NationStates Jolt Archive

That is, where we should go, how we're going to get there, if it's possible to invent something that lets us travel faster than light, and so on.
I'm thinking we're going to expand eventually, perhaps catch the attention of an alien race with our expansions; they might come and pay us a visit. We'll probably invent some kind of faster than light engine, something that sends us faster than light through not space/time, but something else a la hyperdrive and warp drive. I predict that within 200 years we'll have colonies in the Alpha Centauri system, Wolf 359, and a few others, as well as colonies throughout the Sol System.

That is, where we should go, how we're going to get there, if it's possible to invent something that lets us travel faster than light, and so on.
I'm thinking we're going to expand eventually, perhaps catch the attention of an alien race with our expansions; they might come and pay us a visit. We'll probably invent some kind of faster than light engine, something that sends us faster than light through not space/time, but something else a la hyperdrive and warp drive. I predict that within 200 years we'll have colonies in the Alpha Centauri system, Wolf 359, and a few others, as well as colonies throughout the Sol System.

my theories are: You can't go faster than light, even getting close to half speed of light will be difficult. There is nothing worth colonising in the area that we can reach so it won't happen as the costs are too great (terraforming: invent it first and then it will still cost way too much to transform a planet).
Even if we found something worth colonising and colonised it, it would just create a second world and interaction between both worlds would be insignificant. (sending a message and receiving an answer over a distance of 100 lightyears takes 200 years).

I predict that within 200 years we'll have colonies in the Alpha Centauri system, Wolf 359, and a few others, as well as colonies throughout the Sol System.

In the '60s they predicted that we would all have supersonic cars by now.

In theory, we could have. We certainly have the technology. However, cost and demand also have an effect upon such things.

Illich Jackal said it better. /\

my theories are: You can't go faster than light, even getting close to half speed of light will be difficult. There is nothing worth colonising in the area that we can reach so it won't happen as the costs are too great (terraforming: invent it first and then it will still cost way too much to transform a planet).
Even if we found something worth colonising and colonised it, it would just create a second world and interaction between both worlds would be insignificant. (sending a message and receiving an answer over a distance of 100 lightyears takes 200 years).
As I said, we know we can't go faster than light in normal space/time. But we may discover some other dimension where you can; odds are, it exists, even if we haven't found it.

I believe that if we invent either a) a means of travelling near light speed in real-space, or b) a means of exploiting faster than light travel, that either will involve an ability to concentrate energy in a far more compact form than is currently possible with nuclear power (something better than fission or fusion).

This means, of course, that we'll have a new destructive capability on our hands. One that, if you look at the energy involved in accelerating a ship to near-C, would be more than sufficient to evaporate the entire planet.

So, long before the first band of intrepid adventurers gets to Alpha Centauri, the rest of the people back home will be vaporized as a result of some little conflict.

well apparently einstein was wrong about the speed of light, but they have kept it seceret for years. thats what tv told me anyway, and its the ultimate source of knowledge. plus scientist dudes have managed to teleport a photon - sending light itself faster than the speed of light (it was in two places at the same time for an instant so apparently that counts).
we should invest in space exploration. this is an area where i am totally irrational: i understand the range of arguements against it, but i don't care cos space travel a) is cool and b) would be unimaginably beneficial to our species if actually possible. plus i watch too much star trek and am starting to believe im on the enterprise... it would be nice if the rest of the world caught up.

my theories are: You can't go faster than light, even getting close to half speed of light will be difficult. There is nothing worth colonising in the area that we can reach so it won't happen as the costs are too great (terraforming: invent it first and then it will still cost way too much to transform a planet).
Even if we found something worth colonising and colonised it, it would just create a second world and interaction between both worlds would be insignificant. (sending a message and receiving an answer over a distance of 100 lightyears takes 200 years).
But then if the human race had always just looked at the short term hardly anything in history would have been accomplished. Look at the falling costs of technology: because some forward thinking people (i.e. greedy people with a lot of patience) got involved in integrated circuits and the like we now have personal computers, the web and most anything that can add two binary numbers.

So invent terraforming, look at the bill and say "whoa!! that's one hell of a lot", then pass it to the Japanese who will cut costs whilst maintaining functionality and Sanchiro's your uncle: cheap(er) terraforming and Look Out Mars!!!!

As I said, we know we can't go faster than light in normal space/time. But we may discover some other dimension where you can; odds are, it exists, even if we haven't found it.

The odds on that one are something like lim(x, x->0).

We have not a single theoretical and empirical reason to believe that their is a dimension as described above. Furthermore, the concept of such a dimension causes problems with any existing theory. Even if this dimension existed, we would still have to be able to control it.

We'll be sending out unmanned probes a hell of a lot sooner than manned ships. I wouldn't expect a colonization in this lifetime.

I believe that if we invent either a) a means of travelling near light speed in real-space, or b) a means of exploiting faster than light travel, that either will involve an ability to concentrate energy in a far more compact form than is currently possible with nuclear power (something better than fission or fusion).

This means, of course, that we'll have a new destructive capability on our hands. One that, if you look at the energy involved in accelerating a ship to near-C, would be more than sufficient to evaporate the entire planet.

So, long before the first band of intrepid adventurers gets to Alpha Centauri, the rest of the people back home will be vaporized as a result of some little conflict.
While I agree with the destructiveness of such weapons but really possessing them any worse then the current possession of nukes? Honestly we can already kill everything on the planet … yet it does not happen even over “little” conflicts

How do you think possession of a more powerful weapon will cause them to actually use it

The odds on that one are something like lim(x, x->0).

We have not a single theoretical and empirical reason to believe that their is a dimension as described above. Furthermore, the concept of such a dimension causes problems with any existing theory. Even if this dimension existed, we would still have to be able to control it.
Very true. We simply don't know what's there or not, so I think we should devote more scientific research to finding out. What have we got to lose by doing so? If we find it, and we're able to control it, then we've got it made where space travel is concerned.

As I said, we know we can't go faster than light in normal space/time. But we may discover some other dimension where you can; odds are, it exists, even if we haven't found it.

I am reminded here of a sf story I read one time where it is discovered that it is possible to leap into hyperspace and thus travel through it, instead of all the tedious mucking about in normal space. The problem is that in hyperspace travel is actually slower than in normal space.

Isn't warp drive possible in theory, but no one knows how to get enough power to make it work?

While I agree with the destructiveness of such weapons but really possessing them any worse then the current possession of nukes? Honestly we can already kill everything on the planet … yet it does not happen even over “little” conflicts

How do you think possession of a more powerful weapon will cause them to actually use it


Even with the largest of thermonuclear weapons, you couldn't destroy all life on earth with a single device. But, with a single antimatter device, you could very well vaporize the entire planet.

More food for thought: If you can accelerate a 1500 ton ship to 98 percent of the speed of light using an anti-matter rocket, and you have such a ship that can make the trip to Alpha Centauri *and back* that means that the ship will be moving that fast on the way back.

Makes a great weapon. If the ship intentionally does not decelerate, it will likely *instantly* kill everyone on one side of the planet, and probably decimate everyone else on the other side. It would likely blow huge swaths of the atmosphere into space, and render the planet uninhabitable.

Isn't warp drive possible in theory, but no one knows how to get enough power to make it work?
No
"Warp" drive = speed > C

Which is not possible by current theory

Ion drive needs to be taken far more seriously if we are to ever get anywhere with travel within the solar system

Even with the largest of thermonuclear weapons, you couldn't destroy all life on earth with a single device. But, with a single antimatter device, you could very well vaporize the entire planet.

More food for thought: If you can accelerate a 1500 ton ship to 98 percent of the speed of light using an anti-matter rocket, and you have such a ship that can make the trip to Alpha Centauri *and back* that means that the ship will be moving that fast on the way back.

Makes a great weapon. If the ship intentionally does not decelerate, it will likely *instantly* kill everyone on one side of the planet, and probably decimate everyone else on the other side. It would likely blow huge swaths of the atmosphere into space, and render the planet uninhabitable.
I understand the concept (though not sure why they would have to go to alpha centaury in order to reach the speed of light but yeah …) also can not make the jump of Possession = use

No
"Warp" drive = speed > C

Which is not possible by current theory
warp 'speed' is not a stupidly fast velocity, it is that the ship travels at a realistic speed but the warp field bends (or 'warps') space around it so the ship cuts through space rather than travelling along a linear path.
moot point: still not possible by current theory. sorry.

my theories are: You can't go faster than light, even getting close to half speed of light will be difficult. There is nothing worth colonising in the area that we can reach so it won't happen as the costs are too great (terraforming: invent it first and then it will still cost way too much to transform a planet).
Even if we found something worth colonising and colonised it, it would just create a second world and interaction between both worlds would be insignificant. (sending a message and receiving an answer over a distance of 100 lightyears takes 200 years).

On the contrary. It is indeed possible to travel faster than light. One of Einstein's big annoyances was that he could find no mathematical evidence to refute that. THe isue is the speed of light itself. It's impossible to SURPASS the speed of light. But once you get past it, there is nothing to stop you from traveling with limitless speed. In fact, the faster you go, the easier it is.

So... as long as you have always traveled faster than light, then there's nothing theoretically to hold you back. :p

Very true. We simply don't know what's there or not, so I think we should devote more scientific research to finding out. What have we got to lose by doing so? If we find it, and we're able to control it, then we've got it made where space travel is concerned.

'what have we got to lose?': funds and research time. science is rational. You can do research on how to make a certain device if you have a reason to think that it is possible. You can do fundamental research and just test theories, develop experiments, examine the results and see if the theories need adjustment. If there is not a single reason for something to exist and the existance of that something would cause trouble with existing and usable theories, then science assumes that something does not exist (think of the pink unicorn, god, ...; In the scientific process, god is assumed not to exist).

I understand the concept (though not sure why they would have to go to alpha centaury in order to reach the speed of light but yeah …) also can not make the jump of Possession = use

OK, I'm the US, and we make a ship that's going to Alpha Centauri.

As a matter of course, we make a container of antimatter the size and mass of a full beer can. That's what the ship will use for half of its reaction mass to get to and from its destination.

Realize that all that a bad guy needs to do is momentarily disrupt the containment for this antimatter, and half the planet goes up in quarks.

One event, one act, is far more likely than hundreds of acts. And if one act can clean half the slate in a few milliseconds, that's probably enough.

Ion drive needs to be taken far more seriously if we are to ever get anywhere with travel within the solar system

They accelerate really slowly, don't they?

warp 'speed' is not a stupidly fast velocity, it is that the ship travels at a realistic speed but the warp field bends (or 'warps') space around it so the ship cuts through space rather than travelling along a linear path.
moot point: still not possible by current theory. sorry.
Hmmm guess I am not enough of a star trek geek :p

On the contrary. It is indeed possible to travel faster than light. One of Einstein's big annoyances was that he could find no mathematical evidence to refute that. THe isue is the speed of light itself. It's impossible to SURPASS the speed of light. But once you get past it, there is nothing to stop you from traveling with limitless speed. In fact, the faster you go, the easier it is.

So... as long as you have always traveled faster than light, then there's nothing theoretically to hold you back. :p

So if you somehow managed to go faster than light it would actually be incredibly difficult to slow down, too?

OK, I'm the US, and we make a ship that's going to Alpha Centauri.

As a matter of course, we make a container of antimatter the size and mass of a full beer can. That's what the ship will use for half of its reaction mass to get to and from its destination.

Realize that all that a bad guy needs to do is momentarily disrupt the containment for this antimatter, and half the planet goes up in quarks.

One event, one act, is far more likely than hundreds of acts. And if one act can clean half the slate in a few milliseconds, that's probably enough.
But that is accidental release … you gave the impression of conflict (while sabotage is possible … that is when security is the highest too)

'what have we got to lose?': funds and research time. science is rational. You can do research on how to make a certain device if you have a reason to think that it is possible. You can do fundamental research and just test theories, develop experiments, examine the results and see if the theories need adjustment. If there is not a single reason for something to exist and the existance of that something would cause trouble with existing and usable theories, then science assumes that something does not exist (think of the pink unicorn, god, ...; In the scientific process, god is assumed not to exist).
I'm well aware of that. But I would still think it to be well worth it; after all, we do know that alternate universes exist; quantum theory tells us that. So what's keeping something like subspace from existing? Hell, it could very well actually aid many theories, including the Big Bang theory or any of the universal destruction theories.
OK, putting that aside for the moment, do you see us ever being able to travel faster than light through any possible means? Ever, even if we spent millions of years researching it?

On the contrary. It is indeed possible to travel faster than light. One of Einstein's big annoyances was that he could find no mathematical evidence to refute that. THe isue is the speed of light itself. It's impossible to SURPASS the speed of light. But once you get past it, there is nothing to stop you from traveling with limitless speed. In fact, the faster you go, the easier it is.

So... as long as you have always traveled faster than light, then there's nothing theoretically to hold you back. :p

I know, tachyons and the like, but it is not possible for humans or anything on this planet to travel faster than light, which is the same as saying that it is impossible to travel faster than light.

But that is accidental release … you gave the impression of conflict (while sabotage is possible … that is when security is the highest too)

If a terrorist or saboteur breaks the containment for several kilograms of antimatter, that's conflict.

They accelerate really slowly, don't they?

Thats only the small ones. If you were to power an Ion drive with a nuclear reactor it would work far better. Its of no use to get you off the ground, as gravity is too much for it, but in space it can work very well. Because the Fuel:Mass ratio is much lower, it means that it would be able to work much more efficently

I'm well aware of that. But I would still think it to be well worth it; after all, we do know that alternate universes exist; quantum theory tells us that. So what's keeping something like subspace from existing? Hell, it could very well actually aid many theories, including the Big Bang theory or any of the universal destruction theories.
OK, putting that aside for the moment, do you see us ever being able to travel faster than light through any possible means? Ever, even if we spent millions of years researching it?

I don't think we'll ever be able to. Every single object in the known universe is bounded by this limitation. The faster something is going, the harder it is to accelerate it. There is no reason to believe that we will be capable of making macro-objects go faster than light when we see that nothing we know, not even fundamental particels, is capable of doing this.

If a terrorist or saboteur breaks the containment for several kilograms of antimatter, that's conflict.
Also you got into the argument of single point of failure … takes just one … given the situation that you gave there would likely only be a single point of containment … which is included in the theory that easier to guard a single known target then many targets

If a terrorist or saboteur breaks the containment for several kilograms of antimatter, that's conflict.

Judging from what others have written, that would be the end of conflict. If everyone dies, there can't be any conflict.

I know, tachyons and the like, but it is not possible for humans or anything on this planet to travel faster than light, which is the same as saying that it is impossible to travel faster than light.

What if it were possible to "Catch" tacyons in a "Sail" and so fly pretty close to the speed of light "Riding" them

(Note I put all those words in quote marks because in Physics, you cannot often do what they literally mean)

Well, what about creating wormholes? Essentially tunnel through space; we might still take months to travel through the wormhole itself, but it's a lot better than traveling for centuries in cryogenic stasis.

So if you somehow managed to go faster than light it would actually be incredibly difficult to slow down, too?

Apparently. In fact, it might be just as impossible to surpass the light speed barrier from the other side.

What if it were possible to "Catch" tacyons in a "Sail" and so fly pretty close to the speed of light "Riding" them

(Note I put all those words in quote marks because in Physics, you cannot often do what they literally mean)

tachyons don't "exist" scientificly speaking. It's a theoretical concept. They can theoretically exist in einstein's theories. There is one problem with this "catching" and "riding" tho: They would travel back in time (from our position).

Apparently. In fact, it might be just as impossible to surpass the light speed barrier from the other side.

So, if you excuse my dumb speculation, is it possible that there are weird alien dudes flying around the universe faster than light speed, trying to slow down?

Have wormholes been proven to exist yet? I haven't heard anything about it, but then again I've not been paying attention lately...

I know, tachyons and the like, but it is not possible for humans or anything on this planet to travel faster than light, which is the same as saying that it is impossible to travel faster than light.

It suggests that the 'barrier' is not what we think it is. The gist of this is that the barrier is caused by mass. As an object approaches the velocity of light, it's mass increases. Thus, more and more energy is required to make the object travel faster. thus causing the object to become more massive, thus requiring more energy, etc. The progression approaches infinity. It would require infinite energy to propel an infinitely massive object at the velocity of light.

But what causes this increase in mass? Mathematically, there is a connection between the Velocity of Light(specifically, the light speed barrier) and Planck's Constant. Some have suggested that if one could change one, they could change the other. Could the light speed limit be a characteristic of matter? If so, then like lasers and nuclear energy, we might be able to manipulate it. We wouldn't dispel the barrier, but maybe we can move it. If we can move the barrier higher, we could theoretically travel faster than the former barrier.

So, if you excuse my dumb speculation, is it possible that there are weird alien dudes flying around the universe faster than light speed, trying to slow down?

Entirely possible.

It suggests that the 'barrier' is not what we think it is. The gist of this is that the barrier is caused by mass. As an object approaches the velocity of light, it's mass increases. Thus, more and more energy is required to make the object travel faster. thus causing the object to become more massive, thus requiring more energy, etc. The progression approaches infinity. It would require infinite energy to propel an infinitely massive object at the velocity of light.

But what causes this increase in mass? Mathematically, there is a connection between the Velocity of Light(specifically, the light speed barrier) and Planck's Constant. Some have suggested that if one could change one, they could change the other. Could the light speed limit be a characteristic of matter? If so, then like lasers and nuclear energy, we might be able to manipulate it. We wouldn't dispel the barrier, but maybe we can move it. If we can move the barrier higher, we could theoretically travel faster than the former barrier.
Could we do that anytime soon with our current technology? Do you see us developing it at all? Because to me it sounds like that's a true warp engine, one that pushes the barrier forward as it travels faster.

It suggests that the 'barrier' is not what we think it is. The gist of this is that the barrier is caused by mass. As an object approaches the velocity of light, it's mass increases. Thus, more and more energy is required to make the object travel faster. thus causing the object to become more massive, thus requiring more energy, etc. The progression approaches infinity. It would require infinite energy to propel an infinitely massive object at the velocity of light.

But what causes this increase in mass? Mathematically, there is a connection between the Velocity of Light(specifically, the light speed barrier) and Planck's Constant. Some have suggested that if one could change one, they could change the other. Could the light speed limit be a characteristic of matter? If so, then like lasers and nuclear energy, we might be able to manipulate it. We wouldn't dispel the barrier, but maybe we can move it. If we can move the barrier higher, we could theoretically travel faster than the former barrier.

The only 'real' characteristics of matter that we currently have are things like: the charge of a type of quark, the mass of type of quark (I'm saying quarks, but i mean the most fundamental particles we know of), ... We cannot change these, they are 'given'. Every characteristic of matter, like conductivity, is simply a result of these characteristics and the forces that apply to them. We cannot change fundamental characteristics.

Could we do that anytime soon with our current technology? Do you see us developing it at all? Because to me it sounds like that's a true warp engine, one that pushes the barrier forward as it travels faster.

Warp Speed as in the star trek universe is not likely, but yes. It's a 'back door' also. With warp speed, they don't actually surpass the velocity of light. They travel at a non-relativistic speed within a 'shell' that travels within another 'shell' and another... no individual shell is traveling faster than light, but since each subspace shell has it's own objective perspective, the total effect is an object traveling faster than light.

What I'm talking about is possibly 'treating' matter in such a way that it's characteristics change. 'Soon' is relative. I suspect that gravity manipulation is the answer. Gravitation is the only known force that can actually alter the velocity of light. Though we are learning some interesting things about universal gravitation lately, I suspect we're as much as fifty years from actually being able to generate gravity.

The only 'real' characteristics of matter that we currently have are things like: the charge of a type of quark, the mass of type of quark (I'm saying quarks, but i mean the most fundamental particles we know of), ... We cannot change these, they are 'given'. Every characteristic of matter, like conductivity, is simply a result of these characteristics and the forces that apply to them. We cannot change fundamental characteristics.

Is the mass-velocity ratio fundamental?

Warp Speed as in the star trek universe is not likely, but yes. It's a 'back door' also. With warp speed, they don't actually surpass the velocity of light. They travel at a non-relativistic speed within a 'shell' that travels within another 'shell' and another... no individual shell is traveling faster than light, but since each subspace shell has it's own objective perspective, the total effect is an object traveling faster than light.

What I'm talking about is possibly 'treating' matter in such a way that it's characteristics change. 'Soon' is relative. I suspect that gravity manipulation is the answer. Gravitation is the only known force that can actually alter the velocity of light. Though we are learning some interesting things about universal gravitation lately, I suspect we're as much as fifty years from actually being able to generate gravity.
Right; makes sense. So, do you think any of us will see it in our lifetimes? I'm hoping we do, because if there's one thing I really want to do before I die it's set foot on an alien world.

Right; makes sense. So, do you think any of us will see it in our lifetimes? I'm hoping we do, because if there's one thing I really want to do before I die it's set foot on an alien world.

Mars is your best chance, I'm sorry to say. We're a century away from interstellar travel.

Mars is your best chance, I'm sorry to say. We're a century away from interstellar travel.
Damn. Well, there's always advances in medical technology that could keep me alive longer...

Anyways, anyone else have any theories or comments on the theories already stated?

Anyone? At all?

So, do you think any of us will see it in our lifetimes? I'm hoping we do, because if there's one thing I really want to do before I die it's set foot on an alien world.
You might want to try Milton Keynes, UK. That's pretty alien to most people. Failing that, try Glasgow.

That is, where we should go, how we're going to get there, if it's possible to invent something that lets us travel faster than light, and so on.
I'm thinking we're going to expand eventually, perhaps catch the attention of an alien race with our expansions; they might come and pay us a visit. We'll probably invent some kind of faster than light engine, something that sends us faster than light through not space/time, but something else a la hyperdrive and warp drive. I predict that within 200 years we'll have colonies in the Alpha Centauri system, Wolf 359, and a few others, as well as colonies throughout the Sol System.

I don't believe in faster than light or "warp" or "wormhole" travel, so that's out. Without looking it up, I think it would take us something like 50-100 years to get to the nearest star, assuming the nearest star even has anything of interest, as opposed to other nearby stars. I would guess the first star we head towards would be a system with something of interest, say a planet that appears to have gases of a probably organic origin. Just a wild guess, but let's say the nearest solar system with a good candidate planet is, 500-1000 years away, at our best speeds.

Anyway, the first thing we need to do is colonize the moon. This won't happen for at least 20 years, and that's just a basic little permanently manned "settlement." Once we're able to extract the moons resources, process them and be able to fabricate technologically sophisticated parts, equipment etc., I'd say it'd be another 30-50 years. Sometime after that, say within 50-100 years, we'll build space colonies & colonize Mars. Many years will pass as we slowly expand around the solar system. I'd guess much of humanity may end up around the asteroid belt, between Mars & Jupiter, but still a reasonable traveling distance to Earth. I'd give it at least 500 years before a very large colony, or group of space colonies decide, maybe for political, religious or resource issues, will decide to head off to another star system. Let's say it takes them 100 years to get there, then give them maybe 500-1000 more years to get settled, spread around and a new set of colonists decides to move on, yet again.

At some point, and again this is a wild guess, but say maybe 10 or 20 thousand years from now or maybe 100,000 years from now, a group of humanity will run into another intelligent civilization who is also expanding outwards from their home planet.

Those will be interesting times.

well apparently einstein was wrong about the speed of light, but they have kept it seceret for years. thats what tv told me anyway, and its the ultimate source of knowledge. plus scientist dudes have managed to teleport a photon - sending light itself faster than the speed of light (it was in two places at the same time for an instant so apparently that counts).
we should invest in space exploration. this is an area where i am totally irrational: i understand the range of arguements against it, but i don't care cos space travel a) is cool and b) would be unimaginably beneficial to our species if actually possible. plus i watch too much star trek and am starting to believe im on the enterprise... it would be nice if the rest of the world caught up.

That was like the best thing I have ever read, seriously! :D

I agree that it is probably not possible to travel any distance faster then light. It is however theoretically possible to shorten the distance between any two points using worm holes. Worm holes are two points in space connected with nothing in between. You step in one yo come out the toher at the same time across any distance.

Now all you need is to join two black holes back to back and make a ship that will survive the trip! Easy! Now where did I put my gravity munipulator?

How do you think possession of a more powerful weapon will cause them to actually use it

Name a single weapon that was so powerful it has never been used.

The nuclear bomb is still, fortunately, weak enough that its use in WW2 and its tests have not destroyed us all (yet). A more powerful weapon might well be capable of destroying all of Earth in a *single* use; and thus one maniac would be enough. You know there are many of those.

I agree that it is probably not possible to travel any distance faster then light. It is however theoretically possible to shorten the distance between any two points using worm holes. Worm holes are two points in space connected with nothing in between. You step in one yo come out the toher at the same time across any distance.


Actually, a wormhole is commonly thought of as a "tunnel" through additional dimensions beyond 3d space. It does have a 'length', so you do not traverse it instantaneously. However, it makes use of the theory that 3d space is "bent" in additional dimensions (for example gravity), so it can create a "shorter" path between two points than a straight line through 3d space would be. It decreases distance, but does not take it away.

You might want to try Milton Keynes, UK. That's pretty alien to most people. Failing that, try Glasgow.

Barrow in Furness was enough for me. I ran screaming.

Bending space is definitely the answer.

Either than that, mantain the mass of an object as it accelerates.

Heck, they tried it using a particle accelerator. They accelerated a proton (i think), to nearly the speed of light. It eventually got too big to accelerate it faster. Requires too much damn energy. Possibly we might not have enough energy to accelerate something past the speed of light.

Simply going fast isn’t going to solve any problems:

The faster an object is going, the slower relative time goes. Therefore, if an object (a spaceship) was going extremely fast, the people inside the spaceship would experience, what to them, was normal time. However, time for those traveling at much slower speeds (on Earth) would continue at time's normal rate for them. In the end, hundreds or thousands of years could pass on Earth while the people in the spaceship would experience a much smaller time interval.

i think space exploration is the biggest and most disgusting waste of public funds that mankind has conceived since war.

The best reason for space colonization is that the Earth could be destroyed fairly easily. We all know it'll happen eventually but we don't know when or how. Leaving all of humanity on one plant is absurdly dangerous. By colonizing other worlds humans and post-humans will survive the destruction of the Earth and, if they spread far enough, the Solar system.

i think space exploration is the biggest and most disgusting waste of public funds that mankind has conceived since war.

It isn't necessarily a waste of funds. If it manages to get somewhere (e.g. colonise a new planet, discover life/new element on another planet, etc) then it's worth it.

Exactly! And think about the knowledge we could gain. Knowledge and learning has been an instictive part of the human drive ever since we evolved! We've evolved to learn, to spread out, to seek out new life forms and new civilizations, to boldly go where we've never gone before. I know that's a tired, old Star Trek peice of dialogue, but I don't care: it's right! It's worth it. It's the sole reason we exist.

Guys, there's a practical answer to the whole question of how to warp space/time in such a way to allow FTL travel while possibly being one of the most accepted theories in science. It's based on a stellar phenomenon considered to be pretty much real by science at this point. Anyone want to take a guess?

Guys, there's a practical answer to the whole question of how to warp space/time in such a way to allow FTL travel while possibly being one of the most accepted theories in science. It's based on a stellar phenomenon considered to be pretty much real by science at this point. Anyone want to take a guess?
Black hole? Wormhole? Pulsar?

Guys, there's a practical answer to the whole question of how to warp space/time in such a way to allow FTL travel while possibly being one of the most accepted theories in science. It's based on a stellar phenomenon considered to be pretty much real by science at this point. Anyone want to take a guess?

Astrology? :)


Christ, I could have sworn that my post count was 1498 just before i posted that. It seems to be increasing faster than I'm posting...

On the contrary. It is indeed possible to travel faster than light. One of Einstein's big annoyances was that he could find no mathematical evidence to refute that. THe isue is the speed of light itself. It's impossible to SURPASS the speed of light. But once you get past it, there is nothing to stop you from traveling with limitless speed. In fact, the faster you go, the easier it is.

So... as long as you have always traveled faster than light, then there's nothing theoretically to hold you back. :p
This is true. Einstein's equations only deal with accelerating to the speed of light.

You've also got to remember that when you get near the speed of light, time starts messing about. So, relative to you on the spaceship, you're travelling way further in a way smaller amount of time.

You've also got to remember that, at that speed, hydrogen atoms will have the energy of gamma rays, which will kill you.

Guys, there's a practical answer to the whole question of how to warp space/time in such a way to allow FTL travel while possibly being one of the most accepted theories in science. It's based on a stellar phenomenon considered to be pretty much real by science at this point. Anyone want to take a guess?
The Big Bang?

Guys, there's a practical answer to the whole question of how to warp space/time in such a way to allow FTL travel while possibly being one of the most accepted theories in science. It's based on a stellar phenomenon considered to be pretty much real by science at this point. Anyone want to take a guess?
With a big pair of pliers

It involves getting in your spaceship and flying towards the sun really, really fast. Then you have to get your Vulcan science officer to make his best guess at the precise trajectory, 'cause his guesses are better than other people's 'facts.' So then you whip around the sun really fast and go back in time. Voila! Faster than light travel!

It isn't necessarily a waste of funds. If it manages to get somewhere (e.g. colonise a new planet, discover life/new element on another planet, etc) then it's worth it.

and if it doesn't?

the money could be put to better use here on earth. there are no habitable planets in our solar system. new elements would not necessarily be useful. imagine if they found one but it was basically just jelly

and if it doesn't?

the money could be put to better use here on earth. there are no habitable planets in our solar system. new elements would not necessarily be useful. imagine if they found one but it was basically just jelly

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard, and it's the exact same excuse you hear every time this subject comes up.

Look, people said forty years ago "we could spend the money elsewhere." Guess what, we have been spending the money elsewhere. When was the last manned mission to the moon? There hasn't been one, because WE'RE SPENDING THE MONEY ELSEWHERE.

The world hasn't suddenly become peaceful. People still starve. We still have war & disease.

Can we drop the whole "we could spend the money elsewhere?" argument. It falls flat in the face of reality.

and if it doesn't?

the money could be put to better use here on earth. there are no habitable planets in our solar system.

It's called an 'investment'. You put money into something in the hope that you get something back. You invest in a company, hoping that their product will become popular, so you get your money back.

Yes, the money could be well spent here on Earth. What have you been spending yours on? Bought any new games recently, maybe a nice pair of clothes? That money could certainly be better spent.


new elements would not necessarily be useful. imagine if they found one but it was basically just jelly

Oh my god, then they would have to go to the bother of changing the periodic table, too!!! Seriously, all elements have properties which make them suited to certain functions. The noble gases are useful because they are completely reactive, elements like magnesium are useful because they are very reactive.

This is true. Einstein's equations only deal with accelerating to the speed of light.

You've also got to remember that when you get near the speed of light, time starts messing about. So, relative to you on the spaceship, you're travelling way further in a way smaller amount of time.

You've also got to remember that, at that speed, hydrogen atoms will have the energy of gamma rays, which will kill you.
But I thought time dilation only works in refference to a stationary object ... subjective time is not modefied just objective

and if it doesn't?

the money could be put to better use here on earth. there are no habitable planets in our solar system. new elements would not necessarily be useful. imagine if they found one but it was basically just jelly

Yeah, the Europeans should never have come to the Americas.

Think of all the problems that would have been avoided that way.

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard, and it's the exact same excuse you hear every time this subject comes up.

Look, people said forty years ago "we could spend the money elsewhere." Guess what, we have been spending the money elsewhere. When was the last manned mission to the moon? There hasn't been one, because WE'RE SPENDING THE MONEY ELSEWHERE.



yeah - spending it trying to land missions to mars. whoop de do. i'm not saying that it could end human suffering or anything like that. only that the money could be put to better use.

It's called an 'investment'. You put money into something in the hope that you get something back. You invest in a company, hoping that their product will become popular, so you get your money back.

Yes, the money could be well spent here on Earth. What have you been spending yours on? Bought any new games recently, maybe a nice pair of clothes? That money could certainly be better spent.


note how i said 'public money'. i have no objection to rich fruitcakes spending their own cash on space exploration. also no i ahve not bought any games recently - i don't play computer games. i still haven't found the 'game' that is nation states - just a load of message boards. unless that is the 'game' in which case... pleh.

Oh my god, then they would have to go to the bother of changing the periodic table, too!!! Seriously, all elements have properties which make them suited to certain functions. The noble gases are useful because they are completely reactive, elements like magnesium are useful because they are very reactive.


yes, but if - like i said - the element discovered had the properties of jelly it would be entirely redundant. we already have jelly to do that stuff.

theoretically, faster than light travel is possible. this may sound silly, but you know warp drive on star trek? there's actually a theory for that, in which you get a bubble that goes faster than the speed of light and the ship travels inside the bubble but with no effects of time dilation and length contraction that woudl be associated with comparable speeds.

though whether this is practically possible is unknown.

it would be nice to go out and explore other galaxies, to witness the birth of new stars up close et c. though probably not in my lifetime unfortunately, though hopefully going into orbit will be cheap enough that i could do it... :) i woudl love to see the stars with zero light pollution or atmosphere and to look down on the earth from so far above...

i though the theory of relativity stopped s.o.l travel? nothing is as light (as in weight) as light as it not made of particles and therefore has no mass. everything else's speeds ca be measured in terms of mass? maybe i'm just wrong

You've also got to remember that when you get near the speed of light, time starts messing about. So, relative to you on the spaceship, you're travelling way further in a way smaller amount of time.
but then you have to take into account length contraction, so you basically end up going at the same speed.

if i remember from modern correctly, length contraction is equal to l'=(gamma)l and time dilation is t'=1/(gamma)t where the primed refrence frame is the one going faster than the speed of light and gamma is equal to 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
unless i got the equations backwards...

hmm... i'm not sure what i did exactly... but i think the gammas should cancel instead of squaring... *shrugs*

yeah - spending it trying to land missions to mars. whoop de do. i'm not saying that it could end human suffering or anything like that. only that the money could be put to better use. [/QUOTE[

The idea is that it leads on to better things. Early computers were pretty useless. Just because current space exploration seems absolutely useless, does it mean we should stop?


[QUOTE]note how i said 'public money'.
Actually, in the text that I quoted, you didn't say public money. You just said money. Besides, how much does America spend a year on it's armed forces?



yes, but if - like i said - the element discovered had the properties of jelly it would be entirely redundant. we already have jelly to do that stuff.

It could revolutionise jelly production!

Seriously, though, that is pretty unlikely. In fact, I will eat my hat if an element is discovered with exactly the same properties as jelly (edible, tastes nice, texture, etc).

Actually, in the text that I quoted, you didn't say public money. You just said money. Besides, how much does America spend a year on it's armed forces?





It could revolutionise jelly production!

Seriously, though, that is pretty unlikely. In fact, I will eat my hat if an element is discovered with exactly the same properties as jelly (edible, tastes nice, texture, etc).

bugger - i need to write what i think. also - i agree about the armed forces - it's not just space exploration that could do with funding cutbacks. finally - if they find that element you may eat your hat, i will be eating element and ice cream

bugger - i need to write what i think. also - i agree about the armed forces - it's not just space exploration that could do with funding cutbacks. finally - if they find that element you may eat your hat, i will be eating element and ice cream

Mmm...futuristic party food... see, we can't afford not to explore space!

Anyway, the big problem we have is that everyone has different ideas about what is a waste of money and what isn't. Some people might say the military is a waste, others say that aiding third world countries is a waste of money.

Mmm...futuristic party food... see, we can't afford not to explore space!

Anyway, the big problem we have is that everyone has different ideas about what is a waste of money and what isn't. Some people might say the military is a waste, others say that aiding third world countries is a waste of money.

yeah but those people would be arseholes. for i am ajealous wagwanimus and you will worship no other god but me.

lo

it is written

(therefore it must be true)

Completely irrelevent comment: One of my goals is to go into space some time in my life.

Relevent to the original post, but probably not to the newer stuff: I think that space travel is the best cure for the instinct to continue multiplying even against the constraints of carrying capacity. In other words, unless we're willing to have everyone on the planet living in starvation we need to expand and find more resources, or we need to stop having so many damn babies, but everybody knows that's not going to happen, so space is our best option.

yeah - spending it trying to land missions to mars. whoop de do. i'm not saying that it could end human suffering or anything like that. only that the money could be put to better use.

The money we spend on investigation of Mars with probes is about the same amount of money we spend researching what the next best selling brand of chewing gum will be. It's meaningless.

You want to talk about significant amounts of money, we need to talk about how much we spend on petroleum products per year. Your argument is meaningless.