rootbear75 Posted February 12, 2008 Report Posted February 12, 2008 how about the "folding" of space to get across it faster... (used in the book "A Wrinkle in Time")or hyperspeed.. or even man-made wormholes (something like Stargate?) (just thoughts)
»Lynx Posted February 12, 2008 Report Posted February 12, 2008 If we were to bend space, we would have to first figure out how to do such a feat. We do not even nearly possess enough knowledge to know what will truly happen if we were to fold space - and I don't think that we're going to find out in our lifetime, our children's lifetime, our grand children's..... and so on.. Let's just be realistic. About the man-made wormhole - where would we make such a thing safety. In order to make it safely, we would have to travel so far out - that we wouldn't even live the distance to create it - and again - we don't know what happens when something passes through it - although if we were to think logically - it's obvious that we would be moving amazingly fast, with absolutely no control - therefore we could effectively be torn to pieces due to speed effects, or even crushed completely. Also, more to the point - if we could travel far enough out to make it - where would it lead? - Why not just travel to the planet in the first place? A wormhole is a very destructive thing - and we know so little about our universe, heck even solar system, we have no idea of the effects it would have. Oh yeah - how do we make a wormhole? As for speed of light travel - we would actually require something which can resist speed of light travel - nothing exists now, and the chances we're finding new elements are near impossible, unless of course we go to another planet - however that's what this discussion is all about anyway. Also - due to the speed we would be travelling, if we were to touch the slightest piece of resistance along the way - we would be shredded. And if we were to create something so rigid that it could resist the resistance, it would probably be extremely prone to shattering.
Aileron Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 Bak, I am !@#$%^&*uming they have the ridiculous amount of energy needed to get 99% c. Yes, its ridiculous. We all know its ridiculous. You don't need to state it. All I'm saying is that if we !@#$%^&*umed that we had a battery with that much energy in it, the next problem would be predicting where a habitable planet is going to be X million years in the future when all of our information is X million years old. Wormhole theory is vague and based upon another theory (Einsteins Theory of Warped Space - much more credible, but still not a Law.) Even with such a sketchy thing, there are still multiple problems with wormholes, most notably of which is all natural wormholes last mere nanoseconds, and that all natural wormholes are still light-years away from Sol so we would need to solve the problem of inter-stellar travel anyway. No new element would help with light-speed travel, unless it's nuclear processes can be utilized to create the aformentioned ridiculous energy battery which Bak is anal about. The only particle which would help is "Tachyons", by definition a particle traveling faster than c, which are another science fiction construct and don't exist. What also could help is either 'anti-m!@#$%^&*' or 'inertial dampeners', which would effectively reduce the transported items' m!@#$%^&* thus enabling large objects to accelerate towards c without as much force requirement. Again, science fiction, though more slightly credible than wormholes or faster than light travel. Still won't happen though.
rootbear75 Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 Wormhole theory is vague and based upon another theory (Einsteins Theory of Warped Space - much more credible, but still not a Law.) Even with such a sketchy thing, there are still multiple problems with wormholes, most notably of which is all natural wormholes last mere nanoseconds, and that all natural wormholes are still light-years away from Sol so we would need to solve the problem of inter-stellar travel anyway.have they found a way to predict the occurance (sp?) of wormholes?
»Lynx Posted February 14, 2008 Report Posted February 14, 2008 Wormholes have never lasted for longer than a few nano seconds, and it's impossible to determine how long it will take to travel to the secondary bubble, and if space-time becomes flat again, anything within the "tunnel" will be crushed.
Synister Posted February 25, 2008 Report Posted February 25, 2008 well...I love spam, just needs to be cooked properly. Anywho, I'm not worried, I myself don't think the world will last another 50-60 years, just because humans have always been self-centered and self-destructive. That wasn't as much a deal in the past, but now we have big !@#$%^&* weapons.We've had enough nukes to distroy the planet for 50 odd years now. The biggest problem we face is overpopulation. Comdidty Prices for Iron, Gold, Platinum, Food, Oil are at record highs, and the prices will only continue to rise. Additionally as more and more people need these resources, the resouses themselves are getting harder to find. In 5 years time both the artic and antartic will be being commercially mined for minarals. The Earth is rapidly running out of room. If anyone has seen a population curve in biology, we are heading towards the peak before the drop. To prevent the drop (ie m!@#$%^&* loss of life, due to lack of food/war or resources etc) We need to start exploring and colonizing and mining other planets, in order to ensure our survival. we've got about 25 years to start doing this...provided nothing happens to resolve the population problem by itself.... Technologically, we have the technology to do it now. whats holding us back at the moment is the risk adverseness that is rampant in society today.... I think China will be the first country to colonise Mars or the Moon. The one invention that would revelutionalise space travel would be faster than light speed communications, this is arguably more imporatant than faster than light speed travel. Having an 8 minute communications (16 mins for a round trip) lag to mars is really useless for anything realtime... Imagain trying to play SS with an 16minute ping. Thats how they had to control that mars rover explorer....(Before reading, I did not read entire topic, if the following was already said I am sorry.) One of the biggest problems could be said is overpopulation, but it depends on opinion.. Human society is running out of natural resources (oil,coal etc..).. and eventually it will run out, the more people the more we lose. What will happen when oil prices skyrocket to 20$ a litre? What would happen if oil and coal and any other fossil fuel we use runs out. Many possibilities and yet almost no one ever looks at those, instead they like to read prophecies or coincidences leading to the world blowing up or whatever. Meh those are my 2 cents.
X`terrania Posted February 25, 2008 Report Posted February 25, 2008 I honestly wish people would just go on living with their lives and stop trying to predict or even guess the end of the world. It would certainly be a lot more peaceful and easier to live without it.
LearJett+ Posted February 27, 2008 Report Posted February 27, 2008 the Mayans, from whom we get the date '2012,' did not say the world will end on 2012, they said that there will be a cataclysmic event. they actually have predicted events past 2012, as far as the year 36,000 something. people have misinterpreted what they wrote.
Incomplete Posted February 28, 2008 Report Posted February 28, 2008 Cataclysmic event could be England actually winning something in the Olympics. Oh well I still have a healthy 4 years to go.
Wild Luck Posted February 28, 2008 Report Posted February 28, 2008 yes the mayans predicted the world would end on 2012, i think they were based on some planetary alignment or some astrological stuff. But then again it has been foretold many times the world would end and nothing has happened, even if a comet hits the earth life would survive and it would continue. I think i had a site that showed all the dates that has been prophetized that the world would end and we are still here. It showed dates from as long as the year 200 ad, i will see if i find it.
Wild Luck Posted February 28, 2008 Report Posted February 28, 2008 well...I love spam, just needs to be cooked properly. Anywho, I'm not worried, I myself don't think the world will last another 50-60 years, just because humans have always been self-centered and self-destructive. That wasn't as much a deal in the past, but now we have big !@#$%^&* weapons.We've had enough nukes to distroy the planet for 50 odd years now. The biggest problem we face is overpopulation. Comdidty Prices for Iron, Gold, Platinum, Food, Oil are at record highs, and the prices will only continue to rise. Additionally as more and more people need these resources, the resouses themselves are getting harder to find. In 5 years time both the artic and antartic will be being commercially mined for minarals. The Earth is rapidly running out of room. If anyone has seen a population curve in biology, we are heading towards the peak before the drop. To prevent the drop (ie m!@#$%^&* loss of life, due to lack of food/war or resources etc) We need to start exploring and colonizing and mining other planets, in order to ensure our survival. we've got about 25 years to start doing this...provided nothing happens to resolve the population problem by itself.... Technologically, we have the technology to do it now. whats holding us back at the moment is the risk adverseness that is rampant in society today.... I think China will be the first country to colonise Mars or the Moon. The one invention that would revelutionalise space travel would be faster than light speed communications, this is arguably more imporatant than faster than light speed travel. Having an 8 minute communications (16 mins for a round trip) lag to mars is really useless for anything realtime... Imagain trying to play SS with an 16minute ping. Thats how they had to control that mars rover explorer....(Before reading, I did not read entire topic, if the following was already said I am sorry.) One of the biggest problems could be said is overpopulation, but it depends on opinion.. Human society is running out of natural resources (oil,coal etc..).. and eventually it will run out, the more people the more we lose. What will happen when oil prices skyrocket to 20$ a litre? What would happen if oil and coal and any other fossil fuel we use runs out. Many possibilities and yet almost no one ever looks at those, instead they like to read prophecies or coincidences leading to the world blowing up or whatever. Meh those are my 2 cents.looks like .002 cents to me. Ways to produce oil from plants are already in developing, anyway there are electrics car already, so thats not a problem. They dont market it yet cause the big oil fishes invested too much money in their oil business and they want to get more profit, or they just want to keep pulling money our of oil.
»Lynx Posted March 1, 2008 Report Posted March 1, 2008 well...I love spam, just needs to be cooked properly. Anywho, I'm not worried, I myself don't think the world will last another 50-60 years, just because humans have always been self-centered and self-destructive. That wasn't as much a deal in the past, but now we have big !@#$%^&* weapons.We've had enough nukes to distroy the planet for 50 odd years now. The biggest problem we face is overpopulation. Comdidty Prices for Iron, Gold, Platinum, Food, Oil are at record highs, and the prices will only continue to rise. Additionally as more and more people need these resources, the resouses themselves are getting harder to find. In 5 years time both the artic and antartic will be being commercially mined for minarals. The Earth is rapidly running out of room. If anyone has seen a population curve in biology, we are heading towards the peak before the drop. To prevent the drop (ie m!@#$%^&* loss of life, due to lack of food/war or resources etc) We need to start exploring and colonizing and mining other planets, in order to ensure our survival. we've got about 25 years to start doing this...provided nothing happens to resolve the population problem by itself.... Technologically, we have the technology to do it now. whats holding us back at the moment is the risk adverseness that is rampant in society today.... I think China will be the first country to colonise Mars or the Moon. The one invention that would revelutionalise space travel would be faster than light speed communications, this is arguably more imporatant than faster than light speed travel. Having an 8 minute communications (16 mins for a round trip) lag to mars is really useless for anything realtime... Imagain trying to play SS with an 16minute ping. Thats how they had to control that mars rover explorer....(Before reading, I did not read entire topic, if the following was already said I am sorry.) One of the biggest problems could be said is overpopulation, but it depends on opinion.. Human society is running out of natural resources (oil,coal etc..).. and eventually it will run out, the more people the more we lose. What will happen when oil prices skyrocket to 20$ a litre? What would happen if oil and coal and any other fossil fuel we use runs out. Many possibilities and yet almost no one ever looks at those, instead they like to read prophecies or coincidences leading to the world blowing up or whatever. Meh those are my 2 cents.looks like .002 cents to me. Ways to produce oil from plants are already in developing, anyway there are electrics car already, so thats not a problem. They dont market it yet cause the big oil fishes invested too much money in their oil business and they want to get more profit, or they just want to keep pulling money our of oil. And where does one safely get a lot of energy for all our new electric cars?
X`terrania Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 Theoretically you can use a lot of different things for fuels, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel for one.
»Blocks Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 Science. This topic needs more of it. Seriously, if you're interested in this stuff, take the time to actually learn what you're talking about. I don't mean by reading Wikipedia either. MIT undergraduate physics courses are a good place to start.
kid Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 Science. This topic needs more of it. Seriously, if you're interested in this stuff, take the time to actually learn what you're talking about. I don't mean by reading Wikipedia either. MIT undergraduate physics courses are a good place to start.woooh ignorance. this topic is not stemmed in science, deal with it. did you read the first post? looks like about 20 paragraphs of bull!@#$%^&* with bad grammar to me, so why even take the time to complain about science? it is obvious that this topic is supers!@#$%^&*ious, not scientific. secondly, it doesn't seem feasible for people to take physics courses so they can say more intelligent things on a forum full of reASSS. lastly, you're looking for quantum physics.
Aileron Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 I actually happen to know my share of physics already. Last I checked I was mostly shooting down ideas, though I will also note that we don't know what causes gravity yet, and there might be possibilities for interstellar travel there depending upon the outcome of that. I'd like to be able to do something with my college education other than argue with idiots over the internet, but unfortunately nobody wants entry level scientists nowadays. There is the possibility of making oil out of coal. The technology to do that has been around for a while and is capable of producing gasoline in large quan!@#$%^&*ies. In WW II a technique was used by the Nazi war machine to supplement a large portion of their fuel, something around 20% of Germany's oil production. The technology was researched by American companies in the 70s, but abandoned because it costs about $45 to make a barrel of oil out of coal, and at the time that was expensive. However, today that would be cheap oil, and coal is something the US has in abundance. There is also plenty of coal left. While our coal reserves certainly are not infinite in supply, they would last quite a while. Probably a century or two even !@#$%^&*uming fuel consumption continues to grow exponentially. This buys time for researchers to come up with viable alternative energies, probably even enough time for scientists to get Fusion to work. The catch is that no matter the method, the process produces a lot of carbon dioxide. The gas would produce as much as current gasoline, and the process to get the oil out of the coal would also produce carbon dioxide. Now I will point out a bit of a conspiracy theory, so be warned. I remember that in the 90s carbon dioxide wasn't really considered a problem. When I was in school it was carbon monoxide that was the evil gas. It took approximately until Al Gore's movie when carbon dioxide was given the main focus, and coincidentally, this shift in the opinion of the primary gas responsible for global warming occurred right around the time when it became cost-effective to make oil from coal. My thought is that environmentalists made this shift and made a big hush-hush out of coal from oil just to prevent a large scale drive to switch to coal, because it seems about perfect given the economic situation. People would want to do it, but environmentalists hate coal. I say we build coal to oil refineries, and then plant a few trees to soak up the excess carbon dioxide.
BDwinsAlt Posted March 2, 2008 Report Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) The Bible says that only God knows the exact date and not even the Son knows the day of rapture. I do know that 1/3 of everything will die. I don't think the world will end on 2012, but that may be the beginning. The anti-christ will rule for 7 years so more like 2019. Isn't an asteroid suppose to hit us in 2019? To an athiest, it doesn't matter because there is nothing after life. To a Christian, it matters because you could be facing a higher judgment. Most of the people who think they are christians won't be in heaven. The bible says unless you create a relationship and talk to jesus, he will say he never knew you. It says you can cast out demons in his name, but unless you are close and you talk to him, he won't accept you. Oh yea, I'm sure between now and 2038 they will fix the unix time thing. Edited March 2, 2008 by BDwinsAlt
Bak Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 The bible isn't true, aren't you old enough to know that by now?
rootbear75 Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 I will also note that we don't know what causes gravity yetdoesnt gravity come from massi heard the theory that gravity in space is like a big flat blanket. put stuff on it, it makes indentations, and then stuff near it "rolls" towards the "planet"
»Blocks Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 if you have a large rigid stick going from earth to mars, and you push it an inch on earths end, does it take 8 minutes for it to move on mars' end? Depends on how rigid the stick isMore! I think in the case of an infinitely rigid stick, it would be 8 minutes, though this doesn't really make sense as special relativity sets a limit on material rigidity. The time taken would depend on the speed of sound in the stick. Science. This topic needs more of it. Seriously, if you're interested in this stuff, take the time to actually learn what you're talking about. I don't mean by reading Wikipedia either. MIT undergraduate physics courses are a good place to start.woooh ignorance. this topic is not stemmed in science, deal with it. did you read the first post? looks like about 20 paragraphs of bull!@#$%^&* with bad grammar to me, so why even take the time to complain about science? it is obvious that this topic is supers!@#$%^&*ious, not scientific. secondly, it doesn't seem feasible for people to take physics courses so they can say more intelligent things on a forum full of reASSS. lastly, you're looking for quantum physics.First, I admit that my post was a little dumb, and this topic did start with a load of trash, but there is science in it. Second, why is it not "feasible"? Third, I meant physics, not quantum physics. I don't think quantum physics has been talked about much in this topic, just general relativity and special relativity. I actually happen to know my share of physics already. Last I checked I was mostly shooting down ideas, though I will also note that we don't know what causes gravity yet, and there might be possibilities for interstellar travel there depending upon the outcome of that. I'd like to be able to do something with my college education other than argue with idiots over the internet, but unfortunately nobody wants entry level scientists nowadays. Now I will point out a bit of a conspiracy theory, so be warned. I remember that in the 90s carbon dioxide wasn't really considered a problem. When I was in school it was carbon monoxide that was the evil gas. It took approximately until Al Gore's movie when carbon dioxide was given the main focus, and coincidentally, this shift in the opinion of the primary gas responsible for global warming occurred right around the time when it became cost-effective to make oil from coal. My thought is that environmentalists made this shift and made a big hush-hush out of coal from oil just to prevent a large scale drive to switch to coal, because it seems about perfect given the economic situation. People would want to do it, but environmentalists hate coal. I say we build coal to oil refineries, and then plant a few trees to soak up the excess carbon dioxide.My post wasn't really directed at you. Eh, what sort of science are you in? On the whole thing with turning coal into oil, I'd be fairly certain that the energy requirements to do it on a large scale are not practical. That's just a gut feeling, so I'd be welcome to reading anything you throw my way. To be honest, there's only two sources of energy on this Earth, suns and mini-suns. Solar, fossil fuels, hydroelectric, and wind all come from our Sun, fission and geothermal come from some star going blammo, and the mini-suns are fusion. In my opinion, the only good solutions for long-term energy are harnessing the sunlight incident on the Earth in a timescale not long compared to the rate we use it, and fusion. I'm not banking on the latter. I don't recall carbon monoxide ever being a huge deal, but I'm younger than you so perhaps I don't remember. I thought the big atmospheric hubbub in the 90s was chlorofluorocarbons and the Antarctic ozone hole (which is absolutely unrelated to the greenhouse effect but people still lump them together). The only significant contribution CO has to the greenhouse effect is eating up OH radicals that would otherwise break down stronger greenhouse gases. Regardless, carbon dioxide is a pretty big deal. I've heard convincing arguments that nearly all the carbon dioxide that is soaked up through photosynthesis is returned to the atmosphere through aerobic respiration. I will also note that we don't know what causes gravity yetdoesnt gravity come from massi heard the theory that gravity in space is like a big flat blanket. put stuff on it, it makes indentations, and then stuff near it "rolls" towards the "planet"The blanket is one way of explaining general relativity, which is the widely-accepted theory of gravitation. I think Aileron means that we don't know why bits of m!@#$%^&* attract each other, and that general relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanics.
Wild Luck Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 well...I love spam, just needs to be cooked properly. Anywho, I'm not worried, I myself don't think the world will last another 50-60 years, just because humans have always been self-centered and self-destructive. That wasn't as much a deal in the past, but now we have big !@#$%^&* weapons.We've had enough nukes to distroy the planet for 50 odd years now. The biggest problem we face is overpopulation. Comdidty Prices for Iron, Gold, Platinum, Food, Oil are at record highs, and the prices will only continue to rise. Additionally as more and more people need these resources, the resouses themselves are getting harder to find. In 5 years time both the artic and antartic will be being commercially mined for minarals. The Earth is rapidly running out of room. If anyone has seen a population curve in biology, we are heading towards the peak before the drop. To prevent the drop (ie m!@#$%^&* loss of life, due to lack of food/war or resources etc) We need to start exploring and colonizing and mining other planets, in order to ensure our survival. we've got about 25 years to start doing this...provided nothing happens to resolve the population problem by itself.... Technologically, we have the technology to do it now. whats holding us back at the moment is the risk adverseness that is rampant in society today.... I think China will be the first country to colonise Mars or the Moon. The one invention that would revelutionalise space travel would be faster than light speed communications, this is arguably more imporatant than faster than light speed travel. Having an 8 minute communications (16 mins for a round trip) lag to mars is really useless for anything realtime... Imagain trying to play SS with an 16minute ping. Thats how they had to control that mars rover explorer....(Before reading, I did not read entire topic, if the following was already said I am sorry.) One of the biggest problems could be said is overpopulation, but it depends on opinion.. Human society is running out of natural resources (oil,coal etc..).. and eventually it will run out, the more people the more we lose. What will happen when oil prices skyrocket to 20$ a litre? What would happen if oil and coal and any other fossil fuel we use runs out. Many possibilities and yet almost no one ever looks at those, instead they like to read prophecies or coincidences leading to the world blowing up or whatever. Meh those are my 2 cents.looks like .002 cents to me. Ways to produce oil from plants are already in developing, anyway there are electrics car already, so thats not a problem. They dont market it yet cause the big oil fishes invested too much money in their oil business and they want to get more profit, or they just want to keep pulling money our of oil. And where does one safely get a lot of energy for all our new electric cars? now would be hydroelectric power, but it could be inhouse solar panels or aeolic power i found the site i was talking about it shows 200+ dates that has been said the world would end on them. http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm funny
Aileron Posted March 3, 2008 Report Posted March 3, 2008 You can find information on Coal to Oil production on Wikipedia, but as I pointed out it CAN produce oil in large enough quan!@#$%^&*ies to run a nation. (Hence why I pointed out that it fueled 20% of the Nazi war machine in WW II...if they could produce that much oil under Allied bombings, we can actually fill our entire needs.) It should also be feasible if you think about it. All you are doing is burning fossil fuels. The one and ONLY catch with it is carbon dioxide. I guess the number of Apocalypse date predictions proves that there are people who call themselves Christians but are unfaithful about it.
Bak Posted March 4, 2008 Report Posted March 4, 2008 I guess the number of Apocalypse date predictions proves that there are people who call themselves Christians but are unfaithful about it. nope, try again
Recommended Posts