Warp Drive News
I&#x27;m wondering if part of the problem with trying to come up with technology which allows us to propel ourselves vast distances &quot;faster than the speed of light&quot;, is to do with how we abstract&#x2F;describe the problem (and the proposed solution) in language.<p>For example; instead of saying &quot;faster than the speed of light&quot;, would the problem not be better described using &quot;faster than the speed of causality&quot; ?<p>After all, isn&#x27;t c really just the speed of Causality in a vacuum? (i.e. the time it takes for a beam of light from a source to be detected at, say, a distance of 500,000 kilometres, is basically the rate at which Causality allows that light to get from the emitter to the detector.)<p>And isn&#x27;t the speed of Causality, basically like some kind of inertia-like quality of spacetime? (Apologies in advance - I&#x27;m trying to describe what&#x27;s in my head as best I can using... language ;) )  For example - the speed of &quot;light&quot;&#x2F;Causality through water is slower than the speed of &quot;light&quot;&#x2F;Causality through a vacuum.<p>(And mea culpa - I am a layman, trying to make sense of all this in as best a way I can. I&#x27;m not sure if what I wrote makes any kind of sense (it does in my head))