/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 917 KB, 1600x922, crystal_moon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:04:45 2011 No.2767907 [Reply] [Original]

the discovery of faster than light travel
how do you think it'll go down?

who will discover it?
will it develop from some particle, or an accidental discovery in a lab at a larger scale?
how will it work? under known principles or from a loophole we don't know of yet?

how much fanfair will accompany the discovery? will it be pushed off the news by another sheen interview?

how quickly will it go from principle to actual working ship?

how fast will it go at first? only just light speed or several thousand times it or something?

from first ship, how quickly will we go to a full fleet and do some explorin'?

what will we do first with the technology and ships? colonize the solar system at ultra rapid pace since we won't need to wait 6 months on supplies? do some rapid terraforming of mars? just set the ship to a solar system we think has an earthlike planet and just "go"?

let's get some actual discussion up in here

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:05:45 2011 No.2767914 Won't happen. You're all going to die, here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:06:45 2011 No.2767916 >FTL travel >let's get some actual discussion up in here don't think so, nope.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:07:45 2011 No.2767918 It will be Buzz Lightyear, because only he can harness the theoretical energy required for FTL travel.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:08:45 2011 No.2767922 >>2767918 >Implying theres an amount of energy you could use to go faster than the speed of light.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:09:45 2011 No.2767925 I don't actually believe FTL will ever be practical. That is, I'm sure it's possible, literally everything is possible, but gating or jump travel will turn out to be much better. Faster, cheaper, easier to build ships, and safer.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:09:45 2011 No.2767927 i was a big fan of bubble drive theory until someone pointed out that the entire interior would be lousy with hawking radiation

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:10:45 2011 No.2767931 Going to side with the OP here because never say never Humans thought the world was flat. Humans thought flight was impossible. Humans thought reach space was impossible. As for your questions, only time will tell

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:10:45 2011 No.2767932 it will discovered by some shmuck in a lab and it will be big news for 20 minutes but no ships will be built because it is just some bullshit about a timetraveling electron

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:11:45 2011 No.2767935 >>2767925 FTL is not possible. you are thinking warping space or teleportion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:11:45 2011 No.2767938 >>2767927 Isn't hawking radiation just un-tangled protons? Don't we get that shit all the time anyway?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:12:45 2011 No.2767939 >let's get some actual discussion up in here On a topic that as it stands is completely impossible, That makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:12:45 2011 No.2767941 >>2767931 no. anything with mass will not travel faster than photon. lrn2physic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:13:45 2011 No.2767944 >how much fanfair will accompany the discovery? The only thing that could possibly interrupt the media from talking about the discovery of FTL travel would be the return of Jesus himself.

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:14:45 2011 No.2767949

>>2767935
I am thinking of teleporting. But the connotation for teleport feels like it's personal, it should be gating for large ship scale usage.

Anyways, you can't say that FTL isn't possible, we are probably only just scratching the surface of high end physics and mathematics right now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:15:45 2011 No.2767952 >>2767944 You clearly overestimate mass media.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:16:45 2011 No.2767958 wormholes. only way you can get from their to here. to create one, you have to have antimatter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:17:45 2011 No.2767963 quantum physics says wherever you desire to be, you're already there (in a sense).

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:17:45 2011 No.2767965 >>2767949 only space expansion are not limited to C. anything else with mass will not surpass it.

Dr. White Thu Mar 24 23:18:45 2011 No.2767966

Alcubierre Drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

I figure (read: hope) that we will eventually learn how to manipulate gravitational fields, after which all we need to do is create a negative field behind us and a positive field in front of us.

I figure some guy herald as the new Tesla will build it, loose the patent on it, and die penniless and alone.

The maximum speed would probably be determined by how much of a displacement you could generate, ie more powerful ships could go faster.

Although, the feats of engineering needed to construct even a simple ship would be enormous.

Although, the first thing we would probably do with the ability to manipulate gravity fields is weaponize it. How about launching microscopic black holes at people?

And unless there is a huge market for new planet space, I doubt there is any money in terraforming, so none of that for a while.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:19:45 2011 No.2767970 the problem is when you get to light speed, you're going to blow up. we need to create ships that can handle the stress. so super strong materials and good engineering will do it.

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:19:45 2011 No.2767972

If FTL works in any fashion, the galaxy will be crawling with alien empires when we get out there.

And if that's so, one of the will have had their machines revolt a billion years ago terminator style. So, to me, if FTL is real, then the only possible outcome is Reapers Mass effect style.

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:20:45 2011 No.2767976

>>2767966
I like the book where a group of von neumann probes launched a rod of neutronium and a rod of anti-neutronium into the earths center to asplode the earth to make it easier to harvest.

We'll probably end up using cold-sleep, generation, and seedships before we get tech that can effectively create FTL travel. Unless we hit a singularity, then all bets are off.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:20:45 2011 No.2767977 >>2767970 no. any material will turn into photon, which is sub-particle.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:21:45 2011 No.2767980 >>2767972 >implying AI's by definition have to destroy their creators ummm no.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:22:45 2011 No.2767981 we need to consentrate on our problems here on planet earth before we start noodling around in space. end NASA.

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:24:45 2011 No.2767993

>>2767965
We have just aren't sure that remains true under all possible conditions. There could be "exotic" regions in space where shit works totally different. Hell for all we know, the earth's gravity has tainted every physics experiment we're ever done, distorting our results from what would happen in empty space in a way we can't predict.

>>	Dr. White Thu Mar 24 23:25:45 2011 No.2767997 >>2767981 Do not feed the trolls

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:27:45 2011 No.2768008 >>2767997 wasn't planning on it mate, but thanks for informing the /sci/mpletons.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:27:45 2011 No.2768009 >>2767980 I didn't say that at all. I said that if that happened, a 50 million year reaper civilization will outclass everything else that starts out into space is be destroyed, so once that scenario happens just once, the galaxy is permanently boned.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:28:45 2011 No.2768011 >>2767981 The day we can solve the problems on our earth is the day... well hell, who am I kidding, we're never going fix our problems.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:28:45 2011 No.2768013 >>2767981 >noodling around added to my vocabulary

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:28:45 2011 No.2768014 >>2768009 I'm gonna go ahead and bet that Shepard wins against the Reapers, so you're already video game hypothesis is BS.

>>	Dr. White Thu Mar 24 23:29:45 2011 No.2768020 >>2768009 So...if the singularity can happen, there will be at least one Borg?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:34:45 2011 No.2768040 >>2768020 >>2768014 Guys, don't get hung up on "lol videogames", it's just a convenient example we can all picture or at least up without me having to spend 30 minutes constructing an elaborate personal example.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:35:45 2011 No.2768042 >>2768020 The Singularity isn't an actual physics singularity, you know, right? The scientific progress created during a singularity all at once is still dictated(presumably) by physics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:36:45 2011 No.2768049 >>2768040 It's like Pascal's Wager, once you remove it from it's specific reference frame, you can apply it to anything.

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:37:45 2011 No.2768054

We won't, it's physically impossible.
We could potentially get to 99.999999999999999% the speed of light, but never faster.
What makes you think we could? Did somebody say that humanity had the right to explore the stars?
Well we don't, we might colonise a few barely habitable terrestrial worlds around our very nearest stars, but we ain't going very far.

Dr. White Thu Mar 24 23:38:45 2011 No.2768060

>>2768042

Yes. I know that. Accelerated returns and all that. I'm just trying to understand what he said. I think he's saying that if the singularity is possible, there will be at least one race that gets there before us, screwing the rest of the galaxy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:39:45 2011 No.2768063 >>2768049 Doesn't invalidate it as a possible outcome for space faring races. Which is what I believe is the real factor here, if FTL can work, there will already be scores of other races with it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:39:45 2011 No.2768068 >>2768054 >implying absolute certainty What are you doing, you're religious. You don't belong here, you can't even use the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:40:45 2011 No.2768074 >>2768009 however you fail to account for a potential counter to these theoretical reapers. it might be inevitable that they will be produced in some way, but it could be equally inevitable that they are destroyed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:40:45 2011 No.2768075 >>2768060 That's the head of my nail in a nut shell, yes. I figure, since we don't already have it right now, we aren't going to be the first either.

>>	Dr. White Thu Mar 24 23:41:45 2011 No.2768077 >>2768054 Bitches don't know about unbounded speed of the expansion of space!

Dr. White Thu Mar 24 23:43:45 2011 No.2768088

>>2768075

Maybe converting your consciousness to a computer grants profound logic and ethical thinking, which results in most if not all post-singularity species to come up with a Prime Directive; don't interfere with cultures that haven't gotten there yet.

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:43:45 2011 No.2768091

>>2768060
Well, not necessarily, provided they don't spam von Neumann devices that devour half the universe or themselves act like von Neumann devices. If humans took to the stars, our ships would probably act exactly like von Neumann devices. We can't help but expand at this point in our development.

That's probably a decent argument for humans being the only intelligent species in the local area. No von Neumann probes yet. Even if they were sub-ftl, the population of them increases exponentially.

oilio scalars:

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:44:45 2011 No.2768096 >>2768074 Ya, at heat death or from a trans galactic invasion from something worse. Still, if we build the FTL, I fully except a fucking Terminator, planet crusher ship to warp in and snuff us out.

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:45:45 2011 No.2768106

>>2768074
Like a billion Jokes and Shepards. They so fucked.

>>2768088
I like Iain Banks' take. They don't always prevent themselves from contacting, but sometimes the more advanced civilizations play dirty tricks and whatnot on the less advanced ones to force them to evolve a certain way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:46:45 2011 No.2768110 I just want my hoverboard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:48:45 2011 No.2768118 There's just no way a human being would survive being hurled at the speed of light. You would be crushed from the momentum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:49:45 2011 No.2768126 >>2768088 If that's what happens, then that's great. Instead of Reaper purge, we get Borg assimilation. Because once we "arrive" on the galactic scene with FTL, we're ready to join them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:51:45 2011 No.2768142 Also, FTL doesn't have to be literally traveling faster than light in any sense, so all this shit about humans not surviving or it not being possible to accelerate to 100% c is just annoying.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:53:45 2011 No.2768153 >>2768142 FTL is faster than C. teleport or wormhole doesn't necessary mean you are traveling FTL.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:53:45 2011 No.2768157 File: 9 KB, 200x179, 7120583054370265.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] make a ton of micro black holes around a ship to warp space >mfw /sci/ thinks the world is flat

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:53:45 2011 No.2768161

>>2767907
For all of you haters saying FTL isn't possible then let me put it like this for you:

It isn't possible with our current understanding of physics. With that being said, our current understanding of physics is still relatively small. Theories are broken and disproved all the time, our 'rules' are not a holy fucking grail. get over it

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:55:45 2011 No.2768166 File: 62 KB, 500x375, 1249354121034.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2768153 >Getting hung up on vocabulary for things that don't even exist yet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:55:45 2011 No.2768168 >>2768153 But you effectively are. You traveled x distance in y time and x/y is faster than c.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:57:45 2011 No.2768178 >>2768168 you are traveling through means of other dimension. the object traveling does not exceed C. so FTL is impossible.

Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:57:45 2011 No.2768179

>>2768153

FUCKING SEMANTICS.

FTL in the context of this discussion refers to ways of getting to the stars in a reasonable time frame, not whether or not a light beam in the same reference frame as you is faster.

Local FTL is impossible, effective FTL might be possible with future technology.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:58:45 2011 No.2768186 >>2768178 Instantaneous speed may not exceed C, but average speed does, and that's what counts in this discussion. We're not talking about the actual physics and engineering of the thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 24 23:59:45 2011 No.2768189 >>2768186 gotcha. so serious discussion ITT.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:00:45 2011 No.2768198
File: 25 KB, 360x268, HeartOfGold.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing interstellar distances in a few seconds, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace.

As the Improbability Drive reaches infinite improbability, it passes through every conceivable point in every conceivable universe almost simultaneously.

In other words, you're never sure where you'll end up or even what species you'll be when you get there. It's therefore important to dress accordingly.

The Infinite Improbability Drive was invented following research into Finite Improbability, which was often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess 's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

Many respectable physicists said they weren't going to stand for that sort of thing... partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:00:45 2011 No.2768200 >FTL travel >causality THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:00:45 2011 No.2768201 >>2768189 lol. Not at all. We've been debating how likely we are to get smashed by Reapers or Borg the instant we get outside of our solar system.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:03:45 2011 No.2768215 >>2768201 I'm still holding that it's almost unavoidable. Anyone else feel like agreeing with me so far?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:03:45 2011 No.2768220 >>2768198 doesn't look enough like a shoe also, check out my 42.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:04:45 2011 No.2768227 >>2768215 I'll give you that it's a distinct possibility, though I think running into self-replicating probes is much, much more likely.

>>	Dr. White Fri Mar 25 00:07:45 2011 No.2768237 I'm still holding out for humanitarian Borg.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:09:45 2011 No.2768251 >>2768054 >>2768054 OK, Carl Sagan

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:11:45 2011 No.2768262

Not that I think this would be the way it would go down, but it be bad ass if interstellar travel were possible from the development of the mind and use of some sort of prescient abilities. But that is just because I have been reading to much Dune lately.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:13:45 2011 No.2768284 >>2768198 You know... it's so ridiculous that I could totally see some variation of IID turning out to be a viable means of FTL travel

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:14:45 2011 No.2768289

>>2768215
I think it's most likely that we've already been discovered by a sufficiently advanced race. Maybe they just happened to jump into our system a few thousand years ago and noticed that we had a little civilization going. Maybe they placed a probe in the Oort Cloud a few million years ago and it's been watching us all this time. Maybe they make circles in our crops to fuck with us.

I'm not from /x/, though, so no conspiracy theories. Anyone worth talking to most likely already knows about us.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:16:45 2011 No.2768303 >>2768284 the irony if we learned how to travel FTL and were unable to control where we went.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:22:45 2011 No.2768335

>>2768289
This.
I think it's very unlikely that races evolve in similar time frames to ours. We're not going to meet any races in the industrial era, and we're not going to meet any races that are slightly more advanced than us. The differences in technology will be overwhelming, especially for those more advanced than us. They won't be a few hundred years ahead of us, they will be millions and millions of years more advanced, perhaps so advanced that they don't even recognise us as a civilisation at all.
This is good though, because the more ahead of us they are, the less of a threat we pose, so they're less likely to blast us.

This is my main problem with things like ME or Star Trek, everyone is pretty much at the same technological level.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:23:45 2011 No.2768350 >>2768335 You think like other races would be at the level of like the Q then maybe?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:24:45 2011 No.2768355 >>2768335 Assuming that you can't stop gaining technological advantage. That's not unlikely though.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:28:45 2011 No.2768373

>>2768335
Yes, but it's not impossible for a civilisation to stagnate once they reach a certain level.
The Halo universe is a good example, the Covenant are undeniably more advanced than the humans, but they're not creating new technology, they've barely invented anything in centuries, they're relying on old designs and sciences.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:28:45 2011 No.2768378

>>2768335
In both settings it's justified, though. In one episode of TNG it's revealed that pretty much all humanoid life in the galaxy was seeded by sufficiently advanced aliens a long-ass time ago. Which is the in-universe justification for almost every alien race being composed of humans with weird foreheads.

In Mass Effect, it's all the Reapers' fault. Their entire plan is based around biological races following the technological "paths" they set out, discovering the Mass Relays, figuring out how to use element zero, settling the Citadel, everything. The main races in Mass Effect are at roughly the same tech level because that's how the Reapers want it.

So they both have good in-universe reasons. Neither is very realistic, as far as sci-fi goes, anyway.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:30:37 2011 No.2768391 [DELETED]

FTL travel is impossible. The speed of light is set as a universal speed limit.

What you should be asking is how can I get from point A to point B faster than a photon. Essentially, we won't be going faster than the speed of light, but we'll create a shortcut such that we'll arrive at point B faster than a photon traveling in a straight line. The only way to achieve this would be through the manipulation of space time. The best way to achieve this would be manipulation of the graviton (if it really does exist <_<).

What we would have to do is bend space-time in such a way that it folds, much like you can fold a piece of paper to get the two ends closer together. This way, when you travel from point A to point B, you're essentially traveling a shorter distance. While you're moving from point A to point B FTL, in reality you're still not traveling FTL.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:32:45 2011 No.2768403 >>2768391 But then we might accidentally go to hell, then all get killed by Sam Niell.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:32:47 2011 No.2768401 >>2768373 >The Halo universe is a good example, the Covenant >The Halo universe is a good example Nigga u best be trollin

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:34:45 2011 No.2768413 File: 126 KB, 680x442, bromance.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2768401 What? I like Halo... It's just as relevant the discussion as ME.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:34:45 2011 No.2768414

FTL travel is impossible. The speed of light is set as a universal speed limit.

What you should be asking is how can I get from point A to point B faster than a photon. Essentially, we won't be going faster than the speed of light, but we'll create a shortcut such that we'll arrive at point B faster than a photon traveling in a straight line. The only way to achieve this would be through the manipulation of space time. The best way to achieve this would be manipulation of the graviton (if it really does exist <_<).

What we would have to do is bend space-time in such a way that it folds, much like you can fold a piece of paper to get the two ends closer together. This way, when you travel from point A to point B, you're essentially traveling a shorter distance. While you're moving from point A to point B FTL in a cartesian sense, in reality you're still not traveling FTL. This is achievable and is allowed in General Relativity. ^_^

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:41:45 2011 No.2768453 how does loopholes like wormholes and manipulating the fabric of space account for the problem of causality?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:44:45 2011 No.2768466 >>2768453 It doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:45:45 2011 No.2768471 >>2768466 so everyone thats >implying FTL is possible is also >implying time travel is possible i therefore point to any number of problems/paradox's with time travle

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:47:45 2011 No.2768479

>>2768453

It doesn't need to because locally, nothing is ever traveling faster than c. Since nothing is ever traveling faster than c in any frame of reference, there is never a problem with causality, which arises when a frame of reference can be observed in which event b would occur before event a.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:47:45 2011 No.2768484 >>2768414 ITT: Exotic matter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:57:45 2011 No.2768528 File: 3 KB, 167x195, flosh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 00:59:45 2011 No.2768533

Oh geez, Its like I really walked into a star trek forum.

FTL ain't gonna happen, get over it. Did nobody else here take modern physics?

inb4 'herp derp scientific method'

You nerds are simply assuming that just because something hasn't been disproved with 100% certainty, that it must exist. FTL won't happen by wishing hard enough, that shit ain't science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:00:45 2011 No.2768535 >>2768528 Flash can run at the SoL. Not faster.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:26:45 2011 No.2768663

Why would any race try to destroy another race when the resources in space are practically infinite? I think even if we develop FTL travel it will take us a very long time to discover another alien race, maybe never. If we do find aliens they might all be dead or bacteria.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:27:45 2011 No.2768673 I think we know enough about physics to know that FTL is impossible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:29:45 2011 No.2768684 If FTL is possible then why haven't we been discovered by ancient races?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:36:45 2011 No.2768708 >>2768533 >>Did nobody else here take modern physics? ...As opposed to what? Antiquated physics?

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:39:45 2011 No.2768716

>mfw when people claim that FTL is impossible because of physics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for physics. I'm all for science. Most of all, I'm for progress. Outside of the realm of mathematics, it is naieve to say that something is impossible. Everything we know about the universe is based on what we have observed. While it is obvious that certain observations combined with mathematical analysis lead to certain apparently infallible conclusions, it's no reason that we can say with certainty what is possible and what isn't.

At this point in time, mathematics is as close as we can come to explaining the universe. Those like Heisenberg have shown that even with such an extensive description there is room for misinterpretation.

I will never say that FTL is impossible. I will also not argue that it is possible. I do not believe we have a right to say either. All we can say is that it appears to be impossible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:41:45 2011 No.2768721 >>2768684 >Implying that if FTL were possible we would we would have certainly been mapped by other races

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:41:45 2011 No.2768725 >>2768716 Evidence and theory suggest that FTL travel is impossible for things that are able to transmit information. Can we agree on this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:42:45 2011 No.2768728 >All we can say is that it appears to be impossible. The only correct answer. Carl Sagan used to say that it's ok to say you don't know. No need to pick a side; if the data isn't there then you don't need to profess to know it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:42:45 2011 No.2768730 >>2768535 bitches don't know about my speedforce

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:46:45 2011 No.2768748

>>2768725
Only retards don't agree.
>>2768728
>if the data isn't there then you don't need to profess to know it.

The data supporting SR and GR are pretty fucking thorough. By this logic, all data is insufficient to say anything at all, and thus all statements have to be appended with "it appears that", which renders the phrase meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:48:45 2011 No.2768760 >>2768725 I'm not sure how that works, honestly. If you can have something that can move >c and you can move it around or otherwise manipulate it then you have a way of providing information, don't you?

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:50:45 2011 No.2768770

I AM GOING TO TACKLE THIS PROBLEM ALONG WITH THE LINK BETWEEN GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM, I ALREADY HAVE 1 PERSON AS A CREW MEMBER, NOW IS THE TIME TO GET UP OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT SO WE CAN EXPLORE THE GALAXY BEFORE OUR GRANDCHILDREN ARE BORN

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:50:45 2011 No.2768773 >>2768725 Agreed 100% >>2768728 Absolutely. I dream of the day we are able to achieve FTL or some alternative, but it is definitely not guaranteed to happen.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:51:45 2011 No.2768778

>>2768748
Yeah, and the data supporting Newtonian mechanics was pretty fucking good too.
>thus all statements have to be appended with "it appears that", which renders the phrase meaningless.
Science doesn't work in absolute truths. It is a given that what is being reported is only the best of what is available at the time, so we can drop the "it appears that" most of the time because we know we aren't talking in absolutes.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:52:45 2011 No.2768784

>>2768760
Yes, but the point is that you can't go at/faster than c if you a) have mass or b) can transmit information.

FUN FACT: if you understood the geometry of the universe, you'd understand why accelerating "faster than c" doesn't mean anything in our universe.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:56:45 2011 No.2768804

>>2768778
>Yeah, and the data supporting Newtonian mechanics was pretty fucking good too.

DERP MERCURY HOW DOES IT WORK

>t is a given that what is being reported is only the best of what is available at the time, so we can drop the "it appears that" most of the time because we know we aren't talking in absolutes.

That's my point! Appending "it appears that" to everything is idiotic because it is already assumed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:58:45 2011 No.2768808 >>2768804 While it may be "assumed", many people seem to forget about it a lot of the time. Especially so when someone has a new idea.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:58:45 2011 No.2768810

>>2768760

Not necessarily. Through the cosmic expansion, galaxies far away from us drift away from us faster than with the speed of light for example. We can´t see them though, because the light does not reach us.
particles are partly faster than light, if you describe them by a wave packet. The first rise in probability will arrive at your measurement apparatus faster than with the speed of light, but the information is carried by the peak of the wave, so to say, which will arrive at just the right time so that you measure it to be as fast as light or slower.

I hope you understand what i mean.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 01:59:45 2011 No.2768817 >>2768784 Get rid of a), b) is enough and the only valid answer.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 02:01:45 2011 No.2768820

>>2768810
>Through the cosmic expansion, galaxies far away from us drift away from us faster than with the speed of light for example.

It's better to describe the expansion of the universe in terms of "rate" rather than speed, both because it's more accurate and because faggots take it the wrong way.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 02:02:45 2011 No.2768828 >>2768820 Agree.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 04:17:45 2011 No.2769515

>>2768471
i would contend that time travel does exist in some way at some level of reality, most likely at the very very small.

as such, the universe probably has ways to account for violations in causality, defense mechanisms as it were, such as changes in the past having little to not future effect by way to manipulation of chance (the gun you were about you shoot your grandfather with jams, ect)
OR
parallel universe theory, such that shooting your grandfather simply creates an alternative timeline, in which you do not exist, but you came from a timeline in which you did exist.

Scientist Fri Mar 25 04:23:45 2011 No.2769530

>>2767907
>the discovery of faster than light travel
>how do you think it'll go down?
I don't think it'll happen, at least not from arbitrary reference frames. Perhaps some ridiculously stupid low scale stuff where you have to "prepare" the region of space to give it a temporary preferred inertial frame.

Otherwise, you get temporal paradoxes, as unrestrained FTL + relativity = a go back in time machine.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 04:27:45 2011 No.2769543 never going to happen

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 04:28:45 2011 No.2769547 Gravity affects objects at the speed of light. That's our best bet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 04:35:45 2011 No.2769568 Well, FTL travel has been proven to not exist as I would have gone back in time and fucking killed OP before he even made this thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 04:37:45 2011 No.2769575 >>2769568 never understood how FTL violates causality. if you were the take a wormhole to some place 3 lightyears away in an instant, how could that enable you to alter causes before they become effects?

Scientist Fri Mar 25 04:39:45 2011 No.2769580

>>2769575
It's hard to explain if you don't understand the maths, but if you can FTL from arbitrary reference frames, then you can go back in time to before you left with 2 trips. One trip at FTL to some point far away, then another FTL trip back /from the perspective of another reference frame/. See the googles for a better explanation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 05:32:45 2011 No.2769680 >>2768810 We can see them. The light travelling from then has ony had to travel 13.7bn ly, but they are moving away all the time. We extrapolate the data to get distances of around 30bn ly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 05:34:45 2011 No.2769683 >>2769515 The first one is how they explain it to the masses. The second one is a more natural explanation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 05:38:45 2011 No.2769694 THEY HAVE MADE LIGHT GO FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT YOU FUCKING RETARDS. THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY NO REAL PHYSICISTS IN HERE. http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2736

Scientist Fri Mar 25 05:42:45 2011 No.2769705

>>2769694
I don't have the time to read it now. You're likely misinterpreting the results. You cannot send information faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum). You may use quantum entanglement to send "stuff" faster than light, but nothing that can carry information. No information -> no FTL.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 05:52:45 2011 No.2769733 >>2769705 Stop presuming what it says. Although I'm sceptical of the instant travel that they claim, it does seem very interesting. I have heard elsewhere that they've made light get up to around 300c, as well as being able to get it to a standstill.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 06:04:45 2011 No.2769763

>>2769733
What? Making light travel faster than c doesn't make sense, but slowing down light isn't THAT difficult. Of course, light will still travel with c, but through induced dipole transitions in matter or other interactions, it appears to travel slower.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 06:31:45 2011 No.2769844 >>2769763 I'll try and find it for you.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 07:08:45 2011 No.2769973

I'm thinking that the only way to really obtain fast interstellar travel is through the manipulation of gravity to create a "warp drive". It seems to always come back to Star Trek for me, what with iPad's, cell phones, automatic doors and such.

Of course, I don't think there's no real way to manipulate gravity at the moment. Perhaps the most promising prospect of gravity manipulation was Martin Tajmar's experiment, however I don't think his results have been replicated. I'm believe that was the closest to mainstream the idea has gotten. But it appears to be close to pathological science.

But that's the idea though; find a way to utilize gravity without having to have a shit ton of mass. There's also that tricky thing of negative mass....

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 08:14:45 2011 No.2770141 >>2768054 Yes, listen to this man, he speaks with the certainty of a 18th century scientist that said that internal organs would liquify if a man went past 35mph.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 08:19:45 2011 No.2770154 >>2769973 The LHC may find something useful in regard to gravity. Those bitches better hurry up though I want my flying car by 2020.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 08:21:45 2011 No.2770159 >>2768528 There's probably a greater discussion into what name an FTL drive is going to be given instead of actual research. I can totally see Hyperdrivers duke it against Warpdrivers in a forum while the Speedforcedrivers are trolling.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 08:22:45 2011 No.2770161 >>2770154 you aint getting a flying car without Gravitons or Eezo equivalents.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 08:51:45 2011 No.2770264 We could just increase the speed of light, like futurama did

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 08:55:45 2011 No.2770276
File: 203 KB, 1050x751, UFO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Here we go again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
Related news: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html
Here the full article from newscientist: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6990323/Burkhard-Heim-Take-a-Leap-Into-Hyper-Space

And most likely related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov
He did an experiment on early 1990's on a setup similiar to one suggested by Heim theory, which he claimed resulted in decrease of mass of an object over a powerful fast spinning magnetic field.

ESA did an experiment based on the Podkletnov's experiment in which they confirmed that the anomaly is real, and should not be possible by general relativity. http://www.esa.int/esaMI/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

The best thing about all this is that it's plausability could be proven with today's technology, possibly even commercialized, if proven. As long as the craft is made large enough to house a compact nuclear reactor to power the spinning magnetic field.

Picture related. Since, if spacecraft was made utilizing this phenomenon, it would house a large toroidal shaped spinning electromagnet, thus making saucer shape a natural choice.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 09:10:45 2011 No.2770303
File: 29 KB, 396x400, 2093_1273102265554.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2768118

That's not how it works.

As long as you have durable enough ship and you're actually INSIDE the ship the whole time, not strapped to it's nose, you will not be crushed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 09:12:45 2011 No.2770306 >>2768118 Are you saying that momentum correlates to force? What the shit are you on?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 09:19:45 2011 No.2770321 >>2770306 <span class="math">F=ma = m\displaystyle\frac{dv}{dt} = \displaystyle\frac{dp}{dt}[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 10:35:58 2011 No.2770511 >>2770321 I think not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 10:37:45 2011 No.2770517 >>2770321 That is change in momentum per time period. Your absolute momentum is irrelevant. Try again.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 10:40:10 2011 No.2770527 [DELETED]

>>2770276
"Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts."
>sure sounds like a viable flying saucer propulsion system to me.

Kel !scienceRWI Fri Mar 25 10:43:45 2011 No.2770539
File: 236 KB, 474x378, 1298601914383.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>under known principles or from a loophole we don't know of yet?
From what we know of the universe it is theoretically impossible. That does not mean our understanding of the universe will not change. Perhaps substances such as anti-matter could be used for FTL travel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 12:08:45 2011 No.2770782 >faster than light will never happen. you watch too much sci-fi

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 12:38:45 2011 No.2770883 Faster than light travel, if it is possible, would either require a way to allow for time travel, or a way to selectively limit travel in a way that allows faster than light travel without allowing time travel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 12:40:45 2011 No.2770888 no matter how good a theory is if it does not reflect reality it's jack shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 12:46:45 2011 No.2770904 FTL travel has already happened, several times. Phillip and John were taken out of our dimensions into a timeless dimension, and placed back into our dimensions at a different spot. FTL travel, in the bible. it's real.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 12:54:45 2011 No.2770921

Before 1000000000 people say its impossible. I am sure a lot of other shit was called impossible 1000 years ago.

Hell what is a giant rock crashes into mars that has element 356, or a new sub atomic particle?

Its hard to invent the color green if youve never seen it.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 12:56:45 2011 No.2770927

>>2768118
>There's just no way a human being would survive being hurled at the speed of light. You would be crushed from the momentum.

thats not how it works, its the acceleration that would damage you, actually traveling at any speed has no effect, christ earth is going like 10000MPH right now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 12:57:45 2011 No.2770930 >>2770904 transdimensional travel =/= FTL travel

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 15:43:45 2011 No.2771609 >>2770921 no, the periodic table is pretty much solid as of right now, as we've run the numbers on basically any other possible element and it's come back as "shit would be too unstable or would not form at all"

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 15:53:45 2011 No.2771646

"All attempts at artificial aviation are not only dangerous to human life, but foredoomed to failure from the engineering standpoint."

Engineering Editor, The Times, 1906

"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible."

Simon Newcomb, 1902

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."

Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859), Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College, London

"By the end of the decade multi-channel cable television will be commonplace in-home countrywide - TV will be used for armchair shopping, banking, calling emergency services and many other services"

Kenneth Baker, Minister for Information & Technology, UK, 1982

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning."

Max Planck, 1949

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."

Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, London, 1895

"We don't like their sound [the Beatles], and guitar music is on the way out."

Decca Recordings Co., 1962

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"

H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 15:53:45 2011 No.2771649

"Atomic energy might be as good as our present day explosives, but it is unlikely to produce anything very much more dangerous."

Winston Churchill, 1939

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who looks for a source of power in the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine. "

Sir Ernest Rutherford, 1933

"I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogma."

Ernst Mach, 1838-1916

"This extraordinary monument of theoretical genius accordingly remains, and doubtless will for ever remain, a theoretical possibility."

Biographer of Charles Babbage, 1871

"Comets are not heavenly bodies, but originate in the earth's atmosphere below the moon."

Fr. Augustion de Angelis of the Clementine College, Rome, 1673

"The proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology and heretical."

The Inquisition, on Galileo's proposals

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 15:54:45 2011 No.2771652

"Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition."

Dennis Gabor, "Inventing the Future", 1962

"Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value."

Editorial in the Boston Post, 1865

"The PC remains a complex and expensive device, and it is feasible that in its present form it is only a phase that we are going through: it will never break the 50% barrier to become a mass consumer device. Even now in the United States internet penetration remains at less than a third."

Paul Edwards, Chief Executive, The Henley Centre, UK, 1999 (In 2002 UK PC penetration rose to 53% of homes. In 2001 internet penetration in the USA rose to 54% of households)

"Paper will be replaced by material which does not depend upon the slow growth of trees for its production."

Norman Bel Geddes, Ten Years From Now, Ladies Home Journal, 1931

"While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming."

Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, 1926

"What use could this company make of an electrical toy?"

The President of Western Union responding to Alexander Graham Bell's offer to Western Union of the exclusive rights to the telephone for $100,000 in 1876

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 16:08:45 2011 No.2771711 >>2771646 >>2771649 >>2771652 1/0

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 16:13:45 2011 No.2771737

>>2771646
>"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."
>Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859), Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College, London
Well that's true.

>ethero L'avion
Captcha is also against heavier-than-air aviation

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 16:25:45 2011 No.2771784 >because people have been wrong about things in the past, everything that has ever been proposed as of now if OBVIOUSLY possible

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 16:30:45 2011 No.2771809 >>2771784 Don't you luddites ever get tired of being wrong?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 17:19:45 2011 No.2772057 >>2770930 low energy, no time dilation, no muss, no fuss; seems pretty win to me

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 17:21:45 2011 No.2772062 I'd go "i told you so"

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 18:08:45 2011 No.2772354 File: 7 KB, 174x289, Einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Son, I am disappoint... Won't ever happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 18:47:45 2011 No.2772655 Personally, I don't see why we couldn't alter the Minkoski space (or maybe some -to be discovered- more general space) to accommodate for FTL travel. "The future generations will laugh at our blindness, whilst being blind to their own blindness."

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 20:24:45 2011 No.2773151 >>2772057 >>2770930 Look up at hyperdrive. >>2770276

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 20:28:45 2011 No.2773175 Middle ages : > Shut up, the Earth is flat. Today : > Shut up, FTL is impossible. Science doesn't like dogma, faggots.

>>	Noko Anonymous Fri Mar 25 20:53:45 2011 No.2773293 File: 24 KB, 369x500, princess-leia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Princess Leia steals particle accelerator >> Puts in pinewood derby car >> Light Speed

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 21:05:45 2011 No.2773354 http://www.physorg.com/news183752006.html It's already happening faggots

Dr. White Fri Mar 25 21:57:45 2011 No.2773639
File: 59 KB, 177x345, Capture20.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

No one is talking about attaching huge ass rockets to a ship to surpass the c barrier. We know that's not possible

If FTL is possible, it probably has to do with bypassing this, either taking shortcuts through space time, or stretching or folding space time to our whims. These are one of the only reasonable ways to get from point A to point B faster than a photon can.
Using these methods we are not out running a photon, we are outsmarting it.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 22:51:18 2011 No.2773903 [DELETED]

>>2773639

I did automatically assume this was the POINT of the thread, since even elementary schooler should know by know that bypassing the speed of light on linear fashion is impossibly.

Makes me think are all this people really so dumb to actually think this discussion is about actually going faster than the speed of light? I'd assume most of people the interested in things science (including science fiction) would have seen enough scifi flicks to know that in almost every scifi movie/series there is, the method of FTL is either not explained, or it's due to 'getting around' it.

Though OP did make the question sound a bit wrong, since his question kinda implies he's talking about literally going faster than the speed of light, leading to smartass pseudo-intellectuals making the whole discussion being 95% about boasting how well they know about: "HURDRDUrRr don think so, cause cannot go faster than speed of light (etc.)".

Has happened on many threads, so i strongly suggest people making threads about FTL-travel to even hint that it's about methods of 'FTL' is about getting around the speed limit, not breaking the laws of physics (since there's already a few theories on it too), so the next thread about FTL will not be so full of pompous boasting and bullshit.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 22:53:41 2011 No.2773915 [DELETED]

>>2773639

I did automatically assume this was the POINT of the thread, since even elementary schooler should know by know that bypassing the speed of light on linear fashion is impossible.

Makes me think are all these people really so dumb to actually think this discussion is about actually going faster than the speed of light? I'd assume most of people the interested in things science (including science fiction) would have seen enough scifi flicks to know that in almost every scifi movie/series there is, the method of FTL is either not explained, or it's due to 'getting around' it.

Though OP did make the question sound a bit wrong, since his question kinda implies he's talking about literally going faster than the speed of light, leading to smartass pseudo-intellectuals making the whole discussion being 95% about boasting how well they know about: "HURDRDUrRr don think so, cause cannot go faster than speed of light (etc.)".

Has happened on many threads, so i strongly suggest people making threads about FTL-travel to even hint that it's about methods of 'FTL' is about getting around the speed limit, not breaking the laws of physics (since there's already a few theories on it too), so the next thread about FTL will not be so full of pompous boasting and bullshit.

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 22:54:33 2011 No.2773923

>>2773639

I did automatically assume this was the POINT of the thread, since even elementary schooler should know by know that bypassing the speed of light on linear fashion is impossible.

Makes me think are all these people really so dumb to actually think this discussion is about actually going faster than the speed of light? I'd assume most of people interested in things science (including science fiction) would have seen enough scifi flicks to know that in almost every scifi movie/series there is, the method of FTL is either not explained, or it's due to 'getting around' it.

Though OP did make the question sound a bit wrong, since his question kinda implies he's talking about literally going faster than the speed of light, leading to smartass pseudo-intellectuals making the whole discussion being 95% about boasting how well they know about: "HURDRDUrRr don think so, cause cannot go faster than speed of light (etc.)".

Has happened on many threads, so i strongly suggest people making threads about FTL-travel to even hint that it's about methods of 'FTL' is about getting around the speed limit, not breaking the laws of physics (since there's already a few theories on it too), so the next thread about FTL will not be so full of pompous boasting and bullshit.

>fucking typos

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 23:00:45 2011 No.2773949

>>2773639

I did automatically assume this was the POINT of the thread, since even elementary schooler should know by know that bypassing the speed of light on linear fashion is impossible.

Makes me think are all these people really so dumb to actually think this discussion is about actually going faster than the speed of light? I'd assume most of people interested in things science (including science fiction) would have seen enough scifi flicks to know that in almost every scifi movie/series there is, the method of FTL is either not explained, or it's due to 'getting around' it.

Though OP did make the question sound a bit wrong, since his question kinda implies he's talking about literally going faster than the speed of light, leading to smartass pseudo-intellectuals making the whole discussion being 95% about boasting how well they know about: "HURDRDUrRr don think so, cause cannot go faster than speed of light (etc.)".

Has happened on many threads, so i strongly suggest people making threads about FTL-travel to even hint that it's about methods of 'FTL' getting around the light speed limit, not breaking the laws of physics (since there's already a few theories on it too), so the next thread about FTL will not be so full of pompous boasting and bullshit.

>fucking typos

Anonymous Fri Mar 25 23:06:45 2011 No.2773980

want to travel faster than light?

Easy.
Change your perspective.

Anchor your vessel to a point outside the universe and use universal expansion to travel.

Technically, your ship doesn't move, but the universe moves around you.

It would be a one way trip though, so we'd need gate or wormhole technology to return.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 23:09:45 2011 No.2773997 >>2773949 there ARE ways to break physics. They mostly involve heating an area to levels where kelvin becomes useless. Particles start ignoring causality and doing unpredictable shit in those conditions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 23:12:45 2011 No.2774021 >>2773997 But that only mean that there's still glitches within current established physics (like the anomalous gravitational effects with spinning electromagnets which is posted about in >>2770276), which should be corrected.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 25 23:35:45 2011 No.2774118 you know what else is currently believed to be physically impossible? ice cream cones shooting out of your dick. "BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT SPACE TRAVEL"

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 26 03:14:45 2011 No.2774921 >>2773997 >break physics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 26 03:36:45 2011 No.2775032 >>2774118 What about ice cream cone shape kidney stones?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 26 03:40:45 2011 No.2775046 I will discover that while masturbating to gay porn in 10... 9... 8...

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]