/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1899401]

>it's reasonably likely there is no way around the "FTL probelm" and humans will never have the technology to leave the solar system

[Anonymous No.1899409]

>implying you need ftl to leave the solar system

[Anonymous No.1899414]

>>1899409

This^
Generation and sleeper ships are still seemingly feasable.

[Anonymous No.1899423]

Well you lose your mass and particles and when try to get near the speed of light, so it's practically suicide.

[Anonymous No.1899426]

>>1899414
Also we don't know what advances willl allow us to travel closer and closer to the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.1899427]

>>1899414
>implying it's feasible to "sleep" for millions of years in order to visit other planets

[Anonymous No.1899434]

>>1899427
Why not?

[Anonymous No.1899435]

>>1899423

[Anonymous No.1899436]

>>1899427
>implying you have to sleep millions of years to travel somewhere millions of lightyears away.

Remember it only takes 28 years from the perspective of the traveler to go 2 million light years at 1g acceleration.

2 million years is just what it appears to take from earth.

[Anonymous No.1899440]

>>1899434
well just think about it, trying to design a system that will maintain itself for millions and millions of years, while harbouring life onboard.

[Anonymous No.1899444]

>>1899436
but then you have to take into acount the ridiculous fuel rquirements needed to accelerate at 1g for 28 years.

[Anonymous No.1899470]

So, if I were to invent/discover how to make warp drive work, artificial gravity/find the graviton, develop an energy production system with 10^100x energy output, stabilize wormholes, and a viable system to solve every economical crisis & world hunger, and various other discoveries I didn't happen to think of right now, would I go down in history as the single most genius mind in the history of mankind?

I think I've found my life goal.

[Anonymous No.1899481]

>>1899440
It's not necesarrily infeasible, we don't know what kind of technology we will eventually have, we have only had science for a few thousand years.

[Anonymous No.1899486]

sooner or later future human can live indefinitely long in a huge spaceship. basically generations of people will live in colony ships while hoping they will one day arrive on some distant planet.
all you need to sustain life really is just energy, which we have enough, it seems.

[Anonymous No.1899500]

>>1899486
well considering what we know it's only a matter of time (a ghundred years or so) before we master our genes and learn how to effectively live forever. It's more a logistical probelm of sustatinng life for the millions of years needed to travel outside our solar system.

[Anonymous No.1899514]

>>1899486
Thinking too small. Eventually science will disable aging altogether. At that point people will die when they (or someone that doesn't like them) chooses. This will not only accelerate scientific advances but make the time component of space travel nearly irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.1899517]

What about quantum entanglement?

[Anonymous No.1899520]

>1899514
reagardless of death you still have to sustain life for all that time

[Anonymous No.1899524]

>>1899514
it will never happen.
if you live millions of years, the chance of you dying of some accidents is incredibly high, and it will be a huge loss to a society where limited wise, elder people live. also, people get stubborn and unfit for changing environment as they age.
it's always safer and more profitable to have more relatively short lived generations of people who also have the benefit of natural gene mutation (in case of a crash landing etc).

[Anonymous No.1899528]

>>1899520
>>1899500
see:
>>1899486
>all you need to sustain life really is just energy, which we have enough, it seems.

[Anonymous No.1899531]

>>1899524
So....you think we cannot stop natural aging because people will die from non-natural causes?

idontthinksojim.jpg

[Anonymous No.1899542]

>>1899531
You would need to live in an ultra-safe house and be prepared for all sorts of stuff like spontaneous heart attacks or strokes.

[Anonymous No.1899553]

>>1899444
Not really. By the time you reach relativistic speeds, you have all the energy you could want, and more, in the form of blue-shifted cosmic radiation, which would become highly energetic.

[Anonymous No.1899554]

>>1899553
...what

the faster you go the more energy you need to accelerate, since you effectively "gain more mass"

i don't even

[Anonymous No.1899566]

You guys are forgetting that we can only make stuff move in space by

-using gravity

-losing mass


The current propulsion systems wont take us anywhere, im betting on QM for star-wars like engines in a future

aLSO less than 1g scenarios cause bone and muscle atrohpia, even if you trin everyday to compensate, you will still get weaker, just look at the astronauts that come back from the station, they spend weeks in hospitals

[Anonymous No.1899570]

>>1899566
>implying we won't use our mighty technology to stop the ffects of weightlessness

[Anonymous No.1899599]

You crazy humans, you don't need to travel faster than light to travel the universe, you need only to discover the correct method for initiating an anti-spatial portal and then how to stabilise a universal physical laws field in anti space in order to travel through it to correspondence points for other points in normal universal space-time.

Pretty obvious really.

[Anonymous No.1899701]

>>1899566
>>1899570
Rotating space ship. Mighty technology there.

[Anonymous No.1899705]

>>1899701
I was thinking about genetic engineering and biotechnology, but rotating spaceship is fine too.

[Anonymous No.1899725]

here is why faster than light travel will always be impossible:

not because of fuel limitations

not because of physics limitations

not because of technological limitations

but because you'd fucking hit stuff. your ship would be torn to shreds just from the dust you'd come in contact with, let alone meteors, comets, planets, stars, asteroids, etc

[Anonymous No.1899729]

>>1899725

space is ridiculously empty

[Anonymous No.1899757]

>>1899725
Go away, please just go.

[Implying No.1899768]

>>1899725
>implying you could accidentally fly into a sun

[Anonymous No.1899788]

>>1899725

I suspect that if we're able to create an FTL spacecraft, we would be able to find a way to keep it protected from micrometeors and such.

[Anonymous No.1899805]

>>1899725
>doesn't know about ablative ice shielding or the point defense system that could be carried about by a light hugger

laughinggirls.jpg

[Anonymous No.1899807]

I don't really see the point in travel outside our universe, unless we can somehow create wormholes for instantaneous travel.

>>1899436 Lets say it takes 2,000,000 years to find another habitable planet. Sure, it only takes 28 from the perspective of the traveler, but that's 2 million years that have still passed on Earth. In the extremely unlikely event that humans even still exist at all, society (hell, probably even people, physically) would be completely unrecognisable to the travelers.

[Anonymous No.1899837]

>>1899401
WOW, ANOTHER BULLSHIT THREAD!
YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! GTFO!

It only takes 3.6 years (at sublight speed) to reach another solar system (the closest one to us). LEARN TO PHYSICS DUMBASS!

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

[Anonymous No.1899885]

>>1899807
It's not like you will ever communicate with them from 2 million lightyears away.

[Anonymous No.1899932]

>>1899788

>because an ftl spacecraft would travel in normal space

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1899952]

>ITT

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1899955]

More accurately:

>ITT

[Anonymous No.1900257]

>>1899837

3.6 years from the travellers point of reference or an observer on earth? be precise or go fucking die.

[Anonymous No.1900283]

How many things are a daily occurrence these days, that were once impossibilities? At any other point in history, how many major problems could one say that there is reasonably no way around, that are not even problems with current technology?

I'm not saying we'll find a way to travel FTL, or even suggesting that there is a way to travel FTL. I'm saying, given our extremely limited knowledge of the physical world, claiming that any problem is likely to be unsolvable at any point in the future is ridiculous.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1900324]

>>1900283

There's a difference between physical problems and engineering problems.

Building spacecraft is an engineering problem. Going FTL is a physical problem.

[Anonymous No.1900329]

>>1900324
Ok as long as you weren't dissing slower than light travel.

[Anonymous No.1900344]

>>1900329
Scientists will never solve the STL problem! I have to go to the bathroom; how will I ever get there?

[Anonymous No.1900351]

>>1900324
Agreed. However-

Defying gravity was a physical problem. When we figured out how it can be done, building planes was simply an engineering problem.
Such a progression of thought can be seen in a wide number of scientific advances leading to technological advances.
Right now, FTL is a purely physical problem. If theory advances to the point where we think we know how to do it, building an FTL capable vehicle will be an engineering problem.

[Anonymous No.1900353]

Lightspeed can easily be broken.

Einstein was wrong.

Whoever says it takes infinite energy to break lightspeed needs a fucking slap.

[Anonymous No.1900355]

>>1899885
That's beside the point. The point is we can go to fucking Andromeda in a lifetime. Who needs to communicate with earth when you're in another galaxy?

[Anonymous No.1900363]

>>1900283
> How many things are a daily occurrence these days, that were once impossibilities?

Not sure if troll. But ...

There's a difference between having no idea how to achieve something and having a fairly good reason to believe that something is actually unachievable.

[Anonymous No.1900371]

>>1900353
>cries
Thanks for that.

[Anonymous No.1900372]

>>1900363 fairly good reason

Being ignorant is not a good reason for anything.

[Anonymous No.1900380]

>>1900363
>>There's a difference between having no idea how to achieve something and having a fairly good reason to believe that something is actually unachievable.

My point is that we still know so little of the laws governing physical reality (and even what we think we know is regularly refuted by experience), that saying we have a good reason to believe anything will be eternally impossible is a very strong statement based on very little information. Are there things that are impossible? I don't know; I'd guess that there is. Can we say what they are with our level of understanding? I'd be surprised.

[Anonymous No.1900383]

We can terraform a planet remotely. Then later send a sleeper ship of a few thousand or hundred thousand humans. This will take a long time but eventually we will have thousands of simultaneous terraforming projects happening at the same time to be manned at a later date. Once we master biology and chemistry this shit will be easy.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1900384]

>>1900351

Stand up in a plane. Do you float? No. There is still gravity.

Planes and spacecraft don't defy gravity. You can't cancel gravity. It's still there.

[Anonymous No.1900397]

>>1900384
Gravity, its a mad strong bitch, always getting up in your shit.

[Anonymous No.1900402]

>>1900363
Yeah like flight or putting a man on the moon. Smarter, more open minded and knowledgeable men than you didn't think we could put a man on the moon before they saw the video feed. We can absolutely colonize the moon. Probably in 10,000 years we will have the technology to terraform it. Then a baby step to mars, then to other planets with suitable gravity, and then when we have crazy engineering skills, an incredible mastering of chemistry, biology, and physics - then we we colonize Jupiter. And then we won't need to colonoize anything because it will be easier to build in space itself.

[Anonymous No.1900418]

>>1900384
I think you are purposefully misinterpreting my words. I'm not saying gravity doesn't exist. I'm saying that we've figured out how to overcome the force of gravity holding us on the ground.
Just as I am not claiming that we will one day figure out how to make all of the limitations surrounding FTL disappear. I am saying that, like many other scientific issues and limitations imposed on us by physical laws, once we have the working theory of how to get around it then it is just a matter of applying that theory. Thus, physical problem goes to being simply an engineering problem.

I'm not saying that this will happen for FTL. I am saying that there is still so much to understand about the physical universe, and we are not yet in the position of scientific expertise necessary to say what will and won't be possible.

[Anonymous No.1900463]

OUR QUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!!

[Anonymous No.1900459]

FTL travel, what I'm going to call analogue travel, is inefficient at best. The vast distances between possible interstellar cultures and resources render conventional movement obsolete.


The most efficient way to travel would be a mass propulsion engine. Something that might spin a sphere at near the speed of light in an attempt to increase its mass and warp space. One might then be able to travel vast distances without moving much at all in a conventional sense. Portals or something.

[Anonymous No.1900467]

so, if you believe science will fail you, what then will you do?

quit?

[Anonymous No.1900488]

>>1900463
Thanks for that flashback. You clearly haven't been to /b/ for a while.
Here's the queen. /b/aily jay linetrap.

[Anonymous No.1900803]

>>1900353
R-e-t-a-r-d
YOU ARE ONE.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1900813]

>>1900402

[Anonymous No.1900825]

>>1900402

>10,000 years

1,000 at the absolute maximum.

[Anonymous No.1900845]

I must be overly optimistic. I was hoping for Mars colonies by 2060 and terraforming to start in about 1-200 years.

[Anonymous No.1900871]

>>1900845

I'd put a Mars colony at around 2080-2090. Terraforming projects beginning near 2300, ending in around 2500.

[Anonymous No.1900875]

>>1900871

Mars colony by 2090? No chance.

It's gonna take 20+ years to even get there with a few men.

We've been to the moon far earlier yet haven't built anything near a colony there.

There is pretty much nothing to gain from a colony right now. Better uses for money.

[Anonymous No.1900892]

>>1900875

You do realize Earth has limited resources, correct? Mining from other planets and asteroids is pretty much the only option once Earth is depleted until we can cheaply convert matter.

also

>20+ years to launch from Earth to Mars

also...

>Right now
>2090

[Anonymous No.1900904]

>>1900871
No freakin way. If we have a moon colony by 2090, all be freakin ecstatic.

[Anonymous No.1900907]

>>1900402
No. There has never been a reason to believe that flight or space travel were physically impossible, merely beyond our technology at the time.

FTL is more like "solving" the halting problem or finding a decision procedure for predicate logic, i.e. there is evidence that they are impossible.

Even if Einstein's theories turn out to be incorrect (even though every new piece of experimental evidence to date supports them), there's no reason to assume that they will turn out incorrect in a way that makes FTL more likely to be possible. It could just as easily make it even less likely to be possible.

[Anonymous No.1900910]

>>1900892

I'm 100% sure that the resources we have will last far longer than 2090.

Also I'm sure that 80 years isn't a long enough time to colonise a new planet. We don't have the technology, and nobody fucking want's to because it's stupid and everything we need is already on Earth. Not to mention there would be zero profit in it.

[Anonymous No.1900919]

>>1900907

>> No. There has never been a reason to believe that flight or space travel were physically impossible, merely beyond our technology at the time.

Nope, many contemporary scientists thought it impossible. In fact a lot of scientists thought the sound barrier would never be breached etc.

[Anonymous No.1900923]

>>1900892
Only if by other planets and asteroids you mean the moon. Mining from objects that you can only commute to every few years will not be economical in the foreseeable future. Mining from the moon is unlikely enough. It presupposes that when we run low on resources we think collectively as a planet, instead of doing the cheaper option and going to war and stealing the resources from our neighbors.

[Anonymous No.1900935]

>>1900919
>Nope, many contemporary scientists thought it impossible. In fact a lot of scientists thought the sound barrier would never be breached etc.
Who?

[Anonymous No.1901007]

I once made a similar thread saying " What if FTL will never be possible?"

1st reply: "But it is impossible"

<<My face

Anyway, we will move beyond the solar system, as long as we don't screw up too badly.