FTL Drive?

[Lord Poe]

In Trek, FTL starship drives are achieved in the 21st century. By the 24th, everybody is flying around in starships to nearly all points in...half the galaxy. In SW, FTL drives have been around for thousands of years, so that, unlike Trek, even a smuggler like Han Solo has a ship with a FTL drive that can cross a galaxy in weeks.

Can we realistically speculate when we'd have a workable FTL drive, in what century, and when the local hot rodder would have one to see his girlfriends at the other end of the galaxy?

Remember that at the beginning of the 20th century, cars were just emerging, and before that, steam engines.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

In Trek, FTL starship drives are achieved in the 21st century. By the 24th, everybody is flying around in starships to nearly all points in...half the galaxy. In SW, FTL drives have been around for thousands of years, so that, unlike Trek, even a smuggler like Han Solo has a ship with a FTL drive that can cross a galaxy in weeks.

Can we realistically speculate when we'd have a workable FTL drive, in what century, and when the local hot rodder would have one to see his girlfriends at the other end of the galaxy?

Remember that at the beginning of the 20th century, cars were just emerging, and before that, steam engines.

Yes, unless our understanding of physics is fundamentally wrong, we can say, almost beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we will never, ever have a workable FTL drive. In this universe, lightspeed's the limit.

[Queeb Salaron]

Yes, unless our understanding of physics is fundamentally wrong, we can say, almost beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we will never, ever have a workable FTL drive. In this universe, lightspeed's the limit.

Hmm. I wouldn't say "never," but that may be because I like sci fi a little too much. It seems probable, however, that mankind will kill itself before FTL drives are invented.

Ironically, if this is true, we'd have to devolve technologically (get rid of WMDs) before we can evolve any further. I'll let that sink in for a bit.

[2000AD]

Futurama quote time:

"That's impossible, you can't go faster than the speed of light!"
"Yes, that's why scientists increased the speed of light in the year <i forget what tear it was>"

[Darth Wong]

In Trek, FTL starship drives are achieved in the 21st century. By the 24th, everybody is flying around in starships to nearly all points in...half the galaxy. In SW, FTL drives have been around for thousands of years, so that, unlike Trek, even a smuggler like Han Solo has a ship with a FTL drive that can cross a galaxy in weeks.

Can we realistically speculate when we'd have a workable FTL drive, in what century, and when the local hot rodder would have one to see his girlfriends at the other end of the galaxy?

Remember that at the beginning of the 20th century, cars were just emerging, and before that, steam engines.

To date, we have never achieved anything in terms of speed or size that the universe has not effortlessly achieved before us. Even fantastic things like nuclear fission and fusion occurred naturally, many eons before we discovered them. Movement of matter through space at FTL velocities, however, is a different matter. It has never been observed to happen anywhere. And if the universe in its vastness and seemingly infinite wonder can't do it, what makes anyone think we can?

[jegs2]

Don't think we'll ever have FTL, but it is fun to read about and watch on the silver screen, ain't it...

[Beowulf]

To date, we have never achieved anything in terms of speed or size that the universe has not effortlessly achieved before us. Even fantastic things like nuclear fission and fusion occurred naturally, many eons before we discovered them. Movement of matter through space at FTL velocities, however, is a different matter. It has never been observed to happen anywhere. And if the universe in its vastness and seemingly infinite wonder can't do it, what makes anyone think we can?

Maybe its just that we don't know how to observe the movement of matter through space at superluminal velocities...

[Darth Wong]

To date, we have never achieved anything in terms of speed or size that the universe has not effortlessly achieved before us. Even fantastic things like nuclear fission and fusion occurred naturally, many eons before we discovered them. Movement of matter through space at FTL velocities, however, is a different matter. It has never been observed to happen anywhere. And if the universe in its vastness and seemingly infinite wonder can't do it, what makes anyone think we can?

Maybe its just that we don't know how to observe the movement of matter through space at superluminal velocities...

You know perfectly well that it's irrational to think something exists without evidence. The only rational conclusion we can draw is that FTL is not possible. It is not absolutely iron-clad, but nothing is.

[Beowulf]

You know perfectly well that it's irrational to think something exists without evidence. The only rational conclusion we can draw is that FTL is not possible. It is not absolutely iron-clad, but nothing is.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I do agree that FTL is rather unlikely though...

[Sektor31]

Inconclusive, because we have yet to travel to other celestial objects.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Inconclusive, because we have yet to travel to other celestial objects.

Barring, of course, the Moon, and robotic probes to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, a handful of asteroids, Halley's comet, several other comets.

[kojikun]

wormholes are theoretically possible, as is anything to do with fucking around with space time, and supposedly it DOES happen, atleast around blackholes and in very small spaces.

thats not to say we'll find a way to do it without compacting a jupiters worth of negative matter down to a ball, but then we never seen the universe make.. i dont know, radios, or rocket ships, or whatever, even tho they follow all the laws of physics. we may just need to learn something about the universe that isnt terribly obvious to us right now because we dont have the right equipment.

or we may know all we need to know, and its right there, but we havent exactly seen the obvious yet, or something.

i personally don't discount the self consistent FTL theories, the ones that don't negate the laws of physics that we know of, but i would say that I doubt we'll discover them on our own in the next few centuries, tho you never know.

[Lord Poe]

Maybe its just that we don't know how to observe the movement of matter through space at superluminal velocities...

You know perfectly well that it's irrational to think something exists without evidence. The only rational conclusion we can draw is that FTL is not possible. It is not absolutely iron-clad, but nothing is.

Hey, Mike...we don't have FTL sensors, so how can we observe the phenomena!

Hehehehe

[seanrobertson]

You know perfectly well that it's irrational to think something exists without evidence. The only rational conclusion we can draw is that FTL is not possible. It is not absolutely iron-clad, but nothing is.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I do agree that FTL is rather unlikely though...

Logically, though, it is. To assume something exists for the reason that we haven't previously observed it is a classic appeal to ignorance (though that's not exactly what you were saying).

[SirNitram]

The only means of effective FTL without, you know, messing around with amounts of gravity that will hurt would be to somehow modify your mass and complex mass so that you somehow get negative mass. And then it's only a maybe, extrapolated from zero mass being at lightspeed.(Incidentally, this is the apparant mechanism for SW Hyperdrive according to Ep II ICS.) However, there is no known means for playing with your mass in such a manner, so no.

The above post was concocted by a man who just mixed Coke and Pepsi and drank the result. Insanity should be expected.

[Darth Wong]

wormholes are theoretically possible, as is anything to do with fucking around with space time, and supposedly it DOES happen, atleast around blackholes and in very small spaces.

You do realize wormholes are nothing but a mathematical prediction generated by the perverse use of large stable negative numbers where they shouldn't go, right?

thats not to say we'll find a way to do it without compacting a jupiters worth of negative matter down to a ball, but then we never seen the universe make.. i dont know, radios, or rocket ships, or whatever, even tho they follow all the laws of physics. we may just need to learn something about the universe that isnt terribly obvious to us right now because we dont have the right equipment.

The universe hasn't made rocket ships, but it's made objects which cover similar distances through similar trajectories, etc. The fact is that we have never accomplished a physical feat which the universe has not done before us, and things like "making an alphabet" don't count.

or we may know all we need to know, and its right there, but we havent exactly seen the obvious yet, or something.

i personally don't discount the self consistent FTL theories, the ones that don't negate the laws of physics that we know of, but i would say that I doubt we'll discover them on our own in the next few centuries, tho you never know.

To think that something exists (in this case, FTL travel) without a shred of evidence is not logical.

[Captain Cyran]

All I have to say about FTL not possible is this...


The earth WAS flat ya know.

[Darth Wong]

Hey, Mike...we don't have FTL sensors, so how can we observe the phenomena!

If we track an object at position A and then track it at position B too quickly for it to move at c, then it has moved at FTL velocities.

[[BL]Phalanx]

Have everyone live on huge rotating ring-worlds that rotate at nearly lightspeed at the edges. Now you can travel to a star 100 light years away, party on it for a week, and fly back home, and not have to worry that the buddies you left behind are all dead and their great-grandchildren will be welcoming you back instead.

Imagine taking a vacation. You can take a one month vacation, but to everyone else on the ringworld, maybe only a few hours have gone by...

[SirNitram]

Hey, Mike...we don't have FTL sensors, so how can we observe the phenomena!

If we track an object at position A and then track it at position B too quickly for it to move at c, then it has moved at FTL velocities.

Hey now. I didn't see Cruithne recorded before the 80's. Cruithne has FTL!

For those who don't know: Cruithne is the Earth's second 'Moon', even though it isn't quite a moon. It was found in the 80's, and does wierd stuff. Neat little rock.

[kojikun]

You do realize wormholes are nothing but a mathematical prediction generated by the perverse use of large stable negative numbers where they shouldn't go, right?

SDJKFHJKASDGFH BE QUIET!! YOURE RUINING MY FANTASY!!

The universe hasn't made rocket ships, but it's made objects which cover similar distances through similar trajectories, etc. The fact is that we have never accomplished a physical feat which the universe has not done before us, and things like "making an alphabet" don't count.

True enough. But then, we might actually be observing FTL incidences without realising it, or its happening at such small scales that we cant see it, but it is possible to do it larger with man-made mechanisms.

To think that something exists (in this case, FTL travel) without a shred of evidence is not logical.

Well I didn't say I was convinced that it exists in nature, but at long as it doesn't break any rules, im not going to say its impossible. Infact, I would advocate making every attempt to proving it IS possible, atleast based on evidence and theory, because it might turn out to be correct.

[UltraViolence83]

Hey now. I didn't see Cruithne recorded before the 80's. Cruithne has FTL!

For those who don't know: Cruithne is the Earth's second 'Moon', even though it isn't quite a moon. It was found in the 80's, and does wierd stuff. Neat little rock.

Is that for real, or is that the thing that Jules Verne made up?



Maybe if we allllll wish really, really hard for FTL, we'll get it someday.

Who here, in their right mind as a sci-fi fan, does NOT want FTL drives?

[SirNitram]

Hey now. I didn't see Cruithne recorded before the 80's. Cruithne has FTL!

For those who don't know: Cruithne is the Earth's second 'Moon', even though it isn't quite a moon. It was found in the 80's, and does wierd stuff. Neat little rock.

Is that for real, or is that the thing that Jules Verne made up?

Pretty sure it's real. Seen articles on her.

Maybe if we allllll wish really, really hard for FTL, we'll get it someday.

Who here, in their right mind as a sci-fi fan, does NOT want FTL drives?

Amen.

[Kuroneko]

Well I didn't say I was convinced that it exists in nature, but at long as it doesn't break any rules, im not going to say its impossible. Infact, I would advocate making every attempt to proving it IS possible, atleast based on evidence and theory, because it might turn out to be correct.

In flat spacetime, it's just plain impossible. Or, at least, it is precisely as possible as travel backward in time. With warped spacetime, you still need a wormhole. Even granting the possibility beyond a mathematical curiousity, wormholes still have no chance of practical application without matter with negative mass, the existence of which is purely imaginary.

If you build a time machine or find some 'exotic matter' with negative mass, I will concede that FTL travel is not impossible after all.

[Antie]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Mr. Wong once provided a rebuttal to the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing. The statement is a tautology. If there is no evidence, then there is no reason to believe something exists.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=3476