Search results

To say something is completely meaningless just because it lack meaning for you is at best incorrect and at worst not true at all.

This is not correct in the sense that nothing can travel FTL, however this is not the meaning of the statement. The statement is that there are no evidence for the existence of anything travel FTL, which is true as far as I know, and this is not to say FTL speed cannot be the case.

Is this what is meant with that God's word is FTL?

Yes, because the paper I refer to does not describe things in the way you do it.

Okay but this is not what the paper I refer to says. Instead the authors says it is the reader which tend to misunderstand what is said by the experts in this particular subject. (Can you see my confusion with your comment now?).

Okay. However, since your opinion is that experts and researcher are overrated and you believe quoting me is evidence for this then I think you just fell victim for your own biased thinking.

I tend to agree with such statement, but in what respect do you think this happens?

Me neither, but I just wanted to point out that you referenced the things correctly.

Just as Hans wrote "we want to understand what party(s) in this discussion (including subjects and participants) are reminding you of the Wizard of Oz." and "you are too oblique. Please try to be more specific. (That's all we really want.)".

You were correct about the claims, Miguel Alcubierre himself states in the abstract of the paper it will give FTL speed. Still I find this weird since my limited, and thus most likely incorrect, understanding is that the expansion and contraction of spacetime itself would require an action FTL.

If I recall right I believe it was negative energy, which is just another word for gravitation, i.e. the curvature of spacetime. Otherwise I know about the source, I was just wondered if you could fill me in on the details without having to go through the trouble finding it again. But I guess I...

The problem is, I am not a mind reader. :)

As far as I understand, in order for this to happen then space must curve FTL. Is this what the solutions allows to happen, or what am I missing?

Please use the word scientists (however still vague and incorrect it may be) when talking about about people or reference to the source directly - or are we to take you words on that you understood them properly? Source this claim please.

I don't understand the analogy. Maybe I am just to naive.

To cause attraction, to promote a brand, you know like a commercial channel would do. You are now willfully playing ignorant. A name does not determine the content, it is just a name and it is pretty obvious that it is a popular science channel. Again, why this focus on the channel name, what...

Explain please.

Is this really you point? Isn't this to say you actually wasn't interested in peoples opinions about the content but just want to bait us to post our opinion?

When FTL travel is mention it is often silently assumed to involve an acceleration past and beyond the speed of light. Such claims would obviously be greeted with suspicion. However this dos not exclude travel at FTL speed: just as photons are created with the speed of light, you can imagine an...

I believe your confusion is due to that you conflate speed of displaceent with traveling. They are not neccesary the same thing.