[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 244 KB, 580x449, 096.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14626456 No.14626456 [Reply] [Original]

Will we achieve FTL travel in our lifetimes?

>> No.14626472

no, too many faggots

>> No.14626476

no, not enough faggots

>> No.14626479

>>14626456
FTL will not happen, even given infinite time.

>> No.14627119

>>14626456
Never happening never mind your lifetime kek

>> No.14627253

>>14626456
probably not. The better question would be: are we going to launch a sub-lightspeed probe towards another star in our lifetime?

>> No.14627300

>>14626456
What's the point desu. What would you hope to achieve with FTL even if it's not prohibitively impractical?

>> No.14627304

>>14627300
I swear I didn't write desu
I think I am either hallucinating or 4chan is fucking with me. I don't think I have auto-correction on my computer turned on.

>> No.14627324

>>14626479
>>14627119
>>14627253
reddit nay sayers who believe in einstein's batshit theories or that relativity is real

even if relativity is real there are ways around this. imagine saying no.

>> No.14627334

>>14627300
>What OP would achieve with FTL
He could go away for good. It is not a bad outcome.

>> No.14627335

>>14627300
If it is not prohibitively impractical then we could use it. What is the point of a car? of a plane? a ship? The point is to get places.
>>14627324
>only ready no
I didn't say no, I said probably not in our lifetime. seems reasonable enough considering there is no significant progress on any of the FTL ideas so far.

>> No.14627370

>>14627324
even if it were hypothetically possible, our current tech can hardly move 0.05% of the speed of light never mind beyond it, and this is ignoring the fact that it becomes compoundingly harder to accelerate the faster you go, so that the energy required merely to accelerate an object moving 99.99% the speed of light just to 99.999%% of the speed of light would require 10^19 joules per kilogram of mass, never mind that a spacecraft weighs around 10^5 kg, or that you'd need an actually infinite amount of kinetic energy to truly reach light speed.


you need to stop watching sci fi movies

>> No.14627379

>>14627370
just get a bigger fuel tank dude unironically double the fuel is double the speed

especially in a vacuum

>> No.14627430

>>14627379
even ignoring modern physics and wrongly asserting newtonian mechanics are correct, and that KE doesn't progress asymptotically, then [eqn] \frac{1}{2}mc^2 = 4.5\times10^{16}m[/eqn] so that you'd need about 5 million million million joules for each kilogram, and even if you could somehow get this energy, the amount is enough to vaporise any material in existence (the highest specific heat capacity known to man is about 14 j/g), so that your spacecraft would get annihilated instantly

Like I said, stop watching sci fi movies

>> No.14627435

>>14627430
>the highest specific heat capacity known to man is about 14 j/g)
scratch that I found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraffin_wax
which has a capacity of 900, not that that would make a difference obviously

>> No.14627438

>>14627430
I got really high and I'm not sure why I was shitting this thread up sober, sorry. I don't understand these things, but the limitations of the progress of physics are apparent even to normies and you guys do gotta figure some shit out fast.

>> No.14627446

>>14627430
>>14627435
Even ignoring the energy needed to increase the temperature, iron has a heat of vaporisation of 6340 J/g.
Besides, you can store energy in different forms than heat (like what real rockets do) and release it slowly.

>> No.14627448

>>14626456
No, too many low iq niggers

>> No.14627508

>>14627446
this would only let you achieve speeds on the order of 10000kmh that rockets do in fact achieve.
the entire world uses about 10^18 joules of energy a year, but with the newtonian estimate you're going to need about 10^21 joules to accelerate a rocket to that speed, and an infinite amount of joules for the relativistic (i.e non highschooler) estimate.

>> No.14627537

>>14627508
>this would only let you achieve speeds on the order of 10000kmh that rockets do in fact achieve.
Rockets achieve much higher speeds than that. Saturn V with its Apollo 11 payload could do more than 10 km/s which is more than 3 times your predicted speed.
A probe with an NSTAR ion thruster could do more than 20 km/s if it used half of its mass as fuel and some experimental, tested drives could do almost 70 km/s in the same conditions.

But energy isn't stored as heat in rockets anyway so what are you talking about.

>> No.14627560
File: 61 KB, 311x475, soyence fiction comic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14627560

>>14626456
errrryday on /sci/, 9001 times
>hay guise, are comic books real?
>i can't tell the difference between my comic book fantasy world and reality

>> No.14627564

>>14627560
>contemplating the possibility of faster-than-light travel
>nooooo you can't think about it that's not allowed!!!!!!!

>> No.14628776

>>14627304
>being this new
basedboy alert

>> No.14628864
File: 147 KB, 1280x720, soiencetourists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14628864

Surprising that no one has mentioned this yet. There's no "our" lifetime. The chance of any of you, or me, dying tomorrow is not zero.

>> No.14628874

>>14628864
Being pedantic is par for the course here

>> No.14628907

>>14627370
>our current tech can hardly move 0.05% of the speed of light never mind beyond it
Why are faggots aleays say that shit?!?!
It is so stupid!
It's like being in the medieval times, discussing about the diesel engine and its top speed, production and fuel, only for some random guy to come along and say that, with our curent tech we can oly ride at the speed of 70-80 km/h, never mind beyound 100.
Why do you have to bring up chemical rochets each and every time and compare it to some hypotetical tech that has nothing to do with them?
WHY?

>> No.14628982

>>14626456
No. Not with niggers living on planet Earth. In 300 years maybe.

>> No.14629116

>>14628907
Because the op said "in our lifetimes"

>> No.14629240

>>14627564
You're not breaking any new ground. The reasons why FTL is unlikely to be possible, muchless it becoming a viable technology within the century, haven't changed.

>> No.14629253

>>14626456
>Will we achieve FTL travel in our lifetimes?
no, earth is flat

>> No.14629341

>>14626456
Doesn't matter if in your lifetime because FTL means causality doesn't exist and timetravel comes with it. So fuck your shit we can imminentize the increasing entropy of the universe by sucking up all the plentiful earlier energy of the universe and thus move the heat death of the universe to before the Sun was formed.

>> No.14629784

>>14626472
>>14626476
The duality of man.

>> No.14630030

>>14626472
>>14626476
Samefag retard

>> No.14630146

>>14629341
How does FTL enable time travel apart from being able to see distant stars earlier than you should be able to or seeing the past of your planet by quickly going very far away and observing the light that left it millennia ago? While that by itself is kinda cool I guess I don't see how it constitutes entropy-breaking time travel. By what mechanism could you use this to extend the life of the universe or create infinite energy sources?

>> No.14630194

>>14629116
The thing i wanted to emphasize was the stupidity of the comapraison bewteen rockets and whatever will take us to the stars.
>Because the op said "in our lifetimes"
Yeah, but as I've said, it is like comparing horses to engines. There's no point in saying that, as rockets are definitely not what we're looking for.
Instead, the focus should be on what breaktroughs my bring us such tech.
>"We will never achive 3D animation if we keep drawing on paper"
So stop talking about paper and penciles when you should start looking into 3d rendering engines.

>> No.14631565
File: 1.04 MB, 742x802, biblical angel AI.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14631565

>>14626456
>our lifetimes
Found out I was stage 4 last week. If they discover it in my lifetime, that'd be phenomenal!

>> No.14632292

>>14626456
Nothing of note will be discovered in our lifetimes. Be happy with what's on offer now because it'll be the same when you're 80.

>> No.14632350

I just hope we find some little bacteria niggas or even some alien fish on one of the potential life-supporting moons in this gay solar system