Hope of exploring the universe

[Purephysics]

The universe is a fascinating place.

 

Physics has spent thousands of years trying to piece together its story, learn its intricacies, and discover its secrets. We have found stars, planets, and whole host of other galactic fancies.

 

If we are to ever get anywhere in space, we are going to need to be able to achieve massive speeds - close on light speed. We'll need these incredible velocities because of the distances involved (it would take us something near to 20 years just to reach pluto).

But The Theory of Relativity states that an objects mass increases as its velocity does; "An object that has a mass cannot travel at the speed of light. "As the object approaches the speed of light, the object's energy and momentum increase without bound." [http://en.wikipedia....mentum_equation]. So this means that even if we could accelerate a single atom to 2.997x10^8 m/s it would have an infinite mass, and therefore require an infinite energy source to propel it.

So will we ever be able to get anywhere in space?

Will we ever be able to achieve lights-speed or close to it?

And how could be do it, even if the mathematics of it weren't so impossible?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Purephysics

[the asinine cretin]

I'm encouraged by the very real likelihood that there are hundreds of Earth-like worlds within 30 ly of us. (By "Earth-like" I mean with an ESI greater than 0.8.) I like to imagine descendants with millennial lifespans who won't be so put off by terribly long journeys. And there are scenarios in which our descendants spread out into our little galactic neighborhood over the course of millions of years - no relativistic speeds required. Dyson, Sagan, and others have speculating about such scenarios. E.g., Gradual migration of "human" (post-human, I suppose) presence to the Kuiper belt, eventually the Oort cloud, and then seamlessly to the Oort cloud analogs of our nearest stars, and so on. Over the course of perhaps millions of years, a great interstellar diversification of life and civilization would occur. I will admit that I have my fingers crossed for something more Star-Treky.

Edited April 20, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[zapatos]

If we are to ever get anywhere in space, we are going to need to be able to achieve massive speeds - close on light speed. We'll need these incredible velocities because of the distances involved (it would take us something near to 20 years just to reach pluto).

You didn't tell us why we need to travel close to light speed. Why is it a problem if it takes a long time to get somewhere? You got something else to do? Shoot, we've been travelling through space for billions of years now without even trying. Why does travelling in a (more or less) straight line toward another location require a higher velocity than going around our star in a circle?

[Purephysics]

Zapatos I feel your point to be a little irrelevant considering the contex.

 

Sure we have been around our sun for billions of years, but speed is relative and so are distance and time. We aren't travelling anywhere as humans, we are just sitting on a planet that happens to be moving.

 

The case of velocity is very important when you want to go somewhere that is very far away. One of the the closest stars from us (Proxima Centurai I think) would take us 100,000 years to get to at currently sustainable speeds. That's completely unfeasable. And pretty useless too.

 

I'm reading a paper about "scouting the spectrum for interstellar travellers" (Juan Carlos Garcia-Escartin) you can find it on arXiv.org. Hoping to get a different perspective.

 

But speed is very important if you want to go a long, long way from point a to point b for instance. Afterall t = V/d (in a basic sense).

 

Star-Trekky would be nice, a Star Gate would be much easier though. We have found that stable worm-holes can exist without exotic particles (NewScientist 10 March 2012 No.2855). So that's a step in the right direction I guess.

[zapatos]

Zapatos I feel your point to be a little irrelevant considering the contex.

 

Sure we have been around our sun for billions of years, but speed is relative and so are distance and time. We aren't travelling anywhere as humans, we are just sitting on a planet that happens to be moving.

 

The case of velocity is very important when you want to go somewhere that is very far away. One of the the closest stars from us (Proxima Centurai I think) would take us 100,000 years to get to at currently sustainable speeds. That's completely unfeasable. And pretty useless too.

 

I'm reading a paper about "scouting the spectrum for interstellar travellers" (Juan Carlos Garcia-Escartin) you can find it on arXiv.org. Hoping to get a different perspective.

 

But speed is very important if you want to go a long, long way from point a to point b for instance. Afterall t = V/d (in a basic sense).

 

Star-Trekky would be nice, a Star Gate would be much easier though. We have found that stable worm-holes can exist without exotic particles (NewScientist 10 March 2012 No.2855). So that's a step in the right direction I guess.

So the reason we need to travel near light speed is because it is important? Ok, so I have another question.

 

Why is it important to travel near light speed?

Edited April 20, 2012 by zapatos

[questionposter]

The universe is a fascinating place.

 

Physics has spent thousands of years trying to piece together its story, learn its intricacies, and discover its secrets. We have found stars, planets, and whole host of other galactic fancies.

 

If we are to ever get anywhere in space, we are going to need to be able to achieve massive speeds - close on light speed. We'll need these incredible velocities because of the distances involved (it would take us something near to 20 years just to reach pluto).

But The Theory of Relativity states that an objects mass increases as its velocity does; "An object that has a mass cannot travel at the speed of light. "As the object approaches the speed of light, the object's energy and momentum increase without bound." [http://en.wikipedia....mentum_equation]. So this means that even if we could accelerate a single atom to 2.997x10^8 m/s it would have an infinite mass, and therefore require an infinite energy source to propel it.

 

 

So will we ever be able to get anywhere in space?

Will we ever be able to achieve lights-speed or close to it?

And how could be do it, even if the mathematics of it weren't so impossible?

 

There are a few ways scientists expect we can get from point A to point B faster than light. One is wormholes, which have been udner attack lately. Another is moving the fabric of space itself, since there isn't really a limit government how fast the fabric of space can move. And then there's quantum teleportation or jumping, which is extending the probability of an object or the complex manifolds of the fabric of space to a location you want. Then there's also that warp drive thing where you can curve space in a way to travel faster than light. I don't know exactly how you can travel faster than light just because space is curved, I guess you could describe it as constantly cutting the distance between two points by bending the space between them, and thus you don't actually cover more distance than light and don't break relativity, but still arrive at a faster time.

 

 

So the reason we need to travel near light speed is because it is important? Ok, so I have another question.

 

Why is it important to travel near light speed?

 

In less than 5 billion years the sun's energy will be used up, and in only 10 million years its possible Earth may be flung into the center of the galactic collision between Andremeda and our galaxy, right into Saggitarius A.

Edited April 20, 2012 by questionposter

[zapatos]

In less than 5 billion years the sun's energy will be used up, and in only 10 million years its possible Earth may be flung into the center of the galactic collision between Andremeda and our galaxy, right into Saggitarius A.

So let's say we leave right now, travelling at 6 miles per second, heading for another star. That give us 5 billion years to get there before our star's energy is used up.

 

On the other hand, we won't be using any energy from the sun after a fairly short amount of time anyway. After 100 years, do we really care if the sun has run out of energy?

 

In the event of a collission of galaxies, it is unlikely there will be any actual physical contact.

 

So again, why is it important to get there quickly?

[questionposter]

So let's say we leave right now, travelling at 6 miles per second, heading for another star. That give us 5 billion years to get there before our star's energy is used up.

 

On the other hand, we won't be using any energy from the sun after a fairly short amount of time anyway. After 100 years, do we really care if the sun has run out of energy?

 

In the event of a collission of galaxies, it is unlikely there will be any actual physical contact.

 

So again, why is it important to get there quickly?

 

Even if we leave now, we still don't know for sure that planet will be able to support life. What if it turns out its not right in some ways? Spectral analysis can't tell us everything. And what if a giant meteor smashes into it on the way there? And where are we going to get the energy to fuel a giant rocket-ship for 5 billion years?

And even if there won't be physical contact, Earth could still be flung into the center of the collision where may bursts of high energy occur as well as very large areas of super-heated gas and many black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs, all of which could destroy Earth and the sun.

Edited April 20, 2012 by questionposter

[Purephysics]

I had heard about the wormhole things (NewScientist) and that sounded like it could go somewhere. Why concentrate on creating a potentially infinite energy source to power said lightspeed vessels when the as wer may already be within our grasp.

I also read somewhere about the folding of space-time to "jump" across distances. Which sounds ridiculously amazing if I'm honest.

 

It is important because we can shorten travel time, that's what it's all about. Why wait 100,000 years to get somewhere if you could do it in 100 years or less. It's also not how much horsepower you've got, but the route you take. It's important to get there quickly so we can learn more about our universe in less time, laziness doesn't breed progress. It wasn't called the Space *Race* for no reason.

 

To be honest all the "sun will burn up in x million years" etc etc, is pretty irrelevant to us. We'll all be long dead in 100 years or less. I really couldn't care less what happens to our planet in 5billion years. I want to explore space now!

 

Maybe the folding space idea and wormholes are the way to do that, it's seems oddly more feasible.

[zapatos]

I had heard about the wormhole things (NewScientist) and that sounded like it could go somewhere. Why concentrate on creating a potentially infinite energy source to power said lightspeed vessels when the as wer may already be within our grasp.

I also read somewhere about the folding of space-time to "jump" across distances. Which sounds ridiculously amazing if I'm honest.

 

It is important because we can shorten travel time, that's what it's all about. Why wait 100,000 years to get somewhere if you could do it in 100 years or less. It's also not how much horsepower you've got, but the route you take. It's important to get there quickly so we can learn more about our universe in less time, laziness doesn't breed progress. It wasn't called the Space *Race* for no reason.

 

To be honest all the "sun will burn up in x million years" etc etc, is pretty irrelevant to us. We'll all be long dead in 100 years or less. I really couldn't care less what happens to our planet in 5billion years. I want to explore space now!

 

Maybe the folding space idea and wormholes are the way to do that, it's seems oddly more feasible.

Ok, I can see I'm in the wrong thread when space travel via wormholes and folding space should be our concentration, due to the fact that infinite energy sources and lightspeed vessels aren't yet in our grasp.

 

Just for the record though, if we can manage to get there in 100 years rather than 100,000...

You'll still be dead.

Just sayin'.

[questionposter]

Ok, I can see I'm in the wrong thread when space travel via wormholes and folding space should be our concentration, due to the fact that infinite energy sources and lightspeed vessels aren't yet in our grasp.

 

Just for the record though, if we can manage to get there in 100 years rather than 100,000...

You'll still be dead.

Just sayin'.

 

You should do more research on these theories, because these theories don't break relativity. The only thing is that I think wormholes for some reason defy the law of the conservation of energy, but you can theoretically get from point A to point B faster than light, and you can do it by folding space. Folding space in a certain way cuts the distance between two opposite points in the curvature that would normally follow a straight line, and thus you do not travel a greater distance in the same amount of time as light, but still arrive faster because your cutting the distance it takes for you to get to your destination, it's a pretty elegant solution if we can create it.

 

Also, many engineers and scientists are working on way to store humans. There's even animals that can naturally remain dormant for virtually indefinite periods, such as waterbears and certain frogs that can freeze.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[zapatos]

You should do more research on these theories, because these theories don't break relativity. The only thing is that I think wormholes for some reason defy the law of the conservation of energy, but you can theoretically get from point A to point B faster than light, and you can do it by folding space. Folding space in a certain way cuts the distance between two opposite points in the curvature that would normally follow a straight line, and thus you do not travel a greater distance in the same amount of time as light, but still arrive faster because your cutting the distance it takes for you to get to your destination, it's a pretty elegant solution if we can create it.

 

Also, many engineers and scientists are working on way to store humans. There's even animals that can naturally remain dormant for virtually indefinite periods, such as waterbears and certain frogs that can freeze.

My primary focus on entering this discussion was to find out why high speed travel was either 'needed' or 'important', and following that why it was considered 'lazy' if moving at a slower speed.

 

If we travel to another star via any conventional means via any conceivable energy source developed, no one who starts the trip will end it. It will take multiple generations to get anywhere. Which is no big deal. As I said, humans have been travelling through space since humans have been around. It's not as if we'd be sitting at the window seat waiting to arrive at our destination. We would continue to live and work just as we do now.

 

You also don't need to fuel this giant ship for billions on years for travel. It is not like being in a car with your foot on the gas peddle the whole time. Once you are up to speed, other than things like course corrections, you turn the engines off. If you are talking about travelling a significant portion of the speed of light, you will need much more energy that just what is needed for day to day operations.

 

Also, being hit by a giant meteor is much less a problem at low speeds than high speeds. At 1/2 c I'd hate be be hit by a grain of sand.

 

I'm not sure what it means to 'fold space' or whether or not it is possible to make any reasonable predictions about how we can travel from one specific location to another by doing so. As I'm not familiar with it though I obviously can't say much about it.

 

Talking about travelling by worm holes may be fun, but if we were told we had to leave the earth in the next 100 years, no one would be working on the worm hole method.

[questionposter]

My primary focus on entering this discussion was to find out why high speed travel was either 'needed' or 'important', and following that why it was considered 'lazy' if moving at a slower speed.

 

If we travel to another star via any conventional means via any conceivable energy source developed, no one who starts the trip will end it. It will take multiple generations to get anywhere. Which is no big deal. As I said, humans have been travelling through space since humans have been around. It's not as if we'd be sitting at the window seat waiting to arrive at our destination. We would continue to live and work just as we do now.

 

You also don't need to fuel this giant ship for billions on years for travel. It is not like being in a car with your foot on the gas peddle the whole time. Once you are up to speed, other than things like course corrections, you turn the engines off. If you are talking about travelling a significant portion of the speed of light, you will need much more energy that just what is needed for day to day operations.

 

Also, being hit by a giant meteor is much less a problem at low speeds than high speeds. At 1/2 c I'd hate be be hit by a grain of sand.

 

I'm not sure what it means to 'fold space' or whether or not it is possible to make any reasonable predictions about how we can travel from one specific location to another by doing so. As I'm not familiar with it though I obviously can't say much about it.

 

Talking about travelling by worm holes may be fun, but if we were told we had to leave the earth in the next 100 years, no one would be working on the worm hole method.

 

I guess your fuel point is something to consider, but it may require constant energy to fuel something like a warp-drive, since I don't really know if "the fabric of space wants to stay distorted unless a force acts upon it" is a true statement. We probably don't "need" to have faster than light travel right now, but if it still takes a while to get to stars, it will be important to make sure they actually do have habitable planets.

 

also,

 

http://en.wikipedia....ster-than-light

 

also, http://en.wikipedia....ive_(Star_Trek)

 

it says they are traveling faster than light, but it's not actually possible to travel more distance than it if your distorting the fabric of space like that, I think it just means you reach a destination in a faster time. It's sort of like a miniature but constant wormhole.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[finster]

The universe is a fascinating place.

 

Physics has spent thousands of years trying to piece together its story, learn its intricacies, and discover its secrets. We have found stars, planets, and whole host of other galactic fancies.

 

If we are to ever get anywhere in space, we are going to need to be able to achieve massive speeds - close on light speed. We'll need these incredible velocities because of the distances involved (it would take us something near to 20 years just to reach pluto).

But The Theory of Relativity states that an objects mass increases as its velocity does; "An object that has a mass cannot travel at the speed of light. "As the object approaches the speed of light, the object's energy and momentum increase without bound." [http://en.wikipedia....mentum_equation]. So this means that even if we could accelerate a single atom to 2.997x10^8 m/s it would have an infinite mass, and therefore require an infinite energy source to propel it.

 

 

So will we ever be able to get anywhere in space?

Will we ever be able to achieve lights-speed or close to it?

And how could be do it, even if the mathematics of it weren't so impossible?

 

 

I think I've figured out how we can explore space. We don't need speed, we need smarts. Here's how we do it:

 

Large floating biospheres. Fleets of them. Instead of thinking about speed. We think about survival. If we can survive in space in floating self-sufficient biospheres, we can take all the time we want in getting from star to star.

 

We build several fleets of ships. Each fleet headed by a few Battlestar Galactica sized mother ships carrying thousands of people each. Plus other smaller support craft. We build the large ships in near earth orbit, populated them with crew and provisions and test their livability and onboard life and bio-life support systems while in earth orbit. These ships will be floating self contained biospheres that orbit around stars for solar energy at just the right distance and collect sunlight through massive windows for their on board farms. Food could not only be grown on them but cloned as a second food production option to increase output. The plants on board, in turn produce oxygen for the ship's crew. These ships are designed as biospheres because their purpose is to be the home of generation after generation of crew. They are artificial Earths. A fleet of these ships not only increases our survival chances but if a ship in the fleet fails people can be shuffled onto other ships. Once we are satisfied the systems work, that the onboard bio-spheres are self supporting and humans can survive on them indefinitely, the question is, how do these ships that depend on solar energy to run their systems get to the next nearest star? The distances are too far. We'll never reach the speeds required before the ships run out of energy to power the artificial lights the Hydroponic gardens need to survive.

 

So here's my solution: We plot our route long before we leave and we send out ahead unmanned support ships, stocked with the future supplies and energy we will need. We send many of them out ahead of us but moving at a much slower speeds than we will be going so that we will eventually overtake them at calculated points along the trip. When enough of these unmanned support ships are on course toward the destination star, our biosphere ships leave for the same star, following the course of the unmanned ships. Basically, our support ships are a 19,000 year supply chain all the way to the next closest star. As our biosphere ships progress over the generations towards the destination stars, the moments we overtake and reach the support ships will be closely timed to the energy demands and supply needs of our crewed ships over the 19,000 year, multigenerational journey.

 

And that's how we do it. Ok, you may now worship me.

 

Of course, we better make sure we have a lot of vitamin D on board because we're going to be without natural sunlight for a long, long time.

 

 

 

My primary focus on entering this discussion was to find out why high speed travel was either 'needed' or 'important', and following that why it was considered 'lazy' if moving at a slower speed.

 

If we travel to another star via any conventional means via any conceivable energy source developed, no one who starts the trip will end it. It will take multiple generations to get anywhere. Which is no big deal. As I said, humans have been travelling through space since humans have been around. It's not as if we'd be sitting at the window seat waiting to arrive at our destination. We would continue to live and work just as we do now.

 

You also don't need to fuel this giant ship for billions on years for travel. It is not like being in a car with your foot on the gas peddle the whole time. Once you are up to speed, other than things like course corrections, you turn the engines off. If you are talking about travelling a significant portion of the speed of light, you will need much more energy that just what is needed for day to day operations.

 

 

 

Oh, I should have read the whole thread before I posted. I see I hit on the same idea.

Edited April 21, 2012 by finster

[questionposter]

I think I've figured out how we can explore space. We don't need speed, we need smarts. Here's how we do it:

 

Large floating biospheres. Fleets of them. Instead of thinking about speed. We think about survival. If we can survive in space in floating self-sufficient biospheres, we can take all the time we want in getting from star to star.

 

We build several fleets of ships. Each fleet headed by a few Battlestar Galactica sized mother ships carrying thousands of people each. Plus other smaller support craft. We build the large ships in near earth orbit, populated them with crew and provisions and test their livability and onboard life and bio-life support systems while in earth orbit. These ships will be floating self contained biospheres that orbit around stars for solar energy at just the right distance and collect sunlight through massive windows for their on board farms. Food could not only be grown on them but cloned as a second food production option to increase output. The plants on board, in turn produce oxygen for the ship's crew. These ships are designed as biospheres because their purpose is to be the home of generation after generation of crew. They are artificial Earths. A fleet of these ships not only increases our survival chances but if a ship in the fleet fails people can be shuffled onto other ships. Once we are satisfied the systems work, that the onboard bio-spheres are self supporting and humans can survive on them indefinitely, the question is, how do these ships that depend on solar energy to run their systems get to the next nearest star? The distances are too far. We'll never reach the speeds required before the ships run out of energy to power the artificial lights the Hydroponic gardens need to survive.

 

So here's my solution: We plot our route long before we leave and we send out ahead unmanned support ships, stocked with the future supplies and energy we will need. We send many of them out ahead of us but moving at a much slower speeds than we will be going so that we will eventually overtake them at calculated points along the trip. When enough of these unmanned support ships are on course toward the destination star, our biosphere ships leave for the same star, following the course of the unmanned ships. Basically, our support ships are a 19,000 year supply chain all the way to the next closest star. As our biosphere ships progress over the generations towards the destination stars, the moments we overtake and reach the support ships will be closely timed to the energy demands and supply needs of our crewed ships over the 19,000 year, multigenerational journey.

 

And that's how we do it.

 

Of course, we better make sure we have a lot of vitamin D on board because we're going to be without natural sunlight for a long, long time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I should have read the whole thread before I posted. I see I hit on the same idea.

 

Why don't we just move the entire Earth while we're at it? It has plenty of thermal energy, so...

[Purephysics]

Is it just me or has this descended into the realms of Star-Trek? "Warp Drives" "BattleStar Galactica".... Why don't we just see I we can dig up a StarGate....

 

Bio-orbs? That's an interesting idea, thinking long term.

 

Light Speed travel or getting close to it, is one of the few ways we will be able to explore space. We don't have the life spans to travel by the usual speeds we can acheive in space. Like I mentioned before, it take near 20 years just to get out of our solar system, and that's still a distance measurable by usual means. We're not talking lightyears here. Speed is important. It either has to be speed or a short-cut, no other way are we going to be able to do it.

 

Zapatos; I think you male a valid point when you said "if we had to lear earth in the next 100 years...". You're right, no-one would be looking at worm-hole theory, they'd be looking at great big stardrives, rocket boosters, and ion-thrusters. Which is only one side of the coin.

[finster]

Is it just me or has this descended into the realms of Star-Trek? "Warp Drives" "BattleStar Galactica".... Why don't we just see I we can dig up a StarGate....

 

Bio-orbs? That's an interesting idea, thinking long term.

 

Light Speed travel or getting close to it, is one of the few ways we will be able to explore space. We don't have the life spans to travel by the usual speeds we can acheive in space. Like I mentioned before, it take near 20 years just to get out of our solar system, and that's still a distance measurable by usual means. We're not talking lightyears here. Speed is important. It either has to be speed or a short-cut, no other way are we going to be able to do it.

 

Zapatos; I think you male a valid point when you said "if we had to lear earth in the next 100 years...". You're right, no-one would be looking at worm-hole theory, they'd be looking at great big stardrives, rocket boosters, and ion-thrusters. Which is only one side of the coin.

 

I knew I shouldn't have used the term "Battlestar Galactica". I knew you guys would see only that. Did you even read the rest?

 

Let me ask you a question: If a biosphere is possible. And plant growth by artificial light is possible. Then why is such a concept as floating space biospheres such an impossible concept to you?

 

I really hope this place isn't competitive to the point that people just pan other people's ideas just because they are not their own. That would be really sad.

 

It's 12:12am here. Off to sleep.

Edited April 21, 2012 by finster

[questionposter]

I knew I shouldn't have used the term "Battlestar Galactica". I knew you guys would see only that. Did you even read the rest?

 

Let me ask you a question: If a biosphere is possible. And plant growth by artificial light is possible. Then why is such a concept as floating space biospheres such an impossible concept to you?

 

I really hope this place isn't competitive to the point that people just pan other people's ideas just because they are not their own. That would be really sad.

 

It's 12:12am here. Off to sleep.

 

A bio-sphere just seems kind of unreasonable seeing as how we can't mimic high gravity. Doing such would seem to violate physics anyway because it would increase the amount of potential energy something has without actually adding any energy, thus violating physics. But maybe there's some unexplored way yet. There's also the problem if that it takes unimaginable amounts of energy to both construct and move something that large and complex, and I doubt many people would really be on board for leaving an entire beautiful planet behind.

Before we build giant space-ships, we need some way to actually construct them.

Space ships might look good in the movies, but realistically you'd have to cram everything into a small space, because it would take so much more energy to move a space-ship that comfortable and spacious. I don't know how a bio-sphere would be hospitable.

Perhaps though, cryogenics can solve this problem if it can be perfected.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[Sato]

If you were traveling at c the time it would take to travel a distance would only be a fraction of what it is normally due to time dilation.

[questionposter]

If you were traveling at c the time it would take to travel a distance would only be a fraction of what it is normally due to time dilation.

 

I don't...know...if it works quite like that...Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying traveling at light reduces the distance between two objects? I mean, you would get to a place faster, but not because the distance decreased...

Time dilation refers to the frame rate of time based on the frame of reference. If you traveled at light, then you would still travel at 186,000 miles per second, but the time of outside objects would stop flowing to you, since relative to you, you are traveling at the same speed as time and therefore see no difference in the rate of time-flow. To an outside observer, I don't remember exactly, I think they would observe that your time is stopped and therefore that you haven't aged.

 

Maybe your referring to length dilation? But I think that increases the distance, not shrinks it, otherwise you actually would be able to see things traveling faster than light.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[zapatos]

Is it just me or has this descended into the realms of Star-Trek? "Warp Drives" "BattleStar Galactica".... Why don't we just see I we can dig up a StarGate....

No, this has not descended into the realm of Star-Trek. It started out that way by you in your first post and we are trying to bring it back back down to earth. Lightspeed travel will never be the solution. You will never be able to supply the necessary energy.

 

I knew I shouldn't have used the term "Battlestar Galactica". I knew you guys would see only that. Did you even read the rest?

No, he didn't read yours or mine.

 

I really hope this place isn't competitive to the point that people just pan other people's ideas just because they are not their own. That would be really sad.

Not at all. This place is usually a great place to kick ideas around as long as people are logical and ready to support any assertions they make.

 

A bio-sphere just seems kind of unreasonable seeing as how we can't mimic high gravity.

 

Actually I suspect that mimicking gravity would be relatively easy. Imagine if a ship were built like a barbell. If you started the ship were rotating like a twirling baton you could make whatever 'artificial' gravity you like at either end.

[questionposter]

Actually I suspect that mimicking gravity would be relatively easy. Imagine if a ship were built like a barbell. If you started the ship were rotating like a twirling baton you could make whatever 'artificial' gravity you like at either end.

 

Yeah I guess rotating it would help and it would add potential energy to the object, I could have swore there was a problem with it rotating though, I remember for some physics class we were exploring how interstellar travel would work, and I remember there being some drawback to using that instead of mimicking gravity...

Basically, there's drawbacks to everything, but I guess rotating it would be a good solution.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[Sato]

I don't...know...if it works quite like that...

Time dilation refers to the frame rate of time based on the frame of reference. If you traveled at light, then you would still travel at 186,000 miles per second, but the time of outside objects would stop flowing to you, since relative to you, you are traveling at the same speed as time and therefore see no difference in the rate of time-flow. To an outside observer, I don't remember exactly, I think they would observe that your time is stopped and therefore that you haven't aged.

 

Maybe your referring to length dilation? But I think that increases the distance, not stretches it.

Good job, you tried to interpret my answer. Since the time slows for the object traveling at c, they'd be experiencing maybe 20 years rather than 80 years.

[questionposter]

Good job, you tried to interpret my answer. Since the time slows for the object traveling at c, they'd be experiencing maybe 20 years rather than 80 years.

 

That's not how it works though, that doesn't effect the physical distance. If I travel at the speed of light in a round trip for 1000 years, I still travel 1000 light years of distance, but the world has changed because my flow of time wasn't as fast as those on Earth. If something is 1000 light years away, it takes 1000 years for that light to reach us.

If a star is 80 light years away, then no matter what, if I travel at the speed of light, it will take me 80 light years, but I won't age as fast as people on Earth since relative to them, time is flowing, but relative to me time isn't flowing.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[Sato]

That's not how it works though, that doesn't effect the physical distance. If I travel at the speed of light in a round trip for 1000 years, I still travel 1000 light years of distance, but the world has changed because my flow of time wasn't as fast as those on Earth.

Is it so difficult for you to comprehend a simple response?

I said that the time changes not the distance.

If you were traveling at c the time it would take...

The time it takes decreases from their perspective while they still travel the same distance.

Are you still confused?

 

Edit for: Removing extra newlines.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Sato