DavidMcC, I decided I was too harsh on you earlier, when I said I didn't want to talk to you again. I think that was too harsh a sanction, and I was over-reacting, so I apologize.

Instead, I am suspending your privileges of conversation with me for one year from today. I suggest you use that time to inform yourself by reading some books about all this.

Interesting thread.

My thoughts - FTL travel is not pseudoscience. It's fringe-science, and as we don't have a "fringe-science" forum here the logical place for this thread is Physics.

Now, whether NASA should be spending money on researching something that is only theoretically possible and will likely be outside our possibilities for a long time is a good question. It's a shame the OP didn't address this more significantly without pulling out the "pseudoscience" card.

MacIver wrote:Interesting thread.

My thoughts - FTL travel is not pseudoscience. It's fringe-science, and as we don't have a "fringe-science" forum here the logical place for this thread is Physics.

Now, whether NASA should be spending money on researching something that is only theoretically possible and will likely be outside our possibilities for a long time is a good question. It's a shame the OP didn't address this more significantly without pulling out the "pseudoscience" card.

MacIver, what makes you think that FTL is even theoretically possible without the travellers being swallowed by a black hole? What's more, it would have to be an unknown kind of black hole pair to even create a wormhole at all. That's why I regard it as pseudoscience - it just isn't physics, even if the mods and various others disagree. Are you another sci-fi dreamer?

DavidMcC wrote:

MacIver wrote:Interesting thread.

My thoughts - FTL travel is not pseudoscience. It's fringe-science, and as we don't have a "fringe-science" forum here the logical place for this thread is Physics.

Now, whether NASA should be spending money on researching something that is only theoretically possible and will likely be outside our possibilities for a long time is a good question. It's a shame the OP didn't address this more significantly without pulling out the "pseudoscience" card.

MacIver, what makes you think that FTL is even theoretically possible without the travellers being swallowed by a black hole? What's more, it would have to be an unknown kind of black hole pair to even create a wormhole at all. That's why I regard it as pseudoscience - it just isn't physics, even if the mods and various others disagree. Are you another sci-fi dreamer?

You know Dave. This is why we get discouraged with you. Sorry but really. You are now saying despite the fact relativity is in it's favor. Despite the fact it's theoretically possible to produce the field it's now pseudoscience because a possible stumbling block that would nuke the chances of a ship working exists? Admit it you have been pushing any argument to defend you're earlier misconception.

But now let's talk about black holes. A black hole is a curved piece of space that requires going faster then the speed of light to exit the event horizon. What's interesting is none of the things we normally think of are necessarily part. Spaghettification, the typical danger thought of is a matter of size. If you had a black hole the size of the universe for example there wouldn't be any detectable effects from within the event horizon.

DavidMcC wrote:

MacIver wrote:Interesting thread.

My thoughts - FTL travel is not pseudoscience. It's fringe-science, and as we don't have a "fringe-science" forum here the logical place for this thread is Physics.

Now, whether NASA should be spending money on researching something that is only theoretically possible and will likely be outside our possibilities for a long time is a good question. It's a shame the OP didn't address this more significantly without pulling out the "pseudoscience" card.

MacIver, what makes you think that FTL is even theoretically possible without the travellers being swallowed by a black hole? What's more, it would have to be an unknown kind of black hole pair to even create a wormhole at all. That's why I regard it as pseudoscience - it just isn't physics, even if the mods and various others disagree. Are you another sci-fi dreamer?

The subject of the article is not talking about creating a wormhole. He's talking about a warp drive using negative vacuum energy (using the Casimir effect if I recall). And he is only probing the idea for its soundness and we are also likely to get good science out of the attempt as no one has every tried to create negative vacuum energies on the macro scale.

It's a proof of concept and it is based on hard science.

DavidMcC wrote:

MacIver wrote:Interesting thread.

My thoughts - FTL travel is not pseudoscience. It's fringe-science, and as we don't have a "fringe-science" forum here the logical place for this thread is Physics.

Now, whether NASA should be spending money on researching something that is only theoretically possible and will likely be outside our possibilities for a long time is a good question. It's a shame the OP didn't address this more significantly without pulling out the "pseudoscience" card.

MacIver, what makes you think that FTL is even theoretically possible without the travellers being swallowed by a black hole? What's more, it would have to be an unknown kind of black hole pair to even create a wormhole at all. That's why I regard it as pseudoscience - it just isn't physics, even if the mods and various others disagree. Are you another sci-fi dreamer?

Am I a sci-fi dreamer? I think a more pertinent question is why you feel the need to disparage the poster and not the argument. There's no need to turn this into a flame war - this is Physics, not Politics.

twistor59 wrote:Tend to agree with Lucek and Paul Almond here. The Alcubierre stuff isn't pseudoscience. It may be wrong, but it's not in the same category as woo.

I read the New Scientist article a few days ago & wanted to post this thread, dammit.

Anyhoo, here is the 100 Year Starship project webpage, there is a forum in here too.
(scroll to bottom and find..) These next links provide mini-info screens of a few engines, including warp-drive.

The Symposium area is interesting. There are September dates, for anyone near Houston, TX.

We are going to the stars.

MacIver wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

MacIver wrote:Interesting thread.

My thoughts - FTL travel is not pseudoscience. It's fringe-science, and as we don't have a "fringe-science" forum here the logical place for this thread is Physics.

Now, whether NASA should be spending money on researching something that is only theoretically possible and will likely be outside our possibilities for a long time is a good question. It's a shame the OP didn't address this more significantly without pulling out the "pseudoscience" card.

MacIver, what makes you think that FTL is even theoretically possible without the travellers being swallowed by a black hole? What's more, it would have to be an unknown kind of black hole pair to even create a wormhole at all. That's why I regard it as pseudoscience - it just isn't physics, even if the mods and various others disagree. Are you another sci-fi dreamer?

Am I a sci-fi dreamer? I think a more pertinent question is why you feel the need to disparage the poster and not the argument. There's no need to turn this into a flame war - this is Physics, not Politics.

Sorry I put it that way, but I was getting rather frustrated at various posters' apparent inability to figure that the laws of physics as they stand do not allow for FTL travel, except by those who do not mind arriving at their destination as a puff of radiation!
I am aware that this is not the politics forum, and that is why I was hoping for a better standard of science knowledge in these threads than you get in potitics (or philosophy from the most part, for that matter).

The only form of "FTL" motion allowed by physics is that in a medium in which the speed of light is reduced, by polarization efffects of the material in that medium, induced by the EM waves. This gives rise to the so-called "Cerenkov" radiation, which is akin to the shock wave emanating from an aircraft travelling at supersonic speed. Needless to say, the vacuum of interstellar space is not that kind of medium.

What about the warping of space, the method being explored by the gentleman in the article? I don't believe there is any theoretical limitation to this type of FTL travel, only an energy requirement limitation.

Hit the link I gave above, there's two previous year's worth of papers and discussions. One priority is to reduce the energy need of thewarp bubble, it could be the only way we get across the galaxy faster than light can.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:What about the warping of space, the method being explored by the gentleman in the article? I don't believe there is any theoretical limitation to this type of FTL travel, only an energy requirement limitation.

And what do you think "warps space"?

Paul Almond wrote:DavidMcC, I decided I was too harsh on you earlier, when I said I didn't want to talk to you again. I think that was too harsh a sanction, and I was over-reacting, so I apologize.

Instead, I am suspending your privileges of conversation with me for one year from today. I suggest you use that time to inform yourself by reading some books about all this.

I have no problem with your suspension of my "priveleges". However, I would suggest that your sources of information about FTL travel are the ones that are suspect, not mine. You are the one who needs to study physics.

DavidMcC wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:What about the warping of space, the method being explored by the gentleman in the article? I don't believe there is any theoretical limitation to this type of FTL travel, only an energy requirement limitation.

And what do you think "warps space"?

Energy.

But I don't see how this is a theoretical barrier. Please explain.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:What about the warping of space, the method being explored by the gentleman in the article? I don't believe there is any theoretical limitation to this type of FTL travel, only an energy requirement limitation.

And what do you think "warps space"?

Energy.

But I don't see how this is a theoretical barrier. Please explain.

Not quite right, CdP. It takes a black hole to warp space.

EDIT: Or do you think that light might be trapped in orbit round a powerful rocket motor?

DavidMcC wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:What about the warping of space, the method being explored by the gentleman in the article? I don't believe there is any theoretical limitation to this type of FTL travel, only an energy requirement limitation.

And what do you think "warps space"?

Energy.

But I don't see how this is a theoretical barrier. Please explain.

Not quite right, CdP. It takes a black hole to warp space.

Where are you getting this from? Not one of your sources or the other links makes this claim.

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
And what do you think "warps space"?

Energy.

But I don't see how this is a theoretical barrier. Please explain.

Not quite right, CdP. It takes a black hole to warp space.

Where are you getting this from? Not one of your sources or the other links makes this claim.

They may not explicitly state it, but the implication is clear Even then, worm-holes don't form, and they are an essential part of warp-drive "theory". Thwerefore, even if you could pack enough chemical energy into a motor to cause it to collapse to form a black hole (!), you still wouldn't have a warp drive. And even if you had the worm-holes by some kind of unknown process, they would only spit you out as radiation, so good luck with that. Rather you than me!

DavidMcC wrote:

Thommo wrote:Where are you getting this from? Not one of your sources or the other links makes this claim.

They may not explicitly state it, but the implication is clear Even then...

No David, it isn't. You're making stuff up.

DavidMcC wrote:...worm-holes don't form, and they are an essential part of warp-drive "theory".

Again, this isn't the case, nor is it supported by any of the links you've provided. Space warps and wormholes are entirely different hypotheses. You're just making stuff up.

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thommo wrote:Where are you getting this from? Not one of your sources or the other links makes this claim.

They may not explicitly state it, but the implication is clear Even then...

No David, it isn't. You're making stuff up.

DavidMcC wrote:...worm-holes don't form, and they are an essential part of warp-drive "theory".

Again, this isn't the case, nor is it supported by any of the links you've provided. You're just making stuff up.

Who taught you physics? Dr Samantha Carter?

EDIT: It's the Trekkies that make stuff up, not me.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thommo wrote:Where are you getting this from? Not one of your sources or the other links makes this claim.

They may not explicitly state it, but the implication is clear Even then...

No David, it isn't. You're making stuff up.

DavidMcC wrote:...worm-holes don't form, and they are an essential part of warp-drive "theory".

Again, this isn't the case, nor is it supported by any of the links you've provided. You're just making stuff up.

Who taught you physics? Dr Samantha Carter?

EDIT: It's the Trekkies that make stuff up, not me.

Really, can't you just stop with the knee-jerk immaturity and think about what you write for a few seconds? If you aren't making this stuff up where are you getting it from? There may well be good physical reasons for thinking that the Alcubierre metric cannot be physically realised, but that doesn't mean that it's a wormhole or that you can just pretend that the sources you link to say that it is, nor can you pretend that it involves black holes or that all wormholes involve black holes according to your links or that all black holes result in instant destruction of matter passing within their event horizons (as pointed out earlier in the case of black holes of sufficient size)...

Anyway, I repeat my question. If you aren't just making this stuff up, where does it come from? What's the justification for the claims*?

* Specifically "It takes a black hole to warp space.", "worm-holes don't form, and they are an essential part of warp-drive "theory".".