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 recommendat

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.