Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!
Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!
Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..
Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.
White's paper is certainly entertaining and thought provoking, but doesn't appear even to begin to address the problem of finding or making matter with a negative energy density.
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!
Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..
Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.
White's paper is certainly entertaining and thought provoking, but doesn't appear even to begin to address the problem of finding or making matter with a negative energy density.
Well I was watching the science channel ( not to be confused with the SYFY channel ) and they were talking about this very issue. There are people looking into this also. Like I've said though even if they put all of the pieces together for Warp Drive there are other issues like how would the ship navigate? How would you deal with fast moving interstellar debris? What would the ship be made of? Certainly something stronger than material we commonly use now. So I don't see this happening any time soon but it's a good start when compared to just a short while ago when a way around the speed of light was considered impossible.
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!
Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..
Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.
Quote:
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Well someones already cynical. I've never stated that this was just around the corner. I do think because of this research it's closer than thousands of years. Hundreds or less maybe. At any rate it's fundamentally different than just saying it's impossible and there's no evidence to support it. That's what they were saying just a few years ago.
Awesome stuff. Warp Drive. Faster Than Light. 100 Years. Doable. Then again, think of the sickos that would use this to annihilate entire planets. Hence my theories above regarding evolving enough to use the tech without destroying ourselves. The first phase of the galactic "quarantine".
PS I love that stuff how the warp bubble is a donut instead of sphere. That's like how our iPads are so rich in colour compared to the PADDs of 'Trek. Truth stranger than fiction and all that.
Well someones already cynical. I've never stated that this was just around the corner. I do think because of this research it's closer than thousands of years. Hundreds or less maybe. At any rate it's fundamentally different than just saying it's impossible and there's no evidence to support it. That's what they were saying just a few years ago.
That's like someone in 200AD saying that light bulbs are closer than thousands of years away. You can't tell until someone figures out how to do it. We can barely keep nuclear power plants under control, you really think they'll be able to use 1600lb of mass-energy to warp space-time in a controlled way? The mass-energy of the bomb that flattened Hiroshima was around 600 milligrams:
They are talking about 725kg = 1200 nuclear bombs. And this is just to distort the fabric of space to move the thing. They have to keep distorting space through the whole journey.
No matter if it's in a timeframe long after we all die, I still wouldn't get my hopes up. As mentioned, people with access to that amount of energy could easily wipe out an entire planet, even unintentionally.
I think as far as scientific efforts and the finances used to support them go, everybody just needs to take a step back and see that there are more important things to be focusing on than shooting something very quickly out into a vast area of empty space in the hope that we come across something beneficial.
The problems we have are right here and so are many of the solutions to them.
Well someones already cynical. I've never stated that this was just around the corner. I do think because of this research it's closer than thousands of years. Hundreds or less maybe. At any rate it's fundamentally different than just saying it's impossible and there's no evidence to support it. That's what they were saying just a few years ago.
That's like someone in 200AD saying that light bulbs are closer than thousands of years away. You can't tell until someone figures out how to do it. We can barely keep nuclear power plants under control, you really think they'll be able to use 1600lb of mass-energy to warp space-time in a controlled way? The mass-energy of the bomb that flattened Hiroshima was around 600 milligrams:
They are talking about 725kg = 1200 nuclear bombs. And this is just to distort the fabric of space to move the thing. They have to keep distorting space through the whole journey.
No matter if it's in a timeframe long after we all die, I still wouldn't get my hopes up. As mentioned, people with access to that amount of energy could easily wipe out an entire planet, even unintentionally.
I think as far as scientific efforts and the finances used to support them go, everybody just needs to take a step back and see that there are more important things to be focusing on than shooting something very quickly out into a vast area of empty space in the hope that we come across something beneficial.
The problems we have are right here and so are many of the solutions to them.
Sigh! Marvin you've forgotten one tiny thing in your analogy. Scientific progress is moving multiple times faster now than it was in 200 A.D. That's an established fact since the start of the industrial revolution we've made more progress than in all of the rest of human history that came before. As a matter of fact it's still speeding up exponentially. So bad analogy.
In his 1999 book The Age of Spiritual Machines Kurzweil proposed "The Law of Accelerating Returns", according to which the rate of change in a wide variety of evolutionary systems (including but not limited to the growth of technologies) tends to increase exponentially.[6] He gave further focus to this issue in a 2001 essay entitled "The Law of Accelerating Returns"[7] which argued for extending Moore's Law to describe exponential growth of diverse forms of technological progress. Whenever a technology approaches some kind of a barrier, according to Kurzweil, a new technology will be invented to allow us to cross that barrier
Also it's been proven that space exploration is as beneficial as war or more so ( since it's not based on better ways to kill people ) to progress and finding solutions for mankind's problems.
Scientific progress is moving multiple times faster now than it was in 200 A.D. That's an established fact since the start of the industrial revolution we've made more progress than in all of the rest of human history that came before. As a matter of fact it's still speeding up exponentially. So bad analogy.
The point wasn't about the length of time but that problem solving isn't always simply a matter of waiting long enough. If someone said they had a problem with the position of the sun and we needed to move it, it doesn't matter if human progress has sped up exponentially and we wait another 10,000 years, we simply don't have the capacity to move worlds around as we please. We similarly don't have the capacity to distort space. We certainly can't put an arbitrary timeframe on when it's likely to happen. You'd be as well saying a million years as a thousand.
Also it's been proven that space exploration is as beneficial as war or more so ( since it's not based on better ways to kill people ) to progress and finding solutions for mankind's problems.
It could be done more cost-effectively if they applied the R&D directly to the problems we have though. Right now there are scientists working on these problems of space travel when they could be working on renewable energy solutions.
Scientific progress is moving multiple times faster now than it was in 200 A.D. That's an established fact since the start of the industrial revolution we've made more progress than in all of the rest of human history that came before. As a matter of fact it's still speeding up exponentially. So bad analogy.
The point wasn't about the length of time but that problem solving isn't always simply a matter of waiting long enough. If someone said they had a problem with the position of the sun and we needed to move it, it doesn't matter if human progress has sped up exponentially and we wait another 10,000 years, we simply don't have the capacity to move worlds around as we please. We similarly don't have the capacity to distort space. We certainly can't put an arbitrary timeframe on when it's likely to happen. You'd be as well saying a million years as a thousand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Also it's been proven that space exploration is as beneficial as war or more so ( since it's not based on better ways to kill people ) to progress and finding solutions for mankind's problems.
It could be done more cost-effectively if they applied the R&D directly to the problems we have though. Right now there are scientists working on these problems of space travel when they could be working on renewable energy solutions.
Who's talking about moving worlds around? Did you read the most recent stuff in that article? White has reduced the amount of power necessary to to do this from energy the size of Jupiter to energy equivalent to the size of the Voyager space craft!
Quote:
They are talking about 725kg = 1200 nuclear bombs. And this is just to distort the fabric of space to move the thing. They have to keep distorting space through the whole journey.
You do realize there are natural objects out there right now that distort space in a simliar fashion right now so why is this a problem?
What do you think a gravity well is? And black holes have pretty big ones.
A quote :
Quote:
And in fact, White says that the warp drive could be powered by a mass that's even less than that of the Voyager 1 spacecraft.
Also you seem worried about this tech falling into the wrong hands. Well it's always been that way with progress. When humans discovered fire they had the potential to burn down the Forrest. Essentially their world at the time. We now have the ability to sterilize the entire planet several times over. So being able to take out a planet seems like a moot point. We're already in a position to wipe out everything living here. How much worse do the consequences of misuse have to get? My attitude is that knowledge is a tool. There's always the potential for that tool to be used for evil. It's always been that way and it always will be. I simply don't think we should stop learning because of that. If we should then we should be back running around naked in the tall grass waiting for lightning to strike so we could have a fire.
Quote:
Right now there are scientists working on these problems of space travel when they could be working on renewable energy solutions.
That's a very subjective stance. I'd try to tell you how the two are linked and once we become a space faring society ( which we will ) it will benefit those same issues you're worrying about. But I'm guessing you've already made up your mind. About a hundred years from now people will be wondering how they got along without space travel. That's my attitude.
And this is just a tiny portion you can learn about the benefits of space travel. And the cost sounds like a lot but when you break down what we've been spending by comparison people in America spend 3 times the budget of the space program every year on cigarettes. The welfare dept. spends it every 8 days. And we shouldn't even talk about the military. With space exploration you get a lot of bang for your buck and it's getting cheaper all of the time.
You seem to act like this stuff is thousands of years off. It's not. Some of it's here already. And it won't take 10,0000 years to get to the stars. All through out human history it's always been we've needed to do something then we find a way to do it. That hasn't changed.
On a side note the will to see what's out there in another solar system will only increase once we spot an earth like planet out there ( we're coming close already ). And that will probably happen sometime in the next 10 years or so.
The fact that progress is moving faster is scary. It's a race between our growing up and our acquisition of knowledge. Myself I'm very optimistic about the future and I think we're up to the challenge.
Who's talking about moving worlds around? Did you read the most recent stuff in that article? White has reduced the amount of power necessary to to do this from energy the size of Jupiter to energy equivalent to the size of the Voyager space craft!
That's still a lot of energy. We're not talking about burning a bag of coal that size. It's like a nuclear explosion using material of that size. Deploying that amount of energy without knowing how to control it could easily wipe out the entire world. That's also not the energy it would take to travel the whole distance, just to create the effect. If it can't sustain itself, that energy would have to be used repeatedly.
It would be a good excuse for disarming the world of nuclear weapons and explode them all at once but if it only moves an egg a few feet, it's going to feel like a bit of a letdown. I'm not sure the egg will survive to tell the tale either.
You do realize there are natural objects out there right now that distort space in a simliar fashion right now so why is this a problem?
There are suns and stars out there, are you saying it should be possible for us to recreate them without a problem? Or is a black hole somehow easier to recreate?
being able to take out a planet seems like a moot point. We're already in a position to wipe out everything living here.
Not by just turning the ignition. Also, who's 'we'? I'm not in a position to wipe out everything. If I were, there would be some changes getting implemented real quick.
I simply don't think we should stop learning because of that.
Learning is about prioritizing. You can spend your life studying the mating rituals of the Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat (not even made up btw) and call it learning but if it's not practical, it's wasting time and money that could be better spent on more important things.
Now you could say how do I know it's not practical when we could stumble on something in the process. I base it on the facts that we've spent a long time looking into space and haven't found anything worhwhile and the problems needing to be overcome for this venture are incredibly difficult.
once we become a space faring society ( which we will ) it will benefit those same issues you're worrying about. But I'm guessing you've already made up your mind. About a hundred years from now people will be wondering how they got along without space travel. That's my attitude.
I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
All through out human history it's always been we've needed to do something then we find a way to do it. That hasn't changed.
True, we wipe feces off ourselves on a daily basis with handfuls of paper now. To think we'd have had to use leaves or our bare hands just a few millenia ago. How far we've come. Given the acceleration of human progress, there's bound to be something better within the next... oh let's say hundred years.
True, we wipe feces off ourselves on a daily basis with handfuls of paper now. To think we'd have had to use leaves or our bare hands just a few millenia ago. How far we've come. Given the acceleration of human progress, there's bound to be something better within the next... oh let's say hundred years.
Some of us have ALREADY improved upon the "handfuls of paper".
The point wasn't about the length of time but that problem solving isn't always simply a matter of waiting long enough. If someone said they had a problem with the position of the sun and we needed to move it, it doesn't matter if human progress has sped up exponentially and we wait another 10,000 years, we simply don't have the capacity to move worlds around as we please. We similarly don't have the capacity to distort space. We certainly can't put an arbitrary timeframe on when it's likely to happen. You'd be as well saying a million years as a thousand.
Oh, we'll be able to move stars around in 10,000 years. Without lifting a finger. That's a possibility.
That's still a lot of energy. We're not talking about burning a bag of coal that size. It's like a nuclear explosion using material of that size. Deploying that amount of energy without knowing how to control it could easily wipe out the entire world. That's also not the energy it would take to travel the whole distance, just to create the effect. If it can't sustain itself, that energy would have to be used repeatedly.
That's how the galactic community is designed. We either make it or break it. We've already horribly broken the planet. Either we find somewhere else or game over.
I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
Space tourism as it is now is a novelty of sorts, like when you could fly across the Atlantic in a tiny plane with literally no margin for error. People thought it was fun but stupid, because you had good ol' steam ships. Space tourism to sub-orbits will lead to (A) space tourism and colonisation of Mars within 50 years, the solar system within 100 years, and (B) sub-orbital intercontinental flights. Eg. Sydney-LA, London-Tokyo in a matter of a few hours by 2100.
Certainly not the components needed for a warp engine.
We're in a unique time in our history where we're close enough that while it is not guaranteed, within the space of 200 years, it is very likely. From manufacturing techniques, to understanding of physics, to computing power to process and manage such technology, etc... Plus the drive (pun intended) to do it, like I mentioned, we've worn out our use-by date on this planet by very, very far.
If a billion Chinese started living like Americans tomorrow, there literally will be no more planet to live on, not in any form we are familiar with.
So as I outlined, there are three paths: status quo, ie, something our generation might not enjoy very much, or, singularity, ie. offload bodies to servers, or, faster-than-light colonisation of other planets, "Super-Earths" that can then hold more billions of people, etc.
We've already horribly broken the planet... colonisation of Mars within 50 years
It doesn't make much sense to me though that we'd leave a habitable planet claiming that it's broken to end up on a planet with no breathable atmosphere, 1/3 of the gravity, no vegetation, no water, an atmospheric pressure that won't allow us to use typical electronics or maintain a water supply and average temperatures of -50C. Frankly, I'd rather share a bunk-bed with a Chinaman.
If we do become over-crowded, we can always just have a sterilisation program, a world war or just encourage older people to take up extreme sports. Whatever problems seem insurmountable on Earth, it's still by far the best option we have.
If we eventually do get terraforming worked out, wouldn't it be better to use the planet we already have? It's closer for a start.
It doesn't make much sense to me though that we'd leave a habitable planet claiming that it's broken to end up on a planet with no breathable atmosphere, 1/3 of the gravity, no vegetation, no water, an atmospheric pressure that won't allow us to use typical electronics or maintain a water supply and average temperatures of -50C. Frankly, I'd rather share a bunk-bed with a Chinaman.
If we do become over-crowded, we can always just have a sterilisation program, a world war or just encourage older people to take up extreme sports. Whatever problems seem insurmountable on Earth, it's still by far the best option we have.
If we eventually do get terraforming worked out, wouldn't it be better to use the planet we already have? It's closer for a start.
Well, by that reasoning, perhaps in 200 years it will be 50-50... The Earth may be so messed up and terraforming Mars may become rather possible.
The problems of Earth in 200 years will probably be far more shocking than you mention if humanity is on its current trajectory.
As for terraforming, terraforming the Earth itself... Hmm... it could be like stuffing a PowerPC G5 into a mobile phone. Better to start with an ARM and scale up.
Who's talking about moving worlds around? Did you read the most recent stuff in that article? White has reduced the amount of power necessary to to do this from energy the size of Jupiter to energy equivalent to the size of the Voyager space craft!
That's still a lot of energy. We're not talking about burning a bag of coal that size. It's like a nuclear explosion using material of that size. Deploying that amount of energy without knowing how to control it could easily wipe out the entire world. That's also not the energy it would take to travel the whole distance, just to create the effect. If it can't sustain itself, that energy would have to be used repeatedly.
It would be a good excuse for disarming the world of nuclear weapons and explode them all at once but if it only moves an egg a few feet, it's going to feel like a bit of a letdown. I'm not sure the egg will survive to tell the tale either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
You do realize there are natural objects out there right now that distort space in a similar fashion right now so why is this a problem?
There are suns and stars out there, are you saying it should be possible for us to recreate them without a problem? Or is a black hole somehow easier to recreate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
being able to take out a planet seems like a moot point. We're already in a position to wipe out everything living here.
Not by just turning the ignition. Also, who's 'we'? I'm not in a position to wipe out everything. If I were, there would be some changes getting implemented real quick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
I simply don't think we should stop learning because of that.
Learning is about prioritizing. You can spend your life studying the mating rituals of the Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat (not even made up btw) and call it learning but if it's not practical, it's wasting time and money that could be better spent on more important things.
Now you could say how do I know it's not practical when we could stumble on something in the process. I base it on the facts that we've spent a long time looking into space and haven't found anything worhwhile and the problems needing to be overcome for this venture are incredibly difficult.
Quote:
once we become a space faring society ( which we will ) it will benefit those same issues you're worrying about. But I'm guessing you've already made up your mind. About a hundred years from now people will be wondering how they got along without space travel. That's my attitude.
I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
You seem to act like this stuff is thousands of years off. It's not. Some of it's here already. And it won't take 10,0000 years to get to the stars.
Some of what is here already? Batteries? Telescopes? Minty toothpaste? Certainly not the components needed for a warp engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
All through out human history it's always been we've needed to do something then we find a way to do it. That hasn't changed.
True, we wipe feces off ourselves on a daily basis with handfuls of paper now. To think we'd have had to use leaves or our bare hands just a few millenia ago. How far we've come. Given the acceleration of human progress, there's bound to be something better within the next... oh let's say hundred years.
Quote:
I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
Yeah! Just like that air travel thing did!
Australia is fine but how about somewhere no one from here has been before? That has been the driving force for exploration and travel in the early days of human history and it's becoming next to impossible if you stick to just this planet. The way I view it we just can't stay in the womb forever. If we did we become stagnant and die. Also you really can't ignore that we're in space already ( most people don't get this ). It's all around us right now. Ignoring it's there is just ignoring what's around you ( and when have humans been good at things doing that? ). Why put all of your eggs in one basket? That's just dumb. Say an asteroid comes along ( which has happened many times in earth's history ) wipes out everything? If you're stuck to just one world there goes the human race.
You know when reading your comments ( which everyone is entitled to their opinion ) you seem to be contrary just for the sake of it. Either that or you genuinely just don't think in very big terms. Anyway it's very subjective. I've offered plenty of third party evidence for my side how about offering the same for your claims.
Ps. If you're really worried about this world going to pot how about moving all of those factories up into earth orbit?
Australia is fine but how about somewhere no one from here has been before?
Well you could ask Susan Boyle out on a date but some uncharted territory is uncharted for a reason. Some people have this drive to be the first to step on new land but you're really just standing in the middle of nowhere with a flag. It's like those 'first' comments in threads; where's the achievement? It's only an achievement if they find something useful and I have a feeling that we are going to be finding a lot of dusty rocks. If they find rare and valuable minerals then there's some benefit but they still have to get them back to us.
The way I view it we just can't stay in the womb forever. If we did we become stagnant and die.
What progress are we going to make, living in those harsher conditions though? You could start a new town in the middle of the desert but you are taking so many steps back before you can go forward.
It obviously had to start like this anyway but we're now quite well developed. I don't see an urgency to find distant planets to populate. Think of the latency online gamers will have to deal with. Those people would most likely be entirely cut-off from us.
So many problems: a stable economy, jobs, agriculture, sanitation, healthcare, the list goes on and on. It's like starting at square one again and for what ultimate benefit? Aren't we just going to end up doing pretty much what we do on Earth but somewhere else?
Also you really can't ignore that we're in space already ( most people don't get this ). It's all around us right now.
If we assume that the universe has come about through the process of natural change, what's out there is nothing more than a billion ways on how not to support human life. What we have here was the successful attempt. Why rummage through the rejects?
For whatever reason, we humans are a few feet in size and the galaxy is about a billion billion billion times that. I don't see that as a challenge in much the same way I don't see a sumo wrestler as a challenge. I just think some things are practically insurmountable and any attempt is just going to be painful. If I could see a goal state that made it compelling perhaps I'd see it differently.
When I read about the technical challenges involved in putting an actual dent in the universe, I see it as an insurmountable problem and I don't see any worthwhile goal. Our only goal in life is the achievement of happiness. We don't need to find another species to tell us we are part of a video game. 'The machine' isn't artificial, it's just a description of what we are. We are all just little hard drives connecting common sets of information to form a collective knowledge and understanding.
The sum total of it so far is to just make survival more pleasant. Convenient food, a nice warm house, easy ways to keep in contact with friends, it all just narrows down to getting up in the morning and the little sparks in your head reacting in a positive way. There's absolutely no need to tear everything down and start over again.
Say an asteroid comes along ( which has happened many times in earth's history ) wipes out everything? If you're stuck to just one world there goes the human race.
On the plus side, nobody would be left to complain about it.
Australia is fine but how about somewhere no one from here has been before?
Well you could ask Susan Boyle out on a date but some uncharted territory is uncharted for a reason. Some people have this drive to be the first to step on new land but you're really just standing in the middle of nowhere with a flag. It's like those 'first' comments in threads; where's the achievement? It's only an achievement if they find something useful and I have a feeling that we are going to be finding a lot of dusty rocks. If they find rare and valuable minerals then there's some benefit but they still have to get them back to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
The way I view it we just can't stay in the womb forever. If we did we become stagnant and die.
What progress are we going to make, living in those harsher conditions though? You could start a new town in the middle of the desert but you are taking so many steps back before you can go forward.
It obviously had to start like this anyway but we're now quite well developed. I don't see an urgency to find distant planets to populate. Think of the latency online gamers will have to deal with. Those people would most likely be entirely cut-off from us.
So many problems: a stable economy, jobs, agriculture, sanitation, healthcare, the list goes on and on. It's like starting at square one again and for what ultimate benefit? Aren't we just going to end up doing pretty much what we do on Earth but somewhere else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Also you really can't ignore that we're in space already ( most people don't get this ). It's all around us right now.
If we assume that the universe has come about through the process of natural change, what's out there is nothing more than a billion ways on how not to support human life. What we have here was the successful attempt. Why rummage through the rejects?
For whatever reason, we humans are a few feet in size and the galaxy is about a billion billion billion times that. I don't see that as a challenge in much the same way I don't see a sumo wrestler as a challenge. I just think some things are practically insurmountable and any attempt is just going to be painful. If I could see a goal state that made it compelling perhaps I'd see it differently.
When I read about the technical challenges involved in putting an actual dent in the universe, I see it as an insurmountable problem and I don't see any worthwhile goal. Our only goal in life is the achievement of happiness. We don't need to find another species to tell us we are part of a video game. 'The machine' isn't artificial, it's just a description of what we are. We are all just little hard drives connecting common sets of information to form a collective knowledge and understanding.
The sum total of it so far is to just make survival more pleasant. Convenient food, a nice warm house, easy ways to keep in contact with friends, it all just narrows down to getting up in the morning and the little sparks in your head reacting in a positive way. There's absolutely no need to tear everything down and start over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Say an asteroid comes along ( which has happened many times in earth's history ) wipes out everything? If you're stuck to just one world there goes the human race.
On the plus side, nobody would be left to complain about it.
Well I still haven't seen any 3rd party support or any links. I guess as I said this is just your opinion ( you're entitled ). Also as I've said space exploration would help with many ( if not all ) of the problems you seem to care about however it's clear you wouldn't entertain the idea. I'm glad there aren't too many that share it anymore as I've fought against this kind of thinking all of my life ( I'm 59 now so this kind of thinking was more prevalent when I was younger on the positive side not so much now ). Thank you for your opinion. I'm glad you're comfortable in your life.
Our only goal in life is the achievement of happiness...
That's just it. For some people, happiness is looking across the red, dusty plains of Mars, knowing that you helped move humankind beyond our birth planet. Sure, there's fear and worry and pain living somewhere (initially) uninhabitable, but there are people in Antarctica for a reason.
I've said space exploration would help with many ( if not all ) of the problems you seem to care about however it's clear you wouldn't entertain the idea.
If we are able to achieve very fast travel and efficiently convert small amounts of matter into huge quantities of energy in a safe way, it has huge benefits on Earth. You could go anywhere in the world in a very short period of time and we could power entire countries with ease and without pollution. This Earth should be the focal point though.
[VIDEO]
Space exploration has opened our eyes to the fact that we are a minute part of a huge system and I think there are times we should accept our limitations rather than expend countless resources in a futile attempt to overcome them. That isn't being defeatist, it's just picking the right battles to fight. When someone says they need the mass-energy equivalent of 1200 nuclear weapons to make something work, it's time to say 'go work on something else'.
Scientific advances like fitting billions of bits of information into a thumb-sized device or splitting the atom might lead people to believe we can do anything we set our minds to. Maybe we can but we still have to think about the end-game. Perhaps we could blast 50 people off to HD 40307 to start a new civilization using a warp drive. What happens next?
Just saying that we should make copies of ourselves all across the universe in case something goes wrong here isn't enough because it makes an assumption that our existence has purpose beyond existence itself. As per the anthropic principle, the observable universe has no description without an observer so it's really inconsequential whether we're here or not.
Comments
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!
Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..
Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.
White's paper is certainly entertaining and thought provoking, but doesn't appear even to begin to address the problem of finding or making matter with a negative energy density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!
Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..
Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.
White's paper is certainly entertaining and thought provoking, but doesn't appear even to begin to address the problem of finding or making matter with a negative energy density.
Well I was watching the science channel ( not to be confused with the SYFY channel ) and they were talking about this very issue. There are people looking into this also. Like I've said though even if they put all of the pieces together for Warp Drive there are other issues like how would the ship navigate? How would you deal with fast moving interstellar debris? What would the ship be made of? Certainly something stronger than material we commonly use now. So I don't see this happening any time soon but it's a good start when compared to just a short while ago when a way around the speed of light was considered impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!
Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..
Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.
Quote:
Yeah, all they need is:
a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble
Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Well someones already cynical. I've never stated that this was just around the corner. I do think because of this research it's closer than thousands of years. Hundreds or less maybe. At any rate it's fundamentally different than just saying it's impossible and there's no evidence to support it. That's what they were saying just a few years ago.
PS
I love that stuff how the warp bubble is a donut instead of sphere. That's like how our iPads are so rich in colour compared to the PADDs of 'Trek. Truth stranger than fiction and all that.
That's like someone in 200AD saying that light bulbs are closer than thousands of years away. You can't tell until someone figures out how to do it. We can barely keep nuclear power plants under control, you really think they'll be able to use 1600lb of mass-energy to warp space-time in a controlled way? The mass-energy of the bomb that flattened Hiroshima was around 600 milligrams:
http://socyberty.com/history/hiroshima-67-years-on/
They are talking about 725kg = 1200 nuclear bombs. And this is just to distort the fabric of space to move the thing. They have to keep distorting space through the whole journey.
No matter if it's in a timeframe long after we all die, I still wouldn't get my hopes up. As mentioned, people with access to that amount of energy could easily wipe out an entire planet, even unintentionally.
I think as far as scientific efforts and the finances used to support them go, everybody just needs to take a step back and see that there are more important things to be focusing on than shooting something very quickly out into a vast area of empty space in the hope that we come across something beneficial.
The problems we have are right here and so are many of the solutions to them.
That's how the "system" is supposed to work for this galactic community...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Well someones already cynical. I've never stated that this was just around the corner. I do think because of this research it's closer than thousands of years. Hundreds or less maybe. At any rate it's fundamentally different than just saying it's impossible and there's no evidence to support it. That's what they were saying just a few years ago.
That's like someone in 200AD saying that light bulbs are closer than thousands of years away. You can't tell until someone figures out how to do it. We can barely keep nuclear power plants under control, you really think they'll be able to use 1600lb of mass-energy to warp space-time in a controlled way? The mass-energy of the bomb that flattened Hiroshima was around 600 milligrams:
http://socyberty.com/history/hiroshima-67-years-on/
They are talking about 725kg = 1200 nuclear bombs. And this is just to distort the fabric of space to move the thing. They have to keep distorting space through the whole journey.
No matter if it's in a timeframe long after we all die, I still wouldn't get my hopes up. As mentioned, people with access to that amount of energy could easily wipe out an entire planet, even unintentionally.
I think as far as scientific efforts and the finances used to support them go, everybody just needs to take a step back and see that there are more important things to be focusing on than shooting something very quickly out into a vast area of empty space in the hope that we come across something beneficial.
The problems we have are right here and so are many of the solutions to them.
Sigh! Marvin you've forgotten one tiny thing in your analogy. Scientific progress is moving multiple times faster now than it was in 200 A.D. That's an established fact since the start of the industrial revolution we've made more progress than in all of the rest of human history that came before. As a matter of fact it's still speeding up exponentially. So bad analogy.
A little stuff on this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change
Quote:
In his 1999 book The Age of Spiritual Machines Kurzweil proposed "The Law of Accelerating Returns", according to which the rate of change in a wide variety of evolutionary systems (including but not limited to the growth of technologies) tends to increase exponentially.[6] He gave further focus to this issue in a 2001 essay entitled "The Law of Accelerating Returns"[7] which argued for extending Moore's Law to describe exponential growth of diverse forms of technological progress. Whenever a technology approaches some kind of a barrier, according to Kurzweil, a new technology will be invented to allow us to cross that barrier
Also it's been proven that space exploration is as beneficial as war or more so ( since it's not based on better ways to kill people ) to progress and finding solutions for mankind's problems.
The point wasn't about the length of time but that problem solving isn't always simply a matter of waiting long enough. If someone said they had a problem with the position of the sun and we needed to move it, it doesn't matter if human progress has sped up exponentially and we wait another 10,000 years, we simply don't have the capacity to move worlds around as we please. We similarly don't have the capacity to distort space. We certainly can't put an arbitrary timeframe on when it's likely to happen. You'd be as well saying a million years as a thousand.
It could be done more cost-effectively if they applied the R&D directly to the problems we have though. Right now there are scientists working on these problems of space travel when they could be working on renewable energy solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Scientific progress is moving multiple times faster now than it was in 200 A.D. That's an established fact since the start of the industrial revolution we've made more progress than in all of the rest of human history that came before. As a matter of fact it's still speeding up exponentially. So bad analogy.
The point wasn't about the length of time but that problem solving isn't always simply a matter of waiting long enough. If someone said they had a problem with the position of the sun and we needed to move it, it doesn't matter if human progress has sped up exponentially and we wait another 10,000 years, we simply don't have the capacity to move worlds around as we please. We similarly don't have the capacity to distort space. We certainly can't put an arbitrary timeframe on when it's likely to happen. You'd be as well saying a million years as a thousand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Also it's been proven that space exploration is as beneficial as war or more so ( since it's not based on better ways to kill people ) to progress and finding solutions for mankind's problems.
It could be done more cost-effectively if they applied the R&D directly to the problems we have though. Right now there are scientists working on these problems of space travel when they could be working on renewable energy solutions.
Who's talking about moving worlds around? Did you read the most recent stuff in that article? White has reduced the amount of power necessary to to do this from energy the size of Jupiter to energy equivalent to the size of the Voyager space craft!
Quote:
They are talking about 725kg = 1200 nuclear bombs. And this is just to distort the fabric of space to move the thing. They have to keep distorting space through the whole journey.
You do realize there are natural objects out there right now that distort space in a simliar fashion right now so why is this a problem?
What do you think a gravity well is? And black holes have pretty big ones.
A quote :
Quote:
And in fact, White says that the warp drive could be powered by a mass that's even less than that of the Voyager 1 spacecraft.
The link to the article again :
http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive?utm_source=io9+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0993d0ea41-UA-142218-29&utm_medium=emailI'm not saying they have everything down to do this now. That would be silly. However this is a big step forward.
Also you seem worried about this tech falling into the wrong hands. Well it's always been that way with progress. When humans discovered fire they had the potential to burn down the Forrest. Essentially their world at the time. We now have the ability to sterilize the entire planet several times over. So being able to take out a planet seems like a moot point. We're already in a position to wipe out everything living here. How much worse do the consequences of misuse have to get? My attitude is that knowledge is a tool. There's always the potential for that tool to be used for evil. It's always been that way and it always will be. I simply don't think we should stop learning because of that. If we should then we should be back running around naked in the tall grass waiting for lightning to strike so we could have a fire.
Quote:
Right now there are scientists working on these problems of space travel when they could be working on renewable energy solutions.
That's a very subjective stance. I'd try to tell you how the two are linked and once we become a space faring society ( which we will ) it will benefit those same issues you're worrying about. But I'm guessing you've already made up your mind. About a hundred years from now people will be wondering how they got along without space travel. That's my attitude.
Please read :
http://www.universetoday.com/13600/the-value-of-space-exploration/
http://phys.org/news11640.html
http://io9.com/5963955/how-space+based-solar-power-will-solve-all-our-energy-needs
And this is just a tiny portion you can learn about the benefits of space travel. And the cost sounds like a lot but when you break down what we've been spending by comparison people in America spend 3 times the budget of the space program every year on cigarettes. The welfare dept. spends it every 8 days. And we shouldn't even talk about the military. With space exploration you get a lot of bang for your buck and it's getting cheaper all of the time.
http://www.zmescience.com/space/sabre-jet-rocket-technology-space-and-atmosphere-05254/
http://www.gizmag.com/sabre-engine-skylon/25218/
http://ph.omg.yahoo.com/news/factbox-sabre-engine-could-revolutionise-space-flight-162207789--finance.html
You seem to act like this stuff is thousands of years off. It's not. Some of it's here already. And it won't take 10,0000 years to get to the stars. All through out human history it's always been we've needed to do something then we find a way to do it. That hasn't changed.
On a side note the will to see what's out there in another solar system will only increase once we spot an earth like planet out there ( we're coming close already ). And that will probably happen sometime in the next 10 years or so.
The fact that progress is moving faster is scary. It's a race between our growing up and our acquisition of knowledge. Myself I'm very optimistic about the future and I think we're up to the challenge.
That's still a lot of energy. We're not talking about burning a bag of coal that size. It's like a nuclear explosion using material of that size. Deploying that amount of energy without knowing how to control it could easily wipe out the entire world. That's also not the energy it would take to travel the whole distance, just to create the effect. If it can't sustain itself, that energy would have to be used repeatedly.
It would be a good excuse for disarming the world of nuclear weapons and explode them all at once but if it only moves an egg a few feet, it's going to feel like a bit of a letdown. I'm not sure the egg will survive to tell the tale either.
There are suns and stars out there, are you saying it should be possible for us to recreate them without a problem? Or is a black hole somehow easier to recreate?
Not by just turning the ignition. Also, who's 'we'? I'm not in a position to wipe out everything. If I were, there would be some changes getting implemented real quick.
Learning is about prioritizing. You can spend your life studying the mating rituals of the Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat (not even made up btw) and call it learning but if it's not practical, it's wasting time and money that could be better spent on more important things.
Now you could say how do I know it's not practical when we could stumble on something in the process. I base it on the facts that we've spent a long time looking into space and haven't found anything worhwhile and the problems needing to be overcome for this venture are incredibly difficult.
I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
Some of what is here already? Batteries? Telescopes? Minty toothpaste? Certainly not the components needed for a warp engine.
True, we wipe feces off ourselves on a daily basis with handfuls of paper now. To think we'd have had to use leaves or our bare hands just a few millenia ago. How far we've come. Given the acceleration of human progress, there's bound to be something better within the next... oh let's say hundred years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
...
True, we wipe feces off ourselves on a daily basis with handfuls of paper now. To think we'd have had to use leaves or our bare hands just a few millenia ago. How far we've come. Given the acceleration of human progress, there's bound to be something better within the next... oh let's say hundred years.
Some of us have ALREADY improved upon the "handfuls of paper".
... Google "bidet" for some enlightenment!
Oh, we'll be able to move stars around in 10,000 years. Without lifting a finger. That's a possibility.
That's how the galactic community is designed. We either make it or break it. We've already horribly broken the planet. Either we find somewhere else or game over.
Space tourism as it is now is a novelty of sorts, like when you could fly across the Atlantic in a tiny plane with literally no margin for error. People thought it was fun but stupid, because you had good ol' steam ships. Space tourism to sub-orbits will lead to (A) space tourism and colonisation of Mars within 50 years, the solar system within 100 years, and (B) sub-orbital intercontinental flights. Eg. Sydney-LA, London-Tokyo in a matter of a few hours by 2100.
We're in a unique time in our history where we're close enough that while it is not guaranteed, within the space of 200 years, it is very likely. From manufacturing techniques, to understanding of physics, to computing power to process and manage such technology, etc... Plus the drive (pun intended) to do it, like I mentioned, we've worn out our use-by date on this planet by very, very far.
If a billion Chinese started living like Americans tomorrow, there literally will be no more planet to live on, not in any form we are familiar with.
So as I outlined, there are three paths: status quo, ie, something our generation might not enjoy very much, or, singularity, ie. offload bodies to servers, or, faster-than-light colonisation of other planets, "Super-Earths" that can then hold more billions of people, etc.
It doesn't make much sense to me though that we'd leave a habitable planet claiming that it's broken to end up on a planet with no breathable atmosphere, 1/3 of the gravity, no vegetation, no water, an atmospheric pressure that won't allow us to use typical electronics or maintain a water supply and average temperatures of -50C. Frankly, I'd rather share a bunk-bed with a Chinaman.
If we do become over-crowded, we can always just have a sterilisation program, a world war or just encourage older people to take up extreme sports. Whatever problems seem insurmountable on Earth, it's still by far the best option we have.
If we eventually do get terraforming worked out, wouldn't it be better to use the planet we already have? It's closer for a start.
Well, by that reasoning, perhaps in 200 years it will be 50-50... The Earth may be so messed up and terraforming Mars may become rather possible.
The problems of Earth in 200 years will probably be far more shocking than you mention if humanity is on its current trajectory.
As for terraforming, terraforming the Earth itself... Hmm... it could be like stuffing a PowerPC G5 into a mobile phone. Better to start with an ARM and scale up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Who's talking about moving worlds around? Did you read the most recent stuff in that article? White has reduced the amount of power necessary to to do this from energy the size of Jupiter to energy equivalent to the size of the Voyager space craft!
That's still a lot of energy. We're not talking about burning a bag of coal that size. It's like a nuclear explosion using material of that size. Deploying that amount of energy without knowing how to control it could easily wipe out the entire world. That's also not the energy it would take to travel the whole distance, just to create the effect. If it can't sustain itself, that energy would have to be used repeatedly.
It would be a good excuse for disarming the world of nuclear weapons and explode them all at once but if it only moves an egg a few feet, it's going to feel like a bit of a letdown. I'm not sure the egg will survive to tell the tale either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
You do realize there are natural objects out there right now that distort space in a similar fashion right now so why is this a problem?
There are suns and stars out there, are you saying it should be possible for us to recreate them without a problem? Or is a black hole somehow easier to recreate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
being able to take out a planet seems like a moot point. We're already in a position to wipe out everything living here.
Not by just turning the ignition. Also, who's 'we'? I'm not in a position to wipe out everything. If I were, there would be some changes getting implemented real quick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
I simply don't think we should stop learning because of that.
Learning is about prioritizing. You can spend your life studying the mating rituals of the Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat (not even made up btw) and call it learning but if it's not practical, it's wasting time and money that could be better spent on more important things.
Now you could say how do I know it's not practical when we could stumble on something in the process. I base it on the facts that we've spent a long time looking into space and haven't found anything worhwhile and the problems needing to be overcome for this venture are incredibly difficult.
Quote:
once we become a space faring society ( which we will ) it will benefit those same issues you're worrying about. But I'm guessing you've already made up your mind. About a hundred years from now people will be wondering how they got along without space travel. That's my attitude.
I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
You seem to act like this stuff is thousands of years off. It's not. Some of it's here already. And it won't take 10,0000 years to get to the stars.
Some of what is here already? Batteries? Telescopes? Minty toothpaste? Certainly not the components needed for a warp engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
All through out human history it's always been we've needed to do something then we find a way to do it. That hasn't changed.
True, we wipe feces off ourselves on a daily basis with handfuls of paper now. To think we'd have had to use leaves or our bare hands just a few millenia ago. How far we've come. Given the acceleration of human progress, there's bound to be something better within the next... oh let's say hundred years.
Quote:
I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
Yeah! Just like that air travel thing did!
Australia is fine but how about somewhere no one from here has been before? That has been the driving force for exploration and travel in the early days of human history and it's becoming next to impossible if you stick to just this planet. The way I view it we just can't stay in the womb forever. If we did we become stagnant and die. Also you really can't ignore that we're in space already ( most people don't get this ). It's all around us right now. Ignoring it's there is just ignoring what's around you ( and when have humans been good at things doing that? ). Why put all of your eggs in one basket? That's just dumb. Say an asteroid comes along ( which has happened many times in earth's history ) wipes out everything? If you're stuck to just one world there goes the human race.
You know when reading your comments ( which everyone is entitled to their opinion ) you seem to be contrary just for the sake of it. Either that or you genuinely just don't think in very big terms. Anyway it's very subjective. I've offered plenty of third party evidence for my side how about offering the same for your claims.
Ps. If you're really worried about this world going to pot how about moving all of those factories up into earth orbit?
Well you could ask Susan Boyle out on a date but some uncharted territory is uncharted for a reason. Some people have this drive to be the first to step on new land but you're really just standing in the middle of nowhere with a flag. It's like those 'first' comments in threads; where's the achievement? It's only an achievement if they find something useful and I have a feeling that we are going to be finding a lot of dusty rocks. If they find rare and valuable minerals then there's some benefit but they still have to get them back to us.
What progress are we going to make, living in those harsher conditions though? You could start a new town in the middle of the desert but you are taking so many steps back before you can go forward.
It obviously had to start like this anyway but we're now quite well developed. I don't see an urgency to find distant planets to populate. Think of the latency online gamers will have to deal with. Those people would most likely be entirely cut-off from us.
So many problems: a stable economy, jobs, agriculture, sanitation, healthcare, the list goes on and on. It's like starting at square one again and for what ultimate benefit? Aren't we just going to end up doing pretty much what we do on Earth but somewhere else?
If we assume that the universe has come about through the process of natural change, what's out there is nothing more than a billion ways on how not to support human life. What we have here was the successful attempt. Why rummage through the rejects?
For whatever reason, we humans are a few feet in size and the galaxy is about a billion billion billion times that. I don't see that as a challenge in much the same way I don't see a sumo wrestler as a challenge. I just think some things are practically insurmountable and any attempt is just going to be painful. If I could see a goal state that made it compelling perhaps I'd see it differently.
When I read about the technical challenges involved in putting an actual dent in the universe, I see it as an insurmountable problem and I don't see any worthwhile goal. Our only goal in life is the achievement of happiness. We don't need to find another species to tell us we are part of a video game. 'The machine' isn't artificial, it's just a description of what we are. We are all just little hard drives connecting common sets of information to form a collective knowledge and understanding.
The sum total of it so far is to just make survival more pleasant. Convenient food, a nice warm house, easy ways to keep in contact with friends, it all just narrows down to getting up in the morning and the little sparks in your head reacting in a positive way. There's absolutely no need to tear everything down and start over again.
On the plus side, nobody would be left to complain about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Australia is fine but how about somewhere no one from here has been before?
Well you could ask Susan Boyle out on a date but some uncharted territory is uncharted for a reason. Some people have this drive to be the first to step on new land but you're really just standing in the middle of nowhere with a flag. It's like those 'first' comments in threads; where's the achievement? It's only an achievement if they find something useful and I have a feeling that we are going to be finding a lot of dusty rocks. If they find rare and valuable minerals then there's some benefit but they still have to get them back to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
The way I view it we just can't stay in the womb forever. If we did we become stagnant and die.
What progress are we going to make, living in those harsher conditions though? You could start a new town in the middle of the desert but you are taking so many steps back before you can go forward.
It obviously had to start like this anyway but we're now quite well developed. I don't see an urgency to find distant planets to populate. Think of the latency online gamers will have to deal with. Those people would most likely be entirely cut-off from us.
So many problems: a stable economy, jobs, agriculture, sanitation, healthcare, the list goes on and on. It's like starting at square one again and for what ultimate benefit? Aren't we just going to end up doing pretty much what we do on Earth but somewhere else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Also you really can't ignore that we're in space already ( most people don't get this ). It's all around us right now.
If we assume that the universe has come about through the process of natural change, what's out there is nothing more than a billion ways on how not to support human life. What we have here was the successful attempt. Why rummage through the rejects?
For whatever reason, we humans are a few feet in size and the galaxy is about a billion billion billion times that. I don't see that as a challenge in much the same way I don't see a sumo wrestler as a challenge. I just think some things are practically insurmountable and any attempt is just going to be painful. If I could see a goal state that made it compelling perhaps I'd see it differently.
When I read about the technical challenges involved in putting an actual dent in the universe, I see it as an insurmountable problem and I don't see any worthwhile goal. Our only goal in life is the achievement of happiness. We don't need to find another species to tell us we are part of a video game. 'The machine' isn't artificial, it's just a description of what we are. We are all just little hard drives connecting common sets of information to form a collective knowledge and understanding.
The sum total of it so far is to just make survival more pleasant. Convenient food, a nice warm house, easy ways to keep in contact with friends, it all just narrows down to getting up in the morning and the little sparks in your head reacting in a positive way. There's absolutely no need to tear everything down and start over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Say an asteroid comes along ( which has happened many times in earth's history ) wipes out everything? If you're stuck to just one world there goes the human race.
On the plus side, nobody would be left to complain about it.
Well I still haven't seen any 3rd party support or any links. I guess as I said this is just your opinion ( you're entitled ). Also as I've said space exploration would help with many ( if not all ) of the problems you seem to care about however it's clear you wouldn't entertain the idea. I'm glad there aren't too many that share it anymore as I've fought against this kind of thinking all of my life ( I'm 59 now so this kind of thinking was more prevalent when I was younger on the positive side not so much now ). Thank you for your opinion. I'm glad you're comfortable in your life.
That's just it. For some people, happiness is looking across the red, dusty plains of Mars, knowing that you helped move humankind beyond our birth planet. Sure, there's fear and worry and pain living somewhere (initially) uninhabitable, but there are people in Antarctica for a reason.
To address what specific things?
If we are able to achieve very fast travel and efficiently convert small amounts of matter into huge quantities of energy in a safe way, it has huge benefits on Earth. You could go anywhere in the world in a very short period of time and we could power entire countries with ease and without pollution. This Earth should be the focal point though.
[VIDEO]
Space exploration has opened our eyes to the fact that we are a minute part of a huge system and I think there are times we should accept our limitations rather than expend countless resources in a futile attempt to overcome them. That isn't being defeatist, it's just picking the right battles to fight. When someone says they need the mass-energy equivalent of 1200 nuclear weapons to make something work, it's time to say 'go work on something else'.
Scientific advances like fitting billions of bits of information into a thumb-sized device or splitting the atom might lead people to believe we can do anything we set our minds to. Maybe we can but we still have to think about the end-game. Perhaps we could blast 50 people off to HD 40307 to start a new civilization using a warp drive. What happens next?
Just saying that we should make copies of ourselves all across the universe in case something goes wrong here isn't enough because it makes an assumption that our existence has purpose beyond existence itself. As per the anthropic principle, the observable universe has no description without an observer so it's really inconsequential whether we're here or not.
Well, someone has to keep an eye on the seal count:
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/people-in-antarctica/why-live-in-antarctica
No seals on Mars though... or are there?