On Realism

No, this is different, the idea is instead of actually moving at the speed of light, you move the universe around you, and, while I admit there are some holes, it’s the most probable way to do it.
(I’m talking about the compression and decompression of the fabric of reality creating warp bubbles, not wormholes.)

We’re talking about the same thing then! The theoretical Alcubierre drive which requires negative energy density which only has one known example, the Casimir effect, which is simply not enough.

1 Like

Also, which model of the universe are you using that allows for time travel using this device, how would that work? Also, (again), I was wrong about my previous statement that it was Dyson sphere level tech, they made a bubble about a nanometer in with.

Another thing about myself, I avoid time travel like the plague and refuse to acknowledge time as a separate dimension because of this, though I do allow time travel if you can somehow reverse the motion of every single particle in the universe. I also hate the idea of the multiverse because I believe that the moment infinity exists, it destroys itself, therefore, the universe cannot be infinite either. But that’s a talk for later.

Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It’s a trouble that plagues all theoretical methods of FTL, including cheats like warp bubbles. Let’s say that planet A is 10 light years away from planet B. Both are inertial frames of reference, with no acceleration. A sees an event happening from the opposite direction of planet B, so it would take 10 years for the light of that event to reach planet B. now A sends a spaceship equipped with an Alcubierre drive to B, to warn them about the event they witnessed before it got to them. So far, no causality is violated…
Until you add another spaceship to observe. This spaceship is an inertial frame of reference moving at a constant FTL speed. From the spaceship’s perspective, travelling in the direction of planet B, it would see the spaceship arrive at planet B before it left planet A. In fact, if the ship were fast enough, it could arrive at planet A in time to stop them from sending that spaceship, and then you have a paradox.

1 Like

That’s where you run into the problem with having curved lines in your diamond shaped space-time diagram.
It doesn’t work. What scientists don’t seem to account for Is that LIGHT HAS A SPEED!!! Of course you won’t see a ship moving faster than light because light can’t keep up! I always HATE it when they pretend that if it goes faster than light it travels through time.

None of the lines were actually curved in this space-time diagram. all the reference frames used were inertial, so no acceleration. There were just angles above 45 degrees of tilt, which is what FTL is.

Look at my edit. I added a bit more.

Light having speed is absolutely accounted for here? And anyway, you’d still see the ship leave and arrive at its destination. You’re acting like you know more about physics than physicists.

My only question, is theoretical physics really that much different than informed philosophy? All it is is working through a problem with extra steps. They have no proof that I have seen that close to light speeds warp time. If you are going at the speed of light from one planet to another each 10 light years apart, to you it would take 10 years. To people on your starting planet it would take 20, to people on the target planet it would take 10. Not because of time dilation, but because of the speed of light and the time it takes to reach our eye’s. (BTW philosophy is a great subject and you should check it out.)

Physics is a science, as such it does not make claims that aren’t experimentally verified, or can’t be experimentally verified. Here’s an example of time dilation: particles muons are created high in the atmosphere due to cosmic rays hitting the earth. at rest they decay far too fast to reach the earth, but because of their high speeds (which would not be enough if time passed at the same rate for all observers) their clocks get slowed down enough that they have time to reach the surface. Another example, a bit simpler: We have sent jets travelling at very high speeds equipped with extremely accurate clocks, and, when compared to synchronized clocks on the surface, the jet clocks were ticking just slightly behind. We can extrapolate from these examples of time dilation as well as the mathematics that hypothesized their existence to figure out just how much time would dilate for observers at various speeds. All observers travelling at light speed, from their perspective, travel instantaneously.

Anyway yeah philosophy is cool.

2 Likes

Just because the clock are accurate, doesn’t mean they are perfectly in sync. Besides, I’ve heard of that before and the difference between the 2 clocks times was miniscule and probably within the (unmentioned) margin of error.

The difference between the clocks was tiny because the jets were nowhere near approaching c. Time dilation gets more significant the closer to c you get. Also, you didn’t respond to the muon point. You seem to be denying time dilation outright because it doesn’t fit with your pre-conceived perception of the universe.

Yup that’s about right.

Then I see no point in further arguing with you, since you deny the science. I’ll end it here, I guess.

1 Like

But I have a fleshed out idea of the universe. And I don’t deny the science. I just think differently from the norm.

That doesn’t matter if you don’t have experimental evidence that it lines up with observed reality.

Do you? Don’t you have a pre-concieved conception of reality as well, maybe that’s why you seem to dismiss everything I say based off of the assumption that you know more than me.

I don’t think I know more than you, I think physicists do. (In this subject)

1 Like

We will continue this tomorrow.