3 ms·
No, I mean they require things that are absolutely imaginary and exist only in the realm of numbers. There's zero proof of anything like "negative energy", for
by EUROCARE 4y ago
No, I mean they require things that are absolutely imaginary and exist only in the realm of numbers. There's zero proof of anything like "negative energy", for example. And E-R bridges are impassable - anything that would try would get stuck and/or crushed. This is not about engineering ability - both theories are artifacts of the imperfection of our understanding of physics and math, nothing more.
- dleslie 4y agoTwo centuries ago we argued whether heavier than air objects could fly, or if machines could reach the moon. I think it's hubris to think our current models of the universe are the rules of the universe; and that our technological ability could not be eclipsed by further millennia of study.
- EUROCARE 4y agoSure, but it's much worse to take a math exercise without any connection to reality and claim that it means aliens might be visiting us.
- dleslie 4y agoYou asked about plausible FTL technology, and I provided examples.
- EUROCARE 4y agoI asked about a plausible physical phenomenon - something that can be seen and measured in the real world. You will never measure a passable E-R bridge or Alcubierre drive because it's purely mathematical exercise, it has zero possibility/probability of being engineered into existence as it relies on things that straight-up can never exist. I'm not saying FTL is impossible but it's definitely not going to be either of these - our universe would be totally broken and self-destruct if these were possible.
- dleslie 4y agoWithout technology, you'll never see mechanical engines powered by chemical energy, either. Neither option I gave requires impossible technology, only improbable and unlikely technology. I don't think FTL is such a barrier if you accept that general relativity isn't a perfect model, even by current known standards.