Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 3
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:55:08 AM EDT
[#1]

Quoted:


The Royal Astronomy Society 'proved' that a moving vehicle that exceeded 32mph would have all the oxygen sucked from it and the occupants would die from hypoxia. Was one of the great raging debates during the advent of the steam engine locomotive. Always think of that when told of the speed of light barrier.





Yep.

At the end of the 19th century, the "death of science" was proclaimed. Everybody thought they knew everything, and it was stupid to enter science because only the details were left. The structure of the atom was known, how the universe worked was known, all that.

And then suddenly that stopped being true.

Say somthing is impossble, and somebody will do it. Science knows a lot, but it doesn't know everything and the quickest way to look bad is to claim something can't be done.


RikWriter is right about us talking about this stuff.  It would be like a bunch of guys in 1860s talking about what power plants in 1960 would be like. Kinda hard when you probably can't concieve of "nuclear fission".

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:56:06 AM EDT
[#2]
And at 1st we could only go supersonic in a single seater aircraft.


But if the Speed of Light isn't an upper limit for everything, then there is hope.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:56:52 AM EDT
[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

They will never find a way to break the speed of light.





WE ALREADY HAVE BROKEN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.


Do a google for "quantum tunneling"



But its only useful for sending data, just like quantum teleportation.  No one has done it with anything that has a measurable mass, only with electrons.



So is it conceivable that a few exobytes of massless data can be sampled and recompiled into a complex living object?

Why transport matter when you can simply reassemble it in another location?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:01:51 AM EDT
[#4]
God told me we are sentenced to remain in our own solar system until we eliminate Democrats and Socialists. Seems he doesn't want to pollute the Galaxy with our trash.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:03:24 AM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:

So is it conceivable that a few exobytes of massless data can be sampled and recompiled into a complex living object?

Why transport matter when you can simply reassemble it in another location?



First we'd have to invent the Heisenberg Compensator, the Pattern Buffer, and the Plasma Phase Coil.

But that's easy.....



ETA: Oh! Let's not forget the Infinite Improbability Drive. VERY chic!
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:04:56 AM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
ha!  Star travel is easy!




Flying through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops boy!  Without precise calculations you could fly right through a star or wind up too close to a supernova.  That would end your trip real quick!



I figured somebody beat me to it!

Personally, I think the Bistromath Drive has great theoretical potential.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:05:11 AM EDT
[#7]
FTL travel may someday be possible, in a thousand years or so. But meanwhile we'll continue to explore and settle space. Mars and the moon being the most ideal outside of the Earth. Which leads to some interesting questions.

1.  Say in one or two hundred years, these lunar/Martian colonies may want independence for the Earth. The prospect for a space war is certainly plauslible considering human nature.

2. Space will become dominated by North American/European stock. Not likely too many Haitians will ever find their way into space.  Will the UN demand that we share the resourses and riches which we exploit from space, after we bore the cost and risks?

3. If you are born on the moon, will you ever be able to visit Earth? considering you grew up in 1/6 gravity?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:52:09 AM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I know about the concept. The trouble is that the energy requirements are still enormous, and there's no way to stop when you get to your destination.

Sending the Space Shuttle Orbiter to Alpha Centauri in 200 years, based on pure kinetic energy, would require around a Gigawatt of energy production for 50 years. It would take a major nuclear plant to make that kind of energy, and that's without accounting for inefficiencies.

I don't think it's going to happen until we can find a way around Newton's Laws, and some new power generation technology would help too. I do think it'd be more effective to spend the money on research towards those ends then in building things like that with our current technology.



ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/figure12.jpg

Actually, if you'd have followed the link I gave you, that problem has been solved.  I never said it's going to be easy, just that it can be done, and much of the theory is already on the table.

Read the book, it will give you insight on this...



Interesting website, I thought it was an Amazon link when I glanced at it before.

So, they plan to have the laser travel some number of light-years, bounce off of a mirror going at half the speed of light or so (accelerating it even more) and shine on the rest of the mirror craft to slow it down, maintaining the focus through the acceleration of both mirrors for a year and a half. Sounds a bit unlikely, but I'll give it to them.

Meanwhile, 43,000 terawatts That's only 100,000 times the average electric power generation for the entire United States. I don't think we could generate that much power with today's technology even with every person on the planet working on power plants. I'm as optimistic as anyone about the future of the human race, but interstellar travel just isn't going to happen without some major breakthroughs in propulsion and power generation.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:06:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Mans progress is limited only by his imagination. Unfortunately, his imagination is still confined to thinking inside the box. He will have to evolve more to develop the imagination, and then the solution, to travel to the stars by means not yet imagined. We're too young, but in time...
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:08:33 PM EDT
[#10]
[GunnyHartman]

IF GOD WANTED YOU UP THERE HE WOULD HAVE MIRACLED YOUR ASS UP THERE, WOULDN'T HE?

[/GunnyHartman]

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 4:35:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Sheesh, none of the trekkies in here got my earlier reference.  
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 4:40:41 PM EDT
[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible with technology currently availible or concevable.  (Not that it doesn't mean it can't be done, just that it can't be done now)

Travelling to other stars is possible with technology availible today.  It's just that the cost of doing it is so huge that humankind cannot attempt it.  It will probably only be possible when society has evolved to the point where a substantial portion of our labor will be able to be directed at spaceflight.

Check out this book The Starflight Handbook.  It will explain many of the technologies that are availible today to travel to other star systems.

(I had a post on project ORION at one point in GD... I don't know where it's at, but if someone could find it, that technology could yeild a Max speed of about .03 C, which could get you to another star in ~150 years - not fast, but a conceivable journey...  There are fusion technologies that could get you into the .12 C range, and that would allow for journeys in the 50-75 year range...)



Unfortunately, the energy and propellant requirements for that don't look too good. Energy requirement to send a canister the size of the space shuttle cargo pay past the nearest star in 900 years, using anything resembling current rocket technology (remember to square it if you plan on stopping at the star):






A Bussard Ramjet is a solution to your fuel weight problem, though we are a long way's off with this kind of technology.  Actually, we have the basic technology already, it's doing it on the scale you would need to power an interstellar spacecraft that is going to need developing.

Take a look here: The Bussard Ramjet
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 7:37:38 PM EDT
[#13]

Quoted:
A Bussard Ramjet is a solution to your fuel weight problem, though we are a long way's off with this kind of technology.  Actually, we have the basic technology already, it's doing it on the scale you would need to power an interstellar spacecraft that is going to need developing.

Take a look here: The Bussard Ramjet



I haven't run the numbers for that myself, but from what I've read, gathering enough mass to be useful is extremely difficult. Even that site admits that it would take an enormous field to collect much of any Hydrogen, much less enough to use as fuel for rocket engines.

Like I've said before, I'm optimistic about us exploring the stars eventually, but we have to make fundamental breakthroughs in propulsion and energy generation before we can seriously think about it.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:09:09 PM EDT
[#14]
faster than light speed impossible? Only in theory.

but then again i think theory sez that there is a particle that may exist naturaly goes faster than the speed of light. I believe it's called a takion(sp?)
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:22:13 PM EDT
[#15]
Untill we start thinking about going faster than the speed of light as a beginning point rather than a destination we probably will never even achieve (manned) hypersonic flight speeds.

Nothing is impossible.

Great thread!
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:25:29 PM EDT
[#16]

Quoted:
Sheesh, none of the trekkies in here got my earlier reference.  



i got it gunbert, but i just got here


tesseracts are the key  
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:54:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Power generation... say, what's that yellow thing out there in the center of the system? The one generating googles of terawatts? Oh its the Sun, which generates the yellow band where the source of our strength lies. How hard would it be to arrange a Dyson sphere of sorts to collect and transmit the necessary energy for whatever purpose is necessary? Its not like that would drain it and turn it red. A friend once said to always look for alternatives.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:10:16 PM EDT
[#18]

Quoted:
Power generation... say, what's that yellow thing out there in the center of the system? The one generating googles of terawatts? Oh its the Sun, which generates the yellow band where the source of our strength lies. How hard would it be to arrange a Dyson sphere of sorts to collect and transmit the necessary energy for whatever purpose is necessary? Its not like that would drain it and turn it red. A friend once said to always look for alternatives.




You're moving in reverse!  Any civilization that could build a Dyson Sphere will surely have faster than light travel.  They'd have to; there isn't enough matter in our solar system to build a structure that could enclose the sun.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 2:19:45 AM EDT
[#19]
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 3:01:28 AM EDT
[#20]

Quoted:
Sheesh, none of the trekkies in here got my earlier reference.  



Yes we did!
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 3:15:56 AM EDT
[#21]

Everything that can be invented has been invented.. -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US
Patent Office, 1899




640K ought to be enough for anybody.. -- Bill Gates, Chairman, Microsoft, 1981



The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.. -- Admiral William Leahy, Manhattan Project, 1943
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 3:30:01 AM EDT
[#22]
There is no reason we HAVE to go fast to get to other stars though, nothing wrong with going slow if you can build a craft that can have self sustained life.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 4:20:00 AM EDT
[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

They will never find a way to break the speed of light.





WE ALREADY HAVE BROKEN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.


Faster than the speed of light?


superluminal speeds


Portions of this entry contributed by Waldyr A. Rodrigues, Jr.

A superluminal phenomenon is a frame of reference traveling with a speed greater than the speed of light c. There is a putative class of particles dubbed tachyons which are able to travel faster than light




Uh, I fail to see how poining a link to the definition of superluminal proves that we can travel FTL.

Tachyons either do not exist or can not interact with matter. If they existed, they would have imaginary mass (square root of negative number) and exist at every point in space time.

Quantum entanglement is FTL, but you cannot send mass or information using it.

Quantum tunneling has nothing to do with FTL travel, it is a probabilistic concept of how mass can break potential energy barriers given enough attempts.

You can go faster then the local speed of light, i.e. cerenkov radiation. But this is splitting hairs and if that was what you were referring to then STFU.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 4:29:56 AM EDT
[#24]
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 4:37:51 AM EDT
[#25]

Quoted:

Power generation... say, what's that yellow thing out there in the center of the system? The one generating googles of terawatts? Oh its the Sun, which generates the yellow band where the source of our strength lies. How hard would it be to arrange a Dyson sphere of sorts to collect and transmit the necessary energy for whatever purpose is necessary? Its not like that would drain it and turn it red. A friend once said to always look for alternatives.





RingWorld is easier.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 4:39:07 AM EDT
[#26]

Quoted:

But this is splitting hairs and if that was what you were referring to then STFU.




The point was, the speed of light was given as a hard limit, and I was trying to show it's not.


If there are better ways to show this, please post.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 4:42:55 AM EDT
[#27]
Long ago, the core of the Galaxy exploded.   The blast wave is heading toward us, and will destroy everything when it arrives.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:04:02 AM EDT
[#28]

Quoted:
FTL travel may someday be possible, in a thousand years or so. But meanwhile we'll continue to explore and settle space. Mars and the moon being the most ideal outside of the Earth. Which leads to some interesting questions.

1.  Say in one or two hundred years, these lunar/Martian colonies may want independence for the Earth. The prospect for a space war is certainly plauslible considering human nature.

2. Space will become dominated by North American/European stock. Not likely too many Haitians will ever find their way into space.  Will the UN demand that we share the resourses and riches which we exploit from space, after we bore the cost and risks?

3. If you are born on the moon, will you ever be able to visit Earth? considering you grew up in 1/6 gravity?



Are you kidding?  Can you imagine space baseball WITHOUT a Dominican?  
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:17:16 AM EDT
[#29]
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:41:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Regarding the experiments that have light traveling faster than c- this is correct, you can have electromagnetic waves at specific frequencies travel faster than in a vacuum. But, you can't use that to send information - to send a signal you have to send more than one frequency (even if it's just a single-frequency pulse, starting and stopping it introduces other frequencies), and in all practical situations the multi-frequency signal will not go faster than c.

There is a discusson at http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Dispersion_(optics)

I think colonization of the solar system and beyond is inevitable, given the accelerating pace of technological development. However I think it's a long ways off. I bet it will be 150 years before a human calls any place other than the Earth "home". Maybe 500 years before anyone leaves the solar system.

I'd put better than even odds that someone will set foot on Mars during my lifetime though (just barely - I'm 23 now).
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:51:44 AM EDT
[#31]

Quoted:

I thought we were behind the blast front? I thought the universe was still expanding?




We are, and it is.



However, this premise is that the black hole at the center of our galaxy has exploded and their is a blast wave from that headed our wave.   Think regional event, not universal
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 6:49:17 AM EDT
[#32]

Quoted:
However, this premise is that the black hole at the center of our galaxy has exploded and their is a blast wave from that headed our wave.   Think regional event, not universal



Tweak - read "Ringworld" (and the other books in the 'Known Universe" series) for an explaination of this idea.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 7:00:14 AM EDT
[#33]
Only a Dyson sphere that was perhaps 1 atom thick could possibly be built out of all the known matter in the solar system.

Constructing an artificial sun that lasts 10-20 years would be far easier.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 7:10:07 AM EDT
[#34]

Quoted:
<snip>
But this is splitting hairs and if that was what you were referring to then STFU.





Man, what is your problem?  This is a great thread, please don't turn it into a pissing match.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 7:55:13 AM EDT
[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Power generation... say, what's that yellow thing out there in the center of the system? The one generating googles of terawatts? Oh its the Sun, which generates the yellow band where the source of our strength lies. How hard would it be to arrange a Dyson sphere of sorts to collect and transmit the necessary energy for whatever purpose is necessary? Its not like that would drain it and turn it red. A friend once said to always look for alternatives.





RingWorld is easier.



Space habitats are easier still.
Stanford Torii


Bernal Spheres


O'Neil Cylinders


Link Posted: 10/6/2004 8:09:43 AM EDT
[#36]
I don't believe that faster than light travel is possible. Not everything is "possible" and FTL travel is a far cry from exceeding 30mph in a steam powered vehicle.
Now we may find a way to warp time/space and shortcut thru a wormhole someday but true FTL travel is not going to happen IMO. I'd put it in the same realm as cold fusion.

No doubt we need to find other places to reside though. Earth has a finite ability to put up with our abuse and our seeming inability to constrain our population growth.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 8:21:54 AM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:
here's what I mean. According to the Theory of Relativity, the closer you approach the speed of light the more massive you become.  If you could reach the speed of light you would be as massive as the entire universe.

At some point your mass would be so great that no engine would be able to propel it further. Like an ant trying to push an elephant.




Personally I think Einstien is full of S**T. It used to be common knowlege that we could never go faster than the speed of sound. When automoblies started to catch on science "proved" that it would be impossible to travel faster than 60 mph because a person wouldn't be able to breath.  Flight was impossible, we will never be able to go to the bottom of the ocean, never set foot on the moon, never see an atom, etc. The person most easily convinced something is impossible is a scientist! If we listened to them we'd still be living in caves thowing rocks.

DocD
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 8:25:59 AM EDT
[#38]
Hey, Light!  If you want to accept that self limiting speed limit don't expect the rest of us to adopt your defeatist attitude.  We will kick your ass in the end.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:17:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Hey, those light bastards are oppressing me! I should be able to travel as fast as I damm well please. Someone call the ACLU!
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:22:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Interesting:


Light Speed Graph




The theory of relativity predicts that if you accelerate a material object toward the speed of light, three things occur: the length of the object appears to decrease toward zero, the mass appears to increase toward infinity, and time appears to slow to a stop. Thus to accelerate a material object to the velocity of light, it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.

The chart above shows a plot of the Lorentz-Einstein transformation based on percentages. The plot consists of a perfect quarter-circle, equivalent to a simple Pythagorean factor derived from trigonometry. As you can see from the chart, if an object travels at 87% of the speed of light, the length in the direction of travel of the object would appear (from an outside observer) to have diminished by 50 percent. At light speed the length of the object would disappear and the mass would appear infinite, and time would halt to a stop.

In spite of the extreme mass densities predicted for large black holes, they would have a finite amount of mass. And because no one has ever detected an infinite mass in the universe (because if they existed they would probably have crushed us by now) it probably means the impossibility of ever achieving light speed, either from nature or intelligent design.

Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:27:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:33:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Interesting.  Can't be Planet X or that dark star, since it's the same on both sides of the solar system
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:34:47 PM EDT
[#43]

Quoted:
Interesting:


Light Speed Graph


www.nobeliefs.com/death%26timetravel/lightspeedgraph.gif

The theory of relativity predicts that if you accelerate a material object toward the speed of light, three things occur: the length of the object appears to decrease toward zero, the mass appears to increase toward infinity, and time appears to slow to a stop. Thus to accelerate a material object to the velocity of light, it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.

The chart above shows a plot of the Lorentz-Einstein transformation based on percentages. The plot consists of a perfect quarter-circle, equivalent to a simple Pythagorean factor derived from trigonometry. As you can see from the chart, if an object travels at 87% of the speed of light, the length in the direction of travel of the object would appear (from an outside observer) to have diminished by 50 percent. At light speed the length of the object would disappear and the mass would appear infinite, and time would halt to a stop.

In spite of the extreme mass densities predicted for large black holes, they would have a finite amount of mass. And because no one has ever detected an infinite mass in the universe (because if they existed they would probably have crushed us by now) it probably means the impossibility of ever achieving light speed, either from nature or intelligent design.




Ah, bullshit!

As soon as I find my Dilithium Chamber up in the attic, I'm going to prove you and Einstein wrong.

So THERE.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:38:32 PM EDT
[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
here's what I mean. According to the Theory of Relativity, the closer you approach the speed of light the more massive you become.  If you could reach the speed of light you would be as massive as the entire universe.

At some point your mass would be so great that no engine would be able to propel it further. Like an ant trying to push an elephant.




Personally I think Einstien is full of S**T. It used to be common knowlege that we could never go faster than the speed of sound. When automoblies started to catch on science "proved" that it would be impossible to travel faster than 60 mph because a person wouldn't be able to breath.  Flight was impossible, we will never be able to go to the bottom of the ocean, never set foot on the moon, never see an atom, etc. The person most easily convinced something is impossible is a scientist! If we listened to them we'd still be living in caves thowing rocks.

DocD



Well so far nearly all of Einstien's predictions have been experimentally proven to be true, so therefore you are simply wrong. Even 100 years ago we knew that bullets and such went faster then sound. It was thought to be impossble to break the sound barrier with an aircraft due to mechanical contraints, at the time aircraft material and conctruction was not suitable for supersonic flight. That is a completely different matter from going FTL, which is just as physically impossible as it would be to break the first law of thermodynamics.

Science doesn't jump from one theory to a completely different one. It refines one theory with a new one which gives more accurate results which more closely model what happens in reality. We will never one day find out that the cosmic speed limit was wrong. We might discover a reason of why there is a cosmic speed limit, or figure out why it is a particular speed, or find out that the limit changes with the age of the universe, etc.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:51:03 PM EDT
[#45]
The intent was not to build an ACTUAL Dyson sphere for habitation, simply an array of collector satellites in multiple orbits. Just enough to capture and redirect solar radiation.
1. Broadcast energy for spacecraft to achieve significant (.1 c), then a bussard ramscoop for the rest.
2. Mother of all space based defense systems. Focusing the Sun's energy on any incoming asteroids should at least deflect, if not outright vaporize, anything short of the moon. Even an invading fleet of spacecraft. i did read Larry Niven's work. Was in on the joke pulled on him( a check for fifty billion stars to answer the question why the Outsiders were interested in a particular Known Space phenomena)
3. Largest interferometer array in existence. Should be able to resolve tennis balls in Pluto's orbit, certainly Earth-sized planets within a thousand light years around.
I won't even go into the overabundance of energy available on earth for such things as contragrav harnesses, flying cars, androids and other technology meant to appear four years ago.      
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:50:52 PM EDT
[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
here's what I mean. According to the Theory of Relativity, the closer you approach the speed of light the more massive you become.  If you could reach the speed of light you would be as massive as the entire universe.

At some point your mass would be so great that no engine would be able to propel it further. Like an ant trying to push an elephant.




Personally I think Einstien is full of S**T. It used to be common knowlege that we could never go faster than the speed of sound. When automoblies started to catch on science "proved" that it would be impossible to travel faster than 60 mph because a person wouldn't be able to breath.  Flight was impossible, we will never be able to go to the bottom of the ocean, never set foot on the moon, never see an atom, etc. The person most easily convinced something is impossible is a scientist! If we listened to them we'd still be living in caves thowing rocks.

DocD



Well so far nearly all of Einstien's predictions have been experimentally proven to be true, so therefore you are simply wrong. Even 100 years ago we knew that bullets and such went faster then sound. It was thought to be impossble to break the sound barrier with an aircraft due to mechanical contraints, at the time aircraft material and conctruction was not suitable for supersonic flight. That is a completely different matter from going FTL, which is just as physically impossible as it would be to break the first law of thermodynamics.

Science doesn't jump from one theory to a completely different one. It refines one theory with a new one which gives more accurate results which more closely model what happens in reality. We will never one day find out that the cosmic speed limit was wrong. We might discover a reason of why there is a cosmic speed limit, or figure out why it is a particular speed, or find out that the limit changes with the age of the universe, etc.





Well since we know that LIGHT has mass(It can be bent by a magnetic field) how come LIGHT can go the speed of LIGHT?

BTW, One thing the scientific method tells us is just because some of a persons theories are right doesn't make them all right and until ALL of Einsteins theories are PROVEN to be true there is room for error. Ask anyone who studies string theory.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 2:31:48 PM EDT
[#47]
I'm sure someone will tell me I'm way off base here, but isn't our understanding of our universe limited by our ability to observe it?  What has remained unobserved?  Well, probably a good deal of the universe!  Einstein based his theories on what he had observed of our universe, and so far his predictions have been pretty savvy once we've found the ability to test them.  Will that continue to be the case as our ability to see improves?    

Luckily, if we want to test our various theories, we must extend our powers of observation, and in so doing will naturally open new vistas of scientific thought.  Some theories may be proven true, some will be proven definitively false.  And there may yet be a way to instantly travel to another spacetime by exploiting some property of the universe we haven't imagined but will eventually discover.

Look back and think of the scientific progress of humanity in just the last 500 years.  The growth of knowledge seems to be exponential, so what does the next 500, or 5000 years hold?  That depends on three things: 1) Our thirst for discovery overpowering an increasing and global apathy 2) A social/economic/political climate (somewhere) that fosters research, and 3) A means of "warehousing" proven and theoretical knowledge so that science can proceed efficiently without info-glut.  Why No. 3?  I am a programmer by trade, and I have a hard time keeping up with the latest ideas and methods in my tiny field.  As the scope of human knowledge increases dramatically in the next 1000 years, I can see problems with building on the work of other scientists if one doesn't know about the prior work in the first place.  

Then again, maybe I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about!

Alpine

** Edited for spelling...
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 2:33:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Nerd


Quoted:
Ephram Cochrane hasn't been born yet.  When he is, let him figure it out.

Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:33:42 PM EDT
[#49]

Quoted:
Nerd


Quoted:
Ephram Cochrane hasn't been born yet.  When he is, let him figure it out.




LOL!  And I hate Star Trek!  
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 10:02:23 PM EDT
[#50]

Quoted:


(I had a post on project ORION at one point in GD... I don't know where it's at, but if someone could find it, that technology could yeild a Max speed of about .03 C, which could get you to another star in ~150 years - not fast, but a conceivable journey...  There are fusion technologies that could get you into the .12 C range, and that would allow for journeys in the 50-75 year range...)



So like, what's this equivelant to in Star Trek Warp #s? ....Warp 9, make it so!

S.O.
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top