Time Travel is Science Fiction

paddoboy said:
more at...https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Alcubierre_drive.html
Click to expand...

That is a wiki article and if you read it carefully it will tell you that what they have in mind would require completely new physics to supplant SR & GR. It is theorizing on the edge of the fringe. It's out there with stringy theories, completely speculative.



paddoboy said:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...h-prepares-to-create-a-warp-bubble-in-the-lab
Click to expand...

That is a popular science site that hypes toward the sensational. Very much like the "Art Bell School of Crackpottery and Metaphysical Sophistry".
 
paddoboy said:
Rubbish...The ship is stationary and moves with the bubble.
I think you need to familiarise yourself with the Alcubierre drive....
There possibly may be other problems, including energy requirements, but it is a logical accepted theoretical concept.
Click to expand...

That bubble is the warp. We know that already. That wasn't the point. For 'the trip' to actually be effected, the ADVANCEMENT of that 'bubble' must propagate to 'different location' (as Declan pointed out already). And that cannot occur at FTL while it is a LOCAL effect/warp. Only a CUMULATIVE addition of MANY such warps STRUNG TOGETHER across vast distances will it 'add up' cumulatively to a FTL translation from point a to distant point b. That's what all that 'wormhole' talk is basically about....supposedly contiguous line of 'warp regions' end on end connecting distant locations. A single LOCAL ship 'warp' bubble' trying to PROPAGATE across spacetime at FTL won't cut it....because even the hypothesized NORMAL "gravity (effect/curvature/warping) waves" THEMSELVES also cannot propagate FTL. See?
 
As the name suggests, a warp drive enables faster-than-light travel by warping space-time around it. In essence, Miguel Alcubierre proposed a device that causes the space in front of the spacecraft to contract, while the space behind it expands. This creates a warp bubble that carries the spacecraft through space-time at 10 times the speed of light. We know from our observations of the universe that such deformation of space-time is probably possible, but in this case there’s a huge step between theoretical and experimental possibility. There are numerous problems with an Alcubierre drive — such as whether you’d be able to survive inside the bubble, or my personal favorite: annihilating the entire star system when you arrive at your destination — but the sheer amount of energy required to reach the speed of light, let alone surpass it, is probably the main drawback.


http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...h-prepares-to-create-a-warp-bubble-in-the-lab


And these are the concepts of reputable men at NASA and of course Miguel Alcubierre.
 
Declan Lunny said:
That is a wiki article and if you read it carefully it will tell you that what they have in mind would require completely new physics to supplant SR & GR. It is theorizing on the edge of the fringe. It's out there with stringy theories, completely speculative.





That is a popular science site that hypes toward the sensational. Very much like the "Art Bell School of Crackpottery and Metaphysical Sophistry".
Click to expand...

It's a real theoretical concept, that NASA themselves are researching on.
It has many problems.
Are you saying it is not worth researching?
Would you also give up on string research?
The most difficult tasks, will always benefit us the most.
And while good men, and great men are researching on it, the possibility always remains open.
Pessimism never discovered anything.
 
paddoboy said:
As the name suggests, a warp drive enables faster-than-light travel by warping space-time around it. In essence, Miguel Alcubierre proposed a device that causes the space in front of the spacecraft to contract, while the space behind it expands. This creates a warp bubble that carries the spacecraft through space-time at 10 times the speed of light. We know from our observations of the universe that such deformation of space-time is probably possible, but in this case there’s a huge step between theoretical and experimental possibility. There are numerous problems with an Alcubierre drive — such as whether you’d be able to survive inside the bubble, or my personal favorite: annihilating the entire star system when you arrive at your destination — but the sheer amount of energy required to reach the speed of light, let alone surpass it, is probably the main drawback.


http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...h-prepares-to-create-a-warp-bubble-in-the-lab


And these are the concepts of reputable men at NASA and of course Miguel Alcubierre.
Click to expand...

Read and understand the implications of that last bolded bit closing my above post #182, and you will see that only a PRE-existing line of warping effect across distance (like as 'wormholes' spanning the distance involved) can do the 'hypothetical' job of moving you from 'here to there' at FTL.

The reason why Alcubierre device type local warp bubble can't do FTL propagation of the bubble/ship, is exactly the same reason why IF the sun disappeared, the gravity wave 'curvature rearrangement' would NOT PROPAGATE to us here on Earth for 8 minutes....AT light speed and NO FASTER. See it now?
 
Undefined said:
That bubble is the warp. We know that already. That wasn't the point. For 'the trip' to actually be effected, the ADVANCEMENT of that 'bubble' must propagate to 'different location' (as Declan pointed out already). And that cannot occur at FTL while it is a LOCAL effect/warp. Only a CUMULATIVE addition of MANY such warps STRUNG TOGETHER across vast distances will it 'add up' cumulatively to a FTL translation from point a to distant point b. That's what all that 'wormhole' talk is basically about....supposedly contiguous line of 'warp regions' end on end connecting distant locations. A single LOCAL ship 'warp' bubble' trying to PROPAGATE across spacetime at FTL won't cut it....because even the hypothesized NORMAL "gravity (effect/curvature/warping) waves" THEMSELVES also cannot propagate FTL. See?
Click to expand...

Why don't you approach one of the companies I have listed and offer your expertise......
I'm sure though that they are not short of reputable knowledgable people.



Undefined said:
because even the hypothesized NORMAL "gravity (effect/curvature/warping) waves" THEMSELVES also cannot propagate FTL.[/b] See?
Click to expand...

You mean gravity waves????
They certainly will propagate at "c"
But space/time can, will and does expand at FTL.
Or are you saying all these reputable scientists/physicists, since Einstein have it wrong?
 
paddoboy said:
Why don't you approach one of the companies I have listed and offer your expertise......
I'm sure though that they are not short of reputable knowledgable people.
Click to expand...

They already know that GR 'warp' of spacetime does NOT propagate FTL. They only do this to get publicity/fame amongst the star-trek types and assorted 'fans. I explained already WHY they must know it already IF they are as 'genuine' Thinkers/Physicists as you believe them to be.



paddoboy said:
You mean gravity waves????
They certainly will propagate at "c"
But space/time can, will and does expand at FTL.
Or are you saying all these reputable scientists/physicists, since Einstein have it wrong?
Click to expand...

One more time, mate. They already KNOW that any localized GRAVITY EFFECT perturbation of the LOCAL gravity gradient 'bubble' CANNOT propagate across space at FTL. I explained already the sun-to-earth example. Did you get it?

What you are conflating that local curvature-propagation with the cosmological CUMULATIVE REMOTE OBSERVATIONAL 'recession' imagery (or with the imagery of a 'Wormhole' that forms a PRE-EXISTING PATHWAY of 'warpage' STRUNG ALONG between entrance and exit locations). In the latter cases, the WARPAGE does NOT 'move' at all, it just is there already for the whole distance.

The local Alcubierre type WARP has to MOVE ITSELF along as a WAVE-like perturbation in spacetime. Like any other GR perturbation, like the sun-to earth example I gave.

Anyone conflating the two and imagining some cross-over of 'possibilities' for FTL travel is not quite clear on the difference between the two types of perturbations and their respective propagation/non-propagation status/nature inherent to each, as explained before.

Enjoy the flights of fancy, though, trekkie! No harm in that. :)
 
Undefined said:
They already know that GR 'warp' of spacetime does propagate FTL. They only do this to get publicity/fame amongst the star-trek types and assorted 'fans. I explained already WHY they must know it already IF they are as 'genuine' Thinkers/Physicists as you believe them to be.
Click to expand...


Your explanations are not acceptable as reputable...sorry.[the bar of soap and all that]


Undefined said:
One more time, mate. They already KNOW that any localized GRAVITY EFFECT perturbation of the LOCAL gravity gradient 'bubble' CANNOT propagate across space at FTL. I explained already the sun-to-earth example. Did you get it?
Click to expand...


Now you are just making things up.
Let's see what the reputable researchers come up with shall we.....
In the meantime......
A theory about "warp drive": Using the formalism of general relativity, it has been shown that faster than light travel may be possible (ref 7). All you need to do is contract spacetime in front of your ship and expand spacetime behind your ship. This "warped" space and the region within it would propel itself "with an arbitrarily large speed" (ref 7). Observers outside this "warp" would see it move faster than the speed of light. Observers inside this "warp" would feel no acceleration as they zip along at warp speed.

So what's the catch? First, to expand spacetime behind the ship you'll need matter having a negative energy density like negative mass, and lots of it too. It is unknown in physics whether negative mass or negative energy densities can exist. Classical physics tends toward a "no," while quantum physics leans to a "maybe, yes." Second, you'll need equal amounts of positive energy density matter, positive mass, to contract spacetime in front of the ship. Third, you'll need a way to control this effect to turn it on and off at will. And lastly, there is the debate about whether this whole "warp" would indeed move faster than the speed of light. To address this speeding issue, the theory draws on the "inflationary universe" perspective. The idea goes something like this: Even though light-speed is a limit within spacetime, the rate at which spacetime itself can expand or contract is an open issue. Back during the early moments of the Big Bang, spacetime expands faster than the speed of light. So if spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive?

Just prior to the publication of the above theory, there was a workshop held at JPL to examine the possibilities for faster-than-light travel (ref 8). Wormholes, tachyons, and alternate dimensions were just some of the topics examined.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/ipspaper.html

It's difficult and maybe even not viable ever, but its really good seeing innovative people working towards and end that may take us to the stars, don't you agree?



The rest of your post, ummm, I think is covered anyway in my link above and others that abound.
 
Declan Lunny said:
That is a wiki article and if you read it carefully it will tell you that what they have in mind would require completely new physics to supplant SR & GR. It is theorizing on the edge of the fringe. It's out there with stringy theories, completely speculative.





That is a popular science site that hypes toward the sensational. Very much like the "Art Bell School of Crackpottery and Metaphysical Sophistry".
Click to expand...

There articles that simply show FTL is theoretically possible as I have described...let's say a "perceptionof FTL"
You can also check out NASA JPL and the Glenn Research center....
No one is claiming it will be easy.
No one is claiming we have the means to do it now..
No one is ignorant of the energy requirements for such methodology...

We once thought going at or faster then the sound barrier was impossible....in fact men died showing it wasn't impossible.
Given time, I believe we will obtain, and use to our benefits, all that SR/GR and the laws of physics allow.....

There are also other possible methods....ZPE, or maybe somehow manipulating the Higg's particle to reflect no mass?
The future is there to be had, and nothing is or was ever achieved by being pessimistic.
 
paddoboy said:
Your explanations are not acceptable as reputable...sorry.[the bar of soap and all that]
Click to expand...

Who cares about 'source'; in science it's about the idea/facts and supporting scientific arguments. Why keep defaulting to personality' as if that carried any weight when considering scientific issues/merits? Drop that sort of thing fast, paddo. It isn't becoming to an objective intellect or an objective discourse.



paddoboy said:
Now you are just making things up.
Let's see what the reputable researchers come up with shall we.....
In the meantime......
A theory about "warp drive": Using the formalism of general relativity, it has been shown that faster than light travel may be possible (ref 7). All you need to do is contract spacetime in front of your ship and expand spacetime behind your ship. This "warped" space and the region within it would propel itself "with an arbitrarily large speed" (ref 7). Observers outside this "warp" would see it move faster than the speed of light. Observers inside this "warp" would feel no acceleration as they zip along at warp speed.

So what's the catch? First, to expand spacetime behind the ship you'll need matter having a negative energy density like negative mass, and lots of it too. It is unknown in physics whether negative mass or negative energy densities can exist. Classical physics tends toward a "no," while quantum physics leans to a "maybe, yes." Second, you'll need equal amounts of positive energy density matter, positive mass, to contract spacetime in front of the ship. Third, you'll need a way to control this effect to turn it on and off at will. And lastly, there is the debate about whether this whole "warp" would indeed move faster than the speed of light. To address this speeding issue, the theory draws on the "inflationary universe" perspective. The idea goes something like this: Even though light-speed is a limit within spacetime, the rate at which spacetime itself can expand or contract is an open issue. Back during the early moments of the Big Bang, spacetime expands faster than the speed of light. So if spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive?

Just prior to the publication of the above theory, there was a workshop held at JPL to examine the possibilities for faster-than-light travel (ref 8). Wormholes, tachyons, and alternate dimensions were just some of the topics examined.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/ipspaper.html

It's difficult and maybe even not viable ever, but its really good seeing innovative people working towards and end that may take us to the stars, don't you agree?



The rest of your post, ummm, I think is covered anyway in my link above and others that abound.
Click to expand...

I just got through explaining where the cross-over misstep was and why for all those so-called 'space warp' scenarios. One type of 'warp' (Alcubierre) is LOCAL and has to PROPAGATE just like any alleged 'gravity wave' would at LIGHT speed max. The other type (Wormhole) is a FULL DISTANCE warp already IN PLACE and is static while the traveller is transported along its UNCHANGING/UNMOVING length. These are all hypothetical. But the two hypotheticals are different in their nature and extent and status of propagatory/non-propagatory character. Two different things. Try to understand the differences FOR YOURSELF logically and PHYSICALLY as explained; and IGNORE all the 'hype' from ANY quarter, irrespective of person/source. :)
 
Undefined said:
Who cares about 'source'; in science it's about the idea/facts and supporting scientific arguments.
Click to expand...



I certainly care about source.
Would you get a hernia operation off a plumber?


Undefined said:
Why keep defaulting to personality' as if that carried any weight when considering scientific issues/merits? Drop that sort of thing fast, paddo. It isn't becoming to an objective intellect or an objective discourse.
Click to expand...

Why not follow your own recommendations?




Undefined said:
I just got through explaining where the cross-over misstep was and why for all those so-called 'space warp' scenarios. One type of 'warp' (Alcubierre) is LOCAL and has to PROPAGATE just like any alleged 'gravity wave' would at LIGHT speed max. The other type (Wormhole) is a FULL DISTANCE warp already IN PLACE and is static while the traveller is transported along its UNCHANGING/UNMOVING length. These are all hypothetical. But the two hypotheticals are different in their nature and extent and status of propagatory/non-propagatory character. Two different things. Try to understand the differences FOR YOURSELF logically and PHYSICALLY as explained; and IGNORE all the 'hype' from ANY quarter, irrespective of person/source. :)
Click to expand...



Again, there are problems, just as there were problems and pessimistic thoughts about Impossibility when they were trying to break the sound barrier.
Nuff said?
 
Undefined said:
These are all hypothetical.
Click to expand...


So??? So????
All of science at one time or another was hypothetical...Does that mean it's 100% Impossible?
Do you believe we are going to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb?
Given time, all that GR and the laws of physics allow can be achievable...NOTE: GIVEN TIME
 
paddoboy said:
I certainly care about source.
Would you get a hernia operation off a plumber?




Why not follow your own recommendations?


Again, there are problems, just as there were problems and pessimistic thoughts about Impossibility when they were trying to break the sound barrier.
Nuff said?
Click to expand...

An operation is not an 'idea', its a practice. An idea comes before practice; and before it 'informs' future practice, the idea must stand on its own merits irrespective of source. Would you still practice from the ideas Aristotle or the other ancients had that have since been proven FALSE? Would you still have trusted the SOURCE even though the idea cannot stand upon its own scientific merits when examined irrespective of its source.

That is the whole point about the scientific method; it removes the 'source' of ideas/facts/observations/results from consideration on its merits and validity in purely OBJECTIVE terms. Source has nothing to do with it when a question has to be assessed on the new facts presented and nothing else. That's all, mate; just apply the scientific method to discussion/assessment of the idea not the person. :)
 
paddoboy said:
So??? So????
All of science at one time or another was hypothetical...Does that mean it's 100% Impossible?
Do you believe we are going to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb?
Given time, all that GR and the laws of physics allow can be achievable...NOTE: GIVEN TIME
Click to expand...

And you can bet your little short n curlies undefined, that if and when anything is discovered/invented, they will follow accepted scientific methodolgy and have it peer reviewed, before acceptance.
 
Undefined said:
Source has nothing to do with it when a question has to be assessed on the new facts presented and nothing else. That's all, mate; just apply the scientific method to discussion/assessment of the idea not the person. :)
Click to expand...

I'll contact my plumber for you when you need any brain operation...OK?
 
paddoboy said:
And you can bet your little short n curlies undefined, that if and when anything is discovered/invented, they will follow accepted scientific methodolgy and have it peer reviewed, before acceptance.
Click to expand...

You're speaking of FINISHED products, not IN-DEVELOPMENT ideas/discussions. Learn the difference and apply the commensurate 'expectations' level for what is going on here at a science ideas-in-discussions-stage/presentation forum. Reasonable?



paddoboy said:
I'll contact my plumber for you when you need any brain operation...OK?
Click to expand...

Did you understand the following before making that unhelpful glib remark above?...

An operation is not an 'idea', its a practice. An idea comes before practice; and before it 'informs' future practice, the idea must stand on its own merits irrespective of source. Would you still practice from the ideas Aristotle or the other ancients had that have since been proven FALSE? Would you still have trusted the SOURCE even though the idea cannot stand upon its own scientific merits when examined irrespective of its source.

That is the whole point about the scientific method; it removes the 'source' of ideas/facts/observations/results from consideration on its merits and validity in purely OBJECTIVE terms. Source has nothing to do with it when a question has to be assessed on the new facts presented and nothing else. That's all, mate; just apply the scientific method to discussion/assessment of the idea not the person.
Click to expand...

Try, mate. :)
 
I also gave and read carefully three reputable links about the theoretical possibilities, inherent difficulties, and the orginizations and reputable people already working towards that end. One of those links was NASA/JPL and the Glenn Research Lab.
I place more credence in those links and data then your own, it's as simple as that.
 
Declan Lunny said:
No I mean exactly what I said. "c" is the universal speed limit. Anything with mass must be less than that. Anything that is massless MUST travel at "c". Not faster or slower, if it has no mass it must be "c" (or slower if in a dense medium.)
Click to expand...
Good stuff Declan. And do you know why all this is true?

Paddoboy: if you want to talk about faster-than-light travel, please start your own thread.

All: does everybody agree that time travel is science fiction? And that time does not literally flow? If you haven't already, see the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top