That's the faultiest "lol u loes i win" logic I've ever heard. If you didn't intialy understand my argument, that's on you, MAAAN.

You didn't even try to argue my points or anything! Typically that means that YOU loose. loosen. Lose. Whatevs. All we were arguing about was your one-dimensional view of corporations which, really, doesn't make for a very fun argument in the first place.

I concede. You win. Good day, sir.


It'd probably take a bit longer than that to get some decent manufacturing capabilities and recyclable food systems going. I'm thinking our first colony ship can't really afford to be huge. There's propulsion energy to consider so, with all of the stuff needed to set-up a permanent city-settlement (assuming we can breathe the air), we'd probably be able to fit about 500 people in between the mass of the fuel and the colony parts.

With that kind of population, I'd shoot more towards fifty to sixty years before the they begin to outgrow democracy and move more towards an oligarchy, where those who prove themselves the best in the early years (either by brains or guts or loudness or some combination thereof) become the trusted leaders of the settlement.

if it is a gen. ship IE slower than light. We would use nuke engines or even ion engines. Ion engines don't require that you carry fuel. Also once your up to speed you don't need propulsion until it is time to break.

The ship would either need to land whole or have sections land. Meaning you would already have your starting food sources in place.

A gen. ship would probable start with 100 people but need to be big enough for a couple of thousand. Depending on how many gens. it takes to get there.

Leadership would probable already be established or the captian and ship crew would be the starting leadership.

Yeah, but a captain is mostly only good for the command of his ship. Sure, he may have picked up a useful tip or two from elsewhere, but for the most part he probably won't know a whole lot about that colonization business (vis a vis the captain in Wall-E) and will turn that part over to the people who know what they're doing. Or maybe he'd not want to lose his position of leadership and hold everyone hostage somehow.

And while I really like the idea of a generation ship, I was thinking of a ship that could hit the low-to-mid 90% scale of relativistic speed. Something that'd get 'em there in a decade rather than a century. Of course that would require some cold fusion action, maybe even some matter-anti-matter action, but this is disregarding current resources and everything.

Still, good thinking on the ion drive... we COULD combine propulsions systems.

then we whould have a form of FTL drive by then



well speking of Ion drives NASA was going to make a Space shuttle the ran on Nuke power to run the Ion drive that they put on a probe last but bigger for the upcomming mars mission but it got cannsaled because of the Middle East war got to expensive and is going to resume in 2010 and then mars in 2020

Before you start putting FTL into your future plans:
There is no FTL today.
There is no indication that FTL is possible.

this is on another site so.


http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=132777

ok then what are thous shiny metal objects that look like calender or sphere or disk shaped things that do not look like an F-16 out in our atmosphere. what do you call those human made?

what does you using aluminum cake pans as frisbees have to do with faster than light travel

possibly

Two points:

1. Ion drives are always going to be slow as that funny looking kid that sits at the end of your lunch table.

2. FTL travel is not possible. All theories (folding space, quantum shells, warp coils, phase space, etc.) fail to address the relativistic issues of sending any information (read: matter and energy) faster than light. Even if your ship doesn't reach infinite mass, just by being someplace your not supposed to be will cause all sorts of funny issues. (For instance, how by some points of view, you arrive at your destination before you left.)

It is impossible to solve the paradoxes created by FTL travel, and they effect the entire universe. You would literally have to create a physics altering device to supplement your warp drive.

You people say the darndest things.

-Dr. B

Pls show me your noble prize in Quantum Physics to correct me, otherwise you're just bashing the idea.

It's always impossible unless somebody makes it a reality. FTL is possible you said it yourself you just need "to solve the paradoxes created by FTL travel" and maybe its out primitive mind that isn't capable of solving it.

How old are you? (Don't answer if you do not want to.)

We were arguing whether putting corporations in charge (that means, there is no "goverment") of colonies with several millions people was a good idea, and how a corporation works in its purest form. I won't argue how corporations behave in RL right now. That is beside the point.



Dr. B, "Impossible" is such an unscientific word.

I do believe Ion Drives to be an effective "energy source" for space travel. Sadly I am sure none of us all will ever even see a working prototype in our lifetime. Same does for FTL.

accaly NASA plased a Ion Drive on a space probe

And it more than did it's job the probe was able to visit three different asteroids.

I stand corrected. Though I was thinking more in terms for manned crafts. Still its very interesting.

I love all the people saying that if the detractors would just stop being meanies, that physics can be broken, like the universe is The Little Train Who Could and all you have to do is BELIEVEEEEEEEE. A lot of posters are so utterly entrenched in BOOM BOOM I BLOW UR SPACESHIP UP and not with a basic introduction of general relativity.

Continuing to debate these people is worthless, but good luck if you're going to continue.

I agree with you arguing with people like you are meaning less.

Oh, I'm sorry. Was I too subtle? The universe was created.

Ion drives are currently used for unmanned space probes and satellite orbital stabilizers. There is, however, a base limit on the thrust you can get out of an ion drive due to the electrostatic repulsion between the ions. At a certain point you just get sparks, which looks really cool, but makes the thruster fail.


I'd like to borrow Carbon016's words, and say:

I can't explicitly prove that you can't go faster than light (actually I can, but it would explode your head), but I can explicitly prove that if you go faster than light, you create unsolvable paradoxes. The only way to avoid these is for the theory of special relativity to be proven wrong, and since all of the consequences stem from two postulates, you have to prove one of these two things:
1. The speed of light is not always "c" in a vacuum, or
2. The laws of physics are not the same for all inertial frames of reference.

While you're at it, find me the exact value of pi.


By the universe creating fairy.

-Dr. B

If you cant prove that we cant travel faster than 'c' then what is the point of defending it.

For example, if you come up with any reproducible experimental evidence that shows the law of gravity to be false, we would then have to review the law of gravity.

its all about fundamentals...if you have fundamentals then there are certain things that don't exist in the vector spaces in which these fundamentals lie.

its like living in 3D space..you can not explore 4D because you only have 3Ddimesnsions...however if you live in 4D space you can explore 3D space.

good old graphics theory.

as pertaining to the universe and physics/TOE...we odn't really know whats fundamental...we can only hazard guesses SO

that statement should be said
"that cannot happen because it violates the CURRENT laws of physics"

If something in nature violates a law of nature. All that means is we didn't understand that law.

NECROMANCY!!!!!!!!

What your forgetting is that while its impossible to travel at FTL speeds, that doesn't preclude getting to places quicker than light does.

Wormholes fit into our current understanding of physics; and while the power requirements needed to "bend space" to allow for FTL travel are... excessive (as in super-nova levels of energy excessive)... that doesn't mean its impossible, just impractical.

Seeing a EM representation of yourself after you arrive at a destination is NOT an unsolvable paradox, and I don't know why you would list it as one. Read: Supersonic travel, TV.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to back away from saying that FTL travel is impossible, and instead remind everyone that chronological continuity does not exist in a FTL universe.  If you are comfortable with going back in time, than by all means, believe in your dilithium crystal burning, warp-drive toting, phaser firing starships.

If you believe that you can have FTL travel, relativity, and continuity all in the same universe, then you apparently aren't a physicist.  I wouldn't lose any sleep over that.  But if you want to cut out relativity from this picture, than I recommend you go out and fetch me a better theory.  Which fits all of the observed properties of relativity.  And has the same predictive capability of relativity.  Actually, that won't help you at all.  Because if the real world really is real, you're not going to completely get rid of the effects of special relativity.  General relativity could use more fleshing out, but that's a different story.

Bottom line: unless you can convince the universe that it should stop treating all inertial frames of reference with equal fidelity, you're going to have some serious causality issues with faster than light travel.  No matter how you do it.

Not to burst anyone's ego-bubble, but if you haven't invested several years of your life to rigerous mathematical and scientific study, you're not going to be able to formulate a very robust counter-argument to anything I've just said.  Sharper minds than I have put this theory to the test, and with the blunt instruments most of you are working with, cutting through relativity to get at FTL is going to be about as productive as chopping wood with a comically oversized wiffleball bat.

-Dr. B