We do not know how to travel at 80% of the speed of light.
Oh, it is possible. Nothing in our science, nothing in our
physics says it's impossible. Nothing within our knowledge
rules it out as a possibility. But, we do not know how to
tvael at 80% of the speed of light.
We can do it, as far as we know, it does lie within the
realm of possibilities but, we don't know how.
It's a tough problem, traveling at 80% of the speed of
light, a lot of things we'd need to figure out.
Some form of propulsion that can get us that fast.. energy
and/or fuel to run the engines... DOUBLED, because we'd
need exactly as much to bring us to a stop once we get to
where we're going...
Never mind an interstellar comet or meteorite, a rock, a
pebble at those velocities would vaporize our ship. We'd
need a solution for that, how to protect us from debris...
So there's a lot to work out before we'd be capable of
traveling at 80% of the speed of light, and everything tells
us that it's possible and nothing tells us that it's
impossible.
This is not the case with the speed of light.
As far as what we know, our physics, all of sciences tells
us that NOBODY and NOTHING can exceed light speed, or even
reach it.
"We don't know" does NOT apply to everything equally. In
the case of the speed of light, we do know. To the best of
our knowledge, according to our science, our phsyics it's
impossible.
We do not know how to travel at 80% of the speed of light.
On 7/31/25 4:45 PM, jojo wrote:
some say that fuel such as anti-matter can be used to move at a
significant percent of c.
i am hoping that we can figure out how to move space instead of
move through space with new physics.
One massive problem here is that science explains nature, figures
out how it works. Technology is the application of what science
learned about nature.
If and I do mean IF it is possible to move space itself, shouldn't
that be occurring in nature?
I've argued the same about time travel.
if physics allows for time travel, and it does, should we not be
searching for examples of naturally occurring "Time Machines,"
such as worm holes?
Should we not be searching for materials -- even if just rocks
-- that have traveled through time?
Again, science explains nature. Science is just figuring out
how nature works. So in what is effectively an infinitely large
universe, if [blah-blah] conditions will honestly allow for things
like time travel, or the movement of space itself, should we be
able to work out what those conditions would be & search for them?
Or search for their results?
jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:i want the dope you take
On 7/31/25 4:45 PM, jojo wrote:
some say that fuel such as anti-matter can be used to move at
a significant percent of c.
i am hoping that we can figure out how to move space instead
of move through space with new physics.
One massive problem here is that science explains nature, figures
out how it works. Technology is the application of what science
learned about nature.
If and I do mean IF it is possible to move space itself,
shouldn't
that be occurring in nature?
dark energy?
I've argued the same about time travel.
if physics allows for time travel, and it does, should we not be
searching for examples of naturally occurring "Time Machines,"
such as worm holes?
Should we not be searching for materials -- even if just rocks
-- that have traveled through time?
Again, science explains nature. Science is just figuring out
how nature works. So in what is effectively an infinitely large
universe, if [blah-blah] conditions will honestly allow for
things
like time travel, or the movement of space itself, should we be
able to work out what those conditions would be & search for
them?
Or search for their results?
i dont think time travel like moving into the past is possible.
but space moving does happen via dark energy (whatever that is).
and it has no speed limit of light.
What blows my mind is the idea that space is supposed to be
expanding IN ALL DIRECTIONS all at once.
Which, in a way, would make you the center of the universe.
Right?
On 8/2/25 1:34 PM, Attila wrote:
Wrong. Space will expand in all directions (like a round
balloon) no matter where the observer is located.
Which would make you the center of the universe.
Only at
the center would the edge in all directions be equally
distant
You just invented an edge.
What evidence do you have for this edge?
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 20:56:38 -0400, JTEM <[email protected]>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<106mc46$1bqvk$[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/2/25 1:34 PM, Attila wrote:
Wrong. Space will expand in all directions (like a round
balloon) no matter where the observer is located.
Which would make you the center of the universe.
Nonsense. You can be at any point inside the expanding
universe and it will be expanding in all directions.
You misunderstood. I did NOT say that you are AT the center
of the universe, I said that you ARE the center of the
universe. By definition. Which you are.
Everyone else is too, yes, but we already knew about
"Relativity."
Only at
the center would the edge in all directions be equally
distant
You just invented an edge.
If there is no edge how can something be expanding?
We're speaking of the universe.
You do understand that you can't Quantum Tunnel yet there
is such a thing. Right?
YOUR rules don't apply.
What evidence do you have for this edge?
The fact that if something is expanding it must have
somewhere to expand to.
But you already know that's not true, because the universe
is expanding in all directions from you, no matter where
you are.
By YOUR rules that's impossible.
You're trying to bring the universe down to your level,
instead of trying to understand it at it's level.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 23:58:14 |
| Calls: | 12,105 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,155 |