PDA

View Full Version : FTL travel and preferred frames of reference



Kizarvexis
2007-Jan-20, 01:57 AM
As I understand it, you can not travel faster than light because of the infinite energy needed to move your infinite mass at the speed of light. (Speed of Light - SoL - Hah, that can be a funny and off color joke for not being able to travel FTL.) Anyways, I also understand that if there was a preferred frame of reference, this might change, but for us there is no preferred frame of reference.

What if there was a preferred frame of reference? Would we be able to detect it? Specifically, I'm talking about hyperspace as seen in the Babylon 5 TV show. It was a dimension outside our normal one where you could travel faster than light and it touched upon our dimension so that a jump engine/jump gate could bridge between the two. You would travel through a jump gate into hyperspace and then be able to travel faster than light.

In the show the White Star travelled from B5 to Io (the moon of Jupiter) in two days. In early discussions about the show, the creator jms said that B5 was roughly 25 light years from Earth. The White Star used hyperspace to get to and from Earth.

Now, if there were something like hyperspace and it was a preferred frame of reference, would faster than light travel be possible? And would we be able to detect that there was a preferred frame of reference in another dimension if we couldn't detect the dimension?

I know that this won't be possible in real life, but I wonder where are the errors in this? Also, how does hyperspace in Babylon 5 stack up against other faster than light work arounds in the least amount of suspension of belief?

Kizarvexis
(I hope all this makes sense.)

01101001
2007-Jan-20, 02:32 AM
Hypothetical things can behave however the hypothesizer wishes.

Kizarvexis
2007-Jan-20, 02:35 AM
Hypothetical things can behave however the hypothesizer wishes.


But if you were to consider it real, where are the problems with it to be real? I know that the problems are there, just not what they are or where they are at.

Kizarvexis

01101001
2007-Jan-20, 04:26 AM
But if you were to consider it real, where are the problems with it to be real?

If I were to consider it real, I think the problem would be with me -- unduly supposing while lacking evidence. I'd like to think I'd have myself locked up for my own safety. But, I'm all talk. I'd probably wait it out, hoping to come to my senses.

Look, I hate spoiling the fun. A little. I just don't understand asking for a scientific treatment of something speculated, nay fantasized, to exist by a creative writer. I do think a literary analysis is more apropos.

What should we say? Is any answer right? Is any answer wrong?

Forgive me. I'm in a silly mood, in a mood for real science, real information, real data, real knowledge, that really useful reality-based stuff, today -- and really failing miserably.