FTL vs HYderdrive

[Quadhelix]

No no no, dont misunderstand me for someone who says "just because they misunderstood something, the whole eludes them"

Okay, then we agree: hyperdrives are not significantly more advanced than Destiny's type of FTL.

For the record, I was never arguing that Earth's understanding of hyperdrives was perfect. My only point was that hyperdrive technology is sufficient primitive that it can be reverse engineered by modern Earth, which puts an upper bound on how "advanced" it it is.

[Greenfire32]

For example, i know the very basic principles of a jet engine, suck, squeeze, bang, blow (keep it clean)

I'll admit, this gave me some pretty hard....chuckles.

Anyway, I lol'd. Green for you sir.

[elitewolverine]

I think saying ftl or hyperdrive is not as 'advanced' as we think it is because we can backwards engineer something, is inaccurate.

Lets take a example that you used quad. using 200 years and a computer as a example is abit of a stretch. but i see what you did and what your trying to get across. but lets put technology on the same playing field.

combustion engine. We know steam engines date back thousands of years, and of course their abilities and limits are known. But we do know that they do not have f1 racing engines 200-300 years ago. and the speed differences vast vastly superior.

But i garuntee if you put a functioning f1 motor in the hands of the steam engine inventor, he might not know how to produce, titanium-alluminum alloy connecting rods and pistons, but he would be able to understand the concept of how it works. And quite possibly fast foward technology nothing short of 150yrs. kerosine and methonal were available and known since 1661, over 300 years ago. And its methanol that powers modern indycars or top fuel dragsters.

So would do you think the inventor of the steam engine, mr savory, could have come up with? He had access to methanol, had access to steel, and machinery. Do you think in 10yrs of practice, and with the hands of hundreds upon hundreds of top top scientists and chemists. that he could not come up with a engine that would rival say a 1940's bugatti v-8? Despite the knowledge being 300years ahead?

So that is the question. without any outside help, asgards. how long before we had viable hyperdrive technology? not wacky experimental, but truely viable? can we even put a time frame on that, both earth systems failed.

And last but not least, if we were to rate hyperdrives 1 being absolute noob and 10 the ancients, lets say gauld is 5 asgards 8 and ancients 10, i would say our first attempt is 0. if we didnt have any help, do you think it would be safe to say that our level would be a 1 or 2?

[Quadhelix]

Lets take a example that you used quad. using 200 years and a computer as a example is abit of a stretch. but i see what you did and what your trying to get across. but lets put technology on the same playing field.

If you have to put the technologies on the same playing field, then you have already proven my point.

combustion engine. We know steam engines date back thousands of years, and of course their abilities and limits are known. But we do know that they do not have f1 racing engines 200-300 years ago. and the speed differences vast vastly superior.

The steam engine does date back thousands of years. Hyperdrives, however, do not.

So would do you think the inventor of the steam engine, mr savory, could have come up with? He had access to methanol, had access to steel, and machinery. Do you think in 10yrs of practice, and with the hands of hundreds upon hundreds of top top scientists and chemists. that he could not come up with a engine that would rival say a 1940's bugatti v-8? Despite the knowledge being 300years ahead?

I'd have to do some research to be sure, but my first impression is that he would not be able to duplicate the more "advanced" engines, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the knowledge being beyond him.

The reason, quite simply, is parts. Modern engines rely on fairly precisely engineered parts that have to meet certain specifications in order for the engine to work. Your steam engineer would have no way to duplicate those parts.

So that is the question. without any outside help, asgards. how long before we had viable hyperdrive technology? not wacky experimental, but truely viable? can we even put a time frame on that, both earth systems failed.

The X-302 failed because it was the smallest ship ever to mount a hyperdrive, until McKay figured out how to install one in a Puddle Jumper.

The Prometheus's hyperdrive failed (the first time) because they failed to properly account for the instability of Naquadria. In other words, the power supply was the problem, not the hyperdrive.

[Nth Chevron]

Just to (most likely) end this discussion on a single point.

This whole discussion about Hyperdrives being more technical than FTL is kinda moot, we can speculate and we can guess theories - but we just dont know.

The FTL on Destiny has 16 distinct modules comprising the larger FTl drive, a hyperdrive has 1, just itself, now on the numbers game, hyperdrive wins as the most technical - but considering from Season 4 onwards, SG-1 grew up around hyperdrives, watched them work eventually gained the specs and had all the notes on the experiments so we didnt loose people necessarily experimenting with them.

If the SG-1 era had comprised of FTL and not hyperspace i think we would be having this discussion with the points raised here being reversed in polarity.

At its core though i will say, hyperdrives are probably WAY more complicated than FTL drives as we have discussed, but having been brought up around hyperdrives the same way people these days are around computers and technology, its obvious we would find hyperdrives easy enough to understand after sufficient exposure.

We wont know for sure which is more technical until we get information regarding the times when the Alterans first invented FTL tech and then how long it took them to develop hyperdrives. Knowing this answer is the only way we can figure the answer out

N.C

[elitewolverine]

If you have to put the technologies on the same playing field, then you have already proven my point.

Not really proving your point, its apples to apples, you cant compare hyperdrive engines to say, finding a cure to cancer. In other words, saying they couldnt build a pc 300yrs ago is irrelevant. But we have been to space, meaning we have space engines. Hyperdrive is a type of space engine. Hence level playing fields.

The steam engine does date back thousands of years. Hyperdrives, however, do not.

but that is the point, the modern steam engine that could do any kind of commercial work, was built just 300yrs ago. Its like saying, rockets have existed for thousands of years. True, but it wasnt untill the 1900's that we actually did anything really usefull with them, like i dont know, land a person on the moon....

I'd have to do some research to be sure, but my first impression is that he would not be able to duplicate the more "advanced" engines, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the knowledge being beyond him.

Why not? 1940's engineering is not high-tech, involves no computers, and actually used parts he would/might be able to replicate, especially once he sees a f1 engine, heck we still use iron-blocks in cars. Im sure he has access to iron, and a machine that could bore through it...

The reason, quite simply, is parts. Modern engines rely on fairly precisely engineered parts that have to meet certain specifications in order for the engine to work. Your steam engineer would have no way to duplicate those parts.

depends on what type of engine, if on a scale the f1 engine is a 10, what would he have to reproduce? a level 1? darn right he could. And the only thing about modern precise engines is for, fuel consumption and emissions. Are you telling me that a 1940's bugatti engine that puts out 300hp, is more advanced than a 2010 prius or say focus engine? Its all perspective.

The X-302 failed because it was the smallest ship ever to mount a hyperdrive, until McKay figured out how to install one in a Puddle Jumper.

The Prometheus's hyperdrive failed (the first time) because they failed to properly account for the instability of Naquadria. In other words, the power supply was the problem, not the hyperdrive.

does it matter why it didnt work? i mean thats like saying, my steam engine guy failed because he didnt properly account for the weekness in non hardened steel, or should have used a iron block etc, and then saying. its not the engine, just lack of materials.

simply put, when given advanced enginering and the time and MINDS to study it, you can always replicate it. Will it be perfect? no. will he have a 2.0L turbo charged v-12 that pumps out 900hp at 16000rpms? heck no. but he could build a engine that can run off methonal and probably produce a good 200hp at about 3000rpm or even 2000rpm, as long has his torque is right, probably be a good 8L size engine too.

[thekillman]

Deliverance shows the biggest difference:


FTL requires shields to be active. hyperspace does not



also interestingly the Blues actually DO have hyperspace tech (confirmed in Deliverance)



anyway, the fundamental difference between FTL and Hyperspace is, that FTL requires a ship to "plow" through whatever it plows through whereas Hyperspace makes a clean tunnel through subspace. hence, FTL requires somewhat of an aerodynamic shape while Hyperspace does not. FTL hence requires shields where Hyperspace does not

[Nth Chevron]

Yep, it also confirms even more that hyperspace, whilst possibly being twice as complicated as FTL, IS definately slower than Destiny's almost perfected FTL module tech.

I also thought the hyperdrive didnt needs shield to enter/exit hyperspace because the hyperdrive itself forms some sort of field around the ship, enabling it to enter/exit hyperspace initially whilst also protecting it from the stresses of the hyperspace corridor, the interaction between the field and subspace itself is why ships can go different speeds in hyperspace and the speed is not set to just being a shortcut through space at the same speed for everyone regardless of race.

Destiny will need the shields because of FTL's drawback of having to deal with flying through energy at super speeds, dealing with other types of matter in her path, but most of all, i believe the visual effects of Destiny at FTL, especially at the wings, puts be in mind of Destiny flying through lightwaves, or some sort of radiation that becomes visible at superspeeds, needing the shield to protect against these energies because at those speeds and the minimum 4 hours of having to be in FTL, causes serious heat buildup on the hull, with the shield they just roll off and over, could be another reason why Destiny refuels in a star as well. Could also explain the strength of the shield, maybe the shield absorbs some of this radiation to boost itself between sun-dives

N.C

[Greenfire32]

anyway, the fundamental difference between FTL and Hyperspace is, that FTL requires a ship to "plow" through whatever it plows through whereas Hyperspace makes a clean tunnel through subspace. hence, FTL requires somewhat of an aerodynamic shape while Hyperspace does not. FTL hence requires shields where Hyperspace does not

I guess this also clears up the issue as to why Destiny is aerodynamically shaped then too (if any of you remember that thread we had a while back).

[Quadhelix]

Not really proving your point, its apples to apples, you cant compare hyperdrive engines to say, finding a cure to cancer. In other words, saying they couldnt build a pc 300yrs ago is irrelevant. But we have been to space, meaning we have space engines. Hyperdrive is a type of space engine. Hence level playing fields.

"Space engine"? What on Earth is a "space engine"?

To get vehicles into space, we use rocket engines. Rocket engines, in practice, operate using Newton's Laws/Conservation of Momentum to drive a vehicle by ejecting propellant out the back.

Hyperdrives operate by moving a ship into hyperspace/subspace, which doesn't even correspond to any existing physical model of the universe.


In other words, the category of "space engines" is nothing more than arbitrary and meaningless classification that you had to make up because your argument doesn't work without it.

but that is the point, the modern steam engine that could do any kind of commercial work, was built just 300yrs ago. Its like saying, rockets have existed for thousands of years. True, but it wasnt untill the 1900's that we actually did anything really usefull with them, like i dont know, land a person on the moon....

A hyperdrive is not a type of rocket.

Why not? 1940's engineering is not high-tech, involves no computers, and actually used parts he would/might be able to replicate, especially once he sees a f1 engine, heck we still use iron-blocks in cars. Im sure he has access to iron, and a machine that could bore through it...

The question isn't just access to iron and a boring machine.

For example, the Wikipedia article on Cylinder Blocks states, "Casting technology at the dawn of the internal combustion engine could reliably cast either large castings, or castings with complex internal cores to allow for water jackets, but not both simultaneously." In other words, your steam engineer would be unable to duplicate the 1940's engine because the metal casting technology of his time would be insufficient to produce a similar cylinder block, among other reasons. Note that the combustion engineers at the turn of the 20th century knew exactly what they had to do to make their engines better, they merely lacked the technology to implement those designs.

does it matter why it didnt work? i mean thats like saying, my steam engine guy failed because he didnt properly account for the weekness in non hardened steel, or should have used a iron block etc, and then saying. its not the engine, just lack of materials.

It would be one thing if Earth had been using regular Naquada (as do the Goa'uld) and had failed to account for some property of Naquada. However, they didn't: they used Naquadria, which wasn't the intended power supply.

It would be as though your steam engineer managed to duplicate an F1 engine and then decided to run it on liquid C4.

simply put, when given advanced enginering and the time and MINDS to study it, you can always replicate it. Will it be perfect? no. will he have a 2.0L turbo charged v-12 that pumps out 900hp at 16000rpms? heck no. but he could build a engine that can run off methonal and probably produce a good 200hp at about 3000rpm or even 2000rpm, as long has his torque is right, probably be a good 8L size engine too.

Assuming, of course, that you have the engineering/production technology to actually reproduce the necessary parts.

That was, in part, the reason that I used the example of a computer: people 200 years ago did not have access to the technology needed to produce a transistor small enough to fit over 2 billion on a single microprocessor: "ATI's RV870 is more modestly sized at 2.2 billion transistors" (here). Thus,even if someone 200 years ago were given specific instructions on how to build a laptop he/she would be unable to follow those instructions.

This whole discussion about Hyperdrives being more technical than FTL is kinda moot, we can speculate and we can guess theories - but we just dont know.

We know that Hyperdrives are simple enough to be duplicated with current Earth technology, meaning that they cannot be too much more "advanced" than FTL.

Also, you say that we we can only speculate and guess right before you go on to assert that hyperdrives must be the more advanced technology. What makes you so special that you don't have to guess when everyone else does?

The FTL on Destiny has 16 distinct modules comprising the larger FTl drive, a hyperdrive has 1, just itself, now on the numbers game, hyperdrive wins as the most technical

I don't see the connection.

Keep in mind that Earth was able to build a somewhat functional hyperdrive without assistance. Compare that to "Sabotage," where they needed their foremost expert on hyperdrive technology just to figure out how to cut off a broken FTL node.

but considering from Season 4 onwards, SG-1 grew up around hyperdrives, watched them work eventually gained the specs and had all the notes on the experiments so we didnt loose people necessarily experimenting with them.

As I pointed out above, no amount of experience with a technology will help you if you don't have the industrial technology needed to duplicate the parts.

If the SG-1 era had comprised of FTL and not hyperspace i think we would be having this discussion with the points raised here being reversed in polarity.

This is begging the question: you assume that FTL is "primitive" enough for the Goa'uld and Earth to duplicate, and then use that assumption to prove that FTL could be "primitive" enough for the Goa'uld and Earth to duplicate.

At its core though i will say, hyperdrives are probably WAY more complicated than FTL drives as we have discussed, but having been brought up around hyperdrives the same way people these days are around computers and technology, its obvious we would find hyperdrives easy enough to understand after sufficient exposure.

Except that:
A) As you have already pointed out, being "brought up around" jet engines, for example, doesn't allow you to duplicate one.
B) Even if you know exactly how to build something, you still won't be able to if you lack the technology to produce the parts (as with the cylinder blocks mentioned above).

[Greenfire32]

In other words, the category of "space engines" is nothing more than arbitrary and meaningless classification that you had to make up because your argument doesn't work without it.

Dude:

"Hyperdrive"

Are you seriously going to have a fit over something that doesn't exist, and then turn around a defend something else that doesn't exist?

[Quadhelix]

Dude:

"Hyperdrive"

Are you seriously going to have a fit over something that doesn't exist, and then turn around a defend something else that doesn't exist?

You're missing the point: to say that space engines don't exist implies that there is an idea of something called a "space engine." There isn't: the term "space engine" is meaningless gibberish.

Yes, you could say that a "space engine" is anything that lets you move through space, but that definition is so broad as to be completely meaningless, at least in this context. The fact that we have built rockets into space has no bearing on our ability to produce a hyperdrive.

Here's the original quote again:

But we have been to space, meaning we have space engines. Hyperdrive is a type of space engine. Hence level playing fields.

This argues that a rocket engine and a hyperdrive are the same sort of technology in the same way that a steam engine and an internal combustion engine are the same sort of technology. Steam engines and internal combustion engines do both use the expansion of heated gas to extract work from heat - the work on the same physical principles.

However, hyperdrives (and Destiny's FTL, for that matter) are, in that sense, nowhere near the same thing as rockets. Hyperdrives and Destiny's FTL quite obviously work on different physical principles than the rockets that allow us to go into space.

Indeed, one could almost say that, in their operating principles, rockets have more in common with steam engines than they do with hyperdrives or Destiny-style FTL drives.

[Greenfire32]

You're missing the point: to say that space engines don't exist implies that there is an idea of something called a "space engine." There isn't: the term "space engine" is meaningless gibberish.

I substitute "space engine" with "hyperdrive" or "FTL" and by extension "fiction."

What I was saying is that: You cannot defend so valiantly one fictional idea while at the same time using real-world logic and reasoning to deny the mere terminology of another fictional idea. At the end of the discussion, they're both still fiction.

[elitewolverine]

"Space engine"? What on Earth is a "space engine"?

To get vehicles into space, we use rocket engines. Rocket engines, in practice, operate using Newton's Laws/Conservation of Momentum to drive a vehicle by ejecting propellant out the back.

Hyperdrives operate by moving a ship into hyperspace/subspace, which doesn't even correspond to any existing physical model of the universe.

In other words, the category of "space engines" is nothing more than arbitrary and meaningless classification that you had to make up because your argument doesn't work without it.

what on earth is a space engine? well its a engine that operates in space. pretty self explanitory is it not? Should i have used the term 'space drive'. What doesnt work? the fact that we have knowledge and understanding beyond just mere rocket propellant? The fact that you tried using a example that not only put it out of the minds of the people of the time but severly out of their materials reach.

there are many different types of 'space drives', in fact why dont you just look up experimental drives for nasa, you will find everything from nuclear power, to ion, to gravity...the list goes on.

A hyperdrive is not a type of rocket.

wow and a pc isnt a car engine, cookie?

The question isn't just access to iron and a boring machine.

For example, the Wikipedia article on Cylinder Blocks states, "Casting technology at the dawn of the internal combustion engine could reliably cast either large castings, or castings with complex internal cores to allow for water jackets, but not both simultaneously." In other words, your steam engineer would be unable to duplicate the 1940's engine because the metal casting technology of his time would be insufficient to produce a similar cylinder block, among other reasons. Note that the combustion engineers at the turn of the 20th century knew exactly what they had to do to make their engines better, they merely lacked the technology to implement those designs.

dude, cast iron was invented by the chinese in the 4th century BC. You do not need water jackets, nor piston sleaves or anything else of that matter to make a engine. In fact why dont you ask porsche how they cool some of their engines. "air". Hey most motorcycles use air too...hmmmm, i think their onto something...

Being able to produce a straight-6 or 8, with simple casting techniques, and produce somewhere in the range of 200hp-300hp, would be doable. And it wouldnt be just by one guy.

Did carter make the 302 all by herself? no she had hundreds and hundreds of people. You put that same brain power into mr steam guys time period, give them a f1 engine to study and run. And i garuntee you, a 200hp engine would/could be made with that kind of insight.

It would be one thing if Earth had been using regular Naquada (as do the Goa'uld) and had failed to account for some property of Naquada. However, they didn't: they used Naquadria, which wasn't the intended power supply.

It would be as though your steam engineer managed to duplicate an F1 engine and then decided to run it on liquid C4.

and why didnt we use naquada? wasnt it because they could not get enough of it to actually use it, after all we knew where it was and how to get it, problem was getting it part, and because naquadria offered 10x times more power? seems like it wasnt just mere, i dont have the fuel, it was more like. Oh i wanna go faster use this.

Assuming, of course, that you have the engineering/production technology to actually reproduce the necessary parts.

That was, in part, the reason that I used the example of a computer: people 200 years ago did not have access to the technology needed to produce a transistor small enough to fit over 2 billion on a single microprocessor: "ATI's RV870 is more modestly sized at 2.2 billion transistors" (here). Thus,even if someone 200 years ago were given specific instructions on how to build a laptop he/she would be unable to follow those instructions.

see but you forget, being able to machine parts especially in area 51 who is 20-40 years ahead of what you see, is nothing short of plausible. We barely had microchips 40yrs ago, and now we have a gpu that can fit billions of transisters on them. AND those are for public consumption. Telling me the government aint got nothing better? pfffft. You severly underestimating the technology known and used in secret.

and your example of pc, is to a group of people that couldnt comprehend it, we can comprehend space/time/gravity rather well, getting a little push with being given a hyperdrive to study puts it all into perspective.

Now if you were to tell me, that 300yrs ago, a guy knew how to grow silicon on a wafer in a ultra thin enviorment, but didnt have the power source ie electricity to use it, then your example would be more spot on. because he has a grasp of what growing silicon on a chip could do. we have a grasp at space/time/engineering that your example did not have. hence failed example on your part.

Except that:
A) As you have already pointed out, being "brought up around" jet engines, for example, doesn't allow you to duplicate one.
B) Even if you know exactly how to build something, you still won't be able to if you lack the technology to produce the parts (as with the cylinder blocks mentioned above).

a) a very primative jet engine could be reproduced if you grew up around them. come on, suck air in, compress it, blow it out the back, combine fuel with the air ignite, and you get jet engine. connect the back of the fans recieving the blast by a crank to the front to turn the front props, and walla the process repeats. With hundreds of minds, being able to produce a 'primative' one is EASY. in fact the USA did it in just 1 year and no computers.

B)your cylinder blocks was a horrible example. I know you have no working knowledge of motors, or you do, but the concept and feasability of it all escapes you.

[Quadhelix]

I substitute "space engine" with "hyperdrive" or "FTL" and by extension "fiction."

What I was saying is that: You cannot defend so valiantly one fictional idea while at the same time using real-world logic and reasoning to deny the mere terminology of another fictional idea. At the end of the discussion, they're both still fiction.

Except that, again, I wasn't denying the terminology of the fictional idea, but rather its logical coherence.

what on earth is a space engine? well its a engine that operates in space. pretty self explanitory is it not? Should i have used the term 'space drive'.

No. There was no term that you should have used because the idea was wrong.

What doesnt work? the fact that we have knowledge and understanding beyond just mere rocket propellant? The fact that you tried using a example that not only put it out of the minds of the people of the time but severly out of their materials reach.

Well, yeah, I did, because that was sort of the point: if a technology is "advanced," then you're not going to be able to reverse engineer it. There are going to be too many components that you do not have the capability to duplicate.

By saying that the "computer" analogy is wrong - that we already understand enough to make a hyperdrive but merely don't know how - then you are proving my point that hyperdrives are not significantly more advanced than FTL.

there are many different types of 'space drives', in fact why dont you just look up experimental drives for nasa, you will find everything from nuclear power, to ion, to gravity...the list goes on.

Yes, and all of those - all of those - operate using Newton's Laws/Conservation of Momentum. Indeed, most of them operate in pretty much the same way: throw some propellant out the back.


Hyperdrives and Destiny-style FTLs, however, most assuredly do not operate on those principles, making hyperdrives and such entirely different beasts altogether.

wow and a pc isnt a car engine, cookie?

Since you were treating hyperdrives as though they were rockets, I could only assume that you couldn't tell the difference.

By the way, you were the one who brought up car engines, not me.

dude, cast iron was invented by the chinese in the 4th century BC.

So what? The issue isn't whether they can cast iron, it's how well they can do it.

You do not need water jackets, nor piston sleaves or anything else of that matter to make a engine.

Which, again, ignores the fact that the bit about iron casting was an example of the sort of problems that someone would encounter trying to reverse engineer a more advanced technology.

Being able to produce a straight-6 or 8, with simple casting techniques, and produce somewhere in the range of 200hp-300hp, would be doable.

And for this "fact," I have only your assurances, which are based on...what, exactly?

Did carter make the 302 all by herself? no she had hundreds and hundreds of people. You put that same brain power into mr steam guys time period, give them a f1 engine to study and run. And i garuntee you, a 200hp engine would/could be made with that kind of insight.

Anyone can "guarantee" anything. The truth of that guarantee is a different matter.

and why didnt we use naquada? wasnt it because they could not get enough of it to actually use it, after all we knew where it was and how to get it, problem was getting it part, and because naquadria offered 10x times more power? seems like it wasnt just mere, i dont have the fuel, it was more like. Oh i wanna go faster use this.

Exactly: none of which changes the fact that the hyperdrive itself worked just fine - it was the untested fuel that was the problem.

Indeed, it was a problem that they seemed to have resolved - by "Memento," the Prometheus had been equipped with a buffer to counter the instability of Naquadria. The Asgard had equipped Prometheus with shields and weapons, but there was no mention made of help with the hyperdrive.

see but you forget, being able to machine parts especially in area 51 who is 20-40 years ahead of what you see, is nothing short of plausible. We barely had microchips 40yrs ago, and now we have a gpu that can fit billions of transisters on them. AND those are for public consumption. Telling me the government aint got nothing better? pfffft. You severly underestimating the technology known and used in secret.

Firstly, 20-40 years isn't that far ahead, in the time scales that we're talking about. The Goa'uld, for example, have been traveling through space for thousands of years.

Secondly, I'm rather curious about where you got the idea that Area 51 "must" have this 20-40 year head start on everyone else: do you mean in the show or in real life?

and your example of pc, is to a group of people that couldnt comprehend it, we can comprehend space/time/gravity rather well, getting a little push with being given a hyperdrive to study puts it all into perspective.

Which means that a hyperdrive must be a fairly primitive technology.

Now if you were to tell me, that 300yrs ago, a guy knew how to grow silicon on a wafer in a ultra thin enviorment, but didnt have the power source ie electricity to use it, then your example would be more spot on. because he has a grasp of what growing silicon on a chip could do. we have a grasp at space/time/engineering that your example did not have. hence failed example on your part.

Except that hyperdrives are completely couter to our understanding of the universe - we don't have a grasp at building anything even remotely similar to a Hyperdrive, or an FTL, or anything like that.

B)your cylinder blocks was a horrible example.

How is it a horrible example?