I love all the people saying that if the detractors would just stop being meanies, that physics can be broken, like the universe is The Little Train Who Could and all you have to do is BELIEVEEEEEEEE. A lot of posters are so utterly entrenched in BOOM BOOM I BLOW UR SPACESHIP UP and not with a basic introduction of general relativity.

Continuing to debate these people is worthless, but good luck if you're going to continue.

I agree with you arguing with people like you are meaning less.

Oh, I'm sorry. Was I too subtle? The universe was created.

Ion drives are currently used for unmanned space probes and satellite orbital stabilizers. There is, however, a base limit on the thrust you can get out of an ion drive due to the electrostatic repulsion between the ions. At a certain point you just get sparks, which looks really cool, but makes the thruster fail.


I'd like to borrow Carbon016's words, and say:

I can't explicitly prove that you can't go faster than light (actually I can, but it would explode your head), but I can explicitly prove that if you go faster than light, you create unsolvable paradoxes. The only way to avoid these is for the theory of special relativity to be proven wrong, and since all of the consequences stem from two postulates, you have to prove one of these two things:
1. The speed of light is not always "c" in a vacuum, or
2. The laws of physics are not the same for all inertial frames of reference.

While you're at it, find me the exact value of pi.


By the universe creating fairy.

-Dr. B

If you cant prove that we cant travel faster than 'c' then what is the point of defending it.

For example, if you come up with any reproducible experimental evidence that shows the law of gravity to be false, we would then have to review the law of gravity.

its all about fundamentals...if you have fundamentals then there are certain things that don't exist in the vector spaces in which these fundamentals lie.

its like living in 3D space..you can not explore 4D because you only have 3Ddimesnsions...however if you live in 4D space you can explore 3D space.

good old graphics theory.

as pertaining to the universe and physics/TOE...we odn't really know whats fundamental...we can only hazard guesses SO

that statement should be said
"that cannot happen because it violates the CURRENT laws of physics"

If something in nature violates a law of nature. All that means is we didn't understand that law.

NECROMANCY!!!!!!!!

What your forgetting is that while its impossible to travel at FTL speeds, that doesn't preclude getting to places quicker than light does.

Wormholes fit into our current understanding of physics; and while the power requirements needed to "bend space" to allow for FTL travel are... excessive (as in super-nova levels of energy excessive)... that doesn't mean its impossible, just impractical.

Seeing a EM representation of yourself after you arrive at a destination is NOT an unsolvable paradox, and I don't know why you would list it as one. Read: Supersonic travel, TV.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to back away from saying that FTL travel is impossible, and instead remind everyone that chronological continuity does not exist in a FTL universe.  If you are comfortable with going back in time, than by all means, believe in your dilithium crystal burning, warp-drive toting, phaser firing starships.

If you believe that you can have FTL travel, relativity, and continuity all in the same universe, then you apparently aren't a physicist.  I wouldn't lose any sleep over that.  But if you want to cut out relativity from this picture, than I recommend you go out and fetch me a better theory.  Which fits all of the observed properties of relativity.  And has the same predictive capability of relativity.  Actually, that won't help you at all.  Because if the real world really is real, you're not going to completely get rid of the effects of special relativity.  General relativity could use more fleshing out, but that's a different story.

Bottom line: unless you can convince the universe that it should stop treating all inertial frames of reference with equal fidelity, you're going to have some serious causality issues with faster than light travel.  No matter how you do it.

Not to burst anyone's ego-bubble, but if you haven't invested several years of your life to rigerous mathematical and scientific study, you're not going to be able to formulate a very robust counter-argument to anything I've just said.  Sharper minds than I have put this theory to the test, and with the blunt instruments most of you are working with, cutting through relativity to get at FTL is going to be about as productive as chopping wood with a comically oversized wiffleball bat.

-Dr. B

Define Time. What exactly is Time? How do we measure Time?

I believe the answer to those question is important for the argument of FTL travel.

If I am in Earth (or any other place) now standing still, then suddenly I move to Mars at a FTL speed, will I arrive in Mars before I left Earth? Will I see myself on Earth while I'm in Mars?

What if I got a twin, we are both 15 years old now, I suddenly start moving at FTL speeds for 40 years, My twin do not. After the 40 years, will I be younger or older or the same age than my twin? Will he be a 55 years old man, while Ill be a 35 years old man?

Personally I believe that at this time we cannot conceive an idea of how Time behave at FTL speeds. Just like a child cannot conceive how by burning coal we obtain electriticy, for example, or how are babies formed.

To some observers (but not yourself), you will arrive at Mars before you leave Earth.  Unless some frames of reference are "special", the person observing you as arriving at Mars before you leave Earth will be factually accurate in their observation.  Nor will they be restrained by the hand of God from abusing this observation to create paradoxes.  Nor will you be restrained from using this frame of reference to return to Earth before you leave Earth.

Do the math.  For the love of God, do the math.  You can claim the great mystery of the unknown to obscure your ridiculous ideas, or you can use the equations which we actually have to solve problems like this.  Forget about time, forget about the relativistic effects on the superluminal frame of reference, forget about twin paradoxes.  Just look at causality.  If your analysis doesn't yield the same results as mine (and the rest of the scientific world), you've done something wrong.

-Dr. B

Lol, you are no scientist. A real scientist would know, do not depend on math, use your imagination, imagination is better than math. There a high probability (thats right, probability) that the mathematical equations are incomplete  and also a higher probability that any assumptions we make to establish and solve the equations will lead to a wrong answer.

And I do not even have to know what equations you use to say what I just said, and I am still right.

Show us your math please then, enlighten us.  

Really? I imagine that that nitroglycerine is really quite harmless. Care to test that out?

 

Light takes 8 minutes to move from sun to earth.  If you are moving at twice the speed of light that means it will only take 4 minutes to move between the two.  So no you will not arrive before you leave.