DeletedUser
Alright, before responding I opted to look into what your'e talking about, and I came to the conclusion you're posing absolutes, which is fine for practical physics, but not fine for theoretical physics. The argument is an absolutist one, based on observation, not theoretical models. Physicists speak, for the most part, in absolute terms to lay persons when describing what is presently understood to be possible, but the nature of theoretical physics is to examine the laws as we know them, as well as what we don't know about them, and coming to hypothetical models that work within the constraints of what we know, as well as what may work outside of those constraints.
The existing models for traveling faster than the speed of light, or warping ahead of light traveling across the universe, are hypothetical. The theory of a light barrier, and of the boundaries of the universe, are theoretical, as are the theories surrounding tachyons, string fields, quantum fields, Alcubierre drives and traversable wormholes. So, presenting it as an absolute is simply not a good argument to denounce what has already been presented in these hypothetical discussions.
In this discussion we have two parts: One is practical, and the other is hypothetical. Practical in regards to developing the telescoping or electromagnetic receiving units to precisely examine data received from vast distances. Hypothetical in regards to examining just how it may be possible to traverse either faster than light, ahead of the light via space-time distortion, or other means.
Dirty Laundry, you are closing out hypothetical debate with an absolute. That's fine for lay examination, but falls short of the standards imposed in theoretical physics. There are quite a few models that demonstrate how ftl or space-time may be possible, and it is in these models this discussion fits. It is simply a short order to dismiss them for failing to satisfy particular limits imposed by the light-barrier, expanding universe theoretical model.
In short, one hypothesis does not trump another, one theory does not trump another. Laws, however, can trump models, although only as long as those laws are deemed valid. As it presently stands, what you presented is a theory which, if valid, trumps ftl travel, but does not impose a restriction on warp (space-time distortion) travel.
Respectfully, some theories are more grounded in stated understandings of what is presently viewed as reasonably possible. But absolutism is not in the realm of theoretical physics, it's in the realm of lay presentation to non-physicists.
The existing models for traveling faster than the speed of light, or warping ahead of light traveling across the universe, are hypothetical. The theory of a light barrier, and of the boundaries of the universe, are theoretical, as are the theories surrounding tachyons, string fields, quantum fields, Alcubierre drives and traversable wormholes. So, presenting it as an absolute is simply not a good argument to denounce what has already been presented in these hypothetical discussions.
In this discussion we have two parts: One is practical, and the other is hypothetical. Practical in regards to developing the telescoping or electromagnetic receiving units to precisely examine data received from vast distances. Hypothetical in regards to examining just how it may be possible to traverse either faster than light, ahead of the light via space-time distortion, or other means.
Dirty Laundry, you are closing out hypothetical debate with an absolute. That's fine for lay examination, but falls short of the standards imposed in theoretical physics. There are quite a few models that demonstrate how ftl or space-time may be possible, and it is in these models this discussion fits. It is simply a short order to dismiss them for failing to satisfy particular limits imposed by the light-barrier, expanding universe theoretical model.
In short, one hypothesis does not trump another, one theory does not trump another. Laws, however, can trump models, although only as long as those laws are deemed valid. As it presently stands, what you presented is a theory which, if valid, trumps ftl travel, but does not impose a restriction on warp (space-time distortion) travel.
Respectfully, some theories are more grounded in stated understandings of what is presently viewed as reasonably possible. But absolutism is not in the realm of theoretical physics, it's in the realm of lay presentation to non-physicists.
Last edited by a moderator: