Do you think we'll have TNG travel capibilities...

  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [1]Apr 2, 2007
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015
    by the year 2364?  That would be nice, but I highly doubt it.  3364 (or even later) would be more realistic.  So what do you think?
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of tehasgard

    tehasgard

    [2]Apr 4, 2007
    • member since: 08/25/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 169
    its not possible to say the theory behind it is thatthe space in front of basicaly contracts and behind u expands oushing u along in subspace but u would need masive amonts of energy most scientists says its theroreticaly imposible but thats what they said about traveling at the speed of sound
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of CruisD64

    CruisD64

    [3]Apr 4, 2007
    • member since: 02/27/07
    • level: 1
    • rank: Weatherman
    • posts: 10
    its totally possible. my buddy did it last week. he did a report on the delta quadrant. as a result he got an A for the rest of his life. haha, but seriously, who knows. i'd like to think its possible but lets take it one step at a time. i'd love to see colonization of closer planets first. Mars colony anyone? haha
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [4]Apr 4, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    tehasgard wrote:
    but thats what they said about traveling at the speed of sound


    Those are completely different things. In fact, everyone already knew the "speed of sound" could be broken--think of a whip. Going faster than sounds was just a matter of technology.

    The speed of light is the universe's built-in speed limit. Nothing with mass can be accelerated to that speed, so it is not just a matter of technology.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nathiel

    nathiel

    [5]Apr 6, 2007
    • member since: 06/02/03
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 54

    But there is always the possibilty of developing travel based on wormholes or blackholes, which would allow for travel that would be quite nearly as fast as TNG.

    Also, another question is how exactly the warp field affects the ship. The field is energy, and if it is possible to accelerate energy beyond the speed of light, it is at least worth discussing if the warp field might alter the calculations.

    Edited on 04/06/2007 11:37am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [6]Apr 25, 2007
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015
    Just to let you know the fastest rockets so far developed have a top speed of around 100,000mph (or 27.8mps), while the speed of light is 186,282mps (or 670,615,200mph) a difference of 6700 times faster!!! Getting something to go nearly 7000 times faster is a GIANT LEAP, way, way, way beyond the difference of cars, planes, and rockets when they first came-out and how fast they can go now. I don't know if it's possible to make that big of a leap in just a few centuries, even if the last 50 years did more for technology than the last 500.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [7]May 1, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    TelFan7 wrote:
    Getting something to go nearly 7000 times faster is a GIANT LEAP, way, way, way beyond the difference of cars, planes, and rockets when they first came-out and how fast they can go now.


    True, however, the problem with the speed of light is not how fast it is, but how the universe is built. The speed of light could be 10000 times slower, and getting around it would still be the same problem.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of kjriisne

    kjriisne

    [8]May 10, 2007
    • member since: 05/10/07
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 7

    Again like i said in the other thread, if they put enough effort into the science i believe its fully possible.

    With todays dealing of science lets say you have 1000 scientists, how many are actually studying space travel ? Zero ? And how many go into money related science ? 900 probably, another 50 for medicine and 50 for other stuff.

    And at the current state of pollution, I would be surprised if mankind survived until year 2200...

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [9]May 11, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    kjriisne wrote:
    Again like i said in the other thread, if they put enough effort into the science i believe its fully possible.


    Again, you do not understand the nature of the "problem." No matter how many scientists you put to work on making things fall up instead of down, by themselves, it is not going to happen.

    The speed of light is not only really fast, but the universe's built-in speed limit. That means NOTHING (with mass) can be accelerated to that speed. This is mot limited to human-made objects, but everything in this universe.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Tronman100

    Tronman100

    [10]May 11, 2007
    • member since: 12/14/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 374

    Nothing can travel faster then light in the conventional sense, i.e. motion by acceleration from a sublight speed; this is prevented by special relativity.

    The only ways we can achieve interstellar travel in the "Star Trek" sense (quickly) are to


    a) Find out Special Relativity is wrong (and we're pretty sure it's right)

    b) Figure out a way of manipulating space in such a way that we can travel quickly to other planets without our relative speed moving past c (wormholes/space warping/yada yada) but there is currently absolutely no scientific evidence that this might be possible.

    More info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html

    Interstellar travel in the non-Star Trek sense (slowly) should be at least theoretically possible, but there are a number of many/big practical and engineering issues that need to be overcome first, not to mention human-related issues and problems.

    Edited on 05/11/2007 8:24am
    Edited 6 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [11]May 12, 2007
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015
    Tronman100 wrote:

    Nothing can travel faster then light in the conventional sense, i.e. motion by acceleration from a sublight speed; this is prevented by special relativity.

    The only ways we can achieve interstellar travel in the "Star Trek" sense (quickly) are to


    a) Find out Special Relativity is wrong (and we're pretty sure it's right)

    b) Figure out a way of manipulating space in such a way that we can travel quickly to other planets without our relative speed moving past c (wormholes/space warping/yada yada) but there is currently absolutely no scientific evidence that this might be possible.

    More info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html

    Interstellar travel in the non-Star Trek sense (slowly) should be at least theoretically possible, but there are a number of many/big practical and engineering issues that need to be overcome first, not to mention human-related issues and problems.

    In another thread of mine I talk about having to use multi-generational ships that go somewhere between 50-75% light-speed (things get dangerous at 80% and I'm giving a 5% safety-margin).

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Tronman100

    Tronman100

    [12]May 12, 2007
    • member since: 12/14/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 374
    TelFan7 wrote:
    Tronman100 wrote:

    Nothing can travel faster then light in the conventional sense, i.e. motion by acceleration from a sublight speed; this is prevented by special relativity.

    The only ways we can achieve interstellar travel in the "Star Trek" sense (quickly) are to


    a) Find out Special Relativity is wrong (and we're pretty sure it's right)

    b) Figure out a way of manipulating space in such a way that we can travel quickly to other planets without our relative speed moving past c (wormholes/space warping/yada yada) but there is currently absolutely no scientific evidence that this might be possible.

    More info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html

    Interstellar travel in the non-Star Trek sense (slowly) should be at least theoretically possible, but there are a number of many/big practical and engineering issues that need to be overcome first, not to mention human-related issues and problems.

    In another thread of mine I talk about having to use multi-generational ships that go somewhere between 50-75% light-speed (things get dangerous at 80% and I'm giving a 5% safety-margin).

     

    I am curious, where have you read that it gets dangerous to travel more then 80% light speed? As par my understanding, velocity isn't the problem; it's acceleration, or more specifically, the forces on our body due to acceleration. You should be able to travel at 99% percent light speed as long as you don't accelerate too quickly. And there are still issues to be worked out before multi-generational ships would be feasible. 

    Edited on 05/12/2007 7:39am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [13]May 12, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    Tronman100 wrote:
    I am curious, where have you read that it gets dangerous to travel more then 80% light speed? As par my understanding, velocity isn't the problem; it's acceleration, or more specifically, the forces on our body due to acceleration. You should be able to travel at 99% percent light speed as long as you don't accelerate too quickly. And there are still issues to be worked out before multi-generational ships would be feasible.


    Space travel is "dangerous," regardless of speed. That is why putting together a trip to Mars is so difficult. On Earth, we do not have to worry about radiation, micrometeorites, and so on. The faster you go, the more intense these dangers are, but there is nothing special about 80% of the speed of light.

    Going to the Moon is not exactly trivial, but relatively speaking, it is in our backyard. Extended trips require all kinds of shielding just to keep you alive. Also, the human body deteriorates without gravity. The record so far is less than two years, and astronauts/cosmonauts are not exactly in their best shape when they get back.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Tronman100

    Tronman100

    [14]May 12, 2007
    • member since: 12/14/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 374

    alex20020712 wrote:
    Tronman100 wrote:
    I am curious, where have you read that it gets dangerous to travel more then 80% light speed? As par my understanding, velocity isn't the problem; it's acceleration, or more specifically, the forces on our body due to acceleration. You should be able to travel at 99% percent light speed as long as you don't accelerate too quickly. And there are still issues to be worked out before multi-generational ships would be feasible.
    Space travel is "dangerous," regardless of speed. That is why putting together a trip to Mars is so difficult. On Earth, we do not have to worry about radiation, micrometeorites, and so on. The faster you go, the more intense these dangers are, but there is nothing special about 80% of the speed of light. Going to the Moon is not exactly trivial, but relatively speaking, it is in our backyard. Extended trips require all kinds of shielding just to keep you alive. Also, the human body deteriorates without gravity. The record so far is less than two years, and astronauts/cosmonauts are not exactly in their best shape when they get back.

     

    Quite true, hence a lot of things to work out before it may be feasable. The issues you mentioned as well as engineering issues like powering the thing, feeding the crew, space requirements, and any number of other dangers we don't know about. And personally even if those issues were solved, I think being cramped in a tin can for half a lifetime would probably make me go a little loopy, heh.

    Edited on 05/12/2007 9:06am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of banyon

    banyon

    [15]May 12, 2007
    • member since: 08/07/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 26

    alex20020712 wrote:
    kjriisne wrote:
    Again like i said in the other thread, if they put enough effort into the science i believe its fully possible.
    Again, you do not understand the nature of the "problem." No matter how many scientists you put to work on making things fall up instead of down, by themselves, it is not going to happen. The speed of light is not only really fast, but the universe's built-in speed limit. That means NOTHING (with mass) can be accelerated to that speed. This is mot limited to human-made objects, but everything in this universe.

     You keep asserting that the speed of light is the universe's built-in speed limit. Is that based on some sort of scientific principle that you could articulate? If light speed is the "ultimate", then why is it that light does not have the velocity to escape from a black hole? Does that make black holes the new "ultimate" if we could harness their energy?

     There has been very little in human history that man has imagined in the way of technology and not been later able to achieve. Just a couple of months ago, scientists actually achieved teleportation of subatomic particles, another "Trek" convention, were you similary pessimistic about that possibility?  

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Tronman100

    Tronman100

    [16]May 12, 2007
    • member since: 12/14/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 374
    banyon wrote:

    You keep asserting that the speed of light is the universe's built-in speed limit. Is that based on some sort of scientific principle that you could articulate?

    It's called special relativity, and has been experimentally confirmed multiple times.

    banyon wrote:

    If light speed is the "ultimate", then why is it that light does not have the velocity to escape from a black hole? Does that make black holes the new "ultimate" if we could harness their energy?

    Your statment is confusing, the "ultimate" what? No object with mass can accellerate to beyond light speed; and light cannot escape from a black hole due to the gravitational field (this is general relativity btw). What do you mean by "the ultimate"? By definition, you can't extract energy from a black hole, and there is still a lot unknown in that field.

    banyon wrote:

    Just a couple of months ago, scientists actually achieved teleportation of subatomic particles, another "Trek" convention

    Are you referring to Quantum Teleportation? The transfer of quantum states between separate atoms? That's not quite the same thing as ST Transporting. If not; could you post some additional information i.e. links to info on it?

    Edited on 05/12/2007 6:46pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [17]May 12, 2007
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015
    Tronman100 wrote:
    TelFan7 wrote:
    Tronman100 wrote:

    Nothing can travel faster then light in the conventional sense, i.e. motion by acceleration from a sublight speed; this is prevented by special relativity.

    The only ways we can achieve interstellar travel in the "Star Trek" sense (quickly) are to


    a) Find out Special Relativity is wrong (and we're pretty sure it's right)

    b) Figure out a way of manipulating space in such a way that we can travel quickly to other planets without our relative speed moving past c (wormholes/space warping/yada yada) but there is currently absolutely no scientific evidence that this might be possible.

    More info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html

    Interstellar travel in the non-Star Trek sense (slowly) should be at least theoretically possible, but there are a number of many/big practical and engineering issues that need to be overcome first, not to mention human-related issues and problems.

    In another thread of mine I talk about having to use multi-generational ships that go somewhere between 50-75% light-speed (things get dangerous at 80% and I'm giving a 5% safety-margin).

    I am curious, where have you read that it gets dangerous to travel more then 80% light speed? As par my understanding, velocity isn't the problem; it's acceleration, or more specifically, the forces on our body due to acceleration. You should be able to travel at 99% percent light speed as long as you don't accelerate too quickly. And there are still issues to be worked out before multi-generational ships would be feasible.



    I read it years ago from a book on Einstein and Special Relativity from a guy whose first or last-name (I don't remember which) was Lincoln. In the book it says you start to shrink at 80% light-speed, at 90% you'd shrink to half your size, and at LS you'd be gone (dead, not teleported, but dead).
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Tronman100

    Tronman100

    [18]May 13, 2007
    • member since: 12/14/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 374
    TelFan7 wrote:

    I read it years ago from a book on Einstein and Special Relativity from a guy whose first or last-name (I don't remember which) was Lincoln. In the book it says you start to shrink at 80% light-speed, at 90% you'd shrink to half your size, and at LS you'd be gone (dead, not teleported, but dead).


    Hmm, if you ever remember the authors name or the book title let me know, because I don't think that how it works. Though it's true that at in order to travel at light speed you would have to be 'massless', the way I understand it, Length Contraction effects are only visible to someone in a different inertial reference frame. i.e. If I were doing .9 C, to an outside observer it would appear as though I were contracted, but to me, my size would never change, and it's everything else that would appear to be shrinking (you can play with this here: http://charmnt.evansville.edu/applets/relativity.html)

    In fact, according to relativity, length contraction occurs at any speed, but it is negligible as an observation until about .1 C (not at .8 C), and then it depends on the inertial reference frame. I don't think it can be said which is "really" contracting, the person moving or the stationary individual, since length is relative. I'm not exactly on expert on any of this mind you, but I have studied it a little in college.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of banyon

    banyon

    [19]May 13, 2007
    • member since: 08/07/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 26
    Tronman100 wrote:
    banyon wrote:

    You keep asserting that the speed of light is the universe's built-in speed limit. Is that based on some sort of scientific principle that you could articulate?

    It's called special relativity, and has been experimentally confirmed multiple times.

    banyon wrote:

    If light speed is the "ultimate", then why is it that light does not have the velocity to escape from a black hole? Does that make black holes the new "ultimate" if we could harness their energy?

    Your statment is confusing, the "ultimate" what? No object with mass can accellerate to beyond light speed; and light cannot escape from a black hole due to the gravitational field (this is general relativity btw). What do you mean by "the ultimate"? By definition, you can't extract energy from a black hole, and there is still a lot unknown in that field.

    banyon wrote:

    Just a couple of months ago, scientists actually achieved teleportation of subatomic particles, another "Trek" convention

    Are you referring to Quantum Teleportation? The transfer of quantum states between separate atoms? That's not quite the same thing as ST Transporting. If not; could you post some additional information i.e. links to info on it?

     

    AFAICT, special relativity holds that the speed of light is constant and independent of the relative positions of observers, but does not impose any limit upon exceeding the value of that constant by some other means.

     Again, any explanation woud be helpful, as opposed to some unspecific categorical "Eh, it's specific relativty, that's all I can say."

     With respect to the telportation, you naysaying again is unconvincing. To say that it's not the kind of teleportation that we would eventually need to beam people up is obvious. It does, however represent a leap forward in an area that previously would've be ridiculed just 15 years earlier. Just like there was a Newton for Aristotle and Einstein for Newton, there will be someone else to come along to help us reconceptualize our current paradigm. It is the way that science has ever worked.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Tronman100

    Tronman100

    [20]May 13, 2007
    • member since: 12/14/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 374
    banyon wrote:

    AFAICT, special relativity holds that the speed of light is constant and independent of the relative positions of observers, but does not impose any limit upon exceeding the value of that constant by some other means.

    Again, any explanation woud be helpful, as opposed to some unspecific categorical "Eh, it's specific relativty, that's all I can say."

     

    Well, its not my job to try and convince anyone but this stipulation of special relativity is well documented and explained with some google research, and there is a nice explanation on Howstuffworks.com

    banyon wrote:

    With respect to the telportation, you naysaying again is unconvincing. To say that it's not the kind of teleportation that we would eventually need to beam people up is obvious. It does, however represent a leap forward in an area that previously would've be ridiculed just 15 years earlier. Just like there was a Newton for Aristotle and Einstein for Newton, there will be someone else to come along to help us reconceptualize our current paradigm. It is the way that science has ever worked.

    Maybe, but all I can do is go by evidence, and at the moment I just don't see how the "teleporting" as its happening now will evolve to Star Trek teleporting. 

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.