What do you think?

[Hunter Parasite]

it's kinda hypnotic...

[BlindedByTheLight]

Out there in the NET, there are innumerably many boards, where people exclusively talk about things they don't understand...

Ah.... if only such talk were confined to the NET...

[t00fri]

Out there in the NET, there are innumerably many boards, where people exclusively talk about things they don't understand...

Ah.... if only such talk were confined to the NET...

How true

Bye Fridger

[WildMoon]

Can I download your wormhole model?

Would asking "Is warp travel possible?" or "Could we develop a 'tractor beam'?" or "Could we develop a transporter and mean it when we say 'beam me up Scotty'?" be illegal to put on the physics & astronomy forum? They are only questions and not stating my own personal theory (they're offa Star Trek anyway so they couldn't be my own personal theory).

[GlobeMaker]

Wildmoon asked "Is warp travel possible?"
Yes.
or "Could we develop a 'tractor beam'?"
Yes.

Here is what I want to code in Celestia :

A rocket engine to move .3ds objects in front of the Celestia Camera.
When the rockets are working well, I have plans for them. Secret plans.
But these plans would bring great joy to dozens of people.

[WildMoon]

Really? They've been developed and are possible? SWEET! Then why the crud aren't we building any warp-capable ships yet? (other than the fact we have no anti-matter, Gene Roddenberry is dead [NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! LIES!!!!! HE MUST BE ALIVE!!!!!!!], and we don't know where to get dylithium crystals)

[BlindedByTheLight]

Would asking "Is warp travel possible?" or "Could we develop a 'tractor beam'?" or "Could we develop a transporter and mean it when we say 'beam me up Scotty'?" be illegal to put on the physics & astronomy forum? They are only questions and not stating my own personal theory (they're offa Star Trek anyway so they couldn't be my own personal theory).

Well, please don't take me as an authority on whether such questions should go into the Astronmy & Physics forum... but my own two cents are it should be yes. And whether or not the development of a "warp drive" or a "tractor beam" is fantasy or is actually possible is a moot point to the issue.

For example, you asked "Is warp travel possible?" Another way of phrasing that question is:

"What are the obstacles to travelling faster than light?"

Surely such a question is a topic for the Physics forum. Now, whether the intellectual giants who regularly use that forum (and I do NOT at all mean that pejoratively... I'm serious) would want us laymen filling up the forum with rudimentary physics questions is another matter entirely. I leave it up to them to weigh in. And will respect their wishes.

However, a while back I read a book called "The Physics of Star Trek" (which I highly recommend) that analyzes all of the Star Trek technology from a scientific, physical point of view (weighing the practical and theoretical obstacles to such technology) and I found it to be a fascinating and highly educational read (especially when it tackled the role of transporters). The book, mind you, was NOT fantasy. It just explored it. And sometimes nothing better illustrates the power of modern theory that attempting to apply it to fantasy... and seeing where the fantasy comes up short.

But I agree with Fridger's concern about people weighing in without the proper background. A while ago I posted a question about the expansion of the universe - hoping some of my aforementioned intellectual giants would weigh in on the state of the art of current theory. I think they may have, in fact, weighed in. But many others did, too, and - not knowing the difference... I ended up more confused than when I started. Which bummed me out because I have a drawer-full of questions I was hoping to run by our esteemed doctorates. Oh well. Perhaps I shall give it another go...

Now if you'll excuse me. My Hot Blonde Replicator machine is on the fritz and I'm planning a skinny dipping party tonight....

[rthorvald]

Can I download your wormhole model?

No. Maybe sometime next year.

"The Physics of Star Trek" (which I highly recommend) that analyzes all of the Star Trek technology from a scientific, physical point of view [...] a question about the expansion of the universe - hoping some of my aforementioned intellectual giants would weigh in on the state of the art of current theory. I think they may have, in fact, weighed in. But many others did, too, and - not knowing the difference... I ended up more confused than when I started

http://www.bautforum.com ...

-rthorvald

[Malenfant]

Really? They've been developed and are possible? SWEET! Then why the crud aren't we building any warp-capable ships yet?

First, be wary of people who just say whether something is possible or not with no supporting explanation. Very poor show on Globemaker's part there.

Is warp travel theoretically possible? Maybe. The closest theoretical drive to it is the Alcubierre drive, but that involves being able to move space around the ship rather than moving the ship through space. And for that you need to have what is basically a a 'positive mass' in front of the ship and a 'negative mass' behind the ship, such that the ship is pushed forwards and is perpetually 'falling' toward the positive mass.

Problem is, being theoretically possible has no relation to being PRACTICALLY possible. We don't have a clue how to generate or find a 'negative mass', and it'd either way warping space like that would involve truly ridiculous amount of energy that we can't possibly generate or safely tap yet.

Could we develop a tractor beam? If we could find a way to manipulate spacetime so that we can pull objects towards us, maybe. But again, it'd involve ridiculous amounts of energy to do it, which we don't have yet.

So are these things theoretically possible? Maybe.
Are these things practically possible? Certainly not at this stage, and perhaps they never will be.