http://www.physorg.com/news8817.html
Time til.....
The estimated time before interstellar flight is achieved by man proposed in the article I believe may likely be incorrect by far. The article looks to the past 50 to 100 years, and draws a direct comparison. However I think what should also be taken into consideration is that (what seems to me) our technology doubles every what, 18 months? And that one key factor in this is the rate at which our technology progresses is also increasing.
Despite the fact that I am not sure of the moral goodness of interstellar travel in retrospect to the tower of Babel, I think that such distant travel may be much sooner than 50 years away (25, 10, 5????). Remember, take into account that a few simple, seemingly premature discoveries do sometimes shrink time projections of certain innovations, and may drastically shorten the time to interstellar travel.
Jonathan
QUOTE
However I think what should also be taken into consideration is that (what seems to me) our technology doubles every what, 18 months?
Sadly no, our technology doesn't double every 18 months, the computer technology capabilities almost doubles every 18 months, as per "Moore's Law" (which really isn't a law).
Rocket technology really hasn't changed much in the past 50 years.
I think the article is being a bit to liberal in saying we should see an interstellar probe to the stars within 50 to 100 years.
how about focusing on health sciences to develop a new way of keeping everyone extremely healthy. Also find a way to anti - aging, so perhaps many of us could experience the intersteller travel era.
we will be all dead before !!! because of global warming or something else !!!
since the universe is full of static electricity,charged ions, etc i think we should be able to develope a method of absorbing the static and eletrical charges from any point in space in order to power a space ship. just a possibility that i think has been overlooked. even a small amount of static seems like we could figure out how to collect, store and amplify it to sufficeant amounts to be feasbale.
Hi All
A related interstellar drive to the solar/laser sail is the mass-beam - basically firing ions, buckyballs, hockey-pucks or mini-sails at a space-ship to give it a push. Though it sounds bizarre it has received a lot of research since c. 1980 and is more feasible than ever. Currently researcher Jordin Kare proposes using laser-accelerated mini-sails as the propellant - these are zapped into ions by lasers on the starship and the resulting plasma pushes against the ship's magnetic fields. Alternatively Gerald Nordley suggests using nanotech pellets that have a bit of self-guidance and can stay in a laser guide beam from the starship.
You might think a mass-beam is fine for getting up to speed but useless for slowing down BUT the other recent innovation is Robert Zubrin's magnetic-sail, which can deccelerate a starship from near-light speed with high efficiency. Interstellar matter encountering the field is ionised and provides electromagnetic drag, slowing the ship down. Basically it's a design for "space-brakes". Combined the mass-beam and mag-sail make star-travel fairly straight-forward once we have enough available power in space. Zubrin suggests building big gas-core nuclear reactors - they'd vent straight to space like giant rockets, with power tapped from the ionised exhaust by magnetohydrodynamic converters. Gerald Nordley suggests self-replicating solar power satellites - starting with one 1 gigawatt SPS doubling itself every year would provide enough power in 20 years. A bit longer and you could power tens of thousands of starships each year.
Adam
A related interstellar drive to the solar/laser sail is the mass-beam - basically firing ions, buckyballs, hockey-pucks or mini-sails at a space-ship to give it a push. Though it sounds bizarre it has received a lot of research since c. 1980 and is more feasible than ever. Currently researcher Jordin Kare proposes using laser-accelerated mini-sails as the propellant - these are zapped into ions by lasers on the starship and the resulting plasma pushes against the ship's magnetic fields. Alternatively Gerald Nordley suggests using nanotech pellets that have a bit of self-guidance and can stay in a laser guide beam from the starship.
You might think a mass-beam is fine for getting up to speed but useless for slowing down BUT the other recent innovation is Robert Zubrin's magnetic-sail, which can deccelerate a starship from near-light speed with high efficiency. Interstellar matter encountering the field is ionised and provides electromagnetic drag, slowing the ship down. Basically it's a design for "space-brakes". Combined the mass-beam and mag-sail make star-travel fairly straight-forward once we have enough available power in space. Zubrin suggests building big gas-core nuclear reactors - they'd vent straight to space like giant rockets, with power tapped from the ionised exhaust by magnetohydrodynamic converters. Gerald Nordley suggests self-replicating solar power satellites - starting with one 1 gigawatt SPS doubling itself every year would provide enough power in 20 years. A bit longer and you could power tens of thousands of starships each year.
Adam
hmmmmm......
i am wondering why this article was even posted.
faster than light travel.. center of the galaxy (a place you wouldnt even want to get any where near! the farther in you go the more violent and the more energy is flying around, and i am talking serious energy), in 20 years
i propose we save time, and effort and just make a rotating disc that makes portals and just wink in and wink out at the various desired locations.
if faster than light travel is possible, then combine that with inertia free acceleration, and wink in and wink out by going many times the speed of light.
they mentioned sheilds. lets see... large object moving several times the speed of light impacts a stellar bottle fly on its front end grille. ok class. how much force would be expressed at impact? if its a sheild then it impacts. now, what if you get a stellar pebble at your stellar windsheild.
actually at that speed. what happens when you hit a proton?
a particle accelerator doesnt get protons up to light speed, so what happens when you smack into protons at faster than light speed?
can you say--- oooh... what a pretty shower of particles?
i am unsure what kind of sheild they may propose, but boy would it have to have some interesting properties (i think having superman fly ahead of the ship is the cheapest solution).
i have an even better idea! take all that metal rubble and stuff in the asteroid belts and oort cloud... refined it and build a dysons star, put a little hole in the back and steer the whole solar system.
i always wondered what and why most people dream of going to visit other planets in other systems. most people have very little interest in geology and science, so they arent thinking "wow i get to check out all those rocky formations and stuff".
so then what is it really? just the desire to see a wicked weird sunset from someplace else and send a postcard? (of course the post card will go to your relatives great grand children and you would be dead, but hey, what a great vacation!)
ask them and they say they would love to see this or that... and i am thinking. ever take a trip to see that on the planet your on? no. then why not do that first in the beginner version? you know... the one with plenty of oxygen. we even have a few places with rarified air! have you ever gone scuba diving? do that before you think of wearing a suit akin to a deep sea divers and want to romp around a place where your getting lots of xrays per hour, and a skinned knee is a death sentence.
the thing that makes me most chuckle is then watching them not be able to follow simple safety rules and such. why does this make me chuckle? because they want to go, but they dont even have the habit in daily life that would be needed to not kill yourself real fast on their "vacation".
perhaps they think they will find some cool aliens they can play with (or shoot). even if there were aliens to play with, why would they appreciate some other alien landing, wandering around their streets(?), causing mass panic?
personally i think there is still a hell of a lot of myscheif we have to cause in our own solar system first before we send out robots to report back (and give cosmologists and geologists wet dreams). mining the asteroid belt would come first. living in space would have to come first, and i mean living near by in a semi permanent situation.
faster than light travel is not possible. we would see some effects of it in some of the most powerful occurances in our universe. there is nothing to suggest that the 'fields' and 'forces' can be manipulated in any way. there are no meta tools that can grab them. they are not discreet parts in the sense of taking apart and reforming things.
this does not mean lots of things are not possible... lets do some of them first before we start dreaming up fantasy science for future projects. the fact being that doing those things first may lead to that other science as we attempt to improve the problems we have with being out there. and there are some serious problems! The expense of this is so high as to be almost unimaginable. a whole solar economy would have to exist before that kind of wealth could be generated.
my first suggestion is get better telescopes... you dont want to fly faster than light to a place where you cant land. one would not want to find the only place to explore is something like jupiter. the telescopes are good for other things too so they arent a total waste.
i am wondering why this article was even posted.
faster than light travel.. center of the galaxy (a place you wouldnt even want to get any where near! the farther in you go the more violent and the more energy is flying around, and i am talking serious energy), in 20 years
i propose we save time, and effort and just make a rotating disc that makes portals and just wink in and wink out at the various desired locations.
if faster than light travel is possible, then combine that with inertia free acceleration, and wink in and wink out by going many times the speed of light.
they mentioned sheilds. lets see... large object moving several times the speed of light impacts a stellar bottle fly on its front end grille. ok class. how much force would be expressed at impact? if its a sheild then it impacts. now, what if you get a stellar pebble at your stellar windsheild.
actually at that speed. what happens when you hit a proton?
a particle accelerator doesnt get protons up to light speed, so what happens when you smack into protons at faster than light speed?
can you say--- oooh... what a pretty shower of particles?
i am unsure what kind of sheild they may propose, but boy would it have to have some interesting properties (i think having superman fly ahead of the ship is the cheapest solution).
i have an even better idea! take all that metal rubble and stuff in the asteroid belts and oort cloud... refined it and build a dysons star, put a little hole in the back and steer the whole solar system.
i always wondered what and why most people dream of going to visit other planets in other systems. most people have very little interest in geology and science, so they arent thinking "wow i get to check out all those rocky formations and stuff".
so then what is it really? just the desire to see a wicked weird sunset from someplace else and send a postcard? (of course the post card will go to your relatives great grand children and you would be dead, but hey, what a great vacation!)
ask them and they say they would love to see this or that... and i am thinking. ever take a trip to see that on the planet your on? no. then why not do that first in the beginner version? you know... the one with plenty of oxygen. we even have a few places with rarified air! have you ever gone scuba diving? do that before you think of wearing a suit akin to a deep sea divers and want to romp around a place where your getting lots of xrays per hour, and a skinned knee is a death sentence.
the thing that makes me most chuckle is then watching them not be able to follow simple safety rules and such. why does this make me chuckle? because they want to go, but they dont even have the habit in daily life that would be needed to not kill yourself real fast on their "vacation".
perhaps they think they will find some cool aliens they can play with (or shoot). even if there were aliens to play with, why would they appreciate some other alien landing, wandering around their streets(?), causing mass panic?
personally i think there is still a hell of a lot of myscheif we have to cause in our own solar system first before we send out robots to report back (and give cosmologists and geologists wet dreams). mining the asteroid belt would come first. living in space would have to come first, and i mean living near by in a semi permanent situation.
faster than light travel is not possible. we would see some effects of it in some of the most powerful occurances in our universe. there is nothing to suggest that the 'fields' and 'forces' can be manipulated in any way. there are no meta tools that can grab them. they are not discreet parts in the sense of taking apart and reforming things.
this does not mean lots of things are not possible... lets do some of them first before we start dreaming up fantasy science for future projects. the fact being that doing those things first may lead to that other science as we attempt to improve the problems we have with being out there. and there are some serious problems! The expense of this is so high as to be almost unimaginable. a whole solar economy would have to exist before that kind of wealth could be generated.
my first suggestion is get better telescopes... you dont want to fly faster than light to a place where you cant land. one would not want to find the only place to explore is something like jupiter. the telescopes are good for other things too so they arent a total waste.
Gee, we have all the answers, don't we? We, who have "had technology" for what, a hundred years max? It's like Seth Shostack of SETI saying that the only way to communicate over galactic distances is the radio or light beam way. Know what? Ten years ago the light beam idea didn't exist within SETI. What a difference a decade makes. Let's just suppose a civilization popped up, say. oh, a million years before ours and evolved technology at earth speed. What type of things might they have? How about if they are a billion years ahead of us in technology? Would we even begin to recognize their capabilities as being...anything? If you take a peek at the old Buck Rogers movies you won't see a computer anywhere. Maybe, in a half million years, someone will invent the Zigabootie, a device that makes both intesteller travel and bathroom bowl cleaning easy. I leave you with this thought: If the sun totally disappeared right now, we would see it blink out about eight minutes later. However, the earth would stop reacting to the sun's gravitational affect and go off in a straight line immediately. It wouldn't wait eight minutes. Does this mean gravity travels faster than light?
If we build a big-*** laser somewhere on or near the earth to give a starship a big-*** push, and it takes only 20 years to get to, say, Alpha-Centauri, how do they get back? Do they take another big-*** laser with them and stick it on or near Alderon? Hummmmmm... what weghty problems.
Does anyone remember all the black programs from the 80's and 90's? Don't be surprised if the clock is moving the other direction, we may have already launched craft, or something else, capable of reaching the stars.
Anti-gravity was not even mentioned in the article, nor was the discovery of the projection of light from one place to another through quantum mechanics. The possibility of "beam me up, Scotty" being a reality. In the Star Trek science fiction universe there was a limit to the distance that beaming could occur, but in reality it may be that it is possible, and there is no limit to the next destination, at least no limit that would prevent us from getting to the next star.
Think about the possibility of sending your atoms across space to be recombined at a set distance without the need to have a transmitter at the other end. Whole living quarters, ships, and people could travel in this fashion and they would arrive instantly in their view, even though several years would have passed on Earth.
Anyway, when it does happen (if not already) it will probably be some other solution like I have mentioned or something totally different that we have not even thought of as yet.
IMHO
Anti-gravity was not even mentioned in the article, nor was the discovery of the projection of light from one place to another through quantum mechanics. The possibility of "beam me up, Scotty" being a reality. In the Star Trek science fiction universe there was a limit to the distance that beaming could occur, but in reality it may be that it is possible, and there is no limit to the next destination, at least no limit that would prevent us from getting to the next star.
Think about the possibility of sending your atoms across space to be recombined at a set distance without the need to have a transmitter at the other end. Whole living quarters, ships, and people could travel in this fashion and they would arrive instantly in their view, even though several years would have passed on Earth.
Anyway, when it does happen (if not already) it will probably be some other solution like I have mentioned or something totally different that we have not even thought of as yet.
IMHO
Zigabootie! 
Hey I love this!
Hey I love this!
I think it behooves humanity to first learn how to exist on, and with, our own planet Earth before we go off claiming other planets as our own.
We will become like gods all in good time but the real question will be whether we are to be known as peacefull or vengefull gods...^0^
We will become like gods all in good time but the real question will be whether we are to be known as peacefull or vengefull gods...^0^
Just because mankind is unable to do something. This means God must be unreal & Space-travel to other stars for others beyond human earth is beyond reality.As I see it if God is bigger then the sum of his creation or a group of space travelers has a deeper understanding of science what mankind deems imposable. Does not stop it from being the truth.
It is like an African who never saw a Swedish SAAB aircraft and said man cannot fly because we cannot conceive it because Bongo Man said we cannot.
I think a full dinner on the table for most scientists is more important then expanded logic and taking a hit in pay.
My Budgie can talk and play games. But ask it a technical question. "Einstein Said" Raaap!
Someway propulsion science is flawed in the same way. Physics is relative only to the size and brain power of the visionary. The larger or wiser you are the smaller distance becomes in space-travel. But then again. This old technology gets funding!
Money vs. chances is what it's about. Pig bones for human bones. Claim it's a link until DNA blows the lid off.
I think my Babel cuts to the truth of the issue. If it sounds good follow it vs. challenge your logic.
QUOTE (Buttons+Dec 8 2005, 03:05 PM)
Gee, we have all the answers, don't we? We, who have "had technology" for what, a hundred years max? It's like Seth Shostack of SETI saying that the only way to communicate over galactic distances is the radio or light beam way. Know what? Ten years ago the light beam idea didn't exist within SETI. What a difference a decade makes. Let's just suppose a civilization popped up, say. oh, a million years before ours and evolved technology at earth speed. What type of things might they have? How about if they are a billion years ahead of us in technology? Would we even begin to recognize their capabilities as being...anything? If you take a peek at the old Buck Rogers movies you won't see a computer anywhere. Maybe, in a half million years, someone will invent the Zigabootie, a device that makes both intesteller travel and bathroom bowl cleaning easy. I leave you with this thought: If the sun totally disappeared right now, we would see it blink out about eight minutes later. However, the earth would stop reacting to the sun's gravitational affect and go off in a straight line immediately. It wouldn't wait eight minutes. Does this mean gravity travels faster than light?
Just because you can dream it up, doesnt mean we can make it so.
i can dream of flying by flapping my pinkies. i cant make it so.
TECHNOLOGY CANT SOLVE ANY PROBLEM WE MAKE UP ARBITRARILY
beam me up has not only tons of practical impossibilities to it, but it also has philosophical problems as well. the main philosophical one is that is a reconstitutes you really you? which is why on "start trek" some species will not use one and will only go in a shuttle (besides the few that can be hurt by it).
it was a literary vehicle that gets over the horrible bug a boo of how far apart everything is so that a story can make sense with characters that know each other and come back home to a place they still recognize. they even had to come up with a communication method that went around this problem as light speed is the limit (nuclear bombs wouldnt work if it wasnt!). without these literary vehicles the stories would have read like pre industrial sailing ships.
lets take your transporter problem. since reactions occur faster than femtoseconds (haveing to do with plank length and time), you would first have to freeze all processes. what force would you use? note that the force must be strong enough to freeze all this AND still be hidden from us now and have no sign of it in stellar reactions and such. ok. just take the simple energy equations and convert the mass of a person to its energy equivalent. how do you store it? ok, well give you that you will say that you dont, you have to send it as you make it and reconstitute it. we have to then use that mythical manipulative force to then some how peice the parts together. neglecting the energy issue, the freezing issue and such. how many pieces of information have to be stored just to place particles in the right place, so when you 'let go' they can then proceed as before (of course all those reactions you were in the middle in were occuring in different influencing field which when you reconstitute are different. lets see, you need 6 numbers to accuracy of more than 20 decimal places to describe the vector that the particle was traveling in, and you need a velocity component also to 20 decimal places... howver, heisenbergs uncertainty principal says you cant know this information to that degree without changing it.
there is no way to probe the system without destroying or changing how the system operates.
for fun lets continue a bit.
so lets see. you have something like
7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in a 160 lb person...
[Of this, almost 2/3 is hydrogen, 1/4 is oxygen, and about 1/10 is carbon. These three atoms add up to 99% of the total!]
it takes 32 bits to represent a 10 digit number that peaks at 4.2 billion. so really it takes 32 bits to represent a 9 digit number completely. it takes 64 bits to make a 18 position floating point number. a 40 place decimal number is probably near 200 place binary number.
so lets see. you take that large number above and you multiply that by 7, then multiply that by 200 and you get the number of bits to store for all the atoms positions and their vectors and velocity.
then for each hydrogen atom you would have to do the same for each particle in side that makes it up. one, or none electrons. no neutrons or a few. and one proton. each one of those particles needs those 7 digit numbers.
doing this for oxygen and carbon and all the isotopic variants is a bitch...
(we will assume that we dont need to also position the quarks, gluons, and other particles smaller than and that make up protons and other things. just the quarks multiply all the numbers by another 3 for each particle)
it gets even more hairy when you stop measuring the solid things and start to measure the not solid things! so while two particles cant occupy the same space, its perfectly fine for thousands of other particles to exist in the same space!!!
whats even harder than that, is that at any particular time one of these things can momentarily cancel each other out. so at the instant you freeze it all, things that are actually there, dont actually exist for a little while....
now to throw another wrench into it.
if you freeze it, you cant get the vector information... so you have to freeze it twice!!! and compare the two cardinal location quantities to ascertain the velocity component of the vector
ok...
now to store that information would require a few thousand atoms for each value.
are you also suggesting that we are able to accelerate light itself to speed up calculations? how fast does a computer need to be to go through all that and just look at each piece and drop it without doing anything.
do you realize that this number when done is larger than all the atoms in the universe?
i guess though we could open a door into another universe and then use all their matter and call it the great abacus. though we could not bring it into our universe to examine it as its mass would change the curvature of ours and effect its outcome. lets hope another racein another universe doesnt need our universe as a carry register!
too many ads and trite repeats of sayings about those that state the impossible.
there are a lot of people tinkering in their garages on things that will never ever ever work because they would require some fundemental changes to the universe.
meanwhile, they think that people like me just happen to be scrouges that want to spoil their fun.
the idiocy is that all things are not possible, or even probable. the key is to pick something possible, that everyone else hasnt looked at enough to see how it IS possible.
the wright brothers didnt do the impossible. the wright brothers did what was possible but believed out of hand that it was not practical. balloons and hang gliders already existed. strapping a motor to it had to only answer the question whether a motor could generate enough excess energy to lift itself.
this is a far cry from discovering a unknown force that not only exists, but can be used to peer into matter states without effecting them AND allow them to be effected at will. this force must permeate everything, and yet not effect anyting till we invoke it.
Just because you can dream it up, doesnt mean we can make it so.
i can dream of flying by flapping my pinkies. i cant make it so.
TECHNOLOGY CANT SOLVE ANY PROBLEM WE MAKE UP ARBITRARILY
beam me up has not only tons of practical impossibilities to it, but it also has philosophical problems as well. the main philosophical one is that is a reconstitutes you really you? which is why on "start trek" some species will not use one and will only go in a shuttle (besides the few that can be hurt by it).
it was a literary vehicle that gets over the horrible bug a boo of how far apart everything is so that a story can make sense with characters that know each other and come back home to a place they still recognize. they even had to come up with a communication method that went around this problem as light speed is the limit (nuclear bombs wouldnt work if it wasnt!). without these literary vehicles the stories would have read like pre industrial sailing ships.
lets take your transporter problem. since reactions occur faster than femtoseconds (haveing to do with plank length and time), you would first have to freeze all processes. what force would you use? note that the force must be strong enough to freeze all this AND still be hidden from us now and have no sign of it in stellar reactions and such. ok. just take the simple energy equations and convert the mass of a person to its energy equivalent. how do you store it? ok, well give you that you will say that you dont, you have to send it as you make it and reconstitute it. we have to then use that mythical manipulative force to then some how peice the parts together. neglecting the energy issue, the freezing issue and such. how many pieces of information have to be stored just to place particles in the right place, so when you 'let go' they can then proceed as before (of course all those reactions you were in the middle in were occuring in different influencing field which when you reconstitute are different. lets see, you need 6 numbers to accuracy of more than 20 decimal places to describe the vector that the particle was traveling in, and you need a velocity component also to 20 decimal places... howver, heisenbergs uncertainty principal says you cant know this information to that degree without changing it.
there is no way to probe the system without destroying or changing how the system operates.
for fun lets continue a bit.
so lets see. you have something like
7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in a 160 lb person...
[Of this, almost 2/3 is hydrogen, 1/4 is oxygen, and about 1/10 is carbon. These three atoms add up to 99% of the total!]
it takes 32 bits to represent a 10 digit number that peaks at 4.2 billion. so really it takes 32 bits to represent a 9 digit number completely. it takes 64 bits to make a 18 position floating point number. a 40 place decimal number is probably near 200 place binary number.
so lets see. you take that large number above and you multiply that by 7, then multiply that by 200 and you get the number of bits to store for all the atoms positions and their vectors and velocity.
then for each hydrogen atom you would have to do the same for each particle in side that makes it up. one, or none electrons. no neutrons or a few. and one proton. each one of those particles needs those 7 digit numbers.
doing this for oxygen and carbon and all the isotopic variants is a bitch...
(we will assume that we dont need to also position the quarks, gluons, and other particles smaller than and that make up protons and other things. just the quarks multiply all the numbers by another 3 for each particle)
it gets even more hairy when you stop measuring the solid things and start to measure the not solid things! so while two particles cant occupy the same space, its perfectly fine for thousands of other particles to exist in the same space!!!
whats even harder than that, is that at any particular time one of these things can momentarily cancel each other out. so at the instant you freeze it all, things that are actually there, dont actually exist for a little while....
now to throw another wrench into it.
if you freeze it, you cant get the vector information... so you have to freeze it twice!!! and compare the two cardinal location quantities to ascertain the velocity component of the vector
ok...
now to store that information would require a few thousand atoms for each value.
are you also suggesting that we are able to accelerate light itself to speed up calculations? how fast does a computer need to be to go through all that and just look at each piece and drop it without doing anything.
do you realize that this number when done is larger than all the atoms in the universe?
i guess though we could open a door into another universe and then use all their matter and call it the great abacus. though we could not bring it into our universe to examine it as its mass would change the curvature of ours and effect its outcome. lets hope another racein another universe doesnt need our universe as a carry register!
too many ads and trite repeats of sayings about those that state the impossible.
there are a lot of people tinkering in their garages on things that will never ever ever work because they would require some fundemental changes to the universe.
meanwhile, they think that people like me just happen to be scrouges that want to spoil their fun.
the idiocy is that all things are not possible, or even probable. the key is to pick something possible, that everyone else hasnt looked at enough to see how it IS possible.
the wright brothers didnt do the impossible. the wright brothers did what was possible but believed out of hand that it was not practical. balloons and hang gliders already existed. strapping a motor to it had to only answer the question whether a motor could generate enough excess energy to lift itself.
this is a far cry from discovering a unknown force that not only exists, but can be used to peer into matter states without effecting them AND allow them to be effected at will. this force must permeate everything, and yet not effect anyting till we invoke it.
QUOTE (Boss Wisdom+Dec 8 2005, 04:38 PM)
Just because mankind is unable to do something. This means God must be unreal & Space-travel to other stars for others beyond human earth is beyond reality.As I see it if God is bigger then the sum of his creation or a group of space travelers has a deeper understanding of science what mankind deems imposable. Does not stop it from being the truth.
It is like an African who never saw a Swedish SAAB aircraft and said man cannot fly because we cannot conceive it because Bongo Man said we cannot.
I think a full dinner on the table for most scientists is more important then expanded logic and taking a hit in pay.
My Budgie can talk and play games. But ask it a technical question. "Einstein Said" Raaap!
Someway propulsion science is flawed in the same way. Physics is relative only to the size and brain power of the visionary. The larger or wiser you are the smaller distance becomes in space-travel. But then again. This old technology gets funding!
Money vs. chances is what it's about. Pig bones for human bones. Claim it's a link until DNA blows the lid off.
I think my Babel cuts to the truth of the issue. If it sounds good follow it vs. challenge your logic.
your logic is nicely campy...
it FEELS right but it isnt.
there ARE things that can tell you other things, even though you dont have all the specifics.
not all things can be solved by money and such. kurt godell proved this with his theorem.
you and others like to use simple newtonian mechanics as evidence of the amazing things that must be capable with quantum and other sciences. this just isnt so.
nothing in airflight or the car, and such, is doing somethign that requires new forces to be invented and harnesed. it relies on the forces that exist and our ability to understand them.
so while bongo man cant conceive of it. if you took the time to show bongo man a leave rise in fire and such... and you can show that birds fly, bongo man can then see that there ARE principals that can be exploited...
conception though isnt something that happens in isolation from the facts. which is what all these suppositions and ideas are. they are ignoring (by will) big problems that have no solutions, and will never have any as they solutions violate other things we know.
so while you can say that there are amazing things ahead of us that we havent thought of. you cant say that any amazing thing we can think of is up ahead if we are willing to pay and work on it enough.
some things that have to be violated are strongly known. like heisenbergs uncertainty principal and the work of shrodinger (who was asking this in a more general way, while heisenberg was asking this only about two qualities that are intermixed in reality).
if you can tell me how to measure something without effecting it, not only do you open the door to amazing things (and would be capable of removing the dice from gods hands), you would get a nobel prize.
just that one point. thats all... how can you measure something without effecting it? for large objects we live with the concept that small effects are no effects but thats just a operative simplifying. i want to know when an electron passes a certain point, AND not affect that electron....
wakadooo wakadooo wakadooo....
I'm sure if ET made it to earth. He or She or It did not read Einstein. They just did it!
Humans tend to make up numbers or stories and if the logic does not fit. Blow off the idea. I'm sure if God uses the powers of the universe to think he does not require number crunching to know if he can or cannot create something. An ant cannot build a car. Man cannot build a universe. Yet both are here. So when we look at propulsion science we should just do it. Just like radio was discovered perhaps a new force for travel will just pop up. But if we follow the outdated ideas of NASA and Godless fools. We will be hanging out on Mars vs. Hanging with ET in the stars. By the way had I not seen such technology once I too would call those UFO folks cranks. But the Mexican Air-force Radar and my own eye witness account don't lie. So I'm now open to alternative thinking outside the accepted physics box. How do you know if the numbers are right? Just because they seem to be does not mean they are. Just like your ABC's
sometimes you you must use Chinese letters that go beyond the English page.
Humans tend to make up numbers or stories and if the logic does not fit. Blow off the idea. I'm sure if God uses the powers of the universe to think he does not require number crunching to know if he can or cannot create something. An ant cannot build a car. Man cannot build a universe. Yet both are here. So when we look at propulsion science we should just do it. Just like radio was discovered perhaps a new force for travel will just pop up. But if we follow the outdated ideas of NASA and Godless fools. We will be hanging out on Mars vs. Hanging with ET in the stars. By the way had I not seen such technology once I too would call those UFO folks cranks. But the Mexican Air-force Radar and my own eye witness account don't lie. So I'm now open to alternative thinking outside the accepted physics box. How do you know if the numbers are right? Just because they seem to be does not mean they are. Just like your ABC's
sometimes you you must use Chinese letters that go beyond the English page.
I'm sure if ET made it to earth. He or She or It did not read Einstein. They just did it!
Humans tend to make up numbers or stories and if the logic does not fit. Blow off the idea. I'm sure if God uses the powers of the universe to think he does not require number crunching to know if he can or cannot create something. An ant cannot build a car. Man cannot build a universe. Yet both are here. So when we look at propulsion science we should just do it. Just like radio was discovered perhaps a new force for travel will just pop up. But if we follow the outdated ideas of NASA and Godless fools. We will be hanging out on Mars vs. Hanging with ET in the stars. By the way had I not seen such technology once I too would call those UFO folks cranks. But the Mexican Air-force Radar and my own eye witness account don't lie. So I'm now open to alternative thinking outside the accepted physics box. How do you know if the numbers are right? Just because they seem to be does not mean they are. Just like your ABC's
sometimes you you must use Chinese letters that go beyond the English page.
Humans tend to make up numbers or stories and if the logic does not fit. Blow off the idea. I'm sure if God uses the powers of the universe to think he does not require number crunching to know if he can or cannot create something. An ant cannot build a car. Man cannot build a universe. Yet both are here. So when we look at propulsion science we should just do it. Just like radio was discovered perhaps a new force for travel will just pop up. But if we follow the outdated ideas of NASA and Godless fools. We will be hanging out on Mars vs. Hanging with ET in the stars. By the way had I not seen such technology once I too would call those UFO folks cranks. But the Mexican Air-force Radar and my own eye witness account don't lie. So I'm now open to alternative thinking outside the accepted physics box. How do you know if the numbers are right? Just because they seem to be does not mean they are. Just like your ABC's
sometimes you you must use Chinese letters that go beyond the English page.
We're already capable of trans-galactic travel. (insert conspiracy theory here)
I agree w/ Boss Wisdom... especially about the UFO part. If you've seen one then you know what's possible. (and what we're already probably doing... I think a good portion of modern sightings are "ours")
QUOTE
no hard evidence that we have ever been visited
This out-of-hand dismissal ignores all the evidence that we have available, like:
- sightings from NUFORC, etc.
- pictures (see http://ufoevidence.org)
- radar returns
- multiple person encounters
- landing marks
It's ok to question incomplete evidence, but don't ignore the best evidence. Also see http://www.disclosureproject.org/
All I have to say is this:
Nearly ALL technology we have today is here inspite of the fact that the inventors were told that it couldn't be done. Just because the technology does not exist yet does not mean that it never will. The Wright Brothers were told that flight was impossible. Did that stop them? How many of the doubters today are glad they didn't let it stop them? How about when the sound barrier was broken? Automobiles? Cell Phones? LCD TV's and Monitors? Personal Computers? IPODs? Think back just 20 years and try to remember what you thought was impossible then but is a reality now. What about 20 years before that? Today's "what if's" and problems always become tomorrow's technology.
Nearly ALL technology we have today is here inspite of the fact that the inventors were told that it couldn't be done. Just because the technology does not exist yet does not mean that it never will. The Wright Brothers were told that flight was impossible. Did that stop them? How many of the doubters today are glad they didn't let it stop them? How about when the sound barrier was broken? Automobiles? Cell Phones? LCD TV's and Monitors? Personal Computers? IPODs? Think back just 20 years and try to remember what you thought was impossible then but is a reality now. What about 20 years before that? Today's "what if's" and problems always become tomorrow's technology.
Everybody is forgetting something: before mankind travels beyond our solar system, we had better come up with a faster means of communication. Our current form of communication depends on electrons which travels at the speed of light. Not very fast even if we go to the nearest star (4.5 light years). In order to send a message from the nearest star, the round trip would take approximately 9 years. This means that the crew will be on their own. Take this train of thought as far as you want. I believe the reason we won't receive signals from other beings out there is because they use a different, more advance technology that's faster than the speed of light and not electrons (rf).
QUOTE (P. Gardner+Dec 9 2005, 09:01 AM)
Everybody is forgetting something: before mankind travels beyond our solar system, we had better come up with a faster means of communication. Our current form of communication depends on electrons which travels at the speed of light. Not very fast even if we go to the nearest star (4.5 light years). In order to send a message from the nearest star, the round trip would take approximately 9 years. This means that the crew will be on their own. Take this train of thought as far as you want. I believe the reason we won't receive signals from other beings out there is because they use a different, more advance technology that's faster than the speed of light and not electrons (rf).
not everyone.. i mentioned it on the post on explaining why you cant use science fiction as a spring board for all possibilities.
imagine star trek without these vehicles.
captains log: we have just entered orbit around ceti prime, its a nice world. great granddad would have loved it. as would all of the elders that started this journey a hundred and fifty years ago. i wonder what real gravity is like..
note that other inconveniences written out were time discrepancies, artificial gravity, and they conquered inertia (something we still dont know what it is!).
on to comment on your post.. we dont use electrons to communicate except on copper wire. so actually without realizeing it you are suggesting that the reason we dont hear from them is that they havent run a small copper line to our planet. rf is LIGHT.. light of a low frequency in the spectrum (ie, low energy). most people are confounded in thinking that xrays, radio, microwaves, visual light, etc. are different things. they are not. they are zones on a continuim.. we happen to be able to see those that have the right qualities to stimulate one of the variants of rhodopsin.
there is nothing that moves faster than light... thats all she wrote...
the whole of einsteins work can be summed up in one premise.
that the universe has a speed limit and that light travels at that limit.
thats it! EVERYTHING else sprouts from that premise if you know how to work the math and understand it.
as to those that claim that all inventions come from a majority of people who have been told it cant be done is an idiot. a total moron.
the whole funding premise for the past 100 years is that "here is some money" go do something we cant do (YET).
so when people said that man could not fly... WHICH f*cking people were saying that? people like you (the person that made this quote not the first person i responded to - i am trying tos ave a bit of space and time here as i dont have much time to teach pigs to sing).
the common man that has very little knowledge of how things work was the "everyone" in this equation. right now i can find scientists who are the bottom of the barrel, that couldnt pass thier work, and cant work, that will say your an alien. does that comment mean anything?
when the common man says flight is not possible.. he thinks in simple and totalitarian ways.
when the researcher or such says it he says it will qualifications. the engine is too heavy (this means he can see that if the engine could be lighter, then that problem would be alleviated), this or that is that way or something else.
the public does not understand or even contemplate the exception.
at the time that such comments were common, we had very little understanding of how the universe worked below the newtonian level. nor did we have any promise that we would EVERY be able to know such (for very good reasons). this not knowing we could, was not a reason not to try!!!! this is very different than having a real set of reasons that do not permit something and asking how can you get around them? and this last sentencs is the real way that a scientist says something, and the public hears impossible...
the public either wears a doom face or a happy face. they have no basis as to how to make the considerations that many here wthout the knowledge are making on blind faith.
you are all talking blind faith that our science will come up with something that does something to get aroujnd the limitations. i will admit that we are pretty good at that (considering we have nothign else to compare to).
however, what your not considering is that the information as it goes gets smaller and smaller in tinier areas. so while the effects of the electron are huge in the world we live in the effect of one gluon is inconceivably small. so small that it takes humoungous amounts of energy to get them moving fast enough that they can hit something hard enough that we can tell that they even exist!
and this is the problem with all your statements and such as to some mystical technology. the qualities that we are exploting to do amaxing things are smaller and smaller qualities that have smaller and smaller effects. we amplyfy those effects INFORMATIONALLY, but not really operatively. so while we send billions and trillions of electrons down a kind of electron pipe, we cant make use of gluons.
now the smaller and smaller the effect there is the easier it is to swamp with everythign else, and the shorter the distance it works at.
now here is the key to understanding why these things wont happen.
we are dreaming of a force or set of forces that exist, that under normal circumstances, interact very little with the world we experience.
a neutrino is one of these things that is known now because we are digging deeper and deeper to smaller and smaller effects. it doesnt interact much with the matter in the universe, and so millions are passing through you every second. some of them are coming from above you, and some of them are passing through the whole planet before they are passing through you. they ahve built some detectors for these things and they are massive (it seems the smaller you want to go the larger the detector has to be till the size is so large that you need galaxy size detectors under minute control).
you see, if this force that we are depending on to exploit interacts strongly with the world then we would see its effects all over the place. however, since we dont, we would need massive amounts of power and such to detect it. the energy required to detect a baseball is incredibly less than the energy required to catch it and control it! it is possible to detect it with one low energy photon...
so if this force exists then we would need a way to effect it, harness it, and control it. assuming that one of these exists, is like assuming you can herd cats just becaue they are mammals like cows.
it takes more energy than to power a medium size city to generate a few dozen reactions a week in a collider. sometimes they run for months to get 4 reactions to detect if something exists.
there are all kinds of reasons why there are no faster than light things.
one interesting way to put it is, if there are things that go faster than light, then what is putting the brakes on light? what mechanism drains off energy and inversely applies it to wavelength rather than let the speed increase?
light has no mass, and yet its movement is deflected by gravity. this is how we know that space time is curved. if gravity was a force like the weak force or strong nuclear forces, then light would not be affected, only things with mass would be.
right now... we have only one mediator of the electromagnetic force, and thats light. terahertz waves, xrays, rainbow colors, gamma rays, etc are all light.
one last thing... if we can apply so much energy to make that mythical force operable, how do we then make the force itself strong enough to do anything on a scale that is useful? especially being useful over long distances?
(at galactic distances sending morse code by nuclear explosions is a valid communicatios method. and yes, we did think of this. just put them in space, wait till we are on the other side of our orbit around the sun and set off a pattern. dot... dot dot... dot dot dot.. dot dot dot dot... and then break it and start it over again.. what a firworks display that is!)
its pretty easy to figure out how much uncollimated (that is non directional) energy you need to apply to a point to have a signal of strength reach anotehr point (baring interference).
light diminishes as the square of the distance. look up the simple formula, and then just work bacwards. if i have to have a signal of at least a 100 photons appear in proxima 4.5 years away... and i am not directing it like a point, then how much energy does my radio tower have to put out JUST TO GET THOSE 100 PHOTONS TO THAT OTHER PLANET?
take a laser... read its stats... read how far the beam disperses over distance. or diminishes through all kinds of effects taht the average person need not consider and so needs not know.
how powerful does a laser have to be to ge to the planet? what kind of timing does it need to be able to predict the exact location of the star in 4.5 years and the exact location of the planet when it will be at the poinf of crossing AND the place where the planet will be in the right point in rotation.
now figure out how many decimal places you need to divide a protractor up so that you are off by only half the width of the beam on arrival..
oh.. and remember, our solarsystem and planet is moving too.. would the natural wobble of the planet be enough to throw the beam off (yes)... so you would have to predict the the point in wobble too when you fire the pulse...
this caclulation must be performed for EVERY pulse.
(and guess what? the wobble of the recieving planet also doesn help, and if you dont know the oterh planets you cant adjust the orbit predictions. and chaos theory says that given our finite math in a non finite world, we cant predict with accuracy where it will be the farther out in time that it goes. we cant get over this effect either).
not everyone.. i mentioned it on the post on explaining why you cant use science fiction as a spring board for all possibilities.
imagine star trek without these vehicles.
captains log: we have just entered orbit around ceti prime, its a nice world. great granddad would have loved it. as would all of the elders that started this journey a hundred and fifty years ago. i wonder what real gravity is like..
note that other inconveniences written out were time discrepancies, artificial gravity, and they conquered inertia (something we still dont know what it is!).
on to comment on your post.. we dont use electrons to communicate except on copper wire. so actually without realizeing it you are suggesting that the reason we dont hear from them is that they havent run a small copper line to our planet. rf is LIGHT.. light of a low frequency in the spectrum (ie, low energy). most people are confounded in thinking that xrays, radio, microwaves, visual light, etc. are different things. they are not. they are zones on a continuim.. we happen to be able to see those that have the right qualities to stimulate one of the variants of rhodopsin.
there is nothing that moves faster than light... thats all she wrote...
the whole of einsteins work can be summed up in one premise.
that the universe has a speed limit and that light travels at that limit.
thats it! EVERYTHING else sprouts from that premise if you know how to work the math and understand it.
as to those that claim that all inventions come from a majority of people who have been told it cant be done is an idiot. a total moron.
the whole funding premise for the past 100 years is that "here is some money" go do something we cant do (YET).
so when people said that man could not fly... WHICH f*cking people were saying that? people like you (the person that made this quote not the first person i responded to - i am trying tos ave a bit of space and time here as i dont have much time to teach pigs to sing).
the common man that has very little knowledge of how things work was the "everyone" in this equation. right now i can find scientists who are the bottom of the barrel, that couldnt pass thier work, and cant work, that will say your an alien. does that comment mean anything?
when the common man says flight is not possible.. he thinks in simple and totalitarian ways.
when the researcher or such says it he says it will qualifications. the engine is too heavy (this means he can see that if the engine could be lighter, then that problem would be alleviated), this or that is that way or something else.
the public does not understand or even contemplate the exception.
at the time that such comments were common, we had very little understanding of how the universe worked below the newtonian level. nor did we have any promise that we would EVERY be able to know such (for very good reasons). this not knowing we could, was not a reason not to try!!!! this is very different than having a real set of reasons that do not permit something and asking how can you get around them? and this last sentencs is the real way that a scientist says something, and the public hears impossible...
the public either wears a doom face or a happy face. they have no basis as to how to make the considerations that many here wthout the knowledge are making on blind faith.
you are all talking blind faith that our science will come up with something that does something to get aroujnd the limitations. i will admit that we are pretty good at that (considering we have nothign else to compare to).
however, what your not considering is that the information as it goes gets smaller and smaller in tinier areas. so while the effects of the electron are huge in the world we live in the effect of one gluon is inconceivably small. so small that it takes humoungous amounts of energy to get them moving fast enough that they can hit something hard enough that we can tell that they even exist!
and this is the problem with all your statements and such as to some mystical technology. the qualities that we are exploting to do amaxing things are smaller and smaller qualities that have smaller and smaller effects. we amplyfy those effects INFORMATIONALLY, but not really operatively. so while we send billions and trillions of electrons down a kind of electron pipe, we cant make use of gluons.
now the smaller and smaller the effect there is the easier it is to swamp with everythign else, and the shorter the distance it works at.
now here is the key to understanding why these things wont happen.
we are dreaming of a force or set of forces that exist, that under normal circumstances, interact very little with the world we experience.
a neutrino is one of these things that is known now because we are digging deeper and deeper to smaller and smaller effects. it doesnt interact much with the matter in the universe, and so millions are passing through you every second. some of them are coming from above you, and some of them are passing through the whole planet before they are passing through you. they ahve built some detectors for these things and they are massive (it seems the smaller you want to go the larger the detector has to be till the size is so large that you need galaxy size detectors under minute control).
you see, if this force that we are depending on to exploit interacts strongly with the world then we would see its effects all over the place. however, since we dont, we would need massive amounts of power and such to detect it. the energy required to detect a baseball is incredibly less than the energy required to catch it and control it! it is possible to detect it with one low energy photon...
so if this force exists then we would need a way to effect it, harness it, and control it. assuming that one of these exists, is like assuming you can herd cats just becaue they are mammals like cows.
it takes more energy than to power a medium size city to generate a few dozen reactions a week in a collider. sometimes they run for months to get 4 reactions to detect if something exists.
there are all kinds of reasons why there are no faster than light things.
one interesting way to put it is, if there are things that go faster than light, then what is putting the brakes on light? what mechanism drains off energy and inversely applies it to wavelength rather than let the speed increase?
light has no mass, and yet its movement is deflected by gravity. this is how we know that space time is curved. if gravity was a force like the weak force or strong nuclear forces, then light would not be affected, only things with mass would be.
right now... we have only one mediator of the electromagnetic force, and thats light. terahertz waves, xrays, rainbow colors, gamma rays, etc are all light.
one last thing... if we can apply so much energy to make that mythical force operable, how do we then make the force itself strong enough to do anything on a scale that is useful? especially being useful over long distances?
(at galactic distances sending morse code by nuclear explosions is a valid communicatios method. and yes, we did think of this. just put them in space, wait till we are on the other side of our orbit around the sun and set off a pattern. dot... dot dot... dot dot dot.. dot dot dot dot... and then break it and start it over again.. what a firworks display that is!)
its pretty easy to figure out how much uncollimated (that is non directional) energy you need to apply to a point to have a signal of strength reach anotehr point (baring interference).
light diminishes as the square of the distance. look up the simple formula, and then just work bacwards. if i have to have a signal of at least a 100 photons appear in proxima 4.5 years away... and i am not directing it like a point, then how much energy does my radio tower have to put out JUST TO GET THOSE 100 PHOTONS TO THAT OTHER PLANET?
take a laser... read its stats... read how far the beam disperses over distance. or diminishes through all kinds of effects taht the average person need not consider and so needs not know.
how powerful does a laser have to be to ge to the planet? what kind of timing does it need to be able to predict the exact location of the star in 4.5 years and the exact location of the planet when it will be at the poinf of crossing AND the place where the planet will be in the right point in rotation.
now figure out how many decimal places you need to divide a protractor up so that you are off by only half the width of the beam on arrival..
oh.. and remember, our solarsystem and planet is moving too.. would the natural wobble of the planet be enough to throw the beam off (yes)... so you would have to predict the the point in wobble too when you fire the pulse...
this caclulation must be performed for EVERY pulse.
(and guess what? the wobble of the recieving planet also doesn help, and if you dont know the oterh planets you cant adjust the orbit predictions. and chaos theory says that given our finite math in a non finite world, we cant predict with accuracy where it will be the farther out in time that it goes. we cant get over this effect either).
this article is completely idiotic. i'm no rocket scientist, but it's funny how people always think anything can happen in "100 years". Let's at least hold off until I get my flying car, then we can talk about interstellar space travel.
QUOTE (Buttons+Dec 8 2005, 03:05 PM)
I leave you with this thought: If the sun totally disappeared right now, we would see it blink out about eight minutes later. However, the earth would stop reacting to the sun's gravitational affect and go off in a straight line immediately. It wouldn't wait eight minutes. Does this mean gravity travels faster than light?
That's not true. The Earth would continue to feel the effects of the Sun's gravity until we saw the light of the Sun go out. Forces like gravity and electromagnetism propogate at the speed of light.
That's not true. The Earth would continue to feel the effects of the Sun's gravity until we saw the light of the Sun go out. Forces like gravity and electromagnetism propogate at the speed of light.
QUOTE (P. Gardner+Dec 9 2005, 09:01 AM)
Everybody is forgetting something: before mankind travels beyond our solar system, we had better come up with a faster means of communication. Our current form of communication depends on electrons which travels at the speed of light.
Photons... not electrons. EM waves are made of photons.
Photons... not electrons. EM waves are made of photons.
Well, just like I said, when we travel a 100 light years or less, we want be able to radio earth for help if we get into trouble, will we! Some day we will have to figure out how to increase the speed limit----10-4
I never cease to be amazed by supposedly well-educated people who fail to do even an elementary spelling or grammar check.
"Voyager 1 would take over 17,000 years to get Proxima Centuari, our nearest neighbor at 4.22 light years distance..."
Even if Voyager 1 "gets Proxima Centuari," what will it do with it once gotten?
I suspect this should have read as follows.
"Voyager 1 would take over 17,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri (sometimes known as Centaurus), our nearest neighbor at 4.22 light years distance..."
Spelling and grammar aside, I suspect the author is still way off in his estimates, though not exactly for the technological reasons put forth. Right now, our (the US) government seems much more concerned with how to brush aside hard questions about our current role in world affairs (including a certain war-of-convenience, which will remain nameless) than they are with exploring outer space.
To put that another way: Our social, ethical, and emotional development, as a SPECIES, lags far behind our technology. They're going to have to catch up to each other before our priorities shift from fighting about whether to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" to wondering who we might meet in the next star system over.
"Voyager 1 would take over 17,000 years to get Proxima Centuari, our nearest neighbor at 4.22 light years distance..."
Even if Voyager 1 "gets Proxima Centuari," what will it do with it once gotten?
I suspect this should have read as follows.
"Voyager 1 would take over 17,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri (sometimes known as Centaurus), our nearest neighbor at 4.22 light years distance..."
Spelling and grammar aside, I suspect the author is still way off in his estimates, though not exactly for the technological reasons put forth. Right now, our (the US) government seems much more concerned with how to brush aside hard questions about our current role in world affairs (including a certain war-of-convenience, which will remain nameless) than they are with exploring outer space.
To put that another way: Our social, ethical, and emotional development, as a SPECIES, lags far behind our technology. They're going to have to catch up to each other before our priorities shift from fighting about whether to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" to wondering who we might meet in the next star system over.
Did you folks at physorg.com ask for permission to use this images ?
QUOTE:
We may see the beginnings of an interstellar spaceflight program before the end of the millennium. We will simply need a compelling reason.
What in the world does that mean? He's predicting we might have interstellar spacefilght before the year 3000? That's absurdly conservative? Did he mean before the year 2100, which would have been phrased "before the end of the century"? I'm just not sure what that quote is trying to say.
We may see the beginnings of an interstellar spaceflight program before the end of the millennium. We will simply need a compelling reason.
What in the world does that mean? He's predicting we might have interstellar spacefilght before the year 3000? That's absurdly conservative? Did he mean before the year 2100, which would have been phrased "before the end of the century"? I'm just not sure what that quote is trying to say.
Question: Who in their right mind will take the chance of running into a rock the size of a marble while cruising at a million miles an hour while in a flimsy space en route to another world? Such a collision could happen and the chances probably aren't remote. If you think of a practical way to avoid such a disaster please let us know.
Here's a different thought: assuming that we will be able to exploit 'antimatter technology' (or anything similarly efficient) for propulsion anytime soon (e.g. this millennium), will we really be ready to handle its vast destructive potential?
Just consider that the last comparable breakthroughs - nuclear fission technology combined with rocket science - gave us the means to blow up entire continents (which we came pretty close to actually doing during the cold war).
The next comparable breakthrough, e.g. antimatter technology, might give us the power to literally blow up the whole planet. It will take a lot of maturity for mankind to control this kind of technologies - not only the strictly physical conditions, but also the social, political and environmental consequences.
Maybe one of the reasons we have never met alien space travelers has to do with this dilemma: how do you exploit the benefits of such vast technological resources without wiping out your whole species on the way?
Just consider that the last comparable breakthroughs - nuclear fission technology combined with rocket science - gave us the means to blow up entire continents (which we came pretty close to actually doing during the cold war).
The next comparable breakthrough, e.g. antimatter technology, might give us the power to literally blow up the whole planet. It will take a lot of maturity for mankind to control this kind of technologies - not only the strictly physical conditions, but also the social, political and environmental consequences.
Maybe one of the reasons we have never met alien space travelers has to do with this dilemma: how do you exploit the benefits of such vast technological resources without wiping out your whole species on the way?
space flight would be possible if small ideas like mine get some attention.i have a new idea that will work.threes no limed on how fast u can go slowing downs the hard part.nuclear propulsion is all the energy we need.everyone is scared of it,we need to embrace it to new levels
Once again, I must point out something.
All the nay-sayers are basing their arguments based on what today's scientists think they know. How many times in the last 100 years have they been wrong? Physics professors used to think that Newton discovered the last physical law until Einstein came along and kicked them in their smug, not-so-superior butts. Who knows what we'll learn in 50 to 100 years? There are current theories that can solve nearly every argument I have read from the doubters. If artificial wormholes turn out to be do-able, then all those problems are pretty much nixed. Need to send a message to Uncle Bob on Planet Boogadillio? No problem. Just open up the ol' wormhole and send him an email. Better yet, call him on the old-fashioned radio. You want to go visit him? Just hop on the next Boeing flight that goes into orbit. Their on-board wormhole generator will get you there in less than an hour.
All the nay-sayers are basing their arguments based on what today's scientists think they know. How many times in the last 100 years have they been wrong? Physics professors used to think that Newton discovered the last physical law until Einstein came along and kicked them in their smug, not-so-superior butts. Who knows what we'll learn in 50 to 100 years? There are current theories that can solve nearly every argument I have read from the doubters. If artificial wormholes turn out to be do-able, then all those problems are pretty much nixed. Need to send a message to Uncle Bob on Planet Boogadillio? No problem. Just open up the ol' wormhole and send him an email. Better yet, call him on the old-fashioned radio. You want to go visit him? Just hop on the next Boeing flight that goes into orbit. Their on-board wormhole generator will get you there in less than an hour.
I believe the time given for Voyager to reach the nearest star is way off. According to my admittedly quick calculations, at 39,000mph Voyager would travel only about 1 light year every 17,000 years. This means it would take over 70,000 years for Voyager to reach Proxima Centauri
While optimistic in nature, I have to join most of the nay-sayers in this particular argument. The fact is, that I would love it if we conquered space and time and had the run of the universe. Unfortunately, the more we learn, the less likely it seems.
Jeremy C., can you tell me just how many truly innovative discoveries have been made in physics in the past 70 years or so? Despite all the press on innovation, you can count them on your fingers. Most of the theoretical work done in that time frame has been refinements on our existing knowledge, or the inclusion of a few special cases that our more advanced instrumentation has been able to detect. Almost all of our applied physics research has been in making things we've know are possible actually work, or using those same theories in slightly different ways to do something that was possible, but no one had thought of. The fact is, that despite all the computer time and time spent banging their heads against walls, we physicists haven't come up with anything in around 70 years that actually fundamentally changes the way we look at the universe.
For instance, the stable wormholes you mentioned. Its a nice mathematical exercise. It even agrees with relativistic principles. That is, it does if you include exotic energy. Something that pops up if you twist certain maths correctly. However, we've never been able to actually prove it exists, afaik (granted, not my field, but I'm pretty sure i would remember that particular publication if anyone had made it). The sheer amount of such energy required to form and keep stable an artificial wormhole is hardly practical even if we were to figure out how to reliably produce it.
So, as much as I hate to say it, I believe some people should rely a bit less on faith that those of us doing physics research are going to pop up with earth shattering new ideas to whisk people off to the stars. Instead, you should concentrate a bit more on what you can do with what has already been provided. Dreaming is a great thing, but occasionally you have to wake up.
Jeremy C., can you tell me just how many truly innovative discoveries have been made in physics in the past 70 years or so? Despite all the press on innovation, you can count them on your fingers. Most of the theoretical work done in that time frame has been refinements on our existing knowledge, or the inclusion of a few special cases that our more advanced instrumentation has been able to detect. Almost all of our applied physics research has been in making things we've know are possible actually work, or using those same theories in slightly different ways to do something that was possible, but no one had thought of. The fact is, that despite all the computer time and time spent banging their heads against walls, we physicists haven't come up with anything in around 70 years that actually fundamentally changes the way we look at the universe.
For instance, the stable wormholes you mentioned. Its a nice mathematical exercise. It even agrees with relativistic principles. That is, it does if you include exotic energy. Something that pops up if you twist certain maths correctly. However, we've never been able to actually prove it exists, afaik (granted, not my field, but I'm pretty sure i would remember that particular publication if anyone had made it). The sheer amount of such energy required to form and keep stable an artificial wormhole is hardly practical even if we were to figure out how to reliably produce it.
So, as much as I hate to say it, I believe some people should rely a bit less on faith that those of us doing physics research are going to pop up with earth shattering new ideas to whisk people off to the stars. Instead, you should concentrate a bit more on what you can do with what has already been provided. Dreaming is a great thing, but occasionally you have to wake up.
Traveling faster than light? Some Einstein-fan believes it is impossible.
But in Augustus 2005, Pr Nicolas Gisin, from applied physics university of Geneva, was running some experiences on intricate particles. My knowledge (and English) is insufficient to explain exactly what it is. “Intrication” is a link between particles that appears when two or more particles are created in the same process.
If you "act" on one particle, every particles linked to it will react as the original even if they are 25km away (distance use in the experimentation). The experience proves that the "information" between particles had travel faster then 10 millions times speed of light.
That's were Einstein begins to be wrong.
(I haven’t found the reference on the net, but the article is from a paper called “Le temps”. Date: 12th Augustus 2005)
But in Augustus 2005, Pr Nicolas Gisin, from applied physics university of Geneva, was running some experiences on intricate particles. My knowledge (and English) is insufficient to explain exactly what it is. “Intrication” is a link between particles that appears when two or more particles are created in the same process.
If you "act" on one particle, every particles linked to it will react as the original even if they are 25km away (distance use in the experimentation). The experience proves that the "information" between particles had travel faster then 10 millions times speed of light.
That's were Einstein begins to be wrong.
(I haven’t found the reference on the net, but the article is from a paper called “Le temps”. Date: 12th Augustus 2005)
i think the quantum foam arises out of the time field and the gravitational dimemsion is "higher" than time field or dimension as it can alter time .
they ought to work on finding out how to gain access to these dimensions to step outside of space and the trip to other stars may be alot quicker .
doubtful anybody is gonna get to other star systems traveling thru 3 dimensional space . jb
they ought to work on finding out how to gain access to these dimensions to step outside of space and the trip to other stars may be alot quicker .
doubtful anybody is gonna get to other star systems traveling thru 3 dimensional space . jb
The Wright Brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk in December 1903. Apollo 11 landed on the moon in July 1969. The interval is not "less than 50 years" as the author states.
If you can't be accurate with simple math and historical facts, how credible can you be with predictions of interstellar travel, gigawatt laser, and the like?
If you can't be accurate with simple math and historical facts, how credible can you be with predictions of interstellar travel, gigawatt laser, and the like?
Guest_Eric,
Thanks for responding to my post. I must agree with some points you bring up but not all. Your question about how many innovations have arisen in the last 70 years seems irrelevant to me. How many years passed between Newton and Einstein? How many years between Einstein's relativity and Stephen Hawking's theories (some of which he has revised or changed completely)? There is a lot of arrogance in the scientific community with respect to what we know. The fact is, we don't know half as much as we think we know. How often have principles we previously were unaware of changed the world? We learn nothing by stating that something can't be done. True innovation starts with a so-called impossible idea. It takes the exceptional and rare people who are willing to ignore everyone else who say that their ideas won't work to get that idea off of the drawing board and into practical applications.
Will we be flying around in personal spaceships and vacationing in the Proxima Centauri system in 50 years? Probably not. I'll never say it's impossible though. We just don't know enough yet.
Thanks for responding to my post. I must agree with some points you bring up but not all. Your question about how many innovations have arisen in the last 70 years seems irrelevant to me. How many years passed between Newton and Einstein? How many years between Einstein's relativity and Stephen Hawking's theories (some of which he has revised or changed completely)? There is a lot of arrogance in the scientific community with respect to what we know. The fact is, we don't know half as much as we think we know. How often have principles we previously were unaware of changed the world? We learn nothing by stating that something can't be done. True innovation starts with a so-called impossible idea. It takes the exceptional and rare people who are willing to ignore everyone else who say that their ideas won't work to get that idea off of the drawing board and into practical applications.
Will we be flying around in personal spaceships and vacationing in the Proxima Centauri system in 50 years? Probably not. I'll never say it's impossible though. We just don't know enough yet.
The task now seems impossible now to travel 1 light year, or a even 1/100 of a light year from Earth in any time that would be practical for exploration.
The probe Voyager the article mentions will not only not arrive in 17,000 years, or 70,000 years to the next star, but never. It is not even pointed towards any neighboring star systems and if left to itself probably would just keep going forever never coming within a few light years of a star.
I am an optimist though and believe we will pick all 4 probes up within the next few hundred years and they will be taken to a museum to amaze people, similar to the Egyptian mummies seem to draw many now.
A few reasons why we will eventually make it to the stars:
1. Some people are clever
2. Some have the desire to explore
3. Snowballing effect of knowledge
4. Desire
5. We must
The probe Voyager the article mentions will not only not arrive in 17,000 years, or 70,000 years to the next star, but never. It is not even pointed towards any neighboring star systems and if left to itself probably would just keep going forever never coming within a few light years of a star.
I am an optimist though and believe we will pick all 4 probes up within the next few hundred years and they will be taken to a museum to amaze people, similar to the Egyptian mummies seem to draw many now.
A few reasons why we will eventually make it to the stars:
1. Some people are clever
2. Some have the desire to explore
3. Snowballing effect of knowledge
4. Desire
5. We must
QUOTE
Light sails currently are the most technologically viable of the three. Robert L. Forward, scientist and science fiction writer first proposed them in 1984.
Either they got the year wrong or are just plain wrong. Larry Niven's "the Fourth Proffesion" in "convergent series" publish in 1974 had aliens with light sails sailing to earth. i had the impression when reading the story that idea was not new then.
Interstellar Spaceflight - Is it possible? Yes. But that is not the question that we should be asking. The right question is, can we humans make it possible?
I am personally not one of those UFO enthusiasts, but I cannot explain some things in this world, e.g., the Baalbek Stones in Lebanon. Look closely, and you will see that someone else was here on earth long ago, and they travelled far to reach here. So it is indeed possible. Darwin's theory of Evolution is still just a theory.
Now the real question, can humans make it possible? Not until, we can solve some more important issues for the whole humankind. Disease, poverty, illiteracy, crime, hatred, greed, etc are the real things to go after. Only after these "interstellar spaceflight" comes.
Perhaps someday, we will have technology to harness the power of the whole of sun. Just as we build a dam on river to get electricity, mine tiny amounts of uranium for our power plants, similarly we need to develop the capability to harness big time and scale up.
The first step would be to make Mars habitable, perhaps it would take a thousand years. Then we may have two planet's resources to harness and if we have not nuked ourselves into history by then, move further...
Further, even after interstellar spaceflight becomes possible, we would still need to ask ourselves, is it right to go out.
Just because a mouse knows how to get out of its hole and go looking for other holes does not mean that it is safe to do this, maybe there is a hawk waiting for him to come out!
I am personally not one of those UFO enthusiasts, but I cannot explain some things in this world, e.g., the Baalbek Stones in Lebanon. Look closely, and you will see that someone else was here on earth long ago, and they travelled far to reach here. So it is indeed possible. Darwin's theory of Evolution is still just a theory.
Now the real question, can humans make it possible? Not until, we can solve some more important issues for the whole humankind. Disease, poverty, illiteracy, crime, hatred, greed, etc are the real things to go after. Only after these "interstellar spaceflight" comes.
Perhaps someday, we will have technology to harness the power of the whole of sun. Just as we build a dam on river to get electricity, mine tiny amounts of uranium for our power plants, similarly we need to develop the capability to harness big time and scale up.
The first step would be to make Mars habitable, perhaps it would take a thousand years. Then we may have two planet's resources to harness and if we have not nuked ourselves into history by then, move further...
Further, even after interstellar spaceflight becomes possible, we would still need to ask ourselves, is it right to go out.
Just because a mouse knows how to get out of its hole and go looking for other holes does not mean that it is safe to do this, maybe there is a hawk waiting for him to come out!
QUOTE (Keith+Dec 9 2005, 09:55 PM)
QUOTE:
We may see the beginnings of an interstellar spaceflight program before the end of the millennium. We will simply need a compelling reason.
What in the world does that mean? He's predicting we might have interstellar spacefilght before the year 3000? That's absurdly conservative? Did he mean before the year 2100, which would have been phrased "before the end of the century"? I'm just not sure what that quote is trying to say.
he is following a certain line of modern thought that you can see evidenced in peoples answers here.
nothing is impossible...
if nothing is impossible why dont we have everything?
because of cost...
why dont we have enough money to do what we want?
because of interest...
so if we get enough people interested, by lying to them about some value, then we can acquire the money, which is the only thing that ever limits us from doing the impossible.
[i am thinking of giving a course at the New School in how to deconstruct modern mainstream thinking for "fun and profit"]
We may see the beginnings of an interstellar spaceflight program before the end of the millennium. We will simply need a compelling reason.
What in the world does that mean? He's predicting we might have interstellar spacefilght before the year 3000? That's absurdly conservative? Did he mean before the year 2100, which would have been phrased "before the end of the century"? I'm just not sure what that quote is trying to say.
he is following a certain line of modern thought that you can see evidenced in peoples answers here.
nothing is impossible...
if nothing is impossible why dont we have everything?
because of cost...
why dont we have enough money to do what we want?
because of interest...
so if we get enough people interested, by lying to them about some value, then we can acquire the money, which is the only thing that ever limits us from doing the impossible.
[i am thinking of giving a course at the New School in how to deconstruct modern mainstream thinking for "fun and profit"]
QUOTE (ArtflDgr+Dec 12 2005, 03:17 PM)
QUOTE (Keith+Dec 9 2005, 09:55 PM)
QUOTE:
We may see the beginnings of an interstellar spaceflight program before the end of the millennium. We will simply need a compelling reason.
What in the world does that mean? He's predicting we might have interstellar spacefilght before the year 3000? That's absurdly conservative? Did he mean before the year 2100, which would have been phrased "before the end of the century"? I'm just not sure what that quote is trying to say.
he is following a certain line of modern thought that you can see evidenced in peoples answers here.
nothing is impossible...
if nothing is impossible why dont we have everything?
because of cost...
why dont we have enough money to do what we want?
because of interest...
so if we get enough people interested, by lying to them about some value, then we can acquire the money, which is the only thing that ever limits us from doing the impossible.
[i am thinking of giving a course at the New School in how to deconstruct modern mainstream thinking for "fun and profit"]
There are absolutely things that are "impossible" (like teleportation of complex objects of mass, like humans). Interstellar travel is not one of them. Breaking the speed of light isn't one of them either. Light has already been shown to "be faster than itself" (300 times faster, in fact) through a specially prepared Cesium chamber. That's just an example of course since light waves have no mass. I agree with your points in general but you also have to realize that we are far from knowing everything that is possible.
We may see the beginnings of an interstellar spaceflight program before the end of the millennium. We will simply need a compelling reason.
What in the world does that mean? He's predicting we might have interstellar spacefilght before the year 3000? That's absurdly conservative? Did he mean before the year 2100, which would have been phrased "before the end of the century"? I'm just not sure what that quote is trying to say.
he is following a certain line of modern thought that you can see evidenced in peoples answers here.
nothing is impossible...
if nothing is impossible why dont we have everything?
because of cost...
why dont we have enough money to do what we want?
because of interest...
so if we get enough people interested, by lying to them about some value, then we can acquire the money, which is the only thing that ever limits us from doing the impossible.
[i am thinking of giving a course at the New School in how to deconstruct modern mainstream thinking for "fun and profit"]
There are absolutely things that are "impossible" (like teleportation of complex objects of mass, like humans). Interstellar travel is not one of them. Breaking the speed of light isn't one of them either. Light has already been shown to "be faster than itself" (300 times faster, in fact) through a specially prepared Cesium chamber. That's just an example of course since light waves have no mass. I agree with your points in general but you also have to realize that we are far from knowing everything that is possible.
QUOTE (metabaron2000+Dec 11 2005, 01:10 AM)
Traveling faster than light? Some Einstein-fan believes it is impossible.
But in Augustus 2005, Pr Nicolas Gisin, from applied physics university of Geneva, was running some experiences on intricate particles. My knowledge (and English) is insufficient to explain exactly what it is. “Intrication” is a link between particles that appears when two or more particles are created in the same process.
If you "act" on one particle, every particles linked to it will react as the original even if they are 25km away (distance use in the experimentation). The experience proves that the "information" between particles had travel faster then 10 millions times speed of light.
That's were Einstein begins to be wrong.
(I haven’t found the reference on the net, but the article is from a paper called “Le temps”. Date: 12th Augustus 2005)
Quantum Entanglement
But in Augustus 2005, Pr Nicolas Gisin, from applied physics university of Geneva, was running some experiences on intricate particles. My knowledge (and English) is insufficient to explain exactly what it is. “Intrication” is a link between particles that appears when two or more particles are created in the same process.
If you "act" on one particle, every particles linked to it will react as the original even if they are 25km away (distance use in the experimentation). The experience proves that the "information" between particles had travel faster then 10 millions times speed of light.
That's were Einstein begins to be wrong.
(I haven’t found the reference on the net, but the article is from a paper called “Le temps”. Date: 12th Augustus 2005)
Quantum Entanglement
QUOTE (metabaron2000+Dec 11 2005, 01:10 AM)
Traveling faster than light? Some Einstein-fan believes it is impossible.
But in Augustus 2005, Pr Nicolas Gisin, from applied physics university of Geneva, was running some experiences on intricate particles. My knowledge (and English) is insufficient to explain exactly what it is. “Intrication” is a link between particles that appears when two or more particles are created in the same process.
If you "act" on one particle, every particles linked to it will react as the original even if they are 25km away (distance use in the experimentation). The experience proves that the "information" between particles had travel faster then 10 millions times speed of light.
That's were Einstein begins to be wrong.
(I haven’t found the reference on the net, but the article is from a paper called “Le temps”. Date: 12th Augustus 2005)
Quantum Entanglement
But in Augustus 2005, Pr Nicolas Gisin, from applied physics university of Geneva, was running some experiences on intricate particles. My knowledge (and English) is insufficient to explain exactly what it is. “Intrication” is a link between particles that appears when two or more particles are created in the same process.
If you "act" on one particle, every particles linked to it will react as the original even if they are 25km away (distance use in the experimentation). The experience proves that the "information" between particles had travel faster then 10 millions times speed of light.
That's were Einstein begins to be wrong.
(I haven’t found the reference on the net, but the article is from a paper called “Le temps”. Date: 12th Augustus 2005)
Quantum Entanglement
QUOTE (p. gardner+Dec 9 2005, 08:20 PM)
Well, just like I said, when we travel a 100 light years or less, we want be able to radio earth for help if we get into trouble, will we! Some day we will have to figure out how to increase the speed limit----10-4
See Above Post (well, above double post...forgot to type a name the first time)
The same principle would allow for FTL communication, perhaps.
See Above Post (well, above double post...forgot to type a name the first time)
The same principle would allow for FTL communication, perhaps.
On 8-Dec-2005 InkDrTat2s wrote:
"even a small amount of static seems like we could figure out how to collect, store and amplify it to sufficeant amounts to be feasbale."
Is this is supposed to be scientific thought? This person cannot even write a coherent sentence or spell simple words correctly. What do "sufficeant" and "feasbale" mean?
"even a small amount of static seems like we could figure out how to collect, store and amplify it to sufficeant amounts to be feasbale."
Is this is supposed to be scientific thought? This person cannot even write a coherent sentence or spell simple words correctly. What do "sufficeant" and "feasbale" mean?
Interesting discussion that prompted me to submit my first post here!
Why do people assume that technology will conquer all? Sure, we have seen the birth of cd players, mp3 players, digital watches and other marvels so we are used to the thought that we only need a bit more time, and then we can crack this problem. Things are getting lighter, better and more powerful all the time. Want a camera with double the MP than you can have today? Just wait a year or two, and then buy one.
It does not have to be that way. It is quite possible that sooner or later, we will reach the limits of what technology and knowledge of physics can do for us. Given a problem, such as interstellar travel, it is quite possible that it will not be solved no matter how long we wait. This is an unfamiliar way of thinking, but it was the norm just few hundred years ago and could well be again. Todays technological race could just be a transient.
What I'm saying is that it is quite possible that interstellar travel is practically impossible. This is an ugly idea, and I frankly hope it is wrong but it could well be. This could also explain the question of 'where are all the aliens?'. The obvious answer is that they are at home, looking at the stars and still trying to figure out a way to get there after millions of years of technological progress.
Bjorn
Why do people assume that technology will conquer all? Sure, we have seen the birth of cd players, mp3 players, digital watches and other marvels so we are used to the thought that we only need a bit more time, and then we can crack this problem. Things are getting lighter, better and more powerful all the time. Want a camera with double the MP than you can have today? Just wait a year or two, and then buy one.
It does not have to be that way. It is quite possible that sooner or later, we will reach the limits of what technology and knowledge of physics can do for us. Given a problem, such as interstellar travel, it is quite possible that it will not be solved no matter how long we wait. This is an unfamiliar way of thinking, but it was the norm just few hundred years ago and could well be again. Todays technological race could just be a transient.
What I'm saying is that it is quite possible that interstellar travel is practically impossible. This is an ugly idea, and I frankly hope it is wrong but it could well be. This could also explain the question of 'where are all the aliens?'. The obvious answer is that they are at home, looking at the stars and still trying to figure out a way to get there after millions of years of technological progress.
Bjorn
QUOTE (Bjorn+Dec 13 2005, 09:51 AM)
Interesting discussion that prompted me to submit my first post here!
Why do people assume that technology will conquer all? Sure, we have seen the birth of cd players, mp3 players, digital watches and other marvels so we are used to the thought that we only need a bit more time, and then we can crack this problem. Things are getting lighter, better and more powerful all the time. Want a camera with double the MP than you can have today? Just wait a year or two, and then buy one.
It does not have to be that way. It is quite possible that sooner or later, we will reach the limits of what technology and knowledge of physics can do for us. Given a problem, such as interstellar travel, it is quite possible that it will not be solved no matter how long we wait. This is an unfamiliar way of thinking, but it was the norm just few hundred years ago and could well be again. Todays technological race could just be a transient.
What I'm saying is that it is quite possible that interstellar travel is practically impossible. This is an ugly idea, and I frankly hope it is wrong but it could well be. This could also explain the question of 'where are all the aliens?'. The obvious answer is that they are at home, looking at the stars and still trying to figure out a way to get there after millions of years of technological progress.
Bjorn
Excellent point i have been trying to make in a different way.
It is well to note that people who have little knowledge in the way of building things (and i mean sat down and build, not having imagined the taste of a pineapple through reading about one), can make all these confidence assertions.
even more fun, is that the crowd they all belong in also includes those that think that the technology we have is from aliens, and/or big pharma and everyone is colluding and plotting (they may be scheming, which is normal, but not as part of some grand conspiracy to keep people sick).
as for the man who is rediscovering all the work that already has been done stemming from einstein... quantum entanglement was refered to by einstein as "spooky action at a distance".
many people have surmized about using it for communication... however, many have explained why it cant be used for such (one being that the entanglement is very sensitive to almost everything).
the sad part is the same ignorance that cant see why such extreme things are not possible, are blinded to what IS possible. while looking at the mirage, they faile to see whats in front of them. (and often how government and big business stymies them from having it!).
Why do people assume that technology will conquer all? Sure, we have seen the birth of cd players, mp3 players, digital watches and other marvels so we are used to the thought that we only need a bit more time, and then we can crack this problem. Things are getting lighter, better and more powerful all the time. Want a camera with double the MP than you can have today? Just wait a year or two, and then buy one.
It does not have to be that way. It is quite possible that sooner or later, we will reach the limits of what technology and knowledge of physics can do for us. Given a problem, such as interstellar travel, it is quite possible that it will not be solved no matter how long we wait. This is an unfamiliar way of thinking, but it was the norm just few hundred years ago and could well be again. Todays technological race could just be a transient.
What I'm saying is that it is quite possible that interstellar travel is practically impossible. This is an ugly idea, and I frankly hope it is wrong but it could well be. This could also explain the question of 'where are all the aliens?'. The obvious answer is that they are at home, looking at the stars and still trying to figure out a way to get there after millions of years of technological progress.
Bjorn
Excellent point i have been trying to make in a different way.
It is well to note that people who have little knowledge in the way of building things (and i mean sat down and build, not having imagined the taste of a pineapple through reading about one), can make all these confidence assertions.
even more fun, is that the crowd they all belong in also includes those that think that the technology we have is from aliens, and/or big pharma and everyone is colluding and plotting (they may be scheming, which is normal, but not as part of some grand conspiracy to keep people sick).
as for the man who is rediscovering all the work that already has been done stemming from einstein... quantum entanglement was refered to by einstein as "spooky action at a distance".
many people have surmized about using it for communication... however, many have explained why it cant be used for such (one being that the entanglement is very sensitive to almost everything).
the sad part is the same ignorance that cant see why such extreme things are not possible, are blinded to what IS possible. while looking at the mirage, they faile to see whats in front of them. (and often how government and big business stymies them from having it!).
QUOTE (ArtflDgr+Dec 13 2005, 04:34 PM)
QUOTE (Bjorn+Dec 13 2005, 09:51 AM)
Interesting discussion that prompted me to submit my first post here!
Why do people assume that technology will conquer all? Sure, we have seen the birth of cd players, mp3 players, digital watches and other marvels so we are used to the thought that we only need a bit more time, and then we can crack this problem. Things are getting lighter, better and more powerful all the time. Want a camera with double the MP than you can have today? Just wait a year or two, and then buy one.
It does not have to be that way. It is quite possible that sooner or later, we will reach the limits of what technology and knowledge of physics can do for us. Given a problem, such as interstellar travel, it is quite possible that it will not be solved no matter how long we wait. This is an unfamiliar way of thinking, but it was the norm just few hundred years ago and could well be again. Todays technological race could just be a transient.
What I'm saying is that it is quite possible that interstellar travel is practically impossible. This is an ugly idea, and I frankly hope it is wrong but it could well be. This could also explain the question of 'where are all the aliens?'. The obvious answer is that they are at home, looking at the stars and still trying to figure out a way to get there after millions of years of technological progress.
Bjorn
Excellent point i have been trying to make in a different way.
It is well to note that people who have little knowledge in the way of building things (and i mean sat down and build, not having imagined the taste of a pineapple through reading about one), can make all these confidence assertions.
even more fun, is that the crowd they all belong in also includes those that think that the technology we have is from aliens, and/or big pharma and everyone is colluding and plotting (they may be scheming, which is normal, but not as part of some grand conspiracy to keep people sick).
as for the man who is rediscovering all the work that already has been done stemming from einstein... quantum entanglement was refered to by einstein as "spooky action at a distance".
many people have surmized about using it for communication... however, many have explained why it cant be used for such (one being that the entanglement is very sensitive to almost everything).
the sad part is the same ignorance that cant see why such extreme things are not possible, are blinded to what IS possible. while looking at the mirage, they faile to see whats in front of them. (and often how government and big business stymies them from having it!).
And for those that think that they can transport... (i showed that classic physics says you CAN do it, but the tyranny of numbers would crush you).
here is a paragraph on it:
technically a transportation is a information problem... and as you can see above, you can transfer the information, the REALITY wont let it inherently in its structure.
as for those that want to communicate, one must create entagled states. the photon or electron and such, must be created, and then isolated from other actions, then the comlimentary entangled particle has to be SENT to the other location. once their THEN the person sending it can retreive some information.
so in the case of the centaurus problem... we make entangled pairs.. we send them.. they get them.. we now can communicate, no? well no.. we dont know which ones made the journey and which ones failed, and so we dnot know which particles are entangled with which particles..
Try Arthur C. Clarke around 1947.
Obviously, we're going to have to figure out what inertia is first. If a mass can be made to have no inertia, then instant acceleration to lightspeed or beyond will become possible.
I say "beyond" because even a photon carries momentum and it has inertia and even mass as per E=mc^2.
Simply put, how fast can you go when you don't exist (as far as the universe is concerned)? Spooky action and quantum tunneling should give us the clue that there might not be any limits or barriers.
Of course, we're a long way away from understanding inertia. What causes it? No one knows for sure. I'm sure that it has to do with the underlying cause of gravity (as per Mach), but why does gravity reach out through nothingness and do what it does? No one knows.
Eric
It is theorized that it does, but no one really knows that it does. This theory is based on the notion that gravity might be a form of quanta called the graviton (theorized to have similar properties to the photon). The problem is that no one has, or even knows how to detect one since gravity permeates all mass.
They are looking for gravity waves which have the potential to confirm the concept, but as far as I know no one has detected them either.
A possible proof would be to ascertain that the earth is orbiting the visible sun rather than the actual current location of the sun, but no one has senitive enough equipment to make that determination.
Personally,I don't think it makes sense to think of gravity this way since it doesn't appear to have frequency variation. That is to say that all gravity has the same potential relative to its source mass. There doesn't appear to be any small masses with particularly strong gravity (analogous to a very bright light) or large masses with light gravity (dim bulbs). Imagine if light behaved this way. Bright light sources would have to be extremely massive!
Gravity Probe B was sent up to test for frame dragging as predicted by Einstein, but I think it has the potential to have experienced and recorded minute gravity waves too. I'm very curious to see the results when they are released.
Obviously, we're going to have to figure out what inertia is first. If a mass can be made to have no inertia, then instant acceleration to lightspeed or beyond will become possible.
I say "beyond" because even a photon carries momentum and it has inertia and even mass as per E=mc^2.
Simply put, how fast can you go when you don't exist (as far as the universe is concerned)? Spooky action and quantum tunneling should give us the clue that there might not be any limits or barriers.
Of course, we're a long way away from understanding inertia. What causes it? No one knows for sure. I'm sure that it has to do with the underlying cause of gravity (as per Mach), but why does gravity reach out through nothingness and do what it does? No one knows.
Eric
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
here is a thread to lead you to your answer in intertia...
look up and learn Noeters work. SHE helped set the stage for Einsteins relativity theories.
Obviously, we're going to have to figure out what inertia is first. If a mass can be made to have no inertia, then instant acceleration to lightspeed or beyond will become possible.
I say "beyond" because even a photon carries momentum and it has inertia and even mass as per E=mc^2.
Simply put, how fast can you go when you don't exist (as far as the universe is concerned)? Spooky action and quantum tunneling should give us the clue that there might not be any limits or barriers.
Of course, we're a long way away from understanding inertia. What causes it? No one knows for sure. I'm sure that it has to do with the underlying cause of gravity (as per Mach), but why does gravity reach out through nothingness and do what it does? No one knows.
Eric
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
here is a thread to lead you to your answer in intertia...
look up and learn Noeters work. SHE helped set the stage for Einsteins relativity theories.
Emmy Noether proved two deep theorems, and their converses, on the connection between symmetries and conservation laws. Because these theorems are not in the mainstream of her scholarly work, which was the development of modern abstract algebra, it is of some historical interest to examine how she came to make these discoveries. The present paper is an historical account of the circumstances in which she discovered and proved these theorems which physicists refer to collectively as Noether's Theorem. The work was done soon after Hilbert's discovery of the variational principle which gives the field equations of general relativity. The failure of local energy conservation in the general theory was a problem that concerned people at that time, among them David Hilbert, Felix Klein, and Albert Einstein. Noether's theorems solved this problem. With her characteristically deep insight and thorough analysis, in solving that problem she discovered very general theorems that have profoundly influenced modern physics.
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/...sg/noether.html
as for your concepts of how science works, your wrong, and its sad. it is normal for people not to have a lot of time to spare. you have focused and attibuted the behavior of the busy to pompousness. i have many times written letters and had conversations with many researchers. if you are short sweet, are not making nutty claims and such, they take the time to speak with you. they dont have reserouces to spend on your ideas, but they often will listen, sometimes give advice, and if your lucky suggest other researchers to talk to or ways of making your data or formulations better.
a major problem is that many people with ideas have not spend much time plowing through the known literature to see if their idea is covered. they think that they have suddenly woken up and found some great revelation that they must be missing for if they hadnt, we would have heard it trumpeted. when a person walks up to someone that knows this stuff its like a witch doctor walking up to you and trying to convince you that it is powerful magic that makes the tides. as much as you might like to help the kindly helpful witchdoctor, you dont have time to ramp him up to speed to answer his question. they require more than a single course to just help set the groundwork.
i will tell you that if you get Noethers work down (and its VERY accessible), you will suddenly understand a lot more about things than you ever did before. its a shame that they dont usually teach her work, and so students miss out on a deeper understanding from the get go.
she is a great testement to the concept that it really doesnt matter what your allowed (presumtively) to do, or not. with a real desire you do it anyway. if you actually have something to contribute then your heard. reading her history you can see that she didnt have the same ops as the guys, however, those stuffy scientists provided her with the permissions to take the classes, and earn a degree. our impression of this era has been injected with a lot of radical fem ideology and such. it was not an easy time for most people, and what was going on was not some grand plan. it grew out of something that grew out of something that grew out of something. its only in the recent eras tha we have been able to step back and take a larger look and attempt to actually engineer our social structure (and we have made so many changes with total disregard to anyting other than ideological desire and whim, that we are really in deep doo doo). whe have made it easier for women to attend these classes which is great. however we lost that the trials of entry forces only the best to enter. so while we have more women entering, we are not producing more emmy noether's. we have sacrificed merit for self esteem and do not challenge the way the difficulties of the past challenged people. in the past things were often too serious to waste time in distractions, today distractions are to serious to waste time in something important if it can be avioded.
over and over in history of science you will find people picking up and helping people with good ideas. no matter what the political climate is. how it happens has to do with what effort you put in to be current and be a part of the front of whats really there.
work hard so you dont waste their time and they will listen. journals have no educational requirement!!! though you have to do good work. maybe even better work than someone with a degree and a professor on his work. in the long run it would be to your advantage (so dont gripe). most people will not do the work, or think they know a lot when they dont. the trick is to know where what you know ends and what you need to find out to continue on.
i agree with the other astute poster that interstellar space travel is a given, though it will not be with fancy faster than light travel. its not too hard to imagine building huge hotel way stations between here and another star for hop breaks and sevearl year long travel times. in fact if you do the math work. we actually could colonize a large part of the galaxy in a very short time. though if we dont fix our ideologies from being one of selfishness over fecundity, we wont go anywhere.
before i sign out, one thing i want to note is that i dont understand this obsession with faster than light concepts. its almost like Einstein has drawn the ultimate line in the sand and many are not satisfied with a universe that has hard and fast rules (which are structural not arbitrary). the real shame is that they are wasting a large portion of their lives on discussions over issues that they cant actually contribute to. the reasons for their inability to contribute is connected with their lack of enough desire to do the hard work and learn the math and whats known or not (though they would rather say its scientific hubris - humility is in short supply).
these people could start by taking the time to learn. to dig in. if they are really trying to learn you will find that there are a ton of people and resources there just to provide information and help you. they are only waiting for you to ask them rather than challenge them. start with some things that are more accessible than attempting to prove or claim or assert that the icon of modern physics is wrong becaue you think so (but cant really tell us why).
gotta go... too much work to do.
Obviously, we're going to have to figure out what inertia is first. If a mass can be made to have no inertia, then instant acceleration to lightspeed or beyond will become possible.
I say "beyond" because even a photon carries momentum and it has inertia and even mass as per E=mc^2.
Simply put, how fast can you go when you don't exist (as far as the universe is concerned)? Spooky action and quantum tunneling should give us the clue that there might not be any limits or barriers.
Of course, we're a long way away from understanding inertia. What causes it? No one knows for sure. I'm sure that it has to do with the underlying cause of gravity (as per Mach), but why does gravity reach out through nothingness and do what it does? No one knows.
Eric
oh.. i forgot to mention...
light does not have mass...
you sound smart, but you dont know what you are talking about.
Photons are Gauge Bosons.. they are carriers of force (in this case the electromagnetic force). guage bosons have a spin of 1.
photons have no intrinsic mass... though the word mass is a hairy one once you step into reletivistic areas. then you have reletivistic mass. however, in very simple terms this is just a equavalency to curved space.
given that a photon has no intrinsic mass he has no momentum.
(actually pick a tiny number for mass and apply it to something traveling light speed and you would ahve the irrisisteble force. intrinsic mass increases as speed does and so a photon would be infinitely heavy, its kinetic energy is also infinite and boy when it hits you! whump!).
unless you go past basic physics you might not be taught the modern form, as the older form (as implied above - which is that rest mass is real mass and reletivistic mass is energy). the reason being that its easier to understand, and the person being taught isnt going farther than that. though if they were to continue and apply this to faster speeds they would then have to worry bout frames of reference and such.
It is theorized that it does, but no one really knows that it does. This theory is based on the notion that gravity might be a form of quanta called the graviton (theorized to have similar properties to the photon). The problem is that no one has, or even knows how to detect one since gravity permeates all mass.
They are looking for gravity waves which have the potential to confirm the concept, but as far as I know no one has detected them either.
A possible proof would be to ascertain that the earth is orbiting the visible sun rather than the actual current location of the sun, but no one has senitive enough equipment to make that determination.
Personally,I don't think it makes sense to think of gravity this way since it doesn't appear to have frequency variation. That is to say that all gravity has the same potential relative to its source mass. There doesn't appear to be any small masses with particularly strong gravity (analogous to a very bright light) or large masses with light gravity (dim bulbs). Imagine if light behaved this way. Bright light sources would have to be extremely massive!
Gravity Probe B was sent up to test for frame dragging as predicted by Einstein, but I think it has the potential to have experienced and recorded minute gravity waves too. I'm very curious to see the results when they are released.
wrong again on gravitons...
our colliders are not at an energy level in which a graviton would make itself known in reactions.
as of yet no one has detected gravity waves. a mixed blessing actually.
(i have a lovely way in which if they are detectable we already have the information collected. all you have to do is analyse it with the point in mind).
the standard model has been very good to us, as the supersymetric model (as a few others). so there is a bevy of things that are out there that we still havent 'seen' because they only exist in some extreme condition and for incredibly short periods of time.
i dont understand what the heck your proof would proof.. other than i think you are trying to mention frame dragging but down understand it.
your paragraph on gravity and frequency variations is weird and way off. why would the varying frequency of gravity waves have any effect on mass? the frequency doesnt change the number of gravitons and so the mass stays the same no matter what the frequency of the wave. your concept of light totally ignores that the brightness of light is not a function of its wavelength. a photon of visible light when compared to a xray light, is equivalently bright. the xray is carrying more energy though. you can make a brighter light out of the xray be absorbing and re-emitting it as two photons of a lesser power level.
so your conclusion about bright sources, to quote a famous physicist, is not even wrong.
Gravity Probe B does not have the ability to record gravity waves.
let me just point out that we are lucky that these things are not that energetic. even a mild one would shear things... to make one large enough (presumably) one would need something like two black holes orbiting, and the amount of energy in these waves would be enourmous in scale.
gravity probe B is not large enough.. however as i said, we already have the info, no one is processing it for that though.
Why do people assume that technology will conquer all? Sure, we have seen the birth of cd players, mp3 players, digital watches and other marvels so we are used to the thought that we only need a bit more time, and then we can crack this problem. Things are getting lighter, better and more powerful all the time. Want a camera with double the MP than you can have today? Just wait a year or two, and then buy one.
It does not have to be that way. It is quite possible that sooner or later, we will reach the limits of what technology and knowledge of physics can do for us. Given a problem, such as interstellar travel, it is quite possible that it will not be solved no matter how long we wait. This is an unfamiliar way of thinking, but it was the norm just few hundred years ago and could well be again. Todays technological race could just be a transient.
What I'm saying is that it is quite possible that interstellar travel is practically impossible. This is an ugly idea, and I frankly hope it is wrong but it could well be. This could also explain the question of 'where are all the aliens?'. The obvious answer is that they are at home, looking at the stars and still trying to figure out a way to get there after millions of years of technological progress.
Bjorn
Excellent point i have been trying to make in a different way.
It is well to note that people who have little knowledge in the way of building things (and i mean sat down and build, not having imagined the taste of a pineapple through reading about one), can make all these confidence assertions.
even more fun, is that the crowd they all belong in also includes those that think that the technology we have is from aliens, and/or big pharma and everyone is colluding and plotting (they may be scheming, which is normal, but not as part of some grand conspiracy to keep people sick).
as for the man who is rediscovering all the work that already has been done stemming from einstein... quantum entanglement was refered to by einstein as "spooky action at a distance".
many people have surmized about using it for communication... however, many have explained why it cant be used for such (one being that the entanglement is very sensitive to almost everything).
the sad part is the same ignorance that cant see why such extreme things are not possible, are blinded to what IS possible. while looking at the mirage, they faile to see whats in front of them. (and often how government and big business stymies them from having it!).
And for those that think that they can transport... (i showed that classic physics says you CAN do it, but the tyranny of numbers would crush you).
here is a paragraph on it:
QUOTE
The other miracle, "quantum teleportation", is also based on quantum nonlocality. In classical physics, the teleportation machines of science fiction present no problem of principle. One simply measures the state of every atom of the object to be teleported, transmits that information, and any number of copies of the object can be reconstructed by any receiver. But quantum physics fundamentally limits the accuracy of any such process because one cannot experimentally determine an unknown state. At most one can distinguish between N mutually orthogonal states, provided one already knows which N states those are. N is determined by the system being used for photons and spinhalf particles, for example, N=2.
Cloning (accurately copying) an unknown quantum state would be equivalent to a simultaneous sharp measurement of all observables of the system, including non-commuting ones, which is forbidden by the uncertainty principle. Thus, suppose Alice is given an object in an unknown quantum state . Until recently, it was thought that the only way she could cause Bob to possess an object in that same state, , would be either to send the object itself to Bob, or to transfer its state characteristics to another particle and send that (and irretrievably alter the state of the original object). In either case, the transmission would have to be along a channel that maintains quantum coherence, which requires the complete isolation of the transmitted object.
Cloning (accurately copying) an unknown quantum state would be equivalent to a simultaneous sharp measurement of all observables of the system, including non-commuting ones, which is forbidden by the uncertainty principle. Thus, suppose Alice is given an object in an unknown quantum state . Until recently, it was thought that the only way she could cause Bob to possess an object in that same state, , would be either to send the object itself to Bob, or to transfer its state characteristics to another particle and send that (and irretrievably alter the state of the original object). In either case, the transmission would have to be along a channel that maintains quantum coherence, which requires the complete isolation of the transmitted object.
technically a transportation is a information problem... and as you can see above, you can transfer the information, the REALITY wont let it inherently in its structure.
as for those that want to communicate, one must create entagled states. the photon or electron and such, must be created, and then isolated from other actions, then the comlimentary entangled particle has to be SENT to the other location. once their THEN the person sending it can retreive some information.
so in the case of the centaurus problem... we make entangled pairs.. we send them.. they get them.. we now can communicate, no? well no.. we dont know which ones made the journey and which ones failed, and so we dnot know which particles are entangled with which particles..
QUOTE
"Light sails currently are the most technologically viable of the three. Robert L. Forward, scientist and science fiction writer first proposed them in 1984."
Try Arthur C. Clarke around 1947.
What a great conversation! I'm glad I found it.
As far as the contention that no new physics has been discovered in 70+ years is concerned, this is in large part to due the system of science as we know it.
How many scientist that are trained in the understanding of the laws of physics as they are known, might doubt (on a fundamental level) their efficacy? That is, how can you think of something new when you are so bogged down with the old?
On a deeper level, science is selfish. Scientists are only willing to work (for the most part) on concepts and theories that advance their own personal agendas. They tend to be intolerant of distractions. Have you ever tried to approach a professor of physics with and idea? You'd be lucky to get two minutes to explain. Try explaining quantum mechanics in two minutes!
Also, how many scientists are open to exploring new concepts... especially new concepts that go against their training in physics? They'll accuse you of being a crackpot fool for even trying such a thing! Worse is their response to laypeople that want to express a concept. They were so overwhelmed by the pure zeal of the uninitiated during the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project and other open calls for ideas, that they have positively turned a deaf ear to unsolicited proposals from the general populace.
This is very sad. How much truth has been lost to this process? We can never know, but...
Think about the great innovators of applied physics. I'm not talking about the theorists like Newton and Einstein, but rather the guys who actually put two sticks together to build something new.
Who are they? They are often science rogues. Although they harness and apply the laws of physics in new and innovative ways, few were trained in the understanding of those laws beforehand. At best, they were self-taught! The Wright brothers and Edison are prime examples.
Certainly innovation comes from the well-trained scientists and engineers, but this is almost invariably incremental advancement. Rarely has a trained scientist been both a person of great knowledge and a great innovator too.
Einstein was a rare exception, but he never really built anything. His innovation was simply in not believing what he'd been taught about physics on a fundamental level, so that he could analyze physics for himself.
Quantum leaps in technological advancement seem to come rather rarely. I often wonder what it might be like to meet a Da Vinci, Newton, Franklin, Einstein and the like. What is it about them that makes them wander so far from the beaten path? What motivates them? How do they develop their concepts and, how did they get their concepts accepted?
Anyway, if there are any scientists out there that truly want to learn something new in regards to propulsion physics, speak up. I can't find you for all the closed doors!
Eric
As far as the contention that no new physics has been discovered in 70+ years is concerned, this is in large part to due the system of science as we know it.
How many scientist that are trained in the understanding of the laws of physics as they are known, might doubt (on a fundamental level) their efficacy? That is, how can you think of something new when you are so bogged down with the old?
On a deeper level, science is selfish. Scientists are only willing to work (for the most part) on concepts and theories that advance their own personal agendas. They tend to be intolerant of distractions. Have you ever tried to approach a professor of physics with and idea? You'd be lucky to get two minutes to explain. Try explaining quantum mechanics in two minutes!
Also, how many scientists are open to exploring new concepts... especially new concepts that go against their training in physics? They'll accuse you of being a crackpot fool for even trying such a thing! Worse is their response to laypeople that want to express a concept. They were so overwhelmed by the pure zeal of the uninitiated during the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project and other open calls for ideas, that they have positively turned a deaf ear to unsolicited proposals from the general populace.
This is very sad. How much truth has been lost to this process? We can never know, but...
Think about the great innovators of applied physics. I'm not talking about the theorists like Newton and Einstein, but rather the guys who actually put two sticks together to build something new.
Who are they? They are often science rogues. Although they harness and apply the laws of physics in new and innovative ways, few were trained in the understanding of those laws beforehand. At best, they were self-taught! The Wright brothers and Edison are prime examples.
Certainly innovation comes from the well-trained scientists and engineers, but this is almost invariably incremental advancement. Rarely has a trained scientist been both a person of great knowledge and a great innovator too.
Einstein was a rare exception, but he never really built anything. His innovation was simply in not believing what he'd been taught about physics on a fundamental level, so that he could analyze physics for himself.
Quantum leaps in technological advancement seem to come rather rarely. I often wonder what it might be like to meet a Da Vinci, Newton, Franklin, Einstein and the like. What is it about them that makes them wander so far from the beaten path? What motivates them? How do they develop their concepts and, how did they get their concepts accepted?
Anyway, if there are any scientists out there that truly want to learn something new in regards to propulsion physics, speak up. I can't find you for all the closed doors!
Eric
Guys... please, please try to have some idea what you're talking about before making replies. I'd prefer not to have my faith in humanity dashed so quickly.
For starters: faster-than-light travel, or indeed communication of any sort, is impossible. The phase-velocity experiments done with light in a cesium medium cannot be used to transmit information; likewise with quantum entanglement, tachyons, or any other bits of physics esoterica. Faster-than-light anything is inextricably linked to causality-violating time travel, and that has major problems of its own. Hawking and others have proposed the Chronology Protection Conjecture which would rule out time travel, and FTL effects with it.
The most promising method for extremely long-distance travel is traversible wormholes. They appear to be allowed by the current understanding of both relativity and quantum mechanics, and it has been shown that some wormhole metrics can be constructed using vacuum stress energy instead of exotic matter. However, the mouths still have to be moved through normal space at sublight speeds. The initial effort has to be made up-front, but once the wormhole is established travel through it is quite easy.
Barring even that bit of technological cleverness, interstellar travel is mainly a tradeoff between speed (i.e. energy) and cost; large debris in interstellar space is sparse enough to be mostly be considered a negligable risk, at least at speeds not uch greater than 10% c. An antimatter rocket will get you to your destination faster than a laser sail, but its fuel is expensive. On the other hand, if a large fraction of the output of a star can be redirected to produce the laser, the sail might not be such a bad idea. Taking the longer view, generation ships are energetically even cheaper if you're willing to take a few thousand years to get from system to system. Hitching rides on comets with hyperbolic orbits pushes the cost/speed tradeoff even further in that direction.
Long story short: one way or another, we're going to the stars. It's only a question of how much and how long.
For starters: faster-than-light travel, or indeed communication of any sort, is impossible. The phase-velocity experiments done with light in a cesium medium cannot be used to transmit information; likewise with quantum entanglement, tachyons, or any other bits of physics esoterica. Faster-than-light anything is inextricably linked to causality-violating time travel, and that has major problems of its own. Hawking and others have proposed the Chronology Protection Conjecture which would rule out time travel, and FTL effects with it.
The most promising method for extremely long-distance travel is traversible wormholes. They appear to be allowed by the current understanding of both relativity and quantum mechanics, and it has been shown that some wormhole metrics can be constructed using vacuum stress energy instead of exotic matter. However, the mouths still have to be moved through normal space at sublight speeds. The initial effort has to be made up-front, but once the wormhole is established travel through it is quite easy.
Barring even that bit of technological cleverness, interstellar travel is mainly a tradeoff between speed (i.e. energy) and cost; large debris in interstellar space is sparse enough to be mostly be considered a negligable risk, at least at speeds not uch greater than 10% c. An antimatter rocket will get you to your destination faster than a laser sail, but its fuel is expensive. On the other hand, if a large fraction of the output of a star can be redirected to produce the laser, the sail might not be such a bad idea. Taking the longer view, generation ships are energetically even cheaper if you're willing to take a few thousand years to get from system to system. Hitching rides on comets with hyperbolic orbits pushes the cost/speed tradeoff even further in that direction.
Long story short: one way or another, we're going to the stars. It's only a question of how much and how long.
But how to overcome physical law? Approaching the speed of light makes a mass infinitely more massive requiring infinitely more energy to move it.
I originally included this in a thread about "spooky action at a distance." I think its an interesting concept.
Hello,
This is a cool thread. Unfortunately it can't work for communication because you are only observing particles, not affecting them purposefully.
Basically, what you observe with particle A will tell you what's going on with particle B, but you can't make A behave a certain way, without disentangling it from B.
So, A can know the state of B and observers can know the state of A and B by only observing one particle (A or B), but the observers can't tell A to tell B how to behave and therefore the observers of B cannot get information from the observers of A and vice versa. Bummer.
However, I wonder if you had a variety of entangled particles that both parties were observing if you might not be able to set up a cascade of entanglemant with predictable outcomes that might be interpreted by the observers on the other end.
Let's say you've entangled 6 particles, three on your end, three on the other.
Team A observes particle one, but they know something about it's state relative to the other two and therefore can statistically assert that when observed it should be in a certain state.
Team B, observing all of their particles observe a certain pattern that tells them team A is looking at particle one, not two or three.
Of course "six" particles is an over-simplification. It might be that you'd need to look at particles one and 8,793,621 (and maybe a whole bunch of others also) to create the entangled pattern you desire, but it's a thought.
Or, you might have a variety of of entangled pairs that work independently. You can establish a baseline by observing your particles until they all reach a certain pre-agreed state. Then, you just start looking away and back to get the changes you want through simple quantum uncertainty, and these changes are interpreted as the 1s and 0s of a binary code.
Of course this presumes you can view entangled particles without destroying them. I read somewhere that some university has accomplished this with photons, but I don't know the details.
Interestingly, this makes me wonder if it might be possible to find particles that are naturally entangled with remote particles and by observing local particles we might be able to "view" places that are far away in the universe.
Einstein was right. This whole concept is really weird.
Eric
Hello,
This is a cool thread. Unfortunately it can't work for communication because you are only observing particles, not affecting them purposefully.
Basically, what you observe with particle A will tell you what's going on with particle B, but you can't make A behave a certain way, without disentangling it from B.
So, A can know the state of B and observers can know the state of A and B by only observing one particle (A or B), but the observers can't tell A to tell B how to behave and therefore the observers of B cannot get information from the observers of A and vice versa. Bummer.
However, I wonder if you had a variety of entangled particles that both parties were observing if you might not be able to set up a cascade of entanglemant with predictable outcomes that might be interpreted by the observers on the other end.
Let's say you've entangled 6 particles, three on your end, three on the other.
Team A observes particle one, but they know something about it's state relative to the other two and therefore can statistically assert that when observed it should be in a certain state.
Team B, observing all of their particles observe a certain pattern that tells them team A is looking at particle one, not two or three.
Of course "six" particles is an over-simplification. It might be that you'd need to look at particles one and 8,793,621 (and maybe a whole bunch of others also) to create the entangled pattern you desire, but it's a thought.
Or, you might have a variety of of entangled pairs that work independently. You can establish a baseline by observing your particles until they all reach a certain pre-agreed state. Then, you just start looking away and back to get the changes you want through simple quantum uncertainty, and these changes are interpreted as the 1s and 0s of a binary code.
Of course this presumes you can view entangled particles without destroying them. I read somewhere that some university has accomplished this with photons, but I don't know the details.
Interestingly, this makes me wonder if it might be possible to find particles that are naturally entangled with remote particles and by observing local particles we might be able to "view" places that are far away in the universe.
Einstein was right. This whole concept is really weird.
Eric
QUOTE
But how to overcome physical law? Approaching the speed of light makes a mass infinitely more massive requiring infinitely more energy to move it.
Obviously, we're going to have to figure out what inertia is first. If a mass can be made to have no inertia, then instant acceleration to lightspeed or beyond will become possible.
I say "beyond" because even a photon carries momentum and it has inertia and even mass as per E=mc^2.
Simply put, how fast can you go when you don't exist (as far as the universe is concerned)? Spooky action and quantum tunneling should give us the clue that there might not be any limits or barriers.
Of course, we're a long way away from understanding inertia. What causes it? No one knows for sure. I'm sure that it has to do with the underlying cause of gravity (as per Mach), but why does gravity reach out through nothingness and do what it does? No one knows.
Eric
I think I read somewhere that gravity is travelling with the speed of light.
QUOTE
I think I read somewhere that gravity is travelling with the speed of light.
It is theorized that it does, but no one really knows that it does. This theory is based on the notion that gravity might be a form of quanta called the graviton (theorized to have similar properties to the photon). The problem is that no one has, or even knows how to detect one since gravity permeates all mass.
They are looking for gravity waves which have the potential to confirm the concept, but as far as I know no one has detected them either.
A possible proof would be to ascertain that the earth is orbiting the visible sun rather than the actual current location of the sun, but no one has senitive enough equipment to make that determination.
Personally,I don't think it makes sense to think of gravity this way since it doesn't appear to have frequency variation. That is to say that all gravity has the same potential relative to its source mass. There doesn't appear to be any small masses with particularly strong gravity (analogous to a very bright light) or large masses with light gravity (dim bulbs). Imagine if light behaved this way. Bright light sources would have to be extremely massive!
Gravity Probe B was sent up to test for frame dragging as predicted by Einstein, but I think it has the potential to have experienced and recorded minute gravity waves too. I'm very curious to see the results when they are released.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2005, 10:24 PM)
QUOTE
But how to overcome physical law? Approaching the speed of light makes a mass infinitely more massive requiring infinitely more energy to move it.
Obviously, we're going to have to figure out what inertia is first. If a mass can be made to have no inertia, then instant acceleration to lightspeed or beyond will become possible.
I say "beyond" because even a photon carries momentum and it has inertia and even mass as per E=mc^2.
Simply put, how fast can you go when you don't exist (as far as the universe is concerned)? Spooky action and quantum tunneling should give us the clue that there might not be any limits or barriers.
Of course, we're a long way away from understanding inertia. What causes it? No one knows for sure. I'm sure that it has to do with the underlying cause of gravity (as per Mach), but why does gravity reach out through nothingness and do what it does? No one knows.
Eric
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
here is a thread to lead you to your answer in intertia...
look up and learn Noeters work. SHE helped set the stage for Einsteins relativity theories.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But how to overcome physical law? Approaching the speed of light makes a mass infinitely more massive requiring infinitely more energy to move it. |
Obviously, we're going to have to figure out what inertia is first. If a mass can be made to have no inertia, then instant acceleration to lightspeed or beyond will become possible.
I say "beyond" because even a photon carries momentum and it has inertia and even mass as per E=mc^2.
Simply put, how fast can you go when you don't exist (as far as the universe is concerned)? Spooky action and quantum tunneling should give us the clue that there might not be any limits or barriers.
Of course, we're a long way away from understanding inertia. What causes it? No one knows for sure. I'm sure that it has to do with the underlying cause of gravity (as per Mach), but why does gravity reach out through nothingness and do what it does? No one knows.
Eric
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
here is a thread to lead you to your answer in intertia...
look up and learn Noeters work. SHE helped set the stage for Einsteins relativity theories.
Emmy Noether proved two deep theorems, and their converses, on the connection between symmetries and conservation laws. Because these theorems are not in the mainstream of her scholarly work, which was the development of modern abstract algebra, it is of some historical interest to examine how she came to make these discoveries. The present paper is an historical account of the circumstances in which she discovered and proved these theorems which physicists refer to collectively as Noether's Theorem. The work was done soon after Hilbert's discovery of the variational principle which gives the field equations of general relativity. The failure of local energy conservation in the general theory was a problem that concerned people at that time, among them David Hilbert, Felix Klein, and Albert Einstein. Noether's theorems solved this problem. With her characteristically deep insight and thorough analysis, in solving that problem she discovered very general theorems that have profoundly influenced modern physics.
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/...sg/noether.html
as for your concepts of how science works, your wrong, and its sad. it is normal for people not to have a lot of time to spare. you have focused and attibuted the behavior of the busy to pompousness. i have many times written letters and had conversations with many researchers. if you are short sweet, are not making nutty claims and such, they take the time to speak with you. they dont have reserouces to spend on your ideas, but they often will listen, sometimes give advice, and if your lucky suggest other researchers to talk to or ways of making your data or formulations better.
a major problem is that many people with ideas have not spend much time plowing through the known literature to see if their idea is covered. they think that they have suddenly woken up and found some great revelation that they must be missing for if they hadnt, we would have heard it trumpeted. when a person walks up to someone that knows this stuff its like a witch doctor walking up to you and trying to convince you that it is powerful magic that makes the tides. as much as you might like to help the kindly helpful witchdoctor, you dont have time to ramp him up to speed to answer his question. they require more than a single course to just help set the groundwork.
i will tell you that if you get Noethers work down (and its VERY accessible), you will suddenly understand a lot more about things than you ever did before. its a shame that they dont usually teach her work, and so students miss out on a deeper understanding from the get go.
she is a great testement to the concept that it really doesnt matter what your allowed (presumtively) to do, or not. with a real desire you do it anyway. if you actually have something to contribute then your heard. reading her history you can see that she didnt have the same ops as the guys, however, those stuffy scientists provided her with the permissions to take the classes, and earn a degree. our impression of this era has been injected with a lot of radical fem ideology and such. it was not an easy time for most people, and what was going on was not some grand plan. it grew out of something that grew out of something that grew out of something. its only in the recent eras tha we have been able to step back and take a larger look and attempt to actually engineer our social structure (and we have made so many changes with total disregard to anyting other than ideological desire and whim, that we are really in deep doo doo). whe have made it easier for women to attend these classes which is great. however we lost that the trials of entry forces only the best to enter. so while we have more women entering, we are not producing more emmy noether's. we have sacrificed merit for self esteem and do not challenge the way the difficulties of the past challenged people. in the past things were often too serious to waste time in distractions, today distractions are to serious to waste time in something important if it can be avioded.
over and over in history of science you will find people picking up and helping people with good ideas. no matter what the political climate is. how it happens has to do with what effort you put in to be current and be a part of the front of whats really there.
work hard so you dont waste their time and they will listen. journals have no educational requirement!!! though you have to do good work. maybe even better work than someone with a degree and a professor on his work. in the long run it would be to your advantage (so dont gripe). most people will not do the work, or think they know a lot when they dont. the trick is to know where what you know ends and what you need to find out to continue on.
i agree with the other astute poster that interstellar space travel is a given, though it will not be with fancy faster than light travel. its not too hard to imagine building huge hotel way stations between here and another star for hop breaks and sevearl year long travel times. in fact if you do the math work. we actually could colonize a large part of the galaxy in a very short time. though if we dont fix our ideologies from being one of selfishness over fecundity, we wont go anywhere.
before i sign out, one thing i want to note is that i dont understand this obsession with faster than light concepts. its almost like Einstein has drawn the ultimate line in the sand and many are not satisfied with a universe that has hard and fast rules (which are structural not arbitrary). the real shame is that they are wasting a large portion of their lives on discussions over issues that they cant actually contribute to. the reasons for their inability to contribute is connected with their lack of enough desire to do the hard work and learn the math and whats known or not (though they would rather say its scientific hubris - humility is in short supply).
these people could start by taking the time to learn. to dig in. if they are really trying to learn you will find that there are a ton of people and resources there just to provide information and help you. they are only waiting for you to ask them rather than challenge them. start with some things that are more accessible than attempting to prove or claim or assert that the icon of modern physics is wrong becaue you think so (but cant really tell us why).
gotta go... too much work to do.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2005, 10:24 PM)
QUOTE
But how to overcome physical law? Approaching the speed of light makes a mass infinitely more massive requiring infinitely more energy to move it.
Obviously, we're going to have to figure out what inertia is first. If a mass can be made to have no inertia, then instant acceleration to lightspeed or beyond will become possible.
I say "beyond" because even a photon carries momentum and it has inertia and even mass as per E=mc^2.
Simply put, how fast can you go when you don't exist (as far as the universe is concerned)? Spooky action and quantum tunneling should give us the clue that there might not be any limits or barriers.
Of course, we're a long way away from understanding inertia. What causes it? No one knows for sure. I'm sure that it has to do with the underlying cause of gravity (as per Mach), but why does gravity reach out through nothingness and do what it does? No one knows.
Eric
oh.. i forgot to mention...
light does not have mass...
you sound smart, but you dont know what you are talking about.
Photons are Gauge Bosons.. they are carriers of force (in this case the electromagnetic force). guage bosons have a spin of 1.
photons have no intrinsic mass... though the word mass is a hairy one once you step into reletivistic areas. then you have reletivistic mass. however, in very simple terms this is just a equavalency to curved space.
given that a photon has no intrinsic mass he has no momentum.
(actually pick a tiny number for mass and apply it to something traveling light speed and you would ahve the irrisisteble force. intrinsic mass increases as speed does and so a photon would be infinitely heavy, its kinetic energy is also infinite and boy when it hits you! whump!).
unless you go past basic physics you might not be taught the modern form, as the older form (as implied above - which is that rest mass is real mass and reletivistic mass is energy). the reason being that its easier to understand, and the person being taught isnt going farther than that. though if they were to continue and apply this to faster speeds they would then have to worry bout frames of reference and such.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 16 2005, 02:51 PM)
QUOTE
I think I read somewhere that gravity is travelling with the speed of light.
It is theorized that it does, but no one really knows that it does. This theory is based on the notion that gravity might be a form of quanta called the graviton (theorized to have similar properties to the photon). The problem is that no one has, or even knows how to detect one since gravity permeates all mass.
They are looking for gravity waves which have the potential to confirm the concept, but as far as I know no one has detected them either.
A possible proof would be to ascertain that the earth is orbiting the visible sun rather than the actual current location of the sun, but no one has senitive enough equipment to make that determination.
Personally,I don't think it makes sense to think of gravity this way since it doesn't appear to have frequency variation. That is to say that all gravity has the same potential relative to its source mass. There doesn't appear to be any small masses with particularly strong gravity (analogous to a very bright light) or large masses with light gravity (dim bulbs). Imagine if light behaved this way. Bright light sources would have to be extremely massive!
Gravity Probe B was sent up to test for frame dragging as predicted by Einstein, but I think it has the potential to have experienced and recorded minute gravity waves too. I'm very curious to see the results when they are released.
wrong again on gravitons...
our colliders are not at an energy level in which a graviton would make itself known in reactions.
as of yet no one has detected gravity waves. a mixed blessing actually.
(i have a lovely way in which if they are detectable we already have the information collected. all you have to do is analyse it with the point in mind).
the standard model has been very good to us, as the supersymetric model (as a few others). so there is a bevy of things that are out there that we still havent 'seen' because they only exist in some extreme condition and for incredibly short periods of time.
i dont understand what the heck your proof would proof.. other than i think you are trying to mention frame dragging but down understand it.
your paragraph on gravity and frequency variations is weird and way off. why would the varying frequency of gravity waves have any effect on mass? the frequency doesnt change the number of gravitons and so the mass stays the same no matter what the frequency of the wave. your concept of light totally ignores that the brightness of light is not a function of its wavelength. a photon of visible light when compared to a xray light, is equivalently bright. the xray is carrying more energy though. you can make a brighter light out of the xray be absorbing and re-emitting it as two photons of a lesser power level.
so your conclusion about bright sources, to quote a famous physicist, is not even wrong.
Gravity Probe B does not have the ability to record gravity waves.
let me just point out that we are lucky that these things are not that energetic. even a mild one would shear things... to make one large enough (presumably) one would need something like two black holes orbiting, and the amount of energy in these waves would be enourmous in scale.
gravity probe B is not large enough.. however as i said, we already have the info, no one is processing it for that though.
QUOTE (Guest_Adam+Dec 8 2005, 01:14 PM)
Hi All
A related interstellar drive to the solar/laser sail is the mass-beam - basically firing ions, buckyballs, hockey-pucks or mini-sails at a space-ship to give it a push. Though it sounds bizarre it has received a lot of research since c. 1980 and is more feasible than ever. Currently researcher Jordin Kare proposes using laser-accelerated mini-sails as the propellant - these are zapped into ions by lasers on the starship and the resulting plasma pushes against the ship's magnetic fields. Alternatively Gerald Nordley suggests using nanotech pellets that have a bit of self-guidance and can stay in a laser guide beam from the starship.
You might think a mass-beam is fine for getting up to speed but useless for slowing down BUT the other recent innovation is Robert Zubrin's magnetic-sail, which can deccelerate a starship from near-light speed with high efficiency. Interstellar matter encountering the field is ionised and provides electromagnetic drag, slowing the ship down. Basically it's a design for "space-brakes". Combined the mass-beam and mag-sail make star-travel fairly straight-forward once we have enough available power in space. Zubrin suggests building big gas-core nuclear reactors - they'd vent straight to space like giant rockets, with power tapped from the ionised exhaust by magnetohydrodynamic converters. Gerald Nordley suggests self-replicating solar power satellites - starting with one 1 gigawatt SPS doubling itself every year would provide enough power in 20 years. A bit longer and you could power tens of thousands of starships each year.
Adam
NASA is soliciting companies to design a projector that shoots particle beams at spacecraft with something similar to a solar sail to catch them and to propel the ship forward. They say that an apparatus like that could accellerate a probe to relativistic velocity. Invented something similar but I wont tell NASA about it, and incidentally where would the mass comefrom to build self replicating power stations in space?
A related interstellar drive to the solar/laser sail is the mass-beam - basically firing ions, buckyballs, hockey-pucks or mini-sails at a space-ship to give it a push. Though it sounds bizarre it has received a lot of research since c. 1980 and is more feasible than ever. Currently researcher Jordin Kare proposes using laser-accelerated mini-sails as the propellant - these are zapped into ions by lasers on the starship and the resulting plasma pushes against the ship's magnetic fields. Alternatively Gerald Nordley suggests using nanotech pellets that have a bit of self-guidance and can stay in a laser guide beam from the starship.
You might think a mass-beam is fine for getting up to speed but useless for slowing down BUT the other recent innovation is Robert Zubrin's magnetic-sail, which can deccelerate a starship from near-light speed with high efficiency. Interstellar matter encountering the field is ionised and provides electromagnetic drag, slowing the ship down. Basically it's a design for "space-brakes". Combined the mass-beam and mag-sail make star-travel fairly straight-forward once we have enough available power in space. Zubrin suggests building big gas-core nuclear reactors - they'd vent straight to space like giant rockets, with power tapped from the ionised exhaust by magnetohydrodynamic converters. Gerald Nordley suggests self-replicating solar power satellites - starting with one 1 gigawatt SPS doubling itself every year would provide enough power in 20 years. A bit longer and you could power tens of thousands of starships each year.
Adam
NASA is soliciting companies to design a projector that shoots particle beams at spacecraft with something similar to a solar sail to catch them and to propel the ship forward. They say that an apparatus like that could accellerate a probe to relativistic velocity. Invented something similar but I wont tell NASA about it, and incidentally where would the mass comefrom to build self replicating power stations in space?
ArtflDgr,
Hooray! Someone that knows enough to know when I'm spreading manure! This oughtta' be fun.
First of all, I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read someone else advocating Emmy Noether and her incredible work with conservation. If you know this, then you aren't just another ignoramus.
Well, that's not my experience. Perhaps you have suggestions as to whom I should be conversing with? My experiences haven't been very fruitful.
Well, that's not my experience. Perhaps you have suggestions as to whom I should be conversing with? My experiences haven't been very fruitful.
are not making nutty claims and such
Ah, do you not see? This is the problem. Anything that goes against convention is by definition "nutty." Did you not know that Einstein said, "For any idea that does not at first sound insane, there can be no hope." You've gone and proved my point about the complacency of science with this one phrase.
I am generally in accord with the rest of your first letter, but I disagree on the point of people wasting their efforts thinking about FTL. There is nothing wrong with entertaining oneself with a little fantasy. If your interests lie in escapism from this most beautiful world, then that's fine with me. Personally, I would never volunteer to leave it for the confines of a tin can.
Most importantly though you've pointed out the general lack of knowledge among the wannabes. My experience in this holds true for those that have arrived too. You'd be amazed at how many serious errors I have caught from people that are supposed to know better. Perhaps we can take this private later and I'll tell you about a couple...
Hooray! Someone that knows enough to know when I'm spreading manure! This oughtta' be fun.
First of all, I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read someone else advocating Emmy Noether and her incredible work with conservation. If you know this, then you aren't just another ignoramus.
QUOTE
as for your concepts of how science works, your wrong, and its sad. it is normal for people not to have a lot of time to spare. you have focused and attibuted the behavior of the busy to pompousness. i have many times written letters and had conversations with many researchers.
Well, that's not my experience. Perhaps you have suggestions as to whom I should be conversing with? My experiences haven't been very fruitful.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| as for your concepts of how science works, your wrong, and its sad. it is normal for people not to have a lot of time to spare. you have focused and attibuted the behavior of the busy to pompousness. i have many times written letters and had conversations with many researchers. |
Well, that's not my experience. Perhaps you have suggestions as to whom I should be conversing with? My experiences haven't been very fruitful.
are not making nutty claims and such
Ah, do you not see? This is the problem. Anything that goes against convention is by definition "nutty." Did you not know that Einstein said, "For any idea that does not at first sound insane, there can be no hope." You've gone and proved my point about the complacency of science with this one phrase.
I am generally in accord with the rest of your first letter, but I disagree on the point of people wasting their efforts thinking about FTL. There is nothing wrong with entertaining oneself with a little fantasy. If your interests lie in escapism from this most beautiful world, then that's fine with me. Personally, I would never volunteer to leave it for the confines of a tin can.
Most importantly though you've pointed out the general lack of knowledge among the wannabes. My experience in this holds true for those that have arrived too. You'd be amazed at how many serious errors I have caught from people that are supposed to know better. Perhaps we can take this private later and I'll tell you about a couple...
ArtflDgr,
Wow. You sound smart, but... Did you not know that the correct phrase is, light has no rest mass?
Photons in transit do indeed have mass. They are a form of energy and just as I said, by E=mc^2 they have mass.
Even so, the reason light has no rest mass is that the photons cease to exist in matter. Instead the energy is delivered to the mass that absorbs them and consequently that mass increases in proportion! The mass still exists, just not in the form of a photon. Weird, but true.
Interestingly this is sort of the basis of the "Woodward Effect" concerning variable mass experiments. However I believe he's mostly working with electrons and capacitors.
Wow. You sound smart, but... Did you not know that the correct phrase is, light has no rest mass?
Photons in transit do indeed have mass. They are a form of energy and just as I said, by E=mc^2 they have mass.
Even so, the reason light has no rest mass is that the photons cease to exist in matter. Instead the energy is delivered to the mass that absorbs them and consequently that mass increases in proportion! The mass still exists, just not in the form of a photon. Weird, but true.
Interestingly this is sort of the basis of the "Woodward Effect" concerning variable mass experiments. However I believe he's mostly working with electrons and capacitors.
given that a photon has no intrinsic mass he has no momentum.
You mean NASA is wasting all of their money on solar sails for nothing? Gee. Someone oughtta' tell 'em.
QUOTE
oh.. i forgot to mention... light does not have mass...
Wow. You sound smart, but... Did you not know that the correct phrase is, light has no rest mass?
Photons in transit do indeed have mass. They are a form of energy and just as I said, by E=mc^2 they have mass.
Even so, the reason light has no rest mass is that the photons cease to exist in matter. Instead the energy is delivered to the mass that absorbs them and consequently that mass increases in proportion! The mass still exists, just not in the form of a photon. Weird, but true.
Interestingly this is sort of the basis of the "Woodward Effect" concerning variable mass experiments. However I believe he's mostly working with electrons and capacitors.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| oh.. i forgot to mention... light does not have mass... |
Wow. You sound smart, but... Did you not know that the correct phrase is, light has no rest mass?
Photons in transit do indeed have mass. They are a form of energy and just as I said, by E=mc^2 they have mass.
Even so, the reason light has no rest mass is that the photons cease to exist in matter. Instead the energy is delivered to the mass that absorbs them and consequently that mass increases in proportion! The mass still exists, just not in the form of a photon. Weird, but true.
Interestingly this is sort of the basis of the "Woodward Effect" concerning variable mass experiments. However I believe he's mostly working with electrons and capacitors.
given that a photon has no intrinsic mass he has no momentum.
You mean NASA is wasting all of their money on solar sails for nothing? Gee. Someone oughtta' tell 'em.
ArtflDgr,
Uh, isn't that what I said? "No one has detected them?" I think that's what I said.
Anyway, the graviton hypothesis has many serious problems. Haven't you heard that combining gravity and quantum mechanics makes no sense? This problem has been driving scientists crazy for years.
I think the particle you are talking about that they are trying to discover in colliders is the Higgs Boson (also called the god particle). I've never heard of anyone suggesting that you could use a collider to detect gravitons. Do you have a reference?
Uh, isn't that what I said? "No one has detected them?" I think that's what I said.
Anyway, the graviton hypothesis has many serious problems. Haven't you heard that combining gravity and quantum mechanics makes no sense? This problem has been driving scientists crazy for years.
I think the particle you are talking about that they are trying to discover in colliders is the Higgs Boson (also called the god particle). I've never heard of anyone suggesting that you could use a collider to detect gravitons. Do you have a reference?
your paragraph on gravity and frequency variations is weird and way off. why would the varying frequency of gravity waves have any effect on mass? the frequency doesnt change the number of gravitons and so the mass stays the same no matter what the frequency of the wave. your concept of light totally ignores that the brightness of light is not a function of its wavelength. a photon of visible light when compared to a xray light, is equivalently bright. the xray is carrying more energy though. you can make a brighter light out of the xray be absorbing and re-emitting it as two photons of a lesser power level.
Ah yes, the manure I wrote of... I did oversimplify here. My point is that light varies in intensity and frequency and its properties vary dependent on the intensity and frequency, whereas gravity doesn't seem to have any variation in its intensity or frequency properties. Therefore, it's probably not structured like light, in waves and quanta.
I am curious as to your references concerning gravity wave information. What have you got?
QUOTE
wrong again on gravitons...
our colliders are not at an energy level in which a graviton would make itself known in reactions.
as of yet no one has detected gravity waves. a mixed blessing actually.
our colliders are not at an energy level in which a graviton would make itself known in reactions.
as of yet no one has detected gravity waves. a mixed blessing actually.
Uh, isn't that what I said? "No one has detected them?" I think that's what I said.
Anyway, the graviton hypothesis has many serious problems. Haven't you heard that combining gravity and quantum mechanics makes no sense? This problem has been driving scientists crazy for years.
I think the particle you are talking about that they are trying to discover in colliders is the Higgs Boson (also called the god particle). I've never heard of anyone suggesting that you could use a collider to detect gravitons. Do you have a reference?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| wrong again on gravitons... our colliders are not at an energy level in which a graviton would make itself known in reactions. as of yet no one has detected gravity waves. a mixed blessing actually. |
Uh, isn't that what I said? "No one has detected them?" I think that's what I said.
Anyway, the graviton hypothesis has many serious problems. Haven't you heard that combining gravity and quantum mechanics makes no sense? This problem has been driving scientists crazy for years.
I think the particle you are talking about that they are trying to discover in colliders is the Higgs Boson (also called the god particle). I've never heard of anyone suggesting that you could use a collider to detect gravitons. Do you have a reference?
your paragraph on gravity and frequency variations is weird and way off. why would the varying frequency of gravity waves have any effect on mass? the frequency doesnt change the number of gravitons and so the mass stays the same no matter what the frequency of the wave. your concept of light totally ignores that the brightness of light is not a function of its wavelength. a photon of visible light when compared to a xray light, is equivalently bright. the xray is carrying more energy though. you can make a brighter light out of the xray be absorbing and re-emitting it as two photons of a lesser power level.
Ah yes, the manure I wrote of... I did oversimplify here. My point is that light varies in intensity and frequency and its properties vary dependent on the intensity and frequency, whereas gravity doesn't seem to have any variation in its intensity or frequency properties. Therefore, it's probably not structured like light, in waves and quanta.
I am curious as to your references concerning gravity wave information. What have you got?
Guest,
Here's something that might interest you. It's based on plasma projection technology that is stabilized by a magnetic field.
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/abs...1012Winglee.pdf
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/fin...1012Winglee.pdf
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/mee...1012Winglee.pdf
QUOTE
NASA is soliciting companies to design a projector that shoots particle beams at spacecraft with something similar to a solar sail to catch them and to propel the ship forward. They say that an apparatus like that could accellerate a probe to relativistic velocity. Invented something similar but I wont tell NASA about it, and incidentally where would the mass comefrom to build self replicating power stations in space?
Here's something that might interest you. It's based on plasma projection technology that is stabilized by a magnetic field.
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/abs...1012Winglee.pdf
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/fin...1012Winglee.pdf
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/mee...1012Winglee.pdf
this article is nonsense. Traveling above speed of light is not possible. Even in the Einstein year, the author didn't get it: The energy required to reach the speed of light will be infinite. Avoid wasting ink and try to keep the space station floating. Maybe we can add a good telescope to see better where nobody wants to go! 
ArflDgr, that was an excellent post earlier.
ubavontuba, its not that we totally reject the idea of "nutty ideas", its simply that 99 out of 100 times we are approached with such, it only takes us 5 minutes worth of reading/listening to find enough basic flaws to show them totally invalid. I've got my own nutty idea that I dust off once or twice a year and try to make work if I get a bit of free time. A lot of physicists have their own pet projects that they can't get funded and have to work on in their spare time (or borrow some computer time from other projects here and there).
Anyways, as to the earlier post in regards to my noting a lack of innovation. While some scientists are set in their ways and are the classic immovable object, many of us are open minded. I mean, come on, look at how zainy some theories currently being explored are relative to GR. As for the 200+ year gap between Newton and Einstein, I don't think that really applies anymore. With as much computer time as we can devote to physics, making the same kind of major theoretical leaps can't be put on a similar timescale. Anyways, gotta be at the lab early this morning (got project deadlines rapidly approaching), so you all have fun. May add to/edit this post later after I wake up a bit. Until then.
ubavontuba, its not that we totally reject the idea of "nutty ideas", its simply that 99 out of 100 times we are approached with such, it only takes us 5 minutes worth of reading/listening to find enough basic flaws to show them totally invalid. I've got my own nutty idea that I dust off once or twice a year and try to make work if I get a bit of free time. A lot of physicists have their own pet projects that they can't get funded and have to work on in their spare time (or borrow some computer time from other projects here and there).
Anyways, as to the earlier post in regards to my noting a lack of innovation. While some scientists are set in their ways and are the classic immovable object, many of us are open minded. I mean, come on, look at how zainy some theories currently being explored are relative to GR. As for the 200+ year gap between Newton and Einstein, I don't think that really applies anymore. With as much computer time as we can devote to physics, making the same kind of major theoretical leaps can't be put on a similar timescale. Anyways, gotta be at the lab early this morning (got project deadlines rapidly approaching), so you all have fun. May add to/edit this post later after I wake up a bit. Until then.
Guest_Eric,
Sure. I understand this sentiment. Repetition breeds contempt.
However, considering how rare a find a truly new idea is (as you attested to yourself), mightn't it be worth the occasional "5 minutes" in the hopes that one day such a find might be revealed?
The other problem I run into is that many professionals seem to have difficulty with the basics themselves. I'm often frustrated by professionals that can recite the laws, but not apply them practicably.
Sure. I understand this sentiment. Repetition breeds contempt.
However, considering how rare a find a truly new idea is (as you attested to yourself), mightn't it be worth the occasional "5 minutes" in the hopes that one day such a find might be revealed?
The other problem I run into is that many professionals seem to have difficulty with the basics themselves. I'm often frustrated by professionals that can recite the laws, but not apply them practicably.
With as much computer time as we can devote to physics, making the same kind of major theoretical leaps can't be put on a similar timescale.
The fundamental flaw to this reasoning is in assuming that computers can help you think. All they can do is speed up certain processes. In order for there to be a new discovery, there must first be a notion. Computers don't do notions. "Garbage in, garbage out."
QUOTE
ubavontuba, its not that we totally reject the idea of "nutty ideas", its simply that 99 out of 100 times we are approached with such, it only takes us 5 minutes worth of reading/listening to find enough basic flaws to show them totally invalid.
Sure. I understand this sentiment. Repetition breeds contempt.
However, considering how rare a find a truly new idea is (as you attested to yourself), mightn't it be worth the occasional "5 minutes" in the hopes that one day such a find might be revealed?
The other problem I run into is that many professionals seem to have difficulty with the basics themselves. I'm often frustrated by professionals that can recite the laws, but not apply them practicably.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ubavontuba, its not that we totally reject the idea of "nutty ideas", its simply that 99 out of 100 times we are approached with such, it only takes us 5 minutes worth of reading/listening to find enough basic flaws to show them totally invalid. |
Sure. I understand this sentiment. Repetition breeds contempt.
However, considering how rare a find a truly new idea is (as you attested to yourself), mightn't it be worth the occasional "5 minutes" in the hopes that one day such a find might be revealed?
The other problem I run into is that many professionals seem to have difficulty with the basics themselves. I'm often frustrated by professionals that can recite the laws, but not apply them practicably.
With as much computer time as we can devote to physics, making the same kind of major theoretical leaps can't be put on a similar timescale.
The fundamental flaw to this reasoning is in assuming that computers can help you think. All they can do is speed up certain processes. In order for there to be a new discovery, there must first be a notion. Computers don't do notions.
"Garbage in, garbage out."
To be honest, I wouldn't mind helping people out. Unfortunately, I do work for a living, and that means a lot of my time is spoken for. Because of that, I often leave finding that 1 out of 100 to others. Its not contempt. If you write a short, concise explanation of your idea and bother to check the math, you'll find a physicist willing to talk to you about it. Personally, I'm much more likely to look at such things when relaxed at home than while being harried at the office/lab. So write a letter with your contact info and an abstract of your idea along with whatever proofs you've compiled. You are much more likely to get your ideas looked at that way.
Lol, yes, just like any profession there are good physicists and bad ones. However, in some cases its not that those you are talking to are bad, its just that they've spent a lot of time thinking about physics in an abstract mathematical sense. They understand the concepts, and can even apply them, but they have a really difficult time explaining what they know. I've known many of that breed, and I tend to have them just write out their thoughts and go over the math myself instead of trying to get them to explain things to me. You're less likely to walk away more confused than when you started that way ;-).
I totally agree with the garbage in garbage out aspect of computational physics. My point, however, is that it allows us to devote time to ideas/methods we wouldn't normally use, as they would be too time consuming to pursue otherwise. We can even pursue our pet fringe theories that would normally never see the light of day (that borrowing of computer time I mentioned earlier). It allows us to do more work, both good and bad.
Lol, yes, just like any profession there are good physicists and bad ones. However, in some cases its not that those you are talking to are bad, its just that they've spent a lot of time thinking about physics in an abstract mathematical sense. They understand the concepts, and can even apply them, but they have a really difficult time explaining what they know. I've known many of that breed, and I tend to have them just write out their thoughts and go over the math myself instead of trying to get them to explain things to me. You're less likely to walk away more confused than when you started that way ;-).
I totally agree with the garbage in garbage out aspect of computational physics. My point, however, is that it allows us to devote time to ideas/methods we wouldn't normally use, as they would be too time consuming to pursue otherwise. We can even pursue our pet fringe theories that would normally never see the light of day (that borrowing of computer time I mentioned earlier). It allows us to do more work, both good and bad.
Guest_Eric,
Sure. You're a busy person (whoever you are). I understand that too. All I'm asking for is the attention of that one person that is willing to listen, is highly knowledgeable (but not afraid to entertain something radically new), and is honest, forthright and fair. Do you know this person?
Sure. You're a busy person (whoever you are). I understand that too. All I'm asking for is the attention of that one person that is willing to listen, is highly knowledgeable (but not afraid to entertain something radically new), and is honest, forthright and fair. Do you know this person?
If you write a short, concise explanation of your idea and bother to check the math, you'll find a physicist willing to talk to you about it. Personally, I'm much more likely to look at such things when relaxed at home than while being harried at the office/lab. So write a letter with your contact info and an abstract of your idea along with whatever proofs you've compiled. You are much more likely to get your ideas looked at that way.
Well it hasn't been so simple. Let's say I write; "Newton has missed something." Who's going to read further without contemptuously dismissing it as crap right away? The simple naivete' of such a statement makes any abstract I write immediately sound like crackpot nonsense.
When I've tried to be more subtle, folks seem to miss the point entirely and when I try scientific sounding lingo, it seems to either confuse 'em or (if they're good) they see that I'm writing above my normal vocabulary level and again dismiss me as a crackpot. It seems I just can't win!
Let me put it this way: I wrote to a respected university physics chair asking for help and included a brief summary of what I was proposing. I was told that I would receive an evaluation. So I sent in a paper on my concept. Months passed. Eventually my paper was sent back to me... unopened!
It's nice that you would defend your fellow physicists by implying that they know what they're doing but don't know how to communicate well. Unfortunately, my experience is that many seem to have acquired the degrees without acquiring the knowledge, but they're pretty good at faking it.
Take Artfldgr's statements about photons as an example. Note that he didn't know that a photon in transit has both mass and momentum. Also note his use of the derisive statement; "you sound smart, but..."
I don't know his level of competence, but I've heard worse from some top guys.
It's nice that you would defend your fellow physicists by implying that they know what they're doing but don't know how to communicate well. Unfortunately, my experience is that many seem to have acquired the degrees without acquiring the knowledge, but they're pretty good at faking it.
Take Artfldgr's statements about photons as an example. Note that he didn't know that a photon in transit has both mass and momentum. Also note his use of the derisive statement; "you sound smart, but..."
I don't know his level of competence, but I've heard worse from some top guys.
...of computational physics. My point, however, is that it allows us to devote time to ideas/methods we wouldn't normally use, as they would be too time consuming to pursue otherwise.
Certainly. Computers are valuable tools... I'm using one right now. However my concern is that physicists are having to spend too much time becoming expert computer programmers rather than expert thinkers. Or rather, computer programmers are posing as physicists. Refining a concept already known by using computers is great. But it's not likely to lead to anything more than an incremental advantage. If otherwise, why haven't we made terrific strides beyond Einstein since the advent of computers? Does anyone think there is nothing more to discover?
Anyway, if you're saying you're interested in reviewing my work, then you can contact me directly...
QUOTE
To be honest, I wouldn't mind helping people out. Unfortunately, I do work for a living, and that means a lot of my time is spoken for. Because of that, I often leave finding that 1 out of 100 to others. Its not contempt.
Sure. You're a busy person (whoever you are). I understand that too. All I'm asking for is the attention of that one person that is willing to listen, is highly knowledgeable (but not afraid to entertain something radically new), and is honest, forthright and fair. Do you know this person?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To be honest, I wouldn't mind helping people out. Unfortunately, I do work for a living, and that means a lot of my time is spoken for. Because of that, I often leave finding that 1 out of 100 to others. Its not contempt. |
Sure. You're a busy person (whoever you are). I understand that too. All I'm asking for is the attention of that one person that is willing to listen, is highly knowledgeable (but not afraid to entertain something radically new), and is honest, forthright and fair. Do you know this person?
If you write a short, concise explanation of your idea and bother to check the math, you'll find a physicist willing to talk to you about it. Personally, I'm much more likely to look at such things when relaxed at home than while being harried at the office/lab. So write a letter with your contact info and an abstract of your idea along with whatever proofs you've compiled. You are much more likely to get your ideas looked at that way.
Well it hasn't been so simple. Let's say I write; "Newton has missed something." Who's going to read further without contemptuously dismissing it as crap right away? The simple naivete' of such a statement makes any abstract I write immediately sound like crackpot nonsense.
When I've tried to be more subtle, folks seem to miss the point entirely and when I try scientific sounding lingo, it seems to either confuse 'em or (if they're good) they see that I'm writing above my normal vocabulary level and again dismiss me as a crackpot. It seems I just can't win!
Let me put it this way: I wrote to a respected university physics chair asking for help and included a brief summary of what I was proposing. I was told that I would receive an evaluation. So I sent in a paper on my concept. Months passed. Eventually my paper was sent back to me... unopened!
QUOTE
They understand the concepts, and can even apply them, but they have a really difficult time explaining what they know.
It's nice that you would defend your fellow physicists by implying that they know what they're doing but don't know how to communicate well. Unfortunately, my experience is that many seem to have acquired the degrees without acquiring the knowledge, but they're pretty good at faking it.
Take Artfldgr's statements about photons as an example. Note that he didn't know that a photon in transit has both mass and momentum. Also note his use of the derisive statement; "you sound smart, but..."
I don't know his level of competence, but I've heard worse from some top guys.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They understand the concepts, and can even apply them, but they have a really difficult time explaining what they know. |
It's nice that you would defend your fellow physicists by implying that they know what they're doing but don't know how to communicate well. Unfortunately, my experience is that many seem to have acquired the degrees without acquiring the knowledge, but they're pretty good at faking it.
Take Artfldgr's statements about photons as an example. Note that he didn't know that a photon in transit has both mass and momentum. Also note his use of the derisive statement; "you sound smart, but..."
I don't know his level of competence, but I've heard worse from some top guys.
...of computational physics. My point, however, is that it allows us to devote time to ideas/methods we wouldn't normally use, as they would be too time consuming to pursue otherwise.
Certainly. Computers are valuable tools... I'm using one right now. However my concern is that physicists are having to spend too much time becoming expert computer programmers rather than expert thinkers. Or rather, computer programmers are posing as physicists. Refining a concept already known by using computers is great. But it's not likely to lead to anything more than an incremental advantage. If otherwise, why haven't we made terrific strides beyond Einstein since the advent of computers? Does anyone think there is nothing more to discover?
Anyway, if you're saying you're interested in reviewing my work, then you can contact me directly...
Weird. You point out a couple of inconsistencies in a person's understanding and instead of a, "Thank you for helping me perceive my mistake." you get cold, stoney silence. Doesn't anyone actually want to know and learn? Or is it all about getting a cushy job and saving face?
I sure wish there were some "experts" with the guts to go the distance...
I sure wish there were some "experts" with the guts to go the distance...
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Weird. You point out a couple of inconsistencies in a person's understanding and instead of a, "Thank you for helping me perceive my mistake." you get cold, stoney silence. Doesn't anyone actually want to know and learn? Or is it all about getting a cushy job and saving face?
I sure wish there were some "experts" with the guts to go the distance... [/QUOTE]
You really shouldn't project motivations onto people.
[QUOTE]Well it hasn't been so simple. Let's say I write; "Newton has missed something." Who's going to read further without contemptuously dismissing it as crap right away? The simple naivete' of such a statement makes any abstract I write immediately sound like crackpot nonsense.
When I've tried to be more subtle, folks seem to miss the point entirely and when I try scientific sounding lingo, it seems to either confuse 'em or (if they're good) they see that I'm writing above my normal vocabulary level and again dismiss me as a crackpot. It seems I just can't win!
Let me put it this way: I wrote to a respected university physics chair asking for help and included a brief summary of what I was proposing. I was told that I would receive an evaluation. So I sent in a paper on my concept. Months passed. Eventually my paper was sent back to me... unopened![/QUOTE]
While "Newton missed something" may not be the best choice of wording for an abstract, that idea itself shouldn't be automatically dismissed. He missed lots of things, which is why physics progressed past classical mechanics. What you need to point out is something he missed that hasn't already been published to death. You also need to take it upon yourself to insure it hasn't already been evaluated.
As for getting your ideas across, there are books to help with scientific writing. I can't name any off the top of my head, as I've been publishing for about 14 years now and its been a while since I needed a reference. But they do exist. Check the online book stores.
Hehe, department chairs are probably the absolute worst people you could approach. Even assoc. profs can have a hard time getting anything out of a chair in their own department. Go after the non-tenured profs.
[QUOTE]It's nice that you would defend your fellow physicists by implying that they know what they're doing but don't know how to communicate well. Unfortunately, my experience is that many seem to have acquired the degrees without acquiring the knowledge, but they're pretty good at faking it.[/QUOTE]
I wish you would have taken that paragraph as a whole, instead of picking out the parts you wanted to hear. I said that both good and bad existed. Your quote also refers to what I said about some of the bad ones. Being confrontational for no reason is one way to make sure that nobody will help you.
[QUOTE]...my concern is that physicists are having to spend too much time becoming expert computer programmers rather than expert thinkers. Or rather, computer programmers are posing as physicists. Refining a concept already known by using computers is great. But it's not likely to lead to anything more than an incremental advantage. If otherwise, why haven't we made terrific strides beyond Einstein since the advent of computers? Does anyone think there is nothing more to discover?[/QUOTE]
Lol, there you have hit on one of my sore points. I really hate programming, but I've learned how out of necessity. As long as the programs run and all the math is right, it doesn't matter if the program uses more memory than necessary, or is a bit slower than it could be. Its not efficient, but it will work. However, if you're lucky enough to have access to a programmer, you can make sims into a joint project that are both correct and efficient. I actually made it a requirement to have my own programmer before I agreed to work on my current project, since its compute heavy.
As for the statement that it should have led to major breakthroughs if it was so useful...I don't think that's really at issue. Why haven't we made such breakthroughs? There are a combination of 3 possibilities. 1) There aren't any more major breakthroughs. 2) We are lacking some tool to push us over the edge. 3) We are lacking some observation to point us in the right direction.
Relativity wouldn't have been possible without both a few new mathematical tools and a couple of key experiments to put the idea into Einstein's head. QM would never have entered the fray without some rather vexing experimental results. String theory would never have been born without a desire to tie our current models together. Etc, etc. Physics needs something to work with, something to describe, otherwise all you have is meaningless mathematical gibberish. We haven't come across something indescribable in a while, so its only natural that all we've had is incremental improvement or the twisting of old theories in new ways.
Anyways, as for the last. I'll look over your stuff, or forward it someone who will, in a few weeks. I've got to have a dataset ready for the engineers by the 13th of January, and as it stands now I'm not even going to get to go visit my family over the holidays, so please bear with the delay. I'll setup a free account somewhere between now and then and let you know the details when I can look over it. Later.
I sure wish there were some "experts" with the guts to go the distance... [/QUOTE]
You really shouldn't project motivations onto people.
[QUOTE]Well it hasn't been so simple. Let's say I write; "Newton has missed something." Who's going to read further without contemptuously dismissing it as crap right away? The simple naivete' of such a statement makes any abstract I write immediately sound like crackpot nonsense.
When I've tried to be more subtle, folks seem to miss the point entirely and when I try scientific sounding lingo, it seems to either confuse 'em or (if they're good) they see that I'm writing above my normal vocabulary level and again dismiss me as a crackpot. It seems I just can't win!
Let me put it this way: I wrote to a respected university physics chair asking for help and included a brief summary of what I was proposing. I was told that I would receive an evaluation. So I sent in a paper on my concept. Months passed. Eventually my paper was sent back to me... unopened![/QUOTE]
While "Newton missed something" may not be the best choice of wording for an abstract, that idea itself shouldn't be automatically dismissed. He missed lots of things, which is why physics progressed past classical mechanics. What you need to point out is something he missed that hasn't already been published to death. You also need to take it upon yourself to insure it hasn't already been evaluated.
As for getting your ideas across, there are books to help with scientific writing. I can't name any off the top of my head, as I've been publishing for about 14 years now and its been a while since I needed a reference. But they do exist. Check the online book stores.
Hehe, department chairs are probably the absolute worst people you could approach. Even assoc. profs can have a hard time getting anything out of a chair in their own department. Go after the non-tenured profs.
[QUOTE]It's nice that you would defend your fellow physicists by implying that they know what they're doing but don't know how to communicate well. Unfortunately, my experience is that many seem to have acquired the degrees without acquiring the knowledge, but they're pretty good at faking it.[/QUOTE]
I wish you would have taken that paragraph as a whole, instead of picking out the parts you wanted to hear. I said that both good and bad existed. Your quote also refers to what I said about some of the bad ones. Being confrontational for no reason is one way to make sure that nobody will help you.
[QUOTE]...my concern is that physicists are having to spend too much time becoming expert computer programmers rather than expert thinkers. Or rather, computer programmers are posing as physicists. Refining a concept already known by using computers is great. But it's not likely to lead to anything more than an incremental advantage. If otherwise, why haven't we made terrific strides beyond Einstein since the advent of computers? Does anyone think there is nothing more to discover?[/QUOTE]
Lol, there you have hit on one of my sore points. I really hate programming, but I've learned how out of necessity. As long as the programs run and all the math is right, it doesn't matter if the program uses more memory than necessary, or is a bit slower than it could be. Its not efficient, but it will work. However, if you're lucky enough to have access to a programmer, you can make sims into a joint project that are both correct and efficient. I actually made it a requirement to have my own programmer before I agreed to work on my current project, since its compute heavy.
As for the statement that it should have led to major breakthroughs if it was so useful...I don't think that's really at issue. Why haven't we made such breakthroughs? There are a combination of 3 possibilities. 1) There aren't any more major breakthroughs. 2) We are lacking some tool to push us over the edge. 3) We are lacking some observation to point us in the right direction.
Relativity wouldn't have been possible without both a few new mathematical tools and a couple of key experiments to put the idea into Einstein's head. QM would never have entered the fray without some rather vexing experimental results. String theory would never have been born without a desire to tie our current models together. Etc, etc. Physics needs something to work with, something to describe, otherwise all you have is meaningless mathematical gibberish. We haven't come across something indescribable in a while, so its only natural that all we've had is incremental improvement or the twisting of old theories in new ways.
Anyways, as for the last. I'll look over your stuff, or forward it someone who will, in a few weeks. I've got to have a dataset ready for the engineers by the 13th of January, and as it stands now I'm not even going to get to go visit my family over the holidays, so please bear with the delay. I'll setup a free account somewhere between now and then and let you know the details when I can look over it. Later.
Guest_Eric,
You are right. It's just that this has happened a lot. In this case, I was referring specifically to Artfldgr's raising the gauntlet with his statements: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..." and "you sound smart, but you dont know what you are talking about." Why make such challenges if you won't stand your ground?
I suppose I've gotten a little irritated at this sort of behavior from the self-proclaimed experts I've had contact with (I'm only human too).
You are right. It's just that this has happened a lot. In this case, I was referring specifically to Artfldgr's raising the gauntlet with his statements: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..." and "you sound smart, but you dont know what you are talking about." Why make such challenges if you won't stand your ground?
I suppose I've gotten a little irritated at this sort of behavior from the self-proclaimed experts I've had contact with (I'm only human too).
I wish you would have taken that paragraph as a whole, instead of picking out the parts you wanted to hear. I said that both good and bad existed. Your quote also refers to what I said about some of the bad ones. Being confrontational for no reason is one way to make sure that nobody will help you.
Right again. I was just writing from my (thus far) negative experiences. Even so, I shouldn't allow myself to be so cynical.
I vote for number three. If I turn out to be correct in my hypothesis it's because it's not based on simple observation.
I vote for number three. If I turn out to be correct in my hypothesis it's because it's not based on simple observation.
Relativity wouldn't have been possible without both a few new mathematical tools and a couple of key experiments to put the idea into Einstein's head. QM would never have entered the fray without some rather vexing experimental results. String theory would never have been born without a desire to tie our current models together. Etc, etc. Physics needs something to work with, something to describe, otherwise all you have is meaningless mathematical gibberish. We haven't come across something indescribable in a while, so its only natural that all we've had is incremental improvement or the twisting of old theories in new ways.
My favorite analogy is the axled wheel. Where might primitive cultures have observed such a thing? They don't exist in nature.
Did you know that the Native American cultures did not have the wheel? They built highly complex social structures requiring the transport of goods and services, and yet they had no wheels to do it with!
Obviously, the original inventor must have been a pretty smart guy to think of something so uniquely original. Once created and observed though, it became an obvious and simple concept to duplicate.
You see? The physics of wheels is easy to understand if you first have a wheel to think about. But would an understanding of physics without wheels lead to a breakthrough that would cause us to create wheels?
First of all, I'm sorry to hear that you'll miss your family over the holidays. I hope they understand and are supportive.
I appreciate the offer to look over my stuff. Just write to me when you are ready. You can do it through the forum mail system by clicking on my screen name (above left) and then clicking on the "Email" button (I hesitate to leave my address in this open forum as I wish to avoid spam).
QUOTE
You really shouldn't project motivations onto people.
You are right. It's just that this has happened a lot. In this case, I was referring specifically to Artfldgr's raising the gauntlet with his statements: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..." and "you sound smart, but you dont know what you are talking about." Why make such challenges if you won't stand your ground?
I suppose I've gotten a little irritated at this sort of behavior from the self-proclaimed experts I've had contact with (I'm only human too).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You really shouldn't project motivations onto people. |
You are right. It's just that this has happened a lot. In this case, I was referring specifically to Artfldgr's raising the gauntlet with his statements: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..." and "you sound smart, but you dont know what you are talking about." Why make such challenges if you won't stand your ground?
I suppose I've gotten a little irritated at this sort of behavior from the self-proclaimed experts I've had contact with (I'm only human too).
I wish you would have taken that paragraph as a whole, instead of picking out the parts you wanted to hear. I said that both good and bad existed. Your quote also refers to what I said about some of the bad ones. Being confrontational for no reason is one way to make sure that nobody will help you.
Right again. I was just writing from my (thus far) negative experiences. Even so, I shouldn't allow myself to be so cynical.
QUOTE
As for the statement that it should have led to major breakthroughs if it was so useful...I don't think that's really at issue. Why haven't we made such breakthroughs? There are a combination of 3 possibilities. 1) There aren't any more major breakthroughs. 2) We are lacking some tool to push us over the edge. 3) We are lacking some observation to point us in the right direction.
I vote for number three. If I turn out to be correct in my hypothesis it's because it's not based on simple observation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for the statement that it should have led to major breakthroughs if it was so useful...I don't think that's really at issue. Why haven't we made such breakthroughs? There are a combination of 3 possibilities. 1) There aren't any more major breakthroughs. 2) We are lacking some tool to push us over the edge. 3) We are lacking some observation to point us in the right direction. |
I vote for number three. If I turn out to be correct in my hypothesis it's because it's not based on simple observation.
Relativity wouldn't have been possible without both a few new mathematical tools and a couple of key experiments to put the idea into Einstein's head. QM would never have entered the fray without some rather vexing experimental results. String theory would never have been born without a desire to tie our current models together. Etc, etc. Physics needs something to work with, something to describe, otherwise all you have is meaningless mathematical gibberish. We haven't come across something indescribable in a while, so its only natural that all we've had is incremental improvement or the twisting of old theories in new ways.
My favorite analogy is the axled wheel. Where might primitive cultures have observed such a thing? They don't exist in nature.
Did you know that the Native American cultures did not have the wheel? They built highly complex social structures requiring the transport of goods and services, and yet they had no wheels to do it with!
Obviously, the original inventor must have been a pretty smart guy to think of something so uniquely original. Once created and observed though, it became an obvious and simple concept to duplicate.
You see? The physics of wheels is easy to understand if you first have a wheel to think about. But would an understanding of physics without wheels lead to a breakthrough that would cause us to create wheels?
QUOTE
Anyways, as for the last. I'll look over your stuff, or forward it someone who will, in a few weeks. I've got to have a dataset ready for the engineers by the 13th of January, and as it stands now I'm not even going to get to go visit my family over the holidays, so please bear with the delay. I'll setup a free account somewhere between now and then and let you know the details when I can look over it. Later.
First of all, I'm sorry to hear that you'll miss your family over the holidays. I hope they understand and are supportive.
I appreciate the offer to look over my stuff. Just write to me when you are ready. You can do it through the forum mail system by clicking on my screen name (above left) and then clicking on the "Email" button (I hesitate to leave my address in this open forum as I wish to avoid spam).
Never say Never, it is Possible. I want everyone to imagine traveling back in time two thousand years. You living in that time if told people could travel and go to the moon, you would laughed your head off. Now take into consideration that we have gone to the moon, we fly in planes that takes us a few hours across the planet. In the ancient time such a voyage across the earth would take month's even years. I'm going to make this prediction, within the next 120 years there will be a major break through in space propulsion. At that time it would be the year 2125, we will see intersteller space travel becoming a reality. Remember if you can think it can be created, keep this in mind. We are the future, it is up to us. Who knows if one of you will be the scientist's that make that break through that will change mankind forever.
The great problem in spaceflght is not the energy, like many people think, it is indeed the matter of how to convert this energy in movement. Using just the third law of Newton is something quite expensive, one needs to expel matter in order to accelerate, and this means carry large amounts of matter to get to another star, the way for us to reach the light-speed (and dream to overpass it) is not figure how to store energy, but how to create movement in space without expelling matter - like some kind of grip for the ship to pull itself continuously, maybe using gravitational fields, or dark matter or some more excentrical idea from theoretical physics (there's a lot of them).
Maybe dust and atomic particles could be collected by electrostatic means instead of by magnetic fields as the Bussard ramjet operates. There are proposals to use antimatter to set off nuclear fusion reactions in fuel pellets stored on board an intersteller spaceship. Interstellar dust and hydrogen could be collected on board an interstellar ramjet and ignited with antimatter to extend the energy stored in the antimatter and to save space on the ship by use of energy concentrated in anitmatter. Someobody tell me if this is a new concept or if somone else has already invented a comination-bussard ramjet and anitmatter rocket.
Maybe dust and atomic particles could be collected by electrostatic means instead of by magnetic fields as the Bussard ramjet operates. There are proposals to use antimatter to set off nuclear fusion reactions in fuel pellets stored on board an interstellar spaceship. Interstellar dust and hydrogen could be collected on board an interstellar ramjet and ignited with antimatter to extend the energy stored in the antimatter and to save space on the ship by use of energy concentrated in anitmatter. Someobody tell me if this is a new concept or if somone else has already invented a combination-bussard ramjet and antimatter rocket.
R.A.M.,
You seem to understand the basic problem, but not quite. Technically it's said that due to the laws of conservation, you cannot transform energy into motion in an isolated system. This is why so much energy and/or mass is required to propel a spacecraft. You have to throw some form of propellant away.
In this Wikipedia article (click the link) is a pretty good definition of the conservation of momentum. It states: "The law of conservation of momentum states that any engine which uses no reaction mass cannot move the center of mass of a spaceship (changing orientation, on the other hand, is possible)."
Simply put this means that you can't accelerate in space without throwing some form of propellant away. The higher the energy state of the propellant, the more propulsion per volume. This is why ion/plasma drives are so efficient (although weak) and why antimatter is potentially many orders of magnitude more efficient (since it can quite literally be 100% energy efficient by volume).
The orientation part is simply managed with a reaction wheel. It's basically an internally mounted flywheel that you can cause to be turned. The spaceship will turn in an equal and opposite reaction.
As far as traveling at light speed or above is concerned, this is not thought to be possible due to the restrictions of relativity. So far relativity holds up experimentally, but this hasn't stopped some obviously bright minds from trying to find a chink in it. Wormholes seem to be all the rage lately.
Using external fields and such has been proposed (as per the Wikipedia article), but the problem is a matter of scale. In interstellar space these fields are very weak and therefore not practical to harness. Even gravity would be relatively weak, but we can't manipulate it anyway so it's useless to consider it.
Lastly it's suggested that space itself might be manipulated, but I don't think this is true. Warping space would be a gravitational effect and as I stated above, we cannot manipulate gravity... ergo we cannot warp space. (Personally, I have doubts that gravity is really a warping of space anyway. See: Is space curved by gravity?)
I believe there are solutions to some of these problems, so keep on believing. But I wouldn't expect anything soon.
For additional reading I suggest that you read this site: Centauri Dreams. It's basically trying to be a follow-up to the old NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program (BPP). It's linked with the Interstellar Flight Foundation (IFF) in which Marc Millis (of BPP fame) plays a prominent role.
QUOTE
The great problem in spaceflght is not the energy, like many people think, it is indeed the matter of how to convert this energy in movement. Using just the third law of Newton is something quite expensive, one needs to expel matter in order to accelerate, and this means carry large amounts of matter to get to another star, the way for us to reach the light-speed (and dream to overpass it) is not figure how to store energy, but how to create movement in space without expelling matter - like some kind of grip for the ship to pull itself continuously, maybe using gravitational fields, or dark matter or some more excentrical idea from theoretical physics (there's a lot of them).
You seem to understand the basic problem, but not quite. Technically it's said that due to the laws of conservation, you cannot transform energy into motion in an isolated system. This is why so much energy and/or mass is required to propel a spacecraft. You have to throw some form of propellant away.
In this Wikipedia article (click the link) is a pretty good definition of the conservation of momentum. It states: "The law of conservation of momentum states that any engine which uses no reaction mass cannot move the center of mass of a spaceship (changing orientation, on the other hand, is possible)."
Simply put this means that you can't accelerate in space without throwing some form of propellant away. The higher the energy state of the propellant, the more propulsion per volume. This is why ion/plasma drives are so efficient (although weak) and why antimatter is potentially many orders of magnitude more efficient (since it can quite literally be 100% energy efficient by volume).
The orientation part is simply managed with a reaction wheel. It's basically an internally mounted flywheel that you can cause to be turned. The spaceship will turn in an equal and opposite reaction.
As far as traveling at light speed or above is concerned, this is not thought to be possible due to the restrictions of relativity. So far relativity holds up experimentally, but this hasn't stopped some obviously bright minds from trying to find a chink in it. Wormholes seem to be all the rage lately.
Using external fields and such has been proposed (as per the Wikipedia article), but the problem is a matter of scale. In interstellar space these fields are very weak and therefore not practical to harness. Even gravity would be relatively weak, but we can't manipulate it anyway so it's useless to consider it.
Lastly it's suggested that space itself might be manipulated, but I don't think this is true. Warping space would be a gravitational effect and as I stated above, we cannot manipulate gravity... ergo we cannot warp space. (Personally, I have doubts that gravity is really a warping of space anyway. See: Is space curved by gravity?)
I believe there are solutions to some of these problems, so keep on believing. But I wouldn't expect anything soon.
For additional reading I suggest that you read this site: Centauri Dreams. It's basically trying to be a follow-up to the old NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program (BPP). It's linked with the Interstellar Flight Foundation (IFF) in which Marc Millis (of BPP fame) plays a prominent role.
Forum,
Referring back to the original article that started this topic, I have a little bone of contention. It's minor, but these things annoy me.
In reference to solar sails it states: "...like a sail. It also needs to be reflective as only photons bouncing off an object impart velocity – absorbed photons generate heat. To prevent the heat from building up, the backside of the sail needs to be an effective radiator."
This is not entirely correct. Like with any Newtonian collision a "reflected" photon can impart up to twice as much momentum as an absorbed photon. Absorbed photons do impart momentum, but they also impart heat (in the form of kinetic energy). Radiating the heat is an issue, but radiating it only on the non-reflective side (assuming that's what is meant by "backside") will create a braking effect
that is undesirable. It's best if it "reflects" 100% of the incoming photons to eliminate heating problems and maximize thrust.
Any heat radiated should be on the same side as the reflector (if possible) to maximize thrust. You also want the reflector to function in one direction only (if possible) as you don't want stray photons hitting the other side to act as a braking force.
Note: I put "reflect" in quotations because the photon leaving the surface is not actually the same as the one that was originally incoming. It can have nearly identical properties though.
Referring back to the original article that started this topic, I have a little bone of contention. It's minor, but these things annoy me.
In reference to solar sails it states: "...like a sail. It also needs to be reflective as only photons bouncing off an object impart velocity – absorbed photons generate heat. To prevent the heat from building up, the backside of the sail needs to be an effective radiator."
This is not entirely correct. Like with any Newtonian collision a "reflected" photon can impart up to twice as much momentum as an absorbed photon. Absorbed photons do impart momentum, but they also impart heat (in the form of kinetic energy). Radiating the heat is an issue, but radiating it only on the non-reflective side (assuming that's what is meant by "backside") will create a braking effect
that is undesirable. It's best if it "reflects" 100% of the incoming photons to eliminate heating problems and maximize thrust.
Any heat radiated should be on the same side as the reflector (if possible) to maximize thrust. You also want the reflector to function in one direction only (if possible) as you don't want stray photons hitting the other side to act as a braking force.
Note: I put "reflect" in quotations because the photon leaving the surface is not actually the same as the one that was originally incoming. It can have nearly identical properties though.
The only thing that needs to be done for us to be able to do this, is decide to go. Look throughout history when ever mankind has really put the effort into getting something done they do. We just havent decided to go. Rocket tech hasnt moved forward in the last 50 years mainly because there is no reason to. They can accomplish everything we need them to do right now. Rockets will not be a viable way of propulsion in the future because they are limited to Fuel, at least what we have now. Time will tell, it seems that we are progressing faster and faster every day. Remember Electricity hasnt been around for to long, and we take it for granted every day. Flight just over 100 years? Space flight came along real fast after regular flight. I believe that some of us will see amaizing things in the near future. If i live 50 more years Im sure I will see space travel on some level.
Engage! LOL
Engage! LOL
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 27 2005, 07:48 AM)
Forum,
Referring back to the original article that started this topic, I have a little bone of contention. It's minor, but these things annoy me.
In reference to solar sails it states: "...like a sail. It also needs to be reflective as only photons bouncing off an object impart velocity – absorbed photons generate heat. To prevent the heat from building up, the backside of the sail needs to be an effective radiator."
This is not entirely correct. Like with any Newtonian collision a "reflected" photon can impart up to twice as much momentum as an absorbed photon. Absorbed photons do impart momentum, but they also impart heat (in the form of kinetic energy). Radiating the heat is an issue, but radiating it only on the non-reflective side (assuming that's what is meant by "backside") will create a braking effect
that is undesirable. It's best if it "reflects" 100% of the incoming photons to eliminate heating problems and maximize thrust.
Any heat radiated should be on the same side as the reflector (if possible) to maximize thrust. You also want the reflector to function in one direction only (if possible) as you don't want stray photons hitting the other side to act as a braking force.
Note: I put "reflect" in quotations because the photon leaving the surface is not actually the same as the one that was originally incoming. It can have nearly identical properties though.
I am telling everyone my idea because someone else has invented it independently.
We could build an Orion type spaceship with a pusher plate connected to hydraulic pistons and fire small rockets or kinetic energy projectiles at it. If they are made with small retrorockets and guidance systems they will hit the pusher plate head on and impart momentum to the spaceship. They could be made of the same material as super balls or something else that will bounce off the plate.
Vulvox Nanotechnology Corporation
I expect this idea to be more practical than light sails. A spaceship could easily be accelerated to near light speed by this method.
Referring back to the original article that started this topic, I have a little bone of contention. It's minor, but these things annoy me.
In reference to solar sails it states: "...like a sail. It also needs to be reflective as only photons bouncing off an object impart velocity – absorbed photons generate heat. To prevent the heat from building up, the backside of the sail needs to be an effective radiator."
This is not entirely correct. Like with any Newtonian collision a "reflected" photon can impart up to twice as much momentum as an absorbed photon. Absorbed photons do impart momentum, but they also impart heat (in the form of kinetic energy). Radiating the heat is an issue, but radiating it only on the non-reflective side (assuming that's what is meant by "backside") will create a braking effect
that is undesirable. It's best if it "reflects" 100% of the incoming photons to eliminate heating problems and maximize thrust.
Any heat radiated should be on the same side as the reflector (if possible) to maximize thrust. You also want the reflector to function in one direction only (if possible) as you don't want stray photons hitting the other side to act as a braking force.
Note: I put "reflect" in quotations because the photon leaving the surface is not actually the same as the one that was originally incoming. It can have nearly identical properties though.
I am telling everyone my idea because someone else has invented it independently.
We could build an Orion type spaceship with a pusher plate connected to hydraulic pistons and fire small rockets or kinetic energy projectiles at it. If they are made with small retrorockets and guidance systems they will hit the pusher plate head on and impart momentum to the spaceship. They could be made of the same material as super balls or something else that will bounce off the plate.
Vulvox Nanotechnology Corporation
I expect this idea to be more practical than light sails. A spaceship could easily be accelerated to near light speed by this method.
QUOTE (ArtflDgr+Dec 9 2005, 04:34 PM)
...when the common man says flight is not possible.. he thinks in simple and totalitarian ways.
"...when the common man says (interstellar) flight is not possible.. he thinks in simple and totalitarian ways."
Right on!!
Of course, you're not a "common man"! You're much too much of an arrogant a**-hole to be considered "common".
"...when the common man says (interstellar) flight is not possible.. he thinks in simple and totalitarian ways."
Right on!!
Of course, you're not a "common man"! You're much too much of an arrogant a**-hole to be considered "common".
Neil,
That's a good idea, except that for the ship to reach relativistic speeds, the projectiles must have been accelerated to relativistic speeds beforehand.
This is why this idea is primarily considered as using high-energy particle streams like plasma or lasers. It's basically an adaptation of sail technology, only using energy streams instead of wind.
A particularly interesting version uses a laser that bounces back and forth between the source and the ship via mirrors (a repeater). Hypothetically, this allows the beam to duplicate itself and reinforce itself over and over. Eventually, the laser will lose both power and cohesion, but it's a cool concept... more propulsion for less energy.
Anyway, your concept was certainly in the ballpark.
QUOTE
I am telling everyone my idea because someone else has invented it independently.
We could build an Orion type spaceship with a pusher plate connected to hydraulic pistons and fire small rockets or kinetic energy projectiles at it. If they are made with small retrorockets and guidance systems they will hit the pusher plate head on and impart momentum to the spaceship. They could be made of the same material as super balls or something else that will bounce off the plate.
We could build an Orion type spaceship with a pusher plate connected to hydraulic pistons and fire small rockets or kinetic energy projectiles at it. If they are made with small retrorockets and guidance systems they will hit the pusher plate head on and impart momentum to the spaceship. They could be made of the same material as super balls or something else that will bounce off the plate.
That's a good idea, except that for the ship to reach relativistic speeds, the projectiles must have been accelerated to relativistic speeds beforehand.
This is why this idea is primarily considered as using high-energy particle streams like plasma or lasers. It's basically an adaptation of sail technology, only using energy streams instead of wind.
A particularly interesting version uses a laser that bounces back and forth between the source and the ship via mirrors (a repeater). Hypothetically, this allows the beam to duplicate itself and reinforce itself over and over. Eventually, the laser will lose both power and cohesion, but it's a cool concept... more propulsion for less energy.
Anyway, your concept was certainly in the ballpark.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 14 2006, 04:51 PM)
Neil,
That's a good idea, except that for the ship to reach relativistic speeds, the projectiles must have been accelerated to relativistic speeds beforehand.
This is why this idea is primarily considered as using high-energy particle streams like plasma or lasers. It's basically an adaptation of sail technology, only using energy streams instead of wind.
A particularly interesting version uses a laser that bounces back and forth between the source and the ship via mirrors (a repeater). Hypothetically, this allows the beam to duplicate itself and reinforce itself over and over. Eventually, the laser will lose both power and cohesion, but it's a cool concept... more propulsion for less energy.
Anyway, your concept was certainly in the ballpark.
The projectiles do not have to be travellign at relativistic speeds. Every projectile that hits the pusher plate will increase the ship's momentum and total kinetic energy. My concept could accellerate a spaceship to relativistic speeds. Every collision adds to the momentum incrementally.
QUOTE
I am telling everyone my idea because someone else has invented it independently.
We could build an Orion type spaceship with a pusher plate connected to hydraulic pistons and fire small rockets or kinetic energy projectiles at it. If they are made with small retrorockets and guidance systems they will hit the pusher plate head on and impart momentum to the spaceship. They could be made of the same material as super balls or something else that will bounce off the plate.
We could build an Orion type spaceship with a pusher plate connected to hydraulic pistons and fire small rockets or kinetic energy projectiles at it. If they are made with small retrorockets and guidance systems they will hit the pusher plate head on and impart momentum to the spaceship. They could be made of the same material as super balls or something else that will bounce off the plate.
That's a good idea, except that for the ship to reach relativistic speeds, the projectiles must have been accelerated to relativistic speeds beforehand.
This is why this idea is primarily considered as using high-energy particle streams like plasma or lasers. It's basically an adaptation of sail technology, only using energy streams instead of wind.
A particularly interesting version uses a laser that bounces back and forth between the source and the ship via mirrors (a repeater). Hypothetically, this allows the beam to duplicate itself and reinforce itself over and over. Eventually, the laser will lose both power and cohesion, but it's a cool concept... more propulsion for less energy.
Anyway, your concept was certainly in the ballpark.
The projectiles do not have to be travellign at relativistic speeds. Every projectile that hits the pusher plate will increase the ship's momentum and total kinetic energy. My concept could accellerate a spaceship to relativistic speeds. Every collision adds to the momentum incrementally.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=7][COLOR=red] Interstellar space travel in any meaningful way is fantasy ...ain't gonna happen ! There's a cosmic reason the stars are separated the way they are and that's to keep barbaric species like us from destroying more than our own backyards. I'd be surprized if we lasted as a species for another thousand years much less travel to Alpha Centauri !
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 12 2006, 08:00 PM)
QUOTE (ArtflDgr+Dec 9 2005, 04:34 PM)
...when the common man says flight is not possible.. he thinks in simple and totalitarian ways.
"...when the common man says (interstellar) flight is not possible.. he thinks in simple and totalitarian ways."
Right on!!
Of course, you're not a "common man"! You're much too much of an arrogant a**-hole to be considered "common".
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=7][COLOR=red] It's funny to me that you feel the need to rationalize your insults. Is this because you wanted to narrow the range of the insulted from 'common' to 'arrogant' ? What a champion of the people you are ! Oh what the heck, when that fails we'll just resort to good ole fashioned profanity and name calling and my observation about humanity looks a little better in microcosm. Thanx !
"...when the common man says (interstellar) flight is not possible.. he thinks in simple and totalitarian ways."
Right on!!
Of course, you're not a "common man"! You're much too much of an arrogant a**-hole to be considered "common".
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=7][COLOR=red] It's funny to me that you feel the need to rationalize your insults. Is this because you wanted to narrow the range of the insulted from 'common' to 'arrogant' ? What a champion of the people you are ! Oh what the heck, when that fails we'll just resort to good ole fashioned profanity and name calling and my observation about humanity looks a little better in microcosm. Thanx !
Neil,
Well, if the ship is moving away from the launching source of your balls at 60,000kph, and you can only launch your balls at 50,000kph, how will the balls ever catch the ship in order to strike the plate?
QUOTE
The projectiles do not have to be travellign at relativistic speeds. Every projectile that hits the pusher plate will increase the ship's momentum and total kinetic energy. My concept could accellerate a spaceship to relativistic speeds. Every collision adds to the momentum incrementally.
Well, if the ship is moving away from the launching source of your balls at 60,000kph, and you can only launch your balls at 50,000kph, how will the balls ever catch the ship in order to strike the plate?
QUOTE (Buttons+Dec 8 2005, 03:05 PM)
Gee, we have all the answers, don't we? We, who have "had technology" for what, a hundred years max? It's like Seth Shostack of SETI saying that the only way to communicate over galactic distances is the radio or light beam way. Know what? Ten years ago the light beam idea didn't exist within SETI. What a difference a decade makes. Let's just suppose a civilization popped up, say. oh, a million years before ours and evolved technology at earth speed. What type of things might they have? How about if they are a billion years ahead of us in technology? Would we even begin to recognize their capabilities as being...anything? If you take a peek at the old Buck Rogers movies you won't see a computer anywhere. Maybe, in a half million years, someone will invent the Zigabootie, a device that makes both intesteller travel and bathroom bowl cleaning easy. I leave you with this thought: If the sun totally disappeared right now, we would see it blink out about eight minutes later. However, the earth would stop reacting to the sun's gravitational affect and go off in a straight line immediately. It wouldn't wait eight minutes. Does this mean gravity travels faster than light?
well... well...
ok... time does not solve all problems... a million years does not equate to a solution to something inherent in the structure of matter and its intimacy with time.
ALSO... that same species, having solved the problems you bring up, would take less than ten thousand years to populate the whole galaxy. So tell me how they solve this problem, fly to visit, but have no desire to populate any other place (even given that their star no longer shows the way it did when they started like us - more than 15 billion years into their stars life)
shows you how little you know... that all your fantasies are propped up by the posibilities inherent in ignorance, means nothing to you. you want more possibilities, not less. and other than NEATO you have no reason to travel that way!!! it again amazes me that someoen with such ignorance of sience would decide to promote something that has very little purpose outside of science.
as far as lasers and seti... they thought radio waves (which actually is light!! so they have searched nothing else BUT light), were a better thing to look at being they are not limited such as other wavelenghts. radio wave, microwaves, visible light, near infrared, far infrared, UV, gamma waves, etc... ARE ALL LIGHT!!!
if the sun winked out.. we would not instantly fly off into space. gravity waves travel at the speed of light. yes, they travel (this was shown in a pair of near orbiting neutron stars i think), and propagate.
however, the "wink out" thing was only to show that it takes light time to travel... not that its at all operably possible... for if it was.. the gravitational field would still be there till the matter disappeared. if it really winked out, the explosion would hit us and shatter the planet into partcles and small chunks within hours of its winking.
this is not even hard science.. this is just basic grade school stuff...
well... well...
ok... time does not solve all problems... a million years does not equate to a solution to something inherent in the structure of matter and its intimacy with time.
ALSO... that same species, having solved the problems you bring up, would take less than ten thousand years to populate the whole galaxy. So tell me how they solve this problem, fly to visit, but have no desire to populate any other place (even given that their star no longer shows the way it did when they started like us - more than 15 billion years into their stars life)
shows you how little you know... that all your fantasies are propped up by the posibilities inherent in ignorance, means nothing to you. you want more possibilities, not less. and other than NEATO you have no reason to travel that way!!! it again amazes me that someoen with such ignorance of sience would decide to promote something that has very little purpose outside of science.
as far as lasers and seti... they thought radio waves (which actually is light!! so they have searched nothing else BUT light), were a better thing to look at being they are not limited such as other wavelenghts. radio wave, microwaves, visible light, near infrared, far infrared, UV, gamma waves, etc... ARE ALL LIGHT!!!
if the sun winked out.. we would not instantly fly off into space. gravity waves travel at the speed of light. yes, they travel (this was shown in a pair of near orbiting neutron stars i think), and propagate.
however, the "wink out" thing was only to show that it takes light time to travel... not that its at all operably possible... for if it was.. the gravitational field would still be there till the matter disappeared. if it really winked out, the explosion would hit us and shatter the planet into partcles and small chunks within hours of its winking.
this is not even hard science.. this is just basic grade school stuff...
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 15 2006, 09:03 PM)
QUOTE (Buttons+Dec 8 2005, 03:05 PM)
Gee, we have all the answers, don't we? We, who have "had technology" for what, a hundred years max? It's like Seth Shostack of SETI saying that the only way to communicate over galactic distances is the radio or light beam way. Know what? Ten years ago the light beam idea didn't exist within SETI. What a difference a decade makes. Let's just suppose a civilization popped up, say. oh, a million years before ours and evolved technology at earth speed. What type of things might they have? How about if they are a billion years ahead of us in technology? Would we even begin to recognize their capabilities as being...anything? If you take a peek at the old Buck Rogers movies you won't see a computer anywhere. Maybe, in a half million years, someone will invent the Zigabootie, a device that makes both intesteller travel and bathroom bowl cleaning easy. I leave you with this thought: If the sun totally disappeared right now, we would see it blink out about eight minutes later. However, the earth would stop reacting to the sun's gravitational affect and go off in a straight line immediately. It wouldn't wait eight minutes. Does this mean gravity travels faster than light?
well... well...
ok... time does not solve all problems... a million years does not equate to a solution to something inherent in the structure of matter and its intimacy with time.
ALSO... that same species, having solved the problems you bring up, would take less than ten thousand years to populate the whole galaxy. So tell me how they solve this problem, fly to visit, but have no desire to populate any other place (even given that their star no longer shows the way it did when they started like us - more than 15 billion years into their stars life)
shows you how little you know... that all your fantasies are propped up by the posibilities inherent in ignorance, means nothing to you. you want more possibilities, not less. and other than NEATO you have no reason to travel that way!!! it again amazes me that someoen with such ignorance of sience would decide to promote something that has very little purpose outside of science.
as far as lasers and seti... they thought radio waves (which actually is light!! so they have searched nothing else BUT light), were a better thing to look at being they are not limited such as other wavelenghts. radio wave, microwaves, visible light, near infrared, far infrared, UV, gamma waves, etc... ARE ALL LIGHT!!!
if the sun winked out.. we would not instantly fly off into space. gravity waves travel at the speed of light. yes, they travel (this was shown in a pair of near orbiting neutron stars i think), and propagate.
however, the "wink out" thing was only to show that it takes light time to travel... not that its at all operably possible... for if it was.. the gravitational field would still be there till the matter disappeared. if it really winked out, the explosion would hit us and shatter the planet into partcles and small chunks within hours of its winking.
this is not even hard science.. this is just basic grade school stuff...
ok... great post...
here is one reason i hope that some of these could understand...
as someone said earlier... one must throw away matter in order to make a ship go...
(this is the same person that says light has mass. it does not. if it did, it would have infinite angular momentum. its curves because space is curved).
ships must emanate fuel to move. so you accelerate particles to as close to light as possible.. (note that it takes a particle accelerator miles long to speed up a particle to only a fraction of the speed of light, and its not because we are on a planet).
anyway.. lets imagein you COULD get particles up to this speed. (you cant, a proton would have infinite weight since it actually does have mass).
if your throwing particles out at the speed of light, your maximum speed for the ship is HALF light speed.
until you figure out how to throw something out, or be struck by something faster than light, you cant get near it.
(manifold shifting is not the answer).
well... well...
ok... time does not solve all problems... a million years does not equate to a solution to something inherent in the structure of matter and its intimacy with time.
ALSO... that same species, having solved the problems you bring up, would take less than ten thousand years to populate the whole galaxy. So tell me how they solve this problem, fly to visit, but have no desire to populate any other place (even given that their star no longer shows the way it did when they started like us - more than 15 billion years into their stars life)
shows you how little you know... that all your fantasies are propped up by the posibilities inherent in ignorance, means nothing to you. you want more possibilities, not less. and other than NEATO you have no reason to travel that way!!! it again amazes me that someoen with such ignorance of sience would decide to promote something that has very little purpose outside of science.
as far as lasers and seti... they thought radio waves (which actually is light!! so they have searched nothing else BUT light), were a better thing to look at being they are not limited such as other wavelenghts. radio wave, microwaves, visible light, near infrared, far infrared, UV, gamma waves, etc... ARE ALL LIGHT!!!
if the sun winked out.. we would not instantly fly off into space. gravity waves travel at the speed of light. yes, they travel (this was shown in a pair of near orbiting neutron stars i think), and propagate.
however, the "wink out" thing was only to show that it takes light time to travel... not that its at all operably possible... for if it was.. the gravitational field would still be there till the matter disappeared. if it really winked out, the explosion would hit us and shatter the planet into partcles and small chunks within hours of its winking.
this is not even hard science.. this is just basic grade school stuff...
ok... great post...
here is one reason i hope that some of these could understand...
as someone said earlier... one must throw away matter in order to make a ship go...
(this is the same person that says light has mass. it does not. if it did, it would have infinite angular momentum. its curves because space is curved).
ships must emanate fuel to move. so you accelerate particles to as close to light as possible.. (note that it takes a particle accelerator miles long to speed up a particle to only a fraction of the speed of light, and its not because we are on a planet).
anyway.. lets imagein you COULD get particles up to this speed. (you cant, a proton would have infinite weight since it actually does have mass).
if your throwing particles out at the speed of light, your maximum speed for the ship is HALF light speed.
until you figure out how to throw something out, or be struck by something faster than light, you cant get near it.
(manifold shifting is not the answer).
Artfldgr,
Technically, this is a matter of semantics. It is purportedly true that photons have no intrinsic mass, but they do have "relativistic mass." Generally, for the purposes of ease in understanding, the concept of relativistic mass has been abandoned in academia. But there is arguably still, something to it.
For instance, it is known that if matter absorbs photons, its mass increases and if it releases photons, its mass decreases. Basically, photons are a way for atoms to exchange kinetic energy, and energy is a measure of mass.
It isn't experimentally proven that photons have no rest mass, but the measured upper limit to a photon's rest mass is proven to be phenomenally small. See this reference.
Here's another paper on testing the limits of possible rest mass.
Here is the abstract:
Abstract. A general frequency-dependent dispersion relation of the speed of light in different mediums (vacuum, insulator, plasma) is deduced based on the Proca equations. Several recent astronomical observations of the pulsars are used to set the limits on the photon rest mass by this method and several upper bounds of larger than one order improvement than previous similar results are obtained. Considering the dispersion of the massive photon, the possible upper limits on the photon rest mass are also derived from the recently experimental results for testing the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity.
Here's another reference
Note where it says:
"Unlike most particles, photons have no detectable intrinsic mass, or "rest mass" (as opposed to relativistic mass)."
Here's another.
Note the opening sentences:
"Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer 'yes'."
Here's another reference.
Note where it states:
"...which means that though photons don't have rest mass, they do have energy and thus they have mass."
So, you are right to state that they have no mass, and I am right to state that they do. It's all a matter of perspective.
However, you are not right to belittle me for my different (but perfectly valid) view.
QUOTE
(this is the same person that says light has mass. it does not. if it did, it would have infinite angular momentum. its curves because space is curved).
Technically, this is a matter of semantics. It is purportedly true that photons have no intrinsic mass, but they do have "relativistic mass." Generally, for the purposes of ease in understanding, the concept of relativistic mass has been abandoned in academia. But there is arguably still, something to it.
For instance, it is known that if matter absorbs photons, its mass increases and if it releases photons, its mass decreases. Basically, photons are a way for atoms to exchange kinetic energy, and energy is a measure of mass.
It isn't experimentally proven that photons have no rest mass, but the measured upper limit to a photon's rest mass is proven to be phenomenally small. See this reference.
Here's another paper on testing the limits of possible rest mass.
Here is the abstract:
Abstract. A general frequency-dependent dispersion relation of the speed of light in different mediums (vacuum, insulator, plasma) is deduced based on the Proca equations. Several recent astronomical observations of the pulsars are used to set the limits on the photon rest mass by this method and several upper bounds of larger than one order improvement than previous similar results are obtained. Considering the dispersion of the massive photon, the possible upper limits on the photon rest mass are also derived from the recently experimental results for testing the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity.
Here's another reference
Note where it says:
"Unlike most particles, photons have no detectable intrinsic mass, or "rest mass" (as opposed to relativistic mass)."
Here's another.
Note the opening sentences:
"Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer 'yes'."
Here's another reference.
Note where it states:
"...which means that though photons don't have rest mass, they do have energy and thus they have mass."
So, you are right to state that they have no mass, and I am right to state that they do. It's all a matter of perspective.
However, you are not right to belittle me for my different (but perfectly valid) view.
Guest_Eric
QUOTE (Guest_Eric+Dec 22 2005, 01:39 AM)
Anyways, as for the last. I'll look over your stuff, or forward it someone who will, in a few weeks. I've got to have a dataset ready for the engineers by the 13th of January, and as it stands now I'm not even going to get to go visit my family over the holidays, so please bear with the delay. I'll setup a free account somewhere between now and then and let you know the details when I can look over it. Later.
I haven't heard from you in awhile. Are you still reading? Are you still interested in looking over my concept?
I haven't heard from you in awhile. Are you still reading? Are you still interested in looking over my concept?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 15 2006, 08:13 AM)
Neil,
Well, if the ship is moving away from the launching source of your balls at 60,000kph, and you can only launch your balls at 50,000kph, how will the balls ever catch the ship in order to strike the plate?
BTW, how do you guys post the quote date behind the word "QUOTE" but above the box? I don't see a menu option for this, and everything I put in manually looks like garbage.
You're right. There is a limit to how much energy you can impart to the spaceship.
It might be useful for travel through the solar system or to launch probes through the solar system. Coilguns can theoretically, launch projectiles to 1/100 light speed.
QUOTE
The projectiles do not have to be travellign at relativistic speeds. Every projectile that hits the pusher plate will increase the ship's momentum and total kinetic energy. My concept could accellerate a spaceship to relativistic speeds. Every collision adds to the momentum incrementally.
Well, if the ship is moving away from the launching source of your balls at 60,000kph, and you can only launch your balls at 50,000kph, how will the balls ever catch the ship in order to strike the plate?
BTW, how do you guys post the quote date behind the word "QUOTE" but above the box? I don't see a menu option for this, and everything I put in manually looks like garbage.
You're right. There is a limit to how much energy you can impart to the spaceship.
It might be useful for travel through the solar system or to launch probes through the solar system. Coilguns can theoretically, launch projectiles to 1/100 light speed.
Neil,
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Jan 17 2006, 03:28 PM)
You're right. There is a limit to how much energy you can impart to the spaceship.
It might be useful for travel through the solar system or to launch probes through the solar system. Coilguns can theoretically, launch projectiles to 1/100 light speed.
Sure, but lasers emit photons at c, enabling a hypothetical potential to near c velocities (Robert Forward's concept) and plasma can be emitted at high energies too (ion drives). There's even a magnetically contained plasma concept that uses the fixed source/reflector system. I posted some references on it earlier in this thread.
It might be useful for travel through the solar system or to launch probes through the solar system. Coilguns can theoretically, launch projectiles to 1/100 light speed.
Sure, but lasers emit photons at c, enabling a hypothetical potential to near c velocities (Robert Forward's concept) and plasma can be emitted at high energies too (ion drives). There's even a magnetically contained plasma concept that uses the fixed source/reflector system. I posted some references on it earlier in this thread.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 17 2006, 11:30 PM)
Neil,
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Jan 17 2006, 03:28 PM)
You're right. There is a limit to how much energy you can impart to the spaceship.
It might be useful for travel through the solar system or to launch probes through the solar system. Coilguns can theoretically, launch projectiles to 1/100 light speed.
Sure, but lasers emit photons at c, enabling a hypothetical potential to near c velocities (Robert Forward's concept) and plasma can be emitted at high energies too (ion drives). There's even a magnetically contained plasma concept that uses the fixed source/reflector system. I posted some references on it earlier in this thread.
My old escort never even came close to the speed of light. I have had some some ideas that I bounced off the NASA advanced concepts department but they were never serious about developing them. I showed them a fusion rocket that would probably work if you put money into it but they rejected it with stupid criticisms that missed the mark.
It might be useful for travel through the solar system or to launch probes through the solar system. Coilguns can theoretically, launch projectiles to 1/100 light speed.
Sure, but lasers emit photons at c, enabling a hypothetical potential to near c velocities (Robert Forward's concept) and plasma can be emitted at high energies too (ion drives). There's even a magnetically contained plasma concept that uses the fixed source/reflector system. I posted some references on it earlier in this thread.
My old escort never even came close to the speed of light. I have had some some ideas that I bounced off the NASA advanced concepts department but they were never serious about developing them. I showed them a fusion rocket that would probably work if you put money into it but they rejected it with stupid criticisms that missed the mark.
Neil,
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Jan 17 2006, 11:42 PM)
My old escort never even came close to the speed of light. I have had some some ideas that I bounced off the NASA advanced concepts department but they were never serious about developing them. I showed them a fusion rocket that would probably work if you put money into it but they rejected it with stupid criticisms that missed the mark.
Actually, those NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) guys aren't looking for hypothetical maybe-might work ideas. They're looking for things that are easily understood (in relation to known physics). Mostly, they're into space and planetary colonization concepts.
They do look at advanced propulsion concepts that are generally related to known high-energy physics. They generally don't seem to closely examine anything out of the mainstream though (out of both known physics and physics academia).
So, if you're a professor of physics with a lab, you've got a chance. If you're a schmuck with an idea, forget about it (even though the calls for proposals are supposed to be open to anyone).
I haven't seen any indication of an individual entity winning an award... ever.
Actually, those NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) guys aren't looking for hypothetical maybe-might work ideas. They're looking for things that are easily understood (in relation to known physics). Mostly, they're into space and planetary colonization concepts.
They do look at advanced propulsion concepts that are generally related to known high-energy physics. They generally don't seem to closely examine anything out of the mainstream though (out of both known physics and physics academia).
So, if you're a professor of physics with a lab, you've got a chance. If you're a schmuck with an idea, forget about it (even though the calls for proposals are supposed to be open to anyone).
I haven't seen any indication of an individual entity winning an award... ever.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 16 2006, 08:12 AM)
Artfldgr,
Technically, this is a matter of semantics. It is purportedly true that photons have no intrinsic mass, but they do have "relativistic mass." Generally, for the purposes of ease in understanding, the concept of relativistic mass has been abandoned in academia. But there is arguably still, something to it.
For instance, it is known that if matter absorbs photons, its mass increases and if it releases photons, its mass decreases. Basically, photons are a way for atoms to exchange kinetic energy, and energy is a measure of mass.
It isn't experimentally proven that photons have no rest mass, but the measured upper limit to a photon's rest mass is proven to be phenomenally small. See this reference.
Here's another paper on testing the limits of possible rest mass.
Here is the abstract:
Abstract. A general frequency-dependent dispersion relation of the speed of light in different mediums (vacuum, insulator, plasma) is deduced based on the Proca equations. Several recent astronomical observations of the pulsars are used to set the limits on the photon rest mass by this method and several upper bounds of larger than one order improvement than previous similar results are obtained. Considering the dispersion of the massive photon, the possible upper limits on the photon rest mass are also derived from the recently experimental results for testing the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity.
Here's another reference
Note where it says:
"Unlike most particles, photons have no detectable intrinsic mass, or "rest mass" (as opposed to relativistic mass)."
Here's another.
Note the opening sentences:
"Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer 'yes'."
Here's another reference.
Note where it states:
"...which means that though photons don't have rest mass, they do have energy and thus they have mass."
So, you are right to state that they have no mass, and I am right to state that they do. It's all a matter of perspective.
However, you are not right to belittle me for my different (but perfectly valid) view.
i wasnt belittling you...
i am just tired of fringes who have enough knowlege to be dangerous.
light does not have mass... it would violate the mass increase that occurs as one moves faster (as mass is not a fixed value, but changes depending on the viewers position).
the relativistic mass is a reference to treating its straight path through curved space. this does not mean it has mass...
the laser experiment that you refer to was wrong. it dates back to those cute little vanes in a lightbulb thing... turns out that the effect is NOT light mass.
now i do understand why you want it to have mass (so then you can say faster than light travel is possible).
and let me posit some questions as if you were right.
if light does have mass, then how much mass has the earth gained from being shined on by the sun for a few billion years?
all other particles that have rest mass have the nice quality that they cant be in the same state, so they have to occupy different locations. however, light can exist with infinite other particle/waves... because they dont have mass...
i am pretty much done on this...
you want the answer to be something, and i dont care what the answer is as long as it fits the place.... wanting doesnt make it so, and wasting your time on it, takes you away from areas that you can work in and contribute. such practice also insures that no one will listen to you, and that nothign will work out, as it doesnt reflect whats really happening.
in all fields of science you have fringe people claiming all kinds of things. doesnt mean their right.. and the concept of imaging a person on the fringe coming up with an earth shattering idea that has good correlation with what went before it, not too likely.
from this you get all kinds of nutty ideas.. zero point energy, perpetual motion machines, faster than light travel, tachyon particles (faster than light), all manner of stuff that doesnt work and will never work... however, people that dont know better think a field of impossiblities is a fertile ground to find success... all because they BELIEVE that nothign is impossible.
good round... though now i know why you dont get good letters back from physicists and doctors and such, while i do get good letters suggestions and some times help. when someone knows more about something but doesnt have the time to teach you a three year course, you latch onto it as something to do with the system, and not with you and how you present your ideas, and even what your proposing....
imagine you know why sunsets are redder some years than others (usually volcanic eruptions)... and someone sends you a letter that proposes that the red is made because the blue absorbes the red in the presence of the sun, and then releases it in the evening when the sun is no longer "topping it off". would you address them? what would you say? that the reason is a b and c... then what happens when you get an angry letter back?
you stop reading long letters from people that have a quilt of knowledge and are missing or not accepting some well known well worked out parts that years and years of successful science has rested on...
QUOTE
(this is the same person that says light has mass. it does not. if it did, it would have infinite angular momentum. its curves because space is curved).
Technically, this is a matter of semantics. It is purportedly true that photons have no intrinsic mass, but they do have "relativistic mass." Generally, for the purposes of ease in understanding, the concept of relativistic mass has been abandoned in academia. But there is arguably still, something to it.
For instance, it is known that if matter absorbs photons, its mass increases and if it releases photons, its mass decreases. Basically, photons are a way for atoms to exchange kinetic energy, and energy is a measure of mass.
It isn't experimentally proven that photons have no rest mass, but the measured upper limit to a photon's rest mass is proven to be phenomenally small. See this reference.
Here's another paper on testing the limits of possible rest mass.
Here is the abstract:
Abstract. A general frequency-dependent dispersion relation of the speed of light in different mediums (vacuum, insulator, plasma) is deduced based on the Proca equations. Several recent astronomical observations of the pulsars are used to set the limits on the photon rest mass by this method and several upper bounds of larger than one order improvement than previous similar results are obtained. Considering the dispersion of the massive photon, the possible upper limits on the photon rest mass are also derived from the recently experimental results for testing the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity.
Here's another reference
Note where it says:
"Unlike most particles, photons have no detectable intrinsic mass, or "rest mass" (as opposed to relativistic mass)."
Here's another.
Note the opening sentences:
"Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer 'yes'."
Here's another reference.
Note where it states:
"...which means that though photons don't have rest mass, they do have energy and thus they have mass."
So, you are right to state that they have no mass, and I am right to state that they do. It's all a matter of perspective.
However, you are not right to belittle me for my different (but perfectly valid) view.
i wasnt belittling you...
i am just tired of fringes who have enough knowlege to be dangerous.
light does not have mass... it would violate the mass increase that occurs as one moves faster (as mass is not a fixed value, but changes depending on the viewers position).
the relativistic mass is a reference to treating its straight path through curved space. this does not mean it has mass...
the laser experiment that you refer to was wrong. it dates back to those cute little vanes in a lightbulb thing... turns out that the effect is NOT light mass.
now i do understand why you want it to have mass (so then you can say faster than light travel is possible).
and let me posit some questions as if you were right.
if light does have mass, then how much mass has the earth gained from being shined on by the sun for a few billion years?
all other particles that have rest mass have the nice quality that they cant be in the same state, so they have to occupy different locations. however, light can exist with infinite other particle/waves... because they dont have mass...
i am pretty much done on this...
you want the answer to be something, and i dont care what the answer is as long as it fits the place.... wanting doesnt make it so, and wasting your time on it, takes you away from areas that you can work in and contribute. such practice also insures that no one will listen to you, and that nothign will work out, as it doesnt reflect whats really happening.
in all fields of science you have fringe people claiming all kinds of things. doesnt mean their right.. and the concept of imaging a person on the fringe coming up with an earth shattering idea that has good correlation with what went before it, not too likely.
from this you get all kinds of nutty ideas.. zero point energy, perpetual motion machines, faster than light travel, tachyon particles (faster than light), all manner of stuff that doesnt work and will never work... however, people that dont know better think a field of impossiblities is a fertile ground to find success... all because they BELIEVE that nothign is impossible.
good round... though now i know why you dont get good letters back from physicists and doctors and such, while i do get good letters suggestions and some times help. when someone knows more about something but doesnt have the time to teach you a three year course, you latch onto it as something to do with the system, and not with you and how you present your ideas, and even what your proposing....
imagine you know why sunsets are redder some years than others (usually volcanic eruptions)... and someone sends you a letter that proposes that the red is made because the blue absorbes the red in the presence of the sun, and then releases it in the evening when the sun is no longer "topping it off". would you address them? what would you say? that the reason is a b and c... then what happens when you get an angry letter back?
you stop reading long letters from people that have a quilt of knowledge and are missing or not accepting some well known well worked out parts that years and years of successful science has rested on...
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.