Post your FTL discussions here

[gmpd2000]

So, before the time warp of the forum, i had a thread named "In what year do you think FTL will be possible in human spaceships" or something like that,

In short time it became a weird discussions of physics and science fiction.

So, now you can post your ideas about FTL here or debate with others.

I'll start the discussion:

I think FTL is possible if you bend space-time correctly.

(FTL: Faster than Light)

[Kimberly]

I agree that de facto FTL travel is possible with space-time warping. But that doesn't mean it can be used in practice to transport anything of significant mass and size.

[Themohawkninja]

Maybe... someday... centuries, if not millennia in the future, we might have the Alcubierre drive.

[brooksy125]

FTL is never going to happen its just hopes and dreams/thread

[DaveofDefeat]

They used to say that going to the moon was impossible.

[WestAir]

They used to say that going to the moon was impossible.

This logic, with regards to discussions on future technologies, is the logical argument I have an absolute pet peeve with. Let's be absolutely clear here: The absence of evidence stating that something is impossible, is not the evidence of its feasibility. Such an argument by its entire premise is an illogical fallacy.

That said, I can't personally imagine any way in which we will come up with the energy to routinely, or if even once, curve time enough to send anything larger than a single subatomic particle in an Alcubierre drive. At the end of the day, energy is required to move mass or space-time, and there is finite energy on this planet and in our star. The energy consumption for accelerating space, matter, or what-have-you grows to titanic proportions when we talk about Alcubierre drives or even 0.01C accelerations. From the most basic standpoint, when looking at this on a general, basic level, you see that you'd have an easier time OBLITERATING THE ENTIRE PLANET than moving matter past C.

[LaydeeDem]

I really hate people who praise the aclubierre drive like a gift from God. It takes too much energy to use and is incredibly dangerous. What's the point of travel if you COMPLETLY DESTROY your destination?

[Awaras]

I really hate people who praise the aclubierre drive like a gift from God. It takes too much energy to use and is incredibly dangerous. What's the point of travel if you COMPLETLY DESTROY your destination?

So you just... aim slightly to the left of your destination?

[comicbstudeo]

ftl discussions... it is a very good game i just got type b zoltan cruiser =P

[KOCOUR]

FTL is easy Turn on your Gellar field, kick the engine, and pray to the Emperor.

[Inspector Gadget]

Why is every one so fond of the alcubierre drive? It's to far out of our current technology and it's on a VERY theoretical level. I think we should invest more time in wormholes. We've already proven micro-wormholes to exist. They're not bigger then nanometers and lasts for nanoseconds but they exist. So I think our next step in FLT travel is wormhole. We just need is to either capture a wormhole and keep it stable or create our own (I know I'm saying "just" here but I think it's easier then building an alcubierre drive). Only disadvantage is that we can't be completely sure were in space (and time) we will be in the other end, or how to connect two points in space.

[Brabbit1987]

@Anyone who thinks it's impossible

First of all, really? Sorry I do not agree with how you think. We would not get anywhere if all we said all the time is that it is impossible. Given enough time, I am fairly certain we will figure it out. Also, a bit of advice, never, ever, think something is impossible. Even if there is no proof that it could possibly be, you are only going by what you know today, and not what you might know tomorrow. Imagination and theory is a big part of science, or at least it is to me.

@The topic

Most certainly, I could see this happening and even many scientists think it's theoretically possible. Actually last I have heard of it, they made a bit of a break though saying the energy required wouldn't be nearly as much as they once thought, theoretically of course. If they happen to be correct, the energy required is apparently not impossible to get. It's with in are capabilities. If they are wrong, well back to the drawing board XD.

The reason I say it has to be possible, is because we already know space and time is able to be bent. That is a fact.

Would these warp drives be dangerous? Oh heck yes, most certainly. But in the name of "Science!" who cares, lets do it anyway, it will be fun. X3

Edit, side note: I really think people under estimate how fast technology is progressing and how much the human species looks up at the sky. It's one of the greatest mysteries that eludes us do to it's great vastness. However, that has never stopped us from trying or thinking about it.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[ecat]

I think FTL drives are unlikely, FTL travel equally so. It's not just the energy required to accelerate the mass, it's also the energy/mass required to shield a vessel from the radiation experienced during the acceleration.

On a brighter note, we know maybe 90% of all there is to know about the stuff we know about. However, we only know about 5% of the stuff that actually forms the fabric of the known universe, the remaining 95% remains dark. Which is the long way of saying: you never know.

Still, space flight.

As it stands we no more capable of navigating space than a man clutching a floating log is capable of navigating the oceans. And if our current technology - piddling around in a tin can with scarcely enough fuel to reach the next orbit - is the best there is then space flight, navigating space the way we can now navigate the oceans or the air, will always remain nothing but a dream. This is what I've learned from KSP.

[pyrosheep]

i think that FTL isn't going to happen,simply because local space seems a bit void of other civilizations taking advantage of that kind of technology (Fermi paradox).

I still think that humanity (or at least homo-sapiens) will colonize other systems though, just my view is that they will be traveling in ships that go at small fractions of the speed of light, carrying frozen gametes that can survive the centuries of traveling required, and become potential settlers starting from scratch on arrival.

i havn't given up hope of course. (insert they didn't think that X was possible in Y but look at X now comment)

[Omicron314]

Faster than light? I have no idea. If it ever happens, it will be an out-of-the-blue surprise invention.

Interstellar travel, though? That's significantly closer. The in-general goal of several space programs is to have an interstellar probe ready by the year 2100, although due to the abomination that is American politics, I doubt my country will be able to take any credit. I've also heard that interstellar travel could REALLY open up around the 23rd to 24th centuries, so...

Though if we manage to find mechanical avatars to upload our minds into, that's another story entirely. /evilgrin

[Themohawkninja]

Why is every one so fond of the alcubierre drive? It's to far out of our current technology and it's on a VERY theoretical level. I think we should invest more time in wormholes. We've already proven micro-wormholes to exist. They're not bigger then nanometers and lasts for nanoseconds but they exist. So I think our next step in FLT travel is wormhole. We just need is to either capture a wormhole and keep it stable or create our own (I know I'm saying "just" here but I think it's easier then building an alcubierre drive). Only disadvantage is that we can't be completely sure were in space (and time) we will be in the other end, or how to connect two points in space.

I like it, since it's fairly mathematically sound, although it's probably physically impossible, since to create a warp bubble >200 meters in diameter would require 10e10 times the mass of the observable universe.

I have not heard of proven micro-wormholes before. Do you know where you heard that, because that sounds really neat!

[Brabbit1987]

I like it, since it's fairly mathematically sound, although it's probably physically impossible, since to create a warp bubble >200 meters in diameter would require 10e10 times the mass of the observable universe.

I have not heard of proven micro-wormholes before. Do you know where you heard that, because that sounds really neat!

Actually your information is a tad outdated.

http://www.gizmag.com/warp-drive-bubble-nasa-interstellar/24392/

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/05/28/nasa-admits-they-are-working-to-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

Again it's all theoretical still, but if NASA thinks it's worth working on, than they obviously think there is something to it at the very least.

[Themohawkninja]

Actually your information is a tad outdated.

http://www.gizmag.com/warp-drive-bubble-nasa-interstellar/24392/

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/05/28/nasa-admits-they-are-working-to-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

Again it's all theoretical still, but if NASA thinks it's worth working on, than they obviously think there is something to it at the very least.

Fortunately, refinements to the model have resulted in the energy requirements reducing to the mass equivalent of a few hundred kilograms of matter with negative energy.

Now THAT sounds a bit more practical. If only we can get some negative energy.

[Brabbit1987]

Now THAT sounds a bit more practical. If only we can get some negative energy.

lol Yes, indeed. At least now it sounds a bit more doable than before XD.

Course in the end, it could very well be wrong. :3 Though according to today's physics it should work just fine. however, today's physics isn't exactly complete either and a lot still isn't understood.

[nyrath]

Obligatory Atomic Rockets link: FTL travel

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php

The "Canonical List of StarDrives" is entertaining

[nyrath]

They used to say that going to the moon was impossible.

This is a bit of a fallacy, for reasons explained here:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/respectscience.php#id--"Maybe_A_Future_Scientific_Breakthrough_Will_Let_Me_Have_My_Way"

[Themohawkninja]

This is a bit of a fallacy, for reasons explained here:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/respectscience.php#id--"Maybe_A_Future_Scientific_Breakthrough_Will_Let_Me_Have_My_Way"

People do still say that going to the Moon isn't possible... you know, the people that go: "LOOK HOW THE FLAG MOVES, THAT PROVES WIND, AND THERE ISN'T ANY AIR ON THE MOON! IT WAS FAKED", and are completely ignorant/arrogant of the fact that it was purposefully wobbled to simulate wind.

[Brabbit1987]

This is a bit of a fallacy, for reasons explained here:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/respectscience.php#id--"Maybe_A_Future_Scientific_Breakthrough_Will_Let_Me_Have_My_Way"

Even if it is a Fallacy it still rings some truth when you apply it to just about everything we once thought was impossible.

I mean, what is impossible? Does it even exist? It seems like nothing is ever actually entirely impossible. Probability though could be low.

[searlefm]

If you did manage to go faster than light away from earth and stopped you would view the past of earth that would be rather cool.

But there's a problem unless you used some kind of star gate/star trek style Hyper-Drive/Warp-Drive or the Alcubierre Drive, as the tiny traces of hydrogen in deep space throughout the universe would be coliding with you'r hull faster than light,

that might lead to forming a branch of plasma(or posably a new state of matter as we just don't know what hapend when you collide matter at over the speed of light) like the suns corona if not hotter as you literally burn you'r way to the destination meaning it would be useless at getting around with out making a huge and esay to see trail mush like the ones left by jet powered planes.

but to my personal knowledge no human has ever viewed something like that so eathere no species with in the observable universe had done such a thing or it would obliteration what ever tryed such a thing instantaneously unless its just impossible to travel through real space faster than light it's self.

but saying that i remember a few years ago reading something in new scientist abought travailing faster then light being easy IF you don't mind that to the rest of the universe a day to you in flight is a few million years.

[MBobrik]

This is a bit of a fallacy, for reasons explained here:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/respectscience.php#id--"Maybe_A_Future_Scientific_Breakthrough_Will_Let_Me_Have_My_Way"

Depends on against what it is to be used, though. Against bald assertions of impossibility w/o any argument ? I think it is OK.

Against a well reasoned case supported by tons of evidence, it is clearly wrong/fallacious.

example :

A : "perpetuum mobile is most likely impossible because < a lot of advanced physics >"

B : 'they said that about the moon landing too.'

is fallacious.

.

but

A : "manned mars mission is impossible (w/o any further justification)"

B : 'they said that about the moon landing too.'

is OK