Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

[url="http://www.ufoskeptic.org/dimensions.html"]http://www.ufoskeptic.org/dimensions.html[/url] - some great information on fairly current theories regarding FLT travel including a couple that seem to conincide with Subspace that we've seen in FreeSpace.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Duelist Kingdom
Posts: 774

I once saw an argument against FTL travel in the book The Physics of Star Trek, stating that as any object with mass accelerated, its weight increased, and as it approached the light barrier, it became infinitely heavy, and thus only objects without mass can travel at lightspeed, like light itself.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Tania Austrailis
Posts: 3322

Exactly how would a human body be able to stay together at FTL speeds?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

The point is that FLT travel wouldn't actually involve accelerating a ship upto lightspeed...because yes its pretty much impossible to go light speed with anything that has any mass. Unless your somehow using your mass as a propulsion system(and not in the expendature but in the actual fact that you have any...nevermind).

No, go read the article. FLT travel would involve warping space and stretching it between the origin and destination points and then the ship would just "jump" to the destination.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 632

yeah Warp travel is where the space around you travels. Space in front shinks so to speak and the distance behind increases.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location:
Posts: 506

Tesseract...

------------------
-Director of the staff of Hidden Terror.
-Director of the staff of Homeworld4FreeSpace
-Mission Creator
-Fleet Admiral

[url="http://hiddenterror.cjb.net/"]Hidden Terror HomePage[/url]
[url="Http://homeworld4freespace.homestead.com/"]Homeworld4FreeSpace Center[/url]
[url="http://ancientsarmada.cjb.net/"] The Ancients Armada HomePage[/url]

quote:

---

The fear always controls our attitude, let us fear no more!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 553

Everybody with high school physics knowledge knows that "real" FTL travel is impossible for objects with mass, because to go lightspeed requires infinite energy, and mass would also increase to infinity.

Photons can move at lightspeed, and according to some scientists, they've managed to accelerate subatomic particles or something to 10x lightspeed. Don't know how reliable that is, though.

There's the theories of sub/hyperspace, space bending, and just claiming the theory of relativity is wrong. Then there's one small theory that if you take all the energy away from a vacuum, making it so frictionless it actually becomes anti-friction, you can travel faster than light inside a bubble.

I don't know how good that last theory is, as I don't think I've seen any scientific studies for or against it

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: scotland
Posts: 1205

i think that vacum idea is probally based on the theory of the quatum foam basically bubbles of energy where particles are created and destroyed simultaneously hold back or trying to hold an object in its current state that and that if you could smooth it out you could remove inertia but i dont think it was ever claimed that it would allows flt - as far as i know the only way to achieve faster than light travel for anything made with normal matter and i mean that including anti matter - but excluding the possibilties that tachyons exisit and that they have mass, anyway i was saying that normal matter cannot go faster than light without cheating and infact moving sub light in an area that itself is moving faster than light

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

Actually...I've read several articles stating that many of the FLT theories don't at all break the currently established theories such as the theory of relativity brining more credence to their findings.

In at least one case, it was proven mathematically probable that it could be done (*could* of course).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: scotland
Posts: 1205

thats what i ment i'm not great at getting my point across i was saying simply removing all energy from an area isn't enough to brak light speed - however warping space-time is entirely pluasable even if it might turn out to be impossible - but the future does look good for very high speed sublight propulsion within the next hundred years or so

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 553

List some of the most important scientific breakthroughs you're expecting in the next 100 years.

1. efficient nuclear fusion
2. Quantum computers
3. some sort of good subspace theory

I'll think of some more sometime

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

I shudder to even think what we'll know in 10 years. They say in 20 we could start creating our own designer species.

The implications are huge.

I think the most important breakthrough in the next 100 years would be the establishment of safe space travel. Right now its an extremely hazardous expedition each time the shuttle goes up into orbit. We need to find a way to shield from gamma rays (which penetrate the shuttles hull bombarding crew members with radiation) and we need to establish artificial gravity (rotating sections may be the answer but there has to be a better way).

In any case, you'll see that im unwilling to accept that space is too much of a challenge for human beings to overcome. Its possible, its just going to take some time.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Tania Austrailis
Posts: 3322

quote:

---

Originally posted by IceFire:
They say in 20 we could start creating our own designer species.

---

that would take out all the fun of looking at people, because everyone would be a perfect model of beauty

that truly would suck. And I hate to use suck in such a manner, but it would.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: scotland
Posts: 1205

your thinking of it all wrong - if every woman was gorgeous - just think - you couldn't help but end up with a great looking woman and the scenery on beaches would be improved - and since you would have to be genetic engineered yourself the mirror wouldn't be such a horror to look in every morning

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Tania Austrailis
Posts: 3322

you the mirror isn't a horror for me, but since you say it is...

and then there would be bigger extremes that people would go to to be better than the rest, and it would be bad.

plus, when everyone is beautiful, then everyone is ugly. </figurative speech>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

Point well taken.

Designer species probably in relation to small bugs and not humans.

There is where we have some huge ethical and practical problems (some of which Snipes mentioned). In general, genetic modification would be a bad idea in humans and just about everything else. At least in the major ways. I can forsee the elimination of certain genetic diseases.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1477

So much has changed... yet so much is the same..

That will be the truth of the next 150 years.

Genetic engineering? 50-60 years to fully decode and understand the human genome, and then more genomes will have to be decoded to further understand implications and ways of adaptivity.

As it is, genetic hybrids and crossbreeding is a risky buisiness.

You can have a grass plant that stays at a few inches, and doesn't breed, but a single recursive allele will cause these plants to interbreed with all grasses, making them sterile and thus taking out a good portion of the world's ecosystem.

That sounds extreme, but it's actual studies from tests on hybrid plants.

Nano-technology will be extremely inefficient as well, more power will be spent with self-regulatory systems to prevent malignant nanites as well as the fact that they can only perform basic functions will mean that they may be used for wielding, aggrivating healing and strength. (i.e. nanites used to damage muscles and cells to fight cancer, build strength, as well as other basic health functions)

Even then, expect at least a century before such technology is refined to a point where it has practical medicinal uses, and several centuries before it is able to be used in rebuilding organic matter.

Cloning? Well if you can map the engrams of the human brain down to the quantum level, which is impossible thanks to Heisenburg's brave little theory, it might have a practical use in granting immortality.

As it is, cloning would work better to quickly raise farm stock, but is as risky as genetic engineering in an open populace.

What we *will* see in the next 150 years is advanced gene therapy where modified viral strains are used to correct genetic disorders.

We will have a greater understanding of physics, as well as quantum computer systems and more efficient data transfer systems. (however for technologies of fast transfer speeds to be wide-spread, give it 50-100 years)

Television systems will be more intergrated with the "web" and the phoneline systems will be slowly upgraded into fiber-optic style alloys as well as com-sat links.

Technologies such as holographic projectors we have now, just not in widespread use. Say in 100 years they will be used in billboards, TVs, etc. Because they will be cheaper to maintain than LEDs with the various alloys being used.

Homes will remain much the same, also urban sprawl will be prevalent.

Cars and vehicles will be very energy efficient, but still relying on a modified version of our current high-way systems.

We may be space-elevators within 200 years, a real "Tower of Babel" (let's just hope God doesn't decide to screw us over again )

Within 50 years, we'll have the tech for such an elevator, but the will to do so will require more of a commercial incentive to be in space...

In other words, life will go on as normal, your kids will be healthier, but they won't have four arms and six legs, or talk in Shivan

------------------
Ace
Webmaster
adamantpacified.org
[url="http://adamantpacified.org/"]http://adamantpacified.org/[/url]

Staff member
FreeSpace Watch
[url="http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/"]http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Terrapin Station
Posts: 344

BZZZT BZZT BZZZZZZZT.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 553

I want to save this thread in my little vault and release it in 50 years

With the constant growth of Earth's population, we'll either have to populate new areas of the planet or send the excess populae to colonies in other planets, or some largeish space stations. Necessity is the best encouragement. When there are just plain too many people on this planet, space exploration will have to be on the colony level or some nasty population-growth control will have to be implemented.

This will require some really big spaceships, which will probably be built in space. Shuttles carry people from down here to the spacedocks/stations/whatever and then into a bigger ship to carry them to Mars/Moon/Ganymede/center of Sol/wherever. One big ship is better than having a dozen smaller ships.

Okay... any ideas for better, faster and more efficient power for spaceships?

[EDIT]I kan spelz!

[This message has been edited by Jabu (edited 04-26-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

Probably the biggest key to turning around population growth is the development of the third world nations (which poses problems of its own).

In North America, we don't have the same population growth problem because our actual population growth will be in the negative percents by 2025. The only reason we still have a positive national growth is becaise of immigration. So if every country were like that, it would be more of a problem of maintaing a stable population.

I can forsee some sort of disaster wreaking havoc and rebuilding the balance that we destroyed about 150-200 years ago.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged