# If You Built a Space Ship With An instantaneous Drive , What  Would You Do and Where Would you go?



## BAYLOR (Oct 16, 2017)

Meaning you can go anywhere in the universe in the blink of an eye  , Your ship has no issue with the dilation ,  you can go anywhere and still be able find your way back to earth in an instant .What are the places that you would want to to visit in the universe and what are  the sights that you want to see close up?  

What are the sues you would put such a ship to?


----------



## Alex The G and T (Oct 16, 2017)

Oh, ye gods.  Don't ask me about Sue.  Things did not go well enough with Sue to consider taking her on a Starship ride.


----------



## farntfar (Oct 16, 2017)

Maybe Baylor was talking about a boy named Sue, Alex. 
Take him to Jaynesville, I say.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 16, 2017)

What uses would you put the the ship too.


----------



## Harpo (Oct 16, 2017)

Anywhere? I'd go to the exact centre, the part of the universe from which everything is expanding.


----------



## Biskit (Oct 16, 2017)

I think my first problem would be the time it would take to write the list. I would want to go _everywhere_.  At least twice. I would be the ultimate kid in the sweet shop, and I know that everywhere I went I would see something else to check out before the next item on my list.


----------



## tinkerdan (Oct 16, 2017)

I have a ship with instantaneous drive: called a book. It takes me wherever I let it take me.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Oct 16, 2017)

1. Galactic north of the Milky Way, couple hundred light years, and get a good look at our galaxy.
2. Within viewing distance of Sagittarius A* (but not TOO close )
3. Close-up look at Saturn, Jupiter
4. View of the inside of a globular cluster
5. Something like the Pillars of Hercules close up.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Oct 16, 2017)

Harpo said:


> Anywhere? I'd go to the exact centre, the part of the universe from which everything is expanding.



Interesting Choice Harpo. I did a paper about this very concept. If you look up "The Center of The Universe" on the WWW, it says: "The *center* of the *Universe* is a concept that lacks a coherent definition in modern astronomy; according to standard cosmological theories on the shape of the *Universe*, it has no *center*."

This is because of the observation that, no matter where you look from (i.e. What galaxy) the Universe appears to be expanding away from you. (Not sure how they've come to that observation). Try here: Where is the centre of the universe?


----------



## Harpo (Oct 16, 2017)

LordOfWizards said:


> Interesting Choice Harpo. I did a paper about this very concept. If you look up "The Center of The Universe" on the WWW, it says: "The *center* of the *Universe* is a concept that lacks a coherent definition in modern astronomy; according to standard cosmological theories on the shape of the *Universe*, it has no *center*."
> 
> This is because of the observation that, no matter where you look from (i.e. What galaxy) the Universe appears to be expanding away from you. (Not sure how they've come to that observation).


Which is exactly why I want to go there, and a craft that can go anywhere instantly is the only way to do it.
No line-of-sight limitations, no "ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha" coordinates required, just go.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Oct 16, 2017)

Harpo said:


> Which is exactly why I want to go there, and a craft that can go anywhere instantly is the only way to do it.
> No line-of-sight limitations, no "ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha" coordinates required, just go.



I'm ready! When do we leave?


----------



## Harpo (Oct 16, 2017)

We leave at the exact moment of the centre of time, equidistant between the entire history of the universe and the entire future of the universe.


----------



## tinkerdan (Oct 16, 2017)

On another thought; I'm not sure about instantaneous travel since for me the journey is half the fun.

Or in the immortal words of Travis Lucia Hamilton-McQueen::



> I was beginning to think that getting here was half the fun, but when the shock of cold air hit me, I changed my mind. I think it was all the fun.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Oct 16, 2017)

We could play a game where we fire a laser and go thirty light seconds and bounce it back with a mirror, and then leave a mirror at both ends, basically a Solar system sized game of video pong.


----------



## J Riff (Oct 17, 2017)

Oh I'd just boldy go off, you know.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Oct 17, 2017)

The Trappist system. Those earthlike planets intrigue me.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 17, 2017)

I'd visit other places on Earth. Is that possible with this technology?

Other than that, I'd pop to the moon, and Andromeda. So not that far, really.


----------



## Radrook (Oct 18, 2017)

I would set the controls to take me beyond the darkness to see it that is possible.


----------



## Harpo (Oct 18, 2017)

Radrook said:


> I would set the controls...


...for the heart of the sun


----------



## Radrook (Oct 18, 2017)

Harpo said:


> ...for the heart of the sun


Beyond the seemingly eternal darkness of space while avoiding crashing into stars, black holes, quasars, and other such objects of course.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Oct 18, 2017)

If there was an instantaneous drive, there'd be no macroscopic causality, and therefore nothing to experience.


----------



## Mirannan (Oct 19, 2017)

Harpo said:


> Anywhere? I'd go to the exact centre, the part of the universe from which everything is expanding.



That's a little boring. You wouldn't move at all, in that case. The expansion of the universe has no centre - at least not within the universe itself. To use a hoary old analogy, it's like trying to figure out where the centre the surface of an expanding balloon is.

I've a rather strange place to go with such a ship. (The OP didn't specify an invulnerable ship, so some really interesting places are off-limits.) Where? Well, the centre of one of the bubbles on the skin of which just about all the galaxies seem to be placed. 60 million light years from the nearest galaxy.

What's out there, hiding in the dark?


----------



## Harpo (Oct 20, 2017)

Mirannan said:


> That's a little boring. You wouldn't move at all, in that case. The expansion of the universe has no centre - at least not within the universe itself. To use a hoary old analogy, it's like trying to figure out where the centre the surface of an expanding balloon is.


But we're moving away from somewhere. That's where I'd go.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 28, 2017)

The Andromeda Galaxy .


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 22, 2018)

I would visit Betelgeuse and see if if it really is entering a nova phase.


----------



## Alex The G and T (Mar 22, 2018)

Way da wimmen at?


----------



## Penny (Mar 22, 2018)

I would go visit KIC 8462852 - Wikipedia  just to see whats there.


----------



## HanaBi (Mar 22, 2018)

I would probably visit the Restaurant at the end of the Universe.


----------



## Lumens (Mar 22, 2018)

IwouldgotoInstantaneuosrightaway.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 22, 2018)

HanaBi said:


> I would probably visit the Restaurant at the end of the Universe.



And what's wrong with *The Big Bang Burger Bar *?


----------



## LordOfWizards (Mar 25, 2018)

Stephen Palmer said:


> If there was an instantaneous drive, there'd be no macroscopic causality, and therefore nothing to experience.


I think what Stephen is saying (in layman's terms) is that approaching the speed of light is the fastest that any known material object in the universe can travel. And since nothing (including light) can travel faster than 300,000 Kilometers per second, there can be things happening simultaneously in parts of the universe that cannot be caused by things that are further away from each other than 300,000 kilometers (or less) if we take cause and effect at face value. The only currently know violations of this principle are quantum entanglement, and tachyon particles (which are still largely theoretical) and there is no evidence that either of these can have a cause and effect relationship that violates the cosmic speed limit on any noticeably large scale. (macroscopic). This postulate is often explained by a graphic called a 'light cone' which shows space along the x axis and light along the y axis showing that light's path through 3 dimensional space can only reach further and further distances as it propagates outward (or forward) in time. See Graphic here:





@Stephen Palmer: Please correct me if I am interpreting the idea incorrectly


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Mar 26, 2018)

The "light cone" or "relativistic frame" argument against FTL (drive or communications) only holds sway if you're talking about movement through relativistic space. For instance, a wormhole could effectively allow FTL travel. The Alcubierre drive ditto. Neither violates relativistic limits because at no point is anything travelling faster than light through space. Thus proving that_ everything_ is subject to lawyering.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Mar 28, 2018)

Dennis E. Taylor said:


> The "light cone" or "relativistic frame" argument against FTL (drive or communications) only holds sway if you're talking about movement through relativistic space. For instance, a wormhole could effectively allow FTL travel. The Alcubierre drive ditto. Neither violates relativistic limits because at no point is anything travelling faster than light through space. Etc.


 Yes. I have no objection to violations of the principle in reference to science fiction. What would I be doing on a site like this if that were the case?


----------



## K. Riehl (Mar 28, 2018)

I would first do my duty to humanity and find 25 habitable worlds and get colonies started on each. I would then go looking for aliens.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Mar 29, 2018)

Mirannan said:


> ...it's like trying to figure out where the centre the surface of an expanding balloon is.



That's easy! The center of the expanding universe is analogous to where the air is coming in to the balloon. That's where the balloon analogy falls short for me. The surface of a balloon is 2 dimensional. So I ask the question: Where is the universe expanding from? (That's where Harpo and I want to go!) Shouldn't it be where the big bang occurred? That's what theoretically started all of this.


----------



## Mirannan (Mar 29, 2018)

LordOfWizards said:


> That's easy! The center of the expanding universe is analogous to where the air is coming in to the balloon. That's where the balloon analogy falls short for me. The surface of a balloon is 2 dimensional. So I ask the question: Where is the universe expanding from? (That's where Harpo and I want to go!) Shouldn't it be where the big bang occurred? That's what theoretically started all of this.



That's precisely the point. The universe has expanded since the Big Bang, which was indeed at a point - but, in the simplest formulations, that point was all there was. So the centre of the expanding universe is in one of three places, depending on whether one wants a point in 3D space or not. The  simplest answer is; wherever you happen to be, because the Big Bang point expanded to fill all of space. The other two take account of the fact that the universe is not 3D but at least 4D. Answer 2: right here, and 13.7 billion years ago. Answer 3, because space is curved: Assuming the universe is a roughly symmetrical hypersphere, the centre of the universe is outside 3D space. To use the balloon analogy, the centre of its surface is not within that surface at all.


----------



## Old_Man_Steve2016 (Mar 30, 2018)

I'd pay the Trappist-1 system a visit, then Ross 128B, and if I don't run out of fuel beforehand, Tau Ceti e.
I want to make sure the worlds in my book are as reasonably habitable as the latest science believes.


----------



## Montero (Mar 30, 2018)

K. Riehl said:


> I would first do my duty to humanity and find 25 habitable worlds and get colonies started on each. I would then go looking for aliens.



I know this is a fun thread but nooooo. Please let's not go and trash other planets before we've learnt to stop trashing this one.

I'm not sure I'd go anywhere. I like where I am. Thinking about where I do go to see stuff, I'd be looking for some sort of intergalactic museum of engineering, or a big nature reserve on a planet. 
Or look for aliens that "swim" in space.
Or go look for technology so I can hang in space personally, and not only see the galaxies through a window of the fancy space ship. Just looking out through a window at stuff - well, you might as well see it on a TV screen.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Mar 30, 2018)

Montero said:


> Please let's not go and trash other planets before we've learnt to stop trashing this one.


This has been one of my major remonstrances about notions of expanding humanity in general. Simply look at what expanding European empires did to the Native Americans of North (and South) America. We did not outright massacre most of them, but rather gave them diseases (i.e. small pox) that decimated between 70 and 90 percent of the populations that existed prior to the sixteenth century. Even if we got our act together here, we could still introduce pathogens into new environments, which will always be a concern for any "first contact" situation.


----------



## Mirannan (Mar 30, 2018)

LordOfWizards said:


> This has been one of my major remonstrances about notions of expanding humanity in general. Simply look at what expanding European empires did to the Native Americans of North (and South) America. We did not outright massacre most of them, but rather gave them diseases (i.e. small pox) that decimated between 70 and 90 percent of the populations that existed prior to the sixteenth century. Even if we got our act together here, we could still introduce pathogens into new environments, which will always be a concern for any "first contact" situation.



And how about planets with no sapient life at all, or maybe even no multicellular life? Which, BTW, includes everywhere human-made machinery has landed on so far. Jury's out regarding Europa and Enceladus, maybe Ganymede as well, which may well have oceanic life under the ice.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Mar 30, 2018)

LordOfWizards said:


> Yes. I have no objection to violations of the principle in reference to science fiction. What would I be doing on a site like this if that were the case?



My point wasn't fictional. The light cone argument simply_ does not apply_ to forms of FTL (whether theoretical, fictional, or whatever) that step outside Einsteinian space.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Mar 30, 2018)

Mirannan said:


> And how about planets with no sapient life at all, or maybe even no multicellular life? Which, BTW, includes everywhere human-made machinery has landed on so far. Jury's out regarding Europa and Enceladus, maybe Ganymede as well, which may well have oceanic life under the ice.



Right. I think what Montero was pointing out is that we have a "disposable" society that produces an incredible amount of trash, garbage, and generally leaves the stuff lying around for however long it may take to decay, as well as the constant mining of the earth for rare metals or chemical material whilst polluting the surrounding area with hazardous by-products. A few examples include: 
Tar Sands
Plastic Islands in the ocean
Big Waste dumps
~ And ~
Space Junk - interactive map here

But it is more likely and practical that we will colonize the Solar System (Like you mentioned) before we go off and find other star systems to invade. 

I apologize though - This was suppose to be a fun kind of thought experiment asking what if we could ... and so on.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Mar 30, 2018)

Dennis E. Taylor said:


> My point wasn't fictional. The light cone argument simply_ does not apply_ to forms of FTL (whether theoretical, fictional, or whatever) that step outside Einsteinian space.



Okay. So have you published any books using these technologies? (If so, congratulations!) Was your science based on any proven theories about "Hyperspace", "Wormholes", "Wormhole generators", "Alcubierre drives", FTL in general? There is no current scientific proof that humans can produce, control, or survive any of these technologies. Michio Kaku has several publications (I've only read his "Physics of the Impossible" to research these very notions) where he discusses these things, but always as possibilities, not current realities.


----------



## Montero (Mar 30, 2018)

If we had science that could without a doubt declare a planet as not having life I would not be averse to terraforming. Difficult to prove that given all the strange lifeforms that sf has imagined, but if it could be done for certain, yes, terraform colonise. 
My hope would be that the people who are there terraforming are far better informed about how planets work, and there would be a very planet protective culture established. It would be good to populate it not just with people and a few basic crops, but try to sample as much of earth as we could and have a "lifeboat" planet with a bit of everything.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Mar 31, 2018)

LordOfWizards said:


> Okay. So have you published any books using these technologies? (If so, congratulations!) Was your science based on any proven theories about "Hyperspace", "Wormholes", "Wormhole generators", "Alcubierre drives", FTL in general? There is no current scientific proof that humans can produce, control, or survive any of these technologies. Michio Kaku has several publications (I've only read his "Physics of the Impossible" to research these very notions) where he discusses these things, but always as possibilities, not current realities.



I think we're talking past each other. What I'm trying to say is that in the serious science (non-fiction) literature, it is generally accepted by scientists that those items (wormholes and Alcubierre drives) would not create temporal paradoxes as indicated by the light-cone explanation, because there is no FTL travel through Einsteinian space. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that as a general statement, temporal paradox issues are only a potential problem when an object travels faster than light through Einsteinian space. Therefore therefore, using the light cone argument to rule out any and all FTL pre hoc is a red herring.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Mar 31, 2018)

Dennis E. Taylor said:


> I think we're talking past each other.


 What does that mean really? (Is that another time paradox where we're talking to each other's past selves? )



Dennis E. Taylor said:


> What I'm trying to say is that in the serious science (non-fiction) literature, it is generally accepted by scientists that those items (wormholes and Alcubierre drives) would not create temporal paradoxes as indicated by the light-cone explanation, because there is no FTL travel through Einsteinian space.


I understand the absence of temporal paradox issues in the math within the context of space-time/ Einsteinian space / whatever name you prefer for the 4 dimensional construct. It would be great to see this serious science literature you refer to, and a list of the scientists that would suggest that currently available hardware could be used to bring about a working version of the mathematical models of Alcubierre drives and wormholes. I don't disagree that the Alcubierre drive works mathematically and does not necessarily interfere with General Relativity. All I'm saying is we don't have any hardware or other given capability to travel faster than light. We can only simulate the few examples we have of FTL mechanisms through mathematics or software. I don't know many scientists that would call the light cone diagram a red herring.


----------



## Montero (Mar 31, 2018)

@LordOfWizards - not exactly an expert here, but your argument seems to me to be missing the point that Dennis E Taylor is making.

1. I don't think he is saying that there is currently available hardware to bring about Alcubierre drives and wormholes.
2. He is not saying we have hardware or any other way to travel faster than light at present and FTL is purely theoretical
3. He is saying you've used the light cone diagram in an inapplicable way. From the mathematics and science I've done I do understand that when making an argument you cannot mix things together that do not belong together. If an equation is derived to apply to certain conditions, you cannot apply it to a different set of conditions.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Mar 31, 2018)

@Montero - Great. Now I don't understand what either of you are saying. Why don't we just let it go, eh?


----------



## Lumens (Apr 1, 2018)

LordOfWizards said:


> @Montero - Great. Now I don't understand what either of you are saying. Why don't we just let it go, eh?


But then we won't go _anywhere. _


----------



## LordOfWizards (Apr 1, 2018)

The thing is - I put that light cone diagram up to explain the causality problem before Dennis E. ever started his argument. So it was not intended to be a red herring for some argument that came after the fact. If you want to start a separate discussion about the possibility of FTL, that's fine but please don't drag me into your argument when I was not trying to argue against FTL in the first place.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 1, 2018)

There is no argument - if you're finding the discussion tiring then just step aside a moment to catch your breath.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Apr 1, 2018)

Lumens said:


> But then we won't go _anywhere._



If we hop in before we let it go then we can go with it.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Apr 9, 2018)

Visit Tabitha's star.
Say hello to the people there.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 13, 2018)

Imagine a whole universe open to unlimited travel.


----------

