I believe it is important to separate flights of fancy from things grounded in real science, no matter how speculative. I can't prove that I can't generate gra

I believe it is important to separate flights of fancy from things grounded in real science, no matter how speculative. I can't prove that I can't generate gravity waves by the proper chanting of a spell. I'm serious, not just being silly. The simulation hypothesis certainly admits of such things being built into an otherwise sensible simulation (at the risk of a bit of a spoiler, https://qntm.org/ra https://qntm.org/ra ). If you want to talk about what could be if we bend what we understand this way, by all means, be my guest. I'm a big fan, actually. However, I think we should be clear that we are doing that, and specify the rule changes we're considering. In the real universe, we do "know" how to generate gravity waves. We can't do it at any sensible scale, but we know how. The energy computations are trivial extensions of Einsteinian relativity, suitable for assigning an undergraduate for homework. Besides, the way of making gravity waves has to not just be like three or four times better than wiggling a neutron star, to beat light, it needs to be the aforementioned dozens of orders of magnitude better. Just like lasers, you'd be looking at the thing being a great weapon rather than just a communication mechanism. It's actually a lot of orders of magnitude improvement necessary. A fire on the end of a stick versus the brightest modern stadium lights don't even begin to cover the magnitude range. People keep acting like light is some sort of terrible communication mechanism that we need to somehow level up from. The reality is that the only improvement you could practically ask of it is to go faster. It is otherwise unbelievably good at communication. It is hard to even conceive of what could be better in anything like our real universe.