparently zero, since there's no time by your logic
>>17040598Try reading again.I said absolute time. As in a time separate from human experience.We can indeed have years and decades etc. But they will just be us marking where something was and where it is now and watching it move there.That's our time.So...that's just space and things moving. Time not even being a necessary portion of this.You have a point of observation. Then you note things move. We call this "time."It's just movement through space. Calling it "time" makes it human automatically.It's almost as if reality is subjective and time doesn't exist without humans keeping it.Almost...
>>17034118>we know that the "speed limit of the universe" is actually just the speed limit of energy passing through spacetime, not the limit of spacetime itself.you're using "spacetime" here as a synonym for "space" because you've heard physicists do it and have clearly have no idea what it actually meansthere is no "speeding up" or "slowing down" in spacetime, the notion is completely incoherent. the magnitude of any object's four-velocity is EXACTLY c, never more or less. the only thing that changes is which direction its pointing in spacetime.
>>17040598Point out on the hydrogen atom where time is
