Took the words right out of my mouth. People need to realize that science is never 100% correct - look at scientists in the past, they believed things that we have now found are completely wrong.I'm pretty sure we won't be leaving our solar system in my lifetime. At the current rate things are going (especially with NASA's budget) I doubt we'll even put a man on Mars in my lifetime. Or, if we do put a man on Mars before I die I'll probably be really old.
But on the other hand, who knows what we'll have in the year 3000. 200 years ago the idea that you could go from London to New York in a few hours was laughable. 20 years ago the idea that you could use your telephone as an alarm clock, a movie player, and about a million other things was laughable. Who knows what we will have in the year 2100 that people would laugh at you for thinking of today. For all we know by the year 2500 we might have found a way to make people live to be 300.
A lot of the reasons we think of stating why it will never, ever happen could be non-issues in a few centuries if our decendents think of ways to get around it. The current theory is that we may never go faster than the speed of light but nobody can say 100% what we can and can't do in a thousand years especially when you look at what we can do in 2011 versus what man could do in 1011. We won't live to see man leave the solar system but that doesn't men it will never happen in the history of mankind.
ad1x2
Do you think man will ever leave our solar system?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Took the words right out of my mouth. People need to realize that science is never 100% correct - look at scientists in the past, they believed things that we have now found are completely wrong. *Waits for Frame_Dragger to retort*I'm pretty sure we won't be leaving our solar system in my lifetime. At the current rate things are going (especially with NASA's budget) I doubt we'll even put a man on Mars in my lifetime. Or, if we do put a man on Mars before I die I'll probably be really old.
But on the other hand, who knows what we'll have in the year 3000. 200 years ago the idea that you could go from London to New York in a few hours was laughable. 20 years ago the idea that you could use your telephone as an alarm clock, a movie player, and about a million other things was laughable. Who knows what we will have in the year 2100 that people would laugh at you for thinking of today. For all we know by the year 2500 we might have found a way to make people live to be 300.
A lot of the reasons we think of stating why it will never, ever happen could be non-issues in a few centuries if our decendents think of ways to get around it. The current theory is that we may never go faster than the speed of light but nobody can say 100% what we can and can't do in a thousand years especially when you look at what we can do in 2011 versus what man could do in 1011. We won't live to see man leave the solar system but that doesn't men it will never happen in the history of mankind.
Cheesehead9099
[QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]Took the words right out of my mouth. People need to realize that science is never 100% correct - look at scientists in the past, they believed things that we have now found are completely wrong. *Waits for Frame_Dragger to retort* Haha, I understand that he has an expansive knowledge of physics, but I'm just pointing out that it's naive and foolish to act like our current science has gotten it 100% right.I'm pretty sure we won't be leaving our solar system in my lifetime. At the current rate things are going (especially with NASA's budget) I doubt we'll even put a man on Mars in my lifetime. Or, if we do put a man on Mars before I die I'll probably be really old.
But on the other hand, who knows what we'll have in the year 3000. 200 years ago the idea that you could go from London to New York in a few hours was laughable. 20 years ago the idea that you could use your telephone as an alarm clock, a movie player, and about a million other things was laughable. Who knows what we will have in the year 2100 that people would laugh at you for thinking of today. For all we know by the year 2500 we might have found a way to make people live to be 300.
A lot of the reasons we think of stating why it will never, ever happen could be non-issues in a few centuries if our decendents think of ways to get around it. The current theory is that we may never go faster than the speed of light but nobody can say 100% what we can and can't do in a thousand years especially when you look at what we can do in 2011 versus what man could do in 1011. We won't live to see man leave the solar system but that doesn't men it will never happen in the history of mankind.
chaoscougar1
[QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]Took the words right out of my mouth. People need to realize that science is never 100% correct - look at scientists in the past, they believed things that we have now found are completely wrong. *Waits for Frame_Dragger to retort* Oh, that is fruit that is too low-hanging even for me. I mean, betting on science to expand its knowledge and capacity based on the incremental growth we've seen, while believing it's also fundamentally incorrect about key issues such as Lorentz transforms? No... I like to correct clear errors, not **** on people's dreams. OK... I DO like to **** on people's dreams soemtimes, but what I'm reading from ad1x2 and many others is an expression of faith, and what do you say to that, which I haven't already posted?I'm pretty sure we won't be leaving our solar system in my lifetime. At the current rate things are going (especially with NASA's budget) I doubt we'll even put a man on Mars in my lifetime. Or, if we do put a man on Mars before I die I'll probably be really old.
But on the other hand, who knows what we'll have in the year 3000. 200 years ago the idea that you could go from London to New York in a few hours was laughable. 20 years ago the idea that you could use your telephone as an alarm clock, a movie player, and about a million other things was laughable. Who knows what we will have in the year 2100 that people would laugh at you for thinking of today. For all we know by the year 2500 we might have found a way to make people live to be 300.
A lot of the reasons we think of stating why it will never, ever happen could be non-issues in a few centuries if our decendents think of ways to get around it. The current theory is that we may never go faster than the speed of light but nobody can say 100% what we can and can't do in a thousand years especially when you look at what we can do in 2011 versus what man could do in 1011. We won't live to see man leave the solar system but that doesn't men it will never happen in the history of mankind.
chaoscougar1
No because the capitalist market will make the world unlivable for anythingabove 50 pounds because we killed the planet.
*Waits for Frame_Dragger to retort* Oh, that is fruit that is too low-hanging even for me. I mean, betting on science to expand its knowledge and capacity based on the incremental growth we've seen, while believing it's also fundamentally incorrect about key issues such as Lorentz transforms? No... I like to correct clear errors, not **** on people's dreams. OK... I DO like to **** on people's dreams soemtimes, but what I'm reading from ad1x2 and many others is an expression of faith, and what do you say to that, which I haven't already posted? Perfect[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"] Took the words right out of my mouth. People need to realize that science is never 100% correct - look at scientists in the past, they believed things that we have now found are completely wrong. Frame_Dragger
*Waits for Frame_Dragger to retort*chaoscougar1Oh, that is fruit that is too low-hanging even for me. I mean, betting on science to expand its knowledge and capacity based on the incremental growth we've seen, while believing it's also fundamentally incorrect about key issues such as Lorentz transforms? No... I like to correct clear errors, not **** on people's dreams. OK... I DO like to **** on people's dreams soemtimes, but what I'm reading from ad1x2 and many others is an expression of faith, and what do you say to that, which I haven't already posted? Perfect I have to say, I'm pretty proud of that piece of work myself. You DID literally ask for it though, don't forget! :P
*Waits for Frame_Dragger to retort* Oh, that is fruit that is too low-hanging even for me. I mean, betting on science to expand its knowledge and capacity based on the incremental growth we've seen, while believing it's also fundamentally incorrect about key issues such as Lorentz transforms? No... I like to correct clear errors, not **** on people's dreams. OK... I DO like to **** on people's dreams soemtimes, but what I'm reading from ad1x2 and many others is an expression of faith, and what do you say to that, which I haven't already posted?[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"] Took the words right out of my mouth. People need to realize that science is never 100% correct - look at scientists in the past, they believed things that we have now found are completely wrong. Frame_Dragger
How is making people deal with reality ****ting on dreams? There are such things are realistic dreams. I really don't knowwhy accepting that we probably will never make it out of our solar system is seen as such an act of defeat, it's the same logic that says life is empty if there's no afterlife that I will never understand for the life of me. So we're probably a doomed species, so what, does that make our existence any less meaningful? I think just the opposite.
Seeing as how Voager I and Voager II have both left our Solar System (at least I believe they have correct?), I think it will be possible for man to eventually leave it.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]
*Waits for Frame_Dragger to retort*chaoscougar1Oh, that is fruit that is too low-hanging even for me. I mean, betting on science to expand its knowledge and capacity based on the incremental growth we've seen, while believing it's also fundamentally incorrect about key issues such as Lorentz transforms? No... I like to correct clear errors, not **** on people's dreams. OK... I DO like to **** on people's dreams soemtimes, but what I'm reading from ad1x2 and many others is an expression of faith, and what do you say to that, which I haven't already posted?
How is making people deal with reality ****ting on dreams? There are such things are realistic dreams. I really don't knowwhy accepting that we probably will never make it out of our solar system is seen as such an act of defeat, it's the same logic that says life is empty if there's no afterlife that I will never understand for the life of me. So we're probably a doomed species, so what, does that make our existence any less meaningful? I think just the opposite.
Yes, I agree, but since realistic dreams involve the human race living and dying on earth, and the eventual heat-death of the universe there can be some crossover. More than that, I was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to how such observations are often recieved. I mean, look at the posts before and after ours... what do I say that I haven't already? To explain why so much is possible, but this is an extreme example trending toward the astronomically unlikely requires either knowledge in the hands of both parties, or a desire to learn. In my experience, most people would rather believe as they will than learn and make an informed judgement. @DarkGamer007: V1 passed the termination shock, but I don't think it's fair to say you've left the solar system until you're past the Heliopause.[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Took the words right out of my mouth. People need to realize that science is never 100% correct - look at scientists in the past, they believed things that we have now found are completely wrong.I'm pretty sure we won't be leaving our solar system in my lifetime. At the current rate things are going (especially with NASA's budget) I doubt we'll even put a man on Mars in my lifetime. Or, if we do put a man on Mars before I die I'll probably be really old.
But on the other hand, who knows what we'll have in the year 3000. 200 years ago the idea that you could go from London to New York in a few hours was laughable. 20 years ago the idea that you could use your telephone as an alarm clock, a movie player, and about a million other things was laughable. Who knows what we will have in the year 2100 that people would laugh at you for thinking of today. For all we know by the year 2500 we might have found a way to make people live to be 300.
A lot of the reasons we think of stating why it will never, ever happen could be non-issues in a few centuries if our decendents think of ways to get around it. The current theory is that we may never go faster than the speed of light but nobody can say 100% what we can and can't do in a thousand years especially when you look at what we can do in 2011 versus what man could do in 1011. We won't live to see man leave the solar system but that doesn't men it will never happen in the history of mankind.
Cheesehead9099
Scientists once believed that it was impossible to record sound waves, even when Edision demonstrated his phonograph, many thought he was simply a good ventriliquist;
Seeing as how Voager I and Voager II have both left our Solar System (at least I believe they have correct?), I think it will be possible for man to eventually leave it.
DarkGamer007
1. Those are probes, they are lighter than a manned spacecraft. It would take exponentially more fuel to propel a manned spacecraft to the nearest star system, not to mention the nearest habitable one.
2. Spaceflight isn't like flying an airplane, it's more like shooting a bullet. Once you're up you have a set trajectory, we haven't really perfected maneuvering thrusters for rockets enough for more than an A to B spaceflight, and even then the presence of stars, meteors, asteroids, and other phenomena comlicates things beyond what we can currently adjust for.
3. We also need supplies-food and water primarily-which means more fuel.
4. We also would need a system to fly to that is habitable, something we have not yet found with any of our deep space probes.
5. Even if we could build a rocket capable of maneuvering through space, stock it with supplies and people, and with enough fuel to make it safely it would still take far longer than a normal human lifetime, so unless we're thinking about starting a colony ship, which raises a whole new set of problems, or unless we develop a safe method of cryogenic freezing that allows for the ship to be manned, again with a set of problems all its own, then it is unfeasable. The nearest star is at least hundreds of light years away (someone smarter than me can give you an exact distance), meaning that even at the speed of light it would take a hundred years to get there, and remember that so far as we can tell there isn't a habitable planet in that star's system so the distance to the next habitable system, if we ever find it, will be even longer. I don't know how fast we're going in comparison to light speed right now, but it's not good. How fast a rocket travels is another thing someone else can tell you, but consider that it only travels at that speed long enough to break orbit, a few minutes I believe, and uses a tremendous amount of fuel just to do that. So, we need either light speed technology, human lifetimes that are most likely at least doubled, or cryogenic freezing, and this is IF we find a habitbale planet.
[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Oh, that is fruit that is too low-hanging even for me. I mean, betting on science to expand its knowledge and capacity based on the incremental growth we've seen, while believing it's also fundamentally incorrect about key issues such as Lorentz transforms? No... I like to correct clear errors, not **** on people's dreams. OK... I DO like to **** on people's dreams soemtimes, but what I'm reading from ad1x2 and many others is an expression of faith, and what do you say to that, which I haven't already posted?
Frame_Dragger
How is making people deal with reality ****ting on dreams? There are such things are realistic dreams. I really don't knowwhy accepting that we probably will never make it out of our solar system is seen as such an act of defeat, it's the same logic that says life is empty if there's no afterlife that I will never understand for the life of me. So we're probably a doomed species, so what, does that make our existence any less meaningful? I think just the opposite.
Yes, I agree, but since realistic dreams involve the human race living and dying on earth, and the eventual heat-death of the universe there can be some crossover. More than that, I was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to how such observations are often recieved. I mean, look at the posts before and after ours... what do I say that I haven't already? To explain why so much is possible, but this is an extreme example trending toward the astronomically unlikely requires either knowledge in the hands of both parties, or a desire to learn. In my experience, most people would rather believe as they will than learn and make an informed judgement. @DarkGamer007: V1 passed the termination shock, but I don't think it's fair to say you've left the solar system until you're past the Heliopause.So what? What is it about imminent death that makes everyone so depressed? I mean this seriously as well as humorously, why does everyone have to find it so depressing? We've known since probably before we realized that we were going to die someday, this is just the same realization on a bigger scale. And why does that mean that life seems less valuable to people? If our existence is shorter, then practically by definition it is more valuable than if we knew our species were going to exist for an eternity. Be happy, make the most of it, take it as motivation not to squander life or existence. There's really no reason to be depressed.
[QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]
I'm pretty sure we won't be leaving our solar system in my lifetime. At the current rate things are going (especially with NASA's budget) I doubt we'll even put a man on Mars in my lifetime. Or, if we do put a man on Mars before I die I'll probably be really old.
But on the other hand, who knows what we'll have in the year 3000. 200 years ago the idea that you could go from London to New York in a few hours was laughable. 20 years ago the idea that you could use your telephone as an alarm clock, a movie player, and about a million other things was laughable. Who knows what we will have in the year 2100 that people would laugh at you for thinking of today. For all we know by the year 2500 we might have found a way to make people live to be 300.
A lot of the reasons we think of stating why it will never, ever happen could be non-issues in a few centuries if our decendents think of ways to get around it. The current theory is that we may never go faster than the speed of light but nobody can say 100% what we can and can't do in a thousand years especially when you look at what we can do in 2011 versus what man could do in 1011. We won't live to see man leave the solar system but that doesn't men it will never happen in the history of mankind.
Took the words right out of my mouth. People need to realize that science is never 100% correct - look at scientists in the past, they believed things that we have now found are completely wrong.Scientists once believed that it was impossible to record sound waves, even when Edision demonstrated his phonograph, many thought he was simply a good ventriliquist;
That's good stuff... meanwhile the approximate speed of light was measured in the late 1600's. In the late-middle 1800's Maxwell essentially married light and the general EM field, although he thought it was a coincedence. Later, Einstein connected the dots in a very innovative way, in the very early 1900's *technically 1905*. To be really blunt, some things have been established and examined for a far longer time and with more rigor than others, and the material which has led to SR/GR is one of those things. You're talking about hundreds of years of incremental moves, with occasional leaps by folks like Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein. In many ways, the thing that was missing wasn't data about physical constants, but the math needed to bring it all together. That, or the person who had the vision to bring previously academic mathematical notions and systems together, to describe a system. B{y the way, I know the general public thought Edison was nuts, but which physicists exactly thought it was a fraud? The notion of sound as a mechanical wave was OLD by the time Edison made the phonograph, so I'm curious. I can't find any reference to scientists believing it was a fraud. I mean, sound waves were being exploited for recording (not replaying) a good 30 years before the phonograph so I find your claim odd.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="theone86"]
How is making people deal with reality ****ting on dreams? There are such things are realistic dreams. I really don't knowwhy accepting that we probably will never make it out of our solar system is seen as such an act of defeat, it's the same logic that says life is empty if there's no afterlife that I will never understand for the life of me. So we're probably a doomed species, so what, does that make our existence any less meaningful? I think just the opposite.
Yes, I agree, but since realistic dreams involve the human race living and dying on earth, and the eventual heat-death of the universe there can be some crossover. More than that, I was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to how such observations are often recieved. I mean, look at the posts before and after ours... what do I say that I haven't already? To explain why so much is possible, but this is an extreme example trending toward the astronomically unlikely requires either knowledge in the hands of both parties, or a desire to learn. In my experience, most people would rather believe as they will than learn and make an informed judgement. @DarkGamer007: V1 passed the termination shock, but I don't think it's fair to say you've left the solar system until you're past the Heliopause.So what? What is it about imminent death that makes everyone so depressed? I mean this seriously as well as humorously, why does everyone have to find it so depressing? We've known since probably before we realized that we were going to die someday, this is just the same realization on a bigger scale. And why does that mean that life seems less valuable to people? If our existence is shorter, then practically by definition it is more valuable than if we knew our species were going to exist for an eternity. Be happy, make the most of it, take it as motivation not to squander life or existence. There's really no reason to be depressed.
I find it massively depressing myself, but I don't find the ultimate fate of the universe troubling or related to my personal fears about death. As for why people seem to believe in the notion of infinite potential... well.. it's taught in lieu of actual science in many cases. People look at the creation of lighter than air craft as a qunatum leap in travel, as though people were not already sailing about like mad. There is also the issue of scaling; people don't understand, generally, how incredibly vast the distances are, or believe that FTL is inevitable. When you try to explain that they're arguing for time machines, they either don't understand, or don't care. When you try to explain issues of kinetic energy for a fast moving craft, the risks involved, the radiation exposure, the effect of microgravity... you're already describing more elements than they had thought of when they boldly asserted a magical notion. I enjoy discussions about science, but I have no interest in challenging the magical beliefs of those who have no interest, ability, knowledge needed to adress those beliefs. I'll correct glaring oversights or mistakes, and I'm happy to answer questions, but I'm not on some personal crusade. Besides, what does it matter for the most part what people believe? It changes nothing if a number of people think that Star Trek is a future-documentary; they weren't going to contribute to the sciences anyway.I really don't knowwhy accepting that we probably will never make it out of our solar system is seen as such an act of defeattheone86I can answer that for you. 1) It means that you'll never get to play the role of Han Solo, intergalactic badass who's kicking ass all across the galaxy. I think that many people are REALLY spoiled by watchng too many episodes of Star Trek and Doctor Who. 2) Faith. Faith in science vs faith in a god, which I really think serves the same exact purpose: a desire for everlasting life beyond what we have. Artists plan for their works and ideas to be accessible after they are dead. The religious expect to experience a life after death. In a modern age of technological and scientific marvels, the enlightened man can't POSSIBLY expect to live forever. So he instead believes that HUMANITY will live forever, and that his DESCENDANTS will eventually be hopping between stars and shooting alien gangsters in the face. Point is, it's a nice thing to believe for hopeful person who has rejecte religious faith. "If I can't expect to gain eternal life, then I can accept that. But surely there must be a way for HUMANITY to rise above its origins and gain a sort of immortality among the stars." It doesn't matter how much sense that dream makes, it's the dream of one who ejects death and oblivion. And that's fine, and it's pretty like a poem from someone who uses words really well. It's also COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC. It is really the very epitome of science fiction. Will it ever happen? I guess maybe that's possible. But show me someone who thinks that it's certain or even likely, and I'll show you someone who takes **** like Star Wars WAY too seriously.
Nobody here is naive enough to think we'll be flying to another solar system within the lifetime of anybody who is alive today. We won't live to see it but that doesn't mean in the year 6759 AD or whatever humans wouldn't have figured out something. By then we might have colonies on Pluto and are getting ready to launch a big mission to another star. Or, we might already be extinct from an asteroid hitting the Earth or a global nuclear war.
The best part about this thread is nobody here can say "I told you so" to the the other because we'll all be long dead by the time they do it, if it is ever done at all. All we can do is guess and speculate what might happen in the future. One thing I can say is if Back to the Future was accurate, I would have a hover board and a flying car in about four years. Neither one is going to happen.
I will guarantee there will be articles and Facebook groups along the lines of "Well Back to the Future, it's 2015, where are my hovering skateboards and flying cars?" x100000 with slightly different wordingNobody here is naive enough to think we'll be flying to another solar system within the lifetime of anybody who is alive today. We won't live to see it but that doesn't mean in the year 6759 AD or whatever humans wouldn't have figured out something. By then we might have colonies on Pluto and are getting ready to launch a big mission to another star. Or, we might already be extinct from an asteroid hitting the Earth or a global nuclear war.
The best part about this thread is nobody here can say "I told you so" to the the other because we'll all be long dead by the time they do it, if it is ever done at all. All we can do is guess and speculate what might happen in the future. One thing I can say is if Back to the Future was accurate, I would have a hover board and a flying car in about four years. Neither one is going to happen.
ad1x2
Frame, I see where you are coming from. You have a tonne of current scientific knowledge to back you up. However, how many things were thought to be impossible at the time and then a new scientific discovery blows it out of the water? It would be naive to think we know all we are going to know about space and space travel. We are also limited by our current technology, which is also evolving and growing everyday. I appreciate your knowledge, but open your mind to the possibilities the future will bringchaoscougar1Nice try cougar, very nice try; I salute the sincerity, and it's only from having read so many of your posts that I strongly suspect this is bait.
[QUOTE="theone86"]I really don't knowwhy accepting that we probably will never make it out of our solar system is seen as such an act of defeatMrGeezerI can answer that for you. 1) It means that you'll never get to play the role of Han Solo, intergalactic badass who's kicking ass all across the galaxy. I think that many people are REALLY spoiled by watchng too many episodes of Star Trek and Doctor Who. 2) Faith. Faith in science vs faith in a god, which I really think serves the same exact purpose: a desire for everlasting life beyond what we have. Artists plan for their works and ideas to be accessible after they are dead. The religious expect to experience a life after death. In a modern age of technological and scientific marvels, the enlightened man can't POSSIBLY expect to live forever. So he instead believes that HUMANITY will live forever, and that his DESCENDANTS will eventually be hopping between stars and shooting alien gangsters in the face. Point is, it's a nice thing to believe for hopeful person who has rejecte religious faith. "If I can't expect to gain eternal life, then I can accept that. But surely there must be a way for HUMANITY to rise above its origins and gain a sort of immortality among the stars." It doesn't matter how much sense that dream makes, it's the dream of one who ejects death and oblivion. And that's fine, and it's pretty like a poem from someone who uses words really well. It's also COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC. It is really the very epitome of science fiction. Will it ever happen? I guess maybe that's possible. But show me someone who thinks that it's certain or even likely, and I'll show you someone who takes **** like Star Wars WAY too seriously.
I think that's kinda my point. I don't get why certain religious people say that if there is no afterlife then life is meaningless, and I don't get people who think that just because humanity is doomed that existence/life is pointless. That means that life and existence are finite and therefore precious. Being depressed about such things is simply a waste, as you can't control them, and therefore are wasting precious moments of your life. It's no reason to be depressed, it's a reason to make the most of what you have.
space is called space for a reason. it's full of empty f***ing space. the closest stars to earth are a little over 4 light years away. that means travelling at the speed of light it would still take four years to get somewhere of any particular value.
and yes, there was that one experiments where they had a particle possibly travelling faster than light (supposedly, i have a hard time fully subscribing to this just yet), but that doesn't mean we will be able to create any vessel big enough to fit humans to even get close to the speed of ligh
I still don't understand the stubbornness. Why is it so crazy to believe that humans 2000 years in the future will have figured things out that we don't understand today? I think we can agree that the world was a completely different place 2000 years ago, so why completely deny the possiblity that the world will be completely different 2000 years in the future?
I get that you are educated on this subject and know more about physics and space than I probably ever will, but I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not fair to simply deny the very POSSIBILITY that we will advance beyond our capabilities today in two thousand frickin' years. That's a hell of a long time.
I still don't understand the stubbornness. Why is it so crazy to believe that humans 2000 years in the future will have figured things out that we don't understand today? I think we can agree that the world was a completely different place 2000 years ago, so why completely deny the possiblity that the world will be completely different 2000 years in the future?
I get that you are educated on this subject and know more about physics and space than I probably ever will, but I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not fair to simply deny the very POSSIBILITY that we will advance beyond our capabilities today in two thousand frickin' years. That's a hell of a long time.
Cheesehead9099
I think Freame Dragger has explained that pretty well already. In short, it's kinda like going to fifteenth century Europe and saying they should be able to fly within one hundred years. Just because technological advancement can happen fast doesn't mean ANY advancement can happen in X period of years.
Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun, is located 4.24 light-years away from us. The highest speed ever reached by a spacecraft was 250,000 kilometers per hour (the Helios probes), about 4320 times slower than light. At that speed, it would take more than 18,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri… Assuming there would be a new generation every 30 years on average, it would take a bit more than 610 generations to get there, and as many to come back… Of course, the population on the spaceship would have to be numerous enough to avoid inbreeding; you can then imagine that the number of people required for such a long mission is simply unrealistic, so would be the spaceship, the budget and the amount of energy required (this is probably the biggest problem)… You could assume that the technology will improve and allow faster speeds, yet the problem remains the same unless you reach relativistic speeds (which brings even bigger issues rather than make interstellar travels a possibility).
[QUOTE="Cheesehead9099"]
I still don't understand the stubbornness. Why is it so crazy to believe that humans 2000 years in the future will have figured things out that we don't understand today? I think we can agree that the world was a completely different place 2000 years ago, so why completely deny the possiblity that the world will be completely different 2000 years in the future?
I get that you are educated on this subject and know more about physics and space than I probably ever will, but I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not fair to simply deny the very POSSIBILITY that we will advance beyond our capabilities today in two thousand frickin' years. That's a hell of a long time.
theone86
I think Freame Dragger has explained that pretty well already. In short, it's kinda like going to fifteenth century Europe and saying they should be able to fly within one hundred years. Just because technological advancement can happen fast doesn't mean ANY advancement can happen in X period of years.
Frame dragger also explained that it would be impossible to travel such distances. And I explained that humans might not be around in 100-200 years.We will most likely discover FTL within the next thousand years.
Stringerboy
Current science says that FTL is impossible.
This thread reminds me of a Futurama scene where the Professor says, "Anything is impossible if you can imagine it, that's what being a scientist is all about!" and Qubert says, "No, that's what being a magical fairy is all about." There are no magical fairies, people.
We will most likely discover FTL within the next thousand years.
Stringerboy
I'm just amazed that someone can make this statement, which amounts to, "the second coming is nigh", and think that it can be left unjustified or explained. This thread is a perfect example of how science can be used by those who don't really understand its content OR method as an article of faith. I don't understand why people assume that their own lack of understanding or ability to predict events equates to limitless potential, instead of just representing a boundary condition on their knowledge and ability to comrehend the issue.
In this thread you have people describing a journey with challenges they're literally unaware of, yet in the face of that ignorance are still willing to make speciifc predictions. It's genuinely depressing when you realize that a majority of people are not only ignorant of basic issues related to a given scientific field and endevour, but in spite of that ignorance they feel confident making their own predictions. I challenge the people here expressing thoughtless optimism and pessimism to fully explain the basis for their position with rigor, and if you can't... why do REALLY believe what you do? Hint: it has nothing to do with historical trends, or science.
If we don't destroy ourselves first, then sure we'll leave the solar system. Eventually.
Maybe an exploration vessel could go a little beyond our solar system, but it will definitely will not make a trip back. Wowever I see as an implaussible thing that we will reach another planet OUT of our solar system. ...Unless we get to createm control and use Einstein-Rosen bridges..curono
By definition an ERB is non-traversable.
@HoolaHoopMan: I'm sure that in 100 years many unforeseen advances could arise, but fundamental physics really hasn't changed in ways that people seem to think. Yes, Einstein replaced Newton, but in terms of what the equations say about the motion of the planets, or getting from point A to B didn't change much.
To get a human being out of the solar system would either require building and fueling on a scale that is almost inconceivable now for literally NO return on investment, or perfection of human hibernation/stasis. In the former case, the amount of air, water, food, etc... to get ONE human out of the solar system would be VAST. You would need novel ways to shield from interstellar radiation, and either materials that can withstand tremendous impacts, or the development of star trek -esque shielding. All of that would require energy and maintenance, and so forth.
The idea that sending a handful of people in a capsule .0024 AU a handful of times even RELATES to the challenges of extra-solar travel (or even travel beyond the inner planets) is almost insane.
The "cheat" used by many here is to assume that time needs to be reduced for the journey, and that means getting as close to 'c' (light speed) as possible. What seems to escape these people is that interstellar dust moving relative to a craft at a respectable fraction of 'c' hits HARD. A pebble would hit like a ******g truck, and you would lose all communications with Earth. In addition, if the craft is long enough, and the speed is fast enough you would have Relativistic effect between ends of the craft.
For those who think we'll pop through wormholes, or discover a warp drive... remember, you're also saying, "We will perfect time travel, and eliminate causality." Unless your wormhole or drive can only go in ONE direction, it's a time machine (in the sense of travel to the past). You wouldn't just be overturning SR/GR and QM... you'd be going against observations of 13 billion years that indicate a CONSTANT thermodynamic arrow of time that does NOT reverse. You would have to engage in paradox, and you'd have to explain why we haven't met any time travelers.
Before the next poster wipes all of that away with, "you never know"... at least ACKNOWLEDGE what the aspirations and claims here mean. It's not about current human knowledge, but the large and small scale structures of the universe. It's about why cups fall and break every time, and they never un-break themselves, if you catch my drift. If you think people are going to find a way to functionally bypass causality, you might as well just say that you think god will give us a magic space-chariot.
Eventually it could happen, but I think we will be exctinct before that point comes.
There are some who say we can't, some who say it's inevitable, some who say we must, and no one yet who says we mustn't. It's all very interesting. Strangely, it's a religious topic in a way! One religious camp is the camp of the technologists, "religion of science" people. These people have no doubt that science will find a way. It's inevitable. Just look back at history, and then to the present--can't you see the trend? Can't you see that what was once deemed impossible is now common place? Another religious camp is the camp of the inviolability of the LAWS of physics. What we do know about physics, they say, can not simply be abrogated or falsified--it is proven and has stood the test of time. New scientific theories may cause a revolution in the metaphysics underlying science, but they do not invalidate the old theories in their realm of applicability. For example, Newtonian physics still holds good at speeds much less than c--which is most speeds we know. We won't ever "discover" that Newton's laws just simply "don't apply". And another religious camp is the camp of the esoteric, of folding space and worm holes and warp drive. Of entirely new realms of reality in which the limitations of regular space-time do not apply. They point to string-theory and quantum cosmology and other such very cutting edge musings by physicists.Tykain
No Tykain... one camp believes in infinite possibility, and as you say beleives that science is a god to pray to. The other camp however is not betting on the laws of physics as we define them; we already KNOW that SR/GR and QM FAIL at key points... they are wrong. It's one thing to say that our understanding of the universe will radically change, and it is likely to if we live long enough, and another to believe those changes will be what people seem to expect, or be something we can exploit to achieve our dreams. Frankly, each deeper understanding of basical physical principles has hemmed us in MORE at the scale of what is being discussed here; it has not offered us hope of time travel. Still, this camp, my camp, understands that, "All theories are wrong," that we DON'T know... we also don't think that progress must equal progress toward this specific goal. This is not a religious camp, this is actual physics, and may seem arcane to those who don't understand it. There is no faith to be found here, only endless debate.
In the third camp, you have no religion, just people who think that what they see on tv and read in fiction is an inevitability, because SOME of it has come to pass. Folding space and wormholes is actually a respectable area of physics, just not wormholes in the way that people want a la star trek. String Theory is not religious either, just a way to try and explore the consequences of altering the notion of point-particles to 1 dimensional strings at a scale we are unlikely to EVER explore. That it's out of our reach means that it is considered somwhat in the realm of physics and math, and somewhat metaphysical, but it's interesting and contributes to science and math in key ways.
In other words, you have the middle group who ascribe to science and the scientific method, and live in a state of uncertainty and skepticism. We work with what we have, but that doesn't mean we think it's the endgame, or that one has to exist. This has no faith involved as a rule, but individuals differ.
The first group is the religion of ignorance.
The third group is simply misinformed, neither religious nor skeptical, but having been taught to hope they extend current observation and invented trends to absurd extremes.
Considering all of the things required for that to happen, from the very long-term survival of humanity in the face of nuclear warfare and environmental destruction, to inconceivable advances in propulsion and bio-technology, I would have to say no. I say no despite the fact that I'm generally an optimist.
I would say that the only way humanity has any shot in hell is if we begin to genetically engineer irrationality out of our offspring. Otherwise, on a stellar time scale, we'll be goners fairly shortly.
When the time we build a space ship that travels at speeds where it takes mere minutes to get to the moon, or hrs get to mars, Then possibility YES. but at insane speeds speeds like that will need to build some type of system to allow someone to survive that. In 100 years i think it's possible BUT will resources be put in to do it? no. right know they are more worried about be able go to the moon and turning it into a miners dream. and putting condos on the moon that only bill gates can afford. Also gravity is on their side lol. in space once speeds are reached. only time fuel needs be used is to steering. but hey lets be 4real at those speeds you would want a force field to be your shield lol.
BUT then again we are detroying are selfs... Once a war breaks out say good by to the world. it's estimated only 500 nukes the size what happan in japan would flatten the world. Guess how many u.s has? only estimated 30,000-50,000...
k2theswiss
given the human restrictions humans will more than likley not travel to the moon in minutes, or mars in hours. currently the fastest we've made it to lunar orbit was in 9hrs (new horizons) but humans physically cannot endure a g load to make it in minutes (not without some genetic engineering of some sort.).
your post is a little incoherent, propellant is used throughout the operational life of a spacecraft to maintain attitude control as well as prevent momentum wheel saturation (depending on the vehicle of course, and advances in electric propulsion make this process far more efficient)
im not sure where you are getting your numbers from....500 nukes would not flatten the planet. especially if they are only the size of those dropped on japan (small by todays standards), while im not sure its the most reputable source here is a link that provides vastly different numbers than....500....http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-i-learnt-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/ (cant link)
and TC please use units with your numbers, they are otherwise meaningless.
on topic, yeah we will get out of the solar system eventually, assuming we dont become extinct first to due to any number of catastrophes (500 nukes wont do it). its just what humans do, we are ever expanding our reach into the cosmos
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment