Current Events > Interstellar travel is impossible.

(+) Yeah! (+)

We're forever stuck in this tiny lonely corner of the universe.

How does that make you feel?

No....it's necessary.
---

It seems likely that interstelar travel is likely impossible to achieve in a single human lifetime, however we may yet develop a way to send out dna colonies that just crash land and hopefully evolve into life on their own
---

Arcvalons posted...

We're forever stuck in this tiny lonely corner of the universe.

How does that make you feel?

No, it's not. We can do it right now. It just would take a long time.
---

Interstellar is probably possible, just totally pointless. Intergalactic, on the other hand, is just bonkers.

solosnake posted...

It seems likely that interstelar travel is likely impossible to achieve in a single human lifetime, however we may yet develop a way to send out dna colonies that just crash land and hopefully evolve into life on their own

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

This is why it's ok for Han Solo to have done the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs, even though a parsec is a measure of distance. Of course, the line was probably made in mistake and just happened to be ok anyway.
---

DevsBro posted...

Interstellar is probably possible, just totally pointless. Intergalactic, on the other hand, is just bonkers.

solosnake posted...

It seems likely that interstelar travel is likely impossible to achieve in a single human lifetime, however we may yet develop a way to send out dna colonies that just crash land and hopefully evolve into life on their own

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

This is why it's ok for Han Solo to have done the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs, even though a parsec is a measure of distance. Of course, the line was probably made in mistake and just happened to be ok anyway.

Are you referring to time dilation under c? As in, the closer to c you get, the harsher the dilation, allowing you to travel billions of lys in a few minutes depending on how close to c?

Or is this another thing?
---

LockeMonster posted...

DevsBro posted...

Interstellar is probably possible, just totally pointless. Intergalactic, on the other hand, is just bonkers.

solosnake posted...

It seems likely that interstelar travel is likely impossible to achieve in a single human lifetime, however we may yet develop a way to send out dna colonies that just crash land and hopefully evolve into life on their own

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

This is why it's ok for Han Solo to have done the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs, even though a parsec is a measure of distance. Of course, the line was probably made in mistake and just happened to be ok anyway.

Are you referring to time dilation under c? As in, the closer to c you get, the harsher the dilation, allowing you to travel billions of lys in a few minutes depending on how close to c?

Or is this another thing?

no, he's just smashing together a couple different ideas in incompatible ways.
---

If you'd asked me 500 years ago I'd tell you a giant tub of metal carrying a hundred people across the sky at 600 miles per hour is impossible and here we are doing it every day
---

How would it be impossible? Get a ship and a colony of people and eventually the colony will reach another star. Easy. You're not very bright, TC.
---

solosnake posted...

It seems likely that interstelar travel is likely impossible to achieve in a single human lifetime, however we may yet develop a way to send out dna colonies that just crash land and hopefully evolve into life on their own

....Thats how life started on Earth.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

If you'd asked me 500 years ago I'd tell you a giant tub of metal carrying a hundred people across the sky at 600 miles per hour is impossible and here we are doing it every day

Every day? We're going it literally every second you donkey.
---

you're probably right, but we can send escape pods in various directions anyway
---

RiderofHogs posted...

No....it's necessary.

10/10
---

EliteLevel posted...

solosnake posted...

It seems likely that interstelar travel is likely impossible to achieve in a single human lifetime, however we may yet develop a way to send out dna colonies that just crash land and hopefully evolve into life on their own

....Thats how life started on Earth.

that's one theory, there's no supporting evidence proving it though just some evidence suggesting its possible. i think most recently they proved its possible for deoxyribose to form in space ice.
---

Arcvalons posted...

We're forever stuck in this tiny lonely corner of the universe.

How does that make you feel?

I really don't feel lonely.
---

monkmith posted...

LockeMonster posted...

DevsBro posted...

Interstellar is probably possible, just totally pointless. Intergalactic, on the other hand, is just bonkers.

solosnake posted...

It seems likely that interstelar travel is likely impossible to achieve in a single human lifetime, however we may yet develop a way to send out dna colonies that just crash land and hopefully evolve into life on their own

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

This is why it's ok for Han Solo to have done the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs, even though a parsec is a measure of distance. Of course, the line was probably made in mistake and just happened to be ok anyway.

Are you referring to time dilation under c? As in, the closer to c you get, the harsher the dilation, allowing you to travel billions of lys in a few minutes depending on how close to c?

Or is this another thing?

no, he's just smashing together a couple different ideas in incompatible ways.

Not at all. It's all special relativity.
---

Nothing is impossible as even the word itself says Im possible.
---

http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html
---

I guess if we discover immortality, we wouldn't mind decades-long voyages to other stars that much.

solosnake posted...

It seems likely that interstelar travel is likely impossible to achieve in a single human lifetime, however we may yet develop a way to send out dna colonies that just crash land and hopefully evolve into life on their own

Isnt that plot to Interstellar
---

Foppe posted...

http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html

Pretty good.

Don't let me post MURPH!
---

FTL travel is only possible using proper distance.

Relativistic FTL is allowable under general relativity. Space itself can move faster than light, therefore a distortion in spacetime could be ridden like a wave.
---

DarkRoast posted...

FTL travel is only possible using proper distance.

Relativistic FTL is allowable under general relativity. Space itself can move faster than light, therefore a distortion in spacetime could be ridden like a wave.

Not really. These require hypothetical factors to even be possible and which violate causailty.
---

Weird, don't things like comets and other random stuff prove interstellar travel is real
---

DevsBro posted...

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

Let me comment on that in slightly more detail.
As we are all well aware of, the second postulate of special relativity predicts that the speed of light is the same in all (inertial) frames of reference.
This has the interesting consequence that we cannot use length contraction and time dilation to just justify anything.
For those of you who don't know (I'll use a simplified version for easy understanding): Time dilation predicts that time as viewed from our moving spaceship moves differently than proper time as view from our planet. However, length contraction also predicts that a similar thing happens to space itself.
Now, length contraction behaves as our Lorentz factor (or the inverse of it, depending on which frame you view it from), which can take values from 1 to infinity. So yes, we could theoretically reach a speed in which the distance we are trying to travel becomes as small as we want it to be. This changes our time scale the other way around though, as such we still cannot violate the second postulate.
I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail, but doubt anyone will even read it lol.

TarElessar posted...

DevsBro posted...

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

Let me comment on that in slightly more detail.
As we are all well aware of, the second postulate of special relativity predicts that the speed of light is the same in all (inertial) frames of reference.
This has the interesting consequence that we cannot use length contraction and time dilation to just justify anything.
For those of you who don't know (I'll use a simplified version for easy understanding): Time dilation predicts that time as viewed from our moving spaceship moves differently than proper time as view from our planet. However, length contraction also predicts that a similar thing happens to space itself.
Now, length contraction behaves as our Lorentz factor (or the inverse of it, depending on which frame you view it from), which can take values from 1 to infinity. So yes, we could theoretically reach a speed in which the distance we are trying to travel becomes as small as we want it to be. This changes our time scale the other way around though, as such we still cannot violate the second postulate.
I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail, but doubt anyone will even read it lol.

I would

This sounds interesting and I need a good distraction.
---

itachi15243 posted...

TarElessar posted...

DevsBro posted...

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

Let me comment on that in slightly more detail.
As we are all well aware of, the second postulate of special relativity predicts that the speed of light is the same in all (inertial) frames of reference.
This has the interesting consequence that we cannot use length contraction and time dilation to just justify anything.
For those of you who don't know (I'll use a simplified version for easy understanding): Time dilation predicts that time as viewed from our moving spaceship moves differently than proper time as view from our planet. However, length contraction also predicts that a similar thing happens to space itself.
Now, length contraction behaves as our Lorentz factor (or the inverse of it, depending on which frame you view it from), which can take values from 1 to infinity. So yes, we could theoretically reach a speed in which the distance we are trying to travel becomes as small as we want it to be. This changes our time scale the other way around though, as such we still cannot violate the second postulate.
I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail, but doubt anyone will even read it lol.

I would

This sounds interesting and I need a good distraction.

If you have any questions about special relativity or would like some clarifications, feel free to ask. I need to go shopping for a while, but can answer when I get back.

TarElessar posted...

DevsBro posted...

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

Let me comment on that in slightly more detail.
As we are all well aware of, the second postulate of special relativity predicts that the speed of light is the same in all (inertial) frames of reference.
This has the interesting consequence that we cannot use length contraction and time dilation to just justify anything.
For those of you who don't know (I'll use a simplified version for easy understanding): Time dilation predicts that time as viewed from our moving spaceship moves differently than proper time as view from our planet. However, length contraction also predicts that a similar thing happens to space itself.
Now, length contraction behaves as our Lorentz factor (or the inverse of it, depending on which frame you view it from), which can take values from 1 to infinity. So yes, we could theoretically reach a speed in which the distance we are trying to travel becomes as small as we want it to be. This changes our time scale the other way around though, as such we still cannot violate the second postulate.
I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail, but doubt anyone will even read it lol.

My understanding was that as your speed approaches c, the distance of the moving object (ie its length) contracts, and not (as I understand @DevsBro to have stated) the length of the path travelled
---

If John Crichton can do it, so can I.
---

teepan95 posted...

TarElessar posted...

DevsBro posted...

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

Let me comment on that in slightly more detail.
As we are all well aware of, the second postulate of special relativity predicts that the speed of light is the same in all (inertial) frames of reference.
This has the interesting consequence that we cannot use length contraction and time dilation to just justify anything.
For those of you who don't know (I'll use a simplified version for easy understanding): Time dilation predicts that time as viewed from our moving spaceship moves differently than proper time as view from our planet. However, length contraction also predicts that a similar thing happens to space itself.
Now, length contraction behaves as our Lorentz factor (or the inverse of it, depending on which frame you view it from), which can take values from 1 to infinity. So yes, we could theoretically reach a speed in which the distance we are trying to travel becomes as small as we want it to be. This changes our time scale the other way around though, as such we still cannot violate the second postulate.
I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail, but doubt anyone will even read it lol.

My understanding was that as your speed approaches c, the distance of the moving object (ie its length) contracts, and not (as I understand DevsBro to have stated) the length of the path travelled

Ah, I think I see where the problem is.
Most people seem to think that an object moving means that magically lengths morph around or something, which is fundamentally wrong.
Imagine we're not in relativity: You're driving on the Autobahn and a car passes you on the other side. It obviously appears to be approaching faster since you have a speed v on your own, but its actual velocity doesn't change. But that's not really because your car is moving, it's actually because you're in a moving frame (let's call this moving frame S' as opposed to the "normal" frame S).
So you might now ask yourself, what actually is speed? Is the speed we perceive in S or S' its real speed?
Let's consider relativity with a simple example: A photon moves towards you as you drive your car. Now we can't simply add speeds (v + c) to the perceived speed as this would give a value greater than the speed of light. Without going into detailed derivation, the explanation is that it still appears to move with c and space itself is simply behaving differently.
Imagine now you draw a line of 1m on the ground. How long is it? Well, in the frame S of you drawing it obviously 1m. Now imagine you accidentally spotted Sunhawk in a local pub and are trying to run away to avoid being seen, with a high speed close to c. You're running past the masterpiece of a line you drew and it suddenly seems shorter, say, about 0.5m. This is because you're now in the moving frame S' in which lengths seem shorter. This is NOT because you're running, it's because your eyes (points of observation) are moving in a different frame. For all other people in S, the length still seems to be 1m.

That being said, you should see that the actual length does not change, it's just that lengths are different when you're moving (I'm repeating this because it's hard to wrap your head around at first). That obviously means that you need to travel less distance when you're in frame S' (i.e. moving). However, you still move the same distance in frame S. As such, you can't just magically move with FTL as the "proper" length will stay the same in S and you CANNOT be faster than light in /any/ frame.

Does this clarify things?

The whole "travel through the stars looking for life and intelligence" is just an extension of our exploration of our planet. We're done exploring it and haven't come to terms with the fact that there's nothing left to find (pretty much).

If you looked at another more advanced intelligent species somewhere out there, they would most likely have long ago abandoned the pursuit of interstellar travel in favor of inward expansion. They might not even bother with the real world at all. They could be living mostly in the virtual world. Or they might not even be alive at all. They could have abandoned their physical forms for the technological in a pursuit of ultimate efficiency and might not even be individuals anymore, instead just one massive "database" or supercomputer. We have to realize that the end goals of intelligent life are so far off that we might not even recognize life as such if we ever found it. We only have ourselves as a reference point and so we might be looking for the wrong things.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

The whole "travel through the stars looking for life and intelligence" is just an extension of our exploration of our planet. We're done exploring it and haven't come to terms with the fact that there's nothing left to find (pretty much).

Well, that's not true. We still haven't really mapped out our oceans and with the thermodynamics experiment we're doing with global warming, there's still plenty to explore here.

That said, you're not necessarily wrong, but the most likely reason is for monetary profit and military power. If only we lived in a society of principles like Star Trek...
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

We're done exploring it and haven't come to terms with the fact that there's nothing left to find (pretty much).

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

80% x 70% = 56%

We're literally not even halfway done exploring Earth. And hell, that's just it's surface. Rounding to the nearest percent, we have explored 0% of the Earth's volume.
---

DevsBro posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

We're done exploring it and haven't come to terms with the fact that there's nothing left to find (pretty much).

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

80% x 70% = 56%

We're literally not even halfway done exploring Earth. And hell, that's just it's surface. Rounding to the nearest percent, we have explored 0% of the Earth's volume.

I don't understand.

Hasn't the US Navy already mapped 100% of the ocean floor?

DevsBro posted...

Interstellar is probably possible, just totally pointless. Intergalactic, on the other hand, is just bonkers.

solosnake posted...

It seems likely that interstelar travel is likely impossible to achieve in a single human lifetime, however we may yet develop a way to send out dna colonies that just crash land and hopefully evolve into life on their own

Nah, you can travel anywhere you want in any amount of time you want if you go fast enough. Once you get moving fast enough, you actually have less distance to go. It's an interesting consequence of special relativity. Like, if you could accelerate to relativistic speeds instantly, the trip to Andromeda could be a ten foot trip. Only thing is getting to that speed requires stupid amounts of energy.

This is why it's ok for Han Solo to have done the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs, even though a parsec is a measure of distance. Of course, the line was probably made in mistake and just happened to be ok anyway.

I would have sworn that I once read either a comic or a fic that altered that line to "twelve standard time parts", which makes a hell of a lot more sense for our science. Basically like saying "I got from L.A. to D.C. in thirty hours instead of forty." (average driving time)

But as The Bearded One has said, hyperspace routes aren't straight paths (this is even implied by Han's "ain't like dusting crops" line), they're basically various angles from A to B, and the Falcon simply used the shortest ones.
---

You'd make a lot of money if you publish your paper on this

Congrats
---

It doesnt matter if its possible or not, its stupid as fuck. By the time anybody got to any star, the country, corporation or person that sent them would be gone and no one would give a fuck about them.
---

TarElessar posted...

Does this clarify things?

Yes, thank you!
---

FTL speed is probably about as likely as us finding a way to walk on the surface of the sun. Some things are just not possible.

The AI of the future will be able to send out their drones without time and human frailty being an issue. Ultimately it's just not for us to do.
---

Well this topic took a turn for the neckbeard.
---