CPL.Luke

if there was only 1 human left that is extinction. He wouldn't ever have children

of course it was theoretical before warp drive, in fact before Einstein everyone assumed that you could easily keep on accelerating from 0 to infinite velocity. Warp Drive is merely one hypothetical method of faster than light travel, not faster than light travel in general. proove to me that even 1 scientist proposed in a peer-reviewed journal that this form of communication could exist if that never happened than its not theoretical its conjecture. The equivalent to saying you know if I mixed plutonium and uranium together and ran a bajillion volts through it I could make a machine that would produce infinite energy.

in the NASA you linked they mentioned that it was just speculative work the wikipedia article was just on the fictional warp drive, I didn't read the others as I figured they would be much of the same, I would have trusted your sources a bit more if you had bothered to give a link for the actual scientific warp drive article on wikipedia which was in the see also section of the warp drive article that you linked to. If you want to demonstrate that real research is being conducted on warp drive rather than a couple of people kicking around ideas, I would suggest you search for scientific papers on the subject from a peer reviewed journal.

^agreed isn't it a forgone conclusion by biochemistry that life must exist elsewhere (maybe not intelligent). because in biochemistry a dna molecule can be created just by a series of chemical reactions, so provided that the conditions for these reactions exist on other planets (it would be absurd to think that they don't) then life must exist somewhere else. as for biology wouldn't it be logical to assume that over the course of a planet's lifetime an intelligent (at least as smart as humans) life form would evolve. because really any animal that uses tools could be considered intelligent but wouldn't the continued evolution of a species that uses tools logically lead to intelligence?

you do know what zpe is right? its just the lowest possible energy state that a particle can occupy. a beam of light (cause thats what radio waves are) with a frequency of a few Thz is just a very high energy gamma ray, and while a few theories include some aspects that seem to suggest that high energy light will travel slightly faster than low energy light. It is all highly theoretical, and no where near where research could be done. also how the hell could you generate or later capture a signal that has a 1 Thz frequency My proof that there is no such thing as subspace however is that a 1 Thz signal does not constitute anything that couldn't exist in our universe, there would be no reason to call it sub-space. This means to me that sub-space is a bit of technobabble strung together to make good scifi. Ansible was far closer to having any real meaning. (although you would need someone more competent in quantum mechanics to describe this to you). Also the burden of proof lye's on the person who is making the claim that some bit of techno-babble is real not on me to proove that it isn't. As that would require me to be knowledgable of future physical theories. This is not science

if space has no curvature, then space must be infinite. if space looks the same in all directions (matterwise) then it must have infinite energy, why would it be difficult to keep infinite energy in 3 D. and the average energy density of the universe was not infinite (the big bang occurred over an infinite volume).

warp drive is theoretical, but it wasn't when startrek first came up with the name (at least to my knowledge) although its never been tested, as it would take a significan't portion of all the energy in the universe to make work. not to mention how the hell would you warp space time to expand it? subspace doesn't exist

yep, some people have trouble with math in general, these people probably won't be able to understand the mathmatics of a feynmann diagram without a large amount of effort. Then again it would take me a lifetime of classes to learn how to draw anything more than a stick figure

-you responded seriously to this thread

didn't mean to bite your head off, but things in star trek aren't real in any sense. They just string together a series of technical terms. Such as "we should start a baryon sweep" this includes most matter and could easily be done with your eyes, radar, or or microwaves. This would also serve virtually no purpose. I remember that line because swansont suggested an exotic baryon sweep to one of his friends who was writing for the show (or something like that). which episode was the metaphysic radiation used, I am an avid star trek fan so I want to go and see it.

you may want to take a look at this animation of how space works in SR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lorentz_transform_of_world_line.gif

star trek isn't real, metaphysic radiation isn't real. Swansont may be able to elaborate on where they got the name from, he helped them come up with some of the techno babble on occasion

my current experience in physics is alot of independant work, the physics course at my school is only open to juniors (starting it this year). Although last year for the last quarter I sat in on the AP physics C class, I also taught myself calculus in order to be able to understand the mathmatical formulation of physical concepts. me and a close friend are currently planning to enter a project into the intel science competition next year. As for goals, I personally intend to start a career in physics (not entirely sure which field) and so am going to go through grad school and get a Phd. I also don't have the greatest grades of all time... so I am looking into both the prestigous universities and the not so prestigous. (and colleges) yeah, Don't most universities subdivide themselves into "schools" or colleges? For instance my sister attends Tisch school of arts at NYU, Although I believe you could also call Tisch a liberal arts college. Its all really a conspiracy to keep europeans out of american schools through confusion.

The universe up until his last couple of posts just randomly spammed over a couple of threads, and wizdumb does no longer post here

yes you are, but when someone goes to do post graduate schooling (I assume you mean after your bachelors degree) we just call it grad school

yeah I'm in america, here we use the word college for both university and college, most people don't know the difference between the two until they start applying Edit: maybe soething a bit more prestigious then snafu

if the length of the distance is contracted, so it takes less time to traverse it, then if you divide d by t you get v (also known as (in this case) C

I'm entering my junior year of high school now and have to go around to visit some colleges. (and think a bit more about which colleges that I want to go to) anybody know which colleges have good physics programs? I'm also kinda looking for colleges that have good programs but maybe aren't thte most prestigious of schools.

I would see a slightly different time for each pulse for when an event occurs. I think your making a logical mistake in saying that the speeds are relative rather than the time. now please respond to what I consider proof of time dilation e.g. http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.../Unit5/gps.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity ^ I think your just redefining everything as is explained above, as explained above this is illogical. Also you have not responded to my atomic clock reference

because, you could never reach the end , in the event space does have a shape and space is finite, then there is no "outside" od space, it does not exist, there is also no edge of space. oh yes the bit about the sign at the end of space was sarcasm, I need to remember to use the sarcasm tags more often also all observations point to an infinite space, so either proove that in fact space ends by analizing the data, or shut the hell up about it

you can't observe your own time traveling slower, you can only observe others times traveling slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-Thorndike_experiment ^proved time contraction through a variation of the MM experiment also, heres something similar to your light clock that is neutral for SR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html ^theres a reference to the atomic clocks. if the effect weren't real then the GPS system wouldn't work as they currently all have the software to compensate for special relativity

all inertial frames are equivalent, the view from the LTC clocks are just as valid (1 time) as the view from an outside observer who would view different times. why the hell is scotland yard investigating this? I wouldn't trust their ability to perform a real scientific investigation You made up a postulate of special relativity though, Einstein postulated that all observers would see the speed of light as the speed of light, but because of time dilation events can happen at different times relative to eachother. Times are observed I'll go dig up a reference

A: no one in this thread said it wasn't B: by definition empty space is nothing the universe does in fact appear to be infinite, as evidenced by the picture I linked to (although I couldn't elaborate any more on how that picture shows space is infinite) when did we find out space is not infinite? so far the universe doesn't seem to have a "shape". If it does have a shape however, then nothing exists outside of it, and you could never reach the outside of it because there is no sign that says "space ends here...don't cross line" so "outside" of the universe does not exist.

couldn't you just make h(x,y) equal to 0 for all values of x and y? I have a feeling that there is some big reason why you couldn't do this, it just seems logical Edit: woops misread the question, the polynomial had to be non-zero. Thats what I get for posting at 3:00 in the morning