Parker Solar Probe: How Nasa is trying to 'touch' the Sun.

Many scientists/philosophers claimed most current understanding to be impossible or never even imagined it...the sound barrier being an excellent example. Not "All" reputable physicist see FTL as an impossibility but those than do point out the energy requirements being more than we can access.

 

Yes if these craft that have interacted with by our military pilots are from this universe, they got here with some kind of travel that reduced time and distances between us and them. By some advanced technology based on physics we are yet to discover.

 

I can't imagine a race of beings that have been around for say a million years not eventually figuring out how to conquer the vast distances of space.

When we figure it out we'll be like, "wow, it is really that simple huh"?

 

By "more than we can access" I think you mean "infinite" - true?

I suspect there are theoretical physicists who work on ideas like "worm holes" that might get something from point a to point b at faster than light could travel there - doing so by somehow using some curvature of space, not actually traveling faster than light.

But, simply accelerating to the speed of light would falsify the theory of relativity, wouldn't it?

That would be one heck of a lot more than an engineering feat.

 

Generally speaking, then the ideas or results end up with "Infinite" or "Singularity" it is an indication there is something wrong.

 

Yes, I do agree with that. Yet, it seems to me that Einstein leads to objects behaving as if they approach being infinitely massive as they approach the speed of light. So, I'm guessing it would be difficult to accelerate an infinitely massive object. Can you spot a hole in that?

 

The "hole" would be to fold space, bringing distant destinations to us, instead of having to accelerate to speed and travel there.

 

That would be cool!

It might be nice to be able to control that folding of space, as finding oneself a few megaparsecs from the nearest MickeyD could be unfortunate.

I have a problem with all this in that it seems rather narcissistic to think some humans on earth could fold the universe.

 

The only barrier is the amount of energy required and controlling that energy. I'm fine with narcissism, in these endeavours... it leads to greatness. IMAGINE the gall of those men who said they could fly like birds, or travel through space...

 

Well, I'm one of those that don't think light speed travel is the same thing.

We had rockets and lighter than air flight a long, long time ago. And, the only problem with heavier than air flight or getting to space was well known to have to do with not being able to generate enough energy.

Now for speed, we have an actual tested theory of physics that says it is not just demanding of more energy. And, no physicist is proposing a solution to that. That's not the same thing as learning how to fly or shoot rockets.

 

Well, if these things are real, not from this dimension and not from this universe, we got something that would be called supernatural on our hands, which would then make it actually natural, since it is occurring in our universe. We just cannot understand it quite yet.

Of course another explanation would be that the consciousness of some humans are actually manufacturing these craft, but that opens upon a equal can of worms. ha ha. And would make us discern the fact that consciousness is not at all understood in the current materialistic based framework. For not only would consciousness be creating these craft observed by humans within the military, but they are also real enough to set off non human instruments that can sometimes detect them and make recordings.

All that I do know, with evidence that backs it up quite well, is that there are craft or something in our skies that are not made by man, and defy natural laws, or at least the laws as we understand them today. The attitude and mindset that since these things do defy our understanding of physical laws, and therefore they cannot exist is stupidity and ignorance, parented by nothing short of human arrogance. Which is found in some men of science, but not in all. And it is generally the arrogant little dipsh*ts that make such unscientific claims. Many of them militant atheists so this human affection might have something to do with these claims. But in doing so, they have become what they despise on the religious side. ha ha.

A very scientific paradigm involving a future AI might very well get rid of this human element and its power upon even so called men of science. Not like human beings are put together like Mr. Spock, and if they are, they are generally psychopathic or sociopathic in nature as it is not a natural state for a normal human being. What is outside the norm are psychopaths and sociopaths. But I doubt you would find more of these mental aberrations in scientists, as you would find in those who demand and lust for power that comes from money or being a political ruling elite. I would think the greatest number of these psychopaths is found in politicians in high office. But digressing once again.

 

And the abity to control it...precisely the same problems with folding space.

And 100 years after we first fold space, some guy on a message board will say that about folding space.

 

No, there is absolutely no comparison between folding space and developing an airfoil. We watched birds fly, for example.

The two are not related in any way.

 

There are profound differences, no doubt.
But there is a comparison: harnessing energy.

Which bird has a propeller? Which bird has 4 fixed wings? Point being , simply "seeing birds fly" was not the epiphany which led to flight. Engineering challenges had to be overcome, and new designs that had nothing to do with birds had to be invented.



We actually already know how to fold space, in terms of the enegy required.

 

Wait!!

Someone knows how to "fold space"?

 

In terms of the energy required, that is.

 

Hypothetically perhaps but we do not "Know".

 

Yes, but using well established scientific theory backed by empirical evidence, in the form of Einstein's field equations.

 

There are hypothesis for many things that use Physics, Maths, and many other well established principles to base themselves on in fact is almost prerequisite to be considered anything beyond an idea. Warping space is certainly a popular concept in this and very fun/interesting to play with like the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer....who knows thing they be a changin'.

 

That is not fair characterization(and it is only that), in this case. We know that space does, in fact, "bend". We know the energies required to do so. The problem that eludes us isn't how space bends, but rather harnessing the energy (on magnitudes of the mass of anets and larger objects) to do so.