WestAir

I work for the US Govt. Today, and any day following, I am working for free. No paycheck. I can opt to not work, but then I'll be fired when the mess is resolved. Rock and a hard place... I wonder if this is how all the Kerbals feel who fly dangerous missions for free.

Anyone know the answer here?

Doesn't warp break causility too, but is still allowed by Gr?

Question for the science professionals here: What is the difference between an object with mass traveling at the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s), and an object traveling at almost the same speed, but slower by 1 Plank Length x a time larger than the age of the Universe? One is unachievable, and the other is achievable, yet both would have the object move the exact same distance over the exact same time if clocked today. How is that explained?

Fun Fact: Helium is the only known element that will NEVER turn into a solid, even at 0 Kelvin. The densest you can make it at atmospheric pressures, even at 0 kelvin, is a liquid.

The problem isn't our willpower to do anything, it's our capability of doing something. If we discover, tonight, that a 3km sized rock will hit Earth in 6 weeks (a VERY believable time-frame, considering the usual time-frame we discover certain asteroids), I'm sure the Presidents of Russia, China, and the US, along with our allies in both NATO and the UN will approve any measure to stop it with a blank check of trillions of dollars. The bleak problem is there is absolutely nothing we can do with the worlds resources to stop an impact event. We can design and build those rockets, but we certainly couldn't build enough or even find the right window of opportunity before an impact. We'll die with the ICBM's on the launch pad. But at least we tried, right?

Of course we can land a human on an asteroid. With a lot of planning, technology, and most importantly fuel and air. The real question is: Can we land an asteroid on a human? There's your true test of skill and cunning.

K^2, Lajoswinkler is trying to argue the "if a tree falls and there's no one around to hear it" argument. He's saying that a scientists eyes don't emit EMR, rather it observes visible light that comes to it, therefore a watching eye can't physically interact with the wave function experiment. Which is true to a point, but because the wave function is still being interacted with by something, it's obviously still being "observed" - whether the scientist is there to hear the tree fall or not. Lajoswinkler will correct me if I misunderstood his point.

The ultimate problem is that we don't have nuclear arsenal capable of leaving Earths SOI. The idea looks great in power-point, but neither Russia nor the US can modify 20,000 nukes (or even just one) with SOI-leaving capabilities within any reasonable time-frame to be a worthwhile solution. They'd need to design, construct, and launch the largest ICBM rockets mankind has ever built, and they'd need to construct and build the infrastructure to do it. We need all of that ready to go right now - not "when we realize an asteroid is coming." It's far too late at that point.

Iron. The most stable element in the Universe, baby!

During Middle School, TNG would come on Spike TV every day when I got home at around 1 or 2pm, and I'd spend the hour watching it right after school. All my friends were into Pokemon and DragonBall Z and whatever else Cartoon Network was showing. Me? I was wondering what Data would do when faced with the moral issues of losing his daughter to science, or if Picard would accidentally start a war with the Romulans by flying through the neutral zone. Good times.

You don't want to give me icecream. You want to go home and rethink your life.

In Star Trek the starship is bending spacetime and riding the bubble to achieve FTL, as opposed to actually accelerating past C. Because the ship isn't moving faster than light, but is riding a bubble of bending space-time, does that change how the effect of moving FTL will appear? Would all electromagnetic radiation still be red-shifted past the cosmic band and into infinity if the ship isn't really accelerating all that fast?

Realize that while most of us here are extremely gifted in the sciences, we're undoubtedly just as ignorant and foolish in other areas. The people who would vote to ban water because they're naive enough to think it's a dangerous chemical may very well think the exact same about most of us if we were discussing another topic. ...Who am I kidding? I can't play devils advocate for these people. They're denser than iridium. Ban water...

Assuming the Earth is the ONLY gravitational object in the universe (besides yourself), assuming the Universe is finite in size, and assuming that there is a point where information can be made no smaller (Plank Length) that exists, the answer in practice is yes, you can orbit at 0 velocity. The reason is that, while mathematically you should always have a velocity above 0, if there is a point where information can be made no smaller, than there's a point where you can travel no slower (which would be something on the order of 1 Plank Length per Age of the Universe), which would be equal to zero, yet still be a viable orbital velocity at a given distance and beyond.

The problem is we don't have any deterrent for an impact event. We have nothing that would stop a life-ending asteroid. What about gravity tugging? We'd need warning decades in advance - when it's possible we may only spot the asteroid years in advance. What about nuclear deterrence? Besides the fact that a nuclear barrage will not stop an asteroid large enough to cause an extinction event, we don't have nuclear arsenal capable of leaving Earths SOI. We'd need to build loads of the largest rockets ever built to hit a target moving 6000 times its speed, and we'd need that capability installed and operational yesterday. In short, if we ever came across an extinction-causing asteroid, we're ****ed.

I believe the correct formula here is: u' = (vb-va)/ (1-vbva/c^2)) U' is the end velocity [The answer to your question] that we're trying to learn. Va is the velocity of rocket A from A's perspective, vb is the velocity of rocket B from rocket B's perspective. u' = 1c / (1-(0.5c)(0.5c)/c^2) u'= 1c/(1+0.25c^2/c^2) u'= 1c/(1.25) u'= 0.8c So to answer your specific question, the two rockets will approach at 0.8C from each others perspective, rather than the speed of light. With the formula you'll also notice that it's impossible to approach at faster than C with values lower than c, because you have to multiply the two values, and multiplication of values smaller than 1 will always lower the value. For instance, 0.999 x 0.999 = 0.998. At no time can the value be greater than 1, or in this case, c.

I imagine food won't be that big of an issue. What can't be grown in greenhouse can be shipped via supplies, and what can't be grown nor shipped won't be necessary for survivability. Water will be an issue, as will radiation. [A permanent residence in a place where 6 months gives a person their life-long recommended occupational dose of ionizing radiation doesn't sound sustainable.] Medicine and care will be another issue. [Giving birth, bacterial infections, and inevitable death of crew will overstress even the most well-tuned small group.] The largest issue, however, will be psychological. [A submarine crew can "man through" a several-month voyage under the sea, with no contact with the outside world. For a life-time? Beyond realistic.] Personally, I have a hard time configuring the method in which mankind will ever actually create a permanent offworld colony: Be it on Mars, Titan, the Moon, or LEO. I'm only 23, so I hope I'm young enough to see the beginnings of such a colony: If only so I know HOW they manage to do it.

Interesting point. Philosophically speaking, how much of the unknown is left for us to know?

Monkeh, "Because it's incredibly unlikely that a universe with the exact measured values for the fundamental forces that just happen to allow atoms and orbits would exist at all. Any tiny variations in gravity or the strong nuclear force and none of these planets and stars would exist." True. However, imagine for one moment that the Universe was created with a much weaker force of gravity, and that resulted in life never being created. How would we know that the physics needed for us to exist were "just barely" off, resulting in our inability to exist? Now imagine there are hundreds - maybe even an infinite number of Universes out there where the physics "are just barely off" and no life exists, and imagine this one got it right - so here we are to critique it. If there are trillions other failed universes out there, and this one got it right but just barely, would that make it a lot less amazing that we exist? In such a scenario one of those infinite number of Universes would have to get it right, right? Then does it become any less amazing - like winning the lottery and telling yourself "Statistically someone was going to win - the odds were just against me."?

Why does life even have a "will to live?" - Why would something that is destined to survive a split second, compared to the cosmic timescale, fight so viciously hard to survive the entire second when at the end of the day its life doesn't even matter? Because it wants to. Somehow, things just want to live - despite the entire irrelevancy of the life cycle to begin with. Similarly, the Universe likely just "wants" to exist in the same sense that an atom wants to vibrate or a photon "wants" to propagate at C. It just does. Sometimes things really are at face value. While it's true the Universe could exist because it's a giant simulation for super-powerful aliens, or that it was created to make us, or a billion of other reasons, but me? I personally like to take some things at the most basic face value. The universe exists because it can. The laws of physics exist because it "just feels right", and we organisms exist and have a desperate will to live because, well, "why not?"

Well, maybe at first. But remember, 40 years ago a calculator needed an entire room to build. You needed massive infrastructure, round-clock teams of PHD skilled professionals. Now a days a 2 year old can play with a calculator the size of a watch. The very same can be said for certain medical advances. Brain surgery was so complex when it first started there were literally a dozen professionals in Europe even capable of successfully removing a bullet from your skull without killing you. The fact is, as technology is built, it becomes easier to repeat and mastermind. If that technology is very eagerly wanted, sought out, or beneficial - its creation skyrockets into mainstream. In the early 90's the idea of having a touch screen cell phone that can play 3d games was so farfetched you'd laugh it off. You'd tell me it would cost $100,000+ and only be for the super rich. Now, not so much.

Imagine if you could wake up, and enter a world of your own design. You could completely simulate any world - any universe - with 100% accuracy. The world you create is entirely indistinguishable from reality; smells, touch, everything. Now imagine this augmented virtual reality directly interfaces with your neural network so that there is no "edge" or "boundary" because the entire world is "in your head." Let's also pretend that the technology allows nearly instantaneous processing of introduced stimuli and thought. For example, if the speed of thought could be increased a million-fold, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds. Essentially we've imagined a technology that allows us to: 1.] Live out our most impressive dreams - our greatest desires - in a manner indistinguishable from reality. 2.] Allows us to simulate, manipulate, and dissect an infinite amount of what-ifs, worlds, and situations on the fly like a dream - with no further infrastructure or design necessary. 3.] Do the above at a speed so impressive it makes reality a lesser source of happiness. What effect would such an augmented reality have on the future of mankind? If a man could live a hundred years in his version of heaven, or rule the world and millions like it, or bring back the joys of his childhood - why would he ever willingly chose to return to a cruel and less impressive reality? Would reality become mute in the wake of such a technology? ....Would you use it? To what extent? What would you simulate - and when would you stop, if ever?

Fun Fact: Iron is the most stable element in the Universe. It releases so little energy when undergoing fission or fusion that Stars will die when it begins to fuse iron in its core. Another Fun Fact: There are more single-celled bacteria inside you than there are human cells in your body. An Even Greater Fun Fact: If you are 20 years old, and you plan to work until you're 65 years old, and you work 40 hour work weeks, you should have about 13.5 years of conscious free time left before you retire. Free time does not include sleeping, working, driving, errands, et al. That means if you skipped the nuisance parts of life, I.E working and sleeping and driving, you'd celebrate your 65th birthday in 13.5 years - providing you started this journey at age 20.

Let's be perfectly frank here: One day our species will set foot on Mars. All of us here are comfortable saying that. Will Mars One be the group doing it? If this discussion is any predictor of future events, then the answer is no. Personally I feel a group with far more industrial infrastructure at hand will be the first to do it: Like China, India, Russia, Japan, or the US and its larger corporations; And if that is the case, then Mars' Ones claims do become a scam.