People will never be able to live at another planet....

[Aim64C]

Glad to make an acquaintance too. No need to sound rude.

I apologize. It comes a bit with the territory.

I also ended up getting a degree in electrical engineering, a master degree and I may understand your point of view.

I say it's impossible because it is simply laws of the universe preventing us from happening. I dont think it has to do with technology or knowledge. These laws which are proven gazillion times everyday and if these laws were wrong, the universe would not exist. If these laws were wrong, none of the devices we have today would work.

Laws that don't have to do with science or technology?

You -think- that these -laws- are -proven- ...?

You see where I'm going with this?

It's a matter of the structure. The universe somehow ended up with a design preventing us from interstellar travel.

Just like the Earth ended up with a design that prevented us from intercontinental travel.

Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawkings(smartest guy on the planet)

I beg your pardon?

they both know this but they sell and become famous telling stories and possible loopholes to get out of these laws but at the end they all require infinite energy xD.

There is a problem with this assumption.

Relativity is horribly, horribly incomplete and does not reconcile with Quantum Mechanics. Relativity assumes that there can be an infinite amount of distortion - IE, you can continue to pour limitless amounts of energy into a mass and have it crawl toward the speed of light with exponentially depreciating returns.

But we know, according to QM, that there are limits to how much energy can be packed into one place. These are known as the Planck Constants. There is debate over exactly what the value of these Planck constants are - but it is known that these principles do exist (in proven cases) and -should- exist (where implied by inductive reasoning).

So, the question becomes... if you attempt to accelerate an object to the speed of light... what happens when it -should- reach Planck Energy Density?

Another problem with relativity is that it assumes a perfectly causal chain of events in the universe - a linear and absolute concept of 'time.' This, however, is an inconsistent interpretation when given the known observations of QM.

The problem we are encountering, now, in physics is simply the scale of the 'problem' we are trying to solve. Fundamental questions about the nature of the universe (Relativity - an infinitely granule universe; versus Quantum Mechanics - a finitely granule universe) are difficult to answer without directly testing the extremes permitted under each theory. And to do that... we need the extremes of the universe that we can either engineer or observe.

However the constants of the universe may not have been this way throughout its history. Maybe in the next universe these laws can be overridden but would that universe be stable.

Speculating about the history of our own universe is pointless. The past has become isolated from the present to such a degree that it effectively exists in a super-position of its possibilities rather than a defined existence.

I know how bad it sounds but this is pretty much what you learn when you study physics. I was also hopeful for interstellar travel, it was one of the reason why I went to study physics.

You took away all the wrong lessons and married them to a defeatist attitude.

Though I can't be too terribly upset - People have long been trained by our educational system to exist in a state of dependence and perceived inferiority to authority. You do well in school so that you will look nice and pretty for a potential employer. You're groomed from the day you are born to seek employment at the mercy of others - to weigh your own value and capability against the decision of another person on whether or not to hire you.

That's not to say that employment is fundamentally bad - just that it's almost the only way anyone is taught to think these days. It's a culture of dependency and subjugation. Nowhere does it show more than in the fields of industry, where innovation and creativity have been marginalized.

If these laws were not to exist, then it will be something to look forward in the future. But we can't change the universe, it's the way it is. We are living in the no interstellar travel universe.

We live in a universe we know realistically nothing about.

Mass? How the hell does that work? There is a field-like region of force... but we are still searching and theorizing about a carrier particle (the Higgs is still a contested find, even with the findings from the LHC).

We still have no accurate means of predicting the behavior of 'simple' metal alloys. Metallurgy is something of an alchemical dark art - get your alloy composition off by even 0.1% and you go from a strong, light alloy to one that shatters like glass when you drop it. If you're talking about die-casted alloys - the manner in which you inject the metal can cause portions of it to cool by a few tenths of a degree and completely ruin the part. Discoveries in alloys are largely trial-by-error developments.

We are using some relatively new laser systems to place matter into phases/states that don't exist in any natural part of the universe we've encountered. These new phases of matter (some of which are theorized to exist for fleetingly short periods of time during high-energy events) open up all kinds of possibilities for fields like fusion (where a better understanding of these phases and how they behave could generate more accurate models that allow us to build more plausible designs).

We are deluded, in a way, by our own accomplishments. The world appears to have lost its mystique because we have achieved so many things... but the answers to many basic things elude us, still.

Edit: Hit me up with a PM if you have any idea how to manage interstellar travel which we can discuss. I'd love to hear new ideas but let's say I'm not very hopeful

Well, since I'm already typing, here - I'll just post it here (and if need be copy it and add to it in a PM).

Strictly speaking, interstellar travel can have a set amount of energy defined as necessary.

Every celestial object (or object in orbit) has an effective amount of energy stored in its relative distance from another mass and/or its velocity. Adding energy to that object changes the positions it can occupy (as does removing energy).

Thus, by taking into account the massive bodies within a system, the location of an object you desire to move, and the difference in 'gravitational potential' between those two locations, one can calculate the minimum amount of energy necessary to move that object to that location.

Currently, the only way we know of to move an object (or relocate it) is through classical motion using acceleration of a mass generating inertia. It is, however, at least possible in theory to apply energy to an object in a much more direct manner and cause it to instantly shift to another location - without generating a change in inertia.

Obviously - exactly how to do this is a bit of a mystery. A better understanding of mass, in general, will be necessary before one can really begin to set up an experiment to test a hypothesis on how to go about generating such a phenomena (location and inertia may be far more intrinsically linked than anyone wants to believe).

Even if this could not generate -faster- than light transportation, it could become a critical drive system (or lead to a very potent drive functioning in a somewhat different manner) for interstellar travel (as near-light velocities will be necessary for anything approaching interstellar travel).

Though it could all be as simple as taking a ship and isolating it. The ship then enters (from our perspective) a superposition and the universe (from the crew's perspective) also enters a super-position. The idea of taking something we commonly identify as a conscious observer and placing it into a super-position may generate some exceptionally interesting results (though perhaps the most important answers would remain a bit of a mystery... does the person you sent into the super-position step back out into a different world? ... You can only ever encounter one of the many possible states of that person once you decohere the system).

 

[Shinobi Train]

Makes "scientific" thread, uses treacherous grammar and the entire post is a one sentence paragraph.

Fail

What I will say is that the probability of finding a livable planet is in a negative percentage. We have a -1% chance to find another planet capable of sustaining life (that might as well be -100% chance, so it doesn't matter what number you put on it). Earth isn't even supposed to exist, or at least not by science. It requires a Creator to have life, so unless there's another planet out there that has been created to sustain life, it's not going to happen. We would never find such a planet anyway even if it did exist.

The problem is that science is retarded. They study the creation, then get confused and have to make up explanations because they won't study the one who created it. *facepalm*

 

[awesome One]

what is this

 

[Bless Walker]

Ok people have this wide imagination that humans one day will live in another planet let's take Mars because some people beleive that mars is the planet that human may live at in the future first of all let's begin with the atmosphere

You must be registered for see images

As you can see 96% of atmosphere is CO2 which means there can not be life there in mars and people won't be able to breath etc they will eventually die but let's skip the atmosphere lets say humans found a way to reach mars you need a specific time in the year were earth is close to mars and NASA sends robot To mars during this time ok but since there is no such a thing called spaceship but lets say after 100 years there is an space ship and it reached mars and landed first of all if human traveled from earth to Mars not within the specific time or month in the year it will take 50years to reach mars ad when the human land on mars they can never goo back to earth they will stay at mars forever and eventually die even if they got all the food in the world they will die and there will never be life in mars its just facts it dosent matter how much science gets we will never be able to live at another planet specially in our solar system and if we ever found a planet that is the same as earth it's probably million years away soo we will never ever be able to live in another planet we will stay at earth forever and die in earth thank you for your time.

Even if we could live on another planet that could support life our body immune system would be able to handle all the new kinds of bacteria it would be attacked by so there is no productive way live on another planet assuming we ever could so i agree it is highly unlikely with the tech that we have to much could go wrong with that.

 

[Aim64C]

Even if we could live on another planet that could support life our body immune system would be able to handle all the new kinds of bacteria it would be attacked by so there is no productive way live on another planet assuming we ever could so i agree it is highly unlikely with the tech that we have to much could go wrong with that.

This is, actually, quite improbable.

Of all the bacteria on this planet, less than 1% are harmful to humans. Further, our immune system is highly adaptive when it comes to bacteria (and even viruses) - which mutate and adapt at rates in excess of our reproductive cycle (thus, we do not rely on genetic diversity, alone, as a method of survival against the adaptation of parasitic forms of life).

Alien viruses are not a probable concern. Viruses adapt to infect cells via tricking the protein coats into allowing them to dock. The virus then injects RNA (and DNA in some complex viruses) that is then transcribed into amino acid chains that are then folded by the cell into proteins. This process means that it is exceptionally unlike that A) alien viruses will be adapted to our cell membranes, B) alien viruses will have instructions compatible with our cell's manufacturing processes (the devil is in the details - slight differences in how other life might accomplish the same goal could make ET viruses a nuisance that cost resources, but otherwise render them unable to reproduce).

The reason why strains of bacteria and viruses alien to remote populations of humans are so destructive to them is that humans are a largely homogenous species (by comparison to other species) when it comes to genetic diversity. A bacteria or virus has already adapted to infect humans readily. Since these remote populations have not had to deal with the virus for several generations, yet the virus is quite well adapted to deal with humans - the virus (or bacteria) can thrive in that population that has little defense against it.

Since alien pathogens are not likely to be adapted to surviving in our bodies - examples of small pox traveling to the Americas and the like do not stand as comparable to the scenario of humans entering a completely foreign biosphere.

Though it would be naive to expect us to be able to go around all hunky-dory without ever encountering alien bacteria that can cause us problems (bacteria are the most likely concern as they treat our body much like an environment to live in/on - they do not require as close of a co-evolution as bacteria do).

 

[Bless Walker]

This is, actually, quite improbable.

Of all the bacteria on this planet, less than 1% are harmful to humans. Further, our immune system is highly adaptive when it comes to bacteria (and even viruses) - which mutate and adapt at rates in excess of our reproductive cycle (thus, we do not rely on genetic diversity, alone, as a method of survival against the adaptation of parasitic forms of life).

Alien viruses are not a probable concern. Viruses adapt to infect cells via tricking the protein coats into allowing them to dock. The virus then injects RNA (and DNA in some complex viruses) that is then transcribed into amino acid chains that are then folded by the cell into proteins. This process means that it is exceptionally unlike that A) alien viruses will be adapted to our cell membranes, B) alien viruses will have instructions compatible with our cell's manufacturing processes (the devil is in the details - slight differences in how other life might accomplish the same goal could make ET viruses a nuisance that cost resources, but otherwise render them unable to reproduce).

The reason why strains of bacteria and viruses alien to remote populations of humans are so destructive to them is that humans are a largely homogenous species (by comparison to other species) when it comes to genetic diversity. A bacteria or virus has already adapted to infect humans readily. Since these remote populations have not had to deal with the virus for several generations, yet the virus is quite well adapted to deal with humans - the virus (or bacteria) can thrive in that population that has little defense against it.

Since alien pathogens are not likely to be adapted to surviving in our bodies - examples of small pox traveling to the Americas and the like do not stand as comparable to the scenario of humans entering a completely foreign biosphere.

Though it would be naive to expect us to be able to go around all hunky-dory without ever encountering alien bacteria that can cause us problems (bacteria are the most likely concern as they treat our body much like an environment to live in/on - they do not require as close of a co-evolution as bacteria do).

True enough but there is no saying that we could live on other planets due to bacteria it is still to risky if it were to become a epidemic for our planet at which has the greater population as i said before it is to risky it is still possilble though.

 

[SoulKiller]

Makes "scientific" thread, uses treacherous grammar and the entire post is a one sentence paragraph.

Fail

What I will say is that the probability of finding a livable planet is in a negative percentage. We have a -1% chance to find another planet capable of sustaining life (that might as well be -100% chance, so it doesn't matter what number you put on it). Earth isn't even supposed to exist, or at least not by science. It requires a Creator to have life, so unless there's another planet out there that has been created to sustain life, it's not going to happen. We would never find such a planet anyway even if it did exist.

The problem is that science is retarded. They study the creation, then get confused and have to make up explanations because they won't study the one who created it. *facepalm*

Lol Why you mad bro if you don't like how I made the thread then don't read simple my English isn't my first language and I rely don't care about my grammar etc you don't like it then don't read lol hopeless people always find somthing to talk about you need some attention kid xd.

 

[ltachl]

I apologize. It comes a bit with the territory.

I know this is why I suggested a PM. The intentions may different it isn't and the discussion may lead to nowhere.

Laws that don't have to do with science or technology?

Science and technology are really meaningless unless these laws are false. You can have 50 billion years of human advancement yet no matter what technology you have, then these laws will prevent you from doing what you want.

You -think- that these -laws- are -proven- ...?

Yes, these laws are the reality we live in. Ignoring QM which we will probably , hopefully, have a better understanding in a thousand years and the outcomes can be better predicted. Speed of light and relativity pretty much govern the technology we have today. So yes they are proven as a type this and as this message travels to you.

You see where I'm going with this?

I see where you're going with this. I knew it will go that way that's why I mentioned If these laws were wrong or in a different universe where things are different, then interstellar travel is possible. If you ignore these laws with the tremendous amount of evidence, then you are not a physicist or just a reader or fan of physics.

Just like the Earth ended up with a design that prevented us from intercontinental travel.

Yeah I think this line pretty much tells me your understanding. I can't really argue with an engineer who has been educated with the thought that "science and technology" can do anything. I was hoping we could discuss as phycisits with the knowledge of physics we already have at this point. Well you can, if you can manage to do interstellar travel then destroying the universe may not be that farfetched.

I beg your pardon?

Michio Kaku is one of the founders of string theory. He was my professor and he also likes to talk a lot of baloney, he would be laughed at and ridiculed if he was to present the methods for interstellar travel in a paper. It's just really talk that gives him money and fame on the discovery channel and CNN because people don't know any better.

There is a problem with this assumption.

Relativity is horribly, horribly incomplete and does not reconcile with Quantum Mechanics. Relativity assumes that there can be an infinite amount of distortion - IE, you can continue to pour limitless amounts of energy into a mass and have it crawl toward the speed of light with exponentially depreciating returns.

But we know, according to QM, that there are limits to how much energy can be packed into one place. These are known as the Planck Constants. There is debate over exactly what the value of these Planck constants are - but it is known that these principles do exist (in proven cases) and -should- exist (where implied by inductive reasoning).

So, the question becomes... if you attempt to accelerate an object to the speed of light... what happens when it -should- reach Planck Energy Density?

Look the world revolves around relativity. It can be wrong, it's just a pair of equations and you can pretty much explain the same phenomena with lorentz transformation and other equations but it's not about the theory its about the practicability and the experimental side, it has proven it's end results, not the mechanism itself, over and over. Someday, as half the physicists do (classical ones), I believe QM will be better understood and the hidden variables that distort what we see from it may be discovered , if they exist. However the speed of light is set in stone, not by us, but by the universe itself until the universe decides to change that constant maybe it will be possible but it is not up to us.

Another problem with relativity is that it assumes a perfectly causal chain of events in the universe - a linear and absolute concept of 'time.' This, however, is an inconsistent interpretation when given the known observations of QM.

The problem we are encountering, now, in physics is simply the scale of the 'problem' we are trying to solve. Fundamental questions about the nature of the universe (Relativity - an infinitely granule universe; versus Quantum Mechanics - a finitely granule universe) are difficult to answer without directly testing the extremes permitted under each theory. And to do that... we need the extremes of the universe that we can either engineer or observe.

Yeah....nothing new here. You're saying we go to the extreme places in the universe where the laws do not reconcile or start breaking?

We're doing that as we speak, of course we can't get there, but Hawking's already did a part of it. This is another scapegoat by those people selling books about "the possibility of physics" "elegant universe" go to the extreme places where according to them anything is possible hence write more pages for the readers. Truth is someday we can better reconcile the laws, if they can even be done, and form into a theory of everything then you can explain how the phenomena starts changing. But doing that won't change the limits we have here on earth or what we are, matter.

Speculating about the history of our own universe is pointless. The past has become isolated from the present to such a degree that it effectively exists in a super-position of its possibilities rather than a defined existence.

This is just plain Old upper level QM, suddenly rephrased as super position of possibilities somehow makes everything possible. I hope you are not reading those books they sell by 8 dollars explaining the "elegant universe" or "physics of the impossible", it's better you work out your equations yourself.

You took away all the wrong lessons and married them to a defeatist attitude.

Possibly, but all physicists did as well.

Though I can't be too terribly upset - People have long been trained by our educational system to exist in a state of dependence and perceived inferiority to authority. You do well in school so that you will look nice and pretty for a potential employer. You're groomed from the day you are born to seek employment at the mercy of others - to weigh your own value and capability against the decision of another person on whether or not to hire you.

That's not to say that employment is fundamentally bad - just that it's almost the only way anyone is taught to think these days. It's a culture of dependency and subjugation. Nowhere does it show more than in the fields of industry, where innovation and creativity have been marginalized.

Thanks for reading minds . It was the educational system not the books or experimental data that I looked at that made me what I am.

We live in a universe we know realistically nothing about.

If we know only one thing is that interstellar travel will always remain in science fiction. Not because of the speed of light itself but the consequences that it brings.

Mass? How the hell does that work? There is a field-like region of force... but we are still searching and theorizing about a carrier particle (the Higgs is still a contested find, even with the findings from the LHC).

The field region of force is a mathematical description it doesn't matter what theory you have to explain how mass comes about. Pretty much the entire physics community agrees whatever the results are or whatever theory you develop explaining mass from the LHC, it won't have any direct impact on our world as the way people may think.

We still have no accurate means of predicting the behavior of 'simple' metal alloys. Metallurgy is something of an alchemical dark art - get your alloy composition off by even 0.1% and you go from a strong, light alloy to one that shatters like glass when you drop it. If you're talking about die-casted alloys - the manner in which you inject the metal can cause portions of it to cool by a few tenths of a degree and completely ruin the part. Discoveries in alloys are largely trial-by-error developments.
We are using some relatively new laser systems to place matter into phases/states that don't exist in any natural part of the universe we've encountered. These new phases of matter (some of which are theorized to exist for fleetingly short periods of time during high-energy events) open up all kinds of possibilities for fields like fusion (where a better understanding of these phases and how they behave could generate more accurate models that allow us to build more plausible designs).

There are thousands of these phenomena happening not as "visually impressive". It is the field of solid state physics where I worked at some point. What does have to do with interstellar travel? Are you saying because this phenomena seems impressive by looking how it changes that it somehow means we don't know anything and therefore interstellar travel is possible? You can find 1000s of unexplained and "impressive phenomena" in a different levels of scales that's only energy/matter interacting with itself which we can't predict intrinsically because of QM, it's nothing impressive. You'll see it in a solid state physics lab all the time as well as graphically. Any conference of solid state physics talks about it, they're mostly end up in applications for engineering and that's how far it goes, nothing to do with interstellar travel.

We are deluded, in a way, by our own accomplishments. The world appears to have lost its mystique because we have achieved so many things... but the answers to many basic things elude us, still.

Strictly speaking, interstellar travel can have a set amount of energy defined as necessary.

Every celestial object (or object in orbit) has an effective amount of energy stored in its relative distance from another mass and/or its velocity. Adding energy to that object changes the positions it can occupy (as does removing energy).

Thus, by taking into account the massive bodies within a system, the location of an object you desire to move, and the difference in 'gravitational potential' between those two locations, one can calculate the minimum amount of energy necessary to move that object to that location.


Currently, the only way we know of to move an object (or relocate it) is through classical motion using acceleration of a mass generating inertia. It is, however, at least possible in theory to apply energy to an object in a much more direct manner and cause it to instantly shift to another location - without generating a change in inertia.

Obviously - exactly how to do this is a bit of a mystery. A better understanding of mass, in general, will be necessary before one can really begin to set up an experiment to test a hypothesis on how to go about generating such a phenomena (location and inertia may be far more intrinsically linked than anyone wants to believe).

Even if this could not generate -faster- than light transportation, it could become a critical drive system (or lead to a very potent drive functioning in a somewhat different manner) for interstellar travel (as near-light velocities will be necessary for anything approaching interstellar travel).


Though it could all be as simple as taking a ship and isolating it. The ship then enters (from our perspective) a superposition and the universe (from the crew's perspective) also enters a super-position. The idea of taking something we commonly identify as a conscious observer and placing it into a super-position may generate some exceptionally interesting results (though perhaps the most important answers would remain a bit of a mystery... does the person you sent into the super-position step back out into a different world? ... You can only ever encounter one of the many possible states of that person once you decohere the system).

Rights KE+PE~Total energy, physics 101. Any dude here who took physics in high school can pretty much understand everything you said if you didn't reword to make it sound "smart" but any physicist would laugh their ass off at the non sense you are speaking. You are somehow rewording and mixing classical physics with qm and somehow you ended up with interstellar travel. Trust me I would copy/paste this and show it to my physics peers to show them what an engineer is all about but I won't.

Again the mistake you're making is the fact that you still are scraping the surface man, no offense. I think it's better if you really study all four forces of physics deep down, then you will have a better understanding. You will see that it's not about the equations, they're simply mathematical descriptions. It's the experimental data and the measured consequences that prevent us from accomplishing the great feats they talk about in the science channel. When you hear theory of relativity or inertia or mass or speed, it's about not the equations.

Well, since I'm already typing, here - I'll just post it here (and if need be copy it and add to it in a PM).

Honestly, I think you are the deluded one here. Somehow you read a couple of books(mostly with words that require a basic understanding of high school/undergrad physics) without working out the equations or developing the theory from scratch or even looking at the experimental data which is what to expect from an engineer since I did study it myself, then it makes you think you can pretty much say anything and fool all this people you know what you are talking about.

Anybody can pick up papers online read them give a brief summary and sound smart but not everyone can show they understand what they really talk about, it's really easy to see for those who work in this field. Now if I were to show your post to my peers on how to overcome interstellar travel, then you will remind them when they were in high school and laugh at engineers but I won't do that.

I really think you shouldn't discuss things you barely understand and if you do make sure you let everyone know you're just like them and you don't know any better and not make them believe you understand interstellar travel anymore than they do because you clear don't.

This is why I wanted to talk by PM because I knew you would talk as an engineer with little knowledge and you wouldn't show any single coherent idea on how to achieve interstellar travel other than saying "we we know is 100% wrong, there fore one day we can do anything". I didn't want to reply but well I think in the end it may do you some good, i hope.