203 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Attempting interstellar spaceflight with current means of propulsion is very much like trying to fly by jumping off a tower and flapping your arms very fast.

Okay, now with your edit, there's something to actually address the topic.

You need to work on your hyperbole. Interstellar travel with conventional thrusters is entirely possible, it just will take many, many millenia. If you try and flap your arms to fly, it will never work. The more appropriate exaggeration would be like trying to drink a lake with a teacup - one person over the course of one lifetime could never do it. A large number of people over hundreds of generations could easily, though.

[Fidite Nemini]

Okay... that doesn't address anything in my previous post except the last line where I said people used to be excited about flying to the moon.

If it pleases your grace, I can go back and edit my post so it takes that out? Would you then bless us with insightful feedback that is actually on topic?

 

 

You mean the kind of insight you endowed to us when you said theoretical physics is just mindless drivel and we should just use practical means to do spacetravel/exploration?

 

You mean the kind of insight I provided you when I had just told you that ther is NO practical means of spacetravel available to us with our current technology?

 

Say, how exactly do you think are we supposed to develope a practical means of spacetravel without theoretical physics then? Just have "practical" engineers walk around on earth and turn stones until they find a miraculous super engine, they can "practically" reverse engineer?

 

 

 

My point that you havn't understood is that you talking about the practicalities of spacetravel is nonsensical, because there is no practical spacetravel as of yet. What we're doing is literally strapping people and stuff on giant bombs and blowing them into the sky.

[Fast Jimmy]

if a bear craps in the woods and no one is there to smell it, are you still afraid of toasters?

Of course not. That's just a stupid question.

Clearly BLENDERS are the true threat.

[Fidite Nemini]

 

Interstellar travel with conventional thrusters is entirely possible, it just will take many, many millenia.

 

 

 

Do you know how recycling works?

[Fast Jimmy]

You mean the kind of insight you endowed to us when you said theoretical physics is just mindless drivel and we should just use practical means to do spacetravel/exploration?

You mean the kind of insight I provided you when I had just told you that ther is NO practical means of spacetravel available to us with our current technology?

Say, how exactly do you think are we supposed to develope a practical means of spacetravel without theoretical physics then? Just have "practical" engineers walk around on earth and turn stones until they find a miraculous super engine, they can "practically" reverse engineer?



My point that you havn't understood is that you talking about the practicalities of spacetravel is nonsensical, because there is no practical spacetravel as of yet. What we're doing is literally strapping people and stuff on giant bombs and blowing them into the sky.

For one, theoretical physics IS drivel, because it has zero basis in actual reality. If it is perfectly acceptable to introduce ten dimensions that can never be detected, measured, tested or proven for the math to work out, then the degrees of separation between that and "God does it" is incrementally small.

Two, you didn't tell show interstellar travel was impossible. Impractical, sure, but I already conceded that was the case. We need to completely change our mindset to space travel and what we view as successes. Because currently, we are living in a fantasy where non-conventional space travel is a reality, when it is anything but.

Three, there are alternatives to conventional rockets that could work instead of just "strapping people on giant bombs" as you so eloquently put it. They don't solve the problem of time and distance, but they are more sustainable. And we should be actively pursuing them if we want to leave the planet.



Your entire set of responses are the problem I'm pointing to. The fact that you so tightly grip to the idea that conventional space travel is hopeless and that a MacGuffin from physics is the only way we can hope to expand beyond Earth is exactly what is the problem. Open your mind to the concept that maximum thrust and speed are exactly what Newton says they are - how, then, does mankind colonize space?

Start from there. Any FTL secrets we unlock after that are then huge bonuses, not the foundation to the solution.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

Of course not. That's just a stupid question.

Clearly BLENDERS are the true threat.

but then how can people even?

[Fidite Nemini]

Open your mind to the concept that conventional thrust and speed are exactly what Newton says they are - how, then, does mankind colonize space?

 

It doesn't.

[Fast Jimmy]

Do you know how recycling works?

Yes.

Are you saying it is impossible to have a spacecraft that is self-sustaining? Sure, not with our current technology and not with anywhere near the same quality of life as we enjoy on this planet... but are you really saying a self-sustaining ship is impossible? Like, portal to another dimension impossible?

Because if other dimensions don't exist, then a self-sustaining ship is infinitely more possible. Because it has proof of concept in a planet itself. Magical space portals, unfortunately, have zero proof of concepts.

[Fast Jimmy]

It doesn't.

So we will embrace inevitable extinction because the alternative is just too dang bothersome.

Alright, let's make sure you aren't put in charge of anything, ever.

[Fast Jimmy]

but then how can people even?

Bro, do you even blend?

[Fast Jimmy]

The solar system, you mean.

We'll need to find a way to drag the sun along with us if we want that kind of self-sustenance.

Portable sustainable nuclear reaction? Check.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

Bro, do you even blend?

goats are like mushrooms, if you shoot a duck, Im afraid of toasters.

[Fast Jimmy]

Make sure you get the one that lasts millenia, not the cheap ones from Costco that only last centuries.

I'll make sure to get the warranty and save my receipt.

So besides needing to learn to recycle better and start investing money into creating energy sources that can keep the lights on in deep space... anything else preventing us from interstellar travel, other than the mindset that there Is an undiscovered method way that magically hops us across the galaxy?

Worst case scenario, we begin colonizing our solar system wih conventional methods. That will take 200 years to do to any real level of accomplishment. If, by then, we haven't found a genie in the bottle and our needs/desires/curiosity keeps pushing is beyond our own solar system, then we stick with the original plan.

But if we just stay on Earth, assuming space has nothing to offer us unless we have FTL, then this is where we will die. And likely not that far in the future.

[Fast Jimmy]

goats are like mushrooms, if you shoot a duck, Im afraid of toasters.

I am the walrus.

[Fidite Nemini]

Yes.

Are you saying it is impossible to have a spacecraft that is self-sustaining? Sure, not with our current technology and not with anywhere near the same quality of life as we enjoy on this planet... but are you really saying a self-sustaining ship is impossible? Like, portal to another dimension impossible?

Because if other dimensions don't exist, then a self-sustaining ship is infinitely more possible. Because it has proof of concept in a planet itself. Magical space portals, unfortunately, have zero proof of concepts.

 

 

So we will embrace inevitable extinction because the alternative is just too dang bothersome.

Alright, let's make sure you aren't put in charge of anything, ever.

 

 

Well you go ahead and built a giant spaceship large enough to house a self-sustainable population with sufficient ressources to guarantee survival on a potentionally not-so-friendly environment of another planet, assuming you achieve either perfect recycling rates with a zero-sum equation if we assume the people are held in cryostasis or something like that, or perfect recycling rates AND enough ressource generation capacities (agricultural facilities, oxygen plants and chemical facilities to generate water etc. pp.) if the people are not held in cryostasis or something like that to last for, let me do some quick math (assuming 30000kph travel velocity and distance to nearest potentially inhabitable planet (13ly distance)) : 467996,5 years.

 

 

 

That's of course assuming there's nothing that could possibly go wrong during a journey that's spanning multitudes of the period going from modern man who put people on the moon (after only having had mastered powered flight for seventy years!!!) to when we could biologically be defined as ******. (<- That was supposed to be the genus for our species, but got filtered by the forum)

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

I just had a nice poop. It was very mushy. Now Im back and we're STILL talking about this?

[Fidite Nemini]

I just had a nice poop. It was very mushy. Now Im back and we're STILL talking about this?

 

I know, even when being talked down to as if I were an pessimistic naysayer, I have an astounding volume of patience to keep explaining rudimentary things to people.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well you go ahead and built a giant spaceship large enough to house a self-sustainable population with sufficient ressources to guarantee survival on a potentionally not-so-friendly environment of another planet, assuming you achieve either perfect recycling rates with a zero-sum equation if we assume the people are held in cryostasis or something like that, or perfect recycling rates AND enough ressource generation capacities (agricultural facilities, oxygen plants and chemical facilities to generate water etc. pp.) if the people are not held in cryostasis or something like that to last for, let me do some quick math (assuming 30000kph travel velocity and distance to nearest potentially inhabitable planet (13ly distance)) : 467996,5 years.



That's of course assuming there's nothing that could possibly go wrong during a journey that's spanning magnitudes of the period going from modern man who put people on the moon (after only having had mastered powered flight for seventy years!!!) to when we could biologically be defined as ******. (<- That was supposed to be the genus for our species, but got filtered by the forum)

And I suppose you can go ahead and sit on a rapidly overpopulated rock, praying that a theory from a theory from a theory may actually result in something that can be experimented on and that results in not having our species go extinct due to being unable to leave the Earth. If you hit the jackpot, be a good sport and come hitch me a ride - I promise you can say I told you so.

Because that's the ultimate silver lining - if it turns out FTL IS discovered, suddenly the conventional thruster lifeboat spaceship becomes easily recoverable. A little silly looking, sure, but I'll take egg on my face over guaranteed extinction.

Also, you are limiting yourself to thinking of humans as humans. As I said - remove the reality of super-fast FTL and how do we conquer space? Something like The Singularity then holds a lot more value - travel to the far reaches of space is easy when your digital self is all that you need to keep alive. Then, upon arrival thkusands and thousands of years later, you can explore/develop/what-have-you in a synthetic body or even reupload your consciousness into a freshly grown body.

As outlandish as these things sound, they are based in a reality of "physically possible based on evidence seen today." Which is more than I can say of FTL travel.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

I know, even when being talked down to as if I were an pessimistic naysayer, I have an astounding volume of patience to keep explaining rudimentary things to people.

[mybudgee]

I know, even when being talked down to as if I were an pessimistic naysayer, I have an astounding volume of patience to keep explaining rudimentary things to people.

'Tis true. Thou art a saint

[Fast Jimmy]

I know, even when being talked down to as if I were an pessimistic naysayer, I have an astounding volume of patience to keep explaining rudimentary things to people.

I'm sorry, but you haven't explained squat. "Space is far" is the crux of your argument - that's not something anyone is debating, nor does it support the notion that bending space time and poking holes is anywhere closer to being proved as possible, let alone actually done, today as it was 70+ years ago when it was first thrown out.

[Fidite Nemini]

And I suppose you can go ahead and sit on a rapidly overpopulated rock, praying that a theory from a theory from a theory may actually result in something that can be experimented on and that results in not having our species go extinct due to being unable to leave the Earth. If you hit the jackpot, be a good sport and come hitch me a ride - I promise you can say I told you so.

Because that's the ultimate silver lining - if it turns out FTL IS discovered, suddenly the conventional thruster lifeboat spaceship becomes easily recoverable. A little silly looking, sure, but I'll take egg on my face over guaranteed extinction.

Also, you are limiting yourself to thinking of humans as humans. As I said - remove the reality of super-fast FTL and how do we conquer space? Something like The Singularity then holds a lot more value - travel to the far reaches of space is easy when your digital self is all that you need to keep alive. Then, upon arrival thkusands and thousands of years later, you can explore/develop/what-have-you in a synthetic body or even reupload your consciousness into a freshly grown body.

As outlandish as these things sound, they are based in a reality of "physically possible based on evidence seen today." Which is more than I can say of FTL travel.

 

 

Okay, I have to ask: what exactly do you think it would take to go through with a scenario that I just outlined?

 

 

Also, you are limiting yourself to thinking of humans as humans. As I said - remove the reality of super-fast FTL and how do we conquer space? Something like The Singularity then holds a lot more value - travel to the far reaches of space is easy when your digital self is all that you need to keep alive. Then, upon arrival thkusands and thousands of years later, you can explore/develop/what-have-you in a synthetic body or even reupload your consciousness into a freshly grown body.

As outlandish as these things sound, they are based in a reality of "physically possible based on evidence seen today." Which is more than I can say of FTL travel.

 

Look who's readily grasping for straws now.

 

Digitalization of consciousnesses. Woohoo. Now, I won't be as demeaning as to simply say you're wrong. You said it is "physically possible based on evidence seen today". Show me that evidence. More precisely, show me EXACTLY where it says that's not impossible to achieve. You know, something that's clearly not as limited as the speed of light and wouldn't require any mindless drivelling to achieve.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you haven't explained squat. "Space is far" is the crux of your argument - that's not something anyone is debating, nor does it support the notion that bending space time and poking holes is anywhere closer to being proved as possible, let alone actually done, today as it was 70+ years ago when it was first thrown out.

 

It's the one thing you don't seem to understand. Or more accurately, not to appreciate to its full intent.