Heyo
Veteran Member
How so? Relativity says we can't travel faster than light - but we don't need to. Even with a barely relativistic speed of 10% c a voyage to proxima centauri takes less than 50 years.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Metallic spheres found on Pacific floor are interstellar in origin, Harvard professor finds
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Heyo
Veteran Member
Tell me why we would need to travel at the speed of light - and which laws prevent us from travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Why would you even want to live on a planet? Those hunks of rock are terrible to get off again.There is something to be said for bioships (ships with their own farming and self-sustaining populations, etc...). When we launch something to go to a nearby star system, in hopes of finding a world suitable for colony building and eventual global settlement, has a couple of issues yet to be mentioned in this thread. While even by relatively infantile current technology, we can suss out which exoplants have oxygen in their atmospheres along with water. Great! But.....
1. They could be so inhospitable for a wide range of reasons, such that our colony ship would have to move on to another (hopefully) nearby star system.
.....or......
2. The planet could have all the building blocks we need for a habitable planet........ after a few (dozen) centuries of terraforming. The bioship would have to sit in orbit, monitoring the planet below, while bombarding it with water-ice asteroids, seeding the atmosphere and expanding oceans with bacteria and plankton, etc...etc...etc... before even the first plant seeds could be sent down. All the while maintaining their own biosphere, plant and animal populations, engineering needs etc... from an asteroid field that would also be required to exist in the star system.
So whether the ship can make it to the other star system in 1 day, or 50 years, is of minor importance, compared to the in-system time they will have to spend living onboard the ship as a giant space station during the terraforming, centuries before anyone "takes a shuttle" or "beams down" to the planet surface.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Which means that a person that is 20 would be very close to 70 by the time they got there. and 120 if he lived to see the return. And that is for the absolutely closest star. To what purpose?
so that means it's equally likely that tomorrow when we are a lot smarter than we are now and have a much better understanding of physics than we do now.....
That we can think of given what we know right now. The problem I hear, is I don't hear any conditional language being said like what I am using. I hear absolutist language saying it is impossible instead. That's all I'm pointing out.
I already explained in a previous post.
Actually it’s not equally likely. Context.
And with current physics, how do you propose getting an object to 10% c?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Heyo
Veteran Member
So, we do agree that there is no known physics that prevents us from travelling to the second nearest star within a human lifetime?
Heyo
Veteran Member
I already explained in a previous post.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is not a physics problem. It is an engineering one. That is what may make it impossible.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That's what I was saying all along.
Which post?
AnthonyGiarrusso
Member
I want to find some on the beach.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Which post?
#18. You?
Why is it not just as likely we will have some breakthrough in the future? Because why exactly? What context are you imagining that makes this different?
Law of diminishing returns. We already have an incredible grasp of physics and the things you’ve mentioned were all based on those laws. That’s why we’ve had exponential growth in technology. BUT, to cross the stars in a meaningful way will take something beyond physics for lack of a better phrase.