OT: Handwavium-low methods of FTL travel?

[Puke]

not impossible, just harder and with more casualties. if you dont have a stopper for your ship, then you have a planet that acts as a stopper for your projectile.

or maybe the slinger creates a field that dies before it reaches the target, and the ship "falls out of warp"

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Puke said:
not impossible, just harder and with more casualties. if you dont have a stopper for your ship, then you have a planet that acts as a stopper for your projectile.

or maybe the slinger creates a field that dies before it reaches the target, and the ship "falls out of warp"

Hmm...I think that second method would be more desirable. So invasions would be possible, just slower.

[Glyn]

You all are still thinking within the box.

Don’t worry about moving the ship. Just relocate the galaxy relative to your ship. Simple?


There is a theory that some time in the future computers will be powerful enough to simulate reality. Sometime after that point there will be more so many simulated realities that the odds of an individual actually being a member of the one true reality will be vanishing small. Now the neat thing about existing in a simulated reality is that by making a small change or patch to the simulator reality you could relocate an object such as a ship to a new location within that simulated reality. All you need is a way to hack reality. (The “Well of Souls” used a method where they patched the equations of reality to move the supper computer moon about.)

[Urendi Maleldil]

Here's a star drive classification chart that I've used before to help come up with ideas. It classifies every single drive system in sci fi.

http://www.projectrho.com/stardrv.txt

[Cipher7071]

That particular vision is reminiscent of the world in "The Matrix."

[Puke]

and about a million other sci-fi stories since about 1960. maybe before.

relocating the universe is only a viable method (for the purposes of on-topic arguement) if your relocating the ACTUAL universe and not some simulated one. we must assume we are operating in the acutal one for the purposes of practoical discussion...

now the idea that reality can be "disbelieved" or reprogramed based on concensus is one that i am willing to entertain. so is the idea that the whole universe can be moved based on "glitches" or "loopholes" in physics or thermodynamics.

Although I dont place any particular weight in the idea, I'm rather fond of the suggestion that reality is completly defined (even on a macro level) by observation. Laws of science exists because people largely agree that they exist, and that belief has been reinforced over time. its harder and harder to rationalize new things without overwriting pre-existing observations and introducing parodoxes, but wouldnt the world be wild if we just observed it a different way 2000 years ago?

sure, its an absolutely farcical and unproveable theory -- but it sure is fun.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

And thanks, everyone. Much helpfull, as always.