Hyperspace would likely require a bubble. Remember, there's essentially no space in hyperspace - that's why they can travel so fast - but that also means you feel the force of all interactions instantaneously. In other words, you can't really be in hyperspace unless you carry some of your own space with you. This is effectively a warping of space, albeit it goes beyond warping. You've created a bubble. That's much harder to do, but theoretically would require magnitudes less energy for long distance travel. If I can draw an analogy, it's like comparing a glider plain riding the wind to a scramjet plane flying far above the atmosphere where the air is very thin and there's virtually no friction. To understand this extreme bending of space-time, you have to throw aside many of the standard assumptions of classical physics, and consider a deeper underlying nature. In some sense, all it is (matter, space, time) is just a different form of energy. I also suspect space will behave differently at very large scales, just as it does at small scales. On a large scale it will be less smooth and more particle-wave-like.
I think we have generally the same impressions about what will or won't become a reality in 'outer space' in the next few hundred years. I view the 'darkness' of "Childhood's End" dispassionately, much like someone who watches some great natural disaster or other occurrence over which he has no control. The behaviors of the 'the children' in the story is very much like the creation of the 'hive-mind' we see today among Millennials and whatever the next generation is called (Generation "Z"?). The pronouncement by Karellen that "the stars are not for man" is merely an acknowledgement that creatures that are 'built' as we are, with all of our terrestrially-based mechanisms and bodily systems are not adapted at all for anything that involves "warp-speed", certainly, to say nothing of life itself on anything other than another Class "M" planet (of which there are few, and, ostensibly, FAR between). I think we agree that mankind will spread out into various parts of this solar system, in much the way, and with the motives you've described. The moon, and Mars, certainly. Several of the moons of Jupiter and/or Saturn possibly. Beyond that, no. Plus, Mercury and Venus are both completely uninhabitable by any standard conceivable today. Uranus and Neptune... who knows? And no matter where we would 'go', we'd have to take along our perfectly-functioning 'space suits' with us. We'd probably have a better chance creating and populating colonies in vast areas of the oceans on this planet (many of which are virtually unknown) than in outer space....
Just like traveling a mile a minute. Unbelievable a few hundred years ago. It'll squeeze the air out of your lungs. Moi Luddite Party, Why Not.
There are actual physical laws that prevent anything that is travelling under the speed of light to go faster than the speed of light. We know this through experimentation. As you approach the speed of light, the relativistic mass of an object goes up, and at the speed of light, that mass becomes infinity. Experiments in particle accelerators prove this to be true. There are no physical laws preventing things going more than a mile a minute, just a false theory that you couldn't breath at that speeds, which even at the time were shown to be false.
That's not necessarily true. Speed is only constrained by space. Space is (or may be) more than just a geometric fixture that is inherently constrained in existence. However, moving space is not easy, it takes a lot of energy or force. In some sense the theory of relativity still holds, it is just you are moving something into a different reference frame, which is comparatively different from the one outside, if you care to view it that way. As long as you are not going faster than light speed from your own perspective, the laws are not broken. (Rather, it would appear like the entire rest of the universe was changing)
Trying to understand the technology that will eventually take us there would be like explaining quantum mechanics to a neanderthal.
It only gets complicated when you try to understand it from a philosophical perspective, which many of these theories do, in a way. If you set aside the typical conception of space and time for a moment, what's so complicated about getting from point A to point B? What are two points actually separated by? (Throw out your normal understanding of geometry also) To understand this, you need to understand the fundamental relationship between space, energy, and time. They're all the same, actually, just different facets of the same phenomena. Space isn't empty, and if you were to make it empty it wouldn't exist anymore, and there'd be no distance between two points.
And the Vulcan Science Directorate has determined Time Travel is not possible. We need to understand beyond . . .
To me Janeway and Sisko are the best. Janeway started SJW but she then turned into one evil bitch. Which is the bitch she needed to be. But KIRK was the man as well. Never got enterprise new ones are complete ****.
Too bad Sisko was portrayed by Avery Brooks who speaks as Sisko in all his roles. Bad choice of casting. Just like Picard and bad scripting. Jonathon Archer was a good one. Retired too early Kirk was "the man" even if originally portrayed by a
