>>8057785
become lighter than light

/thread

There is no way to travel faster than light itself, however a shortcut in space such as a wormhole can make it seem like you travel faster than light. Since you are taking a shortcut you will reach your destination far before light can do so (not counting the light that moves also through the wormhole). This is still not travelling faster than light but just reaching your destiny before light does.

>>8057785
We had this same exact thread earlier this week:
>>8046456

>>8057799
>Since you are taking a shortcut you will reach your destination far before light can do so (not counting the light that moves also through the wormhole). This is still not travelling faster than light but just reaching your destiny before light does.
We covered this in the last thread.

>>8046547
>any form of FTL involves a situation where, in some frame of reference, you arrive at your destination before you leave your point of origin.
>NO, it doesn't just look that way because you see distant objects as they were in the past.
>NO, this doesn't involve the Lorenz transform, so warp drive, wormholes, etc are not immune.
>And no, GR doesn't prohibit this, but causality does.
>https://www.google.com/search?q=relativity+of+simultaneity

>>8057785
dude op, did you save all your crewmates in the last mission in ME2? i lost Legion and miranda

>tfw

>>8057785
>How do we reach faster than light travel,

You don't, and then you grow up.
/thread

You can't, it is impossible.

>>8057785
We don't need FTL. Sure for the peasants on Earth it might seem like it takes 1000 years to reach a star, but thanks to time dilation your crew can experience it even as 1 year. Basically if you want to travel you will need to leave the current state of civilization behind and just be self sufficient.

I guess that each photon 'leaps' from one discrete piece of space-time to the next, crossing the vacuum gap.
A way of increasing the distance travelled (and thereby the relative velocity) would be to 'locally' increase the gaps between these discrete units. This may prove possible to mankind in the future.

>>8057785
we dont.

>>8058405
>thanks to time dilation your crew can experience it even as 1 year.
Not in the foreseeable future.
The fastest plausible spacecraft we can currently conceive without exotic, unattainable materials would be an Project-Orion type craft fueled by pure antimatter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29#Interstellar_missions
> pure Matter-antimatter annihilation rockets would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity between 50% to 80% of the speed of light.
...and that's without saving any fuel for slowing down at the other end.
And even if you did get up to 0.8c, tau would be 0.6, so your "thousand years to the outside world" journey still takes 600 years for those on board.
And if you DO save fuel for slowing down, then at 0.4c, tau is 0.916, so the people on board experience 916 years for every thousand in the outside world.
But if the "50% of c" figure is correct, and you save fuel for decelerating, your top speed is 0.25c and tau is 0.968.

>>8059584
p.s. Even if your wildest (yet sub-light) fantasies come true, time-dilation can only do so much:
http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html
play with the numbers, you'll see what I mean.
Even if you could magically accelerate at 1g indefinitely, a thousand year journey would still take about 13.4 years on-board,