How long until we have FTL craft?

Home Forums Science & tech How long until we have FTL craft?

Viewing 30 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #160555
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How long until we have FTL craft?

    • #160556
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Never, take your meds

    • #160557
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Around 40s, only 15s while my mantis boarding

      • #160592
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Woke af Basilisk boarding party abuser

    • #160558
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >how long
      Depends on your reference frame

    • #160559
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >we
      how much work have you put into the project so far?

      >1897
      >Dayton, Ohio
      >Hey Orville, how long until we have flying machine?

    • #160560
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Never. Also, your pic rel is not an FTL craft.

    • #160561
      Anonymous
      Guest

      even if you could presumably bend spacetime about you as in an alcubierre drive, how would you cross the bent spacetime once you reach your destination without having to actually traverse said spacetime

      • #160574
        Anonymous
        Guest

        have you seen Star Trek? With style, obviously

    • #160562
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No, you can’t go faster than light anon

    • #160563
      Anonymous
      Guest

      https://i.imgur.com/DAieKFU.gif

      won’t know until we try

    • #160565
      Anonymous
      Guest

      a loooong time if ever. we may start seeing non-FTL warp craft in the medium to long term imo

    • #160566
      Anonymous
      Guest

      how is a ship supposed to bend spacetime like that, what type of tech do you need to achieve this?

      • #160569
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Negative energy

    • #160570
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Until and unless we start thinking of scientific progress beyond financial and political gain and give way for people to introduce new ideas. A system better than rigged peer review. That would give way for scientific progress to take pace in future and do r&d independent of corporate funding.

    • #160571
      Anonymous
      Guest

      To even start you need to find matter that creates negative spacetime curvature. I guess it’s an engineering problem after that.

    • #160572
      Anonymous
      Guest

      2060’s

      built by Ai, way too hard to be solved by human researchers

    • #160573
      Anonymous
      Guest

      > humans haven’t discovered FTL cum yet
      ngmi

    • #160576
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Yesterday

    • #160578
      Anonymous
      Guest

      this reminds me of when Elon musk was talking about some kind of multiverse theory or AI and expanded intelligence

      • #160581
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Elon musk
        Isn’t he a simulation-scrote?

    • #160579
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >How long until we have FTL craft?
      Likely never.
      Pick any two, but definitely not all three:
      ► Relativity, as we understand it.
      ► Causality, as we understand it.
      ► FTL.

      • #160599
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I choose… FTL

        • #160603
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >I choose… FTL
          Great!
          Now… are you giving up on causality, GR, or both?

          • #160604
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Definitely throwing out GR. That shit’s gone. As for causality… quantum physicists gave that up, not me.

            • #160606
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >That shit’s gone.
              It stands unchallenged for over 100 years now.
              Gonna need more than "because I said so".

              >As for causality… quantum physicists gave that up, not me.
              Again, I’m calling ipse dixit. Please elaborate, especially considering we’re talking macroscopic phenomenon, and not some trivial, sub-atomic shit like quantum tunneling.

              • #160612
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >unchallenged
                Just because the physics community accepted it doesn’t mean that the theory wasn’t thoroughly debunked. You can start with Herbert Ives.

                >Please elaborate, especially considering we’re talking macroscopic phenomenon
                Really, what macroscopic phenomenon have you observed lately that violates causality? At best you could point to celestial mechanics since it requires gravitational forces to propagate instantaneously. That doesn’t violate cause and effect though.

                • #160616
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >doesn’t mean that the theory wasn’t thoroughly debunked.
                  Debunk it then, and I’m sure you’ll win a Nobel prize.

                  >Really, what macroscopic phenomenon have you observed lately that violates causality?
                  None. As far as I know, this has never happened, BUT FTL WOULD, which is my entire point.
                  Try to keep up.

                  • #160618
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Debunk it then, and I’m sure you’ll win a Nobel prize.
                    Done: https://vixra.org/abs/2103.0149

                    Inb4 >you didn’t debunk it on my peer-reviewed publication of choice

                    • #160626
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >https://vixra.org/abs/2103.0149
                      >Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular,
                      >Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
                      Sure, dude. Seems legit.

                • #160617
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >start with Herbert Ives.
                  OK,
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_E._Ives
                  > He is best known for the 1938 Ives–Stilwell experiment,
                  >which provided direct confirmation of special relativity’s time dilation,[

                  • #160619
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >which provided direct confirmation of special relativity’s time dilation
                    freaking midwits, man. Why don’t you go read his original paper and see what Ives actually wrote about it?

                    • #160627
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >go read his original paper
                      How about you post something besides fringe bullshit.
                      Just like cars that run on water, pH woke af cancer cures and Bigfoot’s baby, I’m pretty sure any legit news isn’t going to come from some obscure internet link on a southeast Asian underwater basket weaving forum.
                      You’ve made an astounding claim, please provide astounding proof.

                      p.s. So sorry your Buck Rodgers FTL fantasy isn’t going to actually come true, my condolences.

                      • #160629
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1633294535234.pdf

                        People have reproduced the Michelson-Morley results with sound waves and classical fluid waves.

                      • #160632
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        And you point is?

                      • #160633
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The MM null result is a CLASSICAL phenomenon. There is nothing in it that requires relativity to explain. ALL waves experience transverse Doppler shift; there’s no need to posit Lorentz contraction or time dilation or anything non-classical to explain the Lorentz transform. Light follows the same emission model as sound waves; there is a fixed stationary frame, and waves travel at a constant speed with respect to that frame, and only that frame.

                        The relativistic model for light emission is incorrect.

                      • #160636
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >The relativistic model for light emission is incorrect.
                        Congratulations, I’m sure you’re right and your Noble prize is in the mail.
                        Be sure to post a pic once it gets there.

                        Why do pop-sci scrotebrains think they know better than the bulk of modern physicist’s accumulated knowledge over the last 100+ years?

                      • #160639
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >modern physicist’s accumulated knowledge
                        Modern physicists have accumulated theory. They’ve accumulated observations. They have NOT accumulated knowledge.

                      • #160643
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >t. Brainlet who thinks he is on the same level as Dirac, Schrodinger, Einstein, Faraday, etc.

                      • #160644
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Not at all. I wouldn’t put them on the same level as me.

              • #160613
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >trivial
                Filtered

                The microscopic world is the same place as the macroscopic world. They work according to the same laws. We just don’t precisely know what those laws are, yet. We have sets of ideas woke af on where we were looking when we developed those ideas, but they seem to differ if not actually contradict each other. This difference and apparent conflict arises from imperfect observation and flawed interpretation and thinking. The difference is non-existent in nature.

                The quantum eraser experiment has implications for the macroscopic world, because it happens in the macroscopic world on a microscopic scale. We just haven’t observed or figured out what the implications are yet.

                • #160620
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >The microscopic world is the same place as the macroscopic world.
                  Not when it comes to QM.
                  If you’re going to challenge conventional causality in relation to MACROSCOPIC EVENTS, either tie QM to real-world scale engineering (good luck) or drop the QM angle.

                  • #160623
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >My patchwork of broken theories doesn’t satisfactorily explain observations at multiple scales, therefore reality is inconsistent across different scales
                    Just go back to plebbit

    • #160584
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Gonna go against the grain here and say it’s possible. Our understanding of existence is very rudimentary and the fact that speculative math implies theoretical possibility indicates that sufficient understanding and control would make it possible. Probably not for a long time though, and our psyche and values might be different enough as a result of achieving the required understanding that FTL at that point will be seen as pointless.

    • #160586
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Never. Never. You’re born in this universe. You’re stuck in this universe.

    • #160588
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Whenever the intergalactic council decides we’re ready.

    • #160589
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No idea but I hope its possible and I hope it happens in my lifetime

    • #160590
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >How long until we have FTL craft?
      no idea, but this year someone checked the math behind alcubierre drive and found out we don’t need exotic matter. we just need much ordinary matter to bend space enough

      • #160646
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Couldn’t we end up turning this into an extremely powerful weapon

        • #160675
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Darpa notices…

    • #160597
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Since no hint of negative mass exists and our understanding of the fundamental physics in our universe is not going to change, I would say ftl just isn’t possible.

      >inb4 we don’t understand all of physics

      doesn’t matter. The speed of light is absolute. You understanding of physics doesn’t change fundamentally, it only gets more precise.

      • #160600
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Electrons have negative mass

        • #160602
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Electrons have negative mass
          Nope, you seem confused.

          • #160608
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Nope, it’s pretty simple. Electrons have negative charge, so they’re electromagnetically attracted to protons, and have negative mass, so they’re gravitationally repulsed. The electron orbit forms due to the balance of these two forces.

            • #160611
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >have negative mass
              Nope.

              >they’re gravitationally repulsed.
              Nope.

              >electron orbit forms due to the balance of these two forces.
              Nope.

              I really, REALLY wish this were true. We’d have anti-gravity tech as easily as basic electricity tech, and the Alcubierre drive as well. But you’re wrong.
              -sigh-

              • #160614
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >We’d have anti-gravity tech as easily as basic electricity tech
                Sure, if we could just put enough charge on an object then it would start floating. I wonder if anyone ever tried that….

                • #160622
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Still not hearing about negative mass, just your continued confusion relating to electrostatic charge vs mass.

                  • #160625
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Ok big guy, so why don’t you post proof that electrons have positive mass? Show your work.

        • #160607
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Negative charge, not negative mass dumbshit

          • #160610
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Negative charge and negative mass

    • #160621
      Anonymous
      Guest

      you will never hjave a vehichle thats faster than light. nasa floated that "warp" drive shit and cant make it. they claim they need exotic sub atomic particles. the particle they are looking for doesnt exist. its real generic and we have all of the stuff on earth. there is no particle that will solve the problem. its not like elements where you can say well some of it doesnt like oxygen. if you break open any atom you get 3/4 of whats possible. cern does that shit every now and then. never found the particle nasa needs. for reference a lepton equals 1/3 of whats left of the 1/4 of whats out there

      aside from that the craft being able to survive faster than light speed means nothing. nothing inside will survive the speed. earth to mars in less than a day and all you sent there is chum. good work. *golf clap

    • #160630
      Anonymous
      Guest

      https://i.imgur.com/XkmNJzu.gif

      Everybody here needs to read this now. Einstein had the right idea with the unified field theory. The problem was that he couldn’t explain the mechanical origin of gravity. Unfortunately he died 10 years before the discovery of the quarks. If he had known about quarks he would have realized that quark non-linear acceleration within the proton generates spatial contraction and therefore gravity. The contraction is spherically symmetric, like gravity, due to the dynamic geometry of the three quark motion in the proton and neutron.

      Also the Michaelson and Morley experiment is completely wrong. They should be using relativistic massive particle to detect the aether wind instead of photons. Repeat the Michaelson and Morley experiment using protons at CERN and you will find aether wind in the data.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353907073_On_the_Origins_of_Mass_Inertia_and_Gravity_-_The_Unified_Field_Theory_-_August_14_2021

      • #160634
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Einstein had the right idea with the unified field theory.
        He never produced one.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory#Current_status
        >Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything.

        >https://phys.org/news/2015-11-theory-stumped-einstein-dying-day.html
        >How the search for a unified theory stumped Einstein to his dying day

        Do you just make this shit up as you go along, AND never Google your imaginary bullshit?

        >Repeat the Michaelson and Morley experiment using protons at CERN and you will find aether wind in the data.
        Seems super unlikely. But go ahead, don’t let me stop you. Make your case to CERN and let’s see what they think. Let me know when you win that Noble prize.

        • #160637
          Anonymous
          Guest

          you are a scrotebrain scrote. Quantum mechanics is useful there’s no doubt, but QM is as right about reality as Newtonian physics. They are both just approximations, and in the case of QM it completely get bonked with infinities that have to be re normalized and not even that shit works with the innumerable QM woke af gravity theories that always fail. The aether is the one true field of the universe. Read the paper link I gave you pea brained fuck before you open yourdumb scrote mouth gain. We aint gonna get the truth of reality by throwing the same broken shit model at it over an over. Think outside the box and question the assumptions of logic that have been made in modern physics.

          • #160638
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >QM is as right about reality as Newtonian physics.
            And yet ANOTHER twat who knows more about physics than the actual physicists!
            But surely, *I’m* the scrotebrained "Basketball American".
            So sorry for not endorsing your use of the "n-word".

            • #160640
              Anonymous
              Guest

              QM is fundamentally wrong in the same way Newtonian physics is wrong. QM is a wonderfully accurate theory of the very small. It completely breaks when you try and quantize gravity. It also makes absurd predictions about the magnitude zero point energy of space which any LULZscrote knows about. scrotebrain scroteS LIKE YOU never shut up that the experts are always right because they are experts hurr durr. Actually freaking think, why have we not been able to quantize gravity???Why does QM make so many absurd unphysical predictions??QM can never take mankind to the ultimate TRUTH of physics, its nothing more than an incredibly accurate approximation of small particle kinematics.

    • #160645
      Anonymous
      Guest

      ITT: Popsci scrotebrains self-convinced they know better than the giants in the field, but utterly unable to make a convincing point.

    • #160652
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It is never happening. We will never leave the solar system. Just move on

      • #160653
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >We will never leave the solar system.
        Generation ships are still an (unlikely) option.

      • #160654
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What the fuck?
        We can already leave the solar system with current technology, you know?

        Conventional solar sails or plasma magnetic sails could both get you to 0.3c acceleration. That gets you to Alpha Centauri in roughly 12 to 15 years.

        In fact, Breakthrough Starshot, which is a project that is actually ongoing, plans to send a fleet of micro-ships with cameras using this solar sail method, travelling at 0.2c and getting there in a little over 20 years.

        Another method would be a nuclear pulse propulsion system, as in pic related. This spaceship concept, called Medusa, could also accelerate to 0.3c, though it would be controversial among normies and we would need to refine some aspects of materials science, it’s also doable with current technology.

        There’s also the issue of time dilation. Time dilation is your friend. On the example of a 12 year trip to Alpha Centauri at 0.3c, time would tick at a slower pace for the astronauts travelling, so from their perspective only 4 years would pass.

        So you have no idea what you are talking about. If we can leave the solar system with the primitive tech we have right now, we will certainly get better at it in the future provided we are still around and interested in funding these efforts.

        • #160655
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Conventional solar sails
          Not him, but…
          You might want to wait until there’s at ;east ONE real-life solar sail before you use the word "conventional".

          >Breakthrough Starshot,
          >getting there in a little over 20 years.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
          >it would take between twenty and thirty years to complete the journey, and approximately four years for a return message from the starship to Earth.

          Plus another 25 to (hopefully) develop the tech required by the project.
          And a little over 4 for data to be sent back.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
          >Milner places the final mission cost at $5–10 billion, and estimates the first craft could launch by around 2036

          So results by (maybe) 2060-2070?
          Certainly not "current technology", though.

          >controversial among normies
          This phrase should be a super-obvious red flag.

          >On the example of a 12 year trip to Alpha Centauri at 0.3c, time would tick at a slower pace for the astronauts travelling, so from their perspective only 4 years would pass.
          Do you just make these numbers up?
          Try this:
          tau = sqrt(1-v2/c2)
          At v = 0.3c, tau (your time dilation factor) is 0.954. A 12 year journey (to the outside world) will take 11.44 years to those on board.
          Also SUPER skeptical about reaching 0.3c with near-future technology.

          • #160656
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >tau = sqrt(1-v2/c2)
            should be v squared over c squared, not sure what went wrong.

        • #160670
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >We can already leave the solar system with current technology, you know?
          "We" cannot. We can send machines out there, though. We’re stuck here. We’re Earthlings.

          • #160677
            Anonymous
            Guest

            The technology to send a Human into Alpha Centauri already exists. Project Orion, Medusa. It’s not unattainable, there is just a lack of political will. Humans could endure a trip of 12 years there.

            So the idea that "we will never leave the solar system" is utterly scrotebrained.

            • #160679
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >already exists. Project Orion, Medusa.
              Neither exists.

              > It’s not unattainable,
              True.
              But isn’t the same as "exists".

              >Humans could endure a trip of 12 years there.
              Sure, but even "Breakthrough Starshot" says 20-30 years of travel for microbots to reach Alpha Centauri, and we’ll hopefully have developed the tech to do that within the next 25 years.

    • #160671
      Anonymous
      Guest

      We won’t even know if something like warp drive is possible until we have a reliable theory of gravity at all scales.

      • #160672
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >until we have a reliable theory of gravity at all scales.
        Help me connect the dots here, please.
        I’m not sure how these two relate.
        See also:

        >How long until we have FTL craft?
        Likely never.
        Pick any two, but definitely not all three:
        ► Relativity, as we understand it.
        ► Causality, as we understand it.
        ► FTL.

        >Pick any two, but definitely not all three:
        >► Relativity, as we understand it.
        >► Causality, as we understand it.
        >► FTL.
        Honestly not sure how a more complete understanding of gravity can resolve the obvious conflict here.

        • #160673
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Help me connect the dots here, please.

          GR is only reliable at large scales. So many of the more obscure things that the theory allows for, like the Alcubierre drive, are not reliable predictions in anyway.

          Because in a proper full theory of gravity, these would be affected by quantum phenomena, and once you incorporate that into the theory these obscure predictions might just go away.

          • #160678
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >GR is only reliable at large scales.
            Macroscopic scales.
            Atom sized or bigger.
            Like any practical FTL.
            Wait, even at subatomic scales, it’s still reliable, it just doesn’t explain all the weirdness we need QM for.

            >might
            Ok, cupcake.
            Still not hearing how FTL is "I don’t know" with our current knowledge.
            GR’s conflict with FTL is woke af on causality, not gravity.
            I’m pretty sure we’ve know FTL is a pipe dream since the Harding administration.

    • #160682
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Don’t you need negative mass for this to even possibly attainable? How would you get that?

    • #160687
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Probably 1-200 years. We need to understand how gravity actually works rather than just observe its effects, in order to have an FTL drive. Because in order to move an object across space times at higher than relativistic velocities without exceeding the speed of a photon, you need to be able to create a positive and negative gradient in spacetime which can only be done via a manipulation of gravity.

      Your pic is literally just that, a manipulation of gravitational gradients to cause "movement" across spacetime without violating causal localities.

Viewing 30 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id