No Star Trek Future

**Wilder** · May 17, 2009, 01:24 AM

"Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement"
- Red Hot Chili Peppers

Never say never they say. Fair enough. So many things have been labeled impossible and then conquered over the course of human history. But that does not mean that nothing exceeds the grasp of humankind. So often people act like it is not only likely, but inevitable, that our future rests among the stars, but I have to say I take some umbrage with this. What if we can't?

An unpleasant thought? Banish it, surely. As technology advances, we will find our way, right? Not necessarily. "Technology" does not allow us to break the rules of nature, only harvest them to our advantage. What if the laws of nature do not allow us to effectively escape our planet?

This deserves pondering for three reasons:
1. It is not unlikely in the least. Space is so vast and dangerous that even at its most crowded the gulfs of emptiness are impassible, and totally devoid of any useful, human sustaining materials, that we know of. Could this change? Yes, but it very well may not.
2. It is a super-commonly held assumption that we WILL, and challenging assumptions is worthwhile in its own right.
3. If this supposition is true the importance of environmentalism is multiplied a thousand fold. To the critics of environmentalism: if we can not escape from this rock, then things change a bit don't they? maybe not enough to change your mind on any given issue, but certainly enough to change the tone of the whole discussion, seeing as our fate is now tied inseparably from Earth... Right?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

your thoughts?

**Tigrul** · May 17, 2009, 03:18 AM

The only real possibility of us not exploring our galaxy is self-destruction. There are enough nuclear weapons lying around to destroy all life on Earth a few tens of times over, and there are groups who'd be willing to do it for all sorts of reasons. Hell, there even are christians who feel it is their duty to start a nuclear war to hurry yehoshua's second arrival on Earth.

That being said, if our species survives the next decades, I'm very confident that in the next centuries, we'll have explored other star systems, in the vicinity of ours. If I'm lucky, I might even travel to Jupiter and back while I am still alive.

I don't think there's any natural barrier between us and space exploring. Humans have already escaped Earth's atmosphere for a lot of times, the discussion here isn't about breaking some natural laws, but about perfecting ways which we already have of using the natural laws to fly.

**basics** · May 17, 2009, 05:26 AM

" Hell, there even are christians who feel it is their duty to start a nuclear war to hurry yehoshua's second arrival on Earth."

Tigrul,

Then they are not Christian.

**Wilder** · May 17, 2009, 03:23 PM

So, optimistic

.

Originally Posted by Tigrul

The only real possibility of us not exploring our galaxy is self-destruction. There are enough nuclear weapons lying around to destroy all life on Earth a few tens of times over, and there are groups who'd be willing to do it for all sorts of reasons. Hell, there even are christians who feel it is their duty to start a nuclear war to hurry yehoshua's second arrival on Earth.

That being said, if our species survives the next decades, I'm very confident that in the next centuries, we'll have explored other star systems, in the vicinity of ours. If I'm lucky, I might even travel to Jupiter and back while I am still alive.

I don't think there's any natural barrier between us and space exploring. Humans have already escaped Earth's atmosphere for a lot of times, the discussion here isn't about breaking some natural laws, but about perfecting ways which we already have of using the natural laws to fly.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the vastness of space. even our own solar system, which is anomalously crowded by space standards, is amazingly empty. These forums are not an ideal medium to communicate that, but if you are ever in Washington DC, go to the sidewalk outside of the aerospace museum, and find a little stand that represents the sun (the sun its self is about the size of a small orange) turn left and a short distance later, about half a block you will find earth, and the other inner rocky planets. Continue until you find Pluto, a couple of miles away. It is a pleasant walk on a brisk fall day.
Here is the thing, even if our current flight abilities were maxed out and we could travel the speed of light, which is physically impossible BTW, it would still take over 4 years to reach Alpha Centauri, which by virtue of being a binary system, like the majority of star systems, almost certainly has no habitable planets even with advanced teraforming techniques. Saying that our current flight technology is even a seed for practical space travel is like giving a kid water wings and then saying that he could circumnavigate the world, only orders and orders of magnitude more so. and that is before you fill the world oceans with deadly radiation and make the oceans -270 degrees C. and fill them with deadly laser sharks. That helps too.

Originally Posted by Tigrul

or, learn how to bend time. It surely sounds sci-fi, but just because we don't yet know of any way of creating such an event doesn't mean we never will. It's quite in compliance with the known laws of nature, it's just... way out of our league for the time being.

Now that is a real potential solution, and the best of all possibilities. Yet we DO NOT KNOW if in is possible to artificially fold space. It certainly occurs naturally, but no useful ways have been discovered. So therein lies my point. although it is possible that we may discover some technique that allows us to do this, there are no assurances that such technique could ever even exist, and that is an all too real possibility. thus we should take the time to grapple with the philosophical ramifications of this possibility.

Originally Posted by Seneca

100 years ago we could not even remotely have presumed upon our current technology. When they first invented Star Trek some of the things they concieved of in a far distant future have been surpassed. It is presumptious to assume we could even hope to understand the paths down which technological process will take us.

Peter F Hamilton in ''the sleeping god'' trilogy made some very good predictions over which the course of nanotechnology could integrate into neuro science but we are just guessing.

Very true, particularly given the rate of current technological growth. Nearsighted as I may be, however, as it pertains to this discussion there are three possible outcomes as I see it.

1. There is a way to travel space effectively, and we discover it.
2. There is a way to travel space effectively, and we do not discover it.
3. There is no way to travel space, no matter how good our technology gets.

#1 is what we hope for, #2 is what we fight against, but #3 remains totally unexplored.

Originally Posted by Seneca

There is always the possibility that they will learn to fold space or travel through wormholes, or discover a way (read something about this on the register a while back) about creating a massless field so that the laws governing faster than light travel would cease to apply.

Possibility. Very important qualifier.

Originally Posted by Visna

We could travel to far away planets, the problem is getting there fast enough. If we were to trust Einstein, the humans onboard a spaceship travelling close to the speed of light won't age. Or at least age very slowly. In theory of course.
So now we just have to figure out a way to travel fast enough, and find some suitable voluenteers.

No, they would age slowly relative to a "stationary" observer. those moving at the speed of light would perceive the rest of the universe aging slowly. doesn't quite make sense does it? that's why Einstein's hair did what it did:

Originally Posted by IrishHitman

Some of the technology needed for space travel is already being developed.

We're a long way off "warp travel", but there is research on extending the human lifespan fivefold, better engines, and new ways of growing food, disposing of waste etc...

A very long way off the warp engine. such a long way in fact, it may be impossible.

Originally Posted by Manoflooks

How can we not get out of the solar system? Think about it...barely a hundred years ago they thought heavier than air flying machines were impossible. Then they made the plane. 50 years later, then landed on the moon. And no, 50 years later, we have unmanned missions to Mars, shuttles going past Jupiter, and i think I heard about a planned manned mission to Mars. Not to mention we have learned the arts of teleportation(of an atom), quantum theory(though there is much to be learned), relativity, and have learned of a mysterious "dark matter", which is, iirc, the same as antimatter, and people are considering using it as a energy source.

We'll make it.

Again, technology, no mater how fast it advances, does not allow us to break the laws of nature. If the laws of our universe do not permit us to travel faster then light then we simply will not. Also I suggest you brush up on your science, dark matter is NOT the same as antimatter. it may be that some of the dark matter is the cosmos is antimatter but we do not know. also the ideas of using antimatter as a fuel are so theoretical as to be borderline fantasy and wishful thinking. Even if it could be used as fuel it would not solve any problems in terms of propelling a craft faster then light. Also, I might ad we have been hearing about a manned mission to Mars for a while now. It is quite possible, but you should look into some of the problems associated with that extremely simple enterprise.

OK, so WHAT IF, space travel is impossible? what then?

**Denny Crane!** · May 17, 2009, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Wilder

Very true, particularly given the rate of current technological growth. Nearsighted as I may be, however, as it pertains to this discussion there are three possible outcomes as I see it.

1. There is a way to travel space effectively, and we discover it.
2. There is a way to travel space effectively, and we do not discover it.
3. There is no way to travel space, no matter how good our technology gets.

#1 is what we hope for, #2 is what we fight against, but #3 remains totally unexplored.

3 is irrelevant because it is unknowable. A solution will always be sought no matter how long it takes.

Possibility. Very important qualifier.

Just like flying was once possible. We don't understand enough and probably won't for a long time to qualify what is possible and not possible, when we finally we do we'll probably realise we were wrong.

**Wilder** · May 17, 2009, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Seneca

3 is irrelevant because it is unknowable. A solution will always be sought no matter how long it takes.

That is a hell of an assumption. Most physicists agree that reaching absolute zero is impossible, no matter the time it takes, why should space travel be any different?

Just like flying was once possible. We don't understand enough and probably won't for a long time to qualify what is possible and not possible, when we finally we do we'll probably realize we were wrong.

Again, very true. But If we cannot yet say what is possible and what is not, what makes you declare that space travel is definitely possible?

**Denny Crane!** · May 17, 2009, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Wilder

That is a hell of an assumption. Most physicists agree that reaching absolute zero is impossible, no matter the time it takes, why should space travel be any different?

Again, very true. But If we cannot yet say what is possible and what is not, what makes you declare that space travel is definitely possible?

I said it was presumptious to say it definitely wasn't and that there is the possibility we'll discover something inconcievable at the moment.

**Publius Clodius Pulcher** · May 17, 2009, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Wilder

No, they would age slowly relative to a "stationary" observer. those moving at the speed of light would perceive the rest of the universe aging slowly. doesn't quite make sense does it? that's why Einstein's hair did what it did:

I think you got mixed up. Someone moving close to the speed of light would age slowly compared to someone not moving, and if you were the person moving the speed of light, the universe around you would age rapidly.

Say you fly at near light speed for a long time. To you, it would seem like you've aged 10 years. When you stop moving so fast, the universe around you would have aged 100 years (or something like that). The biggest problem with that is that you can't expect to move between star systems on a whim, because by the time you arrive at the new system, everyone you've ever known has more than likely died.

**Wilder** · May 17, 2009, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Publius Clodius Pulcher

I think you got mixed up. Someone moving close to the speed of light would age slowly compared to someone not moving, and if you were the person moving the speed of light, the universe around you would age rapidly.

Say you fly at near light speed for a long time. To you, it would seem like you've aged 10 years. When you stop moving so fast, the universe around you would have aged 100 years (or something like that). The biggest problem with that is that you can't expect to move between star systems on a whim, because by the time you arrive at the new system, everyone you've ever known has more than likely died.

Nope, not mixed up at all. That is the Hollywood version of relativity, but the one I described is the much weirder reality.

Originally Posted by Seneca

I said it was presumptuous to say it definitely wasn't and that there is the possibility we'll discover something inconceivable at the moment.

Look, not only is that possible, but given the course of human history it is quite likely that we discover something weird and unexpected, it is quite likely. Yet, like I said before that is no guarantee that we will.

So for the third time: what if? does this not bear thinking about?

edit: of course this might be futile arguing about with a guy with a William Shatner profile pic.

**Denny Crane!** · May 17, 2009, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Wilder

Nope, not mixed up at all. That is the Hollywood version of relativity, but the one I described is the much weirder reality.

Look, not only is that possible, but given the course of human history it is quite likely that we discover something weird and unexpected, it is quite likely. Yet, like I said before that is no guarantee that we will.

So for the third time: what if? does this not bear thinking about?

edit: of course this might be futile arguing about with a guy with a William Shatner profile pic.

Lol indeed though in his incarnation as a fat lawyer who shoots people.

Is it worth considering that we might not be able to travel? I guess but it seems to me to be tilting at windmills since we attack the subject with insufficient information.

If we are to engage in it though I'd point to another piece as an alternative path to travelling to other worlds. It was again in the register which is a coincidence since I don't read the site that much (too IT techy) about nanotechnology and possible paths that went on quite fantastically (fantasy not excellence) about nanotech progressing to the stage where if sufficient raw matter could be found in our own solar system that we could potentially build more earths. I'll have a look for a link in a bit, it went through various possibilities and dangers from various experts in the field.

**Manoflooks** · May 18, 2009, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Wilder

Again, technology, no mater how fast it advances, does not allow us to break the laws of nature. If the laws of our universe do not permit us to travel faster then light then we simply will not. Also I suggest you brush up on your science, dark matter is NOT the same as antimatter. it may be that some of the dark matter is the cosmos is antimatter but we do not know. also the ideas of using antimatter as a fuel are so theoretical as to be borderline fantasy and wishful thinking. Even if it could be used as fuel it would not solve any problems in terms of propelling a craft faster then light. Also, I might ad we have been hearing about a manned mission to Mars for a while now. It is quite possible, but you should look into some of the problems associated with that extremely simple enterprise.

Ah. I thought there was a difference, but I wasnt sure, and somehow, google slipped my mind. My point is we can use one or the other(I forget which) as fuel to go really fast.
And humans will find a way to get around the laws of nature. Wormholes or something, or some way we do not know.

OK, so WHAT IF, space travel is impossible? what then?

Eventually humans will cease to exist.

**Georgy Zhukov** · May 23, 2009, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Wilder

OK, so WHAT IF, space travel is impossible? what then?

Then we sit on this rock until the sun expands to a point to envelop the earth and wipe out all of humanity. If there's any humanity left that is.

**Musthavename** · May 17, 2009, 05:21 AM

Well, unless someone can disprove our understanding that you can't go faster than the speed of light, and that it's actually possible to create a craft that can do such a thing, then we're probably not going to even get out of our solar system.

**Mikkel** · May 17, 2009, 05:50 AM

I don't think it is feasible for humans to travel from the earth to the closed at least somewhat habitable planet outside the solar system, yet if you stretch human a bit, two ways of doing it seems feasible.
1) Build a self replicating AI spaceship.

2) Place human DNA on such a space ship and then "grow" them when a habitable planet has been found.

Mikkel

**Tigrul** · May 17, 2009, 05:58 AM

...
or, learn how to bend time. It surely sounds sci-fi, but just because we don't yet know of any way of creating such an event doesn't mean we never will. It's quite in compliance with the known laws of nature, it's just... way out of our league for the time being.

**Denny Crane!** · May 17, 2009, 06:59 AM

100 years ago we could not even remotely have presumed upon our current technology. When they first invented Star Trek some of the things they concieved of in a far distant future have been surpassed. It is presumptious to assume we could even hope to understand the paths down which technological process will take us.

Peter F Hamilton in ''the sleeping god'' trilogy made some very good predictions over which the course of nanotechnology could integrate into neuro science but we are just guessing.

**Visna** · May 17, 2009, 07:17 AM

We could travel to far away planets, the problem is getting there fast enough. If we were to trust Einstein, the humans onboard a spaceship travelling close to the speed of light won't age. Or at least age very slowly. In theory of course.
So now we just have to figure out a way to travel fast enough, and find some suitable voluenteers.

**Denny Crane!** · May 17, 2009, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Visna

We could travel to far away planets, the problem is getting there fast enough. If we were to trust Einstein, the humans onboard a spaceship travelling close to the speed of light won't age. Or at least age very slowly. In theory of course.
So now we just have to figure out a way to travel fast enough, and find some suitable voluenteers.

There is always the possibility that they will learn to fold space or travel through wormholes, or discover a way (read something about this on the register a while back) about creating a massless field so that the laws governing faster than light travel would cease to apply.

**Visna** · May 17, 2009, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Seneca

There is always the possibility that they will learn to fold space or travel through wormholes, or discover a way (read something about this on the register a while back) about creating a massless field so that the laws governing faster than light travel would cease to apply.

Sure there is. That's why discussions about future technology is close to meaningless.

The technological advance isn't exactly showing signs of slowing down, we can't possibly fathom what humans can do in, say, 200 years.
We can always speculate of course. And I really like the idea of not aging.

**Holger Danske** · May 19, 2009, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Visna

We could travel to far away planets, the problem is getting there fast enough. If we were to trust Einstein, the humans onboard a spaceship travelling close to the speed of light won't age. Or at least age very slowly. In theory of course.
So now we just have to figure out a way to travel fast enough, and find some suitable voluenteers.

There is also the possibility that there are more dimensions than the 3 we know of