Moving Space

Years ago, in his New Maps Of Hell, Kingsley Amis explained the sf "hyperdrive" as follows: although a spaceship cannot move through space faster than light, if a volume of space were somehow to be moved through the surrounding space, then it would be able to carry along with it a spaceship that remained stationary within it. I thought that that made some sort of sense at the time. 

Observations

I have never encountered that explanation of hyperspace in sf;

we do encounter many different explanations;

the cleverest is Poul Anderson's quantum hyperdrive with which a spaceship makes many short quantum jumps without traversing the intervening spaces, therefore without running up against the relativistic light speed limit;

the speculative Alcubierre drive does involve moving space insofar as expansion and contraction are forms of motion.

We have discussed Anderson's several faster than light (FTL) drives. See blog search result.

I am fairly sure that Anderson said somewhere that he devised a different scientific rationale for FTL every time that he used the concept. (His physics degree enabled him to do this.) However, searching for this quotation, I found James Blish saying it of Lester del Rey!

Brian Cox argues that future theories should not contradict but incorporate relativity just as the latter incorporates Newtonian physics. Yes, but that might allow for some way around instead of against the light speed limit which is what sf writers try to imagine. But will any warp drive require impossible quantities of energy? Some ideas work in theory but only in theory like a T-machine would have to have infinite length or something?