Replies

Your "explanation" is magical thinking and it is incorrect. There is a frame of reference in which the remote destination "arrives" at the ship. And there is also a frame of reference in which the ship arrives at the remote destination. In one of those reference frames, you are flying into whatever is in the space in front of you. In the other frame, it is flying into you.

In either of those frames, it is a problem.

But you have a MUCH, MUCH, bigger problem than the hypothetical space debris. The problem is that in every frame of reference, you will have moved to your remote location (or it will have moved to you, I won't quibble) faster than light could have done so. This means that your journey will be outside of the light cone. [see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone]

When you return to earth, you will discover that you have travelled backward in time.

We know that the Alcubierre Drive is, in fact, a time machine, because it is not possible to travel through space without also travelling through time. And it is not possible to travel faster than light without travelling backwards in time, because all observers regardless of their (uniform) velocities see light travelling at the same speed.

The objection you will raise that you have not travelled faster than light inside your little warp bubble is immaterial. To all outside observers, including yourself once you step out of the warp, you will have travelled faster than light from one end point to another (that's the whole point of the exercise, after all) and therefore backwards in time as well.

So ... we know that the Alcubierre Drive does not exist, for the simple reason that no astronaut has ever visited us from the future.

Your space debris problem is now happily solved, because the ship exists only in your imagination.

I'm thinking you must be replying to someone else.

First and foremost, “hypothetical” space “debris” is contrary depending upon what you consider “debris”. “Space” has a “typical” amount of matter in a given volume. That matter can not simply be “brushed” aside and ignored if you want to move other matter through space.

Travel frames of reference as pertaining to time are debatable outside of the sublumial construct according to widely accepted mathematical principles laid down by Einstein simply due to the fact that he did not believe any appreciable quantities of mass (such as a ship carrying a pilot) could travel faster than a photon given the energy requirements to propel such mass at such a velocity would exceed the mass of the universe itself (at least I think it was Einstein, I could be mistaken).

Traveling backwards in time is not feasible according to known laws of physics, quantum or otherwise. At this time, mind you. Prove to me that negative mass exists or can reasonably be observed, and I could consider such a possibility. In any case, traveling faster than light does not necessitate moving backwards through time. The mathematics at that point are very debatable.

In any case, I may be wasting my breath as you may actually not be replying to me.