the difficulties of space travel

[jobee]

could you discuss the post please-not the poster-it looks very 'clicky' else

HIBE and space--forget it

It takes a whole series of carefully evolved biochemical, structural and genetic changes to create the capacity to hibernate.

Humans do not have those & any changes in our genome in that direction will likely make fundamental changes in brain structures, as well. and are fraught with serious, even dangerous problems.

We're not going to be hibernating humans any time soon without significant and very likely irreversible genetic engineering of humans, well beyond ANY capabilities we have now.

A single change in a single protein can kill an entire human. It's what's called a genetic mutation. We have no way of calculating(millions of years run time on a supercomputer for ONE protein change, alone!), nor do we have the knowledge to calculate, how even ONE such putative change could alter us. And it will likely take dozens of such genetic and biochemical changes, if ever, & possibly several genes new to humans, before we can hibernate.

Hibernation mechanisms are not simple, nor are they understood, nor are they directly transferrable to humans.

What has been found is a trigger for one species of the scores of species which hibernate. It has NO significance to the human race, other than that. It does NOT apply to humans

The other Side of the Coin, 1956 Anglo-French " Suez War" - A Bravenet.com Forum (http://pub49.bravenet.com/forum/4204046111/)

Space travel hibernation 1 step closer (http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=humanbio&main=200439&type)
:beerchug:

[Madhatter]

Why can't we travel at speed of light jobee, soft tissue?

[jobee]

Why can't we travel at speed of light jobee, soft tissue?

hello hatter- its to do with our energy release-energy is mass-very soon with
acceleration we reach infinate mass=cant go any faster-

these people are very good at answering these things-type in -ASK AN
ASTROPHYSICIST they will email answers--

john walker-ive just recieved this from a astro physicist- with current tech in would take 73,000
years to reach a location for habitable planets


Dear "john.bishop2@ntlworld.com"
>> Topic: Satellites and Space Technology
>> Level: I am an adult with college level physics and a parent of
>> a young child.
>>
>>
>> john bishop asks how long would it take to travel the 4.3 light years to alpha
>> centauri/proxima using current technolog-
>
> While there are some technologies that have been talked about for
> interstellar travel (solar sails and ion propulsion for example) none
> have gotten far enough to really be tested and ready for use on a
> interstellar craft. The only current approach is to use the gravity
> of a planet to sling the spacecraft out into deep space. This
> technique was used by the Voyager spacecraft which are currently
> traveling at about 17.3 km/s. Traveling to Alpha Proxima at this rate
> would take over 73,000 years. (some discussion on this is avaliable
> here: Cosmic Distance Scales - The Nearest Star (http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/cosmic/nearest_star_info.html) )
>
> Hope that helps
>
> Jason and Koji
> for "Ask an Astrophysicist".

[Madhatter]

Well I don't understand that, it doesn't seem logical. Perhaps one day i'll bother to read up on it but space travel has never interested me as I don't see it taking us anywhere interesting in my lifetime. I can't see any of us surviving long enough to go anywhere tbh, I don't think there'll be any of us left.

[jobee]

Well I don't understand that, it doesn't seem logical. Perhaps one day i'll bother to read up on it but space travel has never interested me as I don't see it taking us anywhere interesting in my lifetime. I can't see any of us surviving long enough to go anywhere tbh, I don't think there'll be any of us left.

HATTER-even if we could travel at the speed of light[which we cant and never will] it would take us 4.3 years to reach a sun which MAY have habitable planets around it-if it hasent got habitable planets the next possible
location would take us 2,000,000 [MILLION]] years at the spead of light-this is the andromeda galaxy-thats why einstein said 'this god thing we're praying to dosent give a damn -so why bother praying-meaning-when the planet dies
we and all life on it goes with it-Amen

[jobee]

Well I don't understand that, it doesn't seem logical. Perhaps one day i'll bother to read up on it but space travel has never interested me as I don't see it taking us anywhere interesting in my lifetime. I can't see any of us surviving long enough to go anywhere tbh, I don't think there'll be any of us left.


hatter-this is the best way i can explain it-just me.


As the velocity of a mass speeds up more and more of the energy added to the object by the external force [ the external force being G =gravity resistance ]results not in an increase in speed, but in an increase in mass-the mass expands until as the speed of the mass gets faster [pushing against gravity] the mass would approach infinity- meaning- no power is strong enough to push it= infinite mass= it cannot possibly move any faster- this happens a long time before we reach C = speed of light in a vacuum -jb!

[chillitt]

jobbee thats acceleration, not speed, that affects the mass, surely... the relative from theory of relativity?

[jobee]

jobbee thats acceleration, not speed, that affects the mass, surely... the relative from theory of relativity?


the relative is that E = energy and energy = mass-thus- they are one and the same thing-as mass /energy picks up speed pushing against G = gravity-
the weight of mass increases with acceleration -and soon -mass becomes
infinite-all though i never did find out at what speed mass does become infinite-logic tells me-it depends on how much mass you start with-but- i would have to check that out

[chillitt]

no, that made no sense at all. i know your unique punctuation can make your posts a little tricky to understand, but i didn't get any of that.
you do know the difference between mass and weight, yes? and the difference between acceleration and speed? have you seen Newtons 3 laws?

[jobee]

jobbee thats acceleration, not speed, that affects the mass, surely... the relative from theory of relativity?


thats what i said-acceleration IS speed [e = mc squared] they are all relative
-when i think of the weight thing i think of being pushed back in my car seat
when i put my foot down quickly-i'm not having problems understanding your grammar or my own.:beerchug:

[jobee]

thats what i said-acceleration IS speed [e = mc squared] they are all relative
-when i think of the weight thing i think of being pushed back in my car seat
when i put my foot down quickly-i'm not having problems understanding your grammar or my own.:beerchug:


By the way-wheres Leofric ran off to-I'd like to question him on this-

"Alcubierre's theoretical drive fits in with Relativity. It would allow FTL travel. You keep telling everyone that we can't do it. Theoretically, we can. It's been demonstrated."

Where was it demonstated? I hope you don't mean star treck.

[chillitt]

thats what i said-acceleration IS speed [e = mc squared] they are all relative
-when i think of the weight thing i think of being pushed back in my car seat
when i put my foot down quickly-i'm not having problems understanding your grammar or my own.:beerchug:

See, thats where the trouble is. Just so you know in future, If its speed, it will be written as say, 10 metres per second. That is speed. i.e. a distance and a time taken to cover it. Ok? Now if its acceleration, it will be written as say, 10 metres per second per second. that is the change in speed, and an indication of the time it changes over.

When you put your foot down in your car, the force you feel is your body trying to maintain its previous momentum (see newton, as above) but when you get to whatever speed you are happy carreering along at, you no longer experience that 'extra' gravity. The limit to speed of travel, is acceleration, not maximum speed, as far as our soft bodies are concerened, anyway. As for the purely theoretical idea of travelling at or beyond the speed of light, i have no idea, and i doubt anyone else has either to be honest!

Next E=mc2 that is Energy = mass x time. speed has nowt to do with it..

Next, you understand what i have written, because i wrote it clearly. you understand what you wrote, because you wrote it! the fact that it is unclear to me (or posssibly anyone else..)IS the point. the writer writes for the reader, not himself.

Just a few ideas for you to consider, perhaps you would like to go and consult your notes and try again.
for a bonus point do you know the significance of 10m/s/s?

[jobee]

no, that made no sense at all. i know your unique punctuation can make your posts a little tricky to understand, but i didn't get any of that.
you do know the difference between mass and weight, yes? and the difference between acceleration and speed? have you seen Newtons 3 laws?



When electromagnets were studied, our picture of space and time changed, too.
Newton's model for gravity looked pretty good until scientists started learning more about the force of electromagnetism.
They learned that light was made of electromagnetic waves, and they could model the observed behavior of light very well by looking at solutions of the wave equation for the electromagnetic field.
When they looked at those wave equations, they could see that causality and Special Relativity were both already there. The mathematical equations that modeled electromagnetism were consistent with causality and Special Relativity.
But Newton's law of gravitation depends only on the distance between two massive objects at a given moment in time. Newton's law doesn't model what happens when the gravitational field changes in time. There was no wave equation to be had from Newton's model of gravity, and there wasn't a way to make it consistent with causality and Special Relativity

[jobee]

See, thats where the trouble is. Just so you know in future, If its speed, it will be written as say, 10 metres per second. That is speed. i.e. a distance and a time taken to cover it. Ok? Now if its acceleration, it will be written as say, 10 metres per second per second. that is the change in speed, and an indication of the time it changes over.

When you put your foot down in your car, the force you feel is your body trying to maintain its previous momentum (see newton, as above) but when you get to whatever speed you are happy carreering along at, you no longer experience that 'extra' gravity. The limit to speed of travel, is acceleration, not maximum speed, as far as our soft bodies are concerened, anyway. As for the purely theoretical idea of travelling at or beyond the speed of light, i have no idea, and i doubt anyone else has either to be honest!

Next E=mc2 that is Energy = mass x time. speed has nowt to do with it..




Next, you understand what i have written, because i wrote it clearly. you understand what you wrote, because you wrote it! the fact that it is unclear to me (or posssibly anyone else..)IS the point. the writer writes for the reader, not himself.

Just a few ideas for you to consider, perhaps you would like to go and consult your notes and try again.
for a bonus point do you know the significance of 10m/s/s?

your wrong again-but keep trying

e=energy and m = mass AND c = the square on the speed of light-YOU
missed the C out--Also newton has been proved wrong-see post -Einstein found errors in his work:help:

[jobee]

See, thats where the trouble is. Just so you know in future, If its speed, it will be written as say, 10 metres per second. That is speed. i.e. a distance and a time taken to cover it. Ok? Now if its acceleration, it will be written as say, 10 metres per second per second. that is the change in speed, and an indication of the time it changes over.

When you put your foot down in your car, the force you feel is your body trying to maintain its previous momentum (see newton, as above) but when you get to whatever speed you are happy carreering along at, you no longer experience that 'extra' gravity. The limit to speed of travel, is acceleration, not maximum speed, as far as our soft bodies are concerened, anyway. As for the purely theoretical idea of travelling at or beyond the speed of light, i have no idea, and i doubt anyone else has either to be honest!

Next E=mc2 that is Energy = mass x time. speed has nowt to do with it..

Next, you understand what i have written, because i wrote it clearly. you understand what you wrote, because you wrote it! the fact that it is unclear to me (or posssibly anyone else..)IS the point. the writer writes for the reader, not himself.

Just a few ideas for you to consider, perhaps you would like to go and consult your notes and try again.
for a bonus point do you know the significance of 10m/s/s?

gravity g = 10m/s /s constant projectiles vertical and horizontal motions are independent--jobee

[chillitt]

gravity g = 10m/s /s constant projectiles vertical and horizontal motions are independent--jobee

again, lots of information, but it means nothing. i am walking away from this, cos i cant be bothered with all the decoding.:rolleyes:
(10m/s/s is the rounded off version of acceleration due to gravity. actual is 9.8m/s/s. see, thats clearer. clear is good.) bye

[jobee]

again, lots of information, but it means nothing. i am walking away from this, cos i cant be bothered with all the decoding.:rolleyes:
(10m/s/s is the rounded off version of acceleration due to gravity. actual is 9.8m/s/s. see, thats clearer. clear is good.) bye

thank you-indeed it is rounded off- acceleration due to gravity is what we are using now -equals primitive-and vertical or horizontal would not matter--thank you for the conversation-john