Semi-OT: We will go to Stars.

[Spoo]

I think the real problem is the effect of time-dilation (when travelling near the speed of light, time "slows down" by a factor of 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), so travelling at 99.99% the speed of light makes 5000 years seem like 1 year).

In other words, the Earth goes through another ice age every time you go on vacation.

[Katchoo]

Nothing is impossible. The solution may be unfathomable and may take centuries to solve, but to say something is impossible is to close your mind to the possibility of succeeding in the face of stubborness.

The realization of a successful FTL application may be as foreign and inconcieveable to us as splitting an atom would be to a caveman.

Just try to remember: An open mind is an open door.

[Aiken]

oleg, you're speaking from physical point of view, not biological - your assumption that one day we will live thousands years is as voluntaristic as FTL gibberish. Even best medicine can't overcome biological imperfection.
And even if we could slow down subjective time perseption, it's impossible to slow down chemical reactions in our body (unless you're hibernated).

[Kamog]

There's a good introduction to quantum theory on the New Scientist site:
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the "New Scientist's Guide to the Quantum World" articles.
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...PBAPHMECG#ltst

[dogscoff]

OK, my 0.02.

-I know it's OT, but I believe we will crack FTL sooner or later. Probably much, much later.

-Once we've sent people to Mars and got a few off-Earth settlements within the solar system, colonising other stars isn't going to look that scary any more. The technology isn't really the problem- if you can fly to and colonise Mars/the moon, you've already overcome most of the technical obstacles for flying to and colonising another star system- it's just the scale and the timescale of the project that become prohibitive. With the X-prize and other tech advancements, those scales are going to look less and less daunting.

-There are plenty of stars within a (current) human lifetime's reach, and once the tech/costs become sensible people will go, even if it means a one-way trip. It's part of human nature to explore and to settle new land, and there will always be people with nothing to tie them to the planet of their birth. Look at the way the Americas were colonised (the second time)- by people disaffected with the society they lived in. The way things are going we'll be getting more and more of those in the years to come, I'm sure.

Of course, most people would probably wait until there was some proof that there are actually planets (although Eart-like ones are probably highly unlikely) at the other end of their journey, but advancing telescope tech will answer this question soon enough. As soon as we get proof of any interesting planet around another star, I reckon we'll be sending an unmanned probe. Of course, if telescopes were to pick up signs of a breathable planet around a nearby star, the world would be falling over itself for a closer look.

-I think human lifespans will be getting a LOT longer over the next few hundred years. Apparently the only reason that our cells stop replacing themselves (I.E. the only reason we age) is that our genes tell them to. Learn to switch off that command and we can stay young forever.

-I think cryogenics (for humans, anyway) is probably quite a long way off and I'm not sure it will be the answer anyway. Although obviously more expensive and complex, generation ships would be a more human solution, imho.

-Finally, we're overlooking the other great interstellar colonisation possibility: Sending NON-HUMAN colonists: An AI has a theoretical lifetime of... well... a very long time. And again, that technology is creeping up on us faster than most of us realise.

[ July 20, 2004, 08:43: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Ruatha]

About two light paricles going in the opposite direction.. they still have a relative speed between eachoter of the speed of light, and the speed of light isn't an absolute, it varies by the medium in which light travels.
When we talk of the speed of light we usually mean in vacuum.
You have to seperate the perceived speed from the relative speed between two objects.
From one of the particles it will seem that the particle is moving with the speed of light from the other, but from a observer standing besides the particles the distance between them will increase with twice the speed of light, as both are moving with the speed of light x 1, but the measured speed one of them is moving with relative to the other is the speed of light x1.
So none of them are moving with more than the speed of light, but the distance between them increases with the speed of light x 2.
So to distance oneself from earth with x 2 the speed of light, the earth must be accelerated to the speed of light ion the opposite direction...

Here is a really good explanation, I'll translate it later today or tomorrow:

Svar: Det är ett experimentellt faktum, att den ljusfart man mäter är en och densamma och oberoende av med vilken fart man rör sig i förhållande till ljuskällan eller med vilken fart ljuskällan rör sig i förhållande till en själv.

Ett vardagligt exempel på att det förhåller sig så är GPS, som bygger på gångtiden för signaler från satelliter på 22.000 kilometers höjd till en mottagare. Om ljusfarten berodde på ljuskällans (här: satelliternas) rörelse i förhållande till mottagaren, skulle mottagarens läge bara kunna bestämmas på ett par kilometer när med en GPS; som bekant är noggrannheten även hos en enkel GPS åtminstone tusen gånger bättre. Även en (tänkt) observatör som följde med den ena av dina två fotoner, skulle upptäcka att den andra fotonen rörde sig bort från honom/henne med en och samma ljusfart.

MEN: en observatör på stjärnan (eller på någon annan punkt som inte rör sig i förhållande till stjärnan) skulle mycket riktigt se de två fotonerna avlägsna sig FRÅN VARANDRA med dubbla ljusfarten. Observera dock, att det i detta fall inte är fråga om något som RÖR SIG med dubbla med ljusfarten. Vardera fotonen rör sig i förhållande till den andra fotonen eller i förhållande till observatören med ljusfarten och inget annat. Däremot ser observatören på stjärnan att AVSTÅNDET mellan de två fotonerna ökar på ett sådant sätt, att det är lika med dubbla ljusfarten gånger tiden sedan fotonerna skickades ut.

Man måste göra åtskillnad mellan RELATIV fart (ett föremåls fart i förhållande till en observatör, det vill säga en observatörs mätning av ändringen i föremålets avstånd per tid från honom/henne) och ÖMSESIDIG fart (en observatörs mätning av ändringen i avstånd per tid mellan två föremål).

[Aiken]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
OK, my 0.02.

It's part of human nature to explore and to settle new land, and there will always be people with nothing to tie them to the planet of their birth. Look at the way the Americas were colonised (the second time)- by people disaffected with the society they lived in. The way things are going we'll be getting more and more of those in the years to come, I'm sure.

Really? But what can you say about Antarctida? It's much more human friendly than Mars (plenty of air and water) but it's not colonized. Where are whose famous pioneers you're reffering to?
Another example - ocean bottom: whole new Earth to explore.

I don't belive into the exploring nature of humanity anymore. It's exhausted.