When will we reach the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, another star and another galaxy...

[Garonazz]

I think you'll find that those particles combined with those astronaughts weren't both travelling at the speeds we'd need to reach the next star or galaxy.



But all this is adding up, all of a sudden you not only have invented some new technology that accelerates us to Star Trek speeds, technology that protects us from high speed collisions and produced life-time living conditions for a whole crew of people. Exactly how big is this ship going to be?



Actually no, people didn't believe the earth was flat, that's a common misconception.

Tell me, are you this open minded about people with other blind faiths like yours?

I'm not the one backing up my knowledge with the past and with voodoo, I'm not the one that still believes there's magic on mars. I'll go back to my cave if you stop watching sci fi.

LOL. Sci Fi.

You know, any type of aircraft was scifi 500 years ago aswell.

 

[Tigjaw]

None of that is new technology.
It would be big.

Your physics also fails, it wouldn't make one slight bit of difference if the astronuaght was moving at the speed of light, no more energy would be imparted. It drives all the way through,adding more energy would not change anything apart from the velocities of both objects afterwards.

Yes it would be big, I'll give you that.

Secondly, don't make stuff up, if I run into you at 10mph it will hurt, if I run into you at 20mph it will hurt more.

LOL. Sci Fi.

You know, any type of aircraft was scifi 500 years ago aswell.

And here you go again, trying to prove your point by comparing us with the past.

 

[Glaucus]

Yes it would be big, I'll give you that.

Secondly, don't make stuff up, if I run into you at 10mph it will hurt, if I run into you at 20mph it will hurt more.

Lol, really look at physics. The two examples are totally different. As your not punching a hole straight through me.
Same principles applie with guns, they have designed guns with slower muzzle velocity as it does more damage, once you hit a certain energy, a hole is punched straight through, at this point any increase of energy makes little difference as it is not imparted onto the other object.
Again your physicals fails.

You really should watch sic-fi science on discovery. Some great theoretical science coming through with potential extrodenary machines and capabilities.

 

[Tigjaw]

Lol, really look at physics. The two examples are totally different. As your not punching a hole straight through me.
Same principles applie with guns, they have designed guns with slower muzzle velocity as it does more damage, once you hit a certain energy, a hole is punched. Straight through, at this point any increase of energy makes little difference as it is not imparted onto the other object.
Again your physicals fails.

You really should watch sic-fi science on discovery. Some great theoretical science coming through with potential extrodenary machines and capabilities.

You're still talking about a particle though, although I never discussed the size of the particle. Anything bigger than an electron wouldn't wouldn't just go through it like you're implying.

Ah that explains it, you're watching Sci-Fi science

 

[PermaBanned]

Yes it would be big, I'll give you that.

Secondly, don't make stuff up, if I run into you at 10mph it will hurt, if I run into you at 20mph it will hurt more.

You're ignoring the points raised about this issue in the actual article, and the fact that you're roughly the same size as AcidHell. What are the chances of you running into something the same size as a massive starship in deep space? Well a recent NASA article raised some interesting points about the prominence of 'lone' planets, however i think the chances of running into one in the interstellar medium are incredibly tiny.

And here you go again, trying to prove your point by comparing us with the past.

What's wrong with using knowledge we actually have to reach a conclusion?

 

[Glaucus]

You're still talking about a particle though, although I never discussed the size of the particle. Anything bigger than an electron wouldn't wouldn't just go through it like you're implying.

Ah that explains it, you're watching Sci-Fi science

Nothing I have discussed other than Jupiter magnetic propulsion has been from scfi science, I bet you have no idea what the program is. It compares scfi technology to real world physical limitations and technologies.

My point was you said the ship would be destroyed, By anything hitting it at such speeds. it simply wouldn't be.
You also seem to neglect the quote totally.

Though the scant, slow-moving particles of the Interstellar Medium are seldom larger than grains of rice, the millions of tiny, high-speed impacts would have a sandblaster effect upon the Daedalus. To combat this erosion damage, the Society members incorporated a beryllium deflection dome on the nose of the probe. Beryllium is a very lightweight metal with excellent thermal conductivity, making it ideal for the task. In addition, the Daedalus would be escorted by its own protective particle cloud, which would precede the spaceship at the same extreme speed, sweeping most larger objects out of the path. Any damage which occurred in spite of the protection would be repaired by a small army of “wardens,” remote-controlled robots which serve the Daedalus master computer.

And that's not even considering magnetic fields or any other possible technology.

 

[Tigjaw]

You're ignoring the points raised about this issue in the actual article, and the fact that you're roughly the same size as AcidHell. What are the chances of you running into something the same size as a massive starship in deep space? Well a recent NASA article raised some interesting points about the prominence of 'lone' planets, however i think the chances of running into one in the interstellar medium are incredibly tiny.

What's wrong with using knowledge we actually have to reach a conclusion?

He keeps implying 'just because had didn't have that then, and we have it now, we'll have this tomorrow'.

Even so, your first point is true, I apologise, I was getting carried away. I just get a bit agitated by the use of Sci-Fi principles to 'prove' we will have 'this' 'tomorrow'.

Acid I concede to your points above, forgive me I strayed a bit far from my original argument and as stated above, I was a bit set off by the Sci-Fi beliefs of one or two posters here - and no I don't mean you.

 

[Glaucus]

Even so, your first point is true, I apologise, I was getting carried away. I just get a bit agitated by the use of Sci-Fi principles to 'prove' we will have 'this' 'tomorrow'.

It is not scifi principles. It is principles based on well tested physics. If you actually did some research and understood physics a little better, perhaps you could see why such things one day should be possible.

 

[Tigjaw]

It is not scifi principles. It is principles based on well tested physics. If you actually did some research and understood physics a little better, perhaps you could see why such things one day should be possible.

On the contrary, it is because I understand physics that I understand that at least travel to the next galaxy will not be possible. As I said, I've strayed from my original argument.

 

[Glaucus]

On the contrary, it is because I understand physics that I understand that at least travel to the next galaxy will not be possible. As I said, I've strayed from my original argument.

No you don't, as you have proved in your previuse posts.

What stops us launching a probe and sending it to another galaxy? Nothing at all. It would just take millions of years. Now let's look at possible technologies that could reach 99.99% of speed of light and then use generational ships as well.
Oh look it is possible. What is this all encompassing brick wall we can't and never will be able to breakthrough?
What is the physics you use to say it will always be impossible?

 

[Tigjaw]

No you don't, as you have proved in your previuse posts.

Maybe I should have rubbed it in your nose a bit more when you hanged your argument on a project that was - unbeknown to you - closed in the 60s.

None of us are physics boffins, I apologised for getting antsy, get over it.

 

[Glaucus]

Actually I did know it was closed down and no longer under research. That doesn't mean the physics os wrong or the potential to restart it isn't there. I've already said in other threads and maybe this one that whilst the nuclear test ban exists and the no weaponisation of space exists. There's is almost no chance of it being brought back to life.

Go on then what is the physics behind us not able to reach another galaxy, what is physically stopping us.

Of course we aren't boffins and we all get stuff wrong, but you are stating it's impossible with no proof and then the slight proof you give is wrong.

 

[Liampope]

I love your optimism guys but while technology does change, physics doesn't and some things are physically impossible.

This is your basic problem. Physics (and science in general, and engineering etc etc) itself has changed as much as the technology it spawns over the centuries. Plenty of things that would have been considered impossible based on the physics of some time in the past are now possible. There are no immutable 'laws of physics' - none we can claim to fully understand at least. We have only our mathematical models which are subject to constant revision/rejection/addition as we understand more about the universe. Ruling things out on the false and arrogant basis that our current understanding is complete is a barrier to progress. Anything may be possible - FTL travel included.

 

[Glaucus]

- FTL travel included.

it already is theoretically possible, under current understandings.

 

[Liampope]

it already is theoretically possible, under current understandings.

OK - practical FTL travel I still say that is a matter for the future requiring development in many fields!

 

[Glaucus]

Undoubtedly, we have no idea how to actually build a device, just that the physics could allow it.

 

[Tigjaw]

{SNIP}

Of course we aren't boffins and we all get stuff wrong, but you are stating it's impossible with no proof and then the slight proof you give is wrong.

So I get one thing wrong (velocity discussion) and all of a sudden all of my previously valid points are forgotten? Very convenient for you.

Liampope hit the nail on the head, practical FTL travel is as far as we know, with what we know now (I added that part for you) is impossible.

They don't tell you these things in your TV programs because it wouldn't be half as interesting but this is what real physics, maths, and common sense tell us.

By the way, stop saying 'there's nothing stopping us from sending a probe to the next galaxy now, it will just take a zillion years'. Of course that is possible but what use is that?

Anyway let's have a bit of a Buddha moment, I don't want use to annoy each other any more, we obviously wont agree about this but we both, I'm sure, have much bigger problems in our lives than this. I wish I still had the optimism a lot of people have here and I thank heaven that you do believe because if people didn't have such faith we wouldn't be here typing this today. I just wish people were this open minded about everything.

 

[spankingtexan]

Can't believe some people think the moon landings never happened......where the hell do you think we get our cheese from lol. Straight line travel even at the speed of light would just be far to slow for exploring our galaxy and universe. We have to bend space to create short cuts or worm holes if we ever wanna reach other stars.

 

[Liampope]

I wish I still had the optimism a lot of people have here...

You jaded, cynical old gi... hang on you aren't even out of uni yet!

 

[Glaucus]

So I get one thing wrong (velocity discussion) and all of a sudden all of my previously valid points are forgotten? Very convenient for you.

Liampope hit the nail on the head, practical FTL travel is as far as we know, with what we know now (I added that part for you) is impossible.

They don't tell you these things in your TV programs because it wouldn't be half as interesting but this is what real physics, maths, and common sense tell us.

By the way, stop saying 'there's nothing stopping us from sending a probe to the next galaxy now, it will just take a zillion years'. Of course that is possible but what use is that?

Anyway let's have a bit of a Buddha moment, I don't want use to annoy each other any more, we obviously wont agree about this but we both, I'm sure, have much bigger problems in our lives than this. I wish I still had the optimism a lot of people have here and I thank heaven that you do believe because if people didn't have such faith we wouldn't be here typing this today. I just wish people were this open minded about everything.

What valid points?
That we can live self contained. Expect we have got projects going of self contained units growing plants for food and oxygen as well recycling water.
So what are all these other valid points?

Tv program? Humm convenient that you keep coming back to that. You do realise that the series has only just started and hasn't contained most of the stuff I have said.

What use is sending a probe that takes zillions of years, there isn't one. Other than to prove it isn't impossible, like you say it is.
Now take generational ships and time dilation into affect and it means that visiting another galaxy is possible. Wether we will ever do it or how long it would take is a different debate. You are trying to say it's impossible, it clearly is not.