Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Faster Than Light travel the wrong question?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 81 (533523)
10-31-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by kbertsche
10-31-2009 12:49 PM


Optimistic, not quasi-religious
These things are fun to speculate about, but they are not realistic in the foreseeable future. They certainly are not realistic until/unless we solve our energy problems. I am frankly surprised at the resistance that such comments meet in this thread. There seems to be a quasi-religious conviction here that mankind will be able to do such things one day. I consider these sci-fi speculations to be in the same vein as (but even less realistic than) global floods or vapor canopies.
You are correct about the physics; we don't know how to do efficient interplanetary travel, let alone interstellar travel.
But in the history of science the safe way to bet has always been that something will turn up. Science fiction embodies that optimism.
I think Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws" of prediction would apply here:
  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by kbertsche, posted 10-31-2009 12:49 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 52 of 81 (533778)
11-02-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by kbertsche
11-02-2009 7:13 PM


But wait! There's more...
quote:
Imagine yourself and an object with a gravitational pull of 5 G pulling you toward it. Now, we accelerate you and the object at 6 G. You will only feel 1 G. Suppose the object is pulling you at 7 G and you both are accelerated at 8 G. You will still only feel 1 G.
Dwelling on this thought, suppose we possess neutron matter. The neutron matter is put in front of the ship. The more the ship accelerates, the closer you are automatically put toward the neutron mass. When you decelerate, the ship automatically pulls you away from the neutron matter.
In which case you are not only accelerating the spaceship, but also the mini-neutron star. This takes immensely more energy than just accelerating the spaceship, only reinforcing the point that you would need a new, inexpensive energy source first. Also, the "neutron matter" needs to be far enough in front of the spaceship that its gravity gradient won't rip the ship and people apart.
All of this is correct, but there's more.
You would have to continually adjust the distance to the object as you did your acceleration and deceleration. Unless you magically go from 0 g to, say, 20 g, while at the same time and just as magically bring the compensator from a safe distance to the correct distance to balance 20 g.
I guess if you believe one you can believe the other, eh?
Must be some other way to do all of this that we haven't thought of.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by kbertsche, posted 11-02-2009 7:13 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024