Jump to content

Curious layman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Curious layman

  1. I really appreciate people like you replying me Swansont (and everyone else) but please remember, i work in factory, I have no idea how to do rigorous analysis on physics. Even Wikipedia is mostly incomprehensible. Note: this site has motivated me to rejoin the library again after years, so hopefully that will start to change The same amount of energy as in the galaxy was a reference to the Alcubierre drive, but Wikipedia says they think they've brought it down now. Also, I thinks it's next to impossible for interstellar travel, this was something I thought was another reason why. Your right. That's me not doing research. Another lesson for me. that was just a reference to the size of the ship I was thinking about, my point being that even the energy required to get this to the nearest star (if all of it onboard) would be so massive it would be too dangerous to even think about.
  2. All news must be independent from advertising, un biased, and non profit.
  3. I was thinking about when they talk about getting to the next star and stopping, at say about 10% c. they say- you would need every part of your ship filled with anti matter, also ive heard that the amount of energy required would be more then is in the galaxy surely then, even if you could theoretically do this, there would be absolutely no chance of you being allowed too. I mean that's a massive amount of energy all in one place, if it's equivalent to the amount of energy in the galaxy, wouldn't it just wipe out the solar system if it exploded?
  4. Just say I had enough anti-matter to get the US space shuttle (34 Mtr long), to the nearest star. If the shuttle was half way between the earth and the moon and was hit by something and exploded, would the explosion be big enough to wipe out the earth? What about the solar system? Would you be able to see it light years away?
  5. I'm with Bufofrog and Swansont, there's a big difference between the edge of the solar system and the nearest star. I've also seen (somewhere on you tube) that the nearest star/planet that could actually be of any use to us is about 120 light years away. i only think its only impossible trying to get us there, how we are now. Were too specialised for our environment. Too complex. I think it's more of a biological problem. I thinks it's about whether we can create life that can survive that long. I hope Zapatos and Moontanman are right though.
  6. I wouldn't say intelligent people will be more likely to do drugs, there was the mathematician Paul Erdos, but scientists are hardly known for being drug users. Im thinking you might be thinking of celebrities and musicians? That's more to do with lifestyle than intelligence. as for ravers, I know loads of ravers, there just everyday people I'm afraid, and the reason they do drugs is that it's fun and cheap, Simple as that. .https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdos the part about drug use is in the personality section, the second paragraph.
  7. There's a thread in computer science - will VR ever replace reality - which has answers similar to what I think your looking for. Without being rude, it's not one of the better threads though. an even better one in computer science is - will we get brain computer interfaces by 2037 - both of these are on the first page.
  8. We should ask Elon if we can borrow his car, and just drive there! Couldn't we just get its composition from telescopes like they do with planets?
  9. Starting to think getting people to the nearest star is completely impossible. Maybe better to just send small probes that can assemble into something bigger. Use bio-tech to make us there instead, with artificial wombs and stuff.
  10. I was thinking about this in work, I really hope so. my idea was to use it for people in a vegative state, the people who can still hear and think. Connect the VR to there eyes and family members could link up in a VR room. How amazing would that be? Or even better a hologram! They could use the neurolink to communicate. There's a TV series called Altered Carbon that has the same thing. They stole their tech from aliens though. I personally think it's when not if. Maybe in the next Century or two. Understanding the brain will be the biggest problem, maybe even more difficult than the theory of everything in my opinion.
  11. There's a film called Grave of the Fireflies I really need to watch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_of_the_Fireflies.
  12. The quote above from Swansont is from the "is time travel possible?" thread, in the general philosophy section by the thinkertank.
  13. Apparently a photon rocket is the most promising engine for interstellar flight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket
  14. Change how? Personally or scientifically? Thats very confusing btw, like a tongue twister. Personally yes. If I hadn't changed I would be still be a arragont idiot, like I was in school. I change all the time. My views on certain subjects have been right wing all the way to left wing (in the middle now). Scientifically yes as well, always to a lower state/energy I think. But I don't think that's what you mean though. It needs a more educated person to answer this.
  15. If not Scientifically then:- pain is the opposite to happiness, without one you wouldn't appreciate the other. So pain could be thought of as the foundation of happiness. Maybe. Maybe a better way to look at pain is to look at the good things it's responsible for, like Empathy etc.. Sorry, my philosophy is just as crap as my science unfortunately.
  16. Absolutely, I would love it, and I already know what I'd get mechanised first too. id also get lasers in my robot eyes, titanium body, quantum chip brain, rocket thrusters for feet, built in sound system, microwave stomach, think of all the things you could do... But seriously, if we were at an age when we are travelling around the galaxy I imagine some "modifications" would be advantageous.
  17. I imagine the power needed to contain heat from the engine compared to shielding for you craft would be huge also, if this ion engine can get to Mars in 39 days then you could do the whole thing in under 3 months. So you wont be exposed to as much Cosmic radiation
  18. I'll tell you before they do- you need to give a description of what it is. Links should only be used as further/more detailed information for those who are interested.
  19. Or a way to get trade going on Mars! Your Mars colony can mine Minerals and stuff for my Venus colony.
  20. Mars is crap anyway. We should go to Venus instead. It's closer, there's more energy (solar), there's gravity and we'd all get to live in cool airships.
  21. Tried to edit but waited to long... I haven't read any of these books, but just to try and stay on topic of the OP, an internet search recommended: Philosophical Letters (1733) - Voltaire The Origin of Species (1859) - Charles Darwin On a Piece of Chalk (1868) - Thomas Huxley The Mysterious Universe (1930) - James Jeans The Birth and Death of the Sun (1940) - George Gamow The Character of Physical Law (1965) - Richard Feynman The Elegant Universe (1999) - Brian Greene The Selfish Gene (1976) - Richard Dawkins The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986) - Richard Rhodes The Inflationary Universe (1997) - Alan Guth The Whole Shebang (1997) - Timothy Ferris Hiding in the Mirror (2005) - Lawrence Krauss Warped Passages (2005) - Lisa Randall
  22. Religion might not be making the contribution but i think its helps drive it. The Red Cross for example. Jean-Henry Dunant (founder) was partly inspired by Christian teachings regarding social responsibility. The biggest problem with all religion is that there represented by the wrong people, usually people like Ken Ham or some other idiot.
  23. According to Wikipedia: Abraham Pais (Dutch-American physicist) wrote that "Whittaker's treatment of special relativity shows how the authors lack of physical insight matches his ignorance of the literature". Sounds like he really didn't think much of Einstein, like he thought he was overrated, he credited Poincare and Lorentz for special relativity, and said Einstein only added "some amplifications which attracted to much attention". Maybe this influenced his thinking too much, maybe people thought he was just trying to discredit Einstein or something. But I'm not able to understand the level of maths/physics in the links so that's just a guess.
  24. I've read "The God Delusion" which was was pretty good. I wouldn't say that science lovers "need" to read it though. Its was more about flaws in religion than science I thought. I like him but I don't think he does much for science, never actually heard of anyone changing there mind after meeting him, I would like to see him interview a respected physicist who believes in god rather than school children. Would be much more interesting. He seems to be of the opinion that science and religion doesn't/can't go together. Which I think is bulls*#t.
  25. Made me depressed reading this, the Chinese claim to have successfully tested one in space, must be talking out of their ass. they claim- input power of 2.5kw, their 2.45GHz em drive produces 720 mN of thrust.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.