3 ms·

Can recommend again that you turn to books on this subject; Posting long rants on the internets won't get you anything. You're clearly not learning, and neither

Can recommend again that you turn to books on this subject; Posting long rants on the internets won't get you anything. You're clearly not learning, and neither are you intellectually impressing anyone. > get an object from A to B without any actual movement from A to B This sentence is pure gibberish: You got from A to B in time T ... but you also didn't get from A to B in time T? Ok, whatever. You're splitting hairs about "actual movement" and again in the long and utterly incoherent text about "Alice and Bob in the Tachyonic antitelephone" moving but also not, which I can't be bothered to untangle because I'm not paid to teach people who think they already know a lot more than they really do. Buy a book on the subject, those authors do get paid for this. This kind of posting doesn't help you learn anything. > but from what I can tell, the math checks out fine. I'm going to draw a line here, and I don't mind being a Jerk now, so: What the actual fuck are you talking about? In Physics, "the math" isn't a metaphor, it's math. The math checks out? What math? There's no math here, just waffle. The math is the real thing, as observed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbzWYjVrvpI&t=55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbzWYjVrvpI&t=55s

yellowapple 6y ago
Welp, looks like this turned sour again. Whoops! But hey, I tried, I guess. > Can recommend again that you turn to books on this subject Got any recommendations? In fact, I asked you this already, the last time you dickishly suggested I go read books (as if I haven't done that already). > This sentence is pure gibberish Then go read Alcubierre's paper[1]. Expanding spacetime on one side of an object and contracting it on another is exactly what's being described. Maybe "without acceleration in the local frame of reference" rather than "without movement" makes more sense to you? > The math checks out? What math? [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 Oh, or this one from NASA, which even includes pretty slides that your galaxy brain can understand: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015936/downloads/20110015936.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015936/downloads/20... Now, I tried to be civil, and even went so far as to recognize when I stopped being civil, apologized for it, and tried again. Yet you still insist on being an asshole about it. Well guess what: > There's no math here, just waffle. Yep, "just waffle" is all you've contributed to this discussion, and by the looks of it all you intended to contribute. Gotta flex your intellectual superiority, right? Too bad you're - like me - just another guy on the Internet, so any such superiority you think you might have is illusory, at best. > and I don't mind being a Jerk now You clearly didn't mind being a jerk from the get-go. Probably because that's all you can contribute, but here I was hoping that maybe you'd contribute something else. Oh well. Have a good one, I guess. Maybe next time we run into each other it'll be on more civil terms.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  You're _not_ trying. The "Alcubierre's Expanding spacetime" wheeze isn't anything that wasn't covered in literally my first comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26614286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26614286 and later ones https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26619504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26619504 Boring circular drivel, and when you're directed somewhere more fruitful, you think it's "dickish". - I'm sorry that I don't have a scientifically current recommendation and I wouldn't presume to offer an outdated one. If you want recommendations list, google or amazon can help you. Whichever way you approach it, if you are really interested in understanding, you're going to have to do some of the work yourself, and you can't expect to be spoon-fed. That would be dickish.

yellowapple 6y ago

Welp, looks like this turned sour again. Whoops! But hey, I tried, I guess. > Can recommend again that you turn to books on this subject Got any recommendations? In fact, I asked you this already, the last time you dickishly suggested I go read books (as if I haven't done that already). > This sentence is pure gibberish Then go read Alcubierre's paper[1]. Expanding spacetime on one side of an object and contracting it on another is exactly what's being described. Maybe "without acceleration in the local frame of reference" rather than "without movement" makes more sense to you? > The math checks out? What math? [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 Oh, or this one from NASA, which even includes pretty slides that your galaxy brain can understand: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015936/downloads/20110015936.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015936/downloads/20... Now, I tried to be civil, and even went so far as to recognize when I stopped being civil, apologized for it, and tried again. Yet you still insist on being an asshole about it. Well guess what: > There's no math here, just waffle. Yep, "just waffle" is all you've contributed to this discussion, and by the looks of it all you intended to contribute. Gotta flex your intellectual superiority, right? Too bad you're - like me - just another guy on the Internet, so any such superiority you think you might have is illusory, at best. > and I don't mind being a Jerk now You clearly didn't mind being a jerk from the get-go. Probably because that's all you can contribute, but here I was hoping that maybe you'd contribute something else. Oh well. Have a good one, I guess. Maybe next time we run into each other it'll be on more civil terms.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
You're _not_ trying. The "Alcubierre's Expanding spacetime" wheeze isn't anything that wasn't covered in literally my first comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26614286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26614286 and later ones https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26619504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26619504 Boring circular drivel, and when you're directed somewhere more fruitful, you think it's "dickish". - I'm sorry that I don't have a scientifically current recommendation and I wouldn't presume to offer an outdated one. If you want recommendations list, google or amazon can help you. Whichever way you approach it, if you are really interested in understanding, you're going to have to do some of the work yourself, and you can't expect to be spoon-fed. That would be dickish.