Warp Drive Study - UFO-Like Design Possibly Key for Working Prototype

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: jeep3r

One question i have ... if warp driver ever becomes a thing.. will Time dilation still
be relative to the occupants of the Warping space craft.

I have no idea .. but better heads might be able to answer the question.

If you refer to the "warp bubble" they call a "warp drive" in the paper this thread is about, that's the one thing it allegedly can do is have time flow at a different rate inside the bubble, but it can't go anywhere without some form of propulsion, and then only at less than light speed.

That paper also says other warp drive models which claim self-propulsion are "not internally self-consistent" meaning they are not good models so can't be used to make accurate predictions.

So if warp drive ever happens, it would be in accordance with some model we don't have yet, and therefore we can't say what that model would predict before we have the model. Or, it may be that warp drive never becomes a thing; there's no guarantee it's possible despite us seeing it in sci-fi all the time.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Maybe when we figure out exactly what dark energy is. Its doing a great job of moving stuff and we have no idea why.

Hahahaha, being told I'm wrong about a device that can't be proven by practical experimentation and is in the realm of fiction is classic!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
There's a famous limerick to illustrate your point, published in 1923:

There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.

There is still hope: In 2014 a paper was published with mathematical proof that faster-than-light travel does not automatically imply time travel.

Abstract:

Seeing the many examples in the literature of causality violations based on faster-than-light (FTL) signals one naturally thinks that FTL motion leads inevitably to the possibility of time travel. We show that this logical inference is invalid by demonstrating a model, based on (3+1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, in which FTL motion is permitted (in every direction without any limitation on speed) yet which does not admit time travel. Moreover, the Principle of Relativity is true in this model in the sense that all observers are equivalent.
In short, FTL motion does not imply time travel after all.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Maybe when we figure out exactly what dark energy is. Its doing a great job of moving stuff and we have no idea why.

Yep, who knows how much negative mass is available in the Universe?
A paper published in 2018 presented a model in which both dark energy and dark matter can be explained by introducing a dark `fluid’ of negative mass in which our positive mass universe exists. The idea is that more negative mass is created as the Universe expands:

Under this theory, the cosmos contains a dynamic, motive, dark fluid, with dark matter and dark energy being modeled as the observed effects from positive mass matter ‘surfing’ on this expanding fluid. As an illustrative concept, empty space-time would behave almost like popcorn – with more negative masses continuously popping into existence.

According to that same paper, Einstein already played with a similar idea in 1918 to explain his `cosmological constant’ (a fudge factor needed to align his equations with the observations of an expanding Universe):

In 1918, before famously discarding the cosmological constant, Einstein made the first physical interpretation of the new Λ term that he had discovered:
“a modification of the theory is required such that ‘empty space’ takes the role of gravitating negative masses which are distributed all over the interstellar space”.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Moreover, the geometry of said spacetime is circular in nature.

All this would make the ideal passenger area basically look "disk-shaped" (circular, flat, wide), in other words: it would resemble the classic and probably most reported shape of UFOs in the whole of history.

You don't seem to have noticed this, but your diagrams are not flat and wide in the same orientation, so it's completely unlike the disc reports which have them as in your second illustration, a disc moving to the right is wide horizontally and thin vertically. Your drawing on the top shows the exact opposite, it's thin horizontally and wide vertically for travel to the right in the direction of the arrow.

One of Paul R. Hill’s observations is that UFOs tilt forward to move forward, and their tilt angle increases with increasing acceleration. This is consistent with a thrust vector perpendicular to the UFO surface:

Tilt to maneuver. While not actually a maneuver, this observation, which I have confirmed, is important. UFOs tilt to perform all maneuvers. For example, they sit level to hover, tilt forward to move forward, tilt backward to stop, bank to turn, etc.

Paul R. Hill, UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS a scientific analysis, chapter “The UFO Pattern: A Condensed Statement of Repeated Observations”

This implies that only a hovering UFO would be oriented horizontally, with its thrust vector compensating for gravity. As soon as it starts to move it will tilt forward to also create forward thrust.

a reply to: Guest101

That makes no sense if you were going to use a warp buble to move it would look like magic to an outside observer. You would see the craft dissapear then reapear at its destination. You would also still need something to impart motion. Lets say we want to travel to the nearest star.For example traveling to Alpha Centauri, the nearest neighboring star system, is 4.4 light-years away. Put a starship in a warp bubble. Shrink the distance in front of the starship to a couple of inches, expand the space behind it to 4.4 light-years and then pop the starship out of the warp bubble. But you would still deal with causality violations which means this is highly unlikely

a reply to: Guest101
The comparative illustration I referred to does not show any such correlation, it shows the UFOs apparently moving horizontally while completely horizontal.

What Paul Hill suggests about tilt is not totally illogical for conventional propulsion, since while the Avrocar is mostly horizontal in the following test video, it does tilt a little to accelerate horizontally (or reverse the tilt to decelerate):

Avrocar Continuation Test Program and Terrain Test Program, 06/01/1960 - 06/14/1961

So there is a video of a human-made flying saucer from 1960 maneuvering as your source suggests, though it's just a ducted fan and has nothing to do with warp drives or warp fields. If there's a UFO video doing anything like that, please post it. I'd love to see it, but so far the only video I can recall where the pilots say "it's rotating" is the Gimbal video released by the pentagon, and we know that's an optical illusion caused by camera rotation and electronics of the camera system, not a rotating UFO.

I do believe UFO witnesses usually have seen something they can't identify, but I think the accuracy of their descriptions is so fallible as to be almost nearly worthless or perhaps even worse than worthless, sometimes so misleading and incorrect that it would cause us to incorrectly rule out the actual source of their UFO sighting.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Guest101

That makes no sense if you were going to use a warp buble to move it would look like magic to an outside observer. You would see the craft dissapear then reapear at its destination. You would also still need something to impart motion. Lets say we want to travel to the nearest star.For example traveling to Alpha Centauri, the nearest neighboring star system, is 4.4 light-years away. Put a starship in a warp bubble. Shrink the distance in front of the starship to a couple of inches, expand the space behind it to 4.4 light-years and then pop the starship out of the warp bubble. But you would still deal with causality violations which means this is highly unlikely

Yes, the observations made by an outside observer can be very strange and look like magic. But that does not necessarily mean a causality violation. The paper I referred to excludes the causality violations that would imply traveling back in time, not the strange observational aberrations that can occur.

These observational aberrations are not limited to faster than light travel, by the way. They also occur when traveling faster than the speed of sound.

If someone moves towards you faster than the speed of sound, and plays a song while traveling, you will hear the song play backwards, from finish to start. That does not mean this person moves back in time, it’s just an observational aberration caused by the fact that they move faster than the sound they are emitting, so the last sounds they emit will reach your ears earlier than the first sounds they emitted. It’s not a causality violation either, though it may seem so to your ears (you will hear them pressing `play’ after the song has finished playing in reverse, while pressing `play’ should be the cause of starting the song).

The same observational aberration will occur visually when someone travels towards you faster than the speed of light. You will see them travel backwards until they have arrived and suddenly appear in front of you.

These aberrations occur because the carrier of information about an object (sound in the first example, light in the second) travels slower than the object itself. Basically, the same happens if you receive a holiday postcard after a person already returned from their holiday. The postcard, carrying information about the whereabouts of the person when they wrote it, traveled slower than the person sending it.

A lot of stuff you read about `causality violations’ when traveling faster than light really describe this observational phenomenon instead, though there are some situations where a true causality violation can be constructed. But these situations require more than just faster-than-light travel, as the paper explains.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

According to Paul Hill (who was a renowned mid–twentieth-century American aerodynamicist):

the UFO cannot use the atmosphere for flight like a bird or an aircraft. The aerodynamic “lift” points downward! The saucer disk is tilted the wrong way for positive lift.

So, he concludes they must use a very powerful thrust technology to keep the UFO in the air while flying.

He experimented with platforms himself, platforms with a thrust vector perpendicular to the platform, and writes:

Within a very small distance of ground level, say a meter, saucer-like machines behave as though they possess a degree of altitude stability, but clearly don't have it at higher altitudes.

His explanation for this:

To discuss this very briefly, consider the helicopter. When within one rotor diameter of the ground, the helicopter encounters extra aerodynamic lift which gives it a ground-effects altitude stability. For each power setting and wind velocity, there is a corresponding hovering altitude. The rocket platform and UFO are not so lucky. The only aerodynamic effects they experience are miscellaneous disturbances and they must continuously jockey thrust or introduce other artificial control. At least that is my experience with the platforms.

He also mentions the AVRO-disk:

The U.S. Air Force was interested in building a saucer-shaped aircraft for experimental purposes, seemingly with the philosophy of “If you can't beat them, join them.” They teamed up with the Royal Canadian Air Force and AVRO of Canada to build it. An artist's sketch of the AVRO-disk can be found in Edwards' Flying Saucers: Serious Business. Two pilots were selected to fly the disk. They were Col. David Henderson, USAF, and Wing Comdr. Paul Hartman, RCAF. The photo presented as Figure XI-10 shows Henderson and Hartman as they arrived at the Wallops Island rocket research vehicle base to try their skill at platform flying. They did all right. In fact, Henderson was unusual. He was the first to ever fly the platform for considerable time with his eyes closed, seeming to defy the usual need for a visual reference. Later I heard that the AVRO-disk was plagued with developmental problems, including being underpowered, and was abandoned.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yea thanks for taking the time to reply .. I watched some nerdy stuff recently where the occupants of a craft that used some normal type (although not currently Invented) of propulsion... set off from earth towards the Centauri system.
The propulsion system theoretically, slowly but surely accelerated the craft indefinitely towards their chosen target.
The theory went...accelerate for half the journey, turn the ship and decelerate for the other half.

Now the occupants decide to go further and further into space to deeper and deeper targets, in this scenario the crew just wanted to go further.. at one point the journey was going to take 71 years (Round Trip), but back on earth something like a trillion years had passed.
It was heady stuff and explained very well, so even for me (when i was watching it) could kind of grasp how this time dilation was working.
It started me thinking that Alien space craft visiting earth was ludicrously unlikely.
Enough of my ramblings .. I'll leave the thread to more intellectually advanced beings than me.

You Tube Video Below is what I was watching if anyone is interested.

a reply to: Guest101

Im going to say no to your sound idea there. You wouldnt hear the song backwards what you would hear is nthing until plane pases you then you hear sonic boom and a loud roar. The disturbances of the air would destroy the music and would just sound like static. This is why in your example causality is not broken the universe really like cause then effect. And i hate to say this but warp drives violate causality and that is why its impossible unless you time travel like i mentioned earlier but even there causality would be destoyed.

Lets look at a hypothetical lets say we have 3 solar systems ours then one that we call B is 8 light years from us and one we call c is 10 light years . We decide to travel to C before we leave we broadcast a signal advising everyone we are leaving. When we arive at C we send another signal that says we arrived. Lets say for argument sake it took 6 months. Now aliens living at B would hear the signal that we arived at C and 5 and a half years later would get the signal advising them they were leaving for C.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Guest101

Im going to say no to your sound idea there. You wouldnt hear the song backwards what you would hear is nthing until plane pases you then you hear sonic boom and a loud roar. The disturbances of the air would destroy the music and would just sound like static. This is why in your example causality is not broken the universe really like cause then effect. And i hate to say this but warp drives violate causality and that is why its impossible unless you time travel like i mentioned earlier but even there causality would be destoyed.

Lets look at a hypothetical lets say we have 3 solar systems ours then one that we call B is 8 light years from us and one we call c is 10 light years . We decide to travel to C before we leave we broadcast a signal advising everyone we are leaving. When we arive at C we send another signal that says we arrived. Lets say for argument sake it took 6 months. Now aliens living at B would hear the signal that we arived at C and 5 and a half years later would get the signal advising them they were leaving for C.

I never said a jet was involved in the sound case. It was a `thought experiment’, where the manner of transportation is irrelevant.

But it works with a jet as well:
Let’s say a person traveling towards you in a jet faster than the speed of sound has a very powerful horn, much louder than the jet engines. You agree that they will sound the horn once when they just departed and they will sound it twice just before arrival. You will first hear it sound twice, signalling arrival, and then hear it sound once, signalling departure. The `arrival’ signal comes before the `departure’ signal, without any causality violations, because the jet travelled faster than the information carrier (sound).

A mix-up in information arrival due to this phenomenon is not the same as a causality violation.

To illustrate this, I can shrink your example of three solar systems to three cities, and replace light with homing pigeons. City B is 800 km from us and city C is 1000 km from us. I travel by jet to city C and send a homing pigeon with the message `I’m departing’ upon departure, and a second homing pigeon with the message `I’ve arrived’ upon arrival. Both homing pigeons head for city B. The `I’ve arrived’ message will arrive at city B before the `I’m departing’ message. This isn’t a causality violation but just a mix-up of message arrival times because I travelled faster than the pigeons.

originally posted by: Guest101

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Guest101

Im going to say no to your sound idea there. You wouldnt hear the song backwards what you would hear is nthing until plane pases you then you hear sonic boom and a loud roar. The disturbances of the air would destroy the music and would just sound like static. This is why in your example causality is not broken the universe really like cause then effect. And i hate to say this but warp drives violate causality and that is why its impossible unless you time travel like i mentioned earlier but even there causality would be destoyed.

Lets look at a hypothetical lets say we have 3 solar systems ours then one that we call B is 8 light years from us and one we call c is 10 light years . We decide to travel to C before we leave we broadcast a signal advising everyone we are leaving. When we arive at C we send another signal that says we arrived. Lets say for argument sake it took 6 months. Now aliens living at B would hear the signal that we arived at C and 5 and a half years later would get the signal advising them they were leaving for C.

I never said a jet was involved in the sound case. It was a `thought experiment’, where the manner of transportation is irrelevant.

But it works with a jet as well:
Let’s say a person traveling towards you in a jet faster than the speed of sound has a very powerful horn, much louder than the jet engines. You agree that they will sound the horn once when they just departed and they will sound it twice just before arrival. You will first hear it sound twice, signalling arrival, and then hear it sound once, signalling departure. The `arrival’ signal comes before the `departure’ signal, without any causality violations, because the jet travelled faster than the information carrier (sound).

A mix-up in information arrival due to this phenomenon is not the same as a causality violation.

To illustrate this, I can shrink your example of three solar systems to three cities, and replace light with homing pigeons. City B is 800 km from us and city C is 1000 km from us. I travel by jet to city C and send a homing pigeon with the message `I’m departing’ upon departure, and a second homing pigeon with the message `I’ve arrived’ upon arrival. Both homing pigeons head for city B. The `I’ve arrived’ message will arrive at city B before the `I’m departing’ message. This isn’t a causality violation but just a mix-up of message arrival times because I travelled faster than the pigeons.

Agreed, and if we had ftl we would probably use quantum entanglement for instant communication. How it would look like while in warp, I think its like the event horizon of a black hole. All you would see is gravitational lensing.

And again to people who thinks there's motion, there is no movement while warping, not the craft nor the bubble is moving, you don't traverse the compressed region. It goes around the normal space hence the need for a encapsulated "bubble" in the first place. The percieved movement is due to relatively.

And also, light delay isn't time dilation. Light delay is needed to avoid time dilation. We also can't use sound as an example as it has doppler effect. The speed of light is the speed of light, always. Red or blue shift, doesn't matter, light speed is the same, everywhere.

a reply to: Beestie

Quantum entanglement wont allow for comunication. Well unless you consider a measurement comunication i guess. Problem is its a one shot deal and you have to already know what that measurement means. When you say communicate you usually want to pass information on a destination for example. Such as sending video back from a probe unfortunately this cannot be done with quantum entanglement. Thebest you could do is give a probe an instruction, for example, keep an entangled particle in an indeterminate state, send it aboard a spacecraft bound for the nearest star, and tell it to look for signs of life on a rocky planet in that star’s habitable zone. If you see one, make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the +1 state, and if you don’t see one, make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the -1 state.

But heres the other problem it only works once cant reset it and start over. You might be able to warp space to communicate the same way you would to travel.Shrink the distance to the object your trying to talk to but at that point might as well just travel there. The only other way i can think of would be a worm hole assuming we could actually create it make it stable and then send a signal through it.

And yes traveling faster than light can always cause problems. Lets take a quicj trip to a star 10 light years away when we get there we decide its in the way of our interstellar highway. So we load a quantum torpedo and blow the sun up. So we tavelled 10 light years in say 6 months. So from our original timeline we arived blew it up but heres the problem its going to take 10 years for earth to notice. But how did a star that blew up 9 and a half years ago still send light to earth. And this isnt the biggest problem with warp drives. The biggest problem is how you would exit one. Space is not just an empty void between two points it’s full of particles that have mass. And all those particles are going to be captured by our warp bubble. You see where this is going dont you?

When the Alcubierre-driven ship decelerates from superluminal speed, the particles its bubble has gathered are released in energetic outbursts.These outburst would send enough gamma rays to destroy any life in a solar system. Dont think aliens would be happy you destroying their entire civilization just because you wanted to visit. There is no upper limit to how strong this could get the further you travel the more gamma rays you will release. Man talk about a blue shift lol

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Beestie
make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the +1 state, and if you don’t see one, make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the -1 state.

But heres the other problem it only works once cant reset it and start over.

According to several physicists, that won't work, and Chad Orzel says even fringe physicists mostly don't think that would work. Ethan Siegal wrote an article saying it can't be done.

The Real Reasons Quantum Entanglement Doesn't Allow Faster-Than-Light Communication

You could, for example, keep an entangled particle in an indeterminate state, send it aboard a spacecraft bound for the nearest star, and tell it to look for signs of a rocky planet in that star’s habitable zone. If you see one, make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the +1 state, and if you don’t see one, make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the -1 state.

Sounds like what you said...but he continues...

It’s a brilliant plan, but there’s a problem: entanglement only works if you ask a particle, “what state are you in?” If you force an entangled particle into a particular state, you break the entanglement, and the measurement you make on Earth is completely independent of the measurement at the distant star. If you had simply measured the distant particle to be +1 or -1, then your measurement, here on Earth, of either -1 or +1 (respectively) would give you information about the particle located light years away. But by forcing that distant particle to be +1 or -1, that means, no matter the outcome, your particle here on Earth has a 50/50 shot of being +1 or -1, with no bearing on the particle so many light years distant.

Then Chad Orzel tries to make some subtle distinction that I don't completely grasp, which initially sounded like he was going to prove Ethan Siegel wrong to show that your scheme can work, but eventually it became clear that despite his clarification of some esoteric subtlety, your proposed scheme won't work.

in the original statement, you "make a measurement that forces the particle" to be in a particular state, while in the second you "force an entangled particle into a particular state" which breaks the entanglement. Those are not the same thing, though-- one is a measurement, the other is a change of state followed by a measurement.

Seems like a subtle distinction which at first I thought might be pointing to some kind of loophole. I only read his explanation of the difference once, and it will probably take 2 or 3 readings for me to grasp the subtleties, but after those mental gymnastics, I understood this clearly on the first reading:

So, as I said, the whole business is subtle and complicated. The end result is always the same, though: While it's one of the weirdest and coolest phenomena in physics, there is no way to use quantum entanglement to send messages faster than the speed of light.

You might be able to warp space to communicate the same way you would to travel.Shrink the distance to the object your trying to talk to but at that point might as well just travel there. The only other way i can think of would be a worm hole assuming we could actually create it make it stable and then send a signal through it.

Apparently all you need for a stable wormhole is some negative mass or negative energy. The closest suggestion to that I've heard is the possibility that dark energy may be a form of negative energy which could be true, however if it's a property of the vacuum as it's commonly interpreted, then it's rather thinly spread out, and not concentrated like you would need it to be to stabilize a wormhole. But if someone came up with another source of concentrated negative energy, maybe a small wormhole could be used for FTL communication. There seem to be more physicists allowing for that possibility than the possibility of using quantum entanglement, but as you say, a wormhole can have consequences, even a small one just used for communication.

Dont think aliens would be happy you destroying their entire civilization just because you wanted to visit.

Some species don't care about the well being of other species that much, if they are studying the other species. I don't think the ants were happy about people pouring molten aluminum down the entrance to their ant colony, but as the comment on the video page says: The ants: "I tried to scream, but my head was under liquid aluminium."

Casting a Fire Ant Colony with Molten Aluminum


So not only do we in western civilization not always show respect for other species, even those on our own planet (though we might be getting a little better with fewer people wearing mink furs etc), who knows if the aliens might see us as inferior as we see ants, and they wouldn't think twice of destroying us just like these folks don't think twice about trapping countless ants inside that molten aluminum structure. It is pretty cool to see how complex the ant civilization is though, or should I say, was, before it was destroyed.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Beestie

Quantum entanglement wont allow for comunication. Well unless you consider a measurement comunication i guess. Problem is its a one shot deal and you have to already know what that measurement means. When you say communicate you usually want to pass information on a destination for example. Such as sending video back from a probe unfortunately this cannot be done with quantum entanglement. Thebest you could do is give a probe an instruction, for example, keep an entangled particle in an indeterminate state, send it aboard a spacecraft bound for the nearest star, and tell it to look for signs of life on a rocky planet in that star’s habitable zone. If you see one, make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the +1 state, and if you don’t see one, make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the -1 state.

But heres the other problem it only works once cant reset it and start over. You might be able to warp space to communicate the same way you would to travel.Shrink the distance to the object your trying to talk to but at that point might as well just travel there. The only other way i can think of would be a worm hole assuming we could actually create it make it stable and then send a signal through it.

And yes traveling faster than light can always cause problems. Lets take a quicj trip to a star 10 light years away when we get there we decide its in the way of our interstellar highway. So we load a quantum torpedo and blow the sun up. So we tavelled 10 light years in say 6 months. So from our original timeline we arived blew it up but heres the problem its going to take 10 years for earth to notice. But how did a star that blew up 9 and a half years ago still send light to earth. And this isnt the biggest problem with warp drives. The biggest problem is how you would exit one. Space is not just an empty void between two points it’s full of particles that have mass. And all those particles are going to be captured by our warp bubble. You see where this is going dont you?

When the Alcubierre-driven ship decelerates from superluminal speed, the particles its bubble has gathered are released in energetic outbursts.These outburst would send enough gamma rays to destroy any life in a solar system. Dont think aliens would be happy you destroying their entire civilization just because you wanted to visit. There is no upper limit to how strong this could get the further you travel the more gamma rays you will release. Man talk about a blue shift lol

Was thinking the same yes, you could use quantum entanglement as a bridge between binary computers at each side. But in the end most of these science fiction technologies will be developed side by side, you can't have the one without the other scenario, quantum computing won the race so the egg came before the chicken in our case hahaha.

originally posted by: rigel4
You Tube Video Below is what I was watching if anyone is interested.

I watched it. His accuracy is better than a typical television documentary, but he had what I think is a mistake in his prediction, and he could have used the 30 minutes better to put a more realistic perspective on the journeys.

He said if you travel to the nearest galaxy, 5 million years will have passed on Earth while you only age 56 years due to time dilation, so far ok. But I don't know how he comes up with his description of the Earth 5 million years from now. Alligators have been around for the last 8 million years virtually unchanged, so why does he say there will be no humans left after 5 million years? It's especially odd considering humans have come up with ways to thwart evolution, so humans don't seem to be evolving very much. But even if humans do evolve into another form of primate or whatever, they still might be around and his description of Earth as being completely void of any traces of humans 5 million years from now seems unlikely to me.

The longer trip you mentioned was across the Lanikea supercluster and elapsed Earth time was a billion years (not a trillion) and he got that part right, where the oceans were in the process of evaporating due to higher temperature of the sun and had at most a few hundred million years left before the oceans were dry. So yes that's a realistic doomsday scenario for the Earth, which should be a good motivation to find another habitable star system or at least set up a colony on Mars where the heat will take a little longer to be unbearable, or maybe Jupiter's moons.

When I said he could have used the 30 minutes better, his outline went sort of like this: Assume warp drive is not feasible, also assume a means of indefinite propulsion at 1g and perfect shielding, then apply the real science of relativity, see what happens. I think applying the science of relativity was fine, though he didn't need to illustrate quite so many different trips, you sort of get the idea after a few that the faster you go, the more time slows down, etc. The thing I didn't like was no further explanation of his assumptions for the propulsion and the perfect shielding, being about as unrealistic as the warp drive assumption.

For the shielding, at one point, he mentioned the CMB temperature would go from the normal 2.73 degrees above absolute zero as seen from earth, to over a billion degrees as seen from the relativistic space ship, and what kind of shield can resist melting at a billion degrees? You can't assume a "perfect shield" realistically. But what he also should have mentioned using maybe 2 minutes out of the 30 minutes, was that shield technology research suggests that even the interstellar hydrogen atoms act like little "mines" that will heat up and melt the shields of the space ship long before the CMB he mentioned melts it, so I find it odd he mentions only the CMB and not the hydrogen atoms problem with respect to shielding.

This paper says you can go maybe half the speed of light with currently conceivable shield designs, where the "Lorentz factor" would only dilate your time by 15% so at that speed, during your 100 month journey (8.3 years) as timed from Earth, your time on the ship would be 15% slower so you would only age 85 months (7.1 years). In fact the authors of the paper analyzing shielding requirements seem disappointed that they don't seem to think we can do any better than about 15% time dilation at around 50% light speed, so I think they were thinking along the same lines as that video where higher speeds would allow for longer trips since people would age less.

The indefinite unspecified propulsion at 1g also could have warranted a minute or two just to mention how that doesn't really seem any more feasible than warp drive at this point. In fact, flat-earthers apparently don't believe in gravity; they say the reason we feel 1g of force is because the Earth is accelerating at 1g, haha. Obviously they never did the same calculation as that video for how long it would take the CMB temperature to be perceived as a billion degrees when accelerating at 1g, not to mention they have no idea what causes the acceleration. My point is, it's not much more realistic when the video says it, than when the flat-earthers say the same thing. Maybe a little bit, but not very much.

We will set of on that journey, after about a 1000 years you'll see a ship shoot past flashing its lights and a pissed off number one screaming over the comms, "out of the way a-hole, get that rust bucket off the trade lane".