...Faster Than Light is a pipe-dream

Michael Grosberg wrote:

How long does an intelligent culture last?
We have no idea *at all* - could be millions of years, could be
millenia or less. But it's more than a hundred and could possibly be
much more. For all we know, a technological culture could go on
indefinitely.

This is one of the reasons Sagan was so emotional about nuclear winter
and nuclear proliferation reduction and so on. He couldn't see any
reason why the rest of the terms in the equation should be low, so it
must be dominated by a very short lifetime for an industrial
civilization. And with that in mind, look around at the gasoline
we're standing in while comparing matches.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

On May 7, 7:18*pm, Greg Goss wrote:
Michael Grosberg wrote:
How long does an intelligent culture last?
We have no idea *at all* - could be millions of years, could be
millenia or less. But it's more than a hundred and could possibly be
much more. For all we know, a technological culture could go *on
indefinitely.

This is one of the reasons Sagan was so emotional about nuclear winter
and nuclear proliferation reduction and so on. *He couldn't see any
reason why the rest of the terms in the equation should be low, so it
must be dominated by a very short lifetime for an industrial
civilization. *And with that in mind, look around at the gasoline
we're standing in while comparing matches.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

I think at the time pretty much everyone was emotional about these
things, less because of getting some equation right and more because
of, you know, not wanting to die and all.

On May 4, 7:12*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

The new discoveries of dark matter and energy has changed
the picture. Dark energy evolved, or become prominent, at
almost the same time life on earth began. Or at about the
same time the universe became matter dominated.
Which roughly coincides with the evolution of our galaxy.

Dark energy and the Milky Way Galaxy "evolved"? This is news to me.
But I'm willing to read any source you care to give us for your
assertions.

Be advised, "the time the universe became matter dominated"...as
opposed to "the time when there were equal amounts of matter and
antimatter in the universe", I assume, because that's the only way
this sentence even makes sense... It only lasted a second or two
after the Big Bang. That's 9,200 million years before the formation
of the Earth, let alone the first life on Earth.

It would seem rather obvious to me that the closer a system
is to us, the more likely life, there and here, evolves
along side each other. Not one vastly predating another.

Well, it's not obvious to the rest of us. Walk us through it.

"Damien Valentine" wrote in message
...
On May 4, 7:12 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

The new discoveries of dark matter and energy has changed
the picture. Dark energy evolved, or become prominent, at
almost the same time life on earth began. Or at about the
same time the universe became matter dominated.
Which roughly coincides with the evolution of our galaxy.

Dark energy and the Milky Way Galaxy "evolved"? This is news to me.
But I'm willing to read any source you care to give us for your
assertions.


I believe the ideas of the proposed new cosmology of
Steinhardt and Turok. Where dark matter and energy
play defining roles in the evolution of the universe.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

His idea of Quintessence is essentially an attractor
solution to the behavior of the universe. Attractors as
used by the chaos and complexity sciences.

Attractors Everywhere - Order from Chaos
http://www.calresco.org/attract.htm

This is a solution which doesn't depend on initial conditions
at all, but a dynamical solution where the universe propagates
itself cyclically. To quote his paper.

A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf


"The recent proposal of a cyclic" universe presents a whole
new outlook on cosmic history in which dark energy plays
a central role (Steinhardt & Turok, 2002a, 2002b). in this
model, the conventional cosmic history is turned topsy-turvy.
The big bang is not the beginning of time. Rather, it is a bridge
to a pre-existing contracting era. The Universe undergoes
a sequence of cycles in which it contracts in a big crunch and
re-emerges in an expanding big bang, with trillions of years
of evolution in between. The big bang" is moderated. The
temperature and density of the universe do not become infinite
at any point in the cycle; indeed, they never exceed a finite bound
(about a trillion trillion degrees). No inflation has taken place since
the (last) bang. The current homogeneity and atness were
created by events that occurred before the most recent big bang,
and the seeds for galaxy formation were created by instabilities
arising as the Universe was collapsing towards a big crunch, prior
to our big bang."

"In this picture, dark energy is moved to center stage and is part
of the engine that drives the periodic evolution of the universe.
Dark energy recurs as the dominant form of energy
every cycle roughly 15 billion years after each bang."


Be advised, "the time the universe became matter dominated"...as
opposed to "the time when there were equal amounts of matter and
antimatter in the universe", I assume, because that's the only way
this sentence even makes sense...

The defining relationship is now is the relationship between dark
matter and dark energy. To quote the paper....


"We have a dynamical explanation for why the dark energy did
not overtake the universe for the first 10,000 years. But, then,
something truly remarkable happens to k-essence models when
the universe becomes matter dominated. The radiation-like attractor
solution becomes unstable, and the energy density in the k-essence
field begins to drop several orders of magnitude until a new
matter-dominated attractor solution is found."

"But, once it hits the w = 1 attractor, the universe can only expand
for a short term before k-essence overtakes the universe and
throws it into a phase of cosmic acceleration."

"In this scenario, the coincidence problem is beautifully addressed.
Why did the universe begin to accelerate just as humans evolve?
Cosmic acceleration and human evolution are both linked to the
onset of matter-domination. "





Jonathan


s

I'm not arguing against inflationary theory; it's pretty well-
established as these things go. And I don't think postulating
"cyclical universes" before our own is a very useful approach, since
by defintion there's no possible way we could prove or disprove their
existence...but I'm not going to waste time with that either. I'm
saying that your understanding of these issues, and how they relate to
evolution, is mistaken.

Suppose that dark energy did indeed begin winning out over
gravitational attraction 5,000 million or so years ago...give or take
a few hundred million years. (Which is by no means proven; the
"quintessence" scenario is still purely hypothetical, with no
experimental evidence to confirm it so far.) The Earth happens to
have formed at approximately that time, and it happens to be a planet
where a.) life originated, and b.) said life evolved intelligence.
Now, it's not a great stretch of the imagination to hold that
trillions of other planets were also formed, somewhere in the
Universe, at the same time, and that at least some fraction of these
planets also originated life, which evolved intelligence. In fact,
given the literally astronomical numbers we're talking about, that's a
given.

Are you with me so far?

Now, your claim is that because these intelligent aliens evolved
simultaneously with us -- again, "simultaneously" really means within
a few hundred million years -- then we will never be able to contact
them, because their transmissions won't have had enough time to reach
us. And that's where the rest of us disagree. Because as long as
you're within a few hundred million light-years of Earth -- the width
of the entire Virgo Supercluster of galaxies! -- there's still a good
chance that Earth could happen to intercept some of your very last
transmissions. I'm not saying it would be *easy*, or that it could
lead to meaningful communication at that distance. But it's not
*impossible* either. And if some of these extraterrestrials happen to
have evolved in our neighborhood -- which nothing in the
"quintessence" hypothesis addresses one way or the other -- then of
course it would be much easier to have a conversation.

Furthermore, even if dark energy began influencing the Universe at the
same time as the Earth formed, that doesn't mean that this dark energy
"evolved" in any meaningful sense. In fact, if I'm understanding the
paper right, it's just a question of Dark Energy Constant X having a
very slightly steeper graph line than Gravitational Constant Y.
Neither dark energy nor gravitational attraction changed, much less
adapted in response to their environment.

Finally, I don't see what ANY of this has to do with your title,
"Faster Than Light is a pipe-dream". Even if we're the only
intelligent beings in the entire Universe, why should that fact alone
stop us from developing FTL transportation?

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

And we'll never talk to aliens.

What's this got to do with sci.space.history you trolling scumbag??!!

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:34:46 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

"Jonathan" wrote in message
m...

And we'll never talk to aliens.

What's this got to do with sci.space.history you trolling scumbag??!!

About as much as it has to do with rec.arts.sf.written.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

Bill Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:34:46 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
And we'll never talk to aliens.
What's this got to do with sci.space.history you trolling scumbag??!!

About as much as it has to do with rec.arts.sf.written.

He is likely right about the FTL, though.

Fairly,
Jack Tingle

On Apr 29, 10:24*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
And we'll never talk to aliens.

Because the universe makes sense!
Because the inherent abilities of the universe
to create and evolve are so pervasive and
relentless, life emerges straight away everywhere.

Life blooms everywhere at about the same time.
The universe is teeming with life but we'll never prove it.
Since telescopes see the past, we'll never see them, and
they'll never see us. Even though both are looking, we'll
only see each other's distant past.

For questions of truth and meaning there's only thought.
Common understanding is the only thing that might
exceed the speed oflight.

Imho.

Jonathan
---
Regarding your subject line "Faster Than Light is a pipe-dream" Not so
fast:

A physicist actually proposed in 1994 that one could be possible. It
is called colloquially a Alcubierre warp drive:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...lcubdrive.html

There are scientist including a former NASA propulsion specialist that
are currently working on the problem:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30600749/

Now other physicist say that it would be a practical impossibility.
However, even then it is not so much that it is impossible to create a
warp drive but that if we wouldn't be able to control it once started.
Sort of like a runaway nuclear reaction:

http://www.gearlog.com/2009/06/scien...e_might_no.php

They didn't rule it out as a flat out impossibility the principle of
warp drive but they say dark matter has to be better understood. I say
that is perhaps true with current understanding with physics. A 100
years from now who knows? Maybe then it will be deemed an utter
impossibility-or the first warp drives will be fired up by a real life
Zefram Cochran.

NEVER SAY NEVER when it comes to science. I am sure that if you were
to go back to the year 1900 and gave a rough outline about how a
nuclear fission reactor supposedly would work I'm sure the most
respected scientist of that era would laugh you right out the room.
The history of science and engineering has proved time and time and
time and time again that is what is thought of as impossible-a "pipe
dream"-at one time is common place the next.
--
-----Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907