NationStates Jolt Archive

when do you think we'll get warp/ftl engines, in light of how woefully crap space propulsion is at the mo? I know theres albucpierre (spelling?) theory but the energy requirements are massive...anywho I would like to see the development of ftl soon, even though its so far off if not impossible

when do you think we'll get warp/ftl engines, in light of how woefully crap space propulsion is at the mo? I know theres albucpierre (spelling?) theory but the energy requirements are massive...anywho I would like to see the development of ftl soon, even though its so far off if not impossible
Never.

Come back in a few hundred years - right now the question is inapropriate.

The question right now is how soon will humanity kill itself - when this becomes an inapropriate question by pulling ourselves from the brink of unwarranted nationalist, ethnocentric, religio-political stupidity and blind self-destruction, then we maybe able to entertain more progressive questions.

I would also like to see a real international effort into a robust, manned space exploration program, including research into exotic propulsion methods. But it seems extremely unlikely at this moment. Especially when at this very moment there are hundreds of millions living on a dolar a day and cant even read in thier own native tongue.

Warp drive is never likely to be developed. The only viable theory I've ever read involves using negative energy.

I think we'd all love to have the ability of travelling to other planets and solar systems quickly in our life time. Unfortunately we've got to accept that it's not gonna happen. The best we can hope for is a few pictures on the surface of a few planets from probes, and a few pictures of planets from other solar systems.

Well I don't know about FTL but engines like this one:
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/plasmacore.html
should get us moving pretty quickly. At least out into the Solar System. Once we can easily reach anywhere in this system we should be able to find ways to get to the next. :)

FTL travel is a bit ambitious, considering where we are now... Still, I figure in maybe three or four hundred years we will figure it out. But really, even if we never get it, as long as we figure out a decently quick way to communicate with very distant locations (Say, FTL communications rather than travel), I think we will be alright.

One should also keep in mind what predictions for the current date from fifty years ago were like. We are further ahead in many respects, and quite behind in others. Sure we don't have warp drive, but our computer storage devices are way more advanced than what they had on Star Trek. Perhaps a technology more important than FTL travel will come up, or our society will evolve in a way that makes it less important.

hmmm maybe, although there is the possibility that some uber genius willcome along and designs a ftl engine, similar things have happened before, there was this indian dude from the 20s rajumann, some name like that, anyway as I recall from reading this 5 years ago, he basically came up with theories which covered 200 years of european mathematics from a single second level maths textbook, and still has some theories which people are trying to work out today. He was spotted by english scholars and sent to cambridge before returning to India where he died of tuberculosis or some such disease.

This calls for some lyrics. A cookie to anyone who can place em

Rocket engines burning fuel so fast
Up into the night sky they blast
Through the universe the engines whine
Could it be the end of man and time
Back on earth the flame of life burns low
Everywhere is misery and woe
Pollution kills the air, the land and sea
Man prepares to meet his destiny
Rocket engines burning fuel so fast
Up into the night sky so vast
Burning metal through the atmosphere
Earth remains in worry, hate and fear
With the hateful battles raging on
Rockets flying to the glowing sun
Through the empires of eternal void
Freedom from the final suicide

Freedom fighters sent out to the sun
Escape from brainwashed minds and pollution.
Leave the earth to all its sin and hate
Find another world where freedom waits.
Past the stars in fields of ancient void
Through the shields of darkness where they find
Love upon a land a world unknown
Where the sons of freedom make their home

Leave the earth to satan and his slaves
Leave them to their future in the grave
Make a home where love is there to stay

*agrees*

Well there was some to do a while ago about the implications of Heim-Doescher Theory in space propulsion, like a Mars round trip in about four hours or something like that, so that could be quite cool if it worked, but it goes into crazy stuff like nine dimensions and al that jazz, so probably not for a while yet.

As for FTL... who knows? I'll tell ya who, the badgers that's who! But they ain't telling nobody...

Liasia']This calls for some lyrics. A cookie to anyone who can place em

Rocket engines burning fuel so fast
Up into the night sky they blast
Through the universe the engines whine
Could it be the end of man and time
Back on earth the flame of life burns low
Everywhere is misery and woe
Pollution kills the air, the land and sea
Man prepares to meet his destiny
Rocket engines burning fuel so fast
Up into the night sky so vast
Burning metal through the atmosphere
Earth remains in worry, hate and fear
With the hateful battles raging on
Rockets flying to the glowing sun
Through the empires of eternal void
Freedom from the final suicide

Freedom fighters sent out to the sun
Escape from brainwashed minds and pollution.
Leave the earth to all its sin and hate
Find another world where freedom waits.
Past the stars in fields of ancient void
Through the shields of darkness where they find
Love upon a land a world unknown
Where the sons of freedom make their home

Leave the earth to satan and his slaves
Leave them to their future in the grave
Make a home where love is there to stay

*agrees*

Oh and correct me if I'm wrong, but would that be Into The Void by Black Sabbath?

Oh and correct me if I'm wrong, but would that be Into The Void by Black Sabbath?
Oh yes it would.:p Take your blasted cookie *hands it over*

Liasia']Oh yes it would.:p Take your blasted cookie *hands it over*

Hurrah! *Takes cookie*

Mwahaha! Fool! I just Googled it, I had no idea before that! Mwahaha!

*Munches cookie both defiantly and smugly*

All your cookie are belong to me.

We already have them. Well, not we, exactly.

You see, when the Nazi's established a research facility on the moon in 1941, one of the projects that they were developing was an FTL engine, with the eventual plan of creating a Nazi colony on Thieo, and ensuring the survival of the Third Reich even if WW2 was lost and the moon base discovered. (We'll get to Thieo in a moment, hold on.)

Now, this project wasn't completed until 1959, by which time the moon base was the only surviving outpost of Nazi Germany. They didn't have enough Nazis left to establish a colony on Thieo. Then, in March of 1959, a meteor struck the moon base, and the Nazi researchers perished in the vacuum.

Kennedy, meanwhile, had recieved intelligence about the FTL drive, which was the true reason for his speech on May 25, 1961. Then, in a top secret move, the Apollo Omega was launched on July 17, 1969. It was closely followed by the Apollo 10, which served to deflect conspiracy theories that were already abounding about the Apollo Omega. The conspiracy theories were promptly forgotten.

Meanwhile, the crew of the Apollo Omega retrieved the schematics and a scale model of the FTL drive and returned to earth, landing in the Australian outback. They were retrieved and returned to the USA, where scientists constructed a FTL ship.

On the maiden voyage, on June 30, 1974, an inhabitable planet was found orbiting Alpha Centaurai. That was Thieo. A colony was established, and communication between Nova America and the government of the USA are more or less constant to this day. However, no other inhabitable worlds have been found as of yet.

I would like to point out to everyone in this thread that said warp drive will never happen, you're basing your answer on current physical information. You are in no position to determine what direction physics will take in the next 100 to 200 years. For all we know, we may find conditions that exist in space that would allow for ftl travel, much like Star Trek suggests it. Obviously it wouldn't be EXACTLY like it, since Star Trek is science fiction. But a lot of what was "science fiction" on Star Trek is now reality. In fact, Star Trek has physicists on the writing staff as consultants.

Hurrah! *Takes cookie*

Mwahaha! Fool! I just Googled it, I had no idea before that! Mwahaha!

*Munches cookie both defiantly and smugly*

All your cookie are belong to me.
Damn you! I was hoping someone would take at least 20 minuites. Right- name these ones then. hint: best song ever after supernaut

Sweet child in time youll see the line
The line thats drawn between the good and the bad
See the blind man shooting at the world
Bullets flying taking toll
If youve been bad, lord I bet you have
And youve been hit by flying lead
Youd better close your eyes and bow your head
And wait for the ricochet

Liasia']Damn you! I was hoping someone would take at least 20 minuites. Right- name these ones then. hint: best song ever after supernaut

Sweet child in time youll see the line
The line thats drawn between the good and the bad
See the blind man shooting at the world
Bullets flying taking toll
If youve been bad, lord I bet you have
And youve been hit by flying lead
Youd better close your eyes and bow your head
And wait for the ricochet

Am I allowed to Google this one too?

Am I allowed to Google this one too?
:rolleyes: Busted.

Liasia']:rolleyes: Busted.

Is that a no then? :(

Although I don't mind, I've already taken your cookie :p

Is that a no then? :(

Although I don't mind, I've already taken your cookie :p
Well, it's child in time by deep purple. If you've got 10 minuites i suggest you listen to it- the screaming will blow you away.

Liasia']Well, it's child in time by deep purple. If you've got 10 minuites i suggest you listen to it- the screaming will blow you away.

Nah - I'm alright with Morcheeba and The Zutons thanks :) Which if you haven't yet heard I highly suggest you take the time to, although if you're more of a heavy/death metal fan then they might not be quite your thang. No bad thing I suppose, since I've never been such a fan of heavy/death metal myself. Screamy music tends to either irritate me, give me a headache or both :D

Nah - I'm alright with Morcheeba and The Zutons thanks :) Which if you haven't yet heard I highly suggest you take the time to, although if you're more of a heavy/death metal fan then they might not be quite your thang. No bad thing I suppose, since I've never been such a fan of heavy/death metal myself. Screamy music tends to either irritate me, give me a headache or both :D
The zutons.. *gak*
Deep purple are more progressive 70s metal. Forget korn and deftones, think zepplin or sabbath. Death metal couldn't be further off.

Nope...ain't happenin'! Warp flight may be feasible in the future but not right now or even this century.

Liasia']The zutons.. *gak*
Deep purple are more progressive 70s metal. Forget korn and deftones, think zepplin or sabbath. Death metal couldn't be further off.

It's Who Killed The Zutons though, so it's good (not heard the new album, but apparently it's not so great).

Prog metal? Zepplin? I could probably handle that I suppose. In small doses at least :)

It's Who Killed The Zutons though, so it's good (not heard the new album, but apparently it's not so great).

Prog metal? Zepplin? I could probably handle that I suppose. In small doses at least :)
Download it, or try www.radioblogclub.com
I've heard one song by the Zutons, it was just like meh.

we'll probably not have ftl drives for centuries. too much stuff to worry about on earth first. also, there are a few things that we would have to take care of to make ftl drives feasible.
1. nothing travels faster than light. einstein proved that, which means we need to find an alternate way to cross great distances in a short timespan.
2. the power requirements would be immense. we would probably have to create a new energy source to compensate.
3. we have no idea what might happen to people if we travel that fast. we might not even be able to survive it.

3. we have no idea what might happen to people if we travel that fast. we might not even be able to survive it.
As an atom accelerates towards c it gains mass, until at the speed of light it has infinate mass. I think that's part of why light-speed travel is a bit unfeasable.

Liasia']Download it, or try www.radioblogclub.com
I've heard one song by the Zutons, it was just like meh.

I might check it out later - 1 in the morning perhaps not the best time to be busting rock metal from the speakers :D

Can you remember which song it was? Because if it wasn't from Who Killed The Zutons then I can't testify as to its quality, and even on that album the quality does drop a bit in one or two songs.

Liasia']As an atom accelerates towards c it gains mass, until at the speed of light it has infinate mass. I think that's part of why light-speed travel is a bit unfeasable.

And, as it gains infinite mass it therefore requires infinite energy to propel it, which, as you may have noticed, we don't have :D

Of course, when you've just collapsed in on yourself and formed the universe's latest black hole your engine problems are probably the least of your worries.

I might check it out later - 1 in the morning perhaps not the best time to be busting rock metal from the speakers :D

Can you remember which song it was? Because if it wasn't from Who Killed The Zutons then I can't testify as to its quality, and even on that album the quality does drop a bit in one or two songs.
Actually, two. In their videos one is multicoloured and the other is in a school-hall or some shit. Same timezone- rock on!

when do you think we'll get warp/ftl engines, in light of how woefully crap space propulsion is at the mo? I know theres albucpierre (spelling?) theory but the energy requirements are massive...anywho I would like to see the development of ftl soon, even though its so far off if not impossible

As another thought: What use will an FTL engine be once it is invented? Assuming by it assumed success, merely traveling beyond light speed doesn't tear the thing apart, how will the same be acheived for the hull of the craft it is attatched to, and indeed the crew and cargo?

Perhaps consider too the need for intertial dampener and structural integrity systems. This is also before we consider the effect of bumping into small or large static objects. So also some kind of deflector technology and advanced targetting / scanning systems would be necessary.

If we're making a wishlist - artificial gravity would be nice too. Someone once told me that such a thing is deemed impossible by the minds that be. Anyone know if that's correct?

So.....lots to do before we can even USE the faster than light engine.

As to your question (assuming all these other things presently deemed impossible are invented also): when? A very long way off, I would wager. Probably TOO far off. Beyond our time on this planet, and no doubt, significantly before we could use such technology to set up a new home world.


Kin Wicked


PS, what prompted this question?

Liasia']Actually, two. In their videos one is multicoloured and the other is in a school-hall or some shit. Same timezone- rock on!

School hall? Could possibly be 'Dirty Dancehall', which if you don't like it doesn't bode well, that being one of my favourites :p As for the other one not a clue lol, but seeing as you seem to dislike them anyway it probably doesn't matter anyway :D

How about Morcheeba? Heard them at all? Incredibly chillaxed they are (hmm, how Yodian), and also very good :) Possibly worth checking out if you need to cool it.

Woo! Let's hear it for GMT! Whereabouts are you? Actually in England? Or just usurping our timezone?

How about Morcheeba? Heard them at all? Incredibly chillaxed they are (hmm, how Yodian), and also very good :) Possibly worth checking out if you need to cool it.

Woo! Let's hear it for GMT! Whereabouts are you? Actually in England? Or just usurping our timezone?
Never heard of morcheeba. If you want relaxed, listen to some Kyuss. Stoner metal is the best.

Know where salisbury is?

PS, what prompted this question?

Being a Generalite. Need there be an actual reason beyond that?

when do you think we'll get warp/ftl engines, in light of how woefully crap space propulsion is at the mo?
Maybe next week.

Maybe next week.
I already have one. It's in my garage.

Liasia']Never heard of morcheeba. If you want relaxed, listen to some Kyuss. Stoner metal is the best.

Know where salisbury is?

Ah! Salisbury! Not too far from me! About three hours drive away from me in fact, assuming we're talking the same Salisbury here; plain? Henge? That the right one?

Why try for FTL engines when you could go all the way and develop space-folding technology?

Ah! Salisbury! Not too far from me! About three hours drive away from me in fact, assuming we're talking the same Salisbury here; plain? Henge? That the right one?
Cathedral too:p . Yeh you are. 3 hours, if you walk.

Liasia']Cathedral too:p . Yeh you are. 3 hours, if you walk.

Salisbury is three hours walk from Portsmouth?! :eek: What on earth kind of legs do you have? Five mile long ones? Because I'm pretty sure it's not that close lol.

Or failing that tell us your secret of such fast foot travel; you could solve all our energy and pollution problems.

Oh wait, is this the FTL drive you have in your garage? I thought you onlyy kept it for show?

Salisbury is three hours walk from Portsmouth?! :eek: What on earth kind of legs do you have? Five mile long ones? Because I'm pretty sure it's not that close lol.

Or failing that tell us your secret of such fast foot travel; you could solve all our energy and pollution problems.

Oh wait, is this the FTL drive you have in your garage? I thought you onlyy kept it for show?
Well i was being sarcasmagic. Damn my lack of italics. Should have read 'yeh, if you walk:rolleyes: '
That ftl drive was the best £20 I ever spent.

Liasia']Well i was being sarcasmagic. Damn my lack of italics. Should have read 'yeh, if you walk:rolleyes: '
That ftl drive was the best £20 I ever spent.

*Blank look* I still don't geddit... (Being veeeery slow at the moment if you hadn't guessed lol. Damn philosophy homework draining mental capacity.)

And yeah I saw one of those at a car boot sale, but I spent my last few quid on a burger so I didn't yoink it. Ah well, it's not like I'd ever really use it anyway :D

we'll probably not have ftl drives for centuries. too much stuff to worry about on earth first. also, there are a few things that we would have to take care of to make ftl drives feasible.
1. nothing travels faster than light. einstein proved that, which means we need to find an alternate way to cross great distances in a short timespan.
2. the power requirements would be immense. we would probably have to create a new energy source to compensate.
3. we have no idea what might happen to people if we travel that fast. we might not even be able to survive it.

I love your notion that there's "too much stuff to worry about on earth first.". When has that ever stopped human endeavour? Don't mean to be mean there, but....yu'know! Even if we solved all the worlds problems - it's not as though 100% of the workforce would be focussed on the issue of space travel faster than light.

"nothing travels faster than light. einstein proved that" - Isn't that still part of the THEORY of relativity? I shnt invite anyone to correct me as someone almost certainly will if I'm wrong. But indeed, assuming all the maths is correct, then anything approaching the speed of light attains infiite mass and thus requires infinite energy to propell it. I find that notion a little peculiar myself insofar as surely putting INFINITE energy into something ought to still propell it fast enough not to really take any time to get anywhere - and yet there's millions and billions of lightYEARS out there to be covered. It sits somewhat uncomfortably with me, is all I'm saying. I'm sure someone will at least tell me I'm wrong in my supposing whether they try to offer an explanation of not. But isn't light both energy and matter? Isn't the Photon a light particle? Therefore I'm ASSUMING (most likely incorrectly - I admit to ignorance here) that a single photon travelling at the speed of light is using an infinite quantity of energy. But is it not therefore reasonable to ask.....where does all the rest of the energy in the universe comefrom if an infinite quantity is piled into driving but one Photon. Unless we're happy to divide up infinity into infinite parts since this would still result in all prts being infinite, inwhich case, the production or use of infinite quantities of energy, though currently out of our grasp is surely not entirely unfeasible.

I know I'm talking bollocks - so I'm looking forward to someone endeavouring to tell me how the universe works (though I reserve the right to remain confused and still disbelieve the infalibility of science).

But - for a model of how ftl travel may be plausible (if only as a narative idea) you could look at the Star-Trek-Science and how they explain it away. I'm a little foggy on this now but I'll see what I can remember. They side step Einsteinian ideas by bending space. They talk of subspace which has me a bit confused, but my simplistic understanding of this fictional science is the the warp nacelles of the ship create a warp field (ie, bend space) so as to bring a point in space closer to the the ship rather than moving the ship through space conventionally. It is also reffered to that Sub Space is non-Einsteinian spce and so I can only envisage it perhaps the warped space between the vessel and the destination. One episode of TNG even suggested that the fabric of space could be torn through over use of warp. I think that must be seated firmly in sci-fi though rather than having much grounding in real science theory. But again - I know there's plenty out there who would be keen to correct me if I'm even a little bit wrong.

"the power requirements would be immense. we would probably have to create a new energy source to compensate."
Again - we can use the Star Trek model if you like. From what I recall (I used to be a much bigger Trek fan than I am now) the power source is a matter/anti-matter reaction. Hydrogen is supposedly collected by the Bussard Ramscoop Hydrogen Collectors that sit at the front of the Nacelles (Is there meant to be hydrogen just randomly floating in space? I dunno!). This is converted into the isotope deuterium and stored in a tank and there you have the matter for the reaction. Some of this is converted to anti hydrogens (don't know how this is acomplished) and stored in antimatter storage compartments. As required, the matter and the antimatter are injected into the warp core. The reaction chamber contains dilithium crystals that are supposed to act as a catalyst of some sort and teh resultant anergy is taken awaythrough a conduit system. This energy runs the EM power grid as well as the Warp system, though back up and alternate energy systems are in place. eg, the impulse drive is operated on some kind of fusion reaction.

There you go - there's one model for you. Anyone got any other pseudo-scientific/technological explanations for ftl travel from either Star Trek or some other elabourate Sci-Fi saga? Maybe someone can tell us how the Romulans are supposed to utilise singularities?

"we have no idea what might happen to people if we travel that fast. we might not even be able to survive it"
I think SPLAT! or SQUISH! might suffice for reasonable notions here. I have troubly buying into the notion that ime would slow or stop or even reverse as one passes the light barrier. I can understand that exceeding the medium we use to see things will make things APPEAR in the wrong order, but I don't think that's any reason to think that it will alter time itself...... Now!...... Who wants to rip me up over that?


Had fun....so now I'm done!


Kin Wicked

*snip*


Had fun....so now I'm done!


Kin Wicked
DUDE! I hope you didn't just write all that! Must have took some time.

*Blank look* I still don't geddit... (Being veeeery slow at the moment if you hadn't guessed lol. Damn philosophy homework draining mental capacity.)

And yeah I saw one of those at a car boot sale, but I spent my last few quid on a burger so I didn't yoink it. Ah well, it's not like I'd ever really use it anyway :D
Don't worry about it dude, I'm most likely talking b/s anyway.
I use mine for dishes- it does em speedily at least, but the energy bills are a pain in the arse.

Being a Generalite. Need there be an actual reason beyond that?

No! Of course not! Just wondered if there was any specific thing bashing around your head that prompted the question. Fair enough!

"nothing travels faster than light. einstein proved that" - Isn't that still part of the THEORY of relativity? I shnt invite anyone to correct me as someone almost certainly will if I'm wrong. But indeed, assuming all the maths is correct, then anything approaching the speed of light attains infiite mass and thus requires infinite energy to propell it. I find that notion a little peculiar myself insofar as surely putting INFINITE energy into something ought to still propell it fast enough not to really take any time to get anywhere - and yet there's millions and billions of lightYEARS out there to be covered. It sits somewhat uncomfortably with me, is all I'm saying. I'm sure someone will at least tell me I'm wrong in my supposing whether they try to offer an explanation of not. But isn't light both energy and matter? Isn't the Photon a light particle? Therefore I'm ASSUMING (most likely incorrectly - I admit to ignorance here) that a single photon travelling at the speed of light is using an infinite quantity of energy. But is it not therefore reasonable to ask.....where does all the rest of the energy in the universe comefrom if an infinite quantity is piled into driving but one Photon. Unless we're happy to divide up infinity into infinite parts since this would still result in all prts being infinite, inwhich case, the production or use of infinite quantities of energy, though currently out of our grasp is surely not entirely unfeasible.

I know I'm talking bollocks - so I'm looking forward to someone endeavouring to tell me how the universe works (though I reserve the right to remain confused and still disbelieve the infalibility of science).

You do indeed seem to have got somewhat confused here; once something has infinite mass then that will sorta cancel out the infinite energy it has, so it won't be going infinitely fast (not quite true, but close enough, and understandable). It the same as the immovable object/unstoppable force conundrum, ish.

Also, a photon does not require infinite energy to propel it as it has no mass, and therefore technically requires no evergy at all to propel it. Although my knowledge of quantum mechanics and all that jazz is still somewhat sketchy I'm pretty sure that's right.

Of course, it's entirely possible that I too am speaking total bollocks and we're both about to get served by someone with more than an AS in physics, almost none of which had anything to do with quantum physics (or anything interesting at all for that matter. Stupid bloody syllabus).

Oh and I think there is a fair amount of random crap just dossing about in space. It's just really really spread out, so how well a Ramscoop would work I don't know.

No! Of course not! Just wondered if there was any specific thing bashing around your head that prompted the question. Fair enough!

Hehe, I wasn't criticising, just saying. Looking for reason in NS Gen is like... like... like looking for a decent simile at 2 in the morning :D


Liasia]Don't worry about it dude, I'm most likely talking b/s anyway.
I use mine for dishes- it does em speedily at least, but the energy bills are a pain in the arse.

Hehe, well I'm pretty sure at least one of us is, and if you're prepared to take responsibility I won't object :D

As for energy you should just check out one of those antimatter/matter hydrogen reactors that take hydrogen from ramscoops and convert it to something and that feature so prominently in poorly constructed parodies of other posts.

Bide your time, patience conquers all things. Did we go straight from the Wright Brother's plane to a Harrier Jump Jet in a couple of years? Did we go straight from a Ford Model T to a Bugatti Veyron in the blink of an eye? The race to space is even more arduous, dangerous and expensive than these two things combined, and will thus take even longer to advance. At present, our space programs are at the stage of the Ford Model T. How are we to know when we will build a Veyron? I would give several hundred years as a very generous estimate.

You do indeed seem to have got somewhat confused here; once something has infinite mass then that will sorta cancel out the infinite energy it has, so it won't be going infinitely fast (not quite true, but close enough, and understandable). It the same as the immovable object/unstoppable force conundrum, ish.

Also, a photon does not require infinite energy to propel it as it has no mass, and therefore technically requires no evergy at all to propel it. Although my knowledge of quantum mechanics and all that jazz is still somewhat sketchy I'm pretty sure that's right.

Of course, it's entirely possible that I too am speaking total bollocks and we're both about to get served by someone with more than an AS in physics, almost none of which had anything to do with quantum physics (or anything interesting at all for that matter. Stupid bloody syllabus).

Oh and I think there is a fair amount of random crap just dossing about in space. It's just really really spread out, so how well a Ramscoop would work I don't know.



Hehe, I wasn't criticising, just saying. Looking for reason in NS Gen is like... like... like looking for a decent simile at 2 in the morning :D




Hehe, well I'm pretty sure at least one of us is, and if you're prepared to take responsibility I won't object :D

As for energy you should just check out one of those antimatter/matter hydrogen reactors that take hydrogen from ramscoops and convert it to something and that feature so prominently in poorly constructed parodies of other posts.

I know if I'm looking for serious answers I should go and seek the info online at least (if not take up the relevant sciences through full time learning - a bit intense if I just want to talk about this stuff with people on the internet but there you go) - but it's so much more fun asking such questions of people who opennly admit to not knowing enough to give a full answer - it's more fun because, while you probably know more than me - I feel amongst equals ;)

So, here goes:

A Photon has no mass? Is it a particle of matter or not? Is it just a term applied to the smallest amount of light energy possible?

You were saying too that the infinite mass would mean that...what...it has infinite momentum, perhaps? And thus the energy driving it is no longer required/being used because it's then under it's own steam? I feel I must be misreading something there because surely the relatevistic mass that has been placed upon the moving particle is only there BECAUSE of the energy that is driving it. Take that energy away and surely the particle would both stop moving and lose its increased mass? I assume I'm totally off the plot. There'll be a science boff out there somewhere who can smell the confusion miles away and will come to set us straight in no time flat (relatively speaking).

Another question that maybe you or someone else here might want to field: are we sure there is nothing that moves faster than light BEYOND simply chalking the equations on a board and saying that it seems pretty watertight? I ask this because when I get involved in any religious debates here, PROOF is always required, but there are some accepted theories within science that I wonder whether they'll ever be proven. Here's my simplistic thinking:

Our eyes are instruments sensitive to a certain energy spectrum. They pick up on light. We cannot hear with our eyes (ie - SEE a noise (accepting of course the physical byproducts of a really BIG noise) for instance. So, surely, we have no way to ever see and verify anything that would move beyond the speed of light. Even if it all makes sense on paper, is it provable beyond a doubt? Is there a model for how it can be tested if the means become available?

Again - references back to good old star trek - they sometimes made references to such a particle (one that moves ftl) and they called it a chronoton(sp?) particle if memory serves correctly. Is this one such model? A concept of something not yet proven or perhaps something that is believed to exist, or is it all simply as sci-fi as I expect. As far as I was concerned it was just a narrative mechanism to rope in a time travel story or get an early space faring culture to exceed the light barrier accidentally; but being pretty ignorant of the facts, you never know when the writers were blatently making crap up or drawing from some scientific theory or other.

Anyway - If I think of anymore remedial science questions for people to answer, I'll bring them back to you all too soon, I'm sure.


Kin Wicked

...while you probably know more than me - I feel amongst equals ;)

Just re read this - that should have been:

while you evidently know more than me

Liasia']I already have one. It's in my garage.
Whats the mileage on that thing?

Why try for FTL engines when you could go all the way and develop space-folding technology?
I´m not realy an origami person.

Whats the mileage on that thing?
A kabillion miles. I took it out for a spin the other day, in 1st gear, ended up in the crab nebula! I was like 'WTF mates?'

Liasia']A kabillion miles. I took it out for a spin the other day, in 1st gear, ended up in the crab nebula! I was like 'WTF mates?'
You should get yourself a GPS with that.

You should get yourself a GPS with that.
Or just stick to making sanwhiches with it.

Liasia']Or just stick to making sanwhiches with it.
So what was the crap nebula like?

Liasia']A kabillion miles. I took it out for a spin the other day, in 1st gear, ended up in the crab nebula! I was like 'WTF mates?'
Can you give me a ride home from the bar tonight?

So what was the crap nebula like?
Crap. I think i caught crabs from it.. or it might have been Lauren.

Can you give me a ride home from the bar tonight?
So done. As long as you pay for the petrol.

Liasia']So done. As long as you pay for the petrol.
I have only my body to barter with. *sobs*

People are always so negative.

If you sail too far, you'll fall off the edge of the ocean!

If man was meant to fly, he'd have wings!

It's just too darn far to fly between the stars!

Cracks are showing in the foundation of physcis as it is propounded today.

Have a look at these babies:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200

FTL? Bah! Give me an airline with edible food first! Then we'll talk about FTL.

I have only my body to barter with. *sobs*
You know i'd hit that shit.:p

I have only my body to barter with. *sobs*
Well, maybe biomass can be used to fuel the warp core.

Honestly, the scenario put forth by Babylon 5 seems FAR more plausable to me than us developing FTL on our own (at least in any kind of within 500 years timeframe). So much as I understand it, we began exploring our own solar system and our efforts happened to attract the attention of a (semi) friendly alien race. We established a trade relationship with them and one of the things we got from them was FTL drive (hyperspace drive). To me, that seems more plausable than developing FTL anytime soon. Then again, considering that the technology of today would seem fantastic and, fankly, impossible to people of even 200 years ago. Granted, once we explained the principles behind our technology to these people, it'd make more sense. Example: the abacus existed LONG ago, but no one from that era even imagined that its basic principle would develop into the computers that we have today. A similar kind of development process seems, to me, to be very plausable. Also, on another note: stop saying "it's only a theory". A scientific theory is called a THEORY and not a HYPOTHESIS because it has been proven to within a certain degree of plausability through evidence and investigation. Science just isn't arrogant enough to label anything supported through evidence to be a LAW, we still leave the possibility open that something about it is wrong by calling it a THEORY.

I have only my body to barter with. *sobs*
Well, you know how the saying goes: grass, gas, or ass, but nobody rides for free.

when do you think we'll get warp/ftl engines, in light of how woefully crap space propulsion is at the mo? I know theres albucpierre (spelling?) theory but the energy requirements are massive...anywho I would like to see the development of ftl soon, even though its so far off if not impossible

How do you think I got here? Walked?

Handwavium flat out violates laws of physics. We're waving our hands and saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. FTL is handwavium in its many forms. I tend to hold that all these designs that ignore thermodynamics are handwavium, as are force fields and gravitic whosimawatchises. Faster-Than-Light travel is about as handwavium as you can get. It is unfortunately the sine qua non of interstellar space opera. Space opera with no StarDrive is like chocolate cake without the chocolate. Why does FTL violate the laws of physics? Well, that is complicated, but there are two main problems: the Light-speed barrier and Causality.

The Light-Speed Barrier
No, this is not like the "sound barrier", it is much more fundamental.

That old spoil-sport Einstein created his theory of General and Special Relativity. Before that, Newtonian physics predicted that if your spacecraft burnt X amount of fuel, it would be accelerated by a velocity of Y, always. Which makes common sense.

Relativity says that may be true at normal velocities, but it doesn't hold at speeds close to the speed of light "c". At those speeds, burning X amount of fuel will accelerate your spacecraft by less than Y, i.e., to accelerate by Y, you need to burn more than X fuel.

And to move at the speed of light, you'd need an infinite amount of fuel. And more than infinity if you want to move faster. Since it is impossible to burn an infinite amount of fuel it is impossible to move at the speed of light, let alone faster.

Every single FTL drive you read about in science fiction is some clever way to avoid the light speed barrier.

Causality
Your average physicist holds Relativity quite strongly. It has been tested again and again with an accuracy of many decimal places. They hold onto Causality even tighter. Without Causality the entire structure of physics crumbles. Causes must preceed effects, or it becomes impossible to make predictions. If it is impossible to make predictions, it would be best to give up physics for a more profitable line of work.

It simply will not work. If you think it can work, prove it. The best we'll probably ever do is a really fast rocket. Antimatter? Maybe but we'd need 10 milligrams just to get to Mars and back and it'd take a million years just to make 1 milligram. So that's out.

Using nukes could get us to the moon or even our closest planets (Mars or Venus) in a reasonable amount of time but it'd take a few thousand years to get to the nearest star.

Using chemical rockets, it'd take 70,000+ years to get to the nearest star.

We're prisoners of our planetary system. The End.

Well there was some to do a while ago about the implications of Heim-Doescher Theory in space propulsion, like a Mars round trip in about four hours or something like that, so that could be quite cool if it worked, but it goes into crazy stuff like nine dimensions and al that jazz, so probably not for a while yet.Actually, testing the theory would be relatively cheap and simple compared to most modern physics projects, at least insofar as the spacedrive part is concerned. The only real problem is sustaining a magnetic field of high enough intensity, which can be taken care of by the Z-machine if no other option is available, and *if* the tests confirmed the theory, I'd say we could have working spacedrives in under a decade from the time of confirmation.
The FTL-hyperspace bit, on the other hand, is a bit trickier. The theory seems to suffer from frame-variance problems, if I understand it correctly (which I may not).
For all we know, we may find conditions that exist in space that would allow for ftl travel, much like Star Trek suggests it. Obviously it wouldn't be EXACTLY like it, since Star Trek is science fiction. But a lot of what was "science fiction" on Star Trek is now reality. In fact, Star Trek has physicists on the writing staff as consultants.Had. Unfortunately, it appears that they were consistently ignored.
If we're making a wishlist - artificial gravity would be nice too. Someone once told me that such a thing is deemed impossible by the minds that be. Anyone know if that's correct?
Nope. There are a few options available for artificial gravity. But the currently most-plausible one involves continuously accelerating large masses of neutronium around a toroid to make use of gravitomagnetic effects. And if we ever get the technology to set that up, artificial gravity will probably be a rather quaint and pointless aplication in most cases.
It simply will not work. If you think it can work, prove it. The best we'll probably ever do is a really fast rocket. Antimatter? Maybe but we'd need 10 milligrams just to get to Mars and back and it'd take a million years just to make 1 milligram. So that's out.Even at current production rates, that's an exaggeration. And current production rates are a result of converting particle accelerators to produce small quantities of antiparticles for experimental purposes, at extremely low efficiency. AFAIK, with current technology, a purpose-built antimatter production facility could be expected to run at 6000 times Fermilab's (for example) production efficiency, and an even greater increase in production rate (granted, though, that that still leaves us with a production efficiency of only .01%).

i'm sure humanity will think of something in the next few centuries. it's not like we're going anywhere. besides, there's plenty of theories for ftl floating around out there.

Nope. There are a few options available for artificial gravity. But the currently most-plausible one involves continuously accelerating large masses of neutronium around a toroid to make use of gravitomagnetic effects. And if we ever get the technology to set that up, artificial gravity will probably be a rather quaint and pointless aplication in most cases.
Currently, science knows of precious few methods of simulating gravity on a spacecraft. These boil down to: using acceleration by thrusting the ship, spinning the ship (or sections of the ship) to utilize "centrifugal force", or placing a large mass under the ship (generally by landing on a planet). Centrifugal force is the method of choice for obvious reasons.

Thrusting the ship would burn up lots of fuel. Good for a torchship but in real life this would be unacceptable.

The mass would keep you from going anywhere because you can't move a planet. If you could, there'd be no reason to leave it because you could just take it with you.

And neutronium doesn't exist outside of a neutron star! It can't! Neutronium is a super-nucleus made of nothing but neutrons! It forms when you squeeze electrons and protons together. You'd never be able to get it out. If you did, it wouldn't stay neutronium.

Even at current production rates, that's an exaggeration. And current production rates are a result of converting particle accelerators to produce small quantities of antiparticles for experimental purposes, at extremely low efficiency. AFAIK, with current technology, a purpose-built antimatter production facility could be expected to run at 6000 times Fermilab's (for example) production efficiency, and an even greater increase in production rate (granted, though, that that still leaves us with a production efficiency of only .01%).
You don't know much. It really isn't much of an exaggeration. If we kept cranking it out at our current rate and never advanced our technology it'd take that long to get a whole milligram of antimatter. Making a machine whose sole purpose is to produce this stuff isn't as easy as you might think. If we could make something with that kind of efficiency, we would have already. And 1000000 divided by 6000 is about 166, so just to get to Mars once, we'd need 1666 years worth. You'd need tons of this stuff to get to Proxima. Go out halfway, skew flip with thrusters, and then you'd need to decelerate or you'd just cruise past the Centauri system.

Everyone, I hate to crush your dreams - actually I love it, it's very fun and you should try it sometime - but it just won't happen.

i'm sure people said man won't fly either. it's just a matter of finding the right way to do it.

i'm sure people said man won't fly either. it's just a matter of finding the right way to do it.
This isn't like breaking the sound barrier. This is the universal speed limit. Photons are massless. The matter we're made of isn't. You cannot catch up to light. You cannot go at the speed of light. No matter how fast you go, you will always get beaten.

I don't like to loose *bites apple* The only way you could go FTL is by changing the rules and I just don't see how you could do that. We can't manipulate or create gravity. We can't bend space. We can't create wormholes. Hell, we can't even agree that they could exist. You can't just say that we'll eventually find a way. Even antimatter rockets have problems because the half the energy from an matter/antimatter reaction is carried away as neutrinos, which could pass 100 light-years of solid lead with only a 50 percent chance of being absorbed and so it might as well be considered lost!

This is one time you really can't speed, no matter how much you might want to.

i'm sure people said man won't fly either. it's just a matter of finding the right way to do it.I agree!

I think the biggest thing which stops human advancement (in any endeavor) is people believing "impossibility" theories. Especially when said theories get big names behind them.

I'd LOVE to take Dosuun's challenge to "prove it" about ftl travel, and be the one to ice that part of Einstein's Relativity Theory. But unfortunately, I don't have a bajillion dollars laying around, which is what it'd take to hire a team of progressive physicists and make a working ftl engine (along with probably several beta versions).

But I do think that this thought that it "can't be done" will fall into history's dustbin, right alongside the notion that humans can't do heavier-than-air flight and other such disproven things that "every physicist worth his salt knew couldn't work" back in their day.

My prediction admittedly isn't based on a knowledge of physics, but it is based on knowing what has happened with other things people have thought couldn't be done throughout history. It takes a few serious attempts before it happens, and the first ones to try end up looking like kooks--but someone always ends up doing it. Then the Big Name Physicists/Mathemeticians of the day scramble to fix their disproven theories.

As for when, I'd say during my lifetime, or at least significant strides will be made by then. Enough people are willing to at least explore the idea right now, that at least some of them will probably end up devoting sufficient time/energy/money to it to accomplish it.

It won't happen. Believe me, I'd really love some kind of FTL system but it just won't happen. This isn't like heavier-than-air flight. This isn't like sound barrier. This isn't like getting something into space. The speed of light in a vacuum (that makes a huge difference) is the ultimate limit on velocity. There is no going past it, no going around it, no going over or under it. It doesn't matter how much time, energy, or money you devote to this. You will never make 1 + 1 = 3.

There are a few FTL projects going on. At least one has claimed to have actually 'warped' matter from one point to another at FTL velocities, apparently using high powered electro magnets and exotic matter structures to achieve the 'warp' effect (Exotic as in 'unpronounceable element' not exotic as in 'dark/anti matter')
I'm too lazy to dig up the links, just use Google.

There are a few FTL projects going on. At least one has claimed to have actually 'warped' matter from one point to another at FTL velocities, apparently using high powered electro magnets and exotic matter structures to achieve the 'warp' effect (Exotic as in 'unpronounceable element' not exotic as in 'dark/anti matter')
I'm too lazy to dig up the links, just use Google.
That's too bad because I'd really like to see what you're talking about.

That's easy: in 2291, when a secret team of UNSC scientists implement the basic principles of Slipspace discovered by Shaw and Fujikawa to construct a Translight Engine, a device capable of generating a resonance field which allows starships to tunnel into the Slipstream, an alternate physical realm where faster-than-light travel is both possible and free of relativistic side effects.

Halo rocks.

That's easy: in 2291, when a secret team of UNSC scientists implement the basic principles of Slipspace discovered by Shaw and Fujikawa to construct a Translight Engine, a device capable of generating a resonance field which allows starships to tunnel into the Slipstream, an alternate physical realm where faster-than-light travel is both possible and free of relativistic side effects.

Halo rocks.
Halo was science fiction with an emphasis on the fiction. We're talking about the real world here so FTL isn't possible.

That's too bad because I'd really like to see what you're talking about.
Google it then

It won't happen. Believe me, I'd really love some kind of FTL system but it just won't happen. This isn't like heavier-than-air flight. This isn't like sound barrier. This isn't like getting something into space. The speed of light in a vacuum (that makes a huge difference) is the ultimate limit on velocity. There is no going past it, no going around it, no going over or under it. It doesn't matter how much time, energy, or money you devote to this. You will never make 1 + 1 = 3.


ugh, duh, its called a computer error, or maybe some lag....

but anyways, the answer is easy, we simply continue to build up ar warring capability to the point were the human race is the ultimate and unbeatable Race of War. Then we wait until and advanced alien race approches and we kick the shit outta them and steal all they're transportation technology and BAM! we're on our way to Universal Domination.:eek:

Had. Unfortunately, it appears that they were consistently ignored.

Not really. I've seen a few science specials since the last Star Trek series was on the air, and according to several physicists, and Andre Bormanis (the science consultant on Star Trek: TNG, DS9, and VOY), have stated that Star Trek is very close to reality in terms of interstellar travel and spatial phenomenon than any other sci-fi series/film. The only inaccuracy so far are the asteriod fields. Asteriods don't float together that closely. I'm sure there are other inaccuracies, but they're probably more related to the more "fictional" technologies of Star Trek than anything else.

It won't happen. Believe me, I'd really love some kind of FTL system but it just won't happen. This isn't like heavier-than-air flight. This isn't like sound barrier. This isn't like getting something into space. The speed of light in a vacuum (that makes a huge difference) is the ultimate limit on velocity. There is no going past it, no going around it, no going over or under it.Actually, there's numerous loop holes past, around, over and under it. While matter can't be accelerated to light speed or faster. Such a limitation does not hold for space itself. So in fact the concept of "warp drive" is valid, as it moves not the ship in space, but it moves the space around the ship through space.
And than there's loopholes like space folding, wormholes, and transversing different dimensions. All of which are not without any theoretic basis. (Although some of the requirements for certain methods are.. exotic.. to say the least)

Aside from that, science is a work in progress. What we assume to be true (due to overwhelming evidence and lack of a good alternative) may not ultimately turn out to be fact. Just because einsteins theory of relativity says lightspeed is the absolute limit, doesn't make it true. We have no evidence that it's not, but then we had no evidence of relativistic effects in Newtons time. Science will progress one way or another, and the reality of our universe may be something we can hardly imagine now. It's certainly no reason to give up creative thought.
Perhaps (pseudo-)FTL is a pipedream, but the small chance that it isn't, combined with the possible rewards (even just in terms of scientific achievement), it's worth it. If nothing else the road there will be a theoretic wonderland (best left to theoretical physicists and sci-fi writers, mind you..).

Actually, there's numerous loop holes past, around, over and under it. While matter can't be accelerated to light speed or faster. Such a limitation does not hold for space itself. So in fact the concept of "warp drive" is valid, as it moves not the ship in space, but it moves the space around the ship through space.
And just how are we going to warp space? You need mass to warp space. To warp space like that would require the manipulation of matter with a negative energy density. All known forms of matter have positive energy density and pressures or tensions that are always less than the energy density in magnitude. Just because an idea doesn't seem to violate any law doesn't mean it can be a reality.

And than there's loopholes like space folding, wormholes, and transversing different dimensions. All of which are not without any theoretic basis. (Although some of the requirements for certain methods are.. exotic.. to say the least)
Physicists can't even agree that wormholes can exist or not or what they'd be like if they could/did exist. We have no way to fold space. We have no way to use the different dimensions to move anything. We either don't have a way to do it or we haven't confirmed it. FTL travel is speculation at best and an impossibility at worst.

Halo was science fiction with an emphasis on the fiction. We're talking about the real world here so FTL isn't possible.
Naw, I could've sworn that the people at Bungie had a prophetic vision of 26-th century technology, which they then put in their game's backstory. :rolleyes:

Of course it's science fiction. I was just using this thread as an excuse to insert an obscure Halo reference.

I say let's forcibly evolve the right kinda lobes to warp Spacetime around ourselves and we'll all meet up somewhere around Vega.

I say let's forcibly evolve the right kinda lobes to warp Spacetime around ourselves and we'll all meet up somewhere around Vega.
Right...Come again?

Right...Come again?
Instrumentality can only take you so far. There's a whole lot happening around us that we're not properly aware of, due to sensory limitations and how we can actually process and digest the information our senses provide us. So, we either build systems designed to prop us up, or - we rebuild ourselves to adapt as required.

So, build yourself an FTL drive, or engineer an FTL person. I like the idea of individuals being able to traverse Spacetime at will, as that greatly reduces the chances of extending outmoded, humanicentric hierarchical structures into regions beyond Earth.

I know I'd like stepping from one world to another just by using the proper lobe for the job. It'd beat sitting on an interstellar bus coach, that's for damn sure.

Instrumentality can only take you so far. There's a whole lot happening around us that we're not properly aware of, due to sensory limitations and how we can actually process and digest the information our senses provide us. So, we either build systems designed to prop us up, or - we rebuild ourselves to adapt as required.

So, build yourself an FTL drive, or engineer an FTL person. I like the idea of individuals being able to traverse Spacetime at will, as that greatly reduces the chances of extending outmoded, humanicentric hierarchical structures into regions beyond Earth.

I know I'd like stepping from one world to another just by using the proper lobe for the job. It'd beat sitting on an interstellar bus coach, that's for damn sure.
And just how is thi--never mind, I'll just kill it now. People can't live in space. They cannot move in space. There is not way to do this. Your idea is about as dumb as an idea can get. I know there are no stupid questions but there are stupid people and you fall right into that category if you honestly think this would have a snowballs chance in a hot hell of working.

Just because an idea doesn't seem to violate any law doesn't mean it can be a reality.Nor does the opposite hold. Which is more to the point.
If it violated physical laws, than there's very good grounds to say it's impossible, barring faulty theories (which is still entirely possible). If it doesn't contradict an theories, the what more is it than an opinion? At the very least you can investigate the ludicrous contraption one would need to make it a possibility.

Physicists can't even agree that wormholes can exist or not or what they'd be like if they could/did exist. We have no way to fold space. We have no way to use the different dimensions to move anything. We either don't have a way to do it or we haven't confirmed it.A hundred years ago we had no way to build jet engines either. Current technology and science isn't the pinnacle of all we can achieve. If we outright dismiss everyting, we'll never have either confirmation or falsification.

FTL travel is speculation at best and an impossibility at worst.As are many theories and inventions at first. Ask someone a hundred years ago about travelling faster than sound, they'd laugh at the preposterous notion.
Our current physics does not a priori disallow some form of FTL, so it's worth investigating and plugging those holes in the theories, or use them. Or find better theories to explain the universe.

And just how is thi--never mind, I'll just kill it now. People can't live in space.They can manage a minute or so.. Well, ok, it's as much living as dying excruciatingly, but they're not dead instantly.

They cannot move in space. There is not way to do this.Just farting gives you propulsion to move through empty space. One could blow, but that's assuming you have air in your lungs, and if that were the case you'd probably wouldn't live through the first 10 seconds in space..

Besides, Dobbs obviously suggest stepping from one world to another, and not spending time in the empty space in between. Not walking right into an ocean therefore would be a bigger problem than the vacuum of space, as you skip the latter.

Your idea is about as dumb as an idea can get.It's more alternative than dumb. It assumes a radically different philosophy about the universe than science can (currently) account for. But as sci-fi goes, it's in lines with how travel seems to work in Dune, in a way (the navigators high on spice can fold space with their mind).
Sci-fi often likes to involves a psi element to stories. Not much of scientific basis for it, in fact I'd say it'd as far from science as religion/spirituality. As I said, it assumes reality is different than dreamt up in our philosophy. Which is an entirely valid philosophical stance, which probably won't get anyone anywhere regardless.

Also, I don't think it was a serious suggestion. It's rather dumb to treat it as if it is one..

Here's an interesting concept http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200/ If the theory pans out, it gives a clear way to a 'hyperdrive'.
Considering the interest it generated from e.g. the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the US military, you might not want to outright dimiss it. Although if you can help explore/falsify the theory behind it, they'll much appreciate it, I'm sure..

If we're making a wishlist - artificial gravity would be nice too. Someone once told me that such a thing is deemed impossible by the minds that be. Anyone know if that's correct?
Well, we could use Einstien to get some artificial gravity. Since the accelleration due to gravity is perportional to the mass causing the gravity, we need the floor to have a large mass. We could due this to ways: attach a large amount of matter to the floor (ie gluing Earth to the floor), or abusing Enstien's physics. The first is impractic because it is both hard to find such massive amouts and it is even harder to accellerate such masses. As for the second, we would need toy with the fact that as matter approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity. Therefore, if we get the ship to cruising speed, then continue to accellerate one particle within a vacuum chamber (to avoid friction) in the floor, we could increase that particles mass until it is that of the Earth's. I am not totally sure how fast the particle would have to be going to achieve that mass, but something tells me it is hellafast. Could be a problem. Also, at that speed, it is probably going to radiate heat like a mofo--instantly vaporizing the ship, crew, and cargo. But hey, I got you like 2/3 of the way there.

I'll take my cookie now. *steaks a cookie from Wikaedia*

Well, we could use Einstien to get some artificial gravity. Since the accelleration due to gravity is perportional to the mass causing the gravity, we need the floor to have a large mass. We could due this to ways: attach a large amount of matter to the floor (ie gluing Earth to the floor), or abusing Enstien's physics. The first is impractic because it is both hard to find such massive amouts and it is even harder to accellerate such masses. As for the second, we would need toy with the fact that as matter approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity.However, time also slows down. To the effect that anyone on that floor, since they go at the same speed, don't notice the mass increase. And don't experience additional gravity.
The easier approach is acceleration. Is the floor accelerates with 9.81 m/s^2, we feel the same gravity as on earth. Which is why in many sci-fi universes large space stations have large revolving sections, the centripedal force simulates gravity (a near constant acceleration outwards).

However, time also slows down. To the effect that anyone on that floor, since they go at the same speed, don't notice the mass increase. And don't experience additional gravity.
The easier approach is acceleration. Is the floor accelerates with 9.81 m/s^2, we feel the same gravity as on earth. Which is why in many sci-fi universes large space stations have large revolving sections, the centripedal force simulates gravity (a near constant acceleration outwards).
Yes, but my way has many, many more holes in its physics.:p

As are many theories and inventions at first. Ask someone a hundred years ago about travelling faster than sound, they'd laugh at the preposterous notion.

No, they'd point out that rifle bullets had been doing so long before that.

Our current physics does not a priori disallow some form of FTL

It potentially doesn't disallow exotic massless particles that can move faster than light. Jumping right up to 'macroscopic objects' from there is a huge leap that is likely to be insurmountable, since for an object with mass to travel at c it would have to have infinite energy imparted to it. Since no device can be 100% efficient, it would the proceed to boil the universe with infinite waste heat.

No, they'd point out that rifle bullets had been doing so long before that.I meant a person travelling faster than sound, I had thought that was clear. My apologies for assuming too much of the sensibility of my audience..

It potentially doesn't disallow exotic massless particles that can move faster than light. Jumping right up to 'macroscopic objects' from there is a huge leap that is likely to be insurmountable, since for an object with mass to travel at c it would have to have infinite energy imparted to it.But we're not actually talking about travelling at c, as that isn't FTL. Surprisingly, the main problem is getting to and passing c, not going faster than it. Although I'll readily admit changing speed without acceleration is a counterintuitive approach. Adding to that, relativity formulas predict imaginary impuls/mass for objects travelling faster than light.
But really, that's neither here nor there, because many proposed FTL solutions, are in fact technically not FTL. To a layman, if you get to the next star system, over a lightyear away, in one day, they'll understand that as faster than light travel; even though in fact you might have just moved a micrometer (via a different route than light naturally takes). Wormholes, warp drive, moving along additional dimensions etc all bypass moving faster than c, you just move through a shortcut or in a different direction(dimension), or whatnot. If they break any laws of physics, it's not the speed limit.

And there's always the off chance we're wrong about our current understanding of the universe. e.g. the speed of light might not actually be a speed limit (in any case, light can theoretically, possibly, be sped up past c, by passing it through a more empty vacuum. A vacuum not as filled with vacuum energy as 'regular' vacuum.)

I meant a person travelling faster than sound, I had thought that was clear. My apologies for assuming too much of the sensibility of my audience..

If a bullet can travel faster than sound, it follows that a larger bullet can travel faster than sound if greater force is applied. It further follows that a bullet large enough to be manned can travel faster than sound.

If you asked an actual scientist rather than a layman, you'd be unlikely to be told it was impossible according to Newtonian physics, merely that no way to do it was known at the time.

But we're not actually talking about travelling at c, as that isn't FTL. Surprisingly, the main problem is getting to and passing c, not going faster than it.

If you assume that something Einstein wrote off as stupid is true, yes. The opposite side of the bell curve for energy requirements was removed by him because it made no sense.

Wormholes, warp drive, moving along additional dimensions etc all bypass moving faster than c, you just move through a shortcut or in a different direction(dimension), or whatnot. If they break any laws of physics, it's not the speed limit.

Aside from us not knowing if any of these things are remotely plausible as anything but nice-looking hypotheses on blackboards, yes.

And there's always the off chance we're wrong about our current understanding of the universe. e.g. the speed of light might not actually be a speed limit (in any case, light can theoretically, possibly, be sped up past c, by passing it through a more empty vacuum. A vacuum not as filled with vacuum energy as 'regular' vacuum.)

Light cannot travel faster than light, and c is the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. You can't get more vacuum than absolute.

If you assume that something Einstein wrote off as stupid is true, yes.I never read anywhere he wrote it off as stupid.. And it's not like renowned scientists haven't theorized about it, tachyons were all the rage for a while.
It may more be a thing for theoretical physicists than empirical ones though. Abstract math and imaginary numbers don't scare them off easily.

Aside from us not knowing if any of these things are remotely plausible as anything but nice-looking hypotheses on blackboards, yes.Only one way to find it though. And that's not by ignoring it as some would have us do, but by testing the theories.

Light cannot travel faster than lightI never said it could, I said it might possibly be able to travel faster than c.

and c is the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.But not in a casimir vacuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_vacuum). 'perfect' vacuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_vacuum) is still rife with vacuum energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy). It's a quantum foam.

You can't get less vacuum than absolute.Peoples notion of absolute needs adjustment sometimes.

Einstein's equations of special relativity posit that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames. That is, it will be the same from any frame of reference moving at a constant speed. The equations do not specify any particular value for the speed of the light itself. That is an experimentally determined quantity.

The experimental determination has been made in vacuum. However the vacuum we know is not the only possible vacuum which can exist. The vacuum has energy associated with it, called the vacuum energy. This vacuum energy can be changed in certain cases. When vacuum energy is lowered, light itself can go faster than the standard value 'c'. Such a vacuum can be produced by bringing two perfectly smooth metal plates together at near atomic diameter spacing. It is called a Casimir vacuum. Calculations imply light will go faster in such a vacuum. However, there has been no experimental verification, since the technology to detect the change isn't yet available.

Einstein's equations of special relativity have an implicit assumption of homogeneity. Space is assumed to be the same everywhere. In the case of the Casimir vacuum, this assumption is clearly violated. Inside the Casimir vacuum, we have homogeneous space, and outside it, we have homogeneous space as well. Inside the Casimir vacuum, the equations of special relativity will apply with the increased value of the speed of light. Outside it, the equations of special relativity will apply with the normal 'c'. However, when considering two frames of reference, one inside the vacuum, and one outside, the equations of special relativity can no longer be applied, since the assumption of homogeneity has been broken. In other words, the Casimir effect breaks up space into distinct homogeneous regions, each of which obey the special relativity laws separately.

While this may technically qualify as 'faster-than-light', that is only true relative to two disconnected regions of space. It is unclear whether (and unlikely that) a Casimir vacuum is stable under quantum mechanics, and whether non-trivial communication is possible between two such regions.

It may more be a thing for theoretical physicists than empirical ones though. Abstract math and imaginary numbers don't scare them off easily.

Yes, heaven forbid that science ever demand empirical validation of theory or anything ridiculous like that.

Only one way to find it though. And that's not by ignoring it as some would have us do, but by testing the theories.

And until we do, we should hold the reasonable conclusion that something which has never been conclusively observed anywhere probably doesn't happen.

I never said it could, I said it might possibly be able to travel faster than c.

C is the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. If it is possible to create a more perfect vacuum [which is unknown, since vacuum energy may not exist], it means the current value of C is wrong, not the light can travel faster than the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.

But not in a casimir vacuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_vacuum).

Entirely unverified, you'll notice. Nobody's ever made light travel faster through a Casimir vacuum. Indeed, a Casimir vacuum only implies the existence of vacuum energy, it does not prove it. You are appealing to something that may not even exist.

Peoples notion of absolute needs adjustment sometimes.

Did you notice where your quote says it hasn't been verified except by calculation, making it pure speculation? Do you also know that vacuum energy calculations are known to be wrong, since they predict an amount of vacuum energy hundreds of orders of magnitude too large for the known value of the expansion of the universe?

Yes, heaven forbid that science ever demand empirical validation of theory or anything ridiculous like that.Certainly science should demand it, no question about that. Be theoretic exploration is just as important. We have to think about what to look for first before we can find it. Otherwise we have no hope but to stumble across it.

And until we do, we should hold the reasonable conclusion that something which has never been conclusively observed anywhere probably doesn't happen.I disagree. Only if it isn't observed and is predicted by a reasonable theory not to occur should we conclude such a thing. Otherwise it's open to debate.
There are many things which we can't directly observe but for which we have very good reason to expect it's there.

C is the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. If it is possible to create a more perfect vacuum [which is unknown, since vacuum energy may not exist], it means the current value of C is wrongRight. So the speed limit may be higher than we currently think, which is exactly what I started out with. (c is a constant defined at a specific value, exactly 299,792,458 metres per second, not as a placeholder for whatever value "the speed of light the most perfect vacuum" may be. If however that's your interpretation, than by all means)

Entirely unverified, you'll notice. Nobody's ever made light travel faster through a Casimir vacuum. Indeed, a Casimir vacuum only implies the existence of vacuum energy, it does not prove it. You are appealing to something that may not even exist.Well, if we can't base arguments on theories, any scientific discussion will be over quite quickly. Data without a theory to glue it together means little. The casimir force which has been observed demands some sort of explanation, and the only theory I know of that does that also makes certain other predictions. Which are perfectly in line with Einsteins theories of relativity, mind you. Which seem to be consider the say all and end all of science by some people here. (Nevermind it conflicts with quantum mechanics and observations on the quantum level. And vice versa QM doesn't stroke with observation on the macro level. They are both known to be wrong, they simply work very well in a limited domain.)

Did you notice where your quote says it hasn't been verified except by calculation, making it pure speculation?You make it sound like 'pure speculation' is 'pure fantasy'. It's theoretical physics, that doesn't make it a worthless notion of fancy. String theory in all it's variants is also still pure speculation. That doesn't make it a less popular endeaver though. And they're working hard on finding places where it's possible to verify and find difference with other more established theories.

Do you also know that vacuum energy calculations are known to be wrong Yes, I do. That is to say, there are so many different calculations that they can hardly all be right. But even without good quantitative results, that doesn't mean qualitative results don't apply. Relativity also doesn't prescribe what the speed limit of light is, just that there is one.

since they predict an amount of vacuum energy hundreds of orders of magnitude too large for the known value of the expansion of the universe?Are you sure you don't mean dark energy here (which ahs the opposite effect as far as I can tell)? The expansion of the universe is a problem for all current cosmological theories. Highly speculative; dark matter, dark energy. Speculation seems to make up 96% of the universe (I think).

I disagree. Only if it isn't observed and is predicted by a reasonable theory not to occur should we conclude such a thing. Otherwise it's open to debate.

It is predicted by reasonable theory not to occur. The fact that is isn't predicted to be utterly beyond possibility doesn't mean anyone could actually hope to build a practical apparatus that would allow a macroscopic object to travel faster than light; they tend to have theoretical issues like requiring enormous amounts of negative energy or greater than infinite energy to function, or assuming extremely shaky theories will necessarily become extremely solid theories.

Right. So the speed limit may be higher than we currently think, which is exactly what I started out with. (c is a constant defined at a specific value, exactly 299,792,458 metres per second, not as a placeholder for whatever value "the speed of light the most perfect vacuum" may be. If however that's your interpretation, than by all means)

No, c is not a constant, it is an experimentally determined value. As your own links explained.

Einstein's equations of special relativity posit that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames. That is, it will be the same from any frame of reference moving at a constant speed. The equations do not specify any particular value for the speed of the light itself. That is an experimentally determined quantity.

Ie, if it's possible for light to travel faster, c should be a larger number.

Well, if we can't base arguments on theories, any scientific discussion will be over quite quickly. Data without a theory to glue it together means little. The casimir force which has been observed demands some sort of explanation, and the only theory I know of that does that also makes certain other predictions.

Which happen to be demonstrably incorrect, meaning the theory cannot possibly be correct. We do not accept a theory as true merely because it's the least crappy theory available.

They are both known to be wrong, they simply work very well in a limited domain.

Correct. However, current quantum vacuum theory is known to be wrong on the rather more fundamental basis that it predicts the existence of a huge amount of energy that does not exist, and can be demonstrated not to exist. This is rather different from being able to explain the behaviour of all macroscopic systems but not the behaviour of all quantum systems, or vice versa. Neither postulates as a major parameter the existence of a huge amount of energy which doesn't.

You make it sound like 'pure speculation' is 'pure fantasy'. It's theoretical physics, that doesn't make it a worthless notion of fancy. String theory in all it's variants is also still pure speculation. That doesn't make it a less popular endeaver though. And they're working hard on finding places where it's possible to verify and find difference with other more established theories.

That doesn't mean anyone is concluding certainties based on String Theory though, does it? It certainly doesn't mean anyone is concluding the likelihood of a practical appartus using the mechanisms of String Theory for something, which is what this thread is about. It'd be absolutely laughable to do so at this stage.

Are you sure you don't mean dark energy here (which ahs the opposite effect as far as I can tell)? The expansion of the universe is a problem for all current cosmological theories. Highly speculative; dark matter, dark energy. Speculation seems to make up 96% of the universe (I think).

No, vacuum energy. The current theories bring up staggeringly huge numbers which simply don't pan out as they would have a measureable effect on expansion. We don't see that, so the theories must be wrong as they cannot address the evidence.

Ie, if it's possible for light to travel faster, c should be a larger number.
Constants are still just representations of agreed upon numbers.

It is predicted by reasonable theory not to occur.Well, that alright then. As long as it's rejected for the right reasons.

The fact that is isn't predicted to be utterly beyond possibility doesn't mean anyone could actually hope to build a practical apparatus that would allow a macroscopic object to travel faster than light; they tend to have theoretical issues like requiring enormous amounts of negative energy or greater than infinite energy to function, or assuming extremely shaky theories will necessarily become extremely solid theories.Well, the best test for a theory is failing to falsify the most unlikely prediction.. Not that I suggest building 'FTL'-space ships just to test all those fringe hypotheses; you can (if at all) test them by simpler means. And if that works out, see whether it can be practically exploited.
The fact it's not utterly and totally beyond possibility is what makes the subject so interesting. That's why there's so much sci-fi exploiting it. Dreaming the dream, and just possibly it might one day be real. I don't expect to travel to alpha centauri by next year, or ever. But if there's even the remotest chance I want to know whether it's in principle possible.

No, c is not a constant, it is an experimentally determined value. As your own links explained.

Ie, if it's possible for light to travel faster, c should be a larger number.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light_%28c%29
In metric units, c is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second or 1,079,252,848.8 kilometres per hour. <..> Note that this speed is a definition, not a measurementc is a fundamental constant. Of course that simply means that if a measurement finds a higher value, the measuring equipment need to be recallibrated (resulting in the length of a meter being adjusted, as it's defined as 1/c * 1s)

Which happen to be demonstrably incorrect, meaning the theory cannot possibly be correct. We do not accept a theory as true merely because it's the least crappy theory available.We don't have a way to reliable calculate vacuum energy, but that doesn't pose a problem for whether it's there or not. Whether it's there, or in what quantity it's there are two different things.
I seem to recall some experiment 'borrowing' energy from vacuum, which wouldn't be possible if there was no vacuum energy of sorts. Although with my trackrecord, it might have just been theory, and without remembering and citing the article I read it in, I suppose you'll dismiss the notion.

That doesn't mean anyone is concluding certainties based on String Theory though, does it?No, but a lot of interesting possibilities. And no theory, strictly speaking, allows conclusion of certainties. Doesn't mean we shouldn't explore what it has to offer.

It certainly doesn't mean anyone is concluding the likelihood of a practical appartus using the mechanisms of String Theory for something, which is what this thread is about. It'd be absolutely laughable to do so at this stage.It's equally laughable to talk about FTL (or apparant FLT) without discussing any of loopholes that might possibly, however unlikely, allow it. Without any practical examples, it is all theoretical speculation, but I don't see that as a bad thing.
With the speed that science progresses, there's no way to tell what strange things might be possible.
"Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic"

It's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light: the theory of relativity 'stops' you. This is because, as objects get faster, time slows down for them. Remember, "speed = distance x time", so, if your time is decreasing continuously, your speed cannot increase. It's impossible.

You may not be able to break the theory of relativity, but you can go around it. If you can alter the space-time continuum both in front and behind of an object('folding' it), you can effectively instanteously warp it anywhere in the universe.
I noticed that NASA were putting a lot of research effort into this area, so it is very possible, as it seems.

Well, the best test for a theory is failing to falsify the most unlikely prediction.. Not that I suggest building 'FTL'-space ships just to test all those fringe hypotheses; you can (if at all) test them by simpler means.

Such as by observing any macroscopic object travelling faster than light [fail] or any non-macroscopic object which is not light travelling faster than light [fail]. So far, all signs observation-wise point to 'no.'

And if that works out, see whether it can be practically exploited.
The fact it's not utterly and totally beyond possibility is what makes the subject so interesting. That's why there's so much sci-fi exploiting it. Dreaming the dream, and just possibly it might one day be real.

No, the reason there's so much scifi exploring it is because it's financially impossible to film a TV series where your starship needs a new crew in every single episode because it takes them so long to get from A to B.

I don't expect to travel to alpha centauri by next year, or ever. But if there's even the remotest chance I want to know whether it's in principle possible.

It has been theorised that given an arbitary configuration of mass / energy it would be possible to distort space-time enough to permit FTL. The only small problem it it requires huge amounts of negative energy to do it.

I seem to recall some experiment 'borrowing' energy from vacuum, which wouldn't be possible if there was no vacuum energy of sorts.

The Casimir effect experiments are theorised to involve vacuum energy. Whether they do involve such energy or something entirely different is another matter, mind.

It's equally laughable to talk about FTL (or apparant FLT) without discussing any of loopholes that might possibly, however unlikely, allow it. Without any practical examples, it is all theoretical speculation, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

The problem being the 'loopholes' have too many unknowns, only work on subatomic particles, or are otherwise limited.

"Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic"

One of Clarke's sillier brainfarts, that [the entire book 3001 being another]. Science can be distinguished from magic in that science operates by the predictable and testable, not the miraculous. With a significant enough period of explaination and learning, any sufficiently advanced science should always be distinguishable from magic.

No, the reason there's so much scifi exploring it is because it's financially impossible to film a TV series where your starship needs a new crew in every single episode because it takes them so long to get from A to B.Not all sci-fi is TV shows though. Although it's not an uninteresting concept, a TV series based on a generation space ship (I suppose the main 'character' would be the vessel rather than the people on it)..
It's a bit of both, I think. You can't have sci-fi without a bit of sci. And a better basis in science is appreciated by 'hardcore' sci-fi fans, which have a habit of picking the story apart meticulously..

It has been theorised that given an arbitary configuration of mass / energy it would be possible to distort space-time enough to permit FTL. The only small problem it it requires huge amounts of negative energy to do it.So can we get huge amounts of negative energy, and if we can, is it a one-off investment? If you don't need to keep adding negative energy to keep space folded, it becomes a lot more practical (assuming you can get negative energy in the first place)
It poses interesting questions.

The problem being the 'loopholes' have too many unknowns, only work on subatomic particles, or are otherwise limited.True. But the fact that they're there means we have something to explore. There's a good chance it won't lead anywhere, but we'll learn something either way.

One of Clarke's sillier brainfarts, that [the entire book 3001 being another]. Science can be distinguished from magic in that science operates by the predictable and testable, not the miraculous. With a significant enough period of explaination and learning, any sufficiently advanced science should always be distinguishable from magic.True, but it's about appearance. You need to know enough to make the distinction. And in the grand scheme of things we know very little. That might bring one dangerous close to thinking "well anything might be possible then", which strictly speaking is more or less true (at least in a philosophical sense. We might all be brains in vats (http://www.sinfest.net/d/20060614.html) for all we know). But given the choice, there's allready enough that might possible be true which is still somewhat scientific. Rather than being totally out there, I hope to get there by exploring the fringes of science (Or rather, I hope other people more qualified will explore it, and explain it to me in terms I can understand).

Such as by observing any macroscopic object travelling faster than light [fail] or any non-macroscopic object which is not light travelling faster than light [fail]. So far, all signs observation-wise point to 'no.'

The problem is that observation of faster than light objects is impossible. How do you observe something moving faster than your sensors can detect?

Certainly, you can detect light speed objects and occurences, such as supernova, but if an object leaves a residual trail at faster than speed velocities, would the observation of the trail also give a false reading of matching light speed as the observer detects the return on radiation (light, radar, etc)?

I seem to remember a principle stating that you cannot observe a particle in it's true nature as the act of observing it, generally by illuminating it with a light particle, would effect said observed particle, thus interfering with the observation. The principle might apply here as well, but in a more complex manner.

The problem is that observation of faster than light objects is impossible. How do you observe something moving faster than your sensors can detect?Well, a microphone can detect a plane flying over at supersonic speeds.. So it's not necessarily a problem for a detector to detect something that is faster than the signal it reads.
Also, if you were to look at an object moving at a speed greater than light from a direction perpendicular to its movement, the light coming off it wouldn't be much affected by its speed. (On the otherhand if it's coming toward you, or going away from you, you have rather significant, and ludicrous, shifts in the light spectrum.)

I seem to remember a principle stating that you cannot observe a particle in it's true nature as the act of observing it, generally by illuminating it with a light particle, would effect said observed particle, thus interfering with the observation.That would probably Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Not really. I've seen a few science specials since the last Star Trek series was on the air, and according to several physicists, and Andre Bormanis (the science consultant on Star Trek: TNG, DS9, and VOY), have stated that Star Trek is very close to reality in terms of interstellar travel and spatial phenomenon than any other sci-fi series/film. The only inaccuracy so far are the asteriod fields. Asteriods don't float together that closely. I'm sure there are other inaccuracies, but they're probably more related to the more "fictional" technologies of Star Trek than anything else.That, and the fact that Trek had a tendency to solve a large fraction of insoluble problems by reversing the polarity of something (a trick invented by Dr. Who, actually), or inventing a new exotic particle.

Currently, science knows of precious few methods of simulating gravity on a spacecraft. These boil down to: using acceleration by thrusting the ship, spinning the ship (or sections of the ship) to utilize "centrifugal force", or placing a large mass under the ship (generally by landing on a planet). Centrifugal force is the method of choice for obvious reasons.

Thrusting the ship would burn up lots of fuel. Good for a torchship but in real life this would be unacceptable.

The mass would keep you from going anywhere because you can't move a planet. If you could, there'd be no reason to leave it because you could just take it with you.

And neutronium doesn't exist outside of a neutron star! It can't! Neutronium is a super-nucleus made of nothing but neutrons! It forms when you squeeze electrons and protons together. You'd never be able to get it out. If you did, it wouldn't stay neutronium.Hence my note that, if we ever manage to find a way to contain and manipulate neutronium in the ways necessary for its gravitomagnetic field for ship-board artificial gravity, artificial gravity will probably be the least of the application such technology would have. For example, if I had an energy supply that could continuosly accelerate multiple stellar masses at large fractions of a g around a torus, I'd just use it to power a photon rocket, and get my gravity from continuous acceleration as with a torchship. And if I had something that could efficiently supress neutron decay at low pressure and/or induce neutron generation by electron capture, I'd use it power a protium fusion reactor.
You don't know much.That's hardly debatable, but I do know of what I speak. Researching and discussing advanced spaceflight has been a hobby of mine for some time. You can find most of this stuff already gone over in quite some detail in the archives of rec.arts.sf.science and sci.space.science.
It really isn't much of an exaggeration. If we kept cranking it out at our current rate and never advanced our technology it'd take that long to get a whole milligram of antimatter.Well, duh! The obvious solution is to start cranking it out at a higher rate, and attempt to advance the technology from there.
Making a machine whose sole purpose is to produce this stuff isn't as easy as you might think. If we could make something with that kind of efficiency, we would have already.On the contrary, I have it on good authority that it is close to as easy as I think it is. The fact is, I don't think it would be at all easy. Just that it is technically within our grasp. Much more so than past-breakeven fusion reactors, anyway, and people seem to be putting a lot of work and money into that field.
And 1000000 divided by 6000 is about 166, so just to get to Mars once, we'd need 1666 years worth. You'd need tons of this stuff to get to Proxima. Go out halfway, skew flip with thrusters, and then you'd need to decelerate or you'd just cruise past the Centauri system.Depends on your technological assumptions. Are you using a beam-core, plasma-core, gas-core, or solid-core rocket? Anti-hydrogen, or just antiprotons for fuel? (I guess you could use positrons, but that seems rather silly.) Carrying all of your fuel with you, or scooping up part of it with an electromagnetic ramjet? For an interstellar flight, do you bother to recover any of your energy via a magnetic parachute? What's your payload mass? All of those things will change the flight time and fuel requirements.

we'll probably not have ftl drives for centuries. too much stuff to worry about on earth first. also, there are a few things that we would have to take care of to make ftl drives feasible.
1. nothing travels faster than light. einstein proved that, which means we need to find an alternate way to cross great distances in a short timespan.
2. the power requirements would be immense. we would probably have to create a new energy source to compensate.
3. we have no idea what might happen to people if we travel that fast. we might not even be able to survive it.
einstine never said or proved that, we just draw from his thoeries that it isnt possible since they dont account for say the various types of vacums found in space.

Liasia']As an atom accelerates towards c it gains mass, until at the speed of light it has infinate mass. I think that's part of why light-speed travel is a bit unfeasable.
The Alcubierre metric does not require the vessel to actually move as such, rather it deforms the space-time continuum itself around the ship and carries it to it's destination, thus bypassing the need to actually move FTL.

Nothing, even in science fiction (as far as I know), can move faster than light. Most of the series/games/movies/whatever rely on alternate dimensions for long-distance travel. Star Wars uses hyperspace, Star Trek uses subspace (I think), Andromeda uses slipstream, etc. No ship is ever said to travel faster than light, they just enter another, parallel space (usually where distances seem much shorter) and exit back to normal space at another point.

That's the way "FTL" (which is inappropriately named) travel is going to be in a couple hundred years. It's all about "bending" space, not travelling through it at ludicrous speeds.

Nothing, even in science fiction (as far as I know), can move faster than light. Most of the series/games/movies/whatever rely on alternate dimensions for long-distance travel. Star Wars uses hyperspace, Star Trek uses subspace (I think), Andromeda uses slipstream, etc. No ship is ever said to travel faster than light, they just enter another, parallel space (usually where distances seem much shorter) and exit back to normal space at another point.

That's the way "FTL" (which is inappropriately named) travel is going to be in a couple hundred years. It's all about "bending" space, not travelling through it at ludicrous speeds.


http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/9881/spaceballs2th.png (http://imageshack.us)

Set the ship for ... Ludicrous Speed!

Nothing, even in science fiction (as far as I know), can move faster than light.
Not quite true. There do exist SF works which ignore the annoying points of special relativity and just assume Newtonian physics, allowing ships to accelerate to arbitrary speeds.

And just how is thi--never mind, I'll just kill it now. People can't live in space. They cannot move in space. There is not way to do this. Your idea is about as dumb as an idea can get. I know there are no stupid questions but there are stupid people and you fall right into that category if you honestly think this would have a snowballs chance in a hot hell of working.
What an unpleasant person you turned out to be.

See if I ever let you in on it, assuming I live long enough to see it come about.

Snotty.

What an unpleasant person you turned out to be.

See if I ever let you in on it, assuming I live long enough to see it come about.

Snotty.

Yes, yes, let's snub him. You and me, Dobbsworld. *snub*

I'll bet Ilie would dig it if humankind discovered that we could exist simultaneously in all points in Spacetime without aid of instrumentality in order to do so. And if I hear anything, Ilie'll be the first to know.

I'll let Dosuun book an interplanetary bus ticket instead, seeing as that's where his head is at.

See you all in the orbit of Fomalhaut sometime-! Or was it Vega? Well, no matter. The Multiverse are big places.

Star Trek uses subspace (I think)

Star Trek uses Warp Drive, which is somewhat impractical since it requires gravitons to propagate faster than light according to the mumbo-jumbo about how it works.

Well, a microphone can detect a plane flying over at supersonic speeds.. So it's not necessarily a problem for a detector to detect something that is faster than the signal it reads.

Maybe, but the microphone wouldn't be able to determine that the object was moving faster than sound, as the medium that was being used to detect the object is slower than the objects speed.

Are you using a beam-core, plasma-core, gas-core, or solid-core rocket?
AM-Beam: ANTIMATTER BEAM CORE. Microscopic amounts of antimatter are reacted with equal amounts of matter. The charged pions from the reaction are used directly as thrust, instead of being used to heat a propellant. A magnetic nozzle channels them. Without a technological break-through, this is a very low thrust propulsion system. All antimatter rockets produce dangerous amounts of gamma rays.

AM-Gas: ANTIMATTER GAS CORE. Microscopic amounts of antimatter are injected into large amounts of water or hydrogen propellant. The intense reaction flashes the propellant into plasma, which exits through the exhaust nozzle. Magnetic fields constrain the charged pions from the reaction so they heat the propellant, but uncharged pions escape and do not contribute any heating. Less efficient than AM-Solid core, but can achieve a higher specific impulse. For complicated reasons, a spacecraft optimized to use an antimatter propulsion system need never to have a mass ratio greater than 4.9, and may be as low as 2. No matter what the required delta V, the spacecraft requires a maximum of 3.9 tons of reaction mass per ton of dry mass, and a variable amount of antimatter measured in micrograms to grams.

AM-Plasma: ANTIMATTER PLASMA CORE. Similar to AM-Gas, but more antimatter is used, raising the propellant temperature to levels that convert it into plasma. A magnetic bottle is required to contain the plasma.

AM-Solid: ANTIMATTER SOLID CORE. Basically a NERVA design where a tungsten target replaces the reactor. 13 micrograms per second of antiprotons are annihilated. The gamma rays and pions are captured in the tungsten target, heating it. The tungsten target in turn heats the hydrogen. Produces high thrust but the specific impulse is limited due to material constraints (translation: above a certain power level the blasted tungsten melts)
Solid is out because of the material constraints. Beam is out because of the low thrust. Gas or plasma could work. Probably gas so that there would only be a need for a magnetic bottle for the AM. Unless it were being stored in a clathrate.

Carrying all of your fuel with you, or scooping up part of it with an electromagnetic ramjet?
Bussard Ramjet

So, there is the obscenely-huge-mass-ratio problem, and the deadly-space-junk problem. SF authors were depressed. Then in 1960, a brilliant physicist named Robert W. Bussard proposed to use these two problems to solve each other.

If your starship is moving fast enough, the widely scattered hydrogen atoms will hit your hull like cosmic rays, and damage both the ship and the crew. One can theoretically use magnetic or electrostatic fields to sweep the hydrogen atoms out of the way so the ship doesn't hit them.

But wait a minute. Hydrogen is propellant, and could also be fusion fuel. Instead of sweeping it away, how about gathering it?

And if you are gathering your propellant instead of carrying it along with you, your mass ratio becomes zero. This means you could theoretically accelerate forever.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/stl09Thumb.jpg (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/stl09.jpg)
This is the legendary "Bussard Interstellar Ramjet." No mass ratio problems, and no space junk problems. Pretty slick, eh? Accelerating at 1 g a Bussard ramjet could reach the center of the galaxy in a mere twenty years of proper time, and could theoretically circumnavigate the entire visible universe in less than a hundred years.

(Keep in mind that twenty years to the galactic core is in terms of "proper time", that is, the time as experienced by the crew. The people who stay at home on Earth will still see the Bussard ramjet taking the better part of 25,000 years to make the trip.)

The Sun has the misfortune to be located near the center of a huge region about 330 to 490 light-years in diameter called "The Local Bubble". The interstellar medium within the Local Bubble has a density of about 0.07 atoms/cm3, which is about ten times lower than in the rest of the galaxy. This makes a thin fuel source for a Bussard ramjet. The Local Bubble is though to have be caused when the star Geminga went supernova about 300,000 years ago.

And to top it off, trying to use hydrogen in a fusion reactor would require mastery of proton-proton fusion, which is so much more difficult than deuterium fusion that some scientist doubt that we will ever learn how to do it.
And then there's the DRAG. Carrying all the fuel with you will be a must.

For an interstellar flight, do you bother to recover any of your energy via a magnetic parachute?
Why bother with that? Just take a few radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) along for the trip.

What's your payload mass?
A crew cabin the size of a coffin containing me. Atop a disintegrating totem pole. And the totem pole would have to be at least 10 times the size of the Empire State building. Or worse. For just me in a coffin. That's about what it'd take to get to another system with our technology and I'd probably die in transit. "Are we there yet?"

I'll bet Ilie would dig it if humankind discovered that we could exist simultaneously in all points in Spacetime without aid of instrumentality in order to do so. And if I hear anything, Ilie'll be the first to know.

I'll let Dosuun book an interplanetary bus ticket instead, seeing as that's where his head is at.

See you all in the orbit of Fomalhaut sometime-! Or was it Vega? Well, no matter. The Multiverse are big places.

I would indeed love that. You know me so well.

I can see it happening in over a century. Warp Drive can work under Einstein's theories as the Star Trek Warp Drives warp space allowing FTL travel.

Solid is out because of the material constraints. Beam is out because of the low thrust. Gas or plasma could work. Probably gas so that there would only be a need for a magnetic bottle for the AM. Unless it were being stored in a clathrate.You'd have to use a magnetic bottle to contain the antimatter no matter what, whether storing only charged antiprotons or making use of the diamagnetic properties of antihydrogen. And rejecting beam core drives because they're low-thrust is just plain stupid. It's delta-V, and therefore specific impulse, that matters, not thrust, and beam cores have the highest Isp (unless you get reaction mass via ramjet; then other considerations come into play).

Carrying all of your fuel with you, or scooping up part of it with an electromagnetic ramjet? Bussard Ramjet Stuff
And then there's the DRAG. Carrying all the fuel with you will be a must.Bussard ramjets are irrelevant. I did not propose augmenting thrust by scooping up interstellar hydrogen to fuse- that is only feasible if you can find a) a way to make protium fusion efficient and b) a way to preserve all of the incoming hydrogen's kinetic energy wrt the ship. Neither of those are a problem if you just use the incoming proton stream to anihilate with antimatter. If you do so, you only have to carry antimatter, and not worry about anything to react it with, thereby exponentially reducing your fuel requirements and improving your mass ratio. Failure at (b) is the only source of drag for a ramjet, so an antimatter ramjet would have next to no drag.
For an interstellar flight, do you bother to recover any of your energy via a magnetic parachute?
Why bother with that? Just take a few radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) along for the trip.Because it will cut your fuel requirements for deceleration at the target, again exponentially improving your mass ratio.

A crew cabin the size of a coffin containing me. Atop a disintegrating totem pole. And the totem pole would have to be at least 10 times the size of the Empire State building. Or worse. For just me in a coffin. That's about what it'd take to get to another system with our technology and I'd probably die in transit. "Are we there yet?"Much larger than that, actually, for a realistic beam-core drive; but not disintegrating. Most of the length is taken up by a combination of radiators and particle beam tube.
With just you in a coffin, I can guarantee you'd be dead over any trip time lasting more than a few hours. Adding in minimal life support to keep you alive, if bored, however, getting to Alpha Centuri, let alone just Mars, well within the natural span of a human lifetime is quite feasible.
Unfortunately, not being at home at the moment I can't give you a reference to the best paper I have yet found on antimatter fueled interstellar travel, but you still might try checking out those Usenet groups I mentioned- rec.arts.sf.science and sci.space.science.

I can see it happening in over a century. Warp Drive can work under Einstein's theories as the Star Trek Warp Drives warp space allowing FTL travel.

Unfortunately, the Star Trek warp drive would never work because it needs enormous amounts of negative energy and requires gravitons to propagate faster than light. It therefore would not work under 'Einstein's Theories' or anyone else's.

How do you think I got here? Walked?
I was thinking more like the "Seed-chute Express".
*nods*