How much possible,I know this is still a SF(like in Star Trek),but could anyone tell me what do we have to do to achieve those Warp speeds in space?
I remember,when I read that we wouldn't be able faster than speed of sound,but look us today...,we're so advanced,my question is how many percents is possible to built starships with Warp speeds,speeds faster than light hundereds,thousands,millions,billions or even trillions of time?
Is it possible?
Did Gene Roddenbery predict that(perhaps in about 500 years in the future,if human population survives all catastrophies,disasters and other primitivism that humans and all other forms hold in their characters)?
I remember Jules Verne's book where humans went to Moon,so he actually predicted that...
What do you think?
What do we have to do,how to construct that starship that travels at Warp speed?
Hmmm...
Everyone's help is welcome.

No.

:p LOL Good answer Harold.

There is a big difference between the speed of sound and the speed of light. People thought you couldn't travel faster than sound for various reasons, most simply because not that they thought you couldn't do it, but that you couldn't survive it. The speed of light is different it's not a survivable limit. It's truly a physical limitation that anything with mass cannot accelerate to the speed of light. You can still be in a starship and accelerate forever. Even if you're at .99c then you can still be at .995c and .9955c, etc.

I'm not saying we won't find away around this limitation. wormholes, manipulation of spacetime, etc. These are all in the realm of science fiction for now, but who knows. I would never say "We will never do this." But the fact is, we must find a work around, because matter can never accellerate to c.

-AntonK

The problem with exceeding the speed of light is that the craft would have to be centered around a sufficient source of gravity just for it to be practical for transport.

Answer:

Yes, with a strong enough self generated gravity field, no sweat.
No, when generated or static field is to weak to over come effects of external fields= speed limit.

Simple enough?

in startrek don't they use some sort of inertial dampeners so you don't feel the acceleration? I have no idea how this is suposed to work or even if it is explained.

my bet is on wormholes and things of that sort.

Do any of you understand what fiction is?

Personally. I would say fiction is the wishful thinking of authors. I would say new technology is the wishful thinking (made reality through science) of scientists. Very little difference if the science is valid. There is a multitude of examples of sci-fi technologies now in use.

-AntonK

1. This post should not be here.
2. Fiction is for entertainment
3. Technology is for need.
4. Science is a proceedure.

Technology is for need? Do we really NEED technology? Define need (I realize its philosophical...but so is stating we NEED anything but the basics)

I believe technology sometimes arrives simply because people dream it...from fiction to non-fiction. Flying was fiction before it was done. Space travel was fiction before it was done. Hell, AI was fiction.... right?

-AntonK

You can dream all the technology you want. Then you have to build and sell it. Only if a need is determined, will it sell.
You seem to think technology is fancy machines. It is everything you wear and eat. Without technology you are a helpless ape.
Every generation has all its time taken up with technology repair, production, invention and destruction.

There is a difference between thought and action. You can think of flying, but it does not produce flight.

warp speeds are actually a physical reality, the awnser is yes we will be able to travel at warp speed, in fact such a machine could be built today, and even it the past, however traveling at warp speeds or god speed is very dangerous.exspecially so in earth atmosphere both for the craft and the enviroment.

traveling at god speed requires the development of antigravity.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

The idea that fiction is fiction, and fact used to be fiction. Is true i believe.
Anyway getting back to the main point, i believe that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light (or warp speed). This is done by changing the space that the “ship” is in.
For start treck is was (sub space) in star wars it was (hyper space).
I could go into more detail in how this was performed, but wont until asked.
For this space obeys the laws that we know, so we must find another space where the laws are different. I’m not saying that there is another space, but maybe there will be. meny people talk about different dimensions, maybe that is way?
At the monument we cannot go further than fact physics and even in fiction they obey the laws of physics in our space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or is this all just a dream? and the dream the "real?"

Originally posted by hlreed
You can dream all the technology you want. Then you have to build and sell it. Only if a need is determined, will it sell.
You seem to think technology is fancy machines. It is everything you wear and eat. Without technology you are a helpless ape.
Every generation has all its time taken up with technology repair, production, invention and destruction.

There is a difference between thought and action. You can think of flying, but it does not produce flight.

Why does it in any way ahve to do with money? Where did profit come into this equation? Long after the Wright brothers are dead, we are still in awe of that technology. If they had agreed with what everyone thought at the time (that flight would never work, and if it did it could never have any commercial application -- which if my memory serves me is state in a quote by one of the brothers) then we would not have the technology. I think the greatest thing about technology is that sometimes technologies come about before they really have a need. People find the best uses for technology when the technology wasnt created specifically for that job.

-AntonK

Originally posted by AntonK
Why does it in any way ahve to do with money? Where did profit come into this equation? Long after the Wright brothers are dead, we are still in awe of that technology. If they had agreed with what everyone thought at the time (that flight would never work, and if it did it could never have any commercial application -- which if my memory serves me is state in a quote by one of the brothers) then we would not have the technology. I think the greatest thing about technology is that sometimes technologies come about before they really have a need. People find the best uses for technology when the technology wasnt created specifically for that job.

-AntonK
Who said anything about profit? Technology is invented. I invent.
Once invented it must be built. It costs to build. No inventor ever gets properly paid. When you build it you can point to it. Point to warped space. Talk about it all you wish. Build it and I will talk to you.

This is a forum about machines. There is a science fiction thing here.

This is a forum about intelligence and machines. Show me a machine I can talk to...show me a machine I can have an intelligent conversation with...show me a machine capable of learning and adapting as well as a human...heck, as well as a monkey, and I will talk to you. Till then, it too is science fiction.

-AntonK

Originally posted by AntonK
show me a machine capable of learning and adapting as well as a human

Try this AI version of twenty questions (http://y.20q.net:8095/btest). It got “digital camera” after 14 tries.

Originally posted by Gravage
my question is how many percents is possible to built starships with Warp speeds,speeds faster than light hundereds,thousands,millions,billions or even trillions of time?

Science believes this is impossible, but acknowledges that it is effectively possible. The catch is that when you get back to your base after such a voyage, everyone you knew there would have died long ago.

You may have read that it is possible in principle to travel to the Andromeda galaxy and back, some 4 million light years round trip, within a human lifetime. Say the trip takes 40 years by your watch, that’s 100,000 times the speed of light! Or so it would seem; yet nobody including yourself measures you exceed the speed of light. If you left in 2003, when you got back to Earth the year would be past 4,000,000.

Try this AI version of twenty questions. It got “digital camera” after 14 tries.

This sort of intelligence isn't that difficult to achieve. It's the self-teaching kind that's so hard to duplicate, an even then it dosen't come close to having true competence.

No I think that we poor humans may never be able to travel faster then light but we might be able to get some place without traveling.

Also.. If I shine a laser out into space the spot of light reflected from an object far far away, would appear to move much faster across that object then the speed of light.

Originally posted by Binary
This sort of intelligence isn't that difficult to achieve. It's the self-teaching kind that's so hard to duplicate, an even then it dosen't come close to having true competence.

You can say that about AI in general (it is artificial after all). Nevertheless, it’s better than a human could do. I doubt randomly selected people could beat it on average.

That's not intelligence though. It is simply rules. They categorized objects based on certain characteristics. True AI would allow me to type in a description, and be able to draw mentally (or digitally of course) a picture of the object I am talking about. It could then reference that image, along with the specifics about the object against past things it knows about and come up with possibilities.

As for no human being able to do that, I disagree. Give me a print out of the database used to do that and I could do it. Would take me a WHOLE lot longer, but I could do it.

Personally I think AI requires more research into the senses. The human mind runs off a huge amount of information in the form of the 5 (maybe more...who knows) senses. Right now we are trying to create most AI in a locked state of sense. They either have one or no senses. When humans are subjected to sensory deprevation they seem to go a tad insane, so maybe that wouldnt be a good place to start with a true AI.

-AntonK

OK. You have a higher standard for AI than I do. For me it’s just seeming intelligence, regardless of what’s under the hood. The twenty questions AI (20Q) passes that test for me.

In a battle against 20Q, you wouldn’t be entitled to a printout of its database if it created the database itself. I think that’s how the 20Q works. If it loses a game it asks what you were thinking of, then adds that to its database for future reference, like a human would.

If you stick to your standard then no AI would be good enough, since presumably it will always be an algorithm a human could follow if given enough time. For example, if AI created popular artwork or music, I wouldn’t call it unintelligent just because I could duplicate a piece of its work if given ten years.

Well...there are are already sufficiently complex neural networks that have been created that prevent someone from tracing "why" a computer amde the decision that it did. You can for instance, actually trace the electrical impulses from one neuron to another and see the path made for the given input and output. But, without knowing all previous experience that AI has had, you can't possible know why the neurons have the weights that they do. It's like in our brain, you can say you know why you made a decision, but when it comes down do it, do you really know why? Or are you guessing? Seems to me you're more trying to trace back the pathways and come up with previous things that influenced that deicision, but you can never know for sure. This is the reason we aren't usign neural networks where I work. We design idiot AIs for military simluations (I say idiot because the military doesn't want them too smart...turns out the best soldiers arent smart they just follow orders) and we can't use neural networks because it is too difficult to trace the decision pathways of a neural network in an After Action Review.

-AntonK

Interesting. Is it the same with genetic algorithms where you work? Since they have an initial random state, it seems you couldn’t trace them back either.

Originally posted by zanket
Science believes this is impossible, but acknowledges that it is effectively possible. The catch is that when you get back to your base after such a voyage, everyone you knew there would have died long ago.

You may have read that it is possible in principle to travel to the Andromeda galaxy and back, some 4 million light years round trip, within a human lifetime. Say the trip takes 40 years by your watch, that’s 100,000 times the speed of light! Or so it would seem; yet nobody including yourself measures you exceed the speed of light. If you left in 2003, when you got back to Earth the year would be past 4,000,000.



Please explain further..i am really interested in what you posted