Astronomers May Have Just Discovered a Super Earth Just Six Light Years Away

[Anonymous No.10147420]

How long would it take to travel 6 light years using current spaceflight technology?

[Anonymous No.10147424]

>>10147420
Does this count?

[Anonymous No.10147426]

We'd see the procession of the equinox before they arrived.

We'd have to build something new.

[Anonymous No.10147427]

>>10147420
Waaaaay too fucking long

[Anonymous No.10147431]

>>10147420
Around 100000 years at the minimum

[Anonymous No.10147432]

>>10147420
"Super" in this case means "super shitty". Chances are it's cold as balls.

[Anonymous No.10147433]

5 years

[Anonymous No.10147438]

you could get there faster by going at the speed of sound in water

[Anonymous No.10147443]

>>10147432
Except for if it has a thick atmosphere, which at that size is highly probable. Thick atmosphere also means high surface pressure, together with the high gravity its definetely not suited for human settlement, but life could still develop there.

[Anonymous No.10147461]

>>10147443
Probably a pocket-size Neptune to get around the ice-giant tax.

[Anonymous No.10147470]

Probably around 24 years

[Anonymous No.10147573]

>>10147420
Breakthrough Starshot project hopes to make tiny probes that could travel at 15-20% speed of light, so it would take 30-40 years.

[Anonymous No.10147590]

>>10147431
Doable

[Anonymous No.10147610]

>>10147420
we could send probes there with plausible propulsion concepts like beam drive and sails that would reach the star within 12-20 years.
It would require something akin to Manhattan Project in terms of effort.

As to manned, not likely in next century, in 200 years with developed space infrastructure possible.Orion/Medusa drive probably within 60-80 years, very limited crew of maybe 4-6 people genetically engineered and full of cyber implants to endure the journey.

[Anonymous No.10147635]

>>10147433
At 0.999c for the people on board it would only take 100 days.

[Anonymous No.10147636]

>>10147635
Impossible to achieve for manned mission.
At best we could do 30% light speed

[Anonymous No.10147642]

>>10147432
>shit hole planets

[Anonymous No.10147670]

60 years unironically

[Anonymous No.10147678]

>>10147420
We can easily do nuclear space craft right now. 6LY isn't all that far when using that sort of tech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Mag_Orion

>>10147424
FPBP

[Anonymous No.10147697]

I feel like people don't know what actually super-earth means, it doesn't refer to habitability nor surface condition only mass. This planet is outside of habitable zone of its star so its either big frozen rock or small ice giant.
It's literally nothing.

[Anonymous No.10147709]

>>10147697
It's only a little outside the habitable zone. It's still good.

[Anonymous No.10147719]

>>10147697
>>10147709
It actually can be above freezing levels if it has helium hydrogene atmosphere

[Anonymous No.10147721]

>>10147719
>helium hydrogene atmosphere
Gross.

[Anonymous No.10147725]

>>10147719
>>10147709
>>10147697
Big rocky planets tend to have high volcanic activity and thick atmospheres. It's actually quite probable the surface of the planet is TOO HOT for life, since that planet probably looks more like Venus than like Mars.

[Anonymous No.10147749]

>>10147420
New Horizons is currently moving at 60,000 km/h, which comes to 100,000 years to travel 6 ly.

You might be able to hack it with like Orion-style nuclear pulse propulsion or something, but beyond that it's about the fastest we have.

[Anonymous No.10147788]

>>10147678
>We can easily do nuclear space craft right now.

Can we?
Except for all the public outrage from green activists and similar retards which would inevitably happen and stop it.

Maybe in some secret facility without the public knowing about it.

But then again we could already have FTL in secret. Who the fuck knows.

With publicly known and acceptable tech:
what he said
>>10147431

[Anonymous No.10147793]

Friendly reminder that space is literally the most stupid thing there is.

[Anonymous No.10147797]

>>10147424
>>10147678

Did anybody calculate how many fucking bomb would you have to take with you to sustain this as a method of propulsion?

How fucking sturdy (meaning heavy as fuck) would the spacecraft have to be to be okay with constant atomic explosions right behind it?

How would you build something heavy as this and get it to orbit?

If you want to build it in space? Where do you get your materials? Asteroid belt? First have to get there. It's beyond Mars you know. Which no human reached in person yet.

Sorry to step on your dreams /sci/ but Project Orion is dumb as fuck.

We need FTL. It's as simple as that. Without FTL, we stay here forever.

[Anonymous No.10147798]

>>10147420
>current spaceflight technology?
Define this. Does this mean just things flying right now or things we could build without any new scientific discoveries?

Case 1: impossible, nothing can put a person on an interstellar trajectory
Case 2: with a fuckhueg laser sail and some sort of fusion pulse propulsion device to slow down on the other end, probably a couple of centuries.

[Anonymous No.10147804]

>>10147420
If you are traveling. Not that long. For us here? A long time.

[Anonymous No.10147806]

>>10147793

Please elaborate!
You seem like a very intelligent person. I'm sure many people are interested in your informed opinion on this matter.

[Anonymous No.10147808]

>>10147804

You know nothing.
We can't achieve even a fraction of the speed that you think about.

[Anonymous No.10147818]

>>10147420

soon, anon

[Anonymous No.10147852]

>>10147797
>We need FTL
FTL is impossible, so nukes it it.

[Anonymous No.10147872]

>>10147797
Nuclear is the only viable option for space travel outside the solar system. There's literally no other way to do it viably for human travel. Also, your entire post is rather ignorant. Even more so since you are using ironic rhetoric-based questioning. /sci/ isn't the board for you. I recommend /x/ /r9k/ /soc/ /tv/ /v/ /lit/ or /b/.

I really wish there was a /popsci/ for people like you.

[Anonymous No.10147883]

>>10147420
>Super Earth Just Six Light Years Away
>Just

>retarded shit normies raised on Space Opera say

Who gives a shit anyway...the closest star to us, Proxima Centauri, has a "super earf" of 1.3 Earth masses 4.2 light years away.

THIS will be the first target for interstellar spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.10147884]

>>10147420
Ships leave earth at 17,000-22,000 miles/hr. With nothing to slow you down, just for an estimate, assuming a travel speed of 5 times that, 100,000 mile/hr would take about 40,000 years. So at 100 times that, 1 million/ miles/hr would be 400 years. There's some quick figures.

[Anonymous No.10147890]

>>10147852
>FTL is impossible

Yes, literally "moving" at FTL speed is impossible as far as we know.

You could still effectively move faster than light if you had shortcuts like wormholes or a device that bends space.

[Anonymous No.10147891]

>>10147797
So you are saying nuke propulsion is too costly while suggesting FTL? Try to think about this for a while.

[Anonymous No.10147895]

>>10147872

maybe you could adress any of the questions I posed?

How would the spacecraft be shielded against the explosions?

[Anonymous No.10147896]

>>10147891

Do you know how costly FTL is? Because I surely don't know the costs of a hypothetical not yet invented method of propulsion.

[Anonymous No.10147900]

>>10147890
Cannot survive through wormhole. Devices to bend spacetime in a way leading to FTL travel require negative mass solutions, meaning tachyons, meaning they're already non-physical, regardless of whatever mathematician says is a valid solution to Einstein's equations.

[Anonymous No.10147907]

>>10147895
The answer is literally in your question.

[Anonymous No.10147910]

>>10147896
>Do you know how costly FTL is?
No, but it's obviously more costly than nukes

[Anonymous No.10147911]

>>10147896
>Do you know how costly FTL is?

Zero cost because it is and will always be science fiction. However, theoretical physics is a great field of study where you can actually get funding for completely made up bullshit and try to prove or disprove it can be done. I'm sure you could string along investors for decades.

[Anonymous No.10147912]

>>10147872
>Nuclear is the only viable option for space travel outside the solar system.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot

[Anonymous No.10147913]

>>10147900
>>10147890
>FTL
>wormhole

Sci-fi. We really need a /sci-fi/ board.

[Anonymous No.10147916]

>>10147896
>Do you know how costly FTL is?
About tree fiddy

[Anonymous No.10147917]

>>10147852
It's relative. It's existence and methods to get into there notwithstanding, if you travel at much less than speed of light but if you doing it in some "hyper" space, you traveling faster than light relatively to normal space.

[Anonymous No.10147918]

>>10147912
That's a grant farm project and not a viable option due to inverse square law.

[Anonymous No.10147921]

>>10147912
did you even read link you posted?
>Light propulsion requires enormous power: a laser with a gigawatt of power (approximately the output of a large nuclear plant) would provide only a few newtons of thrust. The spaceship will compensate for the low thrust by having a mass of only a few grams.

[Anonymous No.10147922]

>>10147917
>"hyper" space

Sci-fi.

[Anonymous No.10147923]

>>10147872
>There's literally no other way to do it viably for human travel.

Also, we'll never send biological humans to another planetary system, only probes in the milligram range, capable of converting over to molecular assemblers and "building" any localized exploratory spacecraft at the target system.

Theoretically, we could have these assemblers "build" humans and habitats, too, but we'll probably have virtual humans by that time and could just transmit their data via a sufficiently powerful laser communication array.

[Anonymous No.10147926]

>>10147923
>all this sci-fi bullshit.

Fuck off, troll.

[Anonymous No.10147928]

>>10147890
>>10147917
All of those examples imply causality violations and that's a big no-no

[Anonymous No.10147929]

>>10147912
It's mostly a materials problem with solar sails. You need something light enought to not add too much mass, but strong enough to not get torn to shreds.
Using big ass lasers to push you is one option, but unless you have a matching laser at your destination it's a one way trip with no way easy way to deccelerate

[Anonymous No.10147930]

>>10147913

>things that would actually matter
>bingo version

I see, /sci/ is only dealing with boring shit.

[Anonymous No.10147933]

>>10147917
>ok guys i know we cant travel FTL but what if we can get to magical world where can travel slow but actually fast?

[Anonymous No.10147935]

>>10147922
>we can't prove or disprove existence of it therefore it doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.10147938]

>>10147918

The concept's useful.

Rather than power the probe all the way to the target star, it would be better to accelerate it as much as possible near to Earth and let it coast the rest of the way.

[Anonymous No.10147939]

>>10147928
>All of those examples imply causality violations

how?

I see this popping up? How would me going through a wormhole to alpha centauri and then coming back through the same wormhole be a causality violation?

[Anonymous No.10147940]

>>10147935
>we cant prove it exist but i know we can go there, use it to travel faster and go out
you are the one making assumptions here

[Anonymous No.10147943]

>>10147939
>he literally don't even know what is causality

[Anonymous No.10147944]

>>10147926

Interstellar travel isn't a topic for pussies restricted by current technology, homo. The distances and energy necessary are too daunting.

You have to extrapolate current tech to get the necessary solutions. Nothing I'm talking about is out of the question, given a century of continued advancement.

[Anonymous No.10147949]

>>10147933
>ok guys i know we cant travel FTL but what if we can get to magical world where can travel slow but actually fast?

you telling me even if we advanced technologically at our current speed with no major setbacks for 10000 years, no major discoveries would be made because basically we understand everything now?

that's what you are implying
>we are right about everything we seem to know
>there are no holes in our knowledge
>it can only be incrementally and insignificantly improved in details

amiright?

[Anonymous No.10147956]

>>10147420
Would be pointless at this time desu. Anything we send there would be passed on the way by superior technology we develop in the future

[Anonymous No.10147961]

>>10147949
>you telling me even if we advanced technologically at our current speed with no major setbacks for 10000 years
our current speed is 0 magical drives per year, so that would be about 0 magical drives in 10000
:)

[Anonymous No.10147971]

>>10147788
>But then again we could already have FTL in secret. Who the fuck knows.
Any physicist knows

[Anonymous No.10147972]

>>10147961

our speed was 0 iPhones per year for thousands of years

iPhones are impossible (if you live in 1990)

[Anonymous No.10147977]

>>10147971
>Any physicist knows

what are specs of the most advanced military aircraft the US military has right now?

care to ask some physicist? because they know, right?

[Anonymous No.10147982]

and which law of physic was concept of iphone breaking in 1990?

you have zero understanding of physics bro, you don't even know how FTL violate causality and your only argument is "if given enough time any sci-fi bullshit i can make up will work"

[Anonymous No.10147986]

>>10147982
>you don't even know how FTL violate causality

well, how do they violate causality?

>hurr durr
>something is moving backwards in time

what exactly would move backwards in time if I steped through a wormhole to alpha centauri?

[Anonymous No.10147989]

>>10147933
By riding current you can sail faster than if you sail without it. Same can happen if space has some gravitational, dark matter or some other "currents". You can't outright deny existence of something you know nothing about since you didn't even began to research it.

>>10147940
Assumption is that we don't know shit about space yet. Even solar wind wasn't on the table until ~60 years ago, and theories about it begun to slowly emerge only ~100 years before that. And we can observe Sun directly, with naked eye and crude tools right from the Earth.

[Anonymous No.10147992]

>>10147939
>>10147917
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html#chap:unsolvableparadoxes
No matter how you do FTL travel, wormholes, warpdrive, hyperspace etc., it will always violate casality. Or rather, it can be used to violate causality, which isn't any better.

[Anonymous No.10147994]

>>10147982
>and which law of physic was concept of iphone breaking in 1990

none

would /sci/ if it existed in 1990 tell me
>yeah bro, a mobile device that fits in your pocket and is able to communicate with every corner of the world in light speed, makes pictures and plays videos and music is totally possible

or would /sci/ have sent me to /x/?

be honest

[Anonymous No.10148029]

>the closest exoplanets are an irradiated shithole and a big frozen ball
Pretty disappointing desu

[Anonymous No.10148031]

>>10147994
>would /sci/ if it existed in 1990 tell me
>>yeah bro, a mobile device that fits in your pocket and is able to communicate with every corner of the world in light speed,
You do realize there were already mobile phones in 1990, right?

[Anonymous No.10148081]

>>10147992
That's a bunch of "real time communication is impossible because of assumptions in spherical vacuum not based on anything besides my head" and that it's "violate video records causality" and all of it assuming that everything can be done with anything and anywhere without any cost.

[Anonymous No.10148113]

>>10148081
That's a bunch of "fuck relativity because I say so"

[Anonymous No.10148134]

>>10148113
No, it's "fuck that strawman".

[Anonymous No.10148270]

astronomer:
>observation: star seems to show periodic 0.0000001% reductions in intensity
>conclusion: "it's obviously being orbited by a super earth!"

All extrasolar planet "discoveries" are based on pure conjecture. Astronomy went full retard in the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.10148276]

>>10147797
We need to discover teleportation first and send probes to these exoplanets that can travel 15-20% the speed of light. Once they land safely on these planets we could teleport there. It sounds retarded but I don't see how we could actually send humans any other way.

[Anonymous No.10148279]

>>10147797
>Did anybody calculate how many fucking bomb would you have to take with you to sustain this as a method of propulsion?
Yes they did you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.10148285]

>>10147872
>There's literally no other way to do it viably for human travel.
Laser sails. Dumb mutt.
>>10147895
By the shield/shock absorber plate. You can literally just google "project orion" and find tons of material, lots of it very detailed on exactly how the various proposed designs were going to work. It's not some cocaine induced fantasy, it was an actual government project with many proposals of different sizes and designs.

[Anonymous No.10148328]

>>10148270
ok brainlet

[Anonymous No.10148439]

With nuclear pulse, which is current technology, its just banned, we could get there in a human lifetime.

[Anonymous No.10148444]

>>10147872
Its not the only option. Laser propulsion with a solar sail bypasses the rocket equation and can you up to relativistic speeds. The only problem is it requires more infrastructure and a another beam at the destination to slow you down.

[Anonymous No.10148452]

>>10148328
Brilliant counterargument. SO glad you could take time off from your Nobel committee to construct such a nuanced explanation of the rigorous proofs that allow us to determine the existence and size of extrasolar planets.

[Anonymous No.10148454]

FTL is not the problem to solve.

The problem to solve are short human lifespans / no suspended animation.

In the future travel wherever will take just a few minutes or hours from your perspective, getting frozen and unthawed.

[Anonymous No.10148546]

>>10148439
recreational mcnukes when

[Anonymous No.10148574]

>>10147992
Correct me if I understand something wrong. This is with assumption that FTL speed is literally instant at any distance.
Say, we have two people, me and you, that are one light hour apart from each other at points A and B. I take my laser katana and throw at you with a speed of light while simultaneously flashing words "nothing personal, kid" and teleporting behind you. How long will you have to wait to see those words and be killed by my katana? 1 hour.
Now, let's add another person, your mom, at point A. What she sees is my katana flying at the speed of light and your image that was highlighted at point B and now traveling back with a speed of light. How long she will have to wait to see me teleporting behind you? 1 hour.
So, after teleporting, I kill you, take a video of you dying horrible death (~10 minutes), then teleport back at point A and show a video to your mom while violating her for 45 minutes. All the while, she will be seeing you being alive at the point B one light hour from her.
Did this violate causality or anything besides your mom? No. The event happened, it wasn't just delivered yet at the point A from point B. Same thing happens with starlight every living moment. If we could teleport to some star that's billion of years away from us, we would see that the star is dead and whole system fall apart. But after we teleport back, we will see light from that star and planets around her for a very long time before her dying light will reach us.
The same thing can happen if we could travel faster than radio waves - at some point we could intercept first TV and radio broadcasts.

[Anonymous No.10148577]

>>10148574
But let's say we were only 10 light seconds apart and I didn't teleport, but you and your mom were talking through FTL video phones. Can she warn you, so you can run away from that spot? Of course. You can do anything before my laser katana can reach you in 10 seconds. If she didn't warn you, after 10 seconds my katana would kill you, and she would see you dying on FTL phone, then 10 seconds after that she would see you dying by her own eyes.

Now let's say we less than 1 light second apart. For everyone involved everything would happen more or less simultaneously - me throwing katana and teleporting behind you, you dying from katana, and your mom seeing me throwing, teleporting, and you dying. Could you somehow avoid death? Only if you or your mom is a Flash and you/she can perceive events in less than attosecond and move accordingly.

[Anonymous No.10148588]

>>10148454

thanks for explaining to us what the problems are and what they are not

if your goal is to travel somewhere, then come back and everyone you know is several thousands years older (assuming long lifespans) so that you barely know them anymore

or they are all dead and probably your whole civilization is dead too when you come back (assuming suspended animation for you and no longer lifespans)

unless you don't ever want to come back, then it's fine I guess

[Anonymous No.10148605]

>>10148574
>>10148577

I like you.

[Anonymous No.10148731]

>>10147895
>explosions
>propulsion
>????

[El Arcón No.10148746]

[Anonymous No.10148783]

>>10148574
It doesn't assume instant communication, see the picture. The red line is the FTL bullet from the moving blue reference frame, it is not instant since that would mean a line along the x' axis. The FTL bullet kills the person at *. Let's say the bullet takes one hour to get to * which is one light year away. However * is already in the past of the black stationary reference frame because it's below the x axis.
Now, someone who was in the same stationary frame at * when the person was killed sent a FTL signal at that moment in the positive x direction (pink) that reaches x=0 before the bullet gets fired in the stationary frame (i.e it takes less than an hour to travel one light year, but it's still not instant). The person in the stationary frame at x=0 now knows that the bullet will be fired and prevents it. But then why did he get the signal that was sent because of the person's death? There you have the paradox.

[Anonymous No.10148854]

>>10148783
1. You can fire with some "non-instant" FTL weapon at the target that light N's away. It takes one hour to reach target, which is X faster than light.
2. There's some person A beside you who monitors that target trough normal space, i.e. seeing at the speed of light.
3. I.e. it seeing you firing at target but it will be seeing that target is alright N's time, because light from that target can't travel faster.
4. Now, besides the target is person B, who seeing target being destroyed one hour after you fired.
---
5a. Person B has the same speed FTL communicator and uses it to contact person A.
6a. It takes one hour for message to reach person A, i.e. two hours after you fired.
---
5b. Somehow person B has "instant" FTL communication and uses it to contact person A.
6b. Person A after a hour gets message that target was destroyed.
---
7. ?????

I don't understand. How person B can contact person A in the past?

[Anonymous No.10148855]

>>10148574
Well that's too bad for you because my dad comes running along . After he sees my corpse he instantly teleports 1 light hour away to your position, he timed it exactly so that he appears behind you in space AND time and kills you before you teleport behind me.

[Anonymous No.10148858]

>>10148855
If your dad is a fucking doctor Strange with time travel ability, then there's hardy anything I can do.

[Anonymous No.10148863]

>>10148858
He doesn't go back in time in his own reference frame though. The dad arrow is parallel to the x axis in his own frame. He just does the same thing that you did. The trick is that he is moving.

[Anonymous No.10148875]

>>10148863
He does though, since you already dead. You can't fix that without going back in time. And for that you need magical time machine or abilities, which is another mater entirely and has nothing to do with anything.

[Anonymous No.10148884]

>>10148875
>You can't fix that without going back in time
You can with FTL, that's the point. And that's why it's impossible. Your magical time machine IS FTL travel. If you send an FTL signal, you can always find a reference frame moving relative to you where that signal travels to the past.

[Anonymous No.10148887]

>>10148276
>teleportation doesn't count as FTL
nice.

[Anonymous No.10148893]

>>10148884
>You can with FTL, that's the point.
You can't, that's the point. Even with instant FTL you can't travel back in time, much less with finite speed FTL. Your and that guy FTL somehow has magical time-travel properties out of the blue.

[Anonymous No.10148897]

>>10147896
FTL requires negative mass-energy so it costs negative dollars. It's literally free money. This is how star trek works without conventional currency.

[Anonymous No.10148900]

>>10147797
>Did anybody calculate how many fucking bomb would you have to take with you to sustain this as a method of propulsion?
>How fucking sturdy (meaning heavy as fuck) would the spacecraft have to be to be okay with constant atomic explosions right behind it?
>How would you build something heavy as this and get it to orbit?
>If you want to build it in space? Where do you get your materials?
Yes they did calculate all of this. At great length, and with many variations and improvements.

[Anonymous No.10148907]

>>10147806
It's a Zizek reference, the most empty-headed marxist of recent times.

[Anonymous No.10148915]

y'all fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.10148919]

>>10147992
>it will always violate casality
It can be arranged to violate causality*
If you maintain the wormhole mouths static to each other no causality violation takes place. But it's vulnerable to causality violation if it's moved too fast. However any such disturbance may cause feedback and make the wormhole collapse, which may be how the chronology protection conjecture works.

[Anonymous No.10148920]

>>10148893
Did you not look at my amazing drawing? You might want to look up Minkowski diagrams and relativity of simultaneity.
The blue lines are the coordinate lines of the dad x is x and y is t. They are skewed because he is moving relative to you, that's a Lorentz transformation. Look at the purple arrow, he's merely teleporting one light hour away instantly, that's why the arrow is parallel to his x axis. Because he can instantly travel, he can go to the past in your frame. And yes, that's impossible, thus FTL can never happen.
Slower than light signals can only be less than 45° with regards to the t axis. Obey that rule and you won't have any causality problems.

[Anonymous No.10148926]

>>10148893
FTL a few light years, use impulse to change reference frame, then FTL back. If you do it right you'll arrive before you left. The only way out of this is if it somehow causes a critical feedback like appears to happen if you try to turn a wormhole into a time machine. It would be interesting to analyse this properly.

[Anonymous No.10148934]

>>10148920
You're doing some faster than FTL leaps in logic to cling on this time-travel property that happens in some bizzaro space with those axis.

>>10148926
>use impulse to change reference frame
So, what you should do with what to travel back in time? Define "reference frame" in normal terms.

[Anonymous No.10148935]

>>10147420
Just 30-40 years if you are ok with some pictures, and you replace "current" technology with "probably realizable"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot

[Anonymous No.10148941]

>>10147709
>just the tip, just for a second

[Anonymous No.10148943]

>>10147890
>>10147900
can someone explain to me why so many idiots believe you can "bend" space?

[Anonymous No.10148945]

>>10148934
>that happens in some bizzaro space with those axis.
Aka our universe

[Anonymous No.10148949]

>>10148943
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10148950]

>>10147928
>All of those examples imply causality violations

So is a causality violation a real thing that's demonstrably impossible, or does it just offend our sense of how reality should work

[Anonymous No.10148953]

>>10148945
Nice universe you have. Good thing it's only in your head. Wouldn't want to live there with time-traveling dads.

[Anonymous No.10148956]

>>10148953
Oh sorry, you're a schizo. I shouldn't have taken you seriously

[Anonymous No.10148962]

>>10148943
That jewish man that got photographed on a bicycle

[Anonymous No.10148964]

>>10147420
donald trump?

[Anonymous No.10148965]

>>10148956
Look who talks. Ask your dad to travel back in time to stop himself from conceiving you.

[Anonymous No.10148975]

>>10148965
I'm sorry that you're salty that you lost the argument. I can feel your brainlet rage through the monitor. Maybe study some high school physics.

[Anonymous No.10148980]

>>10148934
When you move normally, your line of simultaneity changes. If you drive down the road, the exact present moment for you, if you sliced it all the way across the universe, is different than if you had been stationary. When you're driving, right now, at this instant, in the andromenda galaxy a planetary battle is taking place. When you stop, that battle has been over for a hundred years. when you start moving again, that battle is now current and happening once more. But because its outside your light cone, as indeed is every event that is happening right now, it's ok and doesn't matter. The effect builds up the faster you move and the farther away you look. Now, if you can move faster than light, a naive analysis suggests that you can easily access these remote distances where your present moment has changed significantly.

However I don't think it's that simple. It's been shown reasonably well that if you try to establish a time machine with a system of wormholes, random stray photons will immediately build up and pile up on past versions of themselves so as to blow up your wormholes. This is generally taken as proof that wormholes can't be used to build a time machine, but is not taken as proof that wormholes are impossible otherwise if you don't try to turn them into a time machine. I suspect that a similar theorem could be proven about FTL travel through normal space. If you tried to perform the maneuver I explained above, perhaps you'd run into an impenetrable wall of your own past photons, but if you obeyed the Laws of Time then nothing would happen and you could zip back and forth merrily. I have a suspicion that arguments against the physicality of FTL travel will need to come down to proving the requirement for negative energy, and then proving its impossibility. Arguments based on time travel will I think only exclude certain types of maneuvers or configurations.

[Anonymous No.10148981]

>'Something-something causality.'
>fite me bruh!
>no u!
Someone please explain what these anons are crying about.

[Anonymous No.10148989]

>>10148981
Just some tards not understanding special relativity

[Anonymous No.10148992]

>>10148981
One guy is convinced FTL is possible, a couple of other guys want to prove him wrong but don't want to go to any real effort so they're using very shallow arguments.

[Anonymous No.10148997]

>>10148989
>>10148992
thanks!

[Anonymous No.10149039]

>>10148975
Here's your (you).

>>10148980
>When you're driving, right now, at this instant, in the andromenda galaxy a planetary battle is taking place. When you stop, that battle has been over for a hundred years. when you start moving again, that battle is now current and happening once more.
It doesn't makes sense to me, the same as with >>10148854
As far as I understand, even instant FTL has some finite properties, it can't be faster than reality/time. You can perceive light at points you travel from and see yourself before you travel, but only if you wait enough time for the light from that place reach you. That doesn't mean you can travel back at the point before you departed, right? And we talk about finite speed FTL. You said
>FTL a few light years, use impulse to change reference frame, then FTL back.
Let's say I travel from our system to some other star system some light years away. It took me one hour to travel there. That means it will also take one hour to travel back, making it two hours for the round trip. I can't go faster, but I can go slower. What should I do in other star system to travel back before I started?

[Anonymous No.10149054]

>>10148919
How do wormholes work? If I enter it at a high speed, 'when' do I come out? Do I get transported along my plane of simultaneity or that of the wormhole (if there is such a thing). If it's the former, causality can be violated.

[Anonymous No.10149055]

>>10149039
>What should I do in other star system to travel back before I started?
Ok so you're floating in the other star system. Point your ship directly away from the solar system, and fire your normal rockets, very hard, until you're moving super fast. Not your FTL engine, your normal engine. Then shut off your engine, and now you're free-floating in space but you're moving super fast compared to both star systems. Because of this change in speed, you have altered your time correlation with the sun. Now use your FTL to travel back to Earth, then use your normal rockets to slow down to stationary compared to the solar system.

Congratulations your are now in the past. If you had done the initial burn in the alien star system directly towards the sun rather than away, you would have gone into the future.

[Anonymous No.10149059]

>>10149054
Completely depends on the wormhole. They link time and space. The usual thing that is talked about is creating two linked wormhole mouths next to each other, so there is no time difference between them, then moving them around.

The general rule with the feedback is that the time difference between the wormhole must be less than however long it takes a photon to cross the difference between them.

[Anonymous No.10149090]

>>10148452
you sound like you merely read the summary of a summary of the actual method

thus no point arguing, brainlet

[Anonymous No.10149121]

>>10149055
Go away with your bizarro spaces xDD

[Anonymous No.10149129]

>>10147913
you forgot electricity

[Anonymous No.10149141]

>>10149055
This doesn't make sense at all...
I see it like this: we're moving at less than the speed of light away from where our system is. Then we shut down engines, but continue to sail with that speed. Then we make our ship to turn using thrusters to face in direction of our system (otherwise we'll get somewhere else) but we still going away from our system. Then we fire up our FTL generator and start moving at FTL speed. That means we first overtake our initial speed to speed-up to FTL. It takes 1+ hour to return back our system. It takes 2 hours at FTL + all the time we spend in normal space, acceleration and whatnot in other system to return back.

[Anonymous No.10149156]

>>10149141
>This doesn't make sense at all...
That's reality for you.

[Anonymous No.10149158]

Why would you want to live on a super earth anyway? Will be like 3g at least if not more, enjoy weighing 240kg or 600kg if american.

[Anonymous No.10149161]

assume you wanted your astronauts to be comfy, so you make sure the space ship is always accelerating with 1 g to simulate earth's gravity. pic related

[Anonymous No.10149165]

>>10149158
Nah it's not that bad. Gravity goes pretty much proportional to planetary radius.

[Anonymous No.10149170]

>>10148900
Yes and it was a totally unrealistic amount of fissile material for a ship of any respectable size, which is what it would need to be for a half century or more journey. Laser sails are the only feasible option for a decent fraction of c with our current technology, and then you have to figure out how to slow down. Realistically this kind of stuff isn't happening until we have fusion, however that is looking promising with projects such as SPARC.

[Anonymous No.10149190]

>>10149156
It's purely theoretic reality which can work however you think it works. Maximum we can do is some assumptions with light speed based on some quantum-level tests. And quantum teleportation is a thing, even though it has not much to do with classic teleportation and we can't do anything with it aside from some tests with light-speed telemetry/communication at best.

[Anonymous No.10149191]

>>10149190
>popsci garbage
Ok

[Anonymous No.10149198]

>>10149191
>hurr durr sci-fi derp

[Anonymous No.10149202]

>>10147992
> violate casality
> warpdrive
That's new.

[Anonymous No.10149204]

>>10149198
No you're right it's totally quantum and stuff. Also it's just a theory xD I bet nobody has tested it lolol

[Anonymous No.10149215]

>>10149204
Stay calm and keep derping.

[Anonymous No.10149220]

>>10149170
>and then you have to figure out how to slow down.
Start accelerating in opposite direction until you stop? That's how they always do.

[Anonymous No.10149225]

>>10149215
Woah dude... quantum

[Anonymous No.10149229]

>>10147424
"Current"

[Anonymous No.10149232]

>>10147431
>he thinks this is even order of magnitude

[Anonymous No.10149234]

>>10147930
> perpetual motion
> overunity
> free energy
> flat Earth
> hollow Earth
> chemtrails
What do you see here?

[Anonymous No.10149237]

>>10149225
Cry me a river.

[Anonymous No.10149239]

>>10147420
>Googled "fastest manned spacecraft": 24000 mph
>Convert 6 light years into miles
>Divide result by fastest speed
>Convert hours of years
>Approximately 168,000 years

All current research scientists need to figure out how to stop ageing if we want to leave this shithole rock and colonize the cosmos.

[Anonymous No.10149241]

>>10149237
Stay strong, high school dropout. Read this when you have time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

[Anonymous No.10149243]

>>10149234
One of those things is not like the others.

[Anonymous No.10149245]

>>10149241
It's time to eat your crayons.

[Anonymous No.10149250]

>>10149245
You're so cute. Brainlets alway react the same way

[Anonymous No.10149252]

>>10149243
Correct.

[Anonymous No.10149257]

Because we are at the peak technology and science and there it's all downhill from here. Nothing new on the horizon right gents?

[Anonymous No.10149286]

>>10149170
Uranium is actually extremely common on earth you know

[Anonymous No.10149288]

>>10149286
Uranium is actually so common that we have evidence of prompt fission events in naturally occurring concentrations of uranium ore
by that I mean a multi-ton chunk of rock blew up like a nuclear fizzle

[Anonymous No.10149328]

>>10147788
>Except for all the public outrage from green activists and similar retards which would inevitably happen and stop it.
The thing that would stop it would be "muh deficit" fags who want to spend all of our money on pensions for boomers and healthcare/welfare for goblins

[Anonymous No.10149380]

>>10149239
Going fast enough it doesn't matter, you can galaxy in a few years from the ships reference.
Close to the speed of light and you can cross the observable universe in an average human lifetime.

The problem is getting that much energy to speed up and having a vessel that can handle it. Either hijack/build into a massive asteroid filled with water to use as fuel or get real good at generating positrons and shoot them out as you go. Being able to make 30kg of positrons out of 300kg of noble gases would get you to another galaxy.

Undergrad students can make fractions of a gram with regular lab equipment today, it's in the realm of possibility, current efficiency is shithouse though.


The board is full of scifi fans high on bathsalts. We don't need magic that defies the laws of physics, we need ridiculously fast spaceships that can handle travelling those speeds.

[Anonymous No.10149396]

[Anonymous No.10149415]

>>10149396
>Time dilation is real and proven by atomic clocks

> Anitmatter needed for large voyages is tiny

"to produce the 10 milligrams of positrons needed for a human Mars mission"

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html


Which part do you disagree with anon? You seem to be good with MSpaint so please enlighten.

[Anonymous No.10149432]

>>10149415
>Anitmatter needed for large voyages is tiny

Doesn't matter because it's expensive as fuck

I remember something the size of a marble takes several 1st world GDPs to produce

[Anonymous No.10149446]

>>10149432
Antimatter is expensive as fuck to make, positrons are cheaper, the price is because every device good at it today is currently used for particle physics experiments. You can't store antimatter easily so it's sorta pointless to make it.

Also producing it in space is a lot easier due to temps and vacuum. A positron powered spaceship would annihilate it straight after for thrust so you avoid the need for magnetic/vacuum storage.

Every other realistic option here will cost a shitload too. The original question wasnt cost, simply how long will it take to get there.

[Anonymous No.10149487]

>>10147610
How would data from the probes get back to Earth? That is, the medium, as in radio waves (sorry, I'm a brainlet). Also, how long would it take for the data to reach Earth from that distance? Thanks!

[Anonymous No.10149491]

>>10149487
around 4 years

[Anonymous No.10150672]

>>10147420
1 billion years

[Anonymous No.10151481]

[El Arcón No.10151524]

>>10149491
can't tell if serious

[Anonymous No.10151547]

>>10147982
>which law of physic was concept of iphone breaking in 1990?
Everything to do with quantum mechanics. The transistors and circuit boards simply don't make any sense with 19th century physics.

[Anonymous No.10151559]

>>10149161
mathfags always forget the fact that ships require fuel, and getting up to anything close to c takes a lot of fucking fuel
also the fact that space dust exists and will assrape a ship harder than giga nigga on an asian femboy twink

[Anonymous No.10151563]

>>10151481
>cutting out the part where she stops and it becomes apparent that she is being pushed backwards

[Anonymous No.10151576]

>>10151563
>joke
>
>
>
>you

[Anonymous No.10151578]

>>10147420
>How long would it take to travel 6 light years using current spaceflight technology?

Who cares? WTF is a "Super Earth"? Is this a planet where we would be like Superman (a Kryptonian) is on Earth? We'd be able to fly, have super strength and leap tall buildings with a single bound, etc? If so, I'm in!

Fuck Earth. There is no gravity, the Earth sucks!

[Anonymous No.10151663]

10151578
I hope your pet gets run over

[Anonymous No.10152089]

>>10147420

Its ironic that if he was bald and had a beard, he'd become a handsome retard instead of an ugly retard.

[Anonymous No.10152146]

>>10147420

Longer than our combined lifteitmes. We know that signal degrades over distance, so in order to maintain reliable communication with the probe, we'd have to implement laser based communication under the threshold where distance diffuses the coherency of the data stream.

NASA has tested 45-50Mbps up/down simultaneous bandwidth with laser based communication with a probe on the moon. That's 240,000km. Light travels 300K km/s, so if we assume that signal degrades every 30 light seconds of distance, then we need a repeater every 28 to 29 light seconds distance or: a signal repeater ever 8.7 million kilometers. Distance from Earth to Pluto is 7.5 billion kilometers. Light from the sun takes about 5.3 hours to reach Pluto, and 8 minutes to the Earth. So light takes 5.22 hours to reach from Earth to Pluto.

You would need 862 repeaters if you wanted to establish a fairly consistent and reliable quality signal from Pluto to Earth with limited signal delay.

This star is 6 light years away. There are 8760 hours in a year, multiply that 6 and we get: 52,560 hours; multiply that by 862 and you get: 45,306,720 repeaters NECESSARY that would repeat the signal. Further, every say 50 repeaters, you need additional hardware that takes the signal, restrengthens it and forwards it to the next repeater (in order to account for errors through repetition). Further, each repeater needs its own power source and needs to be able to send and recieve signals for a hundred or more years, which means each repeater will have a lot of redundant hardware and the signal remixer/forwarder even more redundant hardware ON TOP of a power source that can power these probes for 100+ years. We haven't even gotten to the actual probe.

Tl;dr, its impossible. With today's technology, we'd have to design something that would be the equivalent of launching the empire state building in pure mass to orbit, with 100% redundancy and power and fuel for the journey, JUST to send us a pic or 2 back.

[Anonymous No.10152430]

>>10147636
Possible if human is trained to survive 100 days at 40G acceleration

[Anonymous No.10152438]

>>10148943
*bends paper in half and sticks a pencil through it*

[Anonymous No.10152441]

>>10147797
An anon posted a hella frickin' epic idea in the last thread about nuclear propulsion.
Basically the same as project orion except that the ship literally sails on the blast waves with the help of a 1.5x1.5km carbon fiber sail.
We have all the tech readily available.

[Anonymous No.10152445]

>>10152089
/leftypol/->

[Anonymous No.10152450]

>>10152438
woah
genius

[Anonymous No.10152470]

Juno velocity = 165.000 mph (265.000 km/h)
light velocity = 300.000 km/s (1.080.000.000 km/h)
time spent traveling a light year (Juno) = 4075 years.

6 years? fuck no anon, impossible.

[Anonymous No.10152575]

>>10147956
This. Nothing would suck more than getting beat there by someone who left 200 years after you did

[Anonymous No.10152600]

>>10147883
Underrated post.
I agree.
Project Orion is still a cool concept that might make for a decent first attempt at interstellar travel, or even just fast travel within our own solar system as we start to mine and stock up on minerals and resources in space to expand our fleet and technology, before branching out to other stars.

[Anonymous No.10152616]

>>10149380
whats this positron acceleration stuff ? care to elaborate on this ?

[Anonymous No.10152639]

The fastest passenger plane would need billion years to get there.

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.10152645]

>>10147956
>>10152575
This. Look at how people thought rockets could get us around the Solar System. Good thing we decided to wait for the point zero energy powered anti-gravity drive powered space plane saucers instead. Who knows how many people might have died from low g exposure on the Moon and Mars had we chosen otherwise!

[Anonymous No.10152653]

>>10152438
now the hole is large enough to stick your dick through it

[Anonymous No.10153303]

>>10147913
Look, I get it, any way of faster-than-light travel is impossible at our current understanding.

But can we please agree that the odds of us having all the knowledge there is is exactly 0. It may take us 1000 more years, but we simply have no idea what could be capable in the future.

[Anonymous No.10153378]

>>10147670
A deity told me that singularity would happen on 01/07/2053 so 60 years isn't unrealistic.

[Anonymous No.10153382]

>>10152639
>thinks a passenger plane is the fastest we can go

[Anonymous No.10153813]

>>10149161
>>10151559
You can bypass the rocket equation by using lasers pushing a solar sail. That way you don't have to carry your fuel.

[Anonymous No.10153837]

>>10152470
Nobody's going to be using chemical propulsion you utter moron
>>10152600
Orion is great for interplanetary travel, but you wouldn't want to use anything so slow for interstellar. Most likely some combination of fusion rockets and laser sails is what we'd end up using.

[Anonymous No.10153842]

>>10147420
>Super earth
>six light years away
What bullshit clickbait crap is this?

[Anonymous No.10154051]

>>10153837
>Nobody's going to be using chemical propulsion you utter moron

OP asked "current spaceflight technology", the faster of it is, you guessed, chemical propulsion.

[Anonymous No.10154425]

>>10147420

light sail and a lazer starting it off would go around 1/5 speed of light so around 30 years. would be a fly by though

[Anonymous No.10154931]

>>10153813
The problem with using a laser sail for propulsion is slowing it down at the other end.

[Anonymous No.10154947]

>>10152645
The wait calculation is something that needs to be considered.
Going to the moon is one thing since worst case scenario its a few days round trip. It's not like between the time you design and launch you're going to have a new design that can get you there in hours.
When you're talking about building a generation ship that takes a thousand years to get somewhere then there is a lot of time where science and technology overtakes what you had.
You don't want to spend 2 hours swimming across a lake because you didn't want to wait 15 minutes for the ferry to show up and get you there in 30 minutes, right?

[Anonymous No.10154949]

>>10148884
>And that's why it's impossible
ehhhhhh, that's supposition. yes, any FTL travel implies that time travel is possible, but that doesn't automatically mean FTL is impossible. we're just assuming time travel is impossible because we haven't seen it yet

[Anonymous No.10155587]

>>10147420
With a solar sail probe, maybe like 150yrs.

[Anonymous No.10155608]

>>10154947
And have you never considered a "doom calculation"? We might be able to muster the resources for a generation ship now, but resource depletion and the compounding chance over time for a catastrophic event, including a great filter event, can make it decreasingly likely in the future. Our technology is advancing, but our societies and environment are also changing at an unprecedented rate, and these are factors that can pretty much only negatively impact our chances to leave the planet.

[Anonymous No.10157280]

>>10155608
I don't disagree with your general sentiment but all you need to do to avoid that is exploiting local resources in the solar system.
Ideally you'd have people living in permanent orbital habitats and mining asteroids long before your great solar exodus begins. I mean theres a lot that needs to be nailed down for perpetual space-habs before you send one into the cold vast expanse of interstellar space.
Even if you only have a few self sufficient colonies in the solar system you've preserved yourself from all filter events that are planetary in scope.