Advanced spacefaring life no more bothers with dead slow radio communication than it bothers with such dead slow travel methods we would consider today to be so fast. They travel at warp speeds and jump space teleportation, and their communication traffic, if such massless communication could exist at all point to point greater than the speed of light, would be quantum entangled transmitter/receiver point and point, same point, instantaneous.
If you use time for your supposing, remember that the human kind is new and very young. And relative to our recordings, past very long term established species have been wiped out in a quick manner. Whole eco systems destroyed.
The future is always in doubt. From more than one cause. And we are the only ones that know that. No other life form is troubled by this.
Star travel is a movie only. There is no future in it. This is no acceleration velocity to overcome it.
This one oasis solar system is all we will have. This is backed up with science. It’s authoritative. And sober. Non-emotional. Absence of passion. The brutality of fact.
That’s why we enjoy TV. TV is not limited to facts. If only WE could ignore those facts. We can when we watch TV.
Or study modern theory. Ha ha.
The future is always in doubt. From more than one cause. And we are the only ones that know that. No other life form is troubled by this.
Star travel is a movie only. There is no future in it. This is no acceleration velocity to overcome it.
This one oasis solar system is all we will have. This is backed up with science. It’s authoritative. And sober. Non-emotional. Absence of passion. The brutality of fact.
That’s why we enjoy TV. TV is not limited to facts. If only WE could ignore those facts. We can when we watch TV.
Or study modern theory. Ha ha.
Yes, there is no possibility of human travel to another star within their lifetime. The energy requirements are astronomical. A reasonable amount of antimatter needed to propel the craft would need around the same amount of energy the Sun emits in a few hours. So, it's sort of pricey.
The universe is an ecosystem.
There may be predation beyond blunt organic chemistry.
Predatory elements might see us as bait for their sophisticated & wary prey.
Just one of numerous possibilities.
Organic capitalism at work.
There may be predation beyond blunt organic chemistry.
Predatory elements might see us as bait for their sophisticated & wary prey.
Just one of numerous possibilities.
Organic capitalism at work.
I have all the elements atomic numbers 80 and up on my phone's "block" list. They are responsible for so much human agony and suffering.
With an inertial dampener we could reach higher speeds at lower cost and energies. Acceleration without mass gain. But still before c we would have a particle collision problem. Lots of energy would be needed for active far reaching shielding. We still would not be able to travel at c speeds. At c, no EM fields can be emitted in the forward direction. Pardon me, they can be emitted, but the ship is going at the same speed, the field is no faster than the ship. No shielding. Can’t move fast without shielding. So no time saved. So no star travel.
Can't travel fast without a shield. The craft would dissolve. Time and distance is the perfect barrier. No cost and no maintenance. We’re stuck.
Time, speed and distance, plus space particulate density prevents it. And there are always unknowns.
TV star travel will have to do.
Can't travel fast without a shield. The craft would dissolve. Time and distance is the perfect barrier. No cost and no maintenance. We’re stuck.
Time, speed and distance, plus space particulate density prevents it. And there are always unknowns.
TV star travel will have to do.
The particle density of space should increase with velocity. It might get thick. Shockingly thick. A particle barrier perhaps. On top of time and distance. It would be an inertial, a mass barrier.
That calculator seems to take the "fuel" as antimatter and turn its mass it into kinetic energy of the spacecraft with 100% efficiency.
So, not a very realistic basis for conceptualizing how far and fast humans could go in colonizing the galaxy or universe with known capabilities.
With what we know can be done with technology that actually works, we can't get there from here.
So, not a very realistic basis for conceptualizing how far and fast humans could go in colonizing the galaxy or universe with known capabilities.
With what we know can be done with technology that actually works, we can't get there from here.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Of course, if we wish to invoke (what is currently) science fiction, it is possible in the imagination to send one's consciousness instantaneously over unlimited distance, and "be present" there to observe and/or communicate. Purely theoretically, of course.
Cat
Cat
Even if interstellar voyagers in our galaxy maxed out their velocity at 0.01c, they would still need less than a 1% head start on earth to cover the entire galaxy. Yes, we do not have technology to do this now. Less than 100 years ago we did not have technology to send an object into orbit. It's conceiveable that our space travel technology will continue to improve. How advanced do you think human space travel will be in a million years? Say it takes us a million years to achieve interstellar travel at 0.01c. That literally does not change the result of the above calculation. I don't know why some here are adamant that interstellar travel will never happen.
I am saying interstellar travel within a human lifetime will never happen. That means a human goes to the nearest star and comes back to Earth and does it all within 100 years. I have run the calcs abd fisson does not provide sufficient power, neither does fusion, even all the way up to iron. Anti-matter can do it, but the amount needed requires so much energy, we would have to harness an entire star. No civilization without a Dyson Sphere could do it.
Space bits are isolated charge. The perfect fuel for anti matter. All we need is a large enough collector area and collector velocity for the right density to fuel an anti-matter reaction. It would be like a ram jet, needing a certain velocity to work.
Once outside our bubble, we could go much faster. Richer air, ha ha.
We would not want or need shields. We want to absorb and collect those particles.
Solve one problem with another.
With this setup, the faster you go, the more powerful the engine becomes.
Once outside our bubble, we could go much faster. Richer air, ha ha.
We would not want or need shields. We want to absorb and collect those particles.
Solve one problem with another.
With this setup, the faster you go, the more powerful the engine becomes.
Last edited:
The difference in opinion is whether technological advances are just a matter of time, or if there are physical limits that we know about today that will never be overcome, no matter how much time is available.
My personal opinion is that there might be potential for learning new, even unexpected things that would allow us to do in the future what we think is impossible today. So, I am in the "never say never" camp on the possibility.
On the other hand, when it comes to making an objective assessment of the Drake Equation, about why we are not seeing a thriving interstellar travel community in a billions of years old universe, my opinion is that we do have to consider that it might be impossible, no matter how much we learn.
Or, maybe there really just isn't anybody else out there. There are plenty of "ors" in the currently possible interpretations of that equation with the current state of our knowledge.
Last edited:
Collector scoop theory. If you think about it, this scoop acceleration would never end. Remember we have an inertial dampener. With this constant acceleration c could be breached. Faster than c accelerations.
Multiple c could be reached. But I have no idea how to slow down. If you slow down, you lose the fuel to slow down.
We will need transporters. Multi-c transporters.
Multiple c could be reached. But I have no idea how to slow down. If you slow down, you lose the fuel to slow down.
We will need transporters. Multi-c transporters.
We are one race, the human race the only intelligent lifeforms who are unaware of this reality is humanity itself. We live in these countries(tribes) and all of our conceptions are based on tribal beliefs. We do not act as one as a species and this makes us both socially aggressive and dangerous. We hopefully will evolve to be one as human beings, but we are not there yet. When we evolve it is reasonable to believe we will behave appropriate when encountering an inferior intelligent species. We will observe only and not give this new lifeform that 'smoking gun' so they can discover us.
Our world is like an oasis in the desert. You don't explore a few miles of the desert and then declare the rest of the desert (galaxy) devoid of other life. You search all of it. You leave no stone unturned, and then you make your determination.
Our world is like an oasis in the desert. You don't explore a few miles of the desert and then declare the rest of the desert (galaxy) devoid of other life. You search all of it. You leave no stone unturned, and then you make your determination.
The desert is vast. So large that no amount of "water" may be enough to allow us to traverse it while we search.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I DID NOT POST THAT.
It is verbatim Unclear Engineer #33.
I did quote part in the Drop of Water thread.
Cat
Last edited:
I suspect that tribalism is built into our DNA, and not only human DNA but far back into evolution. Many animals will fight with "strangers," but not with members of their group.
I think the only possibility for overcoming intra-human tribalism would be with extra-human tribalism, i.e. the human race considering itself as one tribe vis-à-vis some other ET civilization. And even then ...
The cell wall is a vitally necessary exclusionist construct.
Sociological tribalism isn't necessarily all bad.
It may allow for exercising a variety of paradigms which over time will likely favor those that work best.
(even if you & I may not like them)
Sometimes cruel, sometimes ugly social evolution.
Sociological tribalism isn't necessarily all bad.
It may allow for exercising a variety of paradigms which over time will likely favor those that work best.
(even if you & I may not like them)
Sometimes cruel, sometimes ugly social evolution.
sizzlerjoe
BANNED
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 34
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram