FTL

Probably not.

All current evidence points to c being a hard speed limit.

>>8350319
>All current evidence points to c being a hard speed limit.

There are valid mathematical solutions to get around the hard C limit, but all of them involve non-physical objects with nonsense characteristics like negative mass and negative energy.

>>8350323
So exactly what I said?

>>8350308
I probably shouldn't even bring this up because it's very much fringe research, but there is a gentleman in Omaha named David Pares who claims that conditions that can warp space occur in large thunderstorms and is currently doing experiments involving lasers he alleges are bent by his apparatus. He seems a nice fellow but its almost certain hes just reading air heat shimmer or something.

>>8350329
>So exactly what I said?

Pretty much. My intent was to illustrate where the hopes for a workaround come from.

If we were in a world where particles moved at speed greater than the speed of light, then again, c would be our speed limit, more specifically, the @lower@ speed limit and the particles could never travel at sppeeds lower than the speed of light.
Not to mention, it would have been a whole different world!

Not with our current limited understanding of physics.

>>8350339
yeah, we don't know shit!

>>8350339
>Not with our current limited understanding of physics.

There's nothing in the current (very large) body of published scientific work that even suggests its possible.

>>8350308

Depends. If you could generate a magnetic field wrong enough and be able to focus it at two opposing specific points in front of and behind a craft you were traveling in, you could theoretically shrink space in front of you. In this way, even by traveling at the speed of a traditional rocket you could theoretically traverse distances that would make you appear to be traveling much much faster than the speed of light, without actually braking that universal speed limit.

This method warps space, hence "warp technology"

>>8350359

Magnetic field powerful enough**

Not sure why it corrected to that on my phone.

>>8350308
Look up the Alcubiere drive. We're a long way from being able to build it, of course.

>>8350308
The laws of physics allow it, contrary to what some mouthbreathers ITT said. Whether we can engineer it is unknown. But no, it doesn't necessarily requires negative energy density materials.

You shouldn't even bring this on, we(humanity) have almost null knowledge about this subject. I can only tell you what you already should have searched before; this has to do with Einstein's Special Relativity, that says that, there's nothing more fast than light, and once you reach the speed of light, time almost stops(or stops, I'm not sure). Some say that it stops, but if the time stops, every action of your's would be instant, contradicting the concept of speed, because speed equals to "the time you take to do something"(in this case, move), but if your actions are instant, then you take no time to move and deslocate, therefore, you would teleport, not travel. Then, we have other variables, which are things like air resistance, atrict and stuff, things that have to do with movement. These things change the way we move, our speed, and they are not constant. But the speed of light is. Light always travels at the same speed, independing of the circumstances. Humans and materials don't.
So I guess we can't.

>>8350308
yes and yes

>>8350398
>this has to do with Einstein's Special Relativity
No, the answer has to do with GR. SR is where engineering brainlets stop.

>>8350398
I have more to say, but the space ended up... ;-;
So, moving on: I was talking about movement variables, and how they influent they are, and because of that, we couldn't travel at the speed of light. BUT, but, there is one place where those variables do not exist, and this is vacum space. But this is it. This only make our jobs easier. Would be possible to travel at the speed of light within the variables, but we wouldn't be able to maintain that speed for so long as light does(duh). I would have to think in what the vacum changes about the possibilieties, considering that I know almost nothing about this. But it would take too long, so maybe next time, or maybe someone does it for me, or maybe someone even destroy my arguement, so who knows... But this is all I can tell you about traveling at the speed of light(whitout thinking about the changes that vacuum would make). Hope to be usefull.

>>8350411
Oh, I thought GR were about Gravity and space-time tissue deformation. Maybe I'm wrong.

>>8350426
>space-time tissue deformation
precisely

>>8350308
once we figure out where blackholes let out and build a ship that can handle the pressure we'll be wormholing around the universe

File: 1433881244680.jpg (247KB, 1224x1445px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1224x1445px

>>8350458

File: 1357806985052.jpg (37KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x333px

>>8350463

>>8350367
What's exotic matter tho

>>8350384
How.

>>8350573
Fundamental quark matter. It has a negative mass=negative gravitation field value.

>>8350609
That's a spicy claim, what's your source?

>>8350612
What about you google it?

>>8350575
http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/2004/loup_santos.pdf

>>8350621
"Fundamental quark matter" only brings up stuff about quarks and gluons and they definitely have positive mass.

>>8350640
Is there any experimental evidence supporting the Chung-Freese Braneworld?

>>8350659
We don't know the actual dimensionality of brane cosmology.
This is one of the possible ones.

>>8350665
So when you said "The laws of Physics allow it" you actually meant "There's one speculative, unsubstantiated model that allows it and others that don't".

>>8350672
All cosmological models are speculative.

>>8350693
Exactly, so using any of them as a basis for some FTL claim is pretty fuckin dubious.

>>8350657
How about you google "exotic/strange matter"?

>>8350700
All I'm getting is a whole lotta speculation bro

>>8350700
>>8350367
Exotic/strange matter is defined as the mumbo jumbo >>8350323 mentioned as c-limit workarounds.

>>8350700
"My sources are valid, but I can't provide them. Just Google them, maaaaan."
Shut the fuck up, retard.

>>8350697
I don't see how any of that changes the fact that GR allows metrics that satisfy what we would call FTL.

>>8350308
Not impossible. Within 150 years knowledge, discoveries, and technology could advance to a point where we are able to harness FtL travel with the right resources.

Although in 150 years we will probably be more concerned with not dying from A) chaotic climates B) violent and massive migrations.

>>8350711
I don't know what the hell are you talking about man. It used to be written on Wikipedia.

I didn't checked that shit up for 5 years tho.

If FTL was possible, wouldn't we have met aliens?
[spoiler]They might be late.[/spoiler]

File: X on SCI.png (31KB, 694x968px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 694x968px

>>8350308
No, never.

NO NO NOOO NOOOOO NOOOOOOOOO.

FTL breaks causality. FTL breaks logic. You don't need FTL anyways because lengths contract as you get closer and closer to c.

>>8350458
>wormholing
>black hole
>ship that can withstand the gravity of a black hole

>>8350339
>Not with our current limited understanding of physics.
>implying you know how far we are from the "end of the book".
Being more cynical than most people doesn't make you smarter.

>>8350693
>All cosmological models are speculative.
...except the ones backed by experimental evidence.

>>8350715
>GR allows metrics that satisfy what we would call FTL.
GR doesn't have a problem with FTL, as long as we're willing to abandon causality.
Oh, wait...

>>8350969
>GR doesn't have a problem with FTL, as long as we're willing to abandon causality.
The fuck are you talking about? Causality is a local notion. GR admits closed timelines solutions.

>>8350967
like?