Practical space travel

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Norsefire, Aug 31, 2008.

  1. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. goose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    It takes that long for light to travel that far, but doesnt the theory of relativity say that to the light partical itself it is actually taking less time???

    An example is, if a person was on board a spaceship and the were traveling near-speed-of-light to another planet, people on our planet would see him traveling for lets say 100 years, but the person on the ship feels only, lets say, 1 year go by.

    Am I missing something?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. losfomoT Unregistered User Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    No, you got it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    someone travelling at 70,7%c will observe the passing of 364,8days afther traveling one lightyear (a earth observer would still observe 516,2 days)
     
  8. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    it really must look like the universe is collapsing at such accelerations
    at 70,7%c alpha centauri is only a 3 lightyears away in stead of 4,3
    at 80%c it's only 2,5LY and at 99% it's only 0,6LY anymore


    That's relativity for you
     
  9. goose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    so ya, it doesnt really matter to the person traveling at that speed, because, if we could get infinitely close to the speed of light, the person traveling could get there at a years time according to them, however the people here watching him might go through a period of 1000 years.

    (random numbers, not based on true facts or anything)
     
  10. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by [their] names." (Psalm 147:4)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    You could just send a ship full of frozen embryos together with robot nannies and stored information on humanity, like in A.C.Clarke's "Songs of distant Earth".
    Of course suspended animation tech has to be developed, but it's chicken feed compared to FTL travel.
     
  12. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    I think we could just freeze all people who want to travel, catapult them through space, and there they go traveling frozing corpses at close to speed velocity...and they will be slowed down by atoms they collide with along the way
     
  13. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    How would people be taken out of this suspended animation while frozen? Their cells woul rapture...you know.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2008
  14. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    It's possible to freeze cells without rupturing them, we just don't know how to do it on something as big as a person yet. If you flash-freeze something fast enough, the water doesn't crystallize and expand as it freezes. You can do it with a few cells by quickly dipping them into liquid helium, but we haven't figured out how to cool an entire human body fast enough. If we ever do, suspended animation would actually be quite a lot like cartoons where people are just suddenly frozen in the blink of an eye.
     
  15. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Nope. Life and it's advancement carries on fine without you, thanks though.
     
  16. Lordznebula5 Registered Member

    Messages:
    45
    I agree. Nothing practical about space travel. Not able to be explained as such as life on earth with resources and/ or a life span of human limits. Space is a more complex and dangerous with all the lack of oxygen and asteroid nearing. Man has certainly gone to the moon. Man has certainly gone to mars. NASA certainly has advanced ability to go to Mars and has already begun talk of building weapons there. :runaway: I simply see space travel as a big waste of time however when man hadn't studied the sea and land he already has set before him. Man is organic. Man needs and depends on organic resources from this earth planet. How can they go to space with such denial of their organic self. Or the pleasures their organic selves are able to have for such a long time as being on space ship everyone has to remain a tight *ss suited up and on duty. (No time for :shake

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A shame they don't give earth the same attention. but on sticking to the subject of how to explore space practical of manner ...I don't think they are able and space be for the ghosts of the dead. So wait until then. lol. Not worth focusing on. Besides they don't ever bring anything usable to earth only end up using more resources for dead ends.:crazy:

     
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    I think it's likely (or at least possible) that our descendants* will explore the universe. They will necessarily have longer lifespans, and have much broader perspectives and perceptions than we currently do. That means (among other things) to be able to think on much larger and much smaller scales of time and distance.

    *We might not recognize our descendants. Probably not. They might not share much or any of our DNA. They might not be biological at all.
     
  18. Harro Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    I agree with pete.

    1)Man made Technology that becomes self aware, can repair itself, adapt and replicate. Then kill its maker the same way we killed our maker, god..lol (joke)

    2)Transfer our consciousness from our biological machine to a non-biological machine.

    3) vast improvments in medical treatments were we could replace our failing/damaged bodily organs and body parts with new ones. But you would still require oxygen and food this way.
     
  19. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    I do not recognize a descendant who is not biological.
     
  20. Letticia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    I agree! All my descendants who are less than 60% biological are hereby excluded from my will.
     
  21. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    well than you'll have robots who are fully made of metal and attach biological body on them to make up for 60% of their total mass just to get ur will...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    I think it will be more likely that people will integrate more and more with technology. A logical continuation of what's been happening for decades.
    When I say "descendants", I'm implying "children" rather than "creations".

    Perhaps in part, but not necessarily. People don't transfer their consciousness to their children (or do they?)

    Not if they aren't biological, and even if they are they might be engineered to do their own recycling. Only an energy source might be required.
     
  23. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    It seems an arbitrary distinction to make. And like Letticia said, where do you draw the line?
    If someone has a prosthetic limb, do you disinherit them?
    What if all their limbs are prosthetic?
    What about a prosthetic heart, lungs, liver, or kidneys?
    Or all of the above?

    Where do you draw the line?
     

Share This Page