The future is impossible
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
Ygnaiih wrote:
articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible.
That's their opinion, and as the old adage goes 'opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one'. A positive that may come of it though, it might kickstart a thought process by the right person, that may prove or disprove that opinion.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
Possible and achievable are two different things. Something may be possible, yet we may not achieve it. I don't think we'll achieve time travel.
-
Ygnaiih wrote:
I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe. It has little to do with what we can invent, and more with the limits that exisist in the universe.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe.
That's not entirely accurate, depending on your point of view. The speed of light is a known limit to our understanding of the universe. Until someone explains why energy cannot go any faster without relying on 45 layers of other people's mathematical theories, I will still say that it is possible to go faster then light and that is our understanding of physics that is, well, incomplete. I know that with e = mc2 accelerating anything with more mass then a single elementary particle would need all of the energy of the universe but if you rethink what that equation implies, you begin to see that it might just be possible if we knew more.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
Ygnaiih wrote:
I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe. It has little to do with what we can invent, and more with the limits that exisist in the universe.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe.
That's not entirely accurate, depending on your point of view. The speed of light is a known limit to our understanding of the universe. Until someone explains why energy cannot go any faster without relying on 45 layers of other people's mathematical theories, I will still say that it is possible to go faster then light and that is our understanding of physics that is, well, incomplete. I know that with e = mc2 accelerating anything with more mass then a single elementary particle would need all of the energy of the universe but if you rethink what that equation implies, you begin to see that it might just be possible if we knew more.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
That's not entirely accurate, depending on your point of view. The speed of light is a known limit to our understanding of the universe. Until someone explains why energy cannot go any faster without relying on 45 layers of other people's mathematical theories, I will still say that it is possible to go faster then light and that is our understanding of physics that is, well, incomplete.
AFAIK, it does not require any additional layers. Now, do come up with a theory were light goes faster and prove it with a repeatable experiment, and we'll talk :)
Foothill wrote:
I know that with e = mc2 accelerating anything with more mass then a single elementary particle would need all of the energy of the universe but if you rethink what that equation implies, you begin to see that it might just be possible if we knew more.
No, it wouldn't, because all matter is still slower than light.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe.
Quote:
"based on current technology and science knowledge I have".
:-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Under what gravity?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Sounds like it's time for a "your momma" joke.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Yeah, there's definitely a "your momma" joke to be made in this thread.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Foothill wrote:
That's not entirely accurate, depending on your point of view. The speed of light is a known limit to our understanding of the universe. Until someone explains why energy cannot go any faster without relying on 45 layers of other people's mathematical theories, I will still say that it is possible to go faster then light and that is our understanding of physics that is, well, incomplete.
AFAIK, it does not require any additional layers. Now, do come up with a theory were light goes faster and prove it with a repeatable experiment, and we'll talk :)
Foothill wrote:
I know that with e = mc2 accelerating anything with more mass then a single elementary particle would need all of the energy of the universe but if you rethink what that equation implies, you begin to see that it might just be possible if we knew more.
No, it wouldn't, because all matter is still slower than light.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Let me see if I can explain this little theory I've been mulling over in my head since back when I was taking physics at my local university. First, I will start with your statement
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
come up with a theory where light goes faster
One of the central tenants of my idea is not to find examples of light deviating from it's set speed but to answer why does it always want move at that speed. What is it about the constant that makes it this way not just for light but all energy. So I started pondering the meaning of Einstein's famous equation and it's implications. e = mc2 implies that energy is a function of an interaction between mass and the constant. It implies that energy is irrelevant and only mass and C matter. Most of the widely accepted theories are rooted in this. If we switch things up, the equation takes on a whole new meaning. m = e/c2 implies that mass is a function of an interaction between energy and the constant. It implies that mass is irrelevant on only energy and C matter. More to the point, since energy is in a constant state of acceleration, the mass of a particle is a direct result of energy shedding velocity due to the C. The caveat is that if we could figure out what the universal principal is that causes all energy to shed velocity to make mass, we could figure out how to negate it, thus making faster-than-light travel possible. I may be off my marks but I've asked several physicists about this without a straight answer; even emails to NASA and FermiLab got me nowhere. The answer was always make up a mathematical model and prove it. It's the same exact model they have now just a different way of looking at it. Never did get anywhere with it so far. The only nice thing is that it offers an explanation for electron quantum jumping. I've got theories on gravity too but I can never get any help from physicists on that one either. Not even a suggestion on where to start.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
Possible and achievable are two different things. Something may be possible, yet we may not achieve it. I don't think we'll achieve time travel.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I don't think we'll achieve time travel.
According to Hawking the fact that we haven't already been visited by some future time traveler pretty much "proves" it's impossible. :~
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I don't think we'll achieve time travel.
According to Hawking the fact that we haven't already been visited by some future time traveler pretty much "proves" it's impossible. :~
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
No, not impossible.
-
Ygnaiih wrote:
I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe. It has little to do with what we can invent, and more with the limits that exisist in the universe.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
I saw this yesterday and spent half the night being unsure if I was glad or not. :omg: (I'm currently chasing down his other videos) [The Geometry of Causality | Space Time - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo)
-
Sounds like it's time for a "your momma" joke.
Jeremy Falcon
Yo momma so fat that her gravity gradient is so steep that light can't escape her orbit, so she has effectively transformed into a black hole? Did I get the parlance right?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
If I remember correctly, it was Einstein who said that impossible things remain such only until someone comes up with a trick to make them possible. :) That's often the case with new discoveries and advances in science. While things may technically remain impossible, there can be "tricks" to bypass the impossibility. As in your example, FTL travel could be made possible not by travelling faster than light (which *may* remain impossible), but by warping the space around you etc. etc.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but not in practice. - Anonymous A computer is a stupid machine with the ability to do incredibly smart things, while computer programmers are smart people with the ability to do incredibly stupid things. They are, in short, a perfect match. - B. Bryson
-
Ygnaiih wrote:
I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe. It has little to do with what we can invent, and more with the limits that exisist in the universe.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Ether (cosmic, not medical) was once known as fact of the base material of the universe.
Follow my adventures with .NET Core at my new blog, Erisia Information Services.
-
Ether (cosmic, not medical) was once known as fact of the base material of the universe.
Follow my adventures with .NET Core at my new blog, Erisia Information Services.
-
According to Wikipedia: An event horizon is the points at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible, even for light. Light emitted from inside the event horizon can never reach the outside observer. So if black holes are believed to emit things, how would that work at slower than light speeds? Unless of course the emission never escapes the event horizon and it all happens within that shell.
-
Under what gravity?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
What is gravity? The whole thing about not traveling faster than the speed of light is special relativity which is consistent from cosmological scales down to the quantum. Gravity bending spacetime and thus light was general relativity and falls apart at quantum levels. It's one of the least understood things in physics.
