Moontanman

The amount of energy needed to move a spacecraft of any reasonable size to half of c would be multiples the amount of energy mankind has ever used to date. Then it would take an equal amount of energy to slow it down again.

 

There are ways around this, magnetic sails, fusion power sources, in 500 years generating such power will be easy, look at how far we have come in the last 500 years.

 

 

It would also be made of ????...hitting a speck of dust at half of the speed of light would release more energy than all the nuclear weapons on Earth.

 

This is simply not true. .5 c is not fast enough to make a dust particle equal to all the nuclear weapons on earth. Hitting a dust particle wouldn't be a good thing but it is possible to detect such particles and vaporise them far ahead of the space craft with lasers. If we can do that now I am sure 500 years from now we can do better.

 

 

One day we may hope for a 20th or so the speed of light. There is nothing, however, in material engineering to date that would allow stable performance of matter at such a speed without imminent doom.

 

What are you talking about? matter acts the same at .2 c as it does at .000002c

 

It's no just a matter of saying we could do a tenth of the speed of light one day and that would be 50 years to the nearest star. The acceleration would take multiples times that to get to the top speed and the slowing an equal long process.

 

Please elaborate, what do you mean? 50 years to the nearest star is reasonable, if you had a generational type ship even longer would be good. Eventually we'll do away with the need for planets altogether and stars will just be places to get resources not planets.

 

 

We're also assuming there is some reason to go to the nearest dozen stars.

 

Yes there is, to use the resources there to build new artificial worlds and to launch new space craft to other stars to spread humanity out through the galaxy.

The first thing you need to do is visualize hyper dimensional space. I look at it this way.

Dimensions

#1 Think of a point, zero dimensions, nothing but a location.

#2 Think of a line, one dimension, an infinite number of points can be contained in a line no matter how long the line.

#3 Think of a plain, two dimensions, an infinite number of lines can be contained in a plain with an infinite number of points on each line.

#4 Think of a cube, three dimensions, an infinite number of plains can exist in a cube, each plain contains an infinite number of lines with each line containing an infinite number of points.

Now I am going to ask that you think of the three dimensional object again but this time think of a sphere. Any sphere will do but a planet like the earth is a good way to start. Each of these shapes is still the same as the shapes described in the first three lines of this essay. Now think of the surface of the sphere, the surface of the sphere is two dimensional with the lines of longitude being one dimensional. The two dimensional surface contains an infinite number of the lines of longitude containing an infinite number of zero dimensional points.

#5 Try to imagine a four dimensional sphere, it’s surface is three dimensional, the lines of longitude are two dimensional and the infinite points on that line are one dimensional instead of zero dimensional. This would represent one moment in time in one universe.

#6 Now think of a five dimensional sphere, its surface is four dimensional and its infinite lines of longitude are 3D. Each 3D line represents the past and future of one universe with no choice no changes no variables. Each point on the 3D line would now be 2D

#7 Now think of a six dimensional sphere, its surface is five dimensional and each of the lines of longitude are four dimensional and each point on each of those infinite number of lines is three dimensional. So each of the 4D lines of longitude represent a different possible time line with each 3D point on each line being a moment in time on each of the infinite possible time lines.

#8 Now think of a seven dimensional sphere which would have a six dimensional surface with five dimensional lines of longitude and an infinite number of four dimensional points on each of the infinite lines. Now each 5D line represents a different universe with our set of natural laws and each 4D point represents all the possible time lines in each universe.

#9 Now think of an eight dimensional sphere with a seven dimensional surface with each line of longitude having six dimensions and each point having five dimensions. Now each 6D line of longitude represents an infinite number of universes with a different set of physical laws but still with in what we know is possible and each 5D point represents one of those universes.

#10 Now think of a nine dimensional sphere with an eight dimensional surface. Each line of longitude has seven dimensions and each point on that seven dimensional line has six dimensions. Each 7D line represents an infinite number of universes (Multi-verse) with every possible and to us impossible rules of nature with each 6D point representing an infinite number of universes with a certain set of rules.

#11 now think of a ten dimensional sphere with a nine dimensional surface and eight dimensional lines of longitude and seven dimensional points on those line. So each 8D line represents an infinite number of multi-verses (Mega-verse) and each 7D point being a complete multi-verse

Remember a ten dimensional sphere needs an eleven dimensional space to exist in so there you have it all possible and impossible universes in an infinite number in eleven dimensions. Remember this is just a mind exercise I used when I was in high school to visualize multiple dimensions but it is kinda cool how it resembles what is called brane theory these days. Brane theory doesn't call for a sphere shaped universe but for me it was easier to visualize it that way, the brane is 10 dimensional contained in an eleven dimensional space.

Now using this template think of our 4d universe as a plain inside a 5d (or larger) universe, inside a 5d universe our infinite 4d plain is finite. As I understand it, our 4d brane is associated with another 4d brane. the two are gravitationally bound. When they collide it's like two sheets hanging on a clothes line. The branes to not collide all at once but as wrinkles and bulges touch all the mater in the two branes annihilate into energy. form our point of view each time the branes touch it's a big bang. as the two branes come together the energy release drives them apart until gravity pulls them back together. as they are driven apart the energy released in each one condenses back into mater and the matter universe we see forms. This process can happen over and over.

Oops, one more thing, as far as I know there is absolutely no evidence for this what so ever!

Wouldn't centrifugal force become a problem with a rail gun that circumnavigated the moon?

Put it in orbit around the Earth and mine it for metals.

I am being perfectly serious. You just think it is fun because you have been brainwashed to believe it. But if you really think back to any encounter you may have had, can you honestly say it was as much fun as everyone pretends?

I've been having sex regularly for more than 45 years, I love sex, I love everything about sex I love women. If what you say is true for the general public then i must be a point well outside the bell curve. I really love sex , women, and all the games we play together. i can't imagine not loving sex.

You prove my point. You are conforming to societal pressure by pretending you like sex, so you can appear cool, and implying that those who don't are uncool.

 

I hope you are being cynical here, I honestly cannot think of anything I'd rather do than sex.

i agree with KLB, but i'd take it even further, if sex wasnt chemically pleasurable, the stupid little critters in particular wouldnt be "trained" to reproduce, but take lions for example, i heard it takes about 16-24 hrs to mate, they simply wouldnt do it if there wasnt pleasure involved.

Awfully quick critters them Lions Seriously, who would have sex if it wasn't fun? The risks involved with sex, fluid exchange, disease, embarrassment if you take your clothes off, submission, domination, no wait are we talking about animals? Sex has to have some powerful biological impetus to make it happen, in higher animals "fun" is probably high on the list of reasons why they have sex. The more you can think about it the more fun it has to be?

Here is some information on possible biochemistries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

How difficult is it to make rain water potable? We have a coal fired power plant near me. I would love to use rain water for something other than my aquariums and plants but the idea of radioactive isotopes and heavy metals from the coal power plant bother me.

I'm not so sure a interstellar ramjet is all that realistic, first we cannot control nuclear fusion. control of nuclear fusion has been just a few years away all my life. So far we simply cannot do it. There is also the problem of actually collecting interstellar hydrogen, how do you do it? Most hydrogen atoms in space are neutral, no charge, so a magnetic field has no effect on them. How do you gather up neutral hydrogen? a simple hydrogen fusion reaction with out a working fluid of some sort is not exactly an atomic blast, it would be closer to an ion engine in it's actual thrust. Overcoming the friction of the interstellar medium would be a major problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

I'm a liberal, I'm not a crazy Left Wing Liberal who thinks we should all be vegans and ride bicycles everywhere but if I have to have a label then Liberal is the best I can do. I like Joe Scarborough, I liked him from the get go, he usually puts it out like it is, not spun to show anyone as good and perfect. I wish there was a Middle party where all the moderate Liberals and Conservatives could come together and give the extremists some competition. But for some reason most people seem to want to revel in the idea of the extreme. If you believe in any Right Wing policies you must swallow them all, or if you believe in any Left Wing policies you must believe them all. It's not only wrong I think it's dangerous for the country. If anything ever contributes to the down fall of this great land it will be the polarization of the extremes.

Damn! My spell checker did it again! Right is captialized but left is not, Conservetive is captialized but liberal is not! It's a conspiricy!

bascule is right dunsapy, it's all just specualtion what came before but it is not with out some science. It just can't be nailed down completly yet

It depends a lot on where you think life started, if it started with auto catalysts then that where it started

dunsapy, at that stage animal and plant are meaningless ideas.

OK I can accept that science doesn't know how life started. So to be real science you have have your options open. You can't exclude creation.

We can exclude anything we have no evidence of, abiogenisis has evidence just not absolute evidence. Creation by God has no evidence what so ever, none, why should we consider it?

But if we go on from there to evolution, are you assuming that the first life was a single cell? If this is so , what kind of cell, plant or animal,or what? Did this cell have DNA in it?

The fact that you asked this question proves you do not even know the difference between different life forms how can you expect us to even try to explain anything to you? Animal? Plant?

Totally meaningless questions at the stage of the first DNA life. The first cell with DNA would have been so much more simple than any cells currently alive we still might not recognize it as life, much less the living chemicals that came before it and merged to form it.

I suggest you read something other than creation science and make sure it has been done in the last couple of decades and then maybe you can frame the question in an intelligent manner.

Merged post follows:

Which god did it?

I think it was the Goddess of the Moon, I plan to attend a worship service to her tomorrow evening as she rises over the ocean, it's the Red Moon. I even have a poem to recite. It's going to be wonderful!

dunsapy I would personally like to see your evidence that god did it.

So in other words dunsapy what you are saying is no matter what we come up with you will not change your mind. No matter how much evidence we have you will not see it? You refuse to even consider it no matter what? Typical creationist behavior, god said it I believe it, that's final. Why do you bother to even discuss it?

dunsapy, that is a Creationist site, all the answers are creation science answers. There is no such thing as creation science dunsapy.

this is what you get when you click on the questions at the side of the page.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html

But i would like to ask you a question, you keep saying things like we have never seen it happen or we have never found it anyplace else. If we find life on another planet does this mean abiogenisis is correct and you are wrong? Just wondering since we'll almost certainly have life on another planet in a few years or are you going to insist on another creation for Mars or Europa or Titan or any other planet where we find life? Oh yeah, do you really expect us to create the process of life when it almost certainly took a lab as big as the oceans of the earth millions of years to happen? How long are you will to sit and watch a test tube? for the rest of the life of the universe? what would take forever in a test tube could have happened quite quickly in a lab as big as all the oceans on the earth. Your entire premise is faulty, there is a huge amount of science having to do with the "evolution" of life from non living materials, just because you refuse to see doesn't make it impossible.

You gotta love them straw men but it's the way the creationist nuts argue against reality when they are misleading the masses with lies, deceit and bullshit. I guess that's all they know, when it comes to a discussion, then they go back to the believers and tell them how awful we are and how we won't let them in the discussion. Sad really.....

I still wonder if anyone else has had such visions while being flashed.. (yeah, I know a straight line)

I think that crashing asteroids together to construct artificial planets is wrong. It's like making a huge pile from the building materials for thousands of skyscrapers, then trying to live on top of the pile. Asteroids are even better building materials for space habitats than planets, because you don't have to beat as much gravity to get them where you want them.

There is no doubt you are correct, moving planets at will is not impossible but far beyond the ability of mortal men. Building artificial habitats is more than enough of a challenge for now:D

Merged post follows:

What people are forgetting is that it really isn't necessary to go through that much trouble to make Mars earthlike to make it livable. As I mentioned, putting large superconducting magnetic energy storage devices on opposite ends of the planet would not only create a magnetic field (the strength of which we could adjust, say to cope with solar flares) but would create a beautiful buffer for the grid. Mars isn't large enough to hold an atmosphere for geologic timescales, but since when does everything we build have to last thousands of times longer than our civilization has existed?

You are correct and if we can build up the atmosphere of Mars we can also add to it as time goes by. I think that gravity wells will be avoided by a future space fairing civilization, artificial habitats constructed by Von Neumann machines would be the best way to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine

Well I was conscious and talking through out the entire procedure. If it was a seizure the docs missed it, they gave me a clean bill of health.

For FTL see this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Well, a very slow collision would not create as much heat. So suppose we change the orbit of Ceres so that it just matches that of Mars, then the impact will be very slow as not as much heat is developed (i.e. less kinetic energy).

We need Ceres to be the moon of Merc/Mars

But is there even 50% of the mass of Mars available in the asteroid belt? I doubt it. And we can't use mercury or venus or the moon as moving them to Mars would royally screw up the orbit of earth. And I don't see any way to pull the moons or Jupiter or Saturn out of their gravity well...if we have that much power available we should simply fly to another star system. I don't think this is a realistic possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid

The mass of all the objects of the Main asteroid belt, lying between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, is estimated to be about 3.0-3.6 × 1021 kg, or about 4 percent of the mass of the Moon.

Hey if we're going to start moving things around lets just combine Mercury and Mars into one planet, move it out of the way, bring Venus out to Mars orbit and place Merc/Mars into an orbit a bit further from the sun than Venus currently is. Place a large moon in orbit around Venus (maybe Titan) and see what happens!

It's costs no more to go first class, you just can't stay as long!