Is faster than light travel really impossible?
Nobody knows for sure what is or isn't possible.
>>17077147einstein said its not.
>>17077147by definition, you can't go faster than something that has no mass
>>17077147yes but current physics models don't support it yet...
>>17077147Unknown really.We know only a fraction of what exists or what may be "possible"
>>17077147Body light signalling wouldn't work without protection. You would need to be on the same trajectory as gravity working itself out from a distance, which is the secret of aliens traveling. It doesn't work itself out locally.
>>17077147never heard of warp drive?
>>17077147ayy lmaos have ftl
>>17077188Aliens walking around could have dark shielding with gravity brought in from a distance.
>>17077147There simply are no trajectories in spacetime corresponding to 'faster than light travel'. The notion of faster than light travel is genuinely a confusion about what words mean (assuming general relativity is correct)
>>17077147There's no way to accelerate all the way to light speed, let alone past it.
>>17077147Yes, according to current understanding of physics.But you know... never say never
>>17077147You can still reach far away places really fast with a sub light engine close to light speed, it's just that you'll be forever gone for the rest of us.It's not a big issue imo, most conquistadors never went home either.
>>17077152That dude keeps getting proven wrong over and over. He's going to end up being just another victim of the Dunning Kruger effect at some point.
>>17077553He's only proven wrong on things where he let his personal philosophy of determinism get involved. Special relativity the theory itself hasn't been proven wrong, and probably won't for a long long time.
>>17077147how fast are two objects moving opposite directions at light speed
>>17077222Boom, Vroom and Goon
>>17077557Still light speed
>>17077222Ugly pompous fucktard
>>17077567that doesnt make sense itd be 2 lightspeed
>>17077592A guy said it ain't so and people think he was right so there's that
>>17077592First objects can't move at light speed, so let's say they move at 0.99CFrom your POV their speed of separation is 1.98CFrom their POV, the other one's moving away from them at 0.99995C
>>17077147Negative mass would do it.Not anti-matter, but negative mass.This in no way makes the problem any simpler or more achievable. I can only show the way; you must walk the path alone.Cause negative mass will probably give you cancer and turbo-diarrhea.
>>17077147Does it matter? You can still travel as fast as you want from your own perspectivehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEkozf-zCkY
Never say never, but I doubt we'll see any kind of breakthrough in our lifetime
>>17077147*faster than causality. what do you need it for?
>>17077147Actually no, and im the lorentzian aether guy>>17078137Man this stupid narrative never dies
>>17078273light doesn't have a speed you brainlet. the medium imposes a speed limit on it. how do you not know this by now?
>>17078278The speed of light relative to the medium is c. BY DEFINITION of "speed", light has a "speed".
>>17078279>The speed of light relative to the medium is cthat doesn't mean it's "its" speed anon. it's the speed the medium is imposing on it. it's not some kind of "native" speed "it has".>BY DEFINITION of "speed", light has a "speed".no, it moves at a speed, it doesn't "have a speed". that speed is imposed by the medium itself. and in vacuum that is the speed of causality, that it imposes on the phootoon
>>17077557>>17077567>>17077592Everything moves at light speed through 4d space (3 space + 1 time). "At rest" is when you're only moving through time. As you speed up, you change direction to move increasingly through space and less through time. "Light speed" is just when you're only moving through space and are standing still in the time dimension.
>>17079019the theory always states you are at rest relative to you. you need a prefered frame to even consider "at rest". else just everything else moves away or towards you.
>>17077147faster than light travel is the same thing as time travel
>>17077147Galaxies are travelling away from us faster than light right now!
>>17077147From our current understanding, most likely not. Whose to say though. Stranger things have happened.
>>17079828no, stranger things have not actually happened. but they might! science can never prove that something is impossible
>>17079838>no, stranger things have not actually happenedbruh electrons tunneling over a fucking barrier is pretty fucking magic. like...actual magic. it's like the definition of magic. poof, gone, poof on the other side, tadaa, doesn't elaborate.for me that's the strangest thing so far, even if we got acustomed to it and use the effect in tech and shit, still weird.
It's impossible to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light.But you can theoretically reach a point in space faster than what light would have taken in a straight line.
*folds a piece of paper and stabs a pencil through it*
>>17079884>It's impossible to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light.irrelevant. you can still reach let's say 99.99999999% which is good enough for practical purposes. pretty much the same thing.and you can even go a bit slower so the lorentz factor doesn't go all crazy and everything looks way different when you stop, and go like 80% or something, which is still good enough.
>>17079891Problem is that light speed is still very fucking slow on galactic scales and beyond
>>17079899it doesn't matter at all from the point of the one who travels close to it. you can reach the edge of the observable universe in your lifetime, by traveling very close to it.with just constant 1g acceleration at all times it takes you a few decades. so you'd have the same experience as on Earth, on your ship, from the acceleration, and in 30-40 years you'd reach the edge of the observable universe, as seen from here. so non-issue, for you the one going close to light speed. considering you have some proper power source for acceleration, and find a way to deal with relativistic protons hitting your ship, obviously
