uuuuuum actually you cant go faster than light

Replies

A

Anon08/09/26, 17:12No.17034120

Actually you can't go faster than light with warp drives because warp drives aren't real.

1

A

Anon08/09/26, 17:57No.17034134

i hate sci-fi tertiaries like OP btw 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.

3

A

Anon08/09/26, 19:34No.17034193

>We know that spacetime itself can travel faster than light Uhhh... 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?

8

A

Anon08/09/26, 22:26No.17034273

>we know a shadow can "move" faster than light, so FTL is definitely possible!

1

A

Anon08/10/26, 05:29No.17034395

I 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.

1

A

Anon08/10/26, 08:09No.17034435

Okay then build one. Hard mode: don't use nonexistent stuff like exotic matter

1

A

Anon08/10/26, 09:20No.17034464

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.

3

A

Anon08/10/26, 18:57No.17034712

OP 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 physics a hidden preferred frame for FTL FTL permitted only along specific connections causality 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.

2

A

Anon08/10/26, 19:10No.17034722

> we just need to give up causality.we already have. look at all the information paradoxes in quantum mechanics.

0

A

Anon08/10/26, 19:43No.17034735

If 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.

2

A

Anon08/10/26, 22:15No.17034773

You 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.

2

A

Anon08/12/26, 16:52No.17035595

Why 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.

0

A

Anon08/12/26, 18:17No.17035693

Special relativity doesn't forbid FTL travel. It only forbids time travel. Paul Birch has demonstrated this in an article on cosmic censor fields.

0

A

Anon08/12/26, 18:35No.17035725

Following 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.

1

A

Anon08/16/26, 01:26No.17037221

>We know that spacetime itself can travel faster than light What?

3

A

Anon08/17/26, 00:46No.17037655

As 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!

1

A

Anon08/17/26, 20:59No.17037909

Frame 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.

0

A

Anon08/18/26, 23:04No.17038461

>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.

0

A

Anon08/19/26, 00:29No.17038521

why can't we just go at the speed of dark?

0

A

Anon08/21/26, 10:41No.17039966

Hello, homosexuals...retard here I 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 limit I believe part 1 was discovered much earlier than part 2.

2

A

Anon08/21/26, 11:19No.17039984

Time 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.

1

A

Anon08/22/26, 11:20No.17040565

There 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?

2

A

Anon08/22/26, 19:46No.17040744

>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.

0

A

Anon08/23/26, 16:51No.17041135

If you define “fast” as distance covered over time you experience, then you can go as fast as you want because of time dilation, retard. If you had a spaceship that could accelerate at a constant 1g, it would only take you 45 years to reach the edge of the observable universe.

1

A

Anon08/27/26, 02:38No.17042957

so here's a question that I've been pondering and will try to articulate.Does anyone here have an understanding of topological photonics and dispersion engineering?>Dispersion engineeringI believe that lends it's self to things like liquid crystal modulated axicon-based Bessel-Gauss plasma waveguide projector.>topological photonicsSo the question that's on my mind would be the sensing of topological edge states, how that is accomplished and would that me an instance where certain aspects of a signal can be inferred or "travel" faster than light?What if the sensing equipment is a contained, lensed, supercooled BEC?

1

A

Anon08/27/26, 10:04No.17043066

Based.

0

A

Anon08/30/26, 18:30No.17044630

so if we can manipulate the speed of light (speed up or slow down) by manipulating the refractive index of a material...including things like a Bose Einstein condensate...and we know the "vacuum" of space isn't really empty...couldn't we do the same?Something about sending signals near the anomalous dispersion frequency of a medium is interesting...almost like the light just flows around the atoms of the medium without interacting/scattering/absorbing

3

A

Anon09/02/26, 10:48No.17045729

Retard here >What are the odds that inertia is tied directly to magnetic vector potential with the photon as the exchange particle?

0

A

Anon09/03/26, 04:08No.17046079

if time travel were possible more and more people would have came from the future to the 90's and 2000's and we would have experienced a crazy amount of extra time travellers all popping up in the span of a year or so and then they'd leave by the end of 2000's. that is direct proof time travel (to the past at least) isn't possible. where nobels?

1

A

Anon09/03/26, 07:42No.17046151

Yeah and what if you just don't cause a time paradox Maybe trying to fly a trajectory that would cause a paradox will cause you to run into your own past lightcone blueshifted to infinity

0

A

Anon09/04/26, 19:06No.17046923

I sure hope we find a shortcut to traveling through space, because there's just too damn much of it. If we were in the galactic core we would have millions of solar systems within a few light years. We got shafted and put in the shit neighborhood.

0

A

Anon09/05/26, 01:38No.17047044

Hell is probably filled with scientists who are constantly reminded that they were wrong and their lifes work was pointless but not taught why they were wrong so they go through eternity being shamed and wanting to know

1

A

Anon09/05/26, 14:47No.17047238

thats why Im fully invested in wormholes.

0

A

Anon09/05/26, 18:38No.17047374

Incredulity aside a light cone is just a cone of a spherically expanding front over time. It's not made up. You could make a sound cone, or a water wave cone and the principle would be the same. So light cones are just an adaptation of the concept. If you want to say that light cones don't exist you can see that doesn't hold up. You want to say that a particle can leave it's own light cone, just like a supersonic jet can leave its' own sound cone, OK. All I can tell you is that the human race has really, really tried to get something to go faster than the speed of light and it never, never works.

2