NASA may have incidentally discovered Warp Drive?

[gourimoko]

The only problem I see with that theory gour, is that science and math - as complete and refined as they may seem - are human inventions. The physics formulas we have are all being used to try and figure out this theory of everything, and they may not even apply to places outside of our known universe.

Well, they might or they might not. A theory of everything would apply, by definition, everywhere - including in other universes. For example, string theory does not simply describe our universe, but the nature of the entire cosmos.

We know our observable universe is just a very small pocket of the entire universe; whatever that might be. But again, I don't see a need for an outside actor to explain the universe.

 

[DougHeil]

I try not to venture too far into what isn't falsifiable. In your instance, for all practical purposes, that 14-year old would be called 'God' by most people. I'm not touching that with a 10-ft pole.

Again, I think science and math explains the universe - entirely. I have never found a need to evoke a deity or some other being to explain anything in nature. I am not an atheist by the way, but I completely separate religion from science.

With that said, if such a being exists, awesome, but I don't know if we in the scientific community are qualified to say one way or the other.

I actually believe God & this alien kid got together to create the so called big bang which was the start of OUR universe we reside in. This kid (alien) has other kids who are in control of other universes outside of our own, and exist without God. God and the kid wanted something very unique to all the others, so I don't think we will ever find another universe quite like our's.... even though they may be out there. I do think science and religion are both responsible for what/where/how/who we are and why we exist. I guess the key to all of this might be if we can find out who exactly this kid is.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Well, they might or they might not. A theory of everything would apply, by definition, everywhere - including in other universes. For example, string theory does not simply describe our universe, but the nature of the entire cosmos.

We know our observable universe is just a very small pocket of the entire universe; whatever that might be. But again, I don't see a need for an outside actor to explain the universe.

I'm more interested in what happens to consciousness after death and astral travel than highly complex mathematical formulas that ascribe to the theory of everything.

I'd also like to travel to Jupiter.

 

[gourimoko]

I actually believe God & this alien kid got together to create the so called big bang which was the start of OUR universe we reside in. This kid (alien) has other kids who are in control of other universes outside of our own, and exist without God. God and the kid wanted something very unique to all the others, so I don't think we will ever find another universe quite like our's.... even though they may be out there. I do think science and religion are both responsible for what/where/how/who we are and why we exist. I guess the key to all of this might be if we can find out who exactly this kid is.

I'm sure you see what I'm trying to get across, right?

Occam's Razor, Doug.. Do we need a deity to explain these things you describe? If not, then why invent one (with that purpose in mind)?

 

[Otsego Mar]

I think most commonfolk get stuck on the idea of a deity.

But when you look at nature and see the complexity of things and the patterns (speaking of mathematics gour - geometry) it's hard to not realize that it's not random and therefore something is behind the design, IMHO.

Guy with a beard in the sky? Folklore...etc etc.

Were humans genetically altered? Blah blah....

 

[gourimoko]

But when you look at nature and see the complexity of things and the patterns (speaking of mathematics gour - geometry) it's hard to not realize that it's not random and therefore something is behind the design, IMHO.

Patterns occur in nature.... Why would complexity require design? Wouldn't the reverse be true? That pure simplicity would likely be the best course of design an all-knowing being?

Looking at the universe, I don't see "design," I see randomness.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Patterns occur in nature.... Why would complexity require design? Wouldn't the reverse be true? That pure simplicity would likely be the best course of design an all-knowing being?

Looking at the universe, I don't see "design," I see randomness.

The complexity is effortless and, most importantly, with purpose. Therefore I don't see it as random.

I'm not advocating the idea of a "being", but moreso an entity - i.e. consciousness, light, etc. Energy.

 

[gourimoko]

The complexity is effortless and, most importantly, with purpose. Therefore I don't see it as random.

I'm sorry Mar, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the "purpose" in the complexity in the universe. Instead, I see a structure derived from random events in a series of structures, some more subjectively successful than others.

We as human beings look out on our own universe and think, this must have been built for us. But the reverse is probably true; that rather than the universe being fine-tuned for us, that we're fine-tuned (by evolution) for the universe. Again, that our universe is not fine-tuned for life, but it is one of many universes (a near-infinite set) all with random physics.

Obviously, only the universes with physics that can support intelligent life would have beings within them able to ask these questions. Thus those beings, with an incomplete understanding of the cosmos, might think that they were special when in fact, they weren't. They simply existed in a pocket of the cosmos that supported life. It's called the anthropic principle.

To give you another idea, the analogy that has been used before is that of a bedouin. If you found a nomad while traversing the Sahara, you would immediately assume there must be an oasis nearby, and you'd almost assuredly be right. The oasis isn't fine-tuned for the bedouin or berber nomads is it? But the nomads' daily lives are entirely fine-tuned around the oasis.

So why is our oasis (our universe) fine-tuned for us? Because we want it to be?

 

[Otsego Mar]

I'm sorry Mar, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the "purpose" in the complexity in the universe. Instead, I see a structure derived from random events in a series of structures, some more subjectively successful than others.

We as human beings look out on our own universe and think, this must have been built for us. But the reverse is probably true; that rather than the universe being fine-tuned for us, that we're fine-tuned (by evolution) for the universe. Again, that our universe is not fine-tuned for life, but it is one of many universes (a near-infinite set) all with random physics.

Obviously, only the universes with physics that can support intelligent life would have beings within them able to ask these questions. Thus those beings, with an incomplete understanding of the cosmos, might think that they were special when in fact, they weren't. They simply existed in a pocket of the cosmos that supported life. It's called the anthropic principle.

To give you another idea, the analogy that has been used before is that of a bedouin. If you found a nomad while traversing the Sahara, you would immediately assume there must be an oasis nearby, and you'd almost assuredly be right. The oasis isn't fine-tuned for the bedouin or berber nomads is it? But the nomads' daily lives are entirely fine-tuned around the oasis.

So why is our oasis (our universe) fine-tuned for us? Because we want it to be?

Quite possibly, yes.

We are conscious creators creating our reality tunnel as we go. I'm sure you're aware of the double-slit experiment.....

 

[The Oi]

Don't worry Jigs; I won't post anymore in here. I'm not with it tonight. .. so pissed.

I had intended to post something in there, but the Dolphin browser on my phone doesn't seem to allow me to type. That's why I ended up with a blank post.

I wasn't requoting you sarcastically.

 

[MikeOC33]

I'd also like to travel to Jupiter.

Jupiter is interesting, but I'm not interested at all in Uranus.



(Sorry. I know. I'm like mentally 7 years old, and I still like chocolate milk and cookies. Uranus. It will always and forever be funny to me.)

 

[The Oi]

Pretty sure there's nothing to land on with Jupiter. It's gas right? Would there be anything solid to land on?

Which planets could we safely land on right now, if we could theoretically get to all of them?

 

[Stark]

Pretty sure there's nothing to land on with Jupiter. It's gas right? Would there be anything solid to land on?

Which planets could we safely land on right now, if we could theoretically get to all of them?

You theoretically could land on Venus since it is a rocky planet like the Earth, but with the temperatures and acid clouds, you'd burn up in the blink of an eye.

Mercury is similar. If there was a way to bypass the temperature restrictions, you theoretically could land on the planet. It's just nearly impossible given the proximity to the sun.

Mars we obviously can land on, and are estimated to send a man-mission there in the mid 2030s IIRC.

Jupiter is an extremely irradiated planet. You can land there, but you wouldn't last very long. There are talks about setting up space stations in orbit of Jupiter in order to harvest the vast helium supplies in their atmosphere, but that's something that likely won't happen in our lifetimes.

Jupiter's moons, Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto show a bit more promise for actual life, but once again, that is way down the line.

Saturn's air is mostly hydrogen, and going out that far, you're likely to never see any man missions landing anyways. Saturn is a least 5 years away from Earth.

Saturn does have a huge moon called Titan, which is bigger than Mercury, which may be the single most sustainable place to live in the solar system outside of the Earth. It has a consistent atmosphere and temperature to support a base/colony, and the moon itself is very young, relatively speaking.

Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are all similar. Sure, you could land there if you wanted. By why would you want to outside of potential gas farming on planets such as Neptune? Outside of Mars, Titan, our Moon, and potentially one of Jupiter's moons, I'm pretty sure the human race is staying put on Earth.

 

[gourimoko]

@gourimoko is that 40x the speed of light (presuming the laser moves at the speed of light)?

It's 40x the speed of the laser through the air. Light doesn't travel at c within a medium. The initial concern is that the laser was heating the air, and that the air acted in an unpredicted way causing the laser to move faster than expected; however, this would not explain such a huge difference in timing.

Also, note that the event didn't occur 40x faster than the speed of light within the local reference frame; as that would mean the beam would likely arrive at it's destination before it left it's source (like a tachyon). We would have seen the beam simply disappear.

So, in short, the photons of the laser traveled an estimated 40x shorter distance supposedly because of the compression of space-time.

That is good for Warp 3. A trip to Alpha Centauri would only take about 38 days.

Indeed... However, the original model for White's proposed warp drive is trying to achieve a velocity of 10c, with a 1000x spatial compression and a local forward velocity of 0.01c (to establish vector of motion).

This experiment, if correct, would mean they are actually using four times more energy than they originally thought required. It would also mean that warp bubbles probably permeate the universe and exist all around us at all times, we just never knew about them.

Also, if some jerk sets off another Genesis Device, we'll be able to outrun the stupid explosion.

Great movie...

 

[Otsego Mar]

Jupiter is interesting, but I'm not interested at all in Uranus.



(Sorry. I know. I'm like mentally 7 years old, and I still like chocolate milk and cookies. Uranus. It will always and forever be funny to me.)

Totally.

Who the fuck names a planet that? Seriously?