No. Compressing spacetime does not mean creating a singularity (infitite curvature). You can bend a sheet of paper without creasing it. If I place a marble on a flat surface, then dip one side of the surface (even slightly) the marble will roll toward the dip. That’s the basic principle of warp travel.
If the concept was wrong on its face, the theoretical Alcubierre drive would have been dismissed out of hand in 1994. Yet, serious minds have considered the idea for decades. The theory has problems (big ones), but the physics isn’t settled yet as to whether or not it could ever possibly work.
Sure. Do you have some specific science in mind? There’s quantum teleportation, a proven phenomenon. But that’s only useful for information transfer. If you want to get into something like traversable wormholes for relocating objects with mass, that’s where things get highly theoretical.
I don’t know what straw man you’re talking to, but I’ve insisted no such thing. All I pointed out was that you made a patently false statement about material science. I haven’t mentioned ETs other than to remind you that ETs and UFOs are not the same thing. If you had actually read this thread, you’d see I have a stated position of neutrality on whether ETs even exist or not. I list them as one possible cause of the UFO phenomenon, and one of the least likely in my opinion.
I never said that ETs and UFOs were the same thing. In my post, i never even mentioned UFOs except to say that they have nothing to do with being from other planets.
So you’re going to rewrite what I said just so that you can call it incorrect? That’s extremely trollish.
In fact, I had already stated that before you climbed up from under your bridge and trolled my post!
I’m sorry, but folding a piece of paper doesn’t bend space time. It just folds a piece of paper.
The method of compressing space would be by creating a huge gravity field. That’s how they hypothosize accomplishing that compression. Gravity warps space. It’s what it does. Well, MASS compresses space. All mass does. Gravity is a consequence of mass.
It wasn’t clear to me either. I went back and checked, and that post started from void, all on its own. it wasn’t in reply to something another member posted, it was all started from scratch. There was no context (other than the topic of this thread, but that doesn’t get you far).
And what’s wrong with asking questions when you don’t understand what another person means? Life is full of not understanding what others mean, because we don’t all inhabit the same brain. I’ve studied at two colleges and in both of them we were always told in class that if you don’t understand something, then ask. Guys who didn’t ask ran the risk of falling behind. You can’t assume anything when talking to someone you don’t know very well.
So you understood Glenduil right from the start – good for you. That means you’re better equipped than others here (including myself) in conversing with him. Others have to ask when something doesn’t make sense to them in what he says. There is no shame in asking a question. But Glendiul pounces on Hatch as if that was some great offense. I find that a particularly strange reaction.
But our planet is not setup for them to archive such goals as humankind is. On another world which would have to have a slightly different makeup, maybe they could? And I do admit, I don’t see how they could develop fire or electricity underwater, we do not know what is possible out there was my point.
Ok, what material do we have on earth at this time that can withstand a micrometeor strike. I await your answer…
The rest I couldn’t be arsed to read.
Is there a reading comprehension issue here? I feel like I’m having a stroke.
The man said:
“There just isnt a material on planet Earth that could be used to manufacture a spaceship capable of withstanding the hazards of spaceflight.”
Since the 1950s, we (humankind) have built spaceships that have withstood the hazards of spaceflight. Unless you’re disputing that, then the above statement is proven false, is it not?
Fail. We have lost many to space hazards.
Spacecraft lost due to space hazards include the MAVEN orbiter, which suffered a sudden unrecoverable anomaly near Mars, and various satellites like Ecuador’s NEE-01 Pegaso, which was destroyed after hitting rocket debris. Other incidents include the Olympus-1 satellite, whose gyro was lost during the Perseid meteor shower, and Telstar 1, which failed due to radiation from Starfish Prime. [1, 2]
Here is a breakdown of the primary environmental hazards that have claimed spacecraft:
Hyper-velocity impacts from natural meteoroids and human-made space junk are constant threats in Earth’s orbit and deep space. [1, 2]
NEE-01 Pegaso (2013): This Ecuadorean satellite was rendered non-operational just months after launch when it collided with fragments of a 1985 Tsyklon-3 rocket. [1]
Olympus-1 (1993): An ESA communications satellite lost an on-board gyro and suffered severe power degradation after an impact during the Perseid meteor shower. []
Soyuz MS-22 (2023): A micrometeoroid strike completely punctured the external cooling system of this crewed Russian capsule, requiring it to be flown uncrewed. [1]
2. Radiation and Space Weather
Intense solar activity, geomagnetic storms, and the Van Allen radiation belts can easily degrade or fry sensitive electronics. [1]
Telstar 1 (1963): The groundbreaking communications satellite was damaged and rendered permanently unusable by artificial radiation generated by the high-altitude Starfish Prime nuclear test. []
Solar Storms: Countless operational satellites suffer shortened lifespans or temporary safe-mode lockups when coronal mass ejections (CMEs) bombard their systems with highly charged particles. [1]
3. Planetary Atmospheric Friction
Orbital insertion maneuvers or prolonged atmospheric sampling require navigating tight margins where slight atmospheric density variations can spell disaster. [1]
Mars Climate Orbiter (1999): While famously caused by human error (a metric-to-imperial conversion failure), the hazard that destroyed the craft was atmospheric friction. Because the miscalculation brought it 57 km above the Martian surface—far lower than planned—the spacecraft disintegrated in the upper atmosphere. [1, 2, 3]
MAVEN (2025/2026): After passing behind Mars, the orbiter unexpectedly tumbled and failed to reestablish communication. Experts suspect the sudden tumble and subsequent unrecoverable battery drain may have been triggered by an unexpected atmospheric density spike or impact with a meteoroid. [1, 2]
Sorry for the fastest reply. But at least I can prove my point.
So you weren’t referring to the dark forest theory then?
You might want to look that up, it could be another explanation for why planets aren’t sending signals into space.
The idea of this theory is that life in space exists and is dangerous, and that making your position known attracts predators like making too much noise in a dark forest.
Few planets do make noise, but not for long…
Which could explain why we don’t see such signals much from space.
I think it’s an interesting theory and an alternative explanation, which is why I thought your conclusion of that there must be better long distance communication is drawn too soon.
And this context was that you claimed there is no evidence that spaceflight is possible?
You started this without context:
There just isnt a material on planet Earth that could be used to manufacture a spaceship capable of withstanding the hazards of spaceflight. That’s in addition to the technology required for shields and FTL travel.
There’s just no evidence of any of it.
I’m sorry but I too read your first post and thought it was nonsense.
We’ve successfully sent humans to the moon and back in spaceships capable of withstanding the hazards of spaceflight.
And there is evidence of it.
If you meant to say that these spaceships would not survive a collision with fast moving objects and that that is what you meant with ‘hazards of spaceflight’, then it is you who forgot to add context.
No. Compressing spacetime does not mean creating a singularity (infitite curvature). You can bend a sheet of paper without creasing it. If I place a marble on a flat surface, then dip one side of the surface (even slightly) the marble will roll toward the dip. That’s the basic principle of warp travel.
