Intergalactic travel. How can it be done?Pic very related.
/sci/ - Science & Math
Go really really fast.
wormholes indeednot with stargates thougha wormhole suitable for such travel has a event horizon with three dimensions, i thinkfor the rest it's just a matter of opening the wormhole, and opening it where you want it to go
Stargates.
In order to travel faster than the speed of light (which is required to travel any great distance in the universe) we must first shed ALL of our mass. So we either need to die and transcend our bodies, or figure out a way to negate mass.
make giant thruster, change earths orbit.sling shot action sending us on a path of similar distance to the sun.although granted, half the world would probably be in darkness but we could just relocate everybody and move all bussiness/industry to the dark side.
>>194863GIANT MAGIC FLYING BOX OF GREAT PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC~
Technically a stargate is nothing but a very scientific wormole controlled to open and close...
>>194895you don't have to actually travel faster then light, I'd still take way to long to get there, you have to use a "shortcut" of sorts
>>194895See 'WARP DRIVE' Mass cannot travel FTL, but nothing in relativity space itself cannot be bent at such speeds.
The closer to the speed of light you go, the slower time passes for you. So if you go close enough to the speed of light you can get anywhere and age as little as you wish.
Don't worry, Pluto's moon is actually a machine that allows us to travel across the galaxy. It's just encased in ice.
>>194916Technically a stargate wouldn't exist, because wormholes do awful things to information as particles pass through them.
>>194905borg!BORG!
If we bend spacetime, what exactly would we be traveling through when we travel through wormholes? Super-space? Imaginary space?
You think yourself out of existence then back into at the point where you want to arrive.
Dude... A Stargate would work just fine.. I don't know why this thread has to go past the image... I cant think of any mode of interstellar travel more desirable that a gate that I can walk through.. I mean it worked great for 10 seasons of SG1, 3 of SGA (I dont recognize those other two seasons and so far SGU has made some use of a gate. I vote we work on wormhole gates as soon as we sort out unification
>>194943Space through different dimensions. it would still look like something, because we can perceive 3d only.But the universe has 10, maybe 11 dimensions.
So, just wondering, as far as Near Light Speed travel goes, what happens if your spaceship hits a rock the size of a fist doing, say, 80% the speed of light?
if we all just concentrate really hard,please refer to picard pic in other thread for technique
1) Compress space in front of you2) Expand space behind you3) ????4) Faster than light travel
>>194961Deflector shields.... DERPADERPDERP
>>194961hitting a molecule at near light would be deadly..
There is no reason making a large enough generation ship to make it to other galaxies couldn't be built. A massive ship sent on its way with enough emits almost no radiation and is super efficient with its power use, has it's own self sufficient biosphere, and has enough fuel to power the ship and slow it down when the time comes should be able to make it.If fuel ever was a problem the intergalactic clouds of hydrogen slowing the ship down could be scooped up to supplement fuel supplies. If there isn't enough fuel to slow down the ship could use sails to do the deep space equivalent of aerobraking. It would chart a path that takes it through clouds of gas and use them to slow down.
>>194973Thats....nice.But really, what would happen?
>>194943A higher dimension.Imagine a seeming 2D universe that occupies the surface of a sphere. A wormhole passes through the middle of the sphere. A 2D being on the surface can't imagine this 3rd dimension that's being accessed.At least, as far as I understand, it could be more complicated than that
>>194961Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space.
>>194961the rock FUCKS YOU UP ROYALLY, that's what.The best technologically possible way to travel right now would be to slowly accelerate up to a very high speed and coast your ass to the nearest stars, with multiple ships going off to different locations. In a geologically small amount of time we could colonize a small part of the galaxy (assuming there's other places that will support life)
>>194943hyperspace
>>194987instant plasma stream streaking across space like some sort of fourth of july from hell.
>>194986All of you need to stop relying on magic and read this post.
On the topic of high speed collision, at 86% C, an object's kinetic energy equals the energy stored in its mass.
>>195001Kinetic energy = .5mv^2so lets assume a rock of mass 1 kilogramlets assume speed at .98c (300,000km/s)so v= 294,000km/ske=.5(1000g)(2.94x10^5)^2ke = 4.3218x10^13 newtonsso the rock hits with a force of 43 some odd trillion newtons of force.. that would fairly effectively convert the entire ship into energy.
>>195115THEN WE CAN USE THAT ENERGY TO ACCELERATE FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED!!11
>>195115two coke cans (empty) smashed together in the LHC would effectively shatter the planet.
>>195131Nah just a big boom spread across space/time.
>>195137glad they are only flinging protons around... wheeee
>>195137So like....the place is well guarded right? Or maybe I could go and try to destroy the world, hehe.
>>195169I think so yeah.
>>195169not to put you down but i bet anything if you walked in there and tried to get that machine to work you would fail miserably. The only people who know how to work it are the army of minions who have worked there for a long time.
Bending 3d space sounds quite difficult though.Grand-universal-scale peristalsis may also work.
>>195204pass the spliff. Sounds cool but yeah no.
>>194986gravity, gamma radiation
wormholes i think are the only feasible way
>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929>>194929With enough energy one may go anywhere while perceiving as short a time interval as they wish.
>>195204I really hate that explanation. It's beautiful and succinct, and in all probability: wrong. 3D space isn't bent through the fourth dimension of space for a wormhole to exist there. Logically, it makes no sense or we would see immense distortions in space that have nothing to do with gravitational lensing. We haven't seen this yet, so wormholes remain untestable and unobserved as well as illogical.
>>194929HOLY NUTZ I NEVER THOUGHT OF IT THIS WAY
Wouldn't faster than light travel also reverse the direction of the universe or something?
>>194986Assuming we could harness fusion.We still can't do that quite yet.
You almost need to bend space and time so as to not need infinite amounts of fuel. Either something like the Alcubierre drive, wormholes or maybe a stargate. You can't just blast off with chemical rockets, it'd take forever.
>>195568Travelling at c it would still take 3 years to get to our nearest star (not including the sun)
>>195578Exactly, which is why you use something like wormholes to make a shortcut and thus less time is required.
>>195549It's not really an if, but a when. And considering this thread is about interGALACTIC travel I think it is a given fusion power will be viable.If need be though I suppose one could go a step further and use anti-matter as the fuel of the ship to reduce mass. I like sticking with the more concrete technologies though.
>>195578no... you are making numbers up again... Proxima Centauri, the nearest star, is 4.22 light years away...
With a constant 1G of acceleration, it would be possible to cross the entire known universe in a human life-time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travelThe problem is figuring out a power source, propulsion system, adequate protection against the dangers of space, what do you do when you have a major systems failure and need to repair, navigating around impassible/dangerous regions like not getting too close to super-massive black-holes, etc. not to mention the problem of slowing down when you've found a destination you want to stop at.
Stop suggesting "wormholes". Those don't work.They are essentially two black holes, and once you enter one, you might not leave, or else it would take an immense amount of power to do so.Assuming you'd be alive from the entry in the first place.>>195578And it would take 4 years...
>>194929The only unfortunate thing is saying goodbye to your loved ones at home. In today's era of facebook, myspace, cell phones, and increased globalizations, the pain of a goodbye has been almost eliminated. Do you think you'll willingly be able to say those last words and explore?
>>195590it was a guestimate.
>>195578~4.365 years, but that would be the time it would take for the traveler to reach Alpha Centauri relative to the time frame of an observer on Earth. Relative to the traveler himself however, once he hit 90%+ light speed, time would pass a lot more slowly, making the trip appear to pass a lot faster. Before you knew it, it would be time to start slowing down at a constant 1G deceleration until you arrived at the new star system.
>>194863You can go to another galaxy at any velocity. What's the problem?
DURP EXOTIC MATTER DURP DURP
>>195624thats alpha centauri.... PROXIMA CENTATURI IS 4.22 LY away!!!!!!!http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/cosmic/nearest_star_info.html Check your fucking sources people.
>>195645Fine, the rest of my argument still holds. The trip would actually pass in less time for the traveler, more like 1.5 years, where most of the time is spent accelerating or decelerating.
>>195632That'd be the case if galaxies weren't actually moving.
>>195673no the trip would take them 4.22 years... for the rest of the universe hundreds would have gone by.. do you not understand relativity?
>>195624Yes but in order to make intergalactic travel somewhat useful we will need to solve time dilation.waiting 8.5 years for him to come home and say "yeah not much there" isnt great.
>>195676Our local group isn't moving away from us.
>>195645Isn't that at it's closest?Couldn't proxima, being a dwarf star, orbit the other main series stars?
>>1956928.5 years relative to the traveller*
>>195692by the time you got back hundreds of years would have happened on earth.
>>195712Yeah so it's completly pointless to set out a 0.9c voyager with a self supporting bio-system and all that shit.
>>195712To the observer watching the ship accelerate to light speed they would see it become compressed, more massive and time on the ship would appear to stop. On the ship its life as normal, they are on their way to the nearest star.
>>195686You're the one who does not understand relativity. Light does not age, time does not pass for light. The closer you travel towards the speed of light, the slower you travel in time relative to a fixed observer, while your perception of time remains the same.If a traveler going from here to Proxima Centauri was traveling at 99.999% of the speed of light, the observer back on Earth would see that it took him at least 8.4 years to reach his destination (perhaps a couple of more years to account for the lower speeds during times of acceleration and deceleration).
>>195792Facepalm you are a stupid fucking trollHere watch some Carl Sagan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsz8hgSGRho
>>195792You are really really wrong dude
>>195792Read this dumbfag.http://www.costellospaceart.com/html/time_and_the_speed_of_light.html
>>195834>>195847Seriously. If you were traveling at the speed of light from Earth to Proxima Centauri, it would take you 4.22 years. Once you reached Proxima Centauri, it would take another 4.22 years for the light bouncing off of your vessel to reach the observers back on Earth.
But what if your matter is fixed against time and traveling close to the speed of light makes it so you age really fast?
I doubt we'll ever find out. I don't think that it's impossible, but it would require to much time and research. Humanity will have wiped itself out longg before we'll even get close to sofisticated space-travel.
"It is reported that at the 2008 Joint Propulsion Conference, where future space propulsion challenges were discussed and debated, a conclusion was reached that it is improbable that humans will ever explore beyond the Solar System. Brice N. Cassenti, an associate professor with the Department of Engineering and Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, stated “At least 100 times the total energy output of the entire world would be required for the voyage (to Alpha Centauri)” ;_;NO I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THIS
>>195891HUNDREDS OF YEARS WILL GO BY FOR EVERYONE ON EARTH IN THE TIME IT TAKES YOU TO FLY THERE AND BACK 8.44 YEARS FOR YOU = HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS FOR EARTH... OF COURSE THE LIGHT IS GOING TO BOUNCE OF THE SHIP AN HIT EARTH IN JUST A FEW YEARS TIME BECAUSE THAT'S LIGHT MOVING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT NOT MATTER MOVING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.... FOR EVERYONE ON EARTH IT MIGHT TAKE 50 YEARS BEFORE THEY SEE THE SHIP LEAVE THE SOLAR SYSTEM, WHAT FOR THEM WAS 50 YEARS WAS FOR YOU A FEW HOURS.. FOR THEM 50 YEARS FOR YOU A
>>195891That always is funnyIf you were to continuously watch someone sail away into space, would it be a constant stream of light or would there be hiccups in the stream because they are going away
>>195930I think providing the necessary amounts of energy will not be one of the major issues.
>>195943But it only took a couple of decades for Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 to leave the solar system, and they're traveling no where near the speed of light.YOU ARE WRONG. FOR AN OBSERVER ON EARTH, IF YOU SHINED A FLASHLIGHT AT PROXIMA CENTAURI IT WOULD TAKE 4.22 YEARS FOR THAT LIGHT TO ARRIVE, AND THE OBSERVER WOULD SEE IT TOOK 8.44 YEARS. IF A TRAVELER WAS GOING ALONGSIDE THAT BEAM OF LIGHT AT THE SAME SPEED, THE OBSERVER ON EARTH WOULD SEE THAT IT TOOK THE TRAVELER 8.44 YEARS TO REACH PROXIMA CENTAURI.
>>195930we could produce FAR more than we currently do... it's only due to energy requirements that we don't attempt to produce more.
>>195973YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LIGHTWHEN MATTER GOES THE SPEED OF LIGHT THERE IS A HUGE PROBLEM AS THE SHIPS MASS REACHES INFINITY SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE AND WHAT GIVES IS TIME.
>>195973you don't understand relativity at all and are trolling like a mother fucker.
What's with the capslock? you angrrryy?
>>196015Just frustrated that someone is willing to denigrate science for the pure sake of being a worthless troll.
>>195989>>195992You are the trolls, are you saying the Lorentz formulas are wrong?At constant 1g acceleration at a starting of rest velocity from Earth, an observer on Earth would know that it would take ~4.22 years to reach Proxima Centauri, and they would see that arrival another 4.22 years later for the light to travel back.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_and_space_flightHere's my computations:http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28speed+of+light+in+vacuum+squared%29+%2F+%281g%29%29+*+%28sqrt%281+%2B+%28%281g+*+%283600+*+24+*+365+*+4.22+seconds%29%29^2+%2F+%28speed+of+light+squared%29%29%29+-+%281%2Fsqrt%281%29%29%29&a=UnitClash_*g.*GravityAccelerations--&a=UnitClash_*seconds.*Seconds.dflt--
>For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic. For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel as far as light has been able to travel since the big bang (some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime.Straight from that wikipedia article. So either Wikipedia has it wrong, or you are the trolls.
>>196193Here's some more: http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html>“If the twin aboard the spaceship went to the nearest star, which is 4.45 light years away at 86 percent of the speed of light, when he returned, he would have aged 5 years. But the earthbound twin would have aged more than 10 years!” said Kak.Meaning that time went slower while you were traveling at near light speed. You were able to travel a distance of 8.9 light years in only 5 years of your time as you perceived it, but in 10 years of an Earth observer's time.AGAIN, YOU ARE THE TROLLS. NOT ME.
What, too afraid to answer me now, trolls? Too embarrassed?
Fucking trolls.
COME ON TROLLS, ANSWER ME, I WANT TO SEE YOUR DELICIOUS TEARS.
Goddammit, more Touhou. Go away.
>>196381But Yumemi is the Touhou of SCIENCE!
>>196044>>195992>>195989>>195947>>195943>>195873>>195847>>195834>>195712You trolls just can't handle real science, you always get it backwards.
>>196388There's a Touhou for almost every board.
I guess I left you trolls "light years" behind. Farewell trolls.
>>194863a barrel roll
>>196277Actually, the explanation behind that paradox is that there is an acceleration involved when the traveller returns home, thus removing him from a strictly inertial frame of reference. Prior to said acceleration, both observers are correct with regards to how much time has passed.
