>>11122304there are ways to think about FTL. in one scenario it's merely an increase of energy from relative motionless until you're at lightspeed, then pushing it further with some nitro. according to science this takes an infinite amount of energy, which in all likelyhood is a false statement because nothing in physics is infinite. but also in this scenario, its possible that, towards approaching lightspeed, the curvature of the universe appears to disappear as you reach a physical speed limit - as much as the curvature of the earth disappears the closer you get to the surface. upon surpassing lightspeed, you would then break through the universe at a right angle, leading to fuck knows where - but likely leading through a fold or plane in spacetime and allowing you to pop out somewhere else in the universe that is unlikely to be linearly related to the direction of initial travel.
another form of ftl is based on a different form and function of movement within space that will render a linear path between two arbitrary points in terms of location and destination. an object traveling like this will be seen to instantaneously become a solid line from location to destination, and the line will then uniformly fade away. this way technically defies the arbitrary man-made law of 'breaking causality' as the distant end of the line ought to appear later much like a star wars laser beam flies while it instead appears simultaneously to the closer location's end of the line, but in truth nothing is broken in the scenario and it merely just has an odd appearance.
another form of ftl is functionally effortless and is just arbitrarily fast, like flying through Universal Sandbox, and is unlikely to render as anything towards an observer.
