APP - Awesome interstellar travel

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is a map of another star system:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/GJ581orbits.svg/500px-GJ581orbits.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581

It has a planet on it that could possible support life. It's in the habitable zone and it has seven times Earth's gravity.

The star systems only 20 LY away. At 30% of the speed of light, we could do that in 70 years. We have the technology to make a starship that could do that and be launched within our lifetime. O_O

So what do you say?

[uscitizen]

No profit in that.

Do they have oil there?

[ib1yysguy]

No profit in that.

Do they have oil there?

Going to the moon hasn't turned a profit either, unless you count bragging rights to the greatest achievement of human kind ever as being worth anything.

[Minister of Truth]

OF COURSE + I have a vagina

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yeah, my calculation were a bit off. Whatever.

[Damocles]

Going to the moon hasn't turned a profit either, unless you count bragging rights to the greatest achievement of human kind ever as being worth anything.
Yet it did turn a profit. People do not realize how many inventions were made for the space program. It's more than paid for itself in its contributions to the economy.

[ib1yysguy]

Yet it did turn a profit. People do not realize how many inventions were made for the space program. It's more than paid for itself in its contributions to the economy.

Going to THE MOON has never turned a profit. Memory foam and tang aren't exactly moon specific, nor can you argue that whatever money has been made off of them exceeds the amount invested in the space program that produced them.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

NASA's budget in the 60's was massive - like 30 billion a year in today's dollars, or 0.5% of the total GDP. I don't think it was profitable. It was done, basically, just because of how awesome it was.

[ib1yysguy]

NASA's budget in the 60's was massive - like 30 billion a year in today's dollars, or 0.5% of the total GDP. I don't think it was profitable. It was done, basically, just because of how awesome it was.

Yeah, that's my point. $30,000,000,000,000 is a lot of tang.

[Damocles]

Going to THE MOON has never turned a profit. Memory foam and tang aren't exactly moon specific, nor can you argue that whatever money has been made off of them exceeds the amount invested in the space program that produced them.
I can argue that, but it really is unnecessary.

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html



Out of a $2.4 trillion budget, less than 0.8% is spent on the entire space program! That's less than 1 penny for every dollar spent. The average American spends more of their budget on their cable bill, eating out or entertainment than this yet the benefits of space flight are remarkable. It has been conservatively estimated by U.S. space experts that for every dollar the U.S. spends on R and D in the space program, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth. Besides the obvious jobs created in the aerospace industry, thousands more are created by many other companies applying NASA technology in nonspace related areas that affect us daily. One cannot even begin to place a dollar value on the lives saved and improved lifestyles of the less fortunate. Space technology benefits everyone and a rising technological tide does raise all boats.


There are more than just monetary benefits from the space program. From how things run, to baby food has been improved and we have made money off of them.

There are simply far more benefits than we have losses because of the space program.

[Damocles]

Yeah, that's my point. $30,000,000,000,000 is a lot of tang.
Are you saying that NASA has a 30 Billion dollar a year budget?

[Damocles]

This is a map of another star system:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/GJ581orbits.svg/500px-GJ581orbits.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581

It has a planet on it that could possible support life. It's in the habitable zone and it has seven times Earth's gravity.

The star systems only 20 LY away. At 30% of the speed of light, we could do that in 70 years. We have the technology to make a starship that could do that and be launched within our lifetime. O_O

So what do you say?
I think by the time we got that spacecraft there it would be met by people who made the trip faster but left later...

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Are you saying that NASA has a 30 Billion dollar a year budget?

I'm saying that in the 60s they had a 30 bill budget in 2008 dollars.

[ib1yysguy]

Are you saying that NASA has a 30 Billion dollar a year budget?

Adjusted for inflation.

[ib1yysguy]

Amazing to watch a Libertarian argue for how great big government spending projects are for the economy.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think by the time we got that spacecraft there it would be met by people who made the trip faster but left later...

I just figured out that fusion rockets could only reach 10% of the speed of light. Which would take 200 years, so it wouldn't really be worth it. :-/

Fission rockets can only reach about 3% of the speed of light, and that's the fastest current day technology we have.

Light sails, therefore, might be a much better idea. We'd need to launch a sheet of mylar 1 km thick into space, though. It would take a km wide laser pouring 10 gigawatts a year into it, but it could make it to the nearest star in 10 years. Which, honestly, doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It could happen in our lifetime. And we'd only be able to send probes, since the shielding required to send a crew would simply put far too much weight into it. Also, we could up the wattage of our laser in the future as our technology becomes better, which would provide some degree of built in advancement (although it doesn't rule out the possibility of us making some massive breakthrough in other kinds of rockets).

The possibility of FTL technology is something that doesn't seem unreasonable from the current viewpoint. The "warp" drive would require exotic matter with negative mass, and the wormhole concept similarly requires an anti-gravity field. Grind told me that there may be "natural" worm holes out there, but I've only ever read about wormholes in the context of them being black holes. He heard it on a Discovery documentary or something like that, which makes me sigh. The possibility of anti-gravity seems slim, but we won't know for certain until we get the Theory of Everything, which will fully describe gravity as a force, and could possibly offer ways to go FTL.

BTW, the reason FTL travel is time travel is that, for the person in a rocket going at the speed of light, the speed of light is essentially infinity speed. Time dilation comes into play - at 30% of the speed of light, time is dighlighted from the voyagers perspective by 0.1 times. At 99%, time is dilated by about 2.5 times. At 99.99%, that's 22 times. 99.99999999% - 22360 times. And of course, at the speed of light that's infinity. It is very limited for an outside observer, but you could travel across the universe from your perspective in the blink of an eye if you could travel at the speed of light. You'd just arrive 80 billion years in the future and everyone you loved would be dead. What people really want to do is have the space travelers go faster than the speed of light from an observers perspective - which is something else entirely, and would require the bending of space. I've heard people say that even this concept would be time travel, but I don't see why it would be so if time dilation didn't put you above infinity speed.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Amazing to watch a Libertarian argue for how great big government spending projects are for the economy.

I think even damo realizes that just doing pure science research for the sake of it has exponential economic benefits in the long term.

[ib1yysguy]

I think even damo realizes that just doing pure science research for the sake of it has exponential economic benefits in the long term.

Damo would need to make the argument that private industry would be better suited for it in order to avoid contradicting himself. I'm pretty sure he or Dano (I can never remember the difference) was arguing that the private industry should have sent a man to the moon. This was back on fP.com

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Damo would need to make the argument that private industry would be better suited for it in order to avoid contradicting himself. I'm pretty sure he or Dano (I can never remember the difference) was arguing that the private industry should have sent a man to the moon. This was back on fP.com

If we had to rely on private industry for all space and scientific research, the US would be nothing be an insignificant backwater in 200 years.

Private industry research is great for, for instance, finding out which eye-liner looks best. For finding the higgs boson or going to moon, or virtually any other pure research project that has a farther economic reach than next financial quarter, the government is necessary.

[Damocles]

I'm saying that in the 60s they had a 30 bill budget in 2008 dollars.
And yes, we've made it back and more.

[Damocles]

Damo would need to make the argument that private industry would be better suited for it in order to avoid contradicting himself. I'm pretty sure he or Dano (I can never remember the difference) was arguing that the private industry should have sent a man to the moon. This was back on fP.com
Where have I made any such argument? When you can't tell the difference between me and Dano, then you haven't been paying attention.

[ib1yysguy]

Where have I made any such argument? When you can't tell the difference between me and Dano, then you haven't been paying attention.

One of my biggest beefs with Libertarians is how they do their best to avoid consistency. A serious Libertarian would obviously not support NASA because it represents everything they hate about government.

[Minister of Truth]

One of my biggest beefs with Libertarians is how they do their best to avoid consistency. A serious Libertarian would obviously not support NASA because it represents everything they hate about government.

As opposed to being a mindless drone?

Neolib: Government is God, No Program is Too Big/Expensive
Neocon: Government is Evil, Every Program is Creeping Socialism/Communism

[FUCK THE POLICE]

As opposed to being a mindless drone?

Neolib: Government is God, No Program is Too Big/Expensive
Neocon: Government is Evil, Every Program is Creeping Socialism/Communism

Neoliberal is an extremely conservative school of economics. Neoconservative refers primarily to your foreign policy prospective.

[Minister of Truth]

Neoliberal is an extremely conservative school of economics. Neoconservative refers primarily to your foreign policy prospective.

Neoliberal, in politics, refers to the New Left. Neocon's have other dumb ideas besides foreign policy perspectives. As a political isolationist, I am not a neocon, although they do seem to be economic globalists like me...

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Neoliberal, in politics, refers to the New Left. Neocon's have other dumb ideas besides foreign policy perspectives. As a political isolationist, I am not a neocon, although they do seem to be economic globalists like me...

I've heard a few people use the word "neoliberal" to mean an extreme leftist, and it's always annoyed me to no end, because it's basically just taking the extreme right wing connotations of "neoconservative" and reversing it for no reason at all, obliterating the meaning it's held for decades.

Like I was referencing how stupid neoliberal economics was, and then USC comes up and says "Neoliberal? Did Billo come up with that one?" (except without the good grammar).

And I'm a globalist too. :clink:

[Minister of Truth]

I've heard a few people use the word "neoliberal" to mean an extreme leftist, and it's always annoyed me to no end, because it's basically just taking the extreme right wing connotations of "neoconservative" and reversing it for no reason at all, obliterating the meaning it's held for decades.

Like I was referencing how stupid neoliberal economics was, and then USC comes up and says "Neoliberal? Did Billo come up with that one?" (except without the good grammar).

And I'm a globalist too. :clink:

Cheers to economic globalism :clink:

But no, it should seem obvious that neoconservatism was in large part a reaction to neoliberalism (New Left). Many of them were from the old New Deal Left. Neocons also have a history of shaping their foreign policy around the formation of Israel. Many of the early thinkers in the movement were Jews, which is where SM comes in and starts throwing the anti-semite label around every time someone says neocon.

If you'd like, actually, I have a copy of a senior thesis written about Neoconservatism and Iraq by a fellow alumnus and war vet, which gives a bit of history of the movement. Just PM me your email address and I can send you the paper. 41 pages with a bunch of typos, but otherwise very good.

[Damocles]

One of my biggest beefs with Libertarians is how they do their best to avoid consistency. A serious Libertarian would obviously not support NASA because it represents everything they hate about government.
Whoever said I was a "serious" libertarian? The largest idiocy on the board is the assumption that everybody who even leans libertarian believes that we should all live in anarchy and that there is no place at all for the government. Shoot, even Libertarians believe that there is a place for government.

[ib1yysguy]

Light sails, therefore, might be a much better idea. We'd need to launch a sheet of mylar 1 km thick into space, though. It would take a km wide laser pouring 10 gigawatts a year into it, but it could make it to the nearest star in 10 years. Which, honestly, doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It could happen in our lifetime. And we'd only be able to send probes, since the shielding required to send a crew would simply put far too much weight into it. Also, we could up the wattage of our laser in the future as our technology becomes better, which would provide some degree of built in advancement (although it doesn't rule out the possibility of us making some massive breakthrough in other kinds of rockets).


The problem is there's no way to stop them and now way to bring them home. They can't exactly just open their airbrakes and slow down from friction. Unless they can figure out some ingenious way to apply and equal and opposite force to slow them down from nearly the speed of light, they'll continue flying through the universe until they impact a star or something. And even if they could stop, they'd never be able to come home.

Edit: I just realized you were only talking about sending probes. Still, I hope they can take pictures while flying by something at nearly the speed of light or it's all pretty useless.

[uscitizen]

Why do all that? We have the Stargate in Cheyene mountain.
I have a cousin that worked there and one door said SGC on it and had a keypad.

For true.

Of course it appeared to be a plain janitors closet if you opened up the door.
Clever these government types.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The problem is there's no way to stop them and now way to bring them home. They can't exactly just open their airbrakes and slow down from friction. Unless they can figure out some ingenious way to apply and equal and opposite force to slow them down from nearly the speed of light, they'll continue flying through the universe until they impact a star or something. And even if they could stop, they'd never be able to come home.

Edit: I just realized you were only talking about sending probes. Still, I hope they can take pictures while flying by something at nearly the speed of light or it's all pretty useless.

Actually they could turn it around halfway, using rockets mounted on the sides. There are also a few other methods, and a solar sail could actually sail into the wind back home if that's what you want to design it for. But if you want to send a 1000 ton spacecraft with humans in it, that's 10 million gigawatts, rather than 10 gigawatts of laser power. Which is clearly impractical.

Another problem is: what do you think's going to happen to a mile wide mylar shield travelling at the speed of light when it's hit by space debris? Hopefully it just doesn't hit any asteroids, in which case the mission would be over. Once we're out of the oort cloud we should be find, but we don't know if there are any astroid or kuiper belts, or oort clouds around the next star system.

And hopefully by this time we'll have some pretty advanced AI, so it'll know what we'd like to explore. Obviously, communicating with a four year lag isn't going to be practical.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The problem with sending a probe is mainly that it doesn't have that "wow" factor. We could've done everything we needed to do on the moon by sending a probe, but we were able to wow the public (and produce a lot of useful techonology in the process) by accomplishing an amazing feat like putting a man on the moon. When we put someone on Mars, I bet people will all of the sudden like NASA again and stop calling for it to be shutdown. A probe just doesn't do that for people.

If we were able to put people on another star, sure it's overshooting by a tiny bit, since we can't get any DIRECT economic benefit out of that for a while and we have plenty of room within the solar system to colonize. But it will be amazing. It will be the greatest technological achievement humans possibly ever make.

How are we going to justify the hundreds of billions of dollar (this is a wild guesttimation, but I think it will be around that) price tag... to send a probe to another star? Even a probe with roughly human level AI? It's amazing, but it's not that amazing. We'd probably have to wait until like 2200 or so before prices were decent enough, unless the singularity happens.

[ib1yysguy]

Actually they could turn it around halfway, using rockets mounted on the sides. There are also a few other methods, and a solar sail could actually sail into the wind back home if that's what you want to design it for. But if you want to send a 1000 ton spacecraft with humans in it, that's 10 million gigawatts, rather than 10 gigawatts of laser power. Which is clearly impractical.

Another problem is: what do you think's going to happen to a mile wide mylar shield travelling at the speed of light when it's hit by space debris? Hopefully it just doesn't hit any asteroids, in which case the mission would be over. Once we're out of the oort cloud we should be find, but we don't know if there are any astroid or kuiper belts, or oort clouds around the next star system.

And hopefully by this time we'll have some pretty advanced AI, so it'll know what we'd like to explore. Obviously, communicating with a four year lag isn't going to be practical.

No, the rockets mounted on the sides would have to put out thrust equal to what it would take to accelerate it to it's present speed just to decelerate it. Then it has to power back up to speed to turn around entirely. Turning around the ship while traveling nearly the speed of light would mean you're traveling away from the earth at nearly the speed of light while looking backwards instead of forward. It would not turn you around and return you home.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, the rockets mounted on the sides would have to put out thrust equal to what it would take to accelerate it to it's present speed just to decelerate it. Then it has to power back up to speed to turn around entirely. Turning around the ship while traveling nearly the speed of light would mean you're traveling away from the earth at nearly the speed of light while looking backwards instead of forward. It would not turn you around and return you home.

What was I thinking?

Yeah, you'd need a special kind of sail.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I wonder how fast a solar sail could accelerate too by rocketing near the sun and flying around it for a few years? Surely the sun's light up-close would be much more powerful than any human laser. You could decelerate by doing a simialar process around the other star, although obviously this would require some crazily accurate computers to do this maneuver starting out at half the speed of light.

[Minister of Truth]

At some point we will just ban you from this area...

[BRUTALITOPS]

Time dilation comes into play - at 30% of the speed of light,

actually it comes into play when you drive your car down the street. It's just so small and minute it would be impossible to notice. It does happen though.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

actually it comes into play when you drive your car down the street. It's just so small and minute it would be impossible to notice. It does happen though.

I know that. But you have to go to pretty signifigant speeds to make it useful - and twice the speed of light is still useful, but half of 200 years of travel is still a ridiculous amount of time. When it will truly become useful is when - and if - we can accelerate to large 9.9999...%'s of the speed of light.

[uscitizen]

actually it comes into play when you drive your car down the street. It's just so small and minute it would be impossible to notice. It does happen though.

And what % of the speed of light are we travelling thru the universe while sitting and typing?

[Minister of Truth]

At some point we will just ban you from this area...

Hey, that's not what I wrote!!! :(

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And what % of the speed of light are we travelling thru the universe while sitting and typing?

Relative to the Earth you are travelling roughly 0 MPH.

[Damocles]

Relative to the Earth you are travelling roughly 0 MPH.
How about relative to the center of the galaxy? How about relative to the center point of the Big Bang?

[Minister of Truth]

How about relative to the center of the galaxy? How about relative to the center point of the Big Bang?

LOLZ Way to out Watermark, Watermark!

:clink:

[BRUTALITOPS]

the speed of light is essentially infinity speed.


And of course, at the speed of light that's infinity.



infinity speed.

no watermark. the speed of light is finite.

I think I know what you are TRYING to imply, but you are saying it wrong. There is, and will never BE, "infinity speed."

Just say when you reach the speed of light, time grinds to a halt from the perspective of an outside observer. To you though, a second will always feel like a second

[Minister of Truth]

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

[FUCK THE POLICE]

no watermark. the speed of light is finite.

I think I know what you are TRYING to imply, but you are saying it wrong. There is, and will never BE, "infinity speed."

Just say when you reach the speed of light, time grinds to a halt from the perspective of an outside observer. To you though, a second will always feel like a second

It's infinity in that a light speed traveler can go infinity distance in an instant from the travelers perspective. If you went faster than the speed of light, you'd get there before you arrived.

It is, however, impossible to accelerate to the speed of light. That would require infinity energy.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How about relative to the center of the galaxy? How about relative to the center point of the Big Bang?

I don't know what our velocity around the center of the galaxy is. And you can't really find the "center" of the big bang. I can't remember the explanation myself for why this is, but there isn't a center of the universe.

[Crashk]

NASA's budget in the 60's was massive - like 30 billion a year in today's dollars, or 0.5% of the total GDP. I don't think it was profitable. It was done, basically, just because of how awesome it was.

It was done because the Russians beat us to space in the late 50s.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's infinity in that a light speed traveler can go infinity distance in an instant from the travelers perspective. If you went faster than the speed of light, you'd get there before you arrived.

It is, however, impossible to accelerate to the speed of light. That would require infinity energy.

so where does light's infinite energy come from?

[uscitizen]

The infinite energy thing is based on what little we know now.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The infinite energy thing is based on what little we know now.

uh....yeah....wow....thanks for that

[FUCK THE POLICE]

so where does light's infinite energy come from?

Light is different.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The infinite energy thing is based on what little we know now.

What "little we know now" includes that accelerating something to light speed requires infinity energy. If you have some reason to disagree with special relativity, present it. Don't just burst out by saying that it will automatically be disproven because it's inconvenient.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It was done because the Russians beat us to space in the late 50s.

Which mattered CUS IT WAS AWESOME!

[uscitizen]

What "little we know now" includes that accelerating something to light speed requires infinity energy. If you have some reason to disagree with special relativity, present it. Don't just burst out by saying that it will automatically be disproven.

I am just going by empirical evidence of the facts that humanity has known to be true and limiting being continually overturned.
ie gravity does not impact organic and inorganic objects the same. ie a feather and lead will not fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Very close but a slight difference.

[Damocles]

I am just going by empirical evidence of the facts that humanity has known to be true and limiting being continually overturned.
ie gravity does not impact organic and inorganic objects the same. ie a feather and lead will not fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Very close but a slight difference.
Do you have a link to that? The feather and the hammer fell at the same rate when Neil Armstrong dropped them on the moon.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am just going by empirical evidence of the facts that humanity has known to be true and limiting being continually overturned.
ie gravity does not impact organic and inorganic objects the same. ie a feather and lead will not fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Very close but a slight difference.

But those things were arrived at through guesswork, in a time before science, and disproven through simple experimentation.

Einsten's relativity has been thoroughly proven to be correct on a large scale.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Do you have a link to that? The feather and the hammer fell at the same rate when Neil Armstrong dropped them on the moon.

I think he meant that they were two things that had been disproven through testing. Both of them are incorrect, so he probably just minced his wording.

[uscitizen]

No link, but it popped up several years ago. I might look for it. As I said the difference is very slight which is why it took scientists so long to disprove the "fact" that gravity acted the same on all objects.

On the dark matter. It is obvious to anyone with a brain. The dark matter is heaven where god lives.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No link, but it popped up several years ago. I might look for it. As I said the difference is very slight which is why it took scientists so long to disprove the "fact" that gravity acted the same on all objects.

Yeah, I don't believe you. I'm going to need a link.

There is absolutely no reason why gravity should act differently on carbon and carbon based atoms than anything else.

[uscitizen]

Link.

http://www.physorg.com/news98974036.html


Believe it or not it is linked into string theory :D

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is just theoretical, though. And string theory is all theory. It's very difficult to test - we'd need much more powerful particle accelerators to test it.

[uscitizen]

I am pretty sure I read/heard several years ago that it had been measured.
That is just the first thing I found on google about it.

I could be wrong on that one.

But that does not invalidate my argument. Plenty of "facts" have been disproven.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am pretty sure I read/heard several years ago that it had been measured.
That is just the first thing I found on google about it.

I could be wrong on that one.

But that does not invalidate my argument. Plenty of "facts" have been disproven.

The fact that facts have been proven doesn't mean that special relativity is definitely wrong in any one place.

You really have no reason to disbelieve it than the fact that you don't understand it and consider it inconvenient.

[uscitizen]

They are going to prove or disprove it soon WM.

http://www.physorg.com/news161257625.html

[Damocles]

No link, but it popped up several years ago. I might look for it. As I said the difference is very slight which is why it took scientists so long to disprove the "fact" that gravity acted the same on all objects.

On the dark matter. It is obvious to anyone with a brain. The dark matter is heaven where god lives.
The dark matter is the unmated lost socks.

[uscitizen]

The dark matter is the unmated lost socks.

Naah not that many socks. Dark matter is estimated to be 5X greater than known matter. Not possible to make more socks than there is known matter.

I wonder if dark matter even shares our dimension? Perhaps gravity trancends dimensional barriers?

btw PBS Nova Now had a segment on about dark matter tonight. Strange timing.

[Damocles]

Naah not that many socks. Dark matter is estimated to be 5X greater than known matter. Not possible to make more socks than there is known matter.

I wonder if dark matter even shares our dimension? Perhaps gravity trancends dimensional barriers?

btw PBS Nova Now had a segment on about dark matter tonight. Strange timing.
I actually watched that.

Another theory of mine is the dark matter is the trash from the future, sent back in time so it won't fill up their landfills.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Naah not that many socks. Dark matter is estimated to be 5X greater than known matter. Not possible to make more socks than there is known matter.

I wonder if dark matter even shares our dimension? Perhaps gravity trancends dimensional barriers?

btw PBS Nova Now had a segment on about dark matter tonight. Strange timing.

We don't know if dark matter exists or not. :-/

We know there is something wrong because the rotational curves of galaxies are flat, whereas they should slow down like solar systems. Which indicates that there's either matter there that emits no or little radiation, or that general relativity is wrong. Physiscists have considered the first solution a more likely (or easier to prove/disprove) route and have been studying it under the blanket name "dark matter". A lot of is probably just space rocks, brown dwards, and free planets (all of which emit little radiation), but physicists don't think that can explain all of it.

[uscitizen]

I actually watched that.

Another theory of mine is the dark matter is the trash from the future, sent back in time so it won't fill up their landfills.

LOL, Good one Damo. I like that one.

[uscitizen]

We don't know if dark matter exists or not. :-/

We know there is something wrong because the rotational curves of galaxies are flat, whereas they should slow down like solar systems. Which indicates that there's either matter there that emits no or little radiation, or that general relativity is wrong. Physiscists have considered the first solution a more likely (or easier to prove/disprove) route and have been studying it under the blanket name "dark matter". A lot of is probably just space rocks, brown dwards, and free planets (all of which emit little radiation), but physicists don't think that can explain all of it.

If dark matter does not exist then einstein was wrong.
The numbers are waaay off.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If dark matter does not exist then einstein was wrong.
The numbers are waaay off.

And if general relativity is wrong, you could very well be vindicated in your position that reaching a velocity of C requires infinity energy. Who knows...

[uscitizen]

Congrats, you are learning. Accept all "facts" conditionally.
Be prepared to discard facts and reorg data for new conclusions.

[uscitizen]

Light has mass, but it travels at the speed of light and obviously does not require infinite energy to go that speed.

just musing....

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Light has mass, but it travels at the speed of light and obviously does not require infinite energy to go that speed.

just musing....

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html

Photons don't have mass.

I read on Yahoo answers that they do literally have infinity energy. :-/

Which is confusing, because to have infinity energy it has to be able to convert to infinity mass. I think the author was confused.

I don't know.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Congrats, you are learning.

Thanks for the constantly patronizing attitude towards me, USC, but you are trying to teach me "lessons" I already know. Einstein may be wrong but there's a tendency amongst people to always think he's wrong about this whole speed of light thing - mainly because they find it inconvenient.

[uscitizen]

Sorry if I appear patronizing. Just a fault of mine I guess.
I think you are a bright young man and would like for you to go far.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Sorry if I appear patronizing.

:)

All older people are patronizing.

[uscitizen]

:)

All older people are patronizing.

:clink:

[Beefy]

Photons are massless particles.

There are huge gaps between the known matter in the universe and the gravitational models under which the universe behaves.

One of the most fascinating aspects of astrophysics is the grand opportunity for learning. General relativity and Special Relativity are "relatively" (:() universally accepted. The new frontier is going to be in the super macro and super micro. It is quantum mechanics that re-defined the old physics and that Einstein, who blindly believed in a clockwork universe, never accepted. But ironically, it was relativity that also redefined old physics on a macro scale. It, however, did not have the uncertainty that QM did.

Einstein Prodsky Rosen was designed to blow holes all over QM, and it was later shown to be all out accurate!!!

These are the frontiers that are so damned exciting it makes me wish I was employed.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think the difference with light is that light is mass less so it takes 0 energy to accelerate it to the speed of light. Anything multiplied by 0 is 0 - even infinity.

[Beefy]

I think the difference with light is that light is mass less so it takes 0 energy to accelerate it to the speed of light. Anything multiplied by 0 is 0 - even infinity.

Which is why we can't have 1/3. But that is besides the point. Per relativity, mass and energy are interchangeable, but only relative to c. Mass can have energy. But photons are the far end of that curve. Massless particles always travel at c.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Which is why we can't have 1/3. But that is besides the point. Per relativity, mass and energy are interchangeable, but only relative to c. Mass can have energy. But photons are the far end of that curve. Massless particles always travel at c.

Oh. I think I understand why C is in that equation now. I've always wondered "WTF does C have to do with any of that"?

Einstein must have saw that massless particles would travel at the fastest speed possible.

[Beefy]

Oh. I think I understand why C is in that equation now. I've always wondered "WTF does C have to do with any of that"?

Einstein must have saw that massless particles would travel at the fastest speed possible.

Relativity can be derived simply from the fact that c is constant, regardless of direction of perception. c, being a speed, naturally is a derivative of time and distance. Distance is not variable but if time becomes variable, speed becomes variable, thus the slow down and alternative nature of time.

top right equation shows how the curve is very narrow until roughly 99% the speed of light, where it takes a sharp turn north:

http://www.concentric.net/~Pvb/lorentz.gif

[Beefy]

well, maybe 96%.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Have you ever taken calculus, beefy?

I intend to download a teaching company lesson on relativity and listen to it while I'm at work.

I haven't really gotten into it yet on my schooling (I literally change my mind and decided to get a physics degree last month, beefy, and I'm taking my first physics class NEXT SEMESTER), all the stuff I've mentioned here is stuff I've figured out (or failed to figure out) in my own time. I've tried to avoid making massive proclamations about how real physicists get it wrong, which would show my n00bishness.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

well, maybe 96%.

You get about 2.5% time dilation at 99% of the speed of light. The vast majority of it happens when you go to increasingly large percentages of light after that.

But that probably requires massive amounts of energy, which I have no clear conception of. I know that to accelerate to 50% of the speed of light you'd need about more energy than man has ever produced.

If we could collect all the energy from the sun, maybe we could accelerate to speeds where time dilation comes into serious play. But time dilation isn't really that great for building a galactic empire, since your family is still dead by the time you get there. It's just good for making sure your alive when you get there.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Relativity can be derived simply from the fact that c is constant, regardless of direction of perception. c, being a speed, naturally is a derivative of time and distance. Distance is not variable but if time becomes variable, speed becomes variable, thus the slow down and alternative nature of time.

top right equation shows how the curve is very narrow until roughly 99% the speed of light, where it takes a sharp turn north:

http://www.concentric.net/~Pvb/lorentz.gif

What is x? I'm pretty sure that t is time and v is velocity, but I don't know what x is.

And what does that strange b-looking symbol represent?

[Beefy]

What is x? I'm pretty sure that t is time and v is velocity, but I don't know what x is.

And what does that strange b-looking symbol represent?

I don't remember what x is, but it doesn't matter. Because on the right side of the equation you have the equal value. The "B" looking symbol is the graphical change in time relative to speed. It is a variable that has little change to it until super high velocities.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I don't remember what x is, but it doesn't matter. Because on the right side of the equation you have the equal value. The "B" looking symbol is the graphical change in time relative to speed. It is a variable that has little change to it until super high velocities.

I just use online time dilation calculators. :dunno:

Do you honestly expect me to do this myself? Even with a TI-89?

[Beefy]

I just use online time dilation calculators. :dunno:

Do you honestly expect me to do this myself? Even with a TI-89?

It is actually very mind blowing to do it yourself. And TI makes a damned fine machine. Use it.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It is actually very mind blowing to do it yourself. And TI makes a damned fine machine. Use it.

http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm

Think like an engineer beefy. Always do shit the easy way. :)

[FUCK THE POLICE]

WTF? Time dilation is SEVEN times at 99% of the speed of light, which I think IS useful.

At 96% it's 3.5 times.

I must have been thinking of 90%, which is 2.25 times. I must've forgotten the relationships.

[Beefy]

WTF? Time dilation is SEVEN times at 99% of the speed of light, which I think IS useful.

At 96% it's 3.5%.

I must have been thinking of 90%, which is 2.25%. I must've forgotten the relationships.

Yeah, me too. Its pretty graduated though. I remembered at least that much. :clink:

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Here's a graph:

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/tdgraphformula.gif

[Damocles]

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html

Photons don't have mass.

I read on Yahoo answers that they do literally have infinity energy. :-/

Which is confusing, because to have infinity energy it has to be able to convert to infinity mass. I think the author was confused.

I don't know.
If light had no mass black holes would not effect it.

[uscitizen]

Photons are massless particles.

There are huge gaps between the known matter in the universe and the gravitational models under which the universe behaves.

One of the most fascinating aspects of astrophysics is the grand opportunity for learning. General relativity and Special Relativity are "relatively" (:() universally accepted. The new frontier is going to be in the super macro and super micro. It is quantum mechanics that re-defined the old physics and that Einstein, who blindly believed in a clockwork universe, never accepted. But ironically, it was relativity that also redefined old physics on a macro scale. It, however, did not have the uncertainty that QM did.

Einstein Prodsky Rosen was designed to blow holes all over QM, and it was later shown to be all out accurate!!!

These are the frontiers that are so damned exciting it makes me wish I was employed.

Light is not massless else gravity would not effect it and curve space.
Light only thinks it travels in a straight line. Gravity affects light.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If light had no mass black holes would not effect it.

That's not true. Black holes don't affect other things because of their mass, it affects them because of its mass.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Light is not massless else gravity would not effect it and curve space.
Light only thinks it travels in a straight line. Gravity affects light.

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

What mass is listed on the sidebar there?

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html

Here's an answer to a question someone submitted about gravity affecting light.

[Jarod]

That's not true. Black holes don't affect other things because of their mass, it affects them because of its mass.

I belive that mass of the object that is being affected has an infentesimentally small affect on how its affected by a black hole, something with 0 mass would not be affected, but something with .0000001micrograms of mass would.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I belive that mass of the object that is being affected has an infentesimentally small affect on how its affected by a black hole, something with 0 mass would not be affected, but something with .0000001micrograms of mass would.

Photons are effected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravity changes the shape of space-time.

[Damocles]

That's not true. Black holes don't affect other things because of their mass, it affects them because of its mass.
Its gravity (due to its mass) is what effects the light. If light had no mass, there would be no gravity effect.

[Damocles]

Photons are effected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravity changes the shape of space-time.
That is why it curves, but not why it would fall to the gravity of the black hole.

[uscitizen]

And what is space time? Does not the path of light play a large part in what we call spacetime?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That is why it curves, but not why it would fall to the gravity of the black hole.

Things fall into a black hole because space time in a black holes area is extremely warped. They are responding to the curvature in space time, not the gravitational field...

[Jarod]

Its gravity (due to its mass) is what effects the light. If light had no mass, there would be no gravity effect.

Thats the way I understand it. Light must, at least, have a very, very small mass else it would not be affected by gravity.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html

Now, being scientists, we do not just accept theories like general relativity or conclusions like photons have no mass. We constantly test them, trying to definitively prove or disprove. So far, general relativity has withstood every test. And try as we might, we can measure no mass for the photon. We can just put upper limits on what mass it can have. These upper limits are determined by the sensitivity of the experiment we are using to try to "weigh the photon". The last number I saw was that a photon, if it has any mass at all, must be less than 4 x 10-48 grams. For comparison, the electron has a mass of 9 x 10-28 grams.

[Jarod]

Things fall into a black hole because space time in a black holes area is extremely warped. They are responding to the curvature in space time, not the gravitational field...

Thats the same concept of gravity. A large mass, such as a planet warps space time and thus pulls things to it (gravity). In a black hole its just warped MUCH more than by a planet sizeed mass.

[Jarod]

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html

Now, being scientists, we do not just accept theories like general relativity or conclusions like photons have no mass. We constantly test them, trying to definitively prove or disprove. So far, general relativity has withstood every test. And try as we might, we can measure no mass for the photon. We can just put upper limits on what mass it can have. These upper limits are determined by the sensitivity of the experiment we are using to try to "weigh the photon". The last number I saw was that a photon, if it has any mass at all, must be less than 4 x 10-48 grams. For comparison, the electron has a mass of 9 x 10-28 grams.


I have discussed this in depth with a professor friend of my parents, he spent his entire professional life trying to disprove the theory of General Relativity, to no success, but he still belives that the theory has its holes, he just has not been able to prove it. He is retired not and is a amature astronomer, not to be confused with an astrologist. Very interesting guy to talk with. Very strange guy, but knows a lot about the phisical world we live in, he can blow your mind.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Thats the same concept of gravity. A large mass, such as a planet warps space time and thus pulls things to it (gravity). In a black hole its just warped MUCH more than by a planet sizeed mass.

Eisteins relativity was all about how light would be effected by gravity in a universe where it had no mass. This was literally how he proved his theory.

[Damocles]

Things fall into a black hole because space time in a black holes area is extremely warped. They are responding to the curvature in space time, not the gravitational field...
The curvature in space time is what gravity is... It's like saying, "when people are hit by a car they are responding to its velocity, not how fast it is going."

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I have discussed this in depth with a professor friend of my parents, he spent his entire professional life trying to disprove the theory of General Relativity, to no success, but he still belives that the theory has its holes, he just has not been able to prove it. He is retired not and is a amature astronomer, not to be confused with an astrologist. Very interesting guy to talk with. Very strange guy, but knows a lot about the phisical world we live in, he can blow your mind.

Well good luck to him.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The curvature in space time is what gravity is... It's like saying, "when people are hit by a car they are responding to its velocity, not how fast it is going."

His wording, not me.

[Jarod]

The curvature in space time is what gravity is... It's like saying, "when people are hit by a car they are responding to its velocity, not how fast it is going."

Thats what I said, just better worded...!

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Thats what I said, just better worded...!


It doesn't matter. The fact is, light is lensed because of warping in space time, which effects light particles.

[Jarod]

It doesn't matter. The fact is, light is lensed because of warping in space time, which effects light particles.

The result is the same, but to get a full understanding of the physical world we need to understand why, not just that it is.

[uscitizen]

Our entire knowledge of the universe around us is based on study of the Electromagnetic spectrum.

There may be lots we don't understand properly yet. Or many things that we scarcely have a clue about.

[uscitizen]

What we really need for space travel is a way to neutralize inertia. ie Inertial Dampeners.

[uscitizen]

Maybe dilithium crystals?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Light is different.

really...how so?

1 John 1:5 (King James Version)

5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

[uscitizen]

or not

[Beefy]

Photons are massless particles. I'm a little embarrassed by the opposition on this one.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Proving that photons have mass would be a significant blow to relativity. I am certain that physicists have thought of this before, and that USC and Damo getting on a political message board one night aren't coming up with something revolutionary by claiming that light has to have mass to be effected by gravity.

It's affected because of the way objects with mass bend spacetime. The amount of bending in light is consistent with Einsteins predictions for how much of a bend this would produce. This was the first bit of confirming evidence for general relativity. I'm sure you guys haven't produced any alternative math for how it would be produced by protons with mass, so we're getting no where.

[Beefy]

If a vacuum picks up dust, dust must also be a vacuum!!!

[Cancel 2018. 3]

really...how so?

1 John 1:5 (King James Version)

5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

.

WTF dude?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

WTF dude?

you never addressed that post and it was in response to yours....just curious as to your thoughts

[Beefy]

God is light. Okay, that settles physics. No ned to study any further. A wingnut's GUT if you will.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

God is light. Okay, that settles physics. No ned to study any further. A wingnut's GUT if you will.

yeah....thats why i am asking what watermark thinks....:pke:

[FUCK THE POLICE]

you never addressed that post and it was in response to yours....just curious as to your thoughts

That God is light?

It isn't congruent with my belief system. :-/

It was really a metaphor, though, and so doesn't mean anything in the context of this discussion.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That God is light?

It isn't congruent with my belief system. :-/

It was really a metaphor, though, and so doesn't mean anything in the context of this discussion.

its interesting you said "light is different" and 2000 years ago the bible happens to describe God as light....

not debunking any science as cornbeef thought....just pointing out something interesting....

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Test.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

ing

[Minister of Truth]

Fuck your tests. I hate tests. Especially urinalyses!!!

[Damocles]

its interesting you said "light is different" and 2000 years ago the bible happens to describe God as light....

not debunking any science as cornbeef thought....just pointing out something interesting....
Wouldn't that mean that Light is Love? Because it also says that God is Love. It would also mean that Light is the Word of God, because "The Word" is Jesus... No need to spend money on bibles anymore, you can just flip the fricking switch!

Other things light must be.. "Not jealous" is one of them, but then God is a jealous god... How does that work? Can Light be both jealous and not jealous at the same time?

[uscitizen]

God is light. Okay, that settles physics. No ned to study any further. A wingnut's GUT if you will.

So the sun God Ra is the one true god?