What kind of rocket engine would you need to make a spaceship go faster than light?
>>8158686
>faster than light
Not possible, you'd need an Einstein–Rosen bridge.
>>8158686
One that can distort space-time itself
>>8158735
Your link has nothing to do with what they posted.
Traveling faster than light is the same as saying you travel back in time.
There was a proposed alcubierre warp drive taken seriously by nasa, but it's not possible because negative energy/mass don't exist
>>8158744
>There was a proposed alcubierre warp drive taken seriously by nasa, but it's not possible because negative energy/mass don't exist
Even if it were possible, it would still violate causality.
>GR
>FTL
>Causality
...pick any two
Even if you get around the Lorenz Transform, you still can't travel FTL without (in SOME frame of reference) arriving at your destination BEFORE you leave your origin.
>>8158686
you...can't?
>>8158686
the EM drive
>>8158735
>https://www.google.com/search?q=relativity+of+simultaneity
Why does this mean distorting spacetime cant make you go faster than light? I mean the universe is already expanding faster than light
An imaginary one
>>8159273
>Why does this mean distorting spacetime cant make you go faster than light? I mean the universe is already expanding faster than light
It means that if cause and effect can reach out a given distance faster than light can, then our axiomatic beliefs about causality are wrong.
Since nothing here in this galaxy is *causing* anything to happen in other galaxies before the light from here can reach there, this doesn't impact the far edges of the observable universe.
>>8159361
Hmm fair enough
>>8158735
>not knowing you can shortcut through the Dimension Of Love
Alcubierre drive
>>8158686
Em drive, though it really only bends space so you stay under the speed of light. Your effective speed is faster than light though.
One that both turns your craft massless, and uses gravity waves to drift upon. $10 says the engine will also involve gasified mercury and element 115.
Exotic particle engine
One engine that takes you 2 mph below the speed of light, and one that increases speed by 3 mph
>>8158686
OP means accelerate faster than light.
>>8158752
FTL and Causality
Why don't we just ditch GR and say it's SR with negligeable effects?
>Can't go faster the light
Then how are all these damn aliens getting here? Are they going FTL, jumping through wormholes, or something else?
>>8159823
Einstein–Rosen bridge.
>>8159569
that's not what an EM drive is
>>8159823
>all these damn aliens
UFOs are just a cover story for sightings of DARPA craft
>>8159823
>Then how are all these damn aliens getting here?
If FTL works, then time machines probably do too, so the reptile people and the greys are time travelers, not E.T.'s.
>>8159823
I watched an episode of UFO Files with Michio Kaku and he said the aliens definitely use some sort of warp drive. The reason being every report has them moving as if there is no such thing as gravity being able to go from 400 to 30,000 feet in the blink of an eye according to FAA radar reports.
>>8159883
If the USA had aircraft with UFO-tier performance why did they spend $10 billion on jet powered winged fighters?
>>8158686
>What kind of rocket engine..
You wouldn't even recognize it as such. Hyperdimensional physics is not in the public domain.
>faster than light
its pretty simple desu, just point the flash light the other way. Because light is traveling in the opposite direction it now has a negative speed.
So even if you weren't moving, you'd be moving faster than light.
>>8158752
you already get around lorentz transformations in GR, you ditch that when going SR->GR
>>8158686
>rocket engine
>faster than light?
A "rocket engine" is not capable to accelerate beyond speed of light.
>>8158730
So we're talkin REALLY fast engine right?
>>8158752
causality is a farce, the universe is non causal and non local.
>>8160125
negative speed doesn't exist
One can't accelerate toward c in the Higgs field without gaining infinite mass, for the energy. You'd need an understanding of a particle field to surround a vehicle which does not interact with this drag. Technically, the vehicle would be outside the known universe, because it would not react with Euclidean space, which is entirely dependent on that which gives its substance. The matter would become, then, navigation, as one has little form of reference without interact with that which is given "substance" by the Higgs field.
>>8160165
Nope.
Your speed is negative when u move backwards
>>8160165
speed can be negative, velocity can't.
>>8160207
No, it really isn't.
You can go faster then light if you slow the light down. Its called cherenkov radiation.
But that is not, what u need.
You need a kind of matter with negative mass in order to make the space pull you in the direction you want to go. That way you can move from A to B in very little time, but the light in your vecinity would stil be faster then you.
But: there has nothing been discovered that has a negative mass.
>>8160213
No, wrong again. Acceleration can be negative. There's no definition for "negative speed" or "negative velocity". That's not how the concept works, it is not reversible. It is a relative observation from one point of reference. Speed or velocity only goes one direction, the direction of time.
>>8160191
What's funny about these threads is that it's always a bunch of people parroting what they read in a (likely pop-sci) book. No-one here really knows what they are talking about
>>8160233
I firmly believe there is a particle zoo which reacts to a field disparate to the Higgs. Those particles seem to have zero mass, but have substance in that other, overlying "existence". If there's one, there may be more.
