Why Colonize Space?

wrote:
Even below c, if a suitable planet was identified, and some kind of reliable
long-term hybernation technique was around, then people might be interested
to go, even if from our pov it would take then 100 years to get there. From
their own it would just be seconds, potentially. Funnily enough they might
be woken up in mid flight by a faster than light ship-crew who left 50 years
after them, to give them a lift the rest of the way in a few hours.

Yeah, only two things that aren't currently possible have to be invented
for that to happen.

There's a big difference between "aren't currently POSSIBLE" and "aren't
currently INVENTED". The above has the latter, not the former.

("BUT BUT BUT Ftl is IMPOSSIBLE! Can't ever be done!" That's not what the
math says, and not what the physics papers about it say. You can't do it
by naively attempting to _increase your velocity_ from below lightspeed to
above lightspeed. But most FTL methods have nothing to do with that.)

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeableBLINK
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

"William December Starr" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said:

"David Johnston" wrote

No. But I do not ignore observations in favour of wishful
thinking. But assuming that that there is some convenient way to
travel at faster-than-light speeds for free, then obviously the
thing to do is to wait around on Earth for it to appear.

Thats not the way development works. Its normally step by step.

The goal here, as I understand it, is a breakthrough in our
knowledge of physics that we can exploit to develop useful human
interstellar travel, where "useful" means, roughly, the ability to
travel from one system with the possibility of Earthlike planets to
another in no more than, say, five years.

What reason is there to believe that the colonization of space using
today's pre-breakthrough propulsion technologies is a necessary step
in bringing the above-described breakthrough about?

Like I said that developement normally seems to work like that. For instance
a long-term colony on Mars may stimulate the search for faster than light
communication, which might lead to ideas for faster than light travel. This
is just an example of how it might go in steps.

Also if useful mining operations can be established then there will be a
profit motive to increase speed of transport, maybe better hybernation
techniques, radiation shielding etc etc All of which technologies might be
needed for any kind of longer journey.

Most likely any faster than light engine would need to be lauched from space
rather than from the ground. It will help if we can improve our lauch
capabilities, as it might well be a substatial machine (or even a
multi-generational colony-ship). For instance a space elevator might well be
useful, or anti-grav.

These are just a few reasons pretty much off the top of my head.

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics William December Starr wrote:
In article ,
"Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said:

"David Johnston" wrote

No. But I do not ignore observations in favour of wishful
thinking. But assuming that that there is some convenient way to
travel at faster-than-light speeds for free, then obviously the
thing to do is to wait around on Earth for it to appear.

Thats not the way development works. Its normally step by step.

The goal here, as I understand it, is a breakthrough in our
knowledge of physics that we can exploit to develop useful human
interstellar travel, where "useful" means, roughly, the ability to
travel from one system with the possibility of Earthlike planets to
another in no more than, say, five years.

What reason is there to believe that the colonization of space using
today's pre-breakthrough propulsion technologies is a necessary step
in bringing the above-described breakthrough about?

-- wds

And reaching any but the nearest star in a reasonable time means
travel at several times the speed of light. Just getting to a fraction
of c doesn't cut it.

Even below c, if a suitable planet was identified, and some kind of reliable
long-term hybernation technique was around, then people might be interested
to go, even if from our pov it would take then 100 years to get there. From
their own it would just be seconds, potentially. Funnily enough they might
be woken up in mid flight by a faster than light ship-crew who left 50 years
after them, to give them a lift the rest of the way in a few hours.

"David Johnston" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:30:26 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Giga" "Giga wrote
Immortalista wrote

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no
reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving
into space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and
irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too expensive' is a kind of a contradiction.

Nope, the original is just a loose form of saying that there
is CURRENTLY no reason for humans to colonise space.

I presume by emphasising 'currently' you mean there might be in the
future,
or perhaps there will be. I suppose if you are already living the good
life
then why bother, but billions of people are not.

That won't change if humans colonise space.

It might, with robotics and essentially unlimited resources?

Giga Giga wrote:
"William December Starr" wrote in message

What reason is there to believe that the colonization of space using
today's pre-breakthrough propulsion technologies is a necessary step
in bringing the above-described breakthrough about?

Like I said that developement normally seems to work like that. For instance
a long-term colony on Mars may stimulate the search for faster than light
communication, which might lead to ideas for faster than light travel. This
is just an example of how it might go in steps.


Don't you suspect that we are more likely to break time symmetry or
exploit another completely unknown (for metaphorical example, learn how
to exploit so-called Dark Matter) before FTL travel? FTL strikes me as
an archaic aspiration. It's just so, ah, ballistic-like, steam-engine
mentality.

wrote in message

And reaching any but the nearest star in a reasonable time means
travel at several times the speed of light. Just getting to a fraction
of c doesn't cut it.

Let's rile the relativists and ask if a person traveling near c
experiences the distance/time as contracted. IOW, supposing he were to
achieve 99% c (impossible) a 100 year trip from our point of view would
be what to him? Would the target seem closer to him than it does to us?

Does light experience time/distance, or is the photon moving at the same
rate as the creation of space so that it experiences no time?

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:42:02 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:


"David Johnston" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:30:26 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Giga" "Giga wrote
Immortalista wrote

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no
reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving
into space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and
irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too expensive' is a kind of a contradiction.

Nope, the original is just a loose form of saying that there
is CURRENTLY no reason for humans to colonise space.

I presume by emphasising 'currently' you mean there might be in the
future,
or perhaps there will be. I suppose if you are already living the good
life
then why bother, but billions of people are not.

That won't change if humans colonise space.

It might, with robotics and essentially unlimited resources?


If your robotics are that good you don't need people.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:19:00 GMT, David Johnston
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:42:02 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:


"David Johnston" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:30:26 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Giga" "Giga wrote
Immortalista wrote

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no
reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving
into space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and
irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too expensive' is a kind of a contradiction.

Nope, the original is just a loose form of saying that there
is CURRENTLY no reason for humans to colonise space.

I presume by emphasising 'currently' you mean there might be in the
future,
or perhaps there will be. I suppose if you are already living the good
life
then why bother, but billions of people are not.

That won't change if humans colonise space.

It might, with robotics and essentially unlimited resources?


If your robotics are that good you don't need people.

". . . he said, barring the door of his hermitage and climbing
aboard his animatronic sex toy."

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

In sci.physics "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics William December Starr wrote:
In article ,
"Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said:

"David Johnston" wrote

No. But I do not ignore observations in favour of wishful
thinking. But assuming that that there is some convenient way to
travel at faster-than-light speeds for free, then obviously the
thing to do is to wait around on Earth for it to appear.

Thats not the way development works. Its normally step by step.

The goal here, as I understand it, is a breakthrough in our
knowledge of physics that we can exploit to develop useful human
interstellar travel, where "useful" means, roughly, the ability to
travel from one system with the possibility of Earthlike planets to
another in no more than, say, five years.

What reason is there to believe that the colonization of space using
today's pre-breakthrough propulsion technologies is a necessary step
in bringing the above-described breakthrough about?

-- wds

And reaching any but the nearest star in a reasonable time means
travel at several times the speed of light. Just getting to a fraction
of c doesn't cut it.

Even below c, if a suitable planet was identified, and some kind of reliable
long-term hybernation technique was around, then people might be interested
to go, even if from our pov it would take then 100 years to get there. From
their own it would just be seconds, potentially. Funnily enough they might
be woken up in mid flight by a faster than light ship-crew who left 50 years
after them, to give them a lift the rest of the way in a few hours.

Yeah, only two things that aren't currently possible have to be invented
for that to happen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
David DeLaney wrote:
wrote:
Even below c, if a suitable planet was identified, and some kind of reliable
long-term hybernation technique was around, then people might be interested
to go, even if from our pov it would take then 100 years to get there. From
their own it would just be seconds, potentially. Funnily enough they might
be woken up in mid flight by a faster than light ship-crew who left 50 years
after them, to give them a lift the rest of the way in a few hours.

Yeah, only two things that aren't currently possible have to be invented
for that to happen.

There's a big difference between "aren't currently POSSIBLE" and "aren't
currently INVENTED". The above has the latter, not the former.

Neither supposition is currently invented or currently possible, or
even theoretically possible with any known science.

You haven't been paying attention then. Various methods for making closed
time-like loops exist, though we don't have the MATERIALS needed, as do various
types of wormhole, same caveat, and there are other theoretical FTL methods.
Closing your eyes and saying "I don't admit those papers exist, so they're not
Known Science!" doesn't work.

I have a feeling you don't know what suppositions I'm talking about,
which is why you bloviate on about faster than light, which isn't
either of them.

There are only two suppositions in the quoted paragraph you COULD be talking
about, for your two. "long-term hybernation", spelt incorrectly, and "faster-
than-light ship crew". I don't think you're trying to say it'll be forever
impossible to crew a spaceship, so it's got to be those two. Neither of which
actually falls under "impossible", only under "not invented yet". Do your
-homework-.

Dave "worked with Matt Visser; how bout you?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeableBLINK
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.