Interesting. Dr. Tyson has stated we can't go back in time and if a time machine could be made it would only go back to when the machine was made. Haven't seen an explanation of his reasoning though. I understand that if you could travel at the speed of light time would stop for you so it does make sense that if you could travel faster than the speed of light you would go backwards in time. You would still be traveling in space, yes? So the is a possibility that you could get to your destination before you had in your timeline started the trip, yes?

Tyson's comments are based on the characteristics of an Einstein-Rosen bridge, commonly known as a wormhole. I see wormholes as a dead end, as you wouldn't survive the journey, so why bother. But there are other equations that can be used instead. Yes, photons do not experience time at all, and therefore see the entirety of the universe as having no size. Thus, if you could go the speed of light then a trip of any distance would take no time, at least to you. But the universe would age during your instantaneous trip, so it'd be useless if you ever wanted to contact anyone else ever again.

However, if you were to accelerate to close to the speed of light, time for you would slow as you traveled and extensive distance was covered. Then if you could traverse the light speed barrier, you could continue traveling, going faster the less energy you expended, going backward in time. Once you reached your destination, simply do the same thing in reverse and you would be back in normal time and space, having instantly traversed a massive distance in zero time. Rather than the "Star Trek" warp drive of the Alcubiere method, you'd have the FTL drive from "Battlestar Galactica", jumping instantaneously across many light years of space.

By the way, this has been debunked, even by the people that initially reported it. But FTL COULD happen at some point.

Being an atheist is a matter of non-belief. Otherwise we are just normal human beings. I like science and do a lot of research on but I do have my biases. I was a math major and I think that opens up some interesting thinking paths. I also like history and try to get different views since history is always written after the event and often by the victors if a conflict was involved.

Unless you've secretly invented your very own FTL drive, don't be a jerk about it.

@Paul4747 My aspiration is not to invent a FTL drive, but a filter that blocks those whose IQ is less than 130. But then, I would not be able to see your posts anymore, now would I?

Ole Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travels at a finite speed (as opposed to instantaneously) by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io.

@magicwatch and how does that work? U can measure the speed of something as finite but how can u measure that something cannot go faster then it does?

@burlavv it is impossible for information or energy to travel faster than c. One argument for this follows from the counter-intuitive implication of special relativity known as the relativity of simultaneity. If the spatial distance between two events A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by c then there are frames of reference in which A precedes B, others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous. As a result, if something were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling backwards in time relative to another frame, and causality would be violated.In such a frame of reference, an "effect" could be observed before its "cause". Such a violation of causality has never been recorded, and would lead to paradoxes such as the tachyonic antitelephone.

it is impossible for information or energy to travel faster than c. One argument for this follows from the counter-intuitive implication of special relativity known as the relativity of simultaneity. If the spatial distance between two events A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by c then there are frames of reference in which A precedes B, others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous. As a result, if something were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling backwards in time relative to another frame, and causality would be violated.In such a frame of reference, an "effect" could be observed before its "cause". Such a violation of causality has never been recorded, and would lead to paradoxes such as the tachyonic antitelephone.

Absolutely right, who cares about the speed of light if there's another way.

Interesting.

I think the idea of electrons orbiting the nucleus is outdated. One problem is that a moving electric field produces a magnetic field, which isn't what happens. There are others. As far as I can tell, electrons are best considered as standing wave 'fields' which can be collapsed in a quantum-dynamic fashion.