Stargate FLT Drive vs StarTrek FTL Drive

[Caprice]

I like the fact that, more than likely, they can only do short hops because longer hops require so much time to calculate that they'd be able to travel at sub-light speeds to their destination before their computers spit out the jump coordinates.
So in BSG, it's not a limit of how fast they travel, but how fast they can compute a jump. Technically, they could travel from one side of the universe to the other instantaneously; it'd just take longer than the universe has existed to calculate that jump

That is actually another really good point; another element of so-called reality that makes the show click with me. No fancy-shmancy anything- it is a warship after all.

[Lord §okar]

There can be no doubt about it; BSG lords over all sci-fi.

[Caprice]

There can be no doubt about it; BSG lords over all sci-fi.

LOL

[AngelusInsomnus]

Are you expecting the laws of physics to change in a few hundred years?

Isn't there the off chance that we could be wrong? Maybe not completely wrong, but there has to be room somewhere for breakthroughs. Not necessarily breakthroughs that would lead us to faster-than-light travel, but perhaps ones that would... shed more light on the nature of the universe.

There are reasons why it's called the Einstein's theories are referred to as Theories of Relativity and not laws.

Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, there's a growing movement with the belief that time might not actually exist as a dimension in the universe--that it's only a perceptual illusion. Time can't be measured or defined without the movement of something, can't it?

Well, whatever true or not true or somewhat true, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there's still a lot of uncertainty out there when it comes to this sort of thing. We have a lot of good guesses, but we still have some way to go before humanity has life, the universe, and everything figured out.

[Three PhDs]

Isn't there the off chance that we could be wrong?

No, because the sun is burning. Because gravitational lensing works. There is no doubting that when relativity says you ain't going faster than light, you just aren't.

Maybe not completely wrong, but there has to be room somewhere for breakthroughs.

Why?

Not necessarily breakthroughs that would lead us to faster-than-light travel, but perhaps ones that would... shed more light on the nature of the universe.

Well, relativity isn't a complete description of the universe, never claimed to be.

There are reasons why it's called the Einstein's theories are referred to as Theories of Relativity and not laws.

Yep, like Newton's theory of gravity. - When will people get their heads round the meaning of the word theory. In science, if you're unsure and guessing it's either a hypothesis or a conjecture.

Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, there's a growing movement with the belief that time might not actually exist as a dimension in the universe--that it's only a perceptual illusion.

Never heard of them, though it does fly in the face of all current science.

Time can't be measured or defined without the movement of something, can't it?

Thermodynamics requires thing to move as time progresses. Time does not require thermodynamics.

Well, whatever true or not true or somewhat true, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there's still a lot of uncertainty out there when it comes to this sort of thing.

The point I and Sokar have been trying to make is no, there isn't. c is a fundamental limit.

We have a lot of good guesses, but we still have some way to go before humanity has life, the universe, and everything figured out.

Yeah, but you don't need to know the meaning of life to understand relativity.

[AngelusInsomnus]

Scientific theories are accepted truths, as they've survived many tests and trials, but that doesn't mean they can't be, at the very least, subject to revision by newer theories.

The time not existing thing arose out of that "theory of everything" stuff, given how relativity and quantum physics each treat it quite differently, I believe. I remember reading several articles about the concept, but, that was a few years ago and I probably couldn't (nor shouldn't) go too in-depth about it. If I could only remember the name of the...

Hmm... this discussion has inspired me to look into it further. It's all very fascinating. It seems like there's actually quite a bit of conflict between general relativity and quantum physics. I'm not going to pretend to completely understand it, but... it seems as if this is precisely the sort of thing that may birth new and different possibilities.

Or not. Like I said, I'm not going to pretend to completely understand it.

[DetriusXii]

AngelusInsomnus, I'm a physics grad student and I've only taken one second year course in special relativity but I'm going to step in and say you need to concede to the authorities on the subject matter. You're trying to force your idealism against a brick wall. The brick wall will withstand your idealism most of the time.

In order to travel faster than the speed of light, we need to find an experiment that contradicts the mechanics of special and gravitational relativity. (I don't really want to touch on the subject astronomy since it's not my field.) GPS systems, synchrotrons, nuclear reactions all have verified that special relativity is correct. We have no reason to assume it's not. You're just going to face that even if it contradicts your idealism that we can end up obtaining FTL engines. You can claim that we may obtain FTL engines but I can claim that we won't. Humans can't do everything. We model the laws of physics and we're restricted to those laws. If the universe says we can't travel FTL than we can't travel FTL.

Secondly, what exactly is the contradiction between QM and Special relativity? If you don't understand it, why bring it up? From what I understand, there's some discrepency between GR and QM. Black holes are massive and should be described by General relativity but they're also very tiny objects and should be described by QM. Special relativity isn't anywhere involved from my understanding. Sadly, we can't conduct direct experiments on black holes they're very far away.

Here is the relativistic equation that says why we can't travel faster than the speed of light.

E = gamma*m*c^2 where
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - (v^2)/(c^2))
where m is mass, c is speed of light, v is velocity of the object

When v approaches c, 1 - (v^2)/(c^2) becomes smaller and approaches zero. A small number in the denominator makes a number very big and approaches infinity. I don't have infinite energy. Do you? Only imaginary masses can travel faster than the speed of light, but they can never travel slower than the speed of light.

And your research, did it consist of online newspaper articles? The media tempts to sensationalize research and a journalist usually has no basic understanding of the concept that's being taught him from a senior researcher. In summary, the whole scope of your knowledge is probably wrong.

[Three PhDs]

Scientific theories are accepted truths, as they've survived many tests and trials, but that doesn't mean they can't be, at the very least, subject to revision by newer theories.

Yes, entirely true, but still not relevant. I'm sure that we may in time improve our understanding of gravity by finally managing to understand its effects and how it operates on a quantum level (and if we're really lucky, unifying QM and GR while we're at it), however know this... things will always fall. That's what gravity does. It's an attractional force between objects with mass. Relativity is a blindingly simple concept that says "You weigh anything, no matter what you do or how you do it or who you know or how clever you are, you're just not going to go faster than light." It's really really obvious, I'd buy a book, you can actually get Einstein's original paper in paperback for about £4 these days. It'll take you less than a day to read and comprehend it.

The time not existing thing arose out of that "theory of everything" stuff, given how relativity and quantum physics each treat it quite differently, I believe.

They both take different approaches to problems, as a rule of thumb relativity deals with the very large, quantum mechanics with the very small.

I remember reading several articles about the concept, but, that was a few years ago and I probably couldn't (nor shouldn't) go too in-depth about it. If I could only remember the name of the...

Come back and post it if you do.

Hmm... this discussion has inspired me to look into it further. It's all very fascinating. It seems like there's actually quite a bit of conflict between general relativity and quantum physics. I'm not going to pretend to completely understand it, but... it seems as if this is precisely the sort of thing that may birth new and different possibilities.

Yeah, and again... doesn't really matter what new theories come along. It's like in maths, 1+1 will always equal 2, no matter what new branches of mathematics are created.

[helio9]

While I don't see the fundamental laws of physics being disproven, relativity was unimaginable to physicists of the day until Einstein proposed it, and it was proven to be correct. 1 + 1 will always equal 2, but it's important not to close our minds to a breakthrough like Relativity.

[Noneareleft]

In a race which would win?
The Enterprise vs. The Orion

[Beakymoose]

It sort of depends which Enterprise. If it was Kirk's or Archer's, the Orion would be faster, but Picard's is a different story. It's really hard to compare the two because warp actually reforms subspace around it so there isn't as much space to travel to, and there are also different speeds of warp. On the other hand, hyperdrive is the more plausible of the two, but I think if the math works out, it will be slower. if I'm thinking correctly (which could be the problem) the Orion had one of the slower types of hyperdrive. If so, then the warp drive would definately be faster. Of course, if it's the faster type, it would still be slower than warp, but a lot closer. So maybe that answers your question.

[Daryl Froggy]

In a race which would win?
The Enterprise vs. The Orion

Depends on where we are going and if Rodney has the engines working on the Orion.

[Noneareleft]

So then perhaps the Orion was a bad choice. I'm sure they will be fitted with the fasted hyperdrives possible.

Anyone care to explain the difference between warp and hyperdrives...

We would have to take the latest incarnation of Warp, so it would be Picards,
however not the future version which has warp 10.

[Unorthodox]

It sort of depends which Enterprise. If it was Kirk's or Archer's, the Orion would be faster, but Picard's is a different story. It's really hard to compare the two because warp actually reforms subspace around it so there isn't as much space to travel to, and there are also different speeds of warp. On the other hand, hyperdrive is the more plausible of the two, but I think if the math works out, it will be slower. if I'm thinking correctly (which could be the problem) the Orion had one of the slower types of hyperdrive. If so, then the warp drive would definately be faster. Of course, if it's the faster type, it would still be slower than warp, but a lot closer. So maybe that answers your question.

Plausable. However, one has to remember that the Asgard/Ancient Hyperdrives can cross galaxies in minutes/days, whereas even in Picard's Enterprise-E it would take several years (remember when the Original Enterprise got hijacked by the Andromeda aliens? Well, they jacked up the warp capacity to Warp 15 {which, by TNG standards, = about Warp 8-9}, and they estimated it would take several, unspecified years to cross the intergalactic void) to cross between galaxies. Hyperdrive wins.

[Daryl Froggy]

Plausable. However, one has to remember that the Asgard/Ancient Hyperdrives can cross galaxies in minutes/days, whereas even in Picard's Enterprise-E it would take several years (remember when the Original Enterprise got hijacked by the Andromeda aliens? Well, they jacked up the warp capacity to Warp 15 {which, by TNG standards, = about Warp 8-9}, and they estimated it would take several, unspecified years to cross the intergalactic void) to cross between galaxies. Hyperdrive wins.

Well if it can cross between galaxies far faster wouldn't that be the same for interstellar space?