4 ms·
Two 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
by dleslie 4y ago
Two 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.