APP - Awesome interstellar travel

Should we do it?

  • OF COURSE! That's fuckin' awesome!

    Votes: 9 75.0%

  • No, cancer research blah blah blah blah plus I have a vagina

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Not sure + I have a vagina

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Total voters
    12
Watermark said:
the speed of light is essentially infinity speed.
Click to expand...

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


infinity speed.
Click to expand...

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
 
Grind said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
How about relative to the center of the galaxy? How about relative to the center point of the Big Bang?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Watermark said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was done because the Russians beat us to space in the late 50s.
 
Watermark said:
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.
Click to expand...

so where does light's infinite energy come from?
 
uscitizen said:
The infinite energy thing is based on what little we know now.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
uscitizen said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
uscitizen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
uscitizen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top