/sci/entists, what are your thoughts on FTL travel? Do you think we'll ever figure out how to make warp drives without absurd mass/energy requirements? Will we be confined to our galaxy for the rest of our species' lifespan?
I think robots and artificial intelligence will be the explorers of the galaxy. Why go fast when you have all the time in the world to travel as a metal man?
>>7912946
Keep popsci in /g/ please.
Even if we can go light speed or slightly faster. The galaxy is so huge. That we won't ever be able to go very far in a human lifetime.
>>7912946
Wouldn't we be confined to our galaxy even IF we had FTL travel?
>>7913023
>Even if we can go light speed or slightly faster. The galaxy is so huge.
THIS
It's anywhere from 100 billion to 500 billion stars, depending on which estimate you trust.
Never mind travel time.
Lets say we build a thousand starships.
For reference, all the world's navies COMBINED don't have a thousand ships (not counting smaller boats).
Let's also assume we can send our thousand starships so fast they can explore two star-systems a week.
That's a millions star-systems every ten years.
It would still take 1-5 MILLION years to explore the galaxy.
>>7913132
p.s. the fermi paradox can kiss my ass
>>7913140
are there people who actually think it's a thing?
>Do you think we'll ever figure out how to make warp drives without absurd mass/energy requirements?
No, I don't think so - I think we'll acquire the energy/mass we need.
>Will we be confined to our galaxy for the rest of our species' lifespan?
H. sapiens sapiens doesn't have an extraterrestrial future. By the time your bloodline gets into space, it won't be wearing a human skin.
Neutron stars and blackholes are the bodies of advanced aliens - an entire solar system, brought under one will.
>>7912959
>>7913132
>>7913175
Why is /sci/ always so negative towards new technology? The same arguments were thrown out against interplanetary travel, we don't have the energy, even if we did we couldn't contain it without blowing up, rockets in space violate Newton's third law because they have nothing to push against. All arguments given by top scientists of the day against Robert Goddard's research
>>7913187
You have citations for any of that?
>>7913175
>No, I don't think so - I think we'll acquire the energy/mass we need.
It's not just the absurd energy requirements; there's no reason to believe the required energy-momentum distributions are even possible.
>>7912946
Einstein was wrong. See;
https://books.google.ie/books?id=PCHeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=einstein+1921+leyden&source=bl&ots=PdZyvw_sPI&sig=cA56gnKB96h2dIyHPlvactQ0tRA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=einstein%201921%20leyden&f=false
>>7913187
Physicists of the day couldn't understand thrust? Somehow I doubt this.
>>7913132
>That's a millions star-systems every ten years.
>It would still take 1-5 MILLION years to explore the galaxy.
thats not bad. it took us like 250,000 years to ezplore earth.
>>7913313
We have been using muscle power until about 600 years ago.
>>7913187
>Why is /sci/ always so negative towards new technology?
Clearly being concise isn't getting my point across - so I'll be verbose.
Hawking radiation and jets of electrons, photons and neutrinos are the white hole - matter enters the blackhole, get's spaghettified, and then gets shot out.
We'd like for this to at least allow for FTL travel, or else why bother? Luckily, we've observed superluminal movement in these jets - and M87's, as an example, would require a 19 degree angle from center to be explained via gravitational lensing - it has a 43 degree angle.
To use this effectively, you don't need fancy negative mass - you need to prevent spaghettification.
When you throw a rod into a blackhole, the sides are pushed together while the front and rear are pulled apart. This is the same as any other pressure on the rod, in the sense that the cause of this is unequal distribution of energy.
The speed at which something deforms is equal to it's speed of sound. That is, spaghettification occurs because an infinite speed of sound is required to transfer energy from end A of the rod to end B.
The thing is, the speed of sound can be infinite, or even negative. Also, energy can be transferred instantly via quantum entanglement. So, a shock-absorption system could be used to protect objects thrown into the blackhole.
>>7913233
All you need is a blackhole.
>>7913292
Foolish to Try?
Before rockets in space became commonplace
It was said they wouldn’t fly;
For “There is no air to push against there.
“And it would be foolish to try.”
We’re smarter today (or so we say)
But still it is said they won’t fly
Beyond light speed - “An impossible deed,
“And it would be foolish to try.”
If the relativistic distortions were real spacetime contortions
Then the light barrier might be infinitely high;
But Einstein changed his mind and so we now find
That it wouldn’t be foolish to try
This is a poem in link from >>7913287
Actually you can kind of see their logic, every action has an equal opposite reaction. Relativistic physics of today is even more ridiculous it turns out.
>>7913366
Your citation for dubious historical claims is a poem written by a crackpot?
>>7913372
No I'm not the original poster you were replying to, I just happened to stumble upon this coincidently. Two different sources saying the same thing is corroborative. I don't see why this wouldn't be true, though. It's not that unlikely.
>>7913441
I'm the person who initially doubted the claim but haven't refuted the evidence. While it is highly improbable that physicists didn't understand thrust, it is possible.
>>7912946
Once we manage to manipulate gravity we can easily create warp drives.
>>7913353
So Steins;Gate was right?
>>7913187
Speculation isn't new technology.
>>7913470
>Once we manage to manipulate gravity we can easily create warp drives.
That'll be one hell of a trick. As far as we can tell, everything is affected by gravity, while gravity, and transmission thereof, isn't affected by anything.
>>7912946
>plebs still think we need FTL to explore space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_acceleration
>>7912946
>we'll ever figure out
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?
>>7913353
>observed
>superluminal
Pick one.
>>7913353
>why is /sci/ always so negative towards mindless gibbering and made-up bullshit from uneducated fools who obviously don't have the first fucking clue what they're talking about yet claim to have trumped proven scientific fact with voodoo?
Fix'd
>>7913228
>>7913292
It's completely true, many scientists of the 1920s fully believed that rockets couldn't work in space because it would violate Newton's Third Law. They wrote angry letters to newspapers trashing his work and pretty much ostracized him from the scientific community. The only scientists who gave him a chance were the Germans, this is why they developed the liquid rocket to completion first. Same thing happened with jet engines in fact, the head of the RAF famously said Frank Whittle was full of shit because their chief scientist said so. Again this is why the jet engine was completed in Germany first. See how their positive attitude has led to so many technological breakthroughs? Now I draw parallels between this and FTL because now that a valid warp drive solution has been found all the arguments against it are down to a lack of understanding. The solutions we found so far are too high in energy, doesn't mean they aren't anymore
>>7914185
>many scientists of the 1920s fully believed that rockets couldn't work in space because it would violate Newton's Third Law.
I was under the impression that it was a handful of journalists who objected, not "many scientists".
>>7914250
This.
It has to be the case.
There's no way Einstein published General/Special relativity before Goddard did his rocket research without understanding fundamental Newtonian physics.
Newton's Third Law is precisely why any physicist and chemist of the day should have immediately known that using explosions for propulsion was perfectly reasonable.
>>7913353
>Also, energy can be transferred instantly via quantum entanglement
>>7913353
You're an idiot. We've never observed anything superluminal.
Also
>all you need is a black hole
I thout you wanted to survive the trip?
>>7913474
I'm not familier with that anime.
>>7914063
>Superluminal motion of up to 6c has been observed in the inner parts of the jet of M87. To explain this in terms of the "narrow-angle" model, the jet must be no more than 19° from our line-of-sight.[4] But evidence suggests that the jet is in fact at about 43° to our line-of-sight.[5] The same group of scientists later revised that finding and argue in favour of a superluminal bulk movement in which the jet is embedded.[6]
In other words, an FTL group velocity.
>>7914080
I'm not the one who asked.
>>7914297
>http://m.phys.org/news/2014-01-theory-teleport-energy-distances.html
Yes, you can.
>>7914353
>You're an idiot. We've never observed anything superluminal
Yes, we have;
>http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/90/1/10.1063/1.2423240
>Sound beyond the speed of light: Measurement of negative group velocity in an acoustic loop filter
>I thout you wanted to survive the trip?
We have the technology to survive the trip - we need the blackhole now.
>>7914275
I think the problem here is that prior to the MM and Miller experiment physicists believed that space was filled with the luminiferous aether, but in the wake of that experiment Einstein threw out the ether (only to reinstate it later on). Most physicists believed that the ether was non-existent and that therefore space was completely empty. Therefore motion would violate Newton's 3rd law.
>>7916226
What the fuck?
No.
>>7912946
>our species
Already thinking too small. "Our species" may not be our species by the time warp drives come around.
>>7914550
>We have the technology to survive the trip - we need the blackhole now.
You are one dumb nig nog
>>7916244
Why not?
>>7916244
Yeah. Great argument. Really covincing.
>>7916226
>Most physicists believed that the ether was non-existent and that therefore space was completely empty. Therefore motion would violate Newton's 3rd law.
how the fuck did people think reaction mass and thrust works? it wouldn't push against anything but the rocket itself to generate a positive net force. why would the lack of a viscous medium make it LESS viable? this is absurd and makes zero sense even under the pretenses that they had no knowledge of space.
>>7916512
Just because something seems absurd to you doesn't mean that someone else at one time didn't believe it.
And it is perfectly understandable given that they were after all dealing with an unknown physical quantity. Anyway space it turns out is not empty so perhaps they were right after all. Interesting to think about...
>>7913023
Actually there's something interesting to consider which is time dilation/Lorentz contraction. The moment you're in a rocket or something moving at 99.99% of the speed of light, things sorta look like a pancake, and you can move pretty fucking far before in one lifetime.
Of course this is utterly undoable and when you think you've been in there for a month, back over at earth 2 years have passed. But yeah, if somehow you could obtain ultra relativistic speeds, you could potentially visit other galaxies.
>>7913233
>It's not just the absurd energy requirements; there's no reason to believe the required energy-momentum distributions are even possible.
I think OP's point is to ask if there's some way to make warp drive work WITHOUT the absurd mass/energy requirements.
>>7912946
>Do you think we'll ever figure out how to make warp drives without absurd mass/energy requirements?
>>7913187
>rockets in space violate Newton's third law because they have nothing to push against.
No person who knows any newtonian mechanics would ever say anything like that seriously.
>>7916590
There's one problem with that though. There is no evidence of length contraction ever anywhere. Lorentz didn't even really believe it, he just came up with it to make the maths work in a single instance - it wasn't one that he actually considered a real possibility. Considering no one has ever recorder any kind of length contraction ever it stands to reason he was right.
>>7916612
Here's someone asking the same question on a physics forum. Some of the people answering admit they don't know, the other ones provide unconvincing answers. It is obvious that rockets do work in space, but that doesn't mean that these explanations accurately describe what is taking place.
>>7916619
How would you determine that an effect was due to length contraction rather than time dilation?
As of now, warping space time in any way requires tremendous amounts of energy beyond that which we can reasonably harness.
That said though, if we are able to travel beyond 1c some time in the distant future, then who says we can't travel 10c, or 100c, or even absurd powers of c, making interstellar and intergalactic travel like simply taking a stroll between towns.
>>7916631
Not sure if this is a trick question. According to Relativity Theory length contraction and time dilation occur at the same time, because space and time are linked as a single medium; i.e. space contracts and time expands.
Measuring the length contraction could easily be achieved by comparing the object in question to an identical object angled at ninety degrees with respect to the direction of motion, as in the case of the Mitchell Morley inferometre experiment, but no one has ever done this, or at least no one has ever achieved a positive result
The Lorentz transformation was just a mathematical concept to return expected results in a single theory. It was never meant to be taken as a reality. Same goes for time dilation. According to Lorentz and common sense, time and space are fixed absolutes. It is ight is variable.
Wouldn't speeds approaching c be fine for space travel? Traveler would be subject to a lot of time dilation, and while the travel would last many earthling generations, the travelling ship would get there pretty fast from their point of view.
>>7916738
Not really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_terrestrial_exoplanet_candidates
Nearest hypothesized terrestrial exoplanet, Tau Ceti e, is about 12 light years away.
Think about that. At 99% c, a 12 year journey to the "new world." A 24 year journey round trip. This basically isolates any potential colonists in ways humans have never known before. The journey across the Atlantic between Europe and the colonies was 6 to 8 weeks, communication between parties took 6 months. The journey to China from Europe by sea took 5 months, about a year round trip.
Now imagine, is it possible for commerce to happen between two planets separated by a 24 year round trip? Is it possible for Military intervention? Communication, at all, would take 24 years (Hi->12 years, How are you today?->another 12 years).
At c, exoplanets are reachable, but they become completely separate civilizations, which we would hear about every now and again, but really a light speed galactic empire is impossible, each colony would be completely independent.
>>7916738
According to GR time would stand still at c, so if you ever managed to reach that speed (under this theory) time would stop and you would be trapped going at c forever, unable to slow down or change course. This is of course ridiculous.
>>7916767
If we traveled at relativistic speeds, the crew would see decades, centuries, or whatever (depending on % of c) pass on each round trip.
Cool.
>>7913132
are you guys pretending or what?
it's common knowledge that exploring the the entire galaxy will only take a type 3 civilization a couple million years using self replicating robotic ships.
lunch ships to destination
arrive
use local resources to build more ships
repeat
>>7916859
panspermia might not be what we think it is
>>7914250
Well when have you ever heard of a respectable newspaper openly trashing an academic like that? They clearly were advised by other contrarian academics. Also once the story ran if it was "so obvious" that rockets don't violate Newton's Third Law in space then other academics would have immediately wrote in to correct them. Nobody did, and the jeering continued unrestrained until the New York Times wrote a public apology in 1969. Add in to the fact that reading any biography of the guy it's painfully clear that barely anyone in the USA was interested in his work.
>>7916512
It's obvious to you because you learn it in school as fact. Back then what really went on in a vacuum was very contentious. After all Newton's laws were derived from observations in air.
>>7913023
>if we can go light speed
>The galaxy is so huge. That we won't ever be able to go very far in a human lifetime.
the speed of light is instantaneous relative to your frame of reference
>>7917327
correction: I mean if you travel at the speed of light, you can go anywhere in the universe instantaneously
>>7912946
>Will we be confined to our galaxy for the rest of our species' lifespan?
The sad, frightening and very real fact is that in all likeliness humanity will never extend its reach beyond the solar system. The distance to even the nearest star, never mind the nearest (habitable) planets is simply too far to ever reach.
>>7913147
Only the ones who aren't retarded
>>7917320
>Newton's laws were derived from observations in air.
>>7916645
Are you trying to insinuate time dilation has never been observed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation
You have to correct for it in GPS satellites.
>>7917364
*of motion
You know I wasn't talking about gravity you autist
>>7917352
Dear contrarian take note that Nuclear Pulse propulsion is fully capable of making it to other star systems in decent time. The only block to it was the ban on nukes in space.
I get that you guys are butthurt that you will never travel to another star system but deluding yourself that despite going from horse carts to men on the moon in 60 years in the many thousands of human existence after you're dead it can't possibly ever happen in order to make yourself feel better than that is just sad. I personally am not a selfish dickhead, I hope to God that long after I am dead that humanity will find a way to even other galaxies.
>>7917383
multiverse*
>>7917383
I sincerely envy your delusion, but you're heavily detatched from the reality of the situation. Firstly the extrapolation of future technology from previous progress is a dangerous and incredibly spurious viewpoint that should be avoided at all cost; has technology advancement increased tenfold these past 100 years? No doubt. Is this evidence that in another 100 years we will be far, far futher into the future? Certainly fucking not. The problem is that we don't know where the limits of science and technology lie- it could be right around the corner, ready to stagnate our fantastic progress, or we could be nowhere near it. And this is where your delusion lies: you assume the latter, when we know the answer to neither.
As for Project Orion that you mention, as if it is obscure, it was never going to be capable of transersing the glaxy in a 'decent' amount of time, Alpha Centuri was its best endevour and was most likely its goal (i'm not saying it isn't an excellent idea mind you, i'd love it to be put into action one day). If we're talking travelling across the Milky Way in your own epoch you need ships that can approach c. This would require building on a scale that is difficult to even imagine- here we are talking about ships the size of worlds. Not to mention the fact that time dilation at these speeds and distances would result in the passage of billions of years on Earth: the trip that those future astronauts would only be for them, not for those left behind.
You fancy me a pessimist, but that isn't the case at all. Im optimistic about all of it, but these sobering realities need to be appreciated anon
>>7917383
>planets don't follow Newton's laws of motion
>>7917436
Why would you need ships the size of worlds?
>>7913353
What if you could project a black hole in front of a space craft, and as the spacecraft fell into the black hole the black hole would be projected further in front? Would that stop the spaghetification process and keep everything in it's normal form?
tl;dr project a black hole in front of a spacecraft which then falls into the black hole and projects the black hole further in front
>>7913478
Except for mass
Higher concentrations of mass create more gravity
>>7914550
>group velocity
Anon you're retarded thats not FTL.
>>7916605
Well, to make a black hole you need an absurd amount of energy, and since black holes represent a unified theory of everything then I would assume that's your ticket
Get incredibly high energy/mass in a small space and create a gravity well that bends space time and ride the wave.
>>7917451
For approaching c? Because you need incredible amounts of energy as well as powerful magnets to stop you getting fried by induced cosmic rays.
>>7917369
Time dilation has never been observed. And the GPS satellite thing that is bandied about is a misinterpretation of the data. Look up the Sagnac experiment on youtube to see what i mean. The Sagnac experiment disproves that relativiity holds in all reference frames and is not even wrong.
>>7918287
So we make a pair of atomic clocks and synch them. One gets put on a really big rocket in space. Then sent around the solar system to sling shot around a few planets and back to earth.
We then compare the time on the clocks.
>>7918287
Are you citing a youtube video to disprove relativity?
>>7918381
No I'm citing the Sagnac experiment. Youtube is just a better more honest source when dealing with information that discredits relativty than say sources like wiki. Wiki is mediated by people and academics who are unfortunately emotionally and financially invested in the theory of relativity.
>>7913187
>rockets in space violate Newton's third law because they have nothing to push against. All arguments given by top scientists of the day against Robert Goddard's research
you're a fucking retard
>>7917436
so you conveniently assume this limit is just past your lifetime? how convenient that future generations will never see more of the universe than you have? sounds like youre projecting your frustrations on to future generations.
>>7918843
Read his biography. He was the most laughed at scientist since Boltzmann. Bear in mind that top scientists had only finished arguing over whether light could propagate in a vacuum even though Maxwells laws said nothing against it. Vacuums were contentious for decades.
>>7918287
There are a lot of things, that prove time dilation. For example the fact, that mions made in our stratosphere are beeing detected on surface od earth, even though they live 2*10^-6 s.
>>7916859
i kinda dont get it though, why you would even do this. idk, it's kinda primitive to think you gain anything from settling down everywhere. your species is more likely to survive. but still, philosophically, that's not worth anything. why not just die out and stop the struggling? based buddha had it right.
>>7919475
Neither muons, the stratosphere, nor the earth have ever been observed.
>>7913140
>fermi paradox
Ugh, I hate this shit. It is like they don't know what radio interference is. It is like they think sci-fi is real and any race will ever be more space faring than normal thrust.
There probably are an endless amount of full functioning alien civilizations out there. Some are probably mindbogglingly advanced. But, not one will get very far and not one will contact anyone else unless it is within their own solar system.
Even if a race could harness a pulsar and modulate it to be used as a communication beacon, you'd never be able to use it to communicate. It'd be all 1-way communication. In fact all communication over the gulf of space is impossible due to the time involved for something to reach something else and the amount of distortion and energy loss it will undergo. We could be receiving alien communication signals from 100s of worlds right now and never know it. Simply because there's next to nothing left of the signal.
>>7919600
Nah. They probably have better luck near the center of the galaxy where stars are closest. We are just unlucky. And I don't think there are lots of civilizations, but there is probably lots of wild worlds.
Wild things are happening in the center of the galaxy, we'll just never know what.
>>7919628
How far apart do stars need to be in order to be classified as their own start system? Is it gravitational influence or something?
I agree with you, fyi. I just think that places like you describe are so close that they constitute a combined star system.
>>7919647
So long as they orbit each other, they are a star system. This doesn't stop them from each having their own planets, as is the case with alpha centauri that has 3 stars and each have their own planets.
>>7919600
>making assumptions based on human knowledge
This thread is one big biased circlejerk "we cant do it so nobody else in the trillions of other galaxies out there can either" Remember that if you told someone 500 years ago that you could speak to someone on the other side of the world near instantaneously they would laugh in your face.
>>7917475
>Well, to make a black hole you need an absurd amount of energy, and since black holes represent a unified theory of everything then I would assume that's your ticket
Facepalm.jpg
What OP is is asking is "any chance of FTL WITHOUT absurd mass/energy requirements".
Sure, there are several promising leads that DO involve black holes and such, what about any that DON;T have such a requirement?
For instance, are there some undiscovered fundamental force beside the "big four"?
Or some Escher-like trick to building a warp drive out of magnets, bubble-gum and a fire-hydrant?
>>7916859
>lunch ships to destination
>arrive
>use local resources to build more ships
>repeat
Sounds great until all the "locals" decide your appropriating their resources is a hostile act.
Most races would only be able to hate you from afar, but a few would capture and reverse engineer your tech and use it to send an invasion fleet.
Great plan.
>type 3 civilization
>let's measure a civilization's progress/advancement by sheer population and energy consumption
all muh shiggy...
>>7918287
The Sagnac effect is completely consistent with relativity. What you people keep overlooking is that the detected fringes in that experiment is due to the unequal distance that the light beams have to travel.
>>7918553
Why do you want it to be wrong?
>>7918287
You're one of those MOND faggots, aren't you?
>>7920318
>>7920445
>>7920498
I'm assuming that your a samefag, but I'll deal with each of your points separately.
>>7920318
Sagnac experiment proves that relativity doesn't hold true in all frames of reference therefore relativity is wrong by its very own definitions.
>>7920445
I don't want it to be wrong. I actually like most of the concepts involved, but as some asshole once said "we don't get to choose what's right and what's not." There's the truth and that's it.
>>7920498
No idea what that is.
>>7921022
>what is Newton's bucket
>>7921022
>Sagnac experiment proves that relativity doesn't hold true in all frames of reference therefore relativity is wrong by its very own definitions.
There is your problem. Relativity doesn't claim that the speed of light is invariant in ALL frames of reference, only in inertial ones.
>>7921586
But this makes no sense. The Hafele-Keating experiment, which is often cited as proof of the theory of relativity, is merely an up scaled version of the Sagnace experiment and conforms with the expected results of Sagnac. Therefore, by your own definition the Hafele-Keating experiment like Sagnac disproves relativity.
>>7921075
The Sagnac experiment.
>>7921752
What is your model then if you reject relativity? Aether?
>>7913187
Cynical reason: new sciences mean that the funding pie needs more slices and they'll get less money for their research and paycheques.
>>7913175
>Neutron stars and blackholes are the bodies of advanced alien
That`s something.
>>7921923
Einstein got rid of the ether based on the results of one test which easily could have had several different explanations; the most important one being that the Earth is not moving. They decided not to go a long with this for philosophical reasons and then wound up reinstating a stationary Earth through relativity anyway. The implications of a stationary Earth at the centre of the Universe are staggering and make the revelations of relatvity seem prozaic by comparison.
>>7913340
what the fuck
>>7922776
Oh ok so you're a moron. You also think earth is flat I assume?
>>7922776
>The implications of a stationary Earth at the centre of the Universe are staggering
That's... one word for it.
>>7919475
>>7919521
I'll admit that muons are the best evidence to date of relativity, but according to the work of this researcher we cannot be certain about either the speed at which muons travel or their decay rate. He also makes the point that relativists use circular logic claiming that since relativity is true time dilation can happen for comic muons and then claim that this proposed time dilation is therefore proof of relativity. This doesn't hold up since the experiment is trying to prove the existence of relativity, which is the thing that is in contention. Basic stuff.
> Like this, relativity believers keep going in circles in every scenario that they claim as proof of relativity.
>... only science maniacs and relativity extremists will swear upon the above ‘facts’ on muon’s life span and speed and propose these highly counterintuitive notions like time dilation. Scientists have only noted the life span and speed of low energy muons produced in particle accelerators. How can the same be considered true for the high energy cosmic ray muons?
He also points out that since muons have only been seen decaying at light speed in a particle accelerator that it merits an example of GR and not SR. Also, it has been added that since no acceleration is taking place for the cosmic ray muons (and since no frame of reference is more important than any other) it is impossible to tell if it is the muon accelerating towards the Earth or the Earth accelerating towards the muon. So where would the suspected time dilation lie?
http://debunkingrelativity.com/muons-time-dilation/
>>7923053
Lel. You have so far been unable to offer any conclusive proof of the untenable idea of an time dilation, length contraction and SR or GR in general and yet you still dane to call others morons. Once you resort to ad hominem you have effectly lost the argument.
>>7923063
Here's some more; astonishing, amazing, startling, astounding, magnificient, incredible, glorious, eye-opening, a wake-up call.
>>7917383
>despite going from horse carts to men on the moon in 60 years
lol, and we haven't been back to the moon in over 40 years. Humanity is over, Anon. Just enjoy the ride down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM&feature=youtu.be
>>7912946
The more we learn about the universe, the more surprising it turns out to be.
Hundred bucks that the secret to FTL will turn out to be something utterly ridiculous like the Infinite Improbability Drive from Hitchhiker's Guide.
>Oh no... not again.
>>7923142
*psssssssssssst*
*in a hushed tone* "we already have ftl travel" * "it's called "death" *
>>7923117
Here's a useful article on the discrepancies of GR and SR and there are many. So many in fact that the theory is impossible to defend in any sense.
http://debunkingrelativity.com/photon-clock-and-the-maya-of-time-dilation/
If you believe in curved space, time dilation or any of that nonsense you are as stupid as a flat earther; stupider in fact because at least they didn't have the benefit of an education. Lmfao.
>>7921752
>The Hafele-Keating experiment, which is often cited as proof of the theory of relativity, is merely an up scaled version of the Sagnace experiment and conforms with the expected results of Sagnac. Therefore, by your own definition the Hafele-Keating experiment like Sagnac disproves relativity.
How does that definition imply Sagnac's and Hafele-Keating's experiments disprove relativity? I don't think you understood it.
Also those two experiments aren't directly comparable. The Hafele-Keating experiment was testing the kinematic and gravitational time dilation. Sagnac's experiment is more of a test of simultaneity.
Here is a paper that can explain better than I how the Sagnac effect fits into relativity: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909081v7.pdf
>>7913340
>Engineers of the Hellenistic era Mediterranean region are credited with the development of the water wheel. Mediterranean engineers of the Hellenistic and Roman periods were also the first to use it for both irrigation and as a power source.[4] The technological breakthrough occurred in the technically advanced and scientifically minded Hellenistic period between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC.[5]
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/03/towards-a-taxonomy-of-cliches-.html
Space travel of any kind is hard. Stupid hard.
>>7912946
750kg of negative mass is the theoretical minimum for a warp drive, so it's not like we need that much energy.
>>7913023
>slightly faster than lightspeed
A warp drive isn't just slightly faster, but almost instant.
>>7923142
In the book, "Old Man's War" They use an FTL drive that doesn't actually go anywhere. Instead what it does is tear through into another dimension that happens to put them in the location of where they want to be in their own dimension. The new dimension they have jumped to is exactly like their old dimension, with perhaps something slightly different. They can never jump back to their own dimension. Since they are on a war ship, they make tons of jumps all the time. They can only hope that in the previous dimension, there was another version of them arriving in that dimension to do the same job they are now doing in the new dimension.
>>7923183
I like this.
>>7923173
No, interestingly enough they are directly comparable. Here is an interesting link on that subject and in language you can understand'
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html
Also to see link in >>7923163 for info on how inertial reference frames moving in relation to non-interial reference frames produces such an amount of contradictions it is a mystery as to how this crackpot theory was ever given the time of day.
>>7923163
>The photon moves vertically at velocity c and horizontally the speed of the train v.
WRONG. The photon moves at c in the diagonal direction it's observed to be travelling. It's horizontal and vertical speeds will be less than c. This idiot spends paragraphs and paragraphs explaining how photon clocks work and as soon as he gets to the argument he fucks it up. What a retard. I can't tell if you're trolling or serious. If you're serious, I suggest you get psychiatric help as only someone with a broken brain could be this delusionally stupid.
>>7923219
Are you retarded? Relativity theory is known to be one of the most non-intuitive and peculiar theories out there. Bending space? Time slowing down? Lengths contracting?!! Listen to yourself and then consider who is in need of psychiatric help.
Also you failed to read and understand even the most basic of his points. Not that I am surprised anymore.
>>7923241
You didn't respond to a word I said.
>>7923247
Don't bother. You're either arguing with a troll or an idiot.
>>7923241
>Relativity theory is known to be one of the most non-intuitive and peculiar theories out there.
The faster something moves through space, the slower in moves through time as reckoned by another observer. Vectors and fields are transformed between different boosted frames, which gives rise to different phenomena.
>>7913353
>>speed of sound
my sides
>>7916637
Let's say we're traveling at 5c, a speck of dust colliding with us in any capacity would create a fusion reaction upon impact.
>>7923558
if the proposed technology requires warping space around an object, wouldn't any dust about to collide with the object get pushed out of the way?
iirc, the ship isnt actually moving through space at all per se
The Earth warps space around it, right?
A small rock warps space around it, right?
If the small rock can warp space, then you don't need much energy to do it.
>>7923558
Why don't light particles cause this problem?
>>7924206
They do, but they are massless and have so little momentum that they impart only a very small force on objects they hit. Every time you use a flashlight you are shooting projectiles at c, they are just too weak to matter. Look up photon rockets for application of this.
>>7912946
My belief in god leads me to believe that someday we'll explore other galaxies. I believe he created the world in a way which would allow us to do it.
No FTL without backwards time travel or at least CTC.
>>7912946
I don't want to live in a universe with time travel and broken causality so hopefully not.
>>7924340
No I seriously believe that, when you really think about it, it's not that ludicrous an idea.
>>7923247
That's because you didn't say anything of substance, you just affirmed your position because reasons. Again you are displaying the kind of circular logic that all relativists apply i.e. "This guy is wrong because he is not parroting what I learnt about relativity theory."
The thing about relativity theory is that it is not proven and it is fairly complex. It is complex because it is full of holes and in order to patch up thesse holes it accrues more and more insane concepts At each level of this insanity it is supposed that you are not smart enough to comprehend what they are saying, but if you only believe them, they say, then after a few years of mental conditioning in the form of 'education' you will begin to see it as they do. Ultimately what this all boils down to is faith. You are as much victims of this faith thinking as your average Muslim or Jewfag.
>>7923315
I mean that relativity is lauded as being strange and non-intuitive. If it was simple Einstein wouldn't be considered the monumental figure he is today. If you can't grasp this simple concept I don't believe that you fully grasp relativity either, which obviously casts doubt on your ability to adequately debate me or anyone else on the subject.
>>7924669
Einstein is lauded because the theory is simple. Especially special relativity and Einstein's 1905 derivations from the two postulates. Minkowski made SR really really simple but maybe only for mathematically inclined people. Relative simultaneity does run contrary to intuition and a lot of people get hung up on it, but it's a very simple concept. GR is more complicated but the ideas can be understood by a studious high schooler who is familiar with calculus. Maybe not at the level of rigor mathfags would like, but high schoolers don't understand Euclidean geometry at that level of rigor either. But to the point where they can verify the FLRW and Schwarzschild metrics, and work out how things move in them. It's because special relativity is so simple with just a dash of counter-intuitiveness that it's a favorite target of algebra-impaired people who half-understand it and have an anti-authoritarian or occasionally anti-Jewish bias. It's a lot like the arguments over Monty Hall or coin flipping. It attracts people who overestimate their competence.
>>7924707
>Hs argument is probably in the region of 2-3,000 words, your rebuttal was comprised of about 20. On what planet do you think this amounts to a sufficient response?
Identifying the first error in a long rambling argument is perfectly valid. Although it could be argued the first error is instead
>And this [the northward component of velocity] remains the same even from the perspective of a sane observer on the platform
This is not a consequence of "sanity." It is true in Galilean relativity but not SR.
>>7925245
>anti-Jewish
Facepalm. Science has nothing to do with religious or racial bias. It is focused on the truth. If someone states something and you disagree with it and that person can't provide proof then theur opinion must be discarded. If they say that the reason why you are disagreeing with them is because you are racist then you are doubly assured that what they are saying is utter bullshit.
>>7925284
It is a fact that many such people are anti-Jewish. Not most of them, and that's certainly not why they're wrong, but it is probably why they believe a wrong thing. Surely you've seen the "It was all Einstein, good goyim!" images. That's not an isolated case.
>>7925282
>Identifying the first error in a long rambling argument is perfectly valid. Although it could be argued the first error is instead
That only works if all of the sequential arguments which follow on from the first point are derived from it. Since this article deals with at least three or four separate instances of where relativity is incorrect your 20 word argument is insufficient to attack the entire 2,000 word article.
>>7925294
>Someone disagrees with my theory and has proof. Wah! They're racists!!
>>7925284
Nigger 80% of the threads on here are racebait, Based on that, his claim that there are people out there dismissing Einstein just because he was Jewish is very believable. I never see anyone ever attempting to debunk Maxwell or Feynmann yet Einstein constantly gets hate.
>>7925311
>your
It wasn't me. Personally given that sort of fuck-up I'm inclined to inductively deduce the rest of the article is of similar quality.
>>7925318
Only mentioned for sake of completeness. I don't think you're a racist.
>>7925321
Some people. They exist, but it's not even most of them. You don't see people attempting to debunk Maxwell because that requires more mathematical background (calculus rather than just algebra).
>>7925331
Of course there is a conspiracy theory that part of Maxwell's equations were discarded when they were written in vectors rather than quaternions. But that's a case where it actually helps not to be able to read what Maxwell wrote.
>>7925321
Because Einstein was wrong. Neither Maxwell nor Feynman worked in relativity. Most people probably haven't even heard of them much less understand their work.
If the best argument relativisits can come up with to defend their position is to say that those who disagree with them are racist then science is in worse state than I thought.
>>7925346
Feynman's work involved SR heavily; he is certainly wrong if SR is wrong. And SR is based on Maxwell's work; it's the idea that the symmetries of Maxwell's equations apply to the rest of mechanics.
What if we made something like the Light Gondola from Tron, where it's kind of like a rail, made of light, radiation from the protons interact with the contact point of the ship and convert it into energy, it's like passing a radio wave into a box and converting the EM waves into electricity. All you would need is a highly modulative em receiver, a 9000 yottawatt diamond laser powered by a magnetic motor rotating at graviton speed (constant acceleration powered by a twin motor).
>>7925378
>yottawatt
yeah...let me know when you make that happen
>>7925382
Just accelerate a 1000ft magnetic motor carousel, the speed of rotation of the magnetic motor would be able to accelerate to light speed easily given that more pressure is added once in a while.
>>7925311
>The only difference between us sitting in our room and the light photons is that, we travel at speed ‘c’ solely in the direction of time and not at all in the direction of space, while it is just the opposite for the photons- they travel at speed ‘c’ in the space direction and not at all in the time direction.
This is a common Internet meme but not accurate; the photon's momentum 4-vector has both space and time components.
>The weird thinkers then develop what is called the spacetime momentum vector and go on to deduce the most famous equation ‘E=mc2’ that mesmerized the entire human race for almost a century. The stupid people believe that a photon is massless but its momentum ‘mc’ is not zero.
If m means relativistic mass, both [math]E=mc^2[/math] and p=mv are correct, and m is nonzero for photons, but most people don't use relativistic mass anymore, especially in particle physics. The invariant mass [math]\sqrt{(E/c^2)^2 - (p/c)^2}[/math] of the photon is zero.
>If a light photon travels simultaneously in all directions, a torch shone in one direction should illuminate things in every direction uniformly and not just in the direction it is shone.
Okay, this is getting even stupider. SR says light travels at the same speed regardless of directions, not that it travels always in all directions.
>>7913175
edgybismuth.jpg
>>7925311
>o in the reference frame of the stupid relativist, clocks A and B tick 96sec when his clock ‘O’ ticks 100sec.
>Because motion is a relative thing, we sitting with clock A in the west ward moving train can claim to be at rest and propose that it is the stupid observer on the platform who is actually moving away (with his clock O) at velocity ‘v’. So according to us, it is the stupid observer’s clock that should actually be experiencing the time dilation and hence must be ticking slower. So if our clock ticks 100sec, then clock O on the platform must read only 96sec applying the same mathematics of time dilation. But this is contrary to what the stupid relativist calculated earlier.
This ignores relative simultaneity; A=96 and O=100 are simultaneous in O's frame but not in A's. This at least is a classic mistake, easy for novices to make.
(The article acknowledges the paradox may be resolved, but claims it must be resolved by positivist-like nitpicking. It's really much simpler.)
>>7925425
... and then later he admits that simultaneity is supposed to be relative but dismisses this as "stupid." So the penultimate argument of that whole section was "you're stupid" and the entire thing was a waste of time.
Then rather than elaborate, he drops the example he was trying to turn into a paradox and gets all confused about what reference frames are:
>Rather than going through this endless exercise and waste our time and effort,
Why write all the previous crap then? You already wasted our time.
>we can straight away prove their foolishness by analyzing the twin flight experiment which they swear upon as strong proof of time dilation. Apparently the clock in the east bound flight ticked slower than the one in the east bound flight. Even if we believe in the data of twin flight experiment, that can only be considered as consistent with relativity only from the reference frame of the earth bound observer. When a passenger from the east bound flight looks at the same data, he will obviously find it contradictory because from his perspective, it should have been the west bound clock that should have experienced time dilation and hence should have ticked slower.
The planes are both accelerating. Neither can be considered stationary.
>>7925311
>Imagine that the stupid relativists are again standing on the platform facing north while we are travelling in a train with our own photon clock at velocity ‘c/2’ north wards.
>According to the stupid observers, the photon in our clock travels a distance of 1.5m during the first half of the tick,
Wrong, should be 2 sqrt(3/4) m, assuming the 1m length of the train is in the train's frame.
>but travels only 0.5m during the second half of the tick.
Wrong again, should be (2/3) sqrt(3/4).
>But overall the photon travels a distance of 2m for 1tick.
Should be 2 sqrt(4/3) m.
>So according to them, using the same reasoning they gave us earlier while deriving the time dilation formula, we in the train must be experiencing time dilation during the first half of the tick and time contraction during the second half but as a whole time runs the same for both of us.
And this is wrong due to ignoring relative simultaneity.
>>7925311
>According to the weird thinkers, time runs slower in stronger gravitational fields. If that was true, then all clocks must run slower with increasing gravity. But see how a pendulum clock gets affected by gravity from the following equation
Should be obvious that inequivalent clocks may run at different speeds. The light clock on the ground and the one on the train are equivalent since both can be considered at rest. No such argument is applicable here.
>Relativists are the most stupid people on the earth.
>stupid
>stupid
>stupid
Yawn. This is coming from the person who wrote
>If a light photon travels simultaneously in all directions, a torch shone in one direction should illuminate things in every direction uniformly and not just in the direction it is shone.
so I guess from his perspective, everybody else looks stupid. Unfortunately for him, the principle of relativity does not apply to brainlets, and his perspective is not valid.
>>7925358
Feyman worked on the atom bomb and quantum mechanics neither of which require relativity to function. E=mc^2 has nothing to do with relativity. Maxwell's equations pre-exist relativity. Just because you base your work on that of an actual scientist doesn't make your work correct.
>>7925400
>Photons do have mass
>photons don't have mass
pick one
>SR says light travels at the same speed regardless of directions, not that it travels always in all directions
Quantum physics states the same. He is claiming that such a theory is based on relativity. I thought it had more to do with the double slit experiment myself.
>>7925425
>>7925450
>>7925485
Fine work. Your ability to spout relatistic hocus pocus is astonishing. It is a shame that none of this really means anything. You cherrypick your arguments and then give explanations which might sound impressive to the lay man, and even convincing to a student of relativism, but they don't really mean anything. They are opaque and useless explanations. I also like how you managed to ignore the real meat and potatoes of the paper such as how train A B and train O can all have three different readings each all of which are equally correct. Or how relativist can be sure that one clock tocks slower than the other without having to actually see them, but in order to prove which clock is under the effects of relativity both clocks must be brought together, and all of the problems and contradictions that this can entail.
I know that on the internet, a preferred method of arguing is to pick on a minor technicality or even a grammatical error and then claim that you have shown them to be stupid and therefore wrong. But that doesn't work in the scientific world. This article is a robust attack on almost every aspect of relativity theory. In order to save face, you as a pronent of the theory need to be able to present your case in a way that is both engaging and illuminating of the subject matter involved in light of the information in the article. To somewhat paraphrase Einstein, if you can't state your case so that a five year old can understand it, you don't understand it yourself and if you don't understand it then how do you even know it's true?
>>7925571
Feynman's work was on QED, which is very much based on relativity.
>how can one word have more than one definition in different contexts
> I also like how you managed to ignore the real meat and potatoes of the paper such as how train A B and train O can all have three different readings each all of which are equally correct.
Are you saying it's contradictory for two clocks to have different readings, or are you referring to the fact that which one is ahead is reference frame dependent, which is just relative simultaneity as I said?
>Or how relativist can be sure that one clock tocks slower than the other without having to actually see them, but in order to prove which clock is under the effects of relativity both clocks must be brought together,
I did address this.
>The article acknowledges the paradox may be resolved, but claims it must be resolved by positivist-like nitpicking. It's really much simpler.
>I know that on the internet, a preferred method of arguing is to pick on a minor technicality or even a grammatical error and then claim that you have shown them to be stupid and therefore wrong.
These are not minor technicalities.
>>7925591
As far as I'm aware Feynmann has done no real work in relativity. He may have discussed different aspects of it, much as I am doing now, but he never contributed to the field in any meaningful sense, neither is he know for his work in relativity.
You have to remember that a photon is not a word it is, depending on which you choose to believe either a particle of matter or a massless particle which is simply nothing.
Not two clocks; three clocks all with three different contradictory readings depending on how you choose to look at them.
I think the problem is that you are looking at his arguments through the lens that relativity is correct. When you see all of the other evidence against relativity and modern cosmology in general, then you can come back to this and see that it all makes sense, because relativity doesn't.
>>7925718
>As far as I'm aware Feynmann has done no real work in relativity.
Then your awareness is shit.
>a massless particle which is simply nothing
Lel, is this because your high school teacher told you some bullshit like "mass is the amount of matter in an object"?
>Not two clocks; three clocks all with three different contradictory readings depending on how you choose to look at them.
You keep saying contradictory but there's nothing contradictory about the clocks having different readings.
>I think the problem is that you are looking at his arguments through the lens that relativity is correct.
Brainlet detected. The claimed argument is relativity -> absurd, so that is the only correct way to look at them.
>>7923095
But there is no argument you're just spitting out gibberish and saying "haha I win!"
>>7924287
It is possible. Space travel under constant acceleration.
Near C time dilation would be enough to travel very far in a normal human life span. We don't have drives that can do this yet but they may well be possible.
It would pretty much be a one way trip though, if you went to another galaxy everyone you knew on earth would be long dead.
It's probably never going to be like star trek but people can theoretically settle distant star systems. It'd just be lots of isolated settlements not a big unified empire.
