Warp Factor Awesome. Engage. www.space.com/21140-star-trek-warp-drive-possible.html. Scientists hove found Cl loophole in the General Theory of Relativity that
x
Click to expand

Warp Factor Awesome

Scientists hove found Cl loophole in the
General Theory of Relativity that would
mow objects to trowel crl l/ s/ TNT) speed. _ ',i"'
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+219
Views: 14263
Favorited: 15
Submitted: 05/17/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to teranin Subscribe to fucking-science submit to reddit

Comments(67):

[ 67 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#16 - upsyndrome (05/18/2013) [-]
Anyone remember a certain great great(x30) nephew that had already figured this out and built the ship?
Pic related
#1 - Memitim (05/17/2013) [-]
Oh yes.

Sign me up.
#27 - felixjarl ONLINE (05/18/2013) [-]
''may''
#26 - anonemous ONLINE (05/18/2013) [-]
#8 - John Cena (05/17/2013) [-]
look at the Wikipedia page for warp speed
in simple terms you aren't travelling at all the space you are it is just shifted
the area behind you is stretched and the area in-front is squashed
you then move past the squashed zone and you have traveled a massive distance in a very short amount of time
all because you can crush space like it's your bitch
User avatar #30 - forgottenmyshorts (05/18/2013) [-]
Is the loophole bit supposed to be a pun?
#32 to #30 - thatonesmartdude ONLINE (05/18/2013) [-]
Care to elaborate?
#18 - monkeyyninja (05/18/2013) [-]
no **** , op
#12 - John Cena (05/18/2013) [-]
[url deleted] s-Star-Treks-warp-drives-possible--practical.html saw this a while back, couldnt help but remember its awesomeness.
#13 to #12 - John Cena (05/18/2013) [-]
http://www.dailymail [url deleted] sciencetech/article-2204913/Nasa-breakthrough-suggests-Star-Treks-warp-drives-po ssible--practical .html damnit almost forgot
#14 to #13 - John Cena (05/18/2013) [-]
GAWD DAMNIT http:/ /www.da ilymail .c o.u k / sciencetech /article-2204913/Nasa-breakt hrough-suggests- Star-Treks-warp -drives-possible --practical.html
User avatar #34 - bananamilkshake (05/18/2013) [-]
"may have found", "theory"
User avatar #39 to #34 - enkmaster (05/18/2013) [-]
Again, a theory is assumed to be true until proven false by better information and is supported by all observations. A theory and a hypothesis are not one in the same.

The "theory" of stellar evolution may just be a theory, but it is accepted as fact by the scientific community because all observations support it.
User avatar #40 to #39 - bananamilkshake (05/18/2013) [-]
I really could have done without that, but, uh, thanks for the clarification.
User avatar #28 to #23 - hellomynameisgodsy (05/18/2013) [-]
meh.. I don't need to get close to em to play pool with them.
#36 to #23 - winglit (05/18/2013) [-]
Lets get to work!
Lets get to work!
User avatar #44 - joeyliquid (05/18/2013) [-]
Essentially all of physics is false and true at the same time. For every rule there is multiple exceptions to that rule and then there are rules for those exceptions. Oh and we still probably don't know 0.1% about physics still, fun stuff.
User avatar #61 to #44 - monkeyyninja (05/18/2013) [-]
while what you say can be perceived to be correct, it is in fact false. We don't know really any rules (gravity, for example, is still just a theory). All we have is approximations; models that happen to work in most situations. the laws of physics are concrete, we just haven't discovered them yet.
User avatar #43 - tabarzins (05/18/2013) [-]
yeah so..
do it
#15 - bulkheadshot (05/18/2013) [-]
Regardless if they found a "loophole" in written laws, its a LAW. Plus, its not general relativity because its objects moving at light speed. Therefore it is special relativity.
But, all matter aside, it is impossible to move past the speed of light.
Imagine this. You are hypothetically moving at the speed of light and you hold up a mirror to take a look at yourself.
If you see yourself, then the light travelling to you from the mirror is moving at twice the speed of light. And the speed of light cant travel faster then the speed of light. So, the speed of light must travel at the same speed. And if it is doing so, you are not moving faster then it. What would end up happening is that time around you would slow down to match the speed of light and you would have a smaller inertial frame of reference.
Because this would happen, your frame would end up being non existent, making you matter with infinite energy. And energy is directly proportional to mass. You would swell up into an object that has infinite mass and no space. Or better yet know as not an actual matterful object.
User avatar #21 to #15 - toughactintinactin (05/18/2013) [-]
I think im going to listen to the people with the PHD's, you know because they're experts.
User avatar #31 to #15 - djequalizee (05/18/2013) [-]
You don't need to travel light speed to bend space/time.
#25 to #15 - joefakes (05/18/2013) [-]
Special relativity is the limit of General Relativity in flat space. Everything described by Special Relativity can be described by General Relativity, which is why it is 'General'.

Also your reasoning for the not being able to travel the speed of light is completely wrong, as the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, so looking at a mirror moving along with you would function normally at any speed.

If you try to get the mirror to move away from you at the speed of light, you will find that it is impossible as velocities transform according to Lorentz transformations, which has a asymptote at the speed of light.

That is in flat space.

Two properties of space allow for faster than light movement:
1 - The expansion of the Universe allows objects very far apart to have a separation speed greater than the speed of light. This has been observed with distant Galaxies.

2 - Certain solutions to the equations of General Relativity lead to a universe which is not simply connected. Which means seperate points in the universe may be connected. This is what people refer to when they talk about wormholes.
#42 to #15 - John Cena (05/18/2013) [-]
I believe that this involves altering spacetime around the craft.
#17 to #15 - John Cena (05/18/2013) [-]
There's no known speed limit on how fast space-time can contract or expand, and I do remember reading that at the start of the big bang the universe was, for a few billionths of a second at least, moving faster than the speed of light.
#24 to #17 - bulkheadshot (05/18/2013) [-]
The big bang started at 10^-43 seconds. And that as only because the matter that was condense into it had not already had mass. Therefore it had to travel equal to or faster then the speed of light.
#33 to #17 - funkehfrog (05/18/2013) [-]
Yup. This period is known as "inflation".
User avatar #69 - yamiyo (06/09/2013) [-]
Actual question here: Why do they call it redshifting if the wavelength is being stretched out? Wouldn't that be blueshift?
User avatar #70 to #69 - biscuitsunited (06/10/2013) [-]
There is red shift and blue shift, red shift is if something is going away and blue is coming towards (in space), they are stretched/squished slightly towards one end of the VL spectrum. look the rest up.
User avatar #71 to #70 - yamiyo (06/11/2013) [-]
Ah. I confused high frequency with high wavelength.
User avatar #72 to #71 - biscuitsunited (06/14/2013) [-]
Not sure if i was of any use, but you are welcome.
#65 - runescapewasgood (06/01/2013) [-]
**runescapewasgood rolled a random image posted in comment #31 at Behind the scenes ** <<how warp speed will be accomplished
User avatar #53 - galkawhm (05/18/2013) [-]
How fast is warp speed in km/s?
#56 to #53 - winglit (05/18/2013) [-]
Idk if we can conceivably measure it since the idea is creating a bubble and bending the space around it to move faster, so technically we arent going at the speed of light, we are just traveling a distance greater than light does in x amount of time because we arent traveling the same route as light does, like cutting a corner or going a back road to cut travel time, we arent going faster than the guys on the highway, but we are getting their earlier?
User avatar #62 to #53 - monkeyyninja (05/18/2013) [-]
theoretically, to move a ship the size of the space shuttle from here to the nearest solar system at 100x the relative speed of light (i.e. from the perspective of an outside observer), your ship's power plant would need to be capable of producing the mass energy of Uranus. However, every couple years someone comes along and refines the theory to be more efficient, so by the time we figure out how to create and control a warp bubble mechanically, the science will have made it feasible. (In fact, a recent refinement of the Alclubierre spacial distortion theory, what this is, showed that with the energy produced from an average nuclear power plant one could move the same spaceship at roughly 20x the speed of light)
#66 to #62 - thatfuego (06/02/2013) [-]
stoner here just throwing my 2 cents at you because you seem intelligent as well, theoretically isnt intergalactic space travel is impossible for a few reasons, even if you can go faster then the speed of light you need to go like 1000000x faster than light so you could get anywhere far away in a reasonable amount of time, so if we can do that still you need a gravity field so your body wont be crushed by the forces, and third if you're going that fast wouldnt you be blind because your eyes wouldnt have enough time to take in the light bouncing back at you?
User avatar #67 to #66 - monkeyyninja (06/03/2013) [-]
To be worthwhile, you would indeed need to be able to travel a few times faster then the speed of light, however this is entirely possible; even a few hundred times the speed of light could theoretically be possible using power generation technology predicted to reach fruition within the next 20 years. A few thousand times the speed of light would allow us to leave our section of the galaxy with relative ease. Your concerns about excessive gravity, fortunately, may be put to rest; Within the confines of the warp bubble's event horizon, its occupants would experience absolutely no gravity, as if they were sitting still in space. Also, a warp bubble's occupant would have no trouble seeing within the warp bubble, but could not see outside of it (complex formulas model how light would interact with the event horizon of the warp bubble, however they're beyond the scope of my understanding. Light on either side of the event horizon would function normally)
#68 to #67 - thatfuego (06/04/2013) [-]
is a warp bubble the thing that if you drew a grid and moved through it the lines would bend around it representing time and space?
#52 - John Cena (05/18/2013) [-]
This is what happens when lawyer scientists.
#50 - angelusprimus (05/18/2013) [-]
oh for godsakes
1: its not a fukken loophole, it works inside the theory
2: it was published in 1992
3: you'd need black matter. Which is purely theoretical at this point
#54 to #50 - DangerToManifold (05/18/2013) [-]
the blacks will never matter.
#51 to #50 - iamphoenix (05/18/2013) [-]
I'm sure we'll synthesize *********** soon enough.
User avatar #47 - DivineInfinity (05/18/2013) [-]
A loophole in the Theory of Relativity means that at some point, something is absolute?
#45 - John Cena (05/18/2013) [-]
Too bad space-like travel is impossible.
#55 to #45 - DangerToManifold (05/18/2013) [-]
............what?
[ 67 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)