Interesting article in New Scientist (Australian printed edition 5 April page 36) by Prof. Michio Kaku - theoretical physics at City University of New York - and author of "Physics of the Impossible."

 

He discusses what scientific and technological developments might occur in the future - which will happen soon, or later, and which are plain impossible. He points out that the history of science is full of luminaries that make lousy predictions. Examples are Lord Kelvin denying that heavier than air flight is possible, claiming that X-rays are a hoax, and that radio has no future. Ernest Rutherford denying that the A bomb will ever be possible.

 

Prof. Kaku suggests 3 classes of development.

 

1. That which will be done within decades, or 100 years at latest. Examples include teleportation of small items - up to virus size, and invisibility.

2. That which will happen hundreds or thousands of years in the future. Examples include teleportation of large objects, including humans.

3. That which is totally impossible. Examples include precognition and perpetual motion machines.

 

He discusses other interesting 'impossibilities' such as time travel, telepathy (assisted by electronic implants), travel through wormholes etc.

 

Any other suggestions?

To the thread title, my stand is that given enough resources and time, the answer to your question is "nothing."

iNow,

please find me a rational square root for 2.

Let me know what time and resources you need.

In what base?

making a square bubble

making a square bubble

 

Science is fun. Your suggestion is actually NOT impossible!

 

 

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/00000161

 

 

Video of this experiment:

 

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/content/start_video/square-bubbles1

erm, the square bubble Can be done, but I`v yet to see someone open a tin can with a banana

erm, the square bubble Can be done, but I`v yet to see someone open a tin can with a banana

 

You're just not firing the banana fast enough.

you maybe right, now I Certainly have something to look forwards to in the future

erm, the square bubble Can be done, but I`v yet to see someone open a tin can with a banana

I teach the monkey to use a can opener and guess what I give him if he does it? Vi-o-la! A tin can opened with a banana!

now I`m s`posed to say Oh Gosh! there is Nothing Impossible.

 

but I`m like, Naahhhh.....

now I`m s`posed to say Oh Gosh! there is Nothing Impossible.

 

but I`m like, Naahhhh.....

I didn't say that. I doubt you'll ever find a way to touch your real right elbow (not a photo or other representation) with your real right index finger without chopping something off.

phi, 1 word: wormhole

"In what base?"

Any integer you like- btw, non integer bases are a bit odd anyway.

phi, 1 word: wormhole

Your research grant for the use of theoretical spacetime topology as a single appendage solution for ulnar irritation has been APPROVED.

I didn't say that. I doubt you'll ever find a way to touch your real right elbow (not a photo or other representation) with your real right index finger without chopping something off.

 

Snapping. You can also do it with snapping.

I still have yet to see how someone can even theoretically fold space like a piece of paper. There still remains all of this matter in between, even moreso now that we include dark matter. It just doesn't fold the right way. It's like folding a giant piece of rubber. It just never meets up the same way. It just won't flatten out. Maybe it's just me.

NOthing is impossible

 

if you think logically everything is possilbe

How so?

You know, by ignoring the things which are not logically possible.

Snapping. You can also do it with snapping.

You speak from experience? Did you learn this in Rio last year?

Midgetwars,

if you really think

"NOthing is impossible

 

if you think logically everything is possilbe"

Perhaps you would like to take up the challenge about the square root of two?

whats the big deal with the square root of two?

It's basically impossible... at least in base 10.

It's still the same number in base 3 or base 29485. It'd be just as irrational.