I wouldn't say that all of humanity needs to end - there are exceptions to the rule. I mean, sure thing, there are 1 smart guy for each 10 idiots, but that's not to say that the smart guy needs to die, is there?No, you are wrong. There is 1 decent guy/girl for each 1.000 or more idiots... And i horrified with thought: Humans CAN space travel to other galaxy's. What horror would we bring to other aliens. What terror we would throw at them. Our entire history is a blood bath and we do that to each other. I can't even think what would we do to not earthlings... I really, really hope that human race never ever have something like FTL. We are bogeymen.
I don't think FTL travel to other stars is something we need to be considering for at least the next 1000 years.Then it's a good thing we'll have immortality in the next 100 years
I don't think FTL travel to other stars is something we need to be considering for at least the next 1000 years.Then it's a good thing we'll have immortality in the next 100 years
Who's to say that the aliens are utopian? ;)I wouldn't say that all of humanity needs to end - there are exceptions to the rule. I mean, sure thing, there are 1 smart guy for each 10 idiots, but that's not to say that the smart guy needs to die, is there?No, you are wrong. There is 1 decent guy/girl for each 1.000 or more idiots... And i horrified with thought: Humans CAN space travel to other galaxy's. What horror would we bring to other aliens. What terror we would throw at them. Our entire history is a blood bath and we do that to each other. I can't even think what would we do to not earthlings... I really, really hope that human race never ever have something like FTL. We are bogeymen.
I wouldn't say that all of humanity needs to end - there are exceptions to the rule. I mean, sure thing, there are 1 smart guy for each 10 idiots, but that's not to say that the smart guy needs to die, is there?No, you are wrong. There is 1 decent guy/girl for each 1.000 or more idiots... And i horrified with thought: Humans CAN space travel to other galaxy's. What horror would we bring to other aliens. What terror we would throw at them. Our entire history is a blood bath and we do that to each other. I can't even think what would we do to not earthlings... I really, really hope that human race never ever have something like FTL. We are bogeymen.
I don't think FTL travel to other stars is something we need to be considering for at least the next 1000 years.Then it's a good thing we'll have immortality in the next 100 years
Proof? Evidence? Pointers?
They're still talking about mind-boggling quantities of energy.Agreed. To think we're close to FTL travel is wishful at best. Its even stated in the article that the ring surrounding the football-shaped craft would likely be made of "exotic matter"....
Google reliably tells me that a 1MT explosion requires 46.55g of matter be converted to energy
The Tsar bomb was a 50MT detonation, so will have consumed around 2.33 kg of mass.
If this new theory requires ~800kg of mass (Voyager 1's launch mass) be converted to energy, that means the space craft would need to be able to harness the equivalent power generated by ~344 Tsar bombs.
While it's not unimaginable for us to be able to generate such huge amounts of energy, the material sciences necessary to harness such huge energy levels are completely unimaginable.
I don't think FTL travel to other stars is something we need to be considering for at least the next 1000 years.
I'd actually prefer bodily immortality than being inside a computer, no matter how advanced. Though that may just be me.
I'd actually prefer bodily immortality than being inside a computer, no matter how advanced. Though that may just be me.
When technology is advanced enough to offer mind computer transfer for common people fully featured android bodies will be old news. You can download yourself and have many bodies!
If this new theory requires ~800kg of mass (Voyager 1's launch mass) be converted to energy, that means the space craft would need to be able to harness the equivalent power generated by ~344 Tsar bombs.
While it's not unimaginable for us to be able to generate such huge amounts of energy, the material sciences necessary to harness such huge energy levels are completely unimaginable.
You're assuming consciousness is something tangible that can be transferred, rather than extra-dimensional interactions.
If you could transfer consciousness, then you could copy it.
The concept of self falls down when multiple instances of you can exist.
Warping space-time could be a very potent defensive tool, especially for anything with wheels/treads. Warp the area in front of an incoming bullet or artillery shell and you can change its trajectory slightly, basically using refraction. All you need to do is activate it for a few milliseconds at a time to change the trajectory by a couple degrees. It's much easier (requires less energy) and safer to deflect incoming fire slightly than to outright stop it with armor. If there's an explosion next to you, warp space for a few milliseconds so that the blast wave has to travel a little longer and dissipate more before it hits your armor (a shockwave's energy dissipates proportional to 1/r^2, so a very effective use).
No way of knowing how much energy that sort of thing will ultimately require, but you can bet DARPA would be interested in it.
I wouldn't say that all of humanity needs to end - there are exceptions to the rule. I mean, sure thing, there are 1 smart guy for each 10 idiots, but that's not to say that the smart guy needs to die, is there?No, you are wrong. There is 1 decent guy/girl for each 1.000 or more idiots... And i horrified with thought: Humans CAN space travel to other galaxy's. What horror would we bring to other aliens. What terror we would throw at them. Our entire history is a blood bath and we do that to each other. I can't even think what would we do to not earthlings... I really, really hope that human race never ever have something like FTL. We are bogeymen.
And yet it's growth is what might become humanities demise, for the overboiling life which our future promises might prove deadlier then all the murder of times past...
As fantastic as a we are as a species, I reckon we should continue full-steam-ahead on this whole "advance to our own destruction" thing we've got going. We're not a very happy species at the moment, and holding out isn't going to get us anywhere. Either our technology will kill us, or it'll make us happier, and either one is one up from where we are now.
Brave New World or bust!
As fantastic as a we are as a species, I reckon we should continue full-steam-ahead on this whole "advance to our own destruction" thing we've got going. We're not a very happy species at the moment, and holding out isn't going to get us anywhere. Either our technology will kill us, or it'll make us happier, and either one is one up from where we are now.
Brave New World or bust!
Somebody needs to get laid ;D
Is this sort of hate on humanity the new cool sci-fi geek thing to do or are starfarer board members just that depressed? So much judgement being handed out on these topics...
You're assuming consciousness is something tangible that can be transferred, rather than extra-dimensional interactions.
If you could transfer consciousness, then you could copy it.
The concept of self falls down when multiple instances of you can exist.
I think the "hate on humanity" movement is part of a backlash against the toxicity of the systems under which we live. Nihilism and fatalism aren't new, but they're pretty durable.
...and what's to say that other intelligent species wouldn't be the same?Who knows...
The reason that humans are the dominant species of Earth is because we are dangerous. You don't get to being the top of the heap by being little Ms. Primrose now, do you?We pass long time ago point for territorial/bare survival against animals. It's one thing killing animals/plants for food/territory/protection and another thing killing another human for whatsoever reason. All these years of "evolution" and we still kill each others. We, humanity, didn't get to the point when killing another human being is absolute NO-NO option for all of us. So i will give one extremely hideous example. IF YOU ARE UNDER AGE DO NOT READ SPOILER.
Ok... you're using the word 'evolve' to mean socially evolving, not biologically, as you are saying. Evolution is simply because of the fact that genes can't be copied perfectly, and sometimes these mistakes bring advantages.Yes, i mean evolution of conscience not biological evolution. The way we think...
Yes we kill eachother, but what of it?Nothing, just saying that we are still very low level about that. It's like we didn't progress with it all this time...
Ok... you're using the word 'evolve' to mean socially evolving, not biologically, as you are saying. Evolution is simply because of the fact that genes can't be copied perfectly, and sometimes these mistakes bring advantages.Yes, i mean evolution of conscience not biological evolution. The way we think...
Nothing, just saying that we are still very low level about that. It's like we didn't progress with it all this time...
I don't see any problems with war. That way, you can die a glorious death rather than that of age. The question of dying is not if, but when.
I don't see any problems with war. That way, you can die a glorious death rather than that of age. The question of dying is not if, but when.
That way, you can die a glorious death rather than that of age. The question of dying is not if, but when.
So? Without war there wouldn't be peace. Without war there wouldn't be tech. I mean, compare Pre-WWII to WWII. Technology advanced at a rate much higher than the Pre-war tech. New inventions where designed, which, in the end, became crucial to space travel.
I don't see any problems with war. That way, you can die a glorious death rather than that of age. The question of dying is not if, but when.
And if you both think of war as such disgusting, them why are we still having wars?
Wrongly termed then (excuse me, but i would not know a better term for it), but again, war has led to some good things. Like aforementioned tech advances. Or some stuff like that. Although i would agree that todays wars are rather meaningless. Atleast WWII had a cause behind it (for both sides too). Today is more of a war over drugs than anything.
And if you both think of war as such disgusting, them why are we still having wars?
I'm entirely undecided about war. I don't have enough experience or data to work out whether the overall progression, de-population and resulting diplomatic ties that arise from war are equal to the reasonably temporary, but pretty horrific suffering caused by it. Certain wars may have added to the general pool of happiness, while others did not. I believe strongly that it can be a good thing to kill somebody, and as an extension, to kill many people, so it's something I haven't properly come to grips with yet.
Leave it to a guy who wishes humanity to end to list de-population as a positive aspect of war... at least you are consistent in you misanthropy.
Me? I did never say that that was a positive aspect of war! I said that the technological advancements and lifes that heroic and brave medics save, not the horrible deeds idiots can accomplish!
@ Topic: As long as there is no theoretical physicist in our midst there is little hope of understanding the details of how a shape change can have that effect for any of us.
negative mass.
negative mass.
Does that not apply to Dark Matter?
But what about dark energy or something like that? IIRC, the universe consists to a very large degree of Dark Energy.
But what kind of material would have negative mass? Nothing in this universe, that's for sure. Or maybe not, since we haven't even begun scratching the surface of all secrets, but still. I'd find an more acceptable theory to use that could be counted as legit:
Wormholes.
You are all now under survailance by the CIA.
"...one can hope that Alcubierre-type warp drives can be physically realized by clever engineering taking advantage of such quantum effects."
"The Einstein–Rosen bridge was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable if it connects two parts of the same universe, and that it will pinch off too quickly for light (or any particle moving slower than light) that falls in from one exterior region to make it to the other exterior region.
The motion through a Schwarzschild wormhole connecting two universes is possible in only one direction."
@gothars - The only problem is that most universes would have completely different reality structures, so nothing from our universe could exist there. Nothing.
Just to get this topic a slight dose of reality check...
Have we even got to the point to measure anything faster than light? I think not and it's kinda weird talking about something we haven't even began to measure yet. Then again the gist of FTL travels are not about actually moving faster than light but taking shortcuts through space... am I somewhere on the somewhat right area here or am I just seriously misinformed?
Yes, it would be possible to find one of the habitable universes, but the chances of that are infinitesimally small, given the fact that, there are more universes without our reality structure than with. Even if we did find one, there could be very big problems - The primary gas could be cyanide gas, or chlorine. Non-Euclidean geometry could be in effect. If we're really unlucky, we could find Cthulu.
Yes, it would be possible to find one of the habitable universes, but the chances of that are infinitesimally small, given the fact that, there are more universes without our reality structure than with. Even if we did find one, there could be very big problems - The primary gas could be cyanide gas, or chlorine. Non-Euclidean geometry could be in effect. If we're really unlucky, we could find Cthulu.
This surpasses my mathematical knowledge, but as I understand it, because we are calculating with infinity, it's just as likely. If we have an infinite number of possibilities every subset of those possibilities is infinite as well. So the number of possibilities included in a (habitable-) subset is the same number as all possibilities. If you randomly choose one, the chance that it belongs to a subset of size ? against the chance that it belongs to the total amount of size ? is ?:?.
Which might, and here I'm really not sure again, be the same as 1:1 or 50% chance of finding a habitable planet.
If someone would like to correct everything I just said that person would be very welcome.
Just to get this topic a slight dose of reality check...
Have we even got to the point to measure anything faster than light? I think not and it's kinda weird talking about something we haven't even began to measure yet. Then again the gist of FTL travels are not about actually moving faster than light but taking shortcuts through space... am I somewhere on the somewhat right area here or am I just seriously misinformed?
I don't really understand your question, but I'll try to answer it anyway.
Things that are slower than the speed of light can never go faster than the speed of light (well, that's not 100% true- look up Cherenkov radiation), and things that are faster than the speed of light can never be slower than the speed of light. It's theoretically impossible. The speed of light in a vacuum is basically a threshold that nothing can cross- at least, not without exploiting some loopholes in the way the universe works. We have no way of exploiting those loopholes just yet.
Currently, we have no way of detecting tachyonic matter (matter that travels faster than light). In fact, we're not even sure that stuff exists. I don't know much more than that, so I can't really answer anything about it.