5 ms·
>If we can't travel faster than the speed of light using existing understanding of Nature - we can. At least the Universe provides the example of galaxies trav
by VladRussian 15y ago
>If we can't travel faster than the speed of light
using existing understanding of Nature - we can. At least the Universe provides the example of galaxies traveling with faster than the speed of light relative to each other. The same machinery is suggested in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
The opponents state that the energy requirement of the drive is higher than the whole Universe's energy. Obviously it is wrong statement as we already have whole galaxies mentioned above and whose faster than light speed obviously takes less than the whole Universe's energy.
- inklesspen 15y agoGalaxies are not actually moving faster than light. The distance between them is growing at a rate that would suggest FTL speeds because the universe is expanding.
- VladRussian 15y agolooks like you didn't get it that the drive i linked to is supposed to use the same principle of space expansion and contraction.
- inklesspen 15y agoGalaxies are not spaceships. Just because the natural expansion of the universe affects galaxies (and everything else) doesn't mean it's possible to artificially expand and contract the universe.
- VladRussian 15y agojust because God strikes heretics with lightning doesn't mean that it is possible to artificially create and route electrical current
- SamReidHughes 15y agoThe fact that cats hunt mice doesn't mean we can't have megapixel cameras.