=some bad physics
it's not that no spacecraft can go faster then light, it's that no spacecraft can accelerate faster then light within normal spacetime.
=some bad physics
it's not that no spacecraft can go faster then light, it's that no spacecraft can accelerate faster then light within normal spacetime.
No, you didn't. It was J. Michael Straczynski.
That distinction is actually very important and is why things like the Alcubierre drive are theoretically possible instead of completely impossible.If that distinction were important, we'd have "spacecraft [that] can go faster then [sic] light". Where are they? Show them to me. (By the way, it's not then, it's than.)
The Alcubierre drive is a mathematical solution of the relativistic field equations that is nevertheless not currently believed to provide the basis of a realizable faster-than-light drive. From the article you cite:That distinction is actually very important and is why things like the Alcubierre drive are theoretically possible instead of completely impossible.
I've done my research, mountains of it, long before I read a single post by you.Next time you want to use that emote, maybe do your research instead of using ChatGPT to compose your answer for you.
You probably should have read the entire article.The Alcubierre drive is a mathematical solution of the relativistic field equations that is nevertheless not currently believed to provide the basis of a realizable faster-than-light drive. From the article you cite:
If exotic matter with the correct properties does not exist, then the drive cannot be constructed.
This exotic matter is not known to exist, so the claim that the drive is even theoretically possible is unfounded.
I've done my research, mountains of it, long before I read a single post by you.
Post proof I am using AI to compose my posts, or retract your fucking claim.
I did read the entire article. More importantly, I've read Alcubierre's paper.You probably should have read the entire article.
That's an undemonstrated claim.At the close of his original article,[5] however, Alcubierre argued (following an argument developed by physicists analyzing traversable wormholes[6][7]) that the Casimir vacuum between parallel plates could fulfill the negative-energy requirement for the Alcubierre drive.
Except that they're not. So there's that.You are absolutely welcome to your opinion. I stand by mine that I find it annoying that creative choices are dictated by a 50 year old show.
You probably should have read the entire article.
At the close of his original article,[5] however, Alcubierre argued (following an argument developed by physicists analyzing traversable wormholes[6][7]) that the Casimir vacuum between parallel plates could fulfill the negative-energy requirement for the Alcubierre drive.
And no, you haven't done actual research on the subject, and I can tell you haven't because you didn't even know why the distinction I originally made is so important.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.