[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Meh, light speed. A bunch of muckity-muck about nothing.
What are you talking about?
Food replicators. Standard Federation technology.
That wasn’t what I was talking about… I asked why you thought talk of “light speed” was “muckity-muck about nothing”?
[/quote]
It was a Star Trek joke. I thought the replicators and Capt. Picard line would have given it away.
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
what else would you call it than faster-than-light travel?
Shorter-than-light-has-to-travel-travel
Okay, that sounds pretty bad. [/quote]
Alas, should I, by some miraculous coincidence, ever be in the position of christening a space ship, that is what its name shall be.
The glorious “Shorter-than-light-has-to-travel-travel”.
Btw, what are you studying ?
Currently my thing is mathematical logic. I had math and physics minors as an undergrad though, which is where I learned most of my physics.
If you’re really interested in some of this stuff and can’t wait for the grad level physics classes were they’ll actually cover it in any detail, I’d check out Hans Reichenbach’s two books “The philosophy of space and time” and “The direction of time”. You probably won’t get through them without at least a little background in physics and a grasp of calculus, but in them Reichenbach first paints a good, compact picture of the special and general theories and then discusses man of the implications of the theories, like what they mean for causality, time travel, etc. They are certainly older books, but I’ve never seen any modern books that have near the coverage and clarity as his. The essential ideas of the special and general theories haven’t changed, so while Reichenbach is a little out of date he’s not incorrect. [/quote]
That’s a good point, essentially nobody really knows what happens when time stops. I’ll start to look more at the math, when I can properly comprehend it, but I won’t be going to uni until I’m done with high school. I’ll probably go for astrophysics, as quantum physics and particle physics doesn’t do as much for me.(I hate CERN for making astrophysics seeming boring compared to particle physics, as it actually have the capability to spread fear (Read: CERN causing black holes and all of that shit)
I guess I’ll check those books out, I havn’t really read anything interesting in quite some time lol. The only scientific book I’ve ever read was the universe in a nutshell by Hawkins, But that one is borderline popscience and everyone could actually read it.
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And warp drive is faster than the speed of light…wonder what Einstein would say if he knew he had been refuted?
Does anyone know what happens to matter as it approaches to the speed of light…?
No it’s not, it affects space, not the actual velocity of the ship.
Mass increases… Couldn’t a "pseudo"black hole appear?[/quote]
Warp drive “affects space”? Well all matter affects space and hence we have gravity. How exactly does warp drive affect space…?
Nevermind, back to reality…as matter approaches c its mass does not just increase it becomes infinite…think about the implications of that.
If the amount of energy required to move matter is proportionate to its mass what does that mean for the possibility of attaining c?
Also we have to think about not only the energy expended to accelerate but also think about the energy required to decelerate once we are ready to stop. It takes just as long to decelerate as it does to accelerate.
All this aside, if the right solar system is not chosen it will be a waste anyway because as I already said most the resources will be used up to get there and there ain’t no coming back. Heck, we aren’t even prepared to send a man to Mars yet let alone an other solar system.
And realistically at current top speeds it would only take about 17K years to get to Proxima Centauri – the closest solar system to our own.
Space travel just doesn’t make any sense. I would rather see resources being used to make humanity better here than somewhere else where we cannot even be human.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS
Alright, warp drive supposedly affects space at a very high degree, and in a controlable manner. How does it work? It doesn’t. Unless Star Trek counts.
The energy requirement being infinite has already been mentioned…
NASA’s goals should include making a base on the moon and getting a man on Mars in the next century.
The space program is the finest, and one of the most important, things the government has.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
They could be possible in theory, but in practice they are very improbable.
By the time we develop the technology (who is going to develop that sort of technology other than something like NASA, which keeps having budget cuts? Maybe CERN?), the world will be a very different place. Add increase in human population and increase in use of resources and building something of that magnitude would be very difficult.
The Hadron collider cost over 5 billion euros and took decades to perfect (and it’s still not perfect).
I can’t even begin to fathom how complexe and delicate such an act as creating worm holes could be. We do not know the consequences of a “failed opening”, we don’t know how much energy is required and so forth.
Same goes for something approaching the speed of light (or passing it).
It’s not a matter of the how you do it (theory), but of how you build it and apply it (practice).
I mean we’re still having problems with billion dollar rockets/shuttles going into space. The LHC has also had a few technical difficulties.
I just don’t see it happening.[/quote]
If you told a person 1,000 years ago that one day we would be flying through the air in cylinders while watching moving pictures of people that had been dead for 50 years on the back of the chair in front of you… they’d have thought you were batshit insane.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
legendaryblaze wrote:
I can’t even begin to fathom how complexe and delicate such an act as creating worm holes could be. We do not know the consequences of a “failed opening”
Oh we know. The pieces are already in place… Video Game News & Reviews | Engadget
It was fun while it lasted. If the headcrabs don’t get me I’ll see you around the bend. I need to stock up on my crowbar stash.[/quote]
Hahaha. I guess it’s time to go practice my long jump.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
legendaryblaze wrote:
They could be possible in theory, but in practice they are very improbable.
By the time we develop the technology (who is going to develop that sort of technology other than something like NASA, which keeps having budget cuts? Maybe CERN?), the world will be a very different place. Add increase in human population and increase in use of resources and building something of that magnitude would be very difficult.
The Hadron collider cost over 5 billion euros and took decades to perfect (and it’s still not perfect).
I can’t even begin to fathom how complexe and delicate such an act as creating worm holes could be. We do not know the consequences of a “failed opening”, we don’t know how much energy is required and so forth.
Same goes for something approaching the speed of light (or passing it).
It’s not a matter of the how you do it (theory), but of how you build it and apply it (practice).
I mean we’re still having problems with billion dollar rockets/shuttles going into space. The LHC has also had a few technical difficulties.
I just don’t see it happening.
If you told a person 1,000 years ago that one day we would be flying through the air in cylinders while watching moving pictures of people that had been dead for 50 years on the back of the chair in front of you… they’d have thought you were batshit insane.[/quote]
Yes but 1000 years ago they had no way of calculating in the same way we do now. Our greatest technological feats in the entire human history have all happened in the past 200 years.
I guess things will remain to be seen. Hey, if this happens in our lifetime ill be the last to complain.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
If you told a person 1,000 years ago that one day we would be flying through the air in cylinders while watching moving pictures of people that had been dead for 50 years on the back of the chair in front of you… they’d have thought you were batshit insane.[/quote]
I hate these kinds of arguements… You can’t win.
It’s like the “What if you’re wrong” question you ask atheists… Sigh.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nevermind, back to reality…as matter approaches c its mass does not just increase it becomes infinite…think about the implications of that.
If the amount of energy required to move matter is proportionate to its mass what does that mean for the possibility of attaining c?
[/quote]
You’re hardly saying anything in this thread that anyone doesn’t know. Besides, I’ve already talked about why implications like this from special relativity don’t necessarily mean fast-than-light travel is impossible.
That obviously won’t stop you from spouting off the same sorts of things that you don’t really understand anyway in your irrational quest to discredit space exploration at any cost. Somehow you started with “NASA sucks” and moved then onto “We’ll never get anywhere in space travel, so why try?”.
getting back on topic, I believe that NASA does deserve a future. since they just farmed out cargo flights to the ISS to SpaceX at 1.6 billion and a 1.9 billion dollar contract to Orbital Science, they can safely scrap most of the Space Shuttle programs, and focus on what NASA does best, research.
If NASA dies, who is responsible for Space in this nation anyway? If a satellite falls out of orbit and levels somebody’s house, somebody needs to take responsibility and fix whatever caused the problem. Currently, satellite damage is the responsibility of their home country.
Space is becoming increasingly important in warfare. GPS systems, spy satellites, and the securing of space over a nation is vital to a nation.
And what happens if we scrap NASA, and other nations continue their space programs? We will be left behind as space-based technology surges forward.
The greatest achievement in the modern world came out of NASA, and it will continue to do so.
This thread is kinda like those arguments between people that don’t really know anything about lifting… throwing around terms that they really do not understand and then bickering about them… then someone with real knowledge comes in and owns everyone.
Yea, IMO NASA is very important, and this country should increase funding for NASA.
I sort of have a question about an old experiment I remember reading, but forgot the details about…maybe someone in here can tell me what it was. It went something like: The year is 2000, and there are 2 planets 5 light years away. Man takes off from planet X and travels at the speed of light to planet Y. Then the man travels back to planet X at the speed of light.
The whole point of the experiment was that time and the sight of the spaceship was different for the people on both planets and the men in the spaceship. People on the planets wouldn’t be able to see the ship until it arrived (assume the spaceship traveled at the speed of light right until it hit earth for this situation). But the people in the spaceship would be able to see the planets as they traveled.
Yea, I probably made no sense, but it’s killing me that I can’t remember this story. Someone please help me. 
[quote]Producer wrote:
Yea, IMO NASA is very important, and this country should increase funding for NASA.
I sort of have a question about an old experiment I remember reading, but forgot the details about…maybe someone in here can tell me what it was. It went something like: The year is 2000, and there are 2 planets 5 light years away. Man takes off from planet X and travels at the speed of light to planet Y. Then the man travels back to planet X at the speed of light.
The whole point of the experiment was that time and the sight of the spaceship was different for the people on both planets and the men in the spaceship. People on the planets wouldn’t be able to see the ship until it arrived (assume the spaceship traveled at the speed of light right until it hit earth for this situation). But the people in the spaceship would be able to see the planets as they traveled.
Yea, I probably made no sense, but it’s killing me that I can’t remember this story. Someone please help me. :D[/quote]
That’s certainly no “experiment” that was ever actually done, but sure, if someone could travel at the speed of light between two planets it would be as you said. People at the destination wouldn’t be able to see the ship until it arrived (think about it, if the space ship is traveling at the speed of light, the light from the space ship–the image–won’t get to the destination until the ship does) and the time that passes will be different for those on the planets and those on the ship. That’s what we were talking about before with time dilation and length contraction.
Beyond that I don’t know what you’re asking. I’m not sure what more to the story you want.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
legendaryblaze wrote:
I can’t even begin to fathom how complexe and delicate such an act as creating worm holes could be. We do not know the consequences of a “failed opening”
Oh we know. The pieces are already in place… Video Game News & Reviews | Engadget
It was fun while it lasted. If the headcrabs don’t get me I’ll see you around the bend. I need to stock up on my crowbar stash.[/quote]
Lol!
It all lies within the dilithium crystals and their manipulation. NASA has a little known underground dept. It is run under the guise of Priceline.com and is funded by its proceeds. As we speak, headed by William Shatner himself, a team of crack scientists is working on it, and it is my understanding that we should have a working warp drive by Christmas. I can’t wait to log onto Priceline and schedule me and afternoon trip to Saturns rings. It’s gonna be friggin SWEET!
[quote]Producer wrote:
People on the planets wouldn’t be able to see the ship until it arrived (assume the spaceship traveled at the speed of light right until it hit earth for this situation). But the people in the spaceship would be able to see the planets as they traveled.
[/quote]
this is correct assuming there were no signals being sent from the vessel before it left. If, for example, the vessel started sending communications 2 days before it left, the planet would pick up the signal exactly 2 days before the vessel arrives (assuming the vessel could accelerate to c instantaneously).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ok, you space cadets…no one has figured out how to combat the effects of lack of gravity on the human body. I mean how many Iron Woody Bands would someone have to use in order to keep his body from completely atrophying?
How long can a human live in space before his bones become so brittle that they will snap at the slightest increase in gravity – or even acceleration and deceleration of moving vehicles?
Have fun in living in your tiny space bubbles.
Morans!
There is the most hilarious bit of physics completely lost on you, but since BackInAction else has already pointed it out I won’t say it. (Hint: gravitational and inertial mass (read acceleration) are the same thing!).
I understand the equivalence principle, Einstein – and what is “inertial mass” exactly???
Sit down and don’t make me swat you with my ruler.
Listen up class!
Man is not going to “outer space” to live. EVER. There are too many technological limitations – the limits of the human body, notwithstanding.[/quote]
Possibly. But if everyone thought like you, we’d still be living in caves. That is not to say I think NASA and space exploration should be high on the list of this country’s priorities right now. But your general attitude and approach to life suck.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ok, you space cadets…no one has figured out how to combat the effects of lack of gravity on the human body. I mean how many Iron Woody Bands would someone have to use in order to keep his body from completely atrophying?
How long can a human live in space before his bones become so brittle that they will snap at the slightest increase in gravity – or even acceleration and deceleration of moving vehicles?
Have fun in living in your tiny space bubbles.
Morans!
There is the most hilarious bit of physics completely lost on you, but since BackInAction else has already pointed it out I won’t say it. (Hint: gravitational and inertial mass (read acceleration) are the same thing!).
I understand the equivalence principle, Einstein – and what is “inertial mass” exactly???
Sit down and don’t make me swat you with my ruler.
Listen up class!
Man is not going to “outer space” to live. EVER. There are too many technological limitations – the limits of the human body, notwithstanding.
Possibly. But if everyone thought like you, we’d still be living in caves. [/quote]
No. Because living outside of caves is pretty simple. Moron.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No. Because living outside of caves is pretty simple. Moron.[/quote]
Sure, but constructing large skyscrapers, massive public infrastructure, internal combustion engines, splitting the atom, and a whole host of other things people have done are not “pretty simple”. Since throughout history we have seen man do many highly complicated things and have watched the limit of our technological capabilities soar, why would we expect that those same sorts of innovations cannot be seen in space?
Your more than sketchy grasp of physics aside, you have not yet given one plausible argument to support your “I hate NASA, trying to do things in space” mantra.