>>11294172>I would sage your threadsGood thing I have made approximately 0 threads on /sci/
>why would I sage this valid thread?Then I guess keep replying to me and bump the post count of it it. At least you'll be contributing to it's continuation.
>No. If you look at a table of physical constants, there will be a number. OP is asking for mechanisms with speed higher than that number. He's not implying light travels or anything. Well would then the constraints would classify as "non physical". At least if you want to go faster than what the physical constraints allow anyway.
>We did answer that question. No one answered OP's question
>>11294186Alcubierre drive is theoretical.
