Is lightspeed impractical

>>8309563
tl;dr: is lightspeed impractical, is wormholes the only way to travel long distances, what even is a wormhole, i got this idea from Interstellar

>>8309563
Have you ever heard of gravity waves? The Universe is expanding by having its mass "surf" on them. And theyre a lot faster than light speed.

>>8309585
sure, i think.

they're not a mode of travelling are they, its a way of seeing the universe/planets etc without being there? or have i got the wrong thing

>>8309566
Wormholes don't make sense in terms of the way interstellar shows them. If 3d space folded back on itself in the 4th spatial dimension then you still wouldn't be able to get there because you have no way of travelling in the 4th spatial dimension.
They fucked up explaining the paper analogy, if you travel on geodesics on a 2d plane then even if you fold the paper back on itself you still have no way of moving in the 3rd dimension since you are confined to 2 dimensions.

Cryogenization

>>8309563
Yes, this is indeed a major problem. Unless some new physics comes along that upsets everything we think we know about lightspeed limits, traveling more than the shortest interstellar distances may well be infeasible (even if theoretically possible).

>>8309585
They are not exactly faster. They are shorcuts.

>>8309645
Nope, artifical gravity and hydropony,...

>>8309563

If he's travelling at half light speed wouldn't the time dilation make it feel like 8 years to the passenger?

Every length outside of the spaceship in the spaceship's frame contracts, meaning you need to go less than 8 light years. In Earth's frame, the spaceship's time is dilating, it's ticking slower.

>>8309595
THE WORMHOLE CONNECTS YOU THROUGH THE 4TH SPACIAL DIMENSION YOU DRIBBLING SPERG

File: propulsion.jpg (38KB, 250x343px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 250x343px

>>8309563
Here OP, have fun:
http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html

Time dilation does take some time to get started.
For reference, at 0.707c (inverse of the square root of 2) tau is 0.707, so time dilation is such that those on board experience one year for every light year traveled, even though the outside world sees 17 months passing.
Even this modest gain would require accelerating at 1g for 10 months.

File: 1334821298852.jpg (76KB, 408x932px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 408x932px

>>8310957
>If he's travelling at half light speed wouldn't the time dilation make it feel like 8 years to the passenger?
The formula is: tau = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
So at 0.5c, tau is 0.866.
For every year on Earth, 316 days pass on board (365 * 0.866).

File: 1352096640828.jpg (138KB, 610x400px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 610x400px

>>8309563 (OP)
>. But I imagine travelling 16 lightyears (there and back) at half light speed would take around 65 years?
OK, OP, I didn't quite notice the numbers here before.
At half light speed, an outside observer would see the round-trip take a bit over 32 years.
Accelerating up to 0.5c will take months, and add a little to the trip time.
But if we just use tau = 0.866 (see >>8311186 (You)), then the travelers see about 28 years pass.

But if you could accelerate half way, then decelerate the other half, all at 1g, top speed would be 0.98c and the trip would take 4.5 years each way for those on board, while the outside world saw almost 10 years pass.
that's a round trip time of 9 years for those on board, while the world ages about 20.
That much acceleration is a tall order though...

File: 1408545391842.jpg (53KB, 500x258px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x258px

Time dilation really kicks in at longer distances.
Assuming 1g acceleration, you can get 166 light years in 10 years on board time.