Debate whether or not this is possible or if it's entirely beyond the scope of technology now or in the near future. I demand you answer!

Yea, we'll have it eventually after some advanced aliens from another nearby solar system land and give us some more technical knowlege on how to make a flying saucer fly faster than the speed of light. But don't hold your breath on that happening to soon. Better yet, don't hold your breath at all.

Google: Mars rover. Did it travel between planets? Answer; yes. Interplanetary travel succeeded.

Yea, everyone should be voting yes considering its already been done.

Or was this question human specific?

Well, I had trouble trying to decide what "ecentually" meant... The main problem is that by the time we get to another star system, everybody on the space ship would have cancer! The Earth's magnetic field protects us from most of the cosmic rays that are shooting around space, even in low Earth orbit. Even so, there are limits as to how long one can spend in, say, the international space station. If we are exposed to these rays for an extended period of time, it won't be pretty.

I mean, I could envision a point arbitrarily far in the future when this problem has been solved, but not any time soon...

IT IS VERY POSSIBLE.... BUT ALSO.... VERY EXPENSIVE...

BUT WORTH IT... IT WOULD be a good investment.

-MT

Yea, we'll have it eventually after some advanced aliens from another nearby solar system land and give us some more technical knowlege on how to make a flying saucer fly faster than the speed of light. But don't hold your breath on that happening to soon. Better yet, don't hold your breath at all.

There is one more way out, all u aliens on earth should be identified , thrashed and sent back in space without any space suits. Because u rascals are trying your best to stop us break the light speed barrier by mingling in our science and taking it in wrong directions where u make humans believe C is the limit.

And dont forget, Human race is fast approaching the Singularity.

just dream of traveling to faraway worlds.

There is one more way out, all u aliens on earth should be identified , thrashed and sent back in space without any space suits. Because u rascals are trying your best to stop us break the light speed barrier by mingling in our science and taking it in wrong directions where u make humans believe C is the limit.

It's good to see we have intelligent people contributing to the discussion.

So Einstein was...an alien?

I thought he was Jewish.

Wasnt his brain genetically engineered by the aliens ? And hence the bulges and merges in his brain ?

Space travel does not seem impossible, but it might never be as dipicted in typical SciFi literature.

FTL does not seem possible, so perhaps we might send out potential colonies which are never again contacted.

Perhaps we might send out millions of fertilized eggs tended by a small crew replaced as they age by allowing some of the eggs to mature into the next generation crew. The goal would be to finally arrive at a suitable planet with enough fertilized eggs to colonize it when they grow to adult humans.

FTL does not seem possible

wasn't there a point at the beginning of the universe where all mater travelled faster then c under extreme conditions?

FTL does not seem possible? yeah??? really? well so did ion propulsion did not seem possible, until Deep Space 1 probe proved it right.

Interplanetary travel is certainly possible. Many space probes have been made to travel to other planets, starting from the early 1960's.

wasn't there a point at the beginning of the universe where all mater travelled faster then c under extreme conditions?

Hmm, u r thinking it seems. Let me givya hints for creating new thread, here.

1) Oldest objects are 15 billion light years away. So how fast did they go away from us since the big bang ? and

2) how further away did they go away in that period since we see the light from its 15 billion years old position ?

3) How much universe is behind us from that point, ie. if we face that object and turn behind then how much back can we look ?

4) whats the distance between the two most distant object from us ?

5) How do u justify age of the universe to be 15 billion years since it mustav taken trillions of years for object to go that far apart.

1) Oldest objects are 15 billion light years away. So how fast did they go away from us since the big bang ?
any direction in mind? The sun is 5 bilion years old and traveled around that 5-12 years and it travels around 1LY each 1400 years yust by circling around the milky way. That's abouth 3 571 428 571 LY while staying relative at the same distance from the galactic centre. And that's yust the sun the earth has traveled much further for obvious reasons and not taking that in acount that the galaxy also move and not taking in acount of etc.

Look I ones remember posting something on how it's inpossible to go in orbit of the earth.
It was in the lines that the higher you get the less air their is for any balloon or propeller to get lift by, anyway it would take a theoretical plane infinite energy to reach orbit. A canon would somewhat work because it actually can get things in space but because of kepler's laws if the orbit is a circle or a ellips it wil always pas right through the earth so it would fall back down again. The point is you can't reach orbit it's inposible...
then came rockets. With rockets it is possible to reach orbit but it's inpossible to reach c or go fasther then it, because of many reasons.
So okay with the cannon it might not have been possible to get in orbit but if you aimed good enough perhaps you could get a slingshot or something from the moon baclk to the earth and perhaps reach it. And with rocket's it might be possible to go the long way to a star and perhaps take a wormhole along. But basicly I'm saying that rocket's the way we know them will proberly not be used for stellar travel.

I presumed the poll meant extra-solar planets, and not other planets in our Solar system, since travel to the latter is a no-brainer and will happen within the next 20 years or so (Mars).

Extra Solar planetary exploration though, just isn't going to happen. Not with chemical rockets anyway. I'll revise my opinion if and when technology changes.

Looks like Alpha Centauri is safe for the next 5,000 years at least. At least from us anyway.

Looks like Alpha Centauri is safe for the next 5,000 years at least. At least from us anyway.

Now your exagerating 5000 years going back that's when the first word was writen down I'm fairly sure the first probes will be visiting the stars before 500 years from now

The proposed VASIMR propulsion system, possibly able to achieve speeds up to 300 km/s, would shorten the journey to a "mere" 4,200 years —still firmly beyond the current lifespan of both man and machine
(wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_centauri)
Okay perhaps so if we build a engine ready to be developed in the next 20 years in a time period of 800 years then it should take 5000 but I've got greater hopes for the future

star trek ftw....

Now your exagerating 5000 years going back that's when the first word was writen down I'm fairly sure the first probes will be visiting the stars before 500 years from now


(wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_centauri)
Okay perhaps so if we build a engine ready to be developed in the next 20 years in a time period of 800 years then it should take 5000 but I've got greater hopes for the future

Going to Alpha Centauri? We are going to be real lucky in the next 30 or 40 years, if we land some men on Mars and bring them back again. Right now, we still haven't got the rocket technology to get men back to the moon again, let alone getting them safely back to Earth and it looks like any other exotic propulsion system you can dream up (rocket, antigravity, electro-magnetic or otherwise) that is designed to take man to other nearby solar sytems is just that, a dream. At least for now that is. For the long term, I would just send some robots out to deep space and let them do all of the talking, if they find someone to talk to that is. And that's a 'Big' if.

the next 30 or 40 years Make it 20 or it's actually going to be a VASIMR engine for Mars. And that's no exotic engine it's a real and (earth) tested engine. It basicly already exist only it's a bid heavy and takes a lot of power but it pretty much exists.
It doesn't realy matter if we realy go to Mars now do we. If we would have gone in the 60 it would be something like a entire fleet that would be gone for years. In 2030 the trip is going to take around 260 days and perhaps we 'l be able to manufactor or own fuel on the planet, in 2040 we proberly have VASIMR engines that do the trip in 4 months ad a tether and a used rocket casting and you have artificial gravity, in 2050 we proberly going to have a space elevator and then their's a whole new range of options.

I actualy did some rechearge on this the closest star proxima centauri has been reacheble since 1969 with the launch of pionier 10 and it would have taken him 103 846 years voyager 2 would have done it in 81 818 years in 1979 the fastest probe ever (but due to it's orbit it wil never leave the solar system) helios 2 would have traveled the distance at it max speed in 18 000 years. The future VASIMR (if it reeches it's max speed of 300km/s) would reach it in 4200 years. From 103 846 to 4 200 is only 4% of the original numbre (okay still alot) but then again it didn't involve any fancy solar sails, ot further farfetched ID's. If you like to get further on this you get project daedalus and project longshot that could reach proxima centauri in less then 50 and less then 100 years. That's with "today" technology but not a agreeable price tag.

Make it 20 or it's actually going to be a VASIMR engine for Mars. And that's no exotic engine it's a real and (earth) tested engine. It basicly already exist only it's a bid heavy and takes a lot of power but it pretty much exists.
It doesn't realy matter if we realy go to Mars now do we. If we would have gone in the 60 it would be something like a entire fleet that would be gone for years. In 2030 the trip is going to take around 260 days and perhaps we 'l be able to manufactor or own fuel on the planet, in 2040 we proberly have VASIMR engines that do the trip in 4 months ad a tether and a used rocket casting and you have artificial gravity, in 2050 we proberly going to have a space elevator and then their's a whole new range of options.

I actualy did some rechearge on this the closest star proxima centauri has been reacheble since 1969 with the launch of pionier 10 and it would have taken him 103 846 years voyager 2 would have done it in 81 818 years in 1979 the fastest probe ever (but due to it's orbit it wil never leave the solar system) helios 2 would have traveled the distance at it max speed in 18 000 years. The future VASIMR (if it reeches it's max speed of 300km/s) would reach it in 4200 years. From 103 846 to 4 200 is only 4% of the original numbre (okay still alot) but then again it didn't involve any fancy solar sails, ot further farfetched ID's. If you like to get further on this you get project daedalus and project longshot that could reach proxima centauri in less then 50 and less then 100 years. That's with "today" technology but not a agreeable price tag.

Unfortunately, for the so-called VASIMR thruster to be useful for a mission to Mars, will need four to six megawatts of power. This amount of power can only come from an on-board nuclear reactor. That hardware does 'not' exist and probably 'won't' exist for a very, very long time. Plus, there are other issues and problems to overcome. Such as the very, very heavy super-conducting magnets that are also needed inorder to create the strong magnetic field for the so-called super-heated plasma to produce a moderated thrust. Of course there is progress made in reducing the weight of the super-conducting magnets and that looks promising, but don't hold your breath of the VASIMR engine pushing a payload to Mars anytime to soon or maybe ever?.

god, just use the ion propulsion engine just like the deepspace one had. Actually first accelerate fast with some chemical propulsion and than have ion propulsion keep that acceleration up.

From what I have read on different NASA web pages, I've found that there is new propulsion systems coming out, namely ion propulsion. Fuelless projectiles, using energy in the form of electricity. Some day we may even figure out how to interact with the fabric of space to get us places faster than ever before.

From what I have read on different NASA web pages, I've found that there is new propulsion systems coming out, namely ion propulsion. Fuelless projectiles, using energy in the form of electricity. Some day we may even figure out how to interact with the fabric of space to get us places faster than ever before.

you got to be kidding me? ion propulsion is new? !!! :p lol ion propulsion engines have been here since the 70's! And they had been tested on deep space one and other space probes.

jumpercable heres your worst Nightmare come true, u alien.


How to reach the nearest star before the end of this century.


Create a giant rocket accelerator around Jupiter, just like the Saturn rings. Basically a magnetic accelerator on a vast scale, just like our backyard MagLev.

The rocket is made of material from Single Molecule Magnets. The accelerator starts spinning it around Jupiter and quickly takes it to 99.99% speed of light.

And then just release it in the direction of Proxima Centauri. So simple , no need of fuel payloads.

U ALIEN ARE GONA PAY FOR WHAT U DID TO US, :jason:
SPECAILLY FOR MAKING ME SO INTELLIGENT HENCE MAKING MY LIFE HELL.

smart 1 ion thruster is hoplesly outdated by now.
The european DS4G ion thrusters is the new and better version
it's 10 times more fuel efficient. With a equal amount of fuel this engine could leave the solar system in stead of reaching the moon.
http://www.esa.int/techresources/ESTEC-Article-fullArticle_par-28_1134728785014.html

That hardware does 'not' exist and probably 'won't' exist for a very, very long time
this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine) was the smallest class of nuclair submarines I could find at the moment. Capable to propel a ship of 114 m okay NASA's spacecrafts aren't that big be so isn't the nuclear reactor for some reason the military finds the specifics abouth these reactors dimensions top secret.
So (small) nuclear powered energy sources may not be so far in the future as you think. But you do make a point that the equipment is rather heavy. Either way I don't think that the first stellar ship wil be launched from the surface of the earth

But at what speed can the DS4G perform at?

from the article
The test model achieved voltage differences as high as 30kV and produced an ion exhaust plume that travelled at 210,000 m/s, over four times faster than state-of-the-art ion engine designs achieve. This makes it four times more fuel efficient, and also enables an engine design which is many times more compact than present thrusters,
Okay that's the maximum speed (0.0007%c)that may actually be achieved with extra planetary slingshots, the actual speed depends on how much fuel is on board and how much mass the vehicle has.
This vehicle would take the trip to alpha centauri in 6 143 years asuming it's at it's top speed from the very beginning, so it's start's rivaling the VASIMR

That's the beauty of space technologie it's still changing fast.

...
How to reach the nearest star before the end of this century.


Create a giant rocket accelerator around Jupiter, just like the Saturn rings. Basically a magnetic accelerator on a vast scale, just like our backyard MagLev.

The rocket is made of material from Single Molecule Magnets. The accelerator starts spinning it around Jupiter and quickly takes it to 99.99% speed of light.

And then just release it in the direction of Proxima Centauri. So simple , no need of fuel payloads.
....

http://www.maglev2000.com/apps/apps-08.html

http://www.maglev2000.com/assets/startram.jpg

http://www.maglev2000.com/apps/apps-08-b.html

if I'm right and that's a tube that the compressed air in front would act like a gun with a cloched barrel. It simply can't work.

ORcot:

Maglevs and coil guns use magnets to speed up projectiles to ludicrous speeds. You can build one at home.

wouldn't the object inside the barrel push the air creating a over presure in front until the sideway pressure is strong enough to break the tube?

It seems like it would work in a vacuum or on a open tube altough their should be considreble air drag.

Originally Posted by Singularity
...
How to reach the nearest star before the end of this century.


Create a giant rocket accelerator around Jupiter, just like the Saturn rings. Basically a magnetic accelerator on a vast scale, just like our backyard MagLev.

The rocket is made of material from Single Molecule Magnets. The accelerator starts spinning it around Jupiter and quickly takes it to 99.99% speed of light.

And then just release it in the direction of Proxima Centauri. So simple , no need of fuel payloads.

Lets say if it would succeeded and you would be sitting in the shuttle or rocket and someone quickly took you to the 99.99% speed of light imagine where your ass would occur from this speed :D .When plane takes off the gravity is high enough to pull you to the chair and its only speed of about 200-400km/h .Soo the second question after someone discovers how to reach C speed will be how to survive in the speed of light :o

Originally Posted by Singularity
...
How to reach the nearest star before the end of this century.


Create a giant rocket accelerator around Jupiter, just like the Saturn rings. Basically a magnetic accelerator on a vast scale, just like our backyard MagLev.

The rocket is made of material from Single Molecule Magnets. The accelerator starts spinning it around Jupiter and quickly takes it to 99.99% speed of light.

And then just release it in the direction of Proxima Centauri. So simple , no need of fuel payloads.

Lets say if it would succeeded and you would be sitting in the shuttle or rocket and someone quickly took you to the 99.99% speed of light imagine where your ass would occur from this speed :D .When plane takes off the gravity is high enough to pull you to the chair and its only speed of about 200-400km/h .Soo the second question after someone discovers how to reach C speed will be how to survive in the speed of light :o

It's not the speed, its the acceleration. How much acceleration you have to endure depends on how fast you want to get up to speed. You could slowly accelerate up to near c and never feel more than 1 g.

That being said, the maglev around Jupiter involves a lot of acceleration. No matter how slowly you try to get up to near c, there will be a centripetal acceleration needed to keep you moving in the circular path around Jupiter that will increase as you increase your speed. You can lessent this by making the radius of the circle larger, but to bring the g force you will experience down to managable levels at 99.99% of c you need a circle with a radius of hundreds of times the radius of Pluto's orbit around the Sun.

Why not accelerate this ship around the sun?! Oh yeah, G forces.

Why not accelerate this ship around the sun?! Oh yeah, G forces.

Jupiter ride sounds cooler.

It's not the speed, its the acceleration. How much acceleration you have to endure depends on how fast you want to get up to speed. You could slowly accelerate up to near c and never feel more than 1 g.

That being said, the maglev around Jupiter involves a lot of acceleration. No matter how slowly you try to get up to near c, there will be a centripetal acceleration needed to keep you moving in the circular path around Jupiter that will increase as you increase your speed. You can lessent this by making the radius of the circle larger, but to bring the g force you will experience down to managable levels at 99.99% of c you need a circle with a radius of hundreds of times the radius of Pluto's orbit around the Sun.

In other words, forget about it.

... You can lessent this by making the radius of the circle larger, but to bring the g force you will experience down to managable levels at 99.99% of c you need a circle with a radius of hundreds of times the radius of Pluto's orbit around the Sun.

This is debatable, How many circles per seconds is needed to create 1 G ?

Here the radius is irrelevant. So if for Jupiter it takes 1 second for light to complete 1 revolution around it, then we can safely do it without having much of G.

I am amazed that humans here have got the idea behind this simple technology. Or I always have to boar the burden of letting them go into bewilderedness. :rolleyes:

This is debatable, How many circles per seconds is needed to create 1 G ?

Here the radius is irrelevant.
The radius is very relevant. Centripetal acceleration is proportional to the radius for constant circles per second.
So, one circle per second gives 1G at a radius of about 25cm, but one circle per second at 100,000km (Saturn's Rings) gives about 400 million G.

So if for Jupiter it takes 1 second for light to complete 1 revolution around it, then we can safely do it without having much of G.

That would be a radius of about 50,000km. Only 200 million G! :eek:

The radius is very relevant. Centripetal acceleration is proportional to the radius for constant circles per second.
So, one circle per second gives 1G at a radius of about 25cm, but one circle per second at 100,000km (Saturn's Rings) gives about 400 million G.



That would be a radius of about 50,000km. Only 200 million G! :eek:

Well , Thanks Pete, though i still seriously doubt this. Since the rate of change of direction is reduced as the radius increases for the same rate of revolutions per second.

But if its so then those aliens get an upper hand, ie. they can use BlackHoles (if they exist) to nullify the effects of the Centrifuge. ie. Array of step down magnetic accelerators can be developed where as the speed increases we get closer and closer to the blackhole and stay in free fall to counter the effect of resulting Gs.

Well , Thanks Pete, though i still seriously doubt this. Since the rate of change of direction is reduced as the radius increases for the same rate of revolutions per second.
Don't take my word for it - it's easy to test yourself.
Hold a weight in each hand.
With your hand close to your chest, turn around a few times. Time your turns, and note how heavy the weights feel.
Now, hold your arms out to the side and turn around a few times again. Make sure you turn at the same rate as before.
You will notice that you need to apply a greater force to the weights than before.

Well , Thanks Pete, though i still seriously doubt this. Since the rate of change of direction is reduced as the radius increases for the same rate of revolutions per second.
It's pretty straight forward. For circular motion centripetal acceleration can be found by:
a= v²/r

Thus for .9999c and a radius of 50,000 km you get

a= 299970000²/50,000,000 = 1,799,640,018m/s² = 183,636,736.5g

While you can reduce the g's by increasing the radius, to drop it to even 10g (which is still more than a human can stand for prolonged periods.) you would need to increase the radius to 9.18e11 km which is just about 155 times the radius of Pluto's orbit.



But if its so then those aliens get an upper hand, ie. they can use BlackHoles (if they exist) to nullify the effects of the Centrifuge. ie. Array of step down magnetic accelerators can be developed where as the speed increases we get closer and closer to the blackhole and stay in free fall to counter the effect of resulting Gs.

And gain absolutely nothing in the process. Using the black hole's gravity to provide the centripetal force is essentially putting you into an orbit around the black hole. Just to escape the black hole, you have to be going 41.4% faster than that speed, and you will lose most of the speed just climbing out of the blackhole's gravity well. The same gravity that nullifies the effects of the centrifuge nullifies your speed as you leave the blackhole leaving you almost none to travel between stars.

Add to this the fact that the distance you would need to be from the center of the blackhole to "nullify" the effects of the centrifuge at 99.99% of c would be inside the event horizon of the black hole.

Janus58,

Still the aliens win, as they have already invented the gravity shields, once they reach 99.99 C around the BH, all they have to do is turn on their Gravity Shield and they will be zooming away from the BH at near light speeds.

Gravity Shield (http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html)

Don't take my word for it - it's easy to test yourself.
Hold a weight in each hand.
With your hand close to your chest, turn around a few times. Time your turns, and note how heavy the weights feel.
Now, hold your arms out to the side and turn around a few times again. Make sure you turn at the same rate as before.
You will notice that you need to apply a greater force to the weights than before.

Does this mean that at the same speed with greater radius the G/Centrifugal Force will be more ?

It means that at the same angular speed (turns per second), greater radius means greater centrifugal force.

At the same linear speed (distance per second), greater radius means smaller centrifugal force.

It means that at the same angular speed (turns per second), greater radius means greater centrifugal force.

At the same linear speed (distance per second), greater radius means smaller centrifugal force.

So dont u think that at light speed around the sun a revolution taking 50 minutes to complete, the angular change will be very little ?

If not, then i wonder, what causes this increase of Centrifugal Force ?

The angular speed in that case is one revolution per fifty minutes, or 0.002 rad/sec.

The radius would be 142 million km, and the centrifugal force would be about 57000 G.

But dont u think the angular change will be very little ?

I don't know what you mean.

I went a bit offtopic with my post but lets say if there would be enough gravity around saturn to reach speed of 99% c . Then if someone would manage to make spaceship design something like (gyro ball) wich would make those inside to reach acceleration slowly this would decrease preassure then.Anyway still dont think this would be near enough to survive such acceleration :cool:

it's inpossible to stay in orbit long before you even reach 1%c

I don't know what you mean.

I am asking whats creating so much G. I always thought that it the rate of change of angle that creates the G. With 50 minutes to complete a revolution around the sun, its roughly 7.2 degrees per minute. So how can there be 57000 Gs ?

it's inpossible to stay in orbit long before you even reach 1%c

Hey chill, i was saying that about orbiting around a Blackhole.

Hey chill, i was saying that about orbiting around a Blackhole.

this is a joke, right? some on this forum say that there are no blackholes...just really dark stars. And you here suggest that we orbit a blackhole when we have no info on a blackhole to even conceive this. And theoretically...whats going to keeP you away from being Pulled into blackhole?

Janus58,

Still the aliens win, as they have already invented the gravity shields, once they reach 99.99 C around the BH, all they have to do is turn on their Gravity Shield and they will be zooming away from the BH at near light speeds.

Gravity Shield (http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html)

Even if such technology worked as claimed, and it could be made to be to block 100% of gravity (and not just 2%), and was energy efficient enough to be practical, You still have the problem of tidal forces.
Before you can kick your shield on, you have to amost skim the event horizon before you could even reach 70% of c(let alone 99.99%) to maintain your centripetal force/gravity balancing act .

A typical stellar blackhole has a mass of around 10 solar masses and a event horizon radius of 30 km. At that distance, the tidal force differential over just 1 meter is over 16 million g's. Before you even get close to turning on the gravity shield you will be torn to shreds.

Even if such technology worked as claimed, and it could be made to be to block 100% of gravity (and not just 2%), and was energy efficient enough to be practical, You still have the problem of tidal forces.
Before you can kick your shield on, you have to amost skim the event horizon before you could even reach 70% of c(let alone 99.99%) to maintain your centripetal force/gravity balancing act .

A typical stellar blackhole has a mass of around 10 solar masses and a event horizon radius of 30 km. At that distance, the tidal force differential over just 1 meter is over 16 million g's. Before you even get close to turning on the gravity shield you will be torn to shreds.

Greate points, but then this is alien technology. We will have to start the Shield before getting that close to the BH. And then we can always adjust the shield to counter the Tearing effect of BH gravity, ie. varying amount of shield effects for different layers.

Just kidding.

this is a joke, right? some on this forum say that there are no blackholes...just really dark stars. And you here suggest that we orbit a blackhole when we have no info on a blackhole to even conceive this. And theoretically...whats going to keeP you away from being Pulled into blackhole?

First, i think u should read this post word to word http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1325366&postcount=45

And this one too http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html

I still say it's impossible. The distance is to vast and the materials on our planet simply aren't going to be able to create something that's going to move light years in a few seconds or even weeks.

Hmm that guy (http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html) I'm not critizising him but I'm noticing that his experiments don't always come up with the same results So I'm giving him the benefit of doubt.

the materials on our planet simply aren't going to be able to create something You do know that there is 0 anti matter on earth yet we are still able to create it. If and I say IF we might be able to make exotic matter that can create a worm hole (the math behind it is sugest it's possible). And we send one end of that wormhole to a distant (or close for that matter) star. With a rocket that travels at a exaptable speed. Do you believe that afther the wormhole arrives at the other star that we will then be able to travel to that star in only a couple of hours?

I am asking whats creating so much G. I always thought that it the rate of change of angle that creates the G. With 50 minutes to complete a revolution around the sun, its roughly 7.2 degrees per minute. So how can there be 57000 Gs ?

Didn't you ever play on a merry-go-round as a kid? (Not the Carousel type, but the kind you used to find on playgrounds). And if you did, didn't you ever notice that for any given rate of spin (rpm) it was easier to hold on if you were near the center as opposed to near the outer edge?

I am asking whats creating so much G. I always thought that it the rate of change of angle that creates the G. With 50 minutes to complete a revolution around the sun, its roughly 7.2 degrees per minute. So how can there be 57000 Gs ?
G is acceleration. That's rate of change of velocity.
A small change of angle at high speed means a high change of velocity.

Didn't you ever play on a merry-go-round as a kid? (Not the Carousel type, but the kind you used to find on playgrounds). And if you did, didn't you ever notice that for any given rate of spin (rpm) it was easier to hold on if you were near the center as opposed to near the outer edge?

Only the thing if you were near the center of that merry-go-round it starts to spin more faster.how would this affect you in space.

Only the thing if you were near the center of that merry-go-round it starts to spin more faster.
that's why I said for any given rpm. If you were at the outer edge and moved inward from there while it was spinning, then yes, you will affect the rate of spin. How much so, depends on the ratio of your mass to the mass of the entire merry-go-round. If it is quite massive and fully loaded with kids, your moving inward is going to have a relatively small effect on the spin, and the situation will be most like a constant rpm one. OTH, if you where the only one on it, and it was very light compared to you, then your moving inward would have a much larger influence on the spin and the situation would be more like a constant radial velocity one.

how would this affect you in space.

I'm not sure what you mean by this question, the laws of physics are the same in space as on Earth. Are you talking about a specific situation such as a body in orbit around the Sun?

G is acceleration. That's rate of change of velocity.
A small change of angle at high speed means a high change of velocity.

Wait a minute, This is off topic but
umm, isnt it true that speed is relative ?

So then if theres nothing in the universe and a rocket is at near light speed (after acceleration is stopped) and take a slight turn then will the G rock the people inside ?

G is acceleration. That's rate of change of velocity..... But what if we chose to accelerate the rocket at 1 G around Jupiter ?

I think i am confused.

you can't stay in orbit when your going to fast

Wait a minute, This is off topic but
umm, isnt it true that speed is relative ?

So then if theres nothing in the universe and a rocket is at near light speed (after acceleration is stopped) and take a slight turn then will the G rock the people inside ?

Yep, because it is the change in velocity that counts. After the turn, the rocket has a different heading than it had before. so there is a differnce between this new velocity and its old one .

This difference is same even if you considered the rocket's velocity as zero before the turn.

you can't stay in orbit when your going to fast

Yes we can, havent u heard about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk

Yep, because it is the change in velocity that counts. After the turn, the rocket has a different heading than it had before. so there is a differnce between this new velocity and its old one .

This difference is same even if you considered the rocket's velocity as zero before the turn.

SO u mean we can generate G without moving or by just changing the direction ?

I feel like creating a new thread for this but dont know what to ask in it.

SO u mean we can generate G without moving or by just changing the direction ?

I feel like creating a new thread for this but dont know what to ask in it.

Let's work an example.

Assume you have have an object traveling at 100 meters/sec in a circle. It takes 10 secs for it to complete a revolution. Now if we pick two points on this circle 180 degree apart, we know that the object is moving in opposite directions when at these two points. (Imagine the circle laid out on the ground and the two points are at the Southernmost and Nothernmost edges of the circle. Then if the object is moving West while at the Southernmost point. it is moving East at the Northernmost point.)

This means the if it is moving 100 m/s in one direction while at one of these points, it is moving 100m/s in the opposite direction at the other. This is a difference of velocity of 200m/s. How much acceleration would it take to make this type of change of velocity in 5 sec?

v=at
a = v/t = 200/5 = 40m/s² = 4g

Now imagine that it has a circular velocity of 10 m/s, but makes a revolution in the same time, 10 sec. Now it still reverses direction in 5 sec, but now the velocity change is 20 m/sec for an acceleration of

a = 20/5 = 4./s² = .4g

Even the the rate of turn is the same, the change of velocity (acceleration) is different.

Okay, now imagine that in our first example, the circle itself is traveling at 100m/s to the West relative to the ground. This means that the while at the Northernmost point, the object will have zero velocity wrt the ground.

But now, at the Southernmost point, the object is moving 200m/s relative to the ground. There's is still a 200 m/s difference between these points, which requires a 40g acceleration. (it takes the same acceleration to go from -100m/sec to +100 m/sec as it does to go from 0 to 200 m/s)

So, even though we assigned one point of the object's path as having zero velocity, the velocity change over 180° stays the same.

always liked art grav (http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/teacher/materials/ringworld/ringworld.html)

Happy st patrics day and may you all drink large quanteties of green beer

Debate whether or not this is possible or if it's entirely beyond the scope of technology now or in the near future. I demand you answer!

A quantum microship could do it. If that quantum microship had a quantum telescope which could see images maybe yeah but I doubt it.

always liked art grav (http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/teacher/materials/ringworld/ringworld.html)

Happy st patrics day and may you all drink large quanteties of green beer

Cool,

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Services/Education/SpaceSettlement/70sArt/AC75-1086q.jpeg

but we are talking about traveling.

Let's work an example.

Assume you have have an object traveling at 100 meters/sec in a circle. It takes 10 secs for it to complete a revolution. Now if we pick two points on this circle 180 degree apart, we know that the object is moving in opposite directions when at these two points. (Imagine the circle laid out on the ground and the two points are at the Southernmost and Nothernmost edges of the circle. Then if the object is moving West while at the Southernmost point. it is moving East at the Northernmost point.)

This means the if it is moving 100 m/s in one direction while at one of these points, it is moving 100m/s in the opposite direction at the other. This is a difference of velocity of 200m/s. How much acceleration would it take to make this type of change of velocity in 5 sec?

v=at
a = v/t = 200/5 = 40m/s² = 4g

Now imagine that it has a circular velocity of 10 m/s, but makes a revolution in the same time, 10 sec. Now it still reverses direction in 5 sec, but now the velocity change is 20 m/sec for an acceleration of

a = 20/5 = 4./s² = .4g

Even the the rate of turn is the same, the change of velocity (acceleration) is different.

Okay, now imagine that in our first example, the circle itself is traveling at 100m/s to the West relative to the ground. This means that the while at the Northernmost point, the object will have zero velocity wrt the ground.

But now, at the Southernmost point, the object is moving 200m/s relative to the ground. There's is still a 200 m/s difference between these points, which requires a 40g acceleration. (it takes the same acceleration to go from -100m/sec to +100 m/sec as it does to go from 0 to 200 m/s)

So, even though we assigned one point of the object's path as having zero velocity, the velocity change over 180° stays the same.

Thanks, that was brilliant explanation, good that i didnt create a new thread. U can be the best AstroPhysics Professor.

Will have to think somethings else. Though the Magnetic Accelerator still can work but will have to made in a linear fashion, with 1 G acceleration what should be its length to reach 99.99% speed of light ?

Will have to think somethings else. Though the Magnetic Accelerator still can work but will have to made in a linear fashion, with 1 G acceleration what should be its length to reach 99.99% speed of light ?

Just about 67 lightyears long.

It will take about 68 years to reach this speed by accelerator time and 4.8 years by ship time.

P.S. As a purely mental exercise, one can still consider a circular accelerator, we just have to increase the radius to keep the g factors down. If we use a radius of a little less than 1/10 lightyear, at .9999c we will get a centripetal acceleration of 1g. Now we still have to deal with the fact that we are also accelerating in the radial direction. This is at a right angle to the centripetal acceleration, so the combined vector addition leads to a resultant final g load of 1.414g. It is in the realm of possibility that Humans can withstand this for a prolong period, especially since it will built up to over almost 5 years.

The circumference of the accelerator will be just about 0.6 lightyear, which works to our advantage. Once we get up to speed, we need a way of releasing our ship in the prefered direction. One way is to open a gap in the ring. Since the ship will be traveling at 0.9999c it will take a little over 7 months for it to complete a circuit. So, just after it passes the exit point on its last lap, we have 7+ months to reconfigure this point for exit.

Now, how do we power it? One solution is to ring the inside of the structure with solar panels, but it would take a lot of panels. Just to provide the power to accelerate a ship of equal mass to the QE2 (I don't see how you are going to get a interstellar ship capable of support a crew for years much smaller than this.), would take a ring of solar collectors about 1000 km tall (and that is at 100% efficiency), and that doesn't count the power needed to run the maglev itself. You are probably looking at a ring several thousands of km high.

Then you would need ways of storing the collected energy. Each section of the ring would have to store the energy collected while the ship was passing through the rest of the ring to use when the ship passes that point. (at 3/10 of a lightyear away, power being collected on the other side of the ring could be pretty useless by the time it got to you.)

All in all, you are looking at a massive engineering feat. The solar panels by themselves would require building materials equal to about 1/2 the mass of the entire Earth.

And then there is the limitation that you are only able to launch to targets that lay along the plane of the ring. (You are not going to be able to re-orient this launcher easily or in a short time span.) Add in the fact that you won't be able stop at the other end without another accelerator there to catch you and slow you down. And can you imagine the aim it would take to launch from one accelerator, travel several lightyears and hit the opening on a second accelerator? Even a near miss would have you flying off into space forever, and too near a miss could have you hitting the accelerator a .9999c, destroying you and a good part of it.

Not a very practical exercise.

How many G's are generated in the particle accelerator on the particle reaching near light speeds in that smaller radius.

How many G's are generated in the particle accelerator on the particle reaching near light speeds in that smaller radius.

7.4 GeV's <-- for nitrogen accelerated (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/174/4014/1121)

GeV is: unit of energy in Giga electron volts

(http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/VVC/theory/units.html)

E=mc^2

so calculate it

to find it take derivative of Einsteins velocity equation.

acceleration= dv (c(sqrt(1-(1/(1+((E/(m(c^2)))^2))))))

http://www.colutron.com/download_files/chapt3.pdf

Well, I had trouble trying to decide what "ecentually" meant... The main problem is that by the time we get to another star system, everybody on the space ship would have cancer! The Earth's magnetic field protects us from most of the cosmic rays that are shooting around space, even in low Earth orbit. Even so, there are limits as to how long one can spend in, say, the international space station. If we are exposed to these rays for an extended period of time, it won't be pretty.

With evolution, the more time spent in space the more the body should adapt.

Just as our ancestors left the oceans and evolved lungs in place of gills to adapt. As we leave our atmosphere, it might be possible to become a whole new type of species.

Think "alien" but realistically a lot less cool, no acid for blood etc.

Debate whether or not this is possible or if it's entirely beyond the scope of technology now or in the near future. I demand you answer!

We have had the capability since the 1960s. NERVA and other nuclear rockets may not have quite lived up to design specs but they would have got us there.

With evolution, the more time spent in space the more the body should adapt. Evolution would take generations - the first generation would be dead without reproducing.

The cosmic ray problem is very serious - I have seen no solution. It will probably prevent travel even to Mars - except maybe by suicides.

If we have enough power to reach other systems, we maybe have enough to take a little extra time about it, and bring a large planetoid along. That might solve the ray problem.

the first generation would be dead without reproducing.
Offcourse the space inhabitants are almost always guy's these days and they do not allow alcohol on the space station.

Annyway radiation is a bitch but perhaps it would help if they keep the fuel thanks towards to sun, if that doesn't increase to much of a extra boil of. A couple of liters of pure hydrogen proberly stops a lot of radiation. there more high tech solutions but those are more scifi

Form which direction does the cosmic radiation come from ?

And dont the nuclear power stations or Nuke people use Radiation proof suits ?

BTW didnt we go to the Moon and had no cancers yet ? so why worry.

BTW didnt we go to the Moon and had no cancers yet ? so why worry.
Didnt one of the guys on Apollo 13 die from cancer eventually?

Although whether that was related to the mission or not is debatable.

Form which direction does the cosmic radiation come from ?

And dont the nuclear power stations or Nuke people use Radiation proof suits ?

BTW didnt we go to the Moon and had no cancers yet ? so why worry.

Hi Singularity,
I'm pretty sure that high energy cosmic rays (the dangerous ones) come from all directions.

The chances of getting cancer will depend on the time of exposure - a mission to Mars lasting a year is going to be twenty times worse than a Moon mission lasted a couple of weeks.

mars is 2 times as far away from the sun as the moon so that pretty luch halfs the radiation, then their is the martian atmosphere that lets say also halfs the radiation. But then again their is the longer trip so I'm not saying that mars is safer but in compairing the longer you stay on mars the safer it is then staying for a equal period on the moon.
Their has been some rechearge done on protection against radiation and some seen pretty good (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/rad_shield_040527.html)

Cant magnets or magnetic substances protect from radiation.

If they can then these magnets will be very useful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-molecule_magnet

Cosmic rays come from the Sun, from sources in our Galaxy (neutron stars, black holes) and from sources outside our galaxy. The Solar ones are weakest, the extragalactic ones most powerful.

If we protect against the weaker rays by locating the living quarters of interplanetary ships between the water tanks for instance, the rarer and higher energy rays will still get through. A massive magnetic or electric field would be required to deflect all rays; this would take a lot of energy to run, and would interfere with the operation of sensitive on-board equipment.

I think the final answer will be a medical or biotechnological one; if shielding protects against all events except a few high-energy events, we will have to develop medical strategies to deal with the consequences of those events. It wil be necessary to have a way of repairing the genetic damage caused by these localised events, perhaps taking a tip or two from the radiation-tolerant extremophile bacteria.

Computer databases and other high-tech equipment will also need to be repairable, which can be done by having at least two backups of every system. A triply redundant system could resist cosmic ray damage for an extremely long time.

Is the Cosmic Radiation coming at Light speeds ?

If not then it may be possible to detect it coming before it reaches, and use some shield (magnetic) enable only at that instance when it would hit us.

Though all this seems too far fetched.

this would take a lot of energy to run, and would interfere with the operation of sensitive on-board equipment
2 things super conductivity and farady cage

There is no way we'll achieve interstellar travel, give it up!

Safe heaven on mars from Radiations,

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070402_mm_mars_caves.html

It would be funny if people started on mars as cavemen

Is the Cosmic Radiation coming at Light speeds ?

The protons which form the high energy cosmic rays travel a tiny bit slower than light. The highest energy ray yet detected would arrive a few nanometres behind a photon which left at the same time, after a journey of one light year. So there is little chance that any warning system would give us any more than a few femtoseconds warning.

wouldn't that increase it's mass many times due to to being as close to c it's over 99.99999%?

I've reviewed all your data on this matter my fellow Sci-Members. Unfortunately I still find that while imagination is capable of traveling between the stars physical things are not. It's nature to desire exploration, but in the end the technological requirements surpass what is real. No matter what you construct, no matter how you do it, there isn't a way to travel to other solar systems. You see the laws of this universe are fixed, and you can't just bypass them in a fantastical hyperspace theorm.

I'd like to make a mathmatical proof to demonstrate my ideas..

A (the ship) = B (speed it takes to reach the nearest solar system in 3 months) + C (distance from solar system) = You're fucked!

Yes that's right, even if you could travel there in a photon you'd still take light years and light years to get there, let alone manage any mining on the new world.

We're screwed.

wouldn't that increase it's mass many times due to to being as close to c it's over 99.99999%?

Ys; its relativistic mass increases untill a single proton is equvalent to a baseball or something along those lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray
The Oh-My-God particle (a play on the nickname "God particle" for the Higgs boson) is the nickname given to a particle observed on the evening of October 15, 1991, over Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah, estimated to have an energy of approximately 3 × 10e20 electronvolts, equivalent to about 50 joules—in other words, it was a subatomic particle with macroscopic kinetic energy equal to that of a baseball (140 g) which is moving at about 27 m/s (60 mph). These very high energy cosmic rays are however very rare and most cosmic rays possess an energy between 10e7 eV and 10e10 eV.

To the empirical evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation four well known difficulties of the gravitational theory can be added:

1- Gravitation acts in no time. In order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.

2- Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.

3- Gravitational force is unchangeable by any and all agents or by any medium through which it passes, always propagating as the inverse square of the distances. “Gravitation is entirely independent of everything that influences other natural phenomena” . This is a defiance of the principles governing other energies.

4- Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.

If gravity can be influenced and affected by massive electrical fields then time and space would tear away opening the interdimensional matter stream to enable travelling enormous distances regardless of time.

Could it?

To the empirical evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation four well known difficulties of the gravitational theory can be added:

1- Gravitation acts in no time. In order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.


ever thought that gravitation that propagates now is that of the waves from some time ago? Its like seeing splashes on surface of water...the rock that dropped and made those waves is long gone...but the waves are still there.

Ys; its relativistic mass increases untill a single proton is equvalent to a baseball or something along those lines.


a object traveling at 0.99999c would relativly travel at 223 times c (if my math is correct) due to time dilation. And the mass increase is to make it conform with 0.99999C so it still inpacts at this latest speed but wit a weight of perhaps 2 kilo's?
Acoording to that impact calculator (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/)
It would give a 2.8 megaton blast

4- Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space
the universe has infinite mass?

a object traveling at 0.99999c would relativly travel at 223 times c (if my math is correct) due to time dilation. And the mass increase is to make it conform with 0.99999C so it still inpacts at this latest speed but wit a weight of perhaps 2 kilo's?
Acoording to that impact calculator (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/)
It would give a 2.8 megaton blast


No; you have just done the calculation twice. The 'ohmygod' particle hit with the force of a baseball travelling at 60mph, not at 0.99999c.

I believe it is already possible, our government should have several models capable of interplanetary travel.

What else have they been doing at area 51, that is sooo top secret, for fifty years?

Navigator: Do you really think our government has been able to keep a major secret for 50 years?

They could not keep our atomic/hydrogen bomb technology secret for more than a few years. They were not able to cover up various scandels like Watergate.

The stories about Rosewell would require a large number of people to remain silent.

There is an old adage: "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead."

I'm betting that we have the antimatter production to reach and stop at the nearest stars in less then a century in around 2-300 years. Altough it proberly won't be economical until far there afther.
I rather think that this is a optimistic gues, so it's going to be for the far future annyway.

1- Gravitation acts in no time. In order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.

No, no and no:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
Quote from the latter:
They found that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 1.06 times the speed of light, but there was an error of plus or minus 0.21. The results were then announced at the 2002 American Astronomical Society annual meeting in Seattle, Washington.

The result rules out the possibility that gravity travels instantaneously, as Newton imagined. If it did, a minutely different shift in the position of the quasar would have been visible on the night of September 8. This vindicates Einstein's instinct when formulating his general theory of relativity, which was to assume that the speed of gravity was equal to the speed of light

Conclusion

The future may see new theoretical efforts to unify fundamental forces in physics with gravity that take the speed of gravity into account. Over the next decade Russia, Japan, and the U.S. may succeed in extending the largest radio telescope arrays beyond the diameter of the Earth by putting large radio telescopes in orbit. Scientists hope that this will confirm and greatly increase the accuracy of the result obtained by Kopeikin and Fomalont.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Several physicists, including Clifford M. Will and Steve Carlip, have criticized these claims on the grounds that they have allegedly misinterpreted the results of their measurements. However, Kopeikin and Fomalont continue to vigorously argue their case. (See the citations below for the details of the arguments pro and con.)

Maybe so maybe not their are some that think it's 20 billion times.Both anti matter dimension and exotic matter are verry young concepts that proberly are less then 20 years old.

If Gravity moves at speed of light , then will be able to catch up with the light moving out of supposed BlackHoles ?

Gravity doesn't have to "catch up"... if light is trying escape from the gravity that's "already there" then it can't get away can it?

Navigator: Do you really think our government has been able to keep a major secret for 50 years?

They could not keep our atomic/hydrogen bomb technology secret for more than a few years. They were not able to cover up various scandels like Watergate.

The stories about Rosewell would require a large number of people to remain silent.

There is an old adage: "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead."

Yes, I do. The US government has de-classified many old documents regarding UFOs, but most of the public chooses to pay no attention.

Something happened at Roswell that was initially reported on 8/8/47 " RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region" .
Then the next day "Gen. Ramey Empties Roswell Saucer, Says Excitement is Not Justified, Disk is Weather Balloon". Yeah, right!:rolleyes:

If it was an alien then how hard would it be to reconstruct the craft?

According to some documents and testamonies from people brave enough to speak about it, the 'shadow government' and 'mj-12' have been communicating with ETs ever since the Roswell incident.

If you don't believe me here is some interesting info from your government. Sorry not yet able to post links.

From nsa.gov
The documents listed on this page were located in response to the numerous requests received by NSA on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO). In 1980, NSA was involved in Civil Action No. 80-1562, "Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. National Security Agency". Documents related to that ligitation are marked with "*". "XXXXX" has been inserted in a title if a portion of the title has been deleted prior to release. To select a document click on the document title, and wait for the PDF version to be downloaded to your local viewer. Approximate file sizes are given after each selection for user convenience.


From constitution.org

1947 was a critical year. It was the year in which UFOs became a matter of public concern, and in which it appears we recovered at least one crashed vehicle and perhaps at least one of its occupants. It is also the year that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was established, ostensibly to bring together the disparate intelligence agencies that had often been operating at cross-purposes. It was also the beginning of the use of "black budgets" for government programs, the existence of which was kept secret from both the public and most if not all members of Congress. This led later to the establishment of more agencies, such as the National Security Agency, whose entire budget was black, thus preventing effective oversight.

Google 'Pleiadians', 'Andromedians', 'Procyonians', 'Zeta', 'Reticulans', 'Sirians', 'Lyrans', or 'Vegans'.

There is tons of info on this supposed conspiracy.

Its amazing that UFO visit only USA.

Its amazing that UFO visit only USA.

thats' they current local-thinking agenda. :D :p

Well yeah last time they they took some russian guy the specimen escaped by intoxicating the medics with it's breath and the end result is Tunguska incident.
I may beleive in extra terrestial lifeforms but somewhat the greys with their cornfield pictures and anal probing are working on my nerves it would be sad for them if they ever should turn out real witch they wouldn't

Well yeah last time they they took some russian guy the specimen escaped by intoxicating the medics with it's breath and the end result is Tunguska incident.
I may beleive in extra terrestial lifeforms but somewhat the greys with their cornfield pictures and anal probing are working on my nerves it would be sad for them if they ever should turn out real witch they wouldn't

anal Probing huh? :p :o the greys certainly answer some weirdo's fantasies. I mean what other disgusting things can aliens do more? lol.

anal Probing huh? the greys certainly answer some weirdo's fantasies.
I'm starting to believe we found the reason why they seem to visit the US so much

Google 'Pleiadians', 'Andromedians', 'Procyonians', 'Zeta', 'Reticulans', 'Sirians', 'Lyrans', or 'Vegans'.

After doing so all I'm left with is a sense of how limited both the science education and imagination is for both the people who dream up this stuff up and the people who buy into it.

Pleiadians, Andromedians, Procyonians, Sirians, Lyrans and Vegans. All based on "brand name" celestrial objects. Where are the aliens from more obscure constellations/Stars? Where are the Microscopiumians, the HD1581ians?

Even the Zeta Reticulans, which at least come from a lesser known southern constellation, come from a naked-eye visible star. Why don't any aliens come a non naked-eye visible star in the constellation of Musca? (There is a G class star of this type) Why? Because the people who imagine all this stuff are unaware that there are G class stars, like our own, fairly nearby which aren't naked-eye visible. Their imaginings are limited by their limited knowledge.

Instead we get 'Pleiadians', Beings who apparently colonized the Pleiades, a small star cluster consisting of young hot stars, none of which are even old enough to have formed habitable planets.

Instaed

After doing so all I'm left with is a sense of how limited both the science education and imagination is for both the people who dream up this stuff up and the people who buy into it.

There is so much evidence to the contrary of the sense you feel, you must be reasoning from a very narrow scope. :shrug:

Pleiadians, Andromedians, Procyonians, Sirians, Lyrans and Vegans. All based on "brand name" celestrial objects. Where are the aliens from more obscure constellations/Stars? Where are the Microscopiumians, the HD1581ians?

The "brand names" have been used by people around the world who claim to have been abducted.

Even the Zeta Reticulans, which at least come from a lesser known southern constellation, come from a naked-eye visible star. Why don't any aliens come a non naked-eye visible star in the constellation of Musca? (There is a G class star of this type) Why?

Good question.:shrug:

Because the people who imagine all this stuff are unaware that there are G class stars, like our own, fairly nearby which aren't naked-eye visible. Their imaginings are limited by their limited knowledge.

How much research have you done on aliens?

Instead we get 'Pleiadians', Beings who apparently colonized the Pleiades, a small star cluster consisting of young hot stars, none of which are even old enough to have formed habitable planets

Instaed


You sure about that?

How much research have you done on aliens?
I've tried but they object vociferously when I start to strap them onto the vivisection table. :rolleyes:

There is so much evidence to the contrary of the sense you feel, you must be reasoning from a very narrow scope. :shrug:
You must have an extremely low standard for what you accept a evidence.
As for reasoning from a narrow scope, It is the narrow scope of what I've read about these purported aliens that leads me to my conclusion. I mean, really, it all reads like something a 12 yr old might write or the background story for a bad SF movie. In fact, one part sounds as if was taken right out of the mouth of an SF author. It talks about an agressive reptilian alien race that is coming to Earth to reclaim what it considers its home turf.

In the early 80's there was a TV series called "V" which dealt with a reptilian alien race that comes to Earth to steal our water. The above mentioned SF writer wasn't happy with this plot device (Considering that the aliens could have gotten all the water they needed from the ice frozen in cometary objects, without having to lift it out of a planetary gravity well.), so he suggested that a better idea would've been that the aliens originated from Earth long ago, were now just returning, and wanted the Earth back as their own.

Sounds like someone just lifted this writer's idea and inserted it into their Alien mythos.



The "brand names" have been used by people around the world who claim to have been abducted.
Just my point. These aleged "abductees" always use names associated with common celestrial objects; names they were already likely to be familiar with. This suggests that it was all a product of their own minds.

How much research have you done on aliens?
Enough to conclude that there are a lot of people who want desperately to believe in them. So much so that they'll believe anything anyone says on the subject as long as it supports this belief, and that there are plenty of people out there more than willing to supply them with what they want. As such, the field is just plain flooded with garbage. And to be frank, life is too short to spend it wading through mounds of garbage in search of a diamond that, in all likelyhood, isn't even there.





You sure about that?
Yep.

You must have an extremely low standard for what you accept a evidence.


The government documents along with virtually every astronaut and many test pilots, one time or another, claiming to have witnessed or seen UFOs is the main evidence.

Add to that all the other less credible evidence and it makes for a stronger case than just a few loonies making up stories.

But I digress, it is not hard to imagine the public panic that could occur if all was revealed, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.:shrug:

Navigator: You posted two links, alleged to lead to articles/data supporting your views.nsa.gov & constitution.orgThose URL’s merely lead to Home Pages, making it inconvenient for a person to find the articles.

Why not provide URL’s leading directly to the articles you cited? Perhaps the full articles might not be convincing?

BTW: Janus58 had good reason to state that no aliens live in the Pleiades. The stars there are only 100 million years old. Compare with Sol, which is about 4.6 billion years old. The very first primitive life forms did not develop on Earth until about 1 billion years after the formation of the solar system. The first vertebrates (fish) did not develop until about 4 billion years after the solar system formed. There is good reason to believe that no intelligent aliens exist in the Pleiades.

There is good reason to believe that we might be the only intelligent life in our galaxy, and that intelligent life is rare in the universe. One wonders how far these alleged aliens would have to travel to get here. It seems like a lot of trouble for very little benefit. Even the believers do not claim that the aliens are doing much here other than medical research on humans.

Actualy the closest star system with a decent change on life would be alpha centauri. Witch by the way is the closest star to the sun
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209118 I would not take the article to seriosly but they estimate 3 planets around alpha centauri a alone of 0.5 0.7 and 0.2 earth masses (BTW I seriosly doubt the accurucy of these numbres) But the fact is that the stars are far enough from each other to allow planets, the suns are from a good spectral class and old enough and any eventual planet could due to the nature of the system contain large amounts of water (could). And most of all the proberly due have multiple planets and 2 habitable zones. So if there is going to be some life nearby that you might as well gamble for this one at least their is some sience behind it.

Navigator: You posted two links, alleged to lead to articles/data supporting your views.nsa.gov & constitution.orgThose URL’s merely lead to Home Pages, making it inconvenient for a person to find the articles.

Why not provide URL’s leading directly to the articles you cited? Perhaps the full articles might not be convincing?

I am not able to post links due to my post count. The articles can be found if you google "NSA on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects". The first link will take you to the NSA page that gives a number of declassified documents.

The constitution page can be found by googling "1947 was a critical year" and following the second link.

BTW: Janus58 had good reason to state that no aliens live in the Pleiades. The stars there are only 100 million years old. Compare with Sol, which is about 4.6 billion years old. The very first primitive life forms did not develop on Earth until about 1 billion years after the formation of the solar system. The first vertebrates (fish) did not develop until about 4 billion years after the solar system formed. There is good reason to believe that no intelligent aliens exist in the Pleiades.

There is good reason to believe that we might be the only intelligent life in our galaxy, and that intelligent life is rare in the universe. One wonders how far these alleged aliens would have to travel to get here. It seems like a lot of trouble for very little benefit. Even the believers do not claim that the aliens are doing much here other than medical research on humans.

How can you state so positively the age of pleiades or sol? How can you be so sure first primitive life on earthdeveloped 1 billion years ago?
Science is far from absolute, and your opinion is based on theories not fact.

Orcot: It is interesting to speculate about the possibility of planets in the Alpha Centauri system. It is in the habitable zone of our galaxy, an important criteria often overlooked by those who expect the universe to be teeming with intelligent star traveling creatures.

Current technology seems to be capable of providing excellent evidence for the existence of planets orbiting stars much farther from us than Alpha Centauri. The cited article describes simulations. Does this imply that we are unable to determine whether or not the system has planets? If I have time I will try to research this possibility.

A binary system might not be stable long enough for intelligent life to develop, but this is not certain. A star not as bright as the sun could have a habitable zone closer to the star than Earth is from the sun. If close to one star and far from the companion, a stable orbit for billions of years seems possible.


Navigator: Are you naive or posting without thinking? Disparaging some aspect of modern physics as just a thoery indicates that you are not familiar with science and the concept of a theory.Science is far from absolute, and your opinion is based on theories not fact.Nobody is claiming that science is absolute. Nobody is even claiming that it is as well established as various mathematical theorems. The first phrase in the above is an attempt to use a fallacious argument so well known that it has a name: Strawman.

Table salt is NaCl (sodium cloride), Mr. X was born in 1975, London is a city in England, et cetera are facts. Let us not require that level of certainty for various aspects of scientific knowledge. My opinions are usually based on reasonable scientific knowledge.


BTW: You do not read posts very carefully. I said that the first primitive life form developed about one billion years after the solar system formed, not one billion years ago.

When astrophysicists state that some star is about 100 million years old, rather than billions of years old, they should be believed unless you have some damn good reasons for doubting them. Similarly for those who study the history of the solar system and Earth. The age of the solar system at about 4.6 billion years is considered an accurate estimate. Similarly, the currently accepted time line for life forms on Earth is based on very reasonable estimates.

It is my guess that you know zip about astrophysics, archaeology, geology, anthropology, and other subjects pertinent to this discussion. On what do you base your objection to the claim that stars in the Pleiades system are not about 100 million years old?

We have technology that works: TV’s, lasers, computers, airplanes, internal combustion engines, and all sorts of other gadgets. These are all based on concepts which are just theories. When a scientist uses the word theory, it is not a synonym for unfounded speculation, subjective opinion, or his current faith based belief.

Most of the theories developed by astrophysicists are as sound as the theories on which TV’s, computers, lasers, et cetera are based. It might be plausible to object to some aspects of Big Bang Cosmology, but most of their other notions are probably correct except for some small details.

It looks like too much trouble to check out the sites you mentioned. I have wasted a lot of time in the past checking out citations relating to UFO’s, only to discover that there is just no plausible evidence supporting the notion that intelligent aliens have visited Earth. Unless I get a URL leading to a specific article, I do not bother hunting.

Does this imply that we are unable to determine whether or not the system has planets?
Pretty much. The current technologies rely on gravitational pulling and that's sort of difficult if a other know object (the other sun) is already pulling at the other sun. But eventualy that yust means that the planets are considerably less massive then gas giants. So it's already certain that their are no gas giants (that yust leaves room for terrestrial planets) And the paper states that the inner stable zone goes to around 3AU and the outer stable zone starts at 70AU. So if you placed our solar system in it you could get to 8 stable terrestrial planets (example). I gues it's proberly's going to take until 2020 before ESA's darwin is going to be able to photograph them. To bad NASA's terresrial planet finder is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Planet_Finder)scrapted alpha centauri A and B where the first two of the 100th most interesting systems. Sign all that trouble to go back to the moon without extra funding.

What more proof do we need for Aliens visiting us ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNnllwGmUB8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgyHJb1UULY

and we will be starting to see a lot more of these things starting next week
publishing date june 26 2006.