A unified field theory by the the late German theoretical physicist, Burkhard Heim in 1957(when his idea became public) where he theorise that our universe at the smallest fundamental scale has quantize structure(similar to Quantum Gravity); a
structure of quantize area, volume and time.
So at the scale of area 10^-70 m^2, where m is in meters; space becomes a discrete structure of surface elements called metrons.
His theory is that the universe has a four-dimensional hyperspace component along with our 4 D spacetime( 3 D & 1 D time), that add to 8 dimensional spacetime in total(7 D space, 1 D time) that could lead to interstellar travel one day or sooner.
His field theory predicts that gravity has 2 other forces yet unobserved particles; gravito-photons that has + or - force interaction that theoretically, will allow the conversion of an electromagnetic field into a gravitational-like field or a anti-gravity propulsion mechanism.
The gravito-photon is electromagnetism and gravity coupling particle state .
This Quantum spacetime theory of nature could, finally get us to the stars . :)
His theory also predicts a force called quintessence, a weak gravitational-like repulsive force that would cause the expansion of universe; dark energy, explanation.
Along with the other 3 forces of our universe that theorize 6 forces of nature in total; strong or nuclear, weak and of course electromagnetism, with this Quantum spacetime theory adds other three forces; quintessence, +gravito-photons
& -gravito-photons.

Also the physics community, has shown great interest in this theory, because
Burkhard Heim's theory predicts the masses of sixteen elementary particles to a relative accuracy of 1 part in 10,000.
There is no other known established theory of fundamental particles physics at present that have made comparable theoretical predictions to that accuracy.
Says, the particle physicists at large.

The US military also has got interested in the hyperdrive concept, cite this article Take a leap into hyperspace (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200).
Of course there are other techtincal details I will love to present; equations & more detail physics concepts, but I don't want to bore people with that complex info. :)

05 January 2006, page 24

Who was Burkhard Heim?

Burkhard Heim had a remarkable life. Born in 1925 in Potsdam, Germany, he decided at the age of 6 that he wanted to become a rocket scientist. He disguised his designs in code so that no one could discover his secret. And in the cellar of his parents' house, he experimented with high explosives. But this was to lead to disaster.

Towards the end of the second world war, he worked as an explosives developer, and an accident in 1944 in which a device exploded in his hands left him permanently disabled. He lost both his forearms, along with 90 per cent of his hearing and eyesight.

After the war, he attended university in Gцttingen to study physics. The idea of propelling a spacecraft using quantum mechanics rather than rocket fuel led him to study general relativity and quantum mechanics. It took an enormous effort. From 1948, his father and wife replaced his senses, spending hours reading papers and transcribing his calculations onto paper. And he developed a photographic memory.

Supporters of Heim theory claim that it is a panacea for the troubles in modern physics. They say it unites quantum mechanics and general relativity, can predict the masses of the building blocks of matter from first principles, and can even explain the state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
Download this book about this theory if any of you are interested in the physics and the mathematics. link to book ~ Hyperspace Propulsion (http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf)

Also here is article that got some aerospace engineers interested, ~ Take a leap into hyperspace (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200)
Here is another link to a article about Heim's Theory.
Prepare for Ludicrous Speed (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=337).

Hyperspace Physics Concept

The quintessence, a weak repulsive
gravitational like interaction (dark energy) and
gravitophoton interaction, that enables the conversion
of electromagnetic radiation into a
gravitational like field, represented by the two
hypothetical gravitophoton (negative and positive
energies) particles. The gravitophoton interaction
is Quintessence (dark energy)

According Burkhard Heim's theory, gravitation, as we
know it, is comprised of three interactions,
namely by gravitons, the postulated gravitophotons,
and by the quintessence particle. This
means that the gravitational constant G contains
contributions from all three fields. The quintessence
interaction, however, is much smaller than
the first two contributions.
In Heim's theory the existence
of matter as an independent entity is replaced by
the features of a dynamic 8-dimensional discrete
spacetime, and as such is created by space itself.

The conversion of electromagnetic radiation into a
gravitational like field; the physical
effect lies in the different absorption coefficients
of negative and positive gravitophotons. As it
turns out, gravitophotons are generated
by virtual electrons, that is, they are generated by vacuum polarization.

In QED the vacuum behaves like a dielectric
absorbing and producing virtual particles
and the Coulomb potential is associated
with the transfer of a single virtual photon. Vacuum
polarization in form of the electron-photon
interaction changes the Coulomb potential of a
point charge for distances within the electron
Compton wavelength with respect to a nucleus.


The the application for interstellar travel
is, for a anti-gravity field propulsion is by the effect
of the reduction of the gravitational potential of a spacecraft
by the interaction of the positive gravitophotons with gravitons and their conversion into (repulsive) vacuum particles.
That will allow FTL travel in hyperspace.
Also with the reduction of the gravitational field of a body the object will accelerate by aide of negative gravitophotons, that will produce a anti-gravity propulsive like effect involving gravity to the outside observer.

Negative gravitophotons are
absorbed by protons and neutrons, while the remaining
positive gravitophotons interact with
the gravitons of the spacecraft, being converted
into vacuum particles, thus reducing the gravitational
potential of the spacecraft, that will allow a spaceship to enter hyperspace.

This anti-gravity effect of course, will make it more easier to accelerate to higher speeds thus, negating the higher mass chemical fuel payloads to escape Earth's gravitational field or to reach the 6.96mi/s aprox. escape velocity of this planet.

The kinetic energy from anti-gravity propulsion
is extracted from the vacuum, although the total
energy extracted from the vacuum that is in the
form of negative and positive gravitophotons, is zero; must have conservation of energy.


The acceleration that is achieved by the
absorption of negative gravitophotons through
the protons and neutrons of the torus coil material.
Will require a superconductor magnetic coil material; the obstacles I spoke of is that the limit of known superconductors to high magnetic field densities is of some 34 T, where T is tesla, a unit of magnetic flux density.
Some magnetic field density of 50-60 T would be needed, for 1,000kg masses ranges; for a spacecraft of mass 1,000kg at 50 T approx. will obtain a value n=9,013
v=cn or a velocity equal to 2.5 light hour per second approx. after a accelerated transition(2.7m/s^2 or 27% of g) into hyperspace, by positive gravitophoton force propulsion.
It also depend on other physical parameters like higher atomic numbers elements and of course electrical power ratings in 1 MW; million watt ranges for a spacecraft around 100,000 kg mass ranges, for around the same hyperspace velocity as above, and accelerated transition, 2.7m/s^2.
That same magnetic field density of approx. 50 T , a electrical current density of 250 A/mm^2, where mm is millimeter for a magnetic coil of superconductor material
and a torus ring superconductor material(fill with hydrogen gas of 103 kg), a rotation velocity of 1,000m/s, and with magnetic coil number of turns of 1x10^6 will require a power rating of around 14,887 W or 14.9 kilowatts approx. for entering hyperspace, by +gravitophoton production for spacecraft of mass of 1,000 kg, according to the theory and the equations of Heim's theory.
The MW power ratings can be achieve with a very efficent nuclear reactor on a possible yet to be build(still on the drawing board at NASA) spaceship I think, but I will have to check that info.

Gravitophoton field propulsion would obtain the kinetic energy from the vacuum.
The transition into Hyperspace space would
need a repulsive strength of the gravitophoton
field (positive gravitophotons), that will produce an phase or accelerated transition into Hyperspace that will let a spacecraft achieve FTL travel at a speeds much greater than light speed, once in Hyperspace the speed of light is c=nc, where n>1 is a integer; that must be because of the quantize discrete spacetime in the theory.
The gravitational potential of the spacecraft of mass M is reduce; Gs=GM/r , where G is the gravitational constant and r is the distance from the center of this mass by the interaction with +gravito-photons the gravitons of the spacecraft and their conversion into (repulsive) quintessence vacuum particles.

The gravitational constant transform by this relation, G/n in hyperspace for hyperdrive velocity factor, n to increase, the gravitational constant must decrease also.
That also mean to get a faster velocity factor in Hyperspace, once all other physical conditions are met, the vehicle will have to have a faster acceleration at the moment of entering hyperspace.


vacuum polarization: this link for explaination vacuum polarization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization)
Compton wavelength: fundamental limitation on measuring the position of a particle, taking quantum mechanics and special relativity into account.


light hour: 7.24329227133423AU exact
AU:A unit of length used for distances within the solar system; equal to the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun (approximately 93 million miles or 150 million kilometers)
virtual photon: here for explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photon)
QED means Quantum Electrodynamics: the Quantum physics of electromagnetism explained through Quantum Field Theory.
metron: Planck length^2= 10^-70 m^2
(String Theory; 10 D and 1 D time)

All interesting theories...

However: I don't believe any of us will live to see any practical use made of them.

Every serious discussion I ever heard or read about the possibility of hyperspace travel always comes down to one main thing: We are easily decades, if not centuries, away from being able to generate the massive energies required to punch a hole in space-time, or even power the technologies capable of doing so.

Once humans have figured out how to efficently produce power on that scale, then we can really start to explore the practical uses of all these theories. But at the moment all the output of all the power plants on Earth don't generate nearly enough in an entire year that would be required in a single burst to bridge that gap.

Once we can harness the power of fusion, we might stand a chance.

All interesting theories...

However: I don't believe any of us will live to see any practical use made of them.

Every serious discussion I ever heard or read about the possibility of hyperspace travel always comes down to one main thing: We are easily decades, if not centuries, away from being able to generate the massive energies required to punch a hole in space-time, or even power the technologies capable of doing so.
I don't agree, I believe we are very close.
One main thing that stop all human progress is our strong dependency on money, if money was no issue we will probably colonizing the Milky Way right now.
As along as money determine our fate in the galaxy we will be stuck on this planet for 10,000s of years, never to leave until over population force us to leave.
By the way centuries ago we should already had explore the galaxy and set up a major human presence in Milky Way, if the Dark Ages never had happen.
The physics is there, money and laziness of our society only holds us back.

It isn't going to happen any time soon. This war on terror is leading to a new dark age where science and technology will again be heresy. There are religious fundamentalists, on BOTH sides, that want it that way.

It isn't going to happen any time soon. This war on terror is leading to a new dark age where science and technology will again be heresy. There are religious fundamentalists, on BOTH sides, that want it that way.
Yeah, Jon this war on terror really pisses me off, religious people don't seem to care about possible interstellar travel; traveling the galaxy and finding other ET life would mean back to the drawing board as far as their specific religions is of concern.
Dark Ages, when religion had immense power was a example of 800 years wasted time as far as for progress for our society.

This war on terror won't ever end, I don't think you can achieve victory on a enemy that wants to die.
If we ever do wipe al-Qaida out, there will still be terrorism, this sh*t isn't going away.
There will always be terrorist to fight,
Bush idea of winning a general war on terrorism is foolhardy.
But of course, the war must go on because al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists will try their best to vaporise the surface of the planet with a fusion nuke if they can't have a Islamic world.

Personally, I believe you to be far too optimistic in the time window for this, Windu...

There too far many problems to take care of at home first before we can even think of extra-solar explorations. Not the least of which is the current socio-political situations already mentioned.

My point about the power was basically this: If we can develop a machine capable of producing the types of power required rip the fabric of Einsteinian space-time and let us jump through higher dimensions, that machine will be hard-pressed to ever be used in that manner.
We currently have more than enough trouble keeping the lights on and the AC running in places like California during a heat wave. (And of course, with our current power-plant technologies... the cooler we try to make ourselves, the more we may be contributing to the root causes of the heat wave in the first place...)

A generator capable of producing multiple gigawatts on demand (especially if it is clean power) isn't going to be willingly sacrificed to space exploration by the general public far more interested in survival and personal comfort.

Once we solve some of the planet's pressing problems we may be able to put plans together to explore these types of things. But the resources needed to attempt travel of type you describe can't be put forward by a single nation. It will take a multi-national, and possibly a planetary effort to achieve these types of goals.

There too far many problems to take care of at home first before we can even think of extra-solar explorations. Not the least of which is the current socio-political situations already mentioned.Exactly. What about with global warming, hunger crises, overpopulation, slavery, poverty, warfare, torture, and so on? Is is ethically right to neglect these because we want to see if we can travel faster than light?

http://www.costofwar.com) has a nice little counter that shows how much the 300+ billion USD spent messing up Iraq could've done for things such as fighting world hunger. And believe me, landing on Mars or building a base on the Moon is going to cost far, far more than Iraq ever will.

Personally, I believe you to be far too optimistic in the time window for this, Windu...
Well, I perfer being optimistic then say that wonderful technologies like this, hyperdrive is centuries off, that kind of thinking is unacceptable to me.

There too far many problems to take care of at home first before we can even think of extra-solar explorations. Not the least of which is the current socio-political situations already mentioned.
Yes, global warming is big problem we should take care of, but oil companies don't won't that problem taken care of because they will be ass out.
This problem need to be solve NOW and not wait 50 years as some fools say, concerning global warming
My point about the power was basically this: If we can develop a machine capable of producing the types of power required rip the fabric of Einsteinian space-time and let us jump through higher dimensions, that machine will be hard-pressed to ever be used in that manner.

This hyperdrive mechanism suppose to extract energy from the Casmir vacuum(in theory), yeah money I know, I really hate that crap.

We currently have more than enough trouble keeping the lights on and the AC running in places like California during a heat wave. (And of course, with our current power-plant technologies... the cooler we try to make ourselves, the more we may be contributing to the root causes of the heat wave in the first place...)
Well, I don't have that trouble, you must live in California. :)

A generator capable of producing multiple gigawatts on demand (especially if it is clean power) isn't going to be willingly sacrificed to space exploration by the general public far more interested in survival and personal comfort.

Yeah, keep coming to these crossroads we will never leave this world.
We can't survive here forever over population were make sure of that; the laziness I spoke of, we got to stop saying space exploration is no interest now, crisis situations will always be, people can't keep making excuses like that.
We can solve all these problems now not 50 years from now; that belief is just laziness, oil companies can solve global warming, if they abandon their oil business but of course they won't dare do that because they care more for profit than the environment, no more environment, no profit to make because your ass will be DEAD.
For example in the 60s Moon exploration, our society lost interest in space because of laziness, we must not waste our time exploring space they ,we must invest our effort to solve problems here first, keep having that stance we will never explore the universe.
We aren't going to solve every single problem by staying here.
Another thing I have notice since their precious oil is runing, why the hell oil companies don't try to push our society harder or build their own space exploration company; Saturn's moon Titan has natural gas, most of the moon fluids are natural gas, why they don't go there, because they are LAZY.
Their laziness is destroying our planet.
They should give up on that black crap NOW.
And invest in in hydrogen fuel cells or they will be ass out.
With all the resources they have, global warming won't still be a issue today, if they give up on that crap.

Once we solve some of the planet's pressing problems we may be able to put plans together to explore these types of things. But the resources needed to attempt travel of type you describe can't be put forward by a single nation. It will take a multi-national, and possibly a planetary effort to achieve these types of goals.
Yes, the people on this planet need get over their petty differences and work as one and then we will solve all those problem you mention.

Exactly. What about with global warming, hunger crises, overpopulation, slavery, poverty, warfare, torture, and so on? Is is ethically right to neglect these because we want to see if we can travel faster than light?
Gobal Warming should already have a solution blame the oil companies who put us in this mess.
Poverty will never be solve, as along as money exist there will always be poverty.
And I hate saying never but I just don't see that happening.
Torture! What the hell do torture have do with interstellar travel?
Are you kidding me, there will always be torture. :lol:
Hunger! Well, hunger problem exist because of money this problem goes back to the ancient times; profit making people don't give a damn about the hungry, but I don't see that being solved either, we will always have hungry people you can't feed everybody on this planet with food that Americans eat, or Europeans and so on.
Since, not many people aren't willing to eat the trillions of eatable bugs we will always have some in the 6 billion populous being hungry.
Overpopulation! Well, unless you are talking about wiping 100 of millions of people out, that is definitely is not going to be solve until some of us jump ship. :lol:
Oh, not this warfare again, thats not going to end we will always have wars.
Only people who believes in utopia, will believe wars will end.

Well, I don't have that trouble, you must live in California. :)
Boston. I haven't personally encountered many problems on that front myself...

But every year I see that there's some power brownouts or rolling blackouts in some part of the most technologically advanced and prosperous nation in the history of the planet when the temp gets up there for a sustained period of time.

Well, all I can say is that I hope you are right and I am wrong about this,.. but I'd still be cautious about getting my hopes up. We are having problems enough keeping a sustained human presence in close orbit, let alone on the nearest satellites and planets to us. That stuff should be hopelessly simplistic compared to what you are talking about.

Leaving the solar system seems a very long way off to me. Even if we can theoretically pull it off with technologies and resources we have today, I just don't see how it is possible to do it practically with the state of things as the are at the moment. And I don't expect many of those things to change any time soon...

The fact that many of the particles and forces outlined in the proposal you posted are still strictly theoretical also makes me think we may still have a ways to go.

I'm hardly an expert on the math of this stuff, but I am pretty familiar with the popular works of Hawking, Michael Greene, and Michio Kaku (I am currently in the process of re-reading his book "Hyperspace"...) who are leading experts in some of this stuff, and none of them have ever given me the impression that they believe that we will see practical uses of any of these ideas in our immediate future.

There may very well be different schools of thought in the overall physics community on this matter, but personally I'm gonna place my bets with what the generally accepted leaders in the field seem to think.

Gobal Warming should already have a solution blame the oil companies who put us in this mess.

It's not as simple as that. Most of our economy is built on how cheaply gasoline can be procured, produced, and sold with such availability; there's nothing else that really competes with it. Nuclear energy has hazards of its own, more so if things go really wrong. The other major alternatives like ethanol fuels tend to impact the environment just as much as or even more so than oil while being all the less efficient.

Poverty will never be solve, as along as
money exist there will always be poverty.

No, poverty will exist as long as materials stay limited. Money isn't a cause of the problem, it's an effect.

And I hate saying never but I just don't see that happening.
Torture! What the hell do torture have do with interstellar travel?
Are you kidding me, there will always be torture. :lol:

He's saying that we should probably focus on our ills before we spread them to other planets.

Hunger! Well, hunger problem exist because of money this problem goes back to the ancient times; profit making people don't give a damn about the hungry, but I don't see that being solved either, we will always have hungry people you can't feed everybody on this planet with food that Americans eat, or Europeans and so on.

People in prehistoric times could usually only predict their next meal to within a day or so, and yet they had no currency to speak of. What money does is it lets civilization remove the strict bartering system of "this for that" and replace it with the ultimately better system of "this for anything I wish".

Since, not many people aren't willing to eat the trillions of eatable bugs we will always have some in the 6 billion populous being hungry.
Overpopulation! Well, unless you are talking about wiping 100 of millions of people out, that is definitely is not going to be solve until some of us jump ship. :lol:

Nah, it could be solved, or at least alleviated, with more research being spent on increasing agricultural efficiency instead of, oh, interstellar engines.


Oh, not this warfare again, thats not going to end we will always have wars.
Only people who believes in utopia, will believe wars will end.

Actually, I propose that we build a global government with the sole central headquarters somewhere in Siberia. It'll be a very fancy and large affair, sure, with perhaps a million civil employees residing within the halls. The reason why it'll work so marvelously is precisely because the bureaucracy will be far too bloated to do anything, wars the least of them. It'll be bliss.

Well, all I can say is that I hope you are right and I am wrong about this,.. but I'd still be cautious about getting my hopes up. We are having problems enough keeping a sustained human presence in close orbit, let alone on the nearest satellites and planets to us. That stuff should be hopelessly simplistic compared to what you are talking about.
Still stuck in Earth's orbit, is pitiful and embarrassing.
Thats got end in this decade.


The fact that many of the particles and forces outlined in the proposal you posted are still strictly theoretical also makes me think we may still have a ways to go.
Well, what have got me interested in Heim's theory, because I just came aware of it.
Is that his mass formula predicted all the masses of all the elementary particles of nature and the values of the coupling constants: Value for creation and destruction
of messenger (virtual) particles,
relative to the strong force (whose value is
set to 1 in relation to the other coupling constants).
As the particle physictists say.
There is no other theory that comes close to that acurracy of 1 in 10,000,
not String Theory no theory.
I'm hardly an expert on the math of this stuff, but I am pretty familiar with the popular works of Hawking, Michael Greene, and Michio Kaku (I am currently in the process of re-reading his book "Hyperspace"...) who are leading experts in some of this stuff, and none of them have ever given me the impression that they believe that we will see practical uses of any of these ideas in our immediate future.
Because their lazy and close-minded, but Michio Kaku is more optimistic than the rest of them.
There may very well be different schools of thought in the overall physics community on this matter, but personally I'm gonna place my bets with what the generally accepted leaders in the field seem to think.
They are clueless about Heim's theory, Heim's theory is very recent he was working in private on his Quantize Geometry theory, because of his accident.
I think his theory is 4 years old respect to the physictists at large awareness of it.
The 700 page book about Heim's Theory was written in German, but the supporters of his theory are trying to translate it into English, I didn't know german was that hard to translate.
Also Michael Greene is a String theorist, I doubt he know jack about this theory.
He is to busy playing with strings.
Michio Kaku book Hyperspace, isn't about Heim's Teory its about M-theory,
I never read about Heim's theory in that book, but it has been a long time since I read that book so I have forgotten some detail.

It's not as simple as that. Most of our economy is built on how cheaply gasoline can be procured, produced, and sold with such availability; there's nothing else that really competes with it. Nuclear energy has hazards of its own, more so if things go really wrong. The other major alternatives like ethanol fuels tend to impact the environment just as much as or even more so than oil while being all the less efficient.
You must support oil companies; no environment no economy, got it.


No, poverty will exist as long as materials stay limited. Money isn't a cause of the problem, it's an effect.
Until someone does a experiment taking money out of the system, we will just have to see who's right.


He's saying that we should probably focus on our ills before we spread them to other planets.

If our society keep complaining about our ills, then we won't ever spread to other planets.



People in prehistoric times could usually only predict their next meal to within a day or so, and yet they had no currency to speak of. What money does is it lets civilization remove the strict bartering system of "this for that" and replace it with the ultimately better system of "this for anything I wish".

Prehistoric! I'm talking about the times such as the anicent Romans

Nah, it could be solved, or at least alleviated, with more research being spent on increasing agricultural efficiency instead of, oh, interstellar engines.
That is just lazy talk, if the environment dies we die, how more clearly do I have to explain that to you, Tyrion. :)
There will be no agricultural efficiency, if farm lands don't exist no more.

But Heim's idea is still just a theory, as promising as it might seem to be. Maybe parts of it could be true, but it may not fully pan out the way you think. Or it could end up being fully disproven. We simply don't know yet, it's way too early to tell.

You cannot simply approach it with a semi-religious zeal just because it seems to tell you things that you would like to be true.

Michio Kaku is more optimistic than the rest of them.
Oh really? http://www.mkaku.org/article_intertravel.htm)

And it seems to me that all these theories are interconnected, since they all have to do with the nature and the fabric of the universe... which is exactly what we are going to need to understand and overcome if interstellar travel is to ever become a reality.

I haven't fully accepted the idea that interstellar travel will ever become a possibility for human beings. The nature of the universe we find ourselves in may just forbid it. We just don't know enough yet. But wishing for it to be true won't make it so.

I personally hate the idea of the universe forever expanding until it eventually grows dark and cold... but all the current information we have points to that as the eventual outcome. I don't particularly like the idea but I have to accept it as the most likely scenario.

The fact that we may never be able to blip from solar-system to solar-system at will might also be the eventual conclusion as well. I honestly don't care for that idea any better... but I can't say that it isn't a possible outcome.

You must support oil companies; no environment no economy, got it.

Huh? You're not making much sense...

Until someone does a experiment taking money out of the system, we will just have to see who's right.

You mean like socialism?

If our society keep complaining about our ills, then we won't ever spread to other planets.

You can't just ignore them, you have to fix it. Our problems will be exponentially worse if we spread to other planets; as the old adage goes: "a stitch in time saves nine."

Prehistoric! I'm talking about the times such as the anicent Romans

I was simply illustrating how a lack of money will not instantly lead to a land of plenty.

That is just lazy talk, if the environment dies we die, how more clearly do I have to explain that to you, Tyrion. :)
There will be no agricultural efficiency, if farm lands don't exist no more.

Er, what? That's a bit of a, um, non sequitur right there. I was talking about how we should focus more on terrestrial research like agriculture instead of more fanciful expeditions like space travel. Environment falls under the former.

@windu6

Why are you so 'obsessed' with spreading humanity to other planets? Why would it be a positive thing to spread humanity?

We would only spread death, possibly diseases and religion.

Sure it would be exciting to see aliens and encounter other civilizations and planets, but I'm just afraid what might happen. Not sure that the result of this would end up in anything good on either sides.

Huh? You're not making much sense...

So, you want, what?
We should keep using oil until that pitiful resource dry up in 50 years, by that time half the environment will be destroyed

You mean like socialism?
No I'm talking about StarTrekism. :lol:



You can't just ignore them, you have to fix it. Our problems will be exponentially worse if we spread to other planets; as the old adage goes: "a stitch in time saves nine."
We aren't going to solve poverty; there will alway be rich snobs, middle people who try to become rich, and poor people because society don't give a damn about them, everybody can't or won't be friends, poor people will always exist because the simple fact that sh*t happens.
Not everyone going to get lucky and live a normal life .


I was simply illustrating how a lack of money will not instantly lead to a land of plenty.
Duh, I know that, I just hate money so much I'm just bias.


Er, what? That's a bit of a, um, non sequitur right there. I was talking about how we should focus more on terrestrial research like agriculture instead of more fanciful expeditions like space travel. Environment falls under the former.
So, how long we should wait before we explore the Milky Way and the Universe.
A billion years, because if you believe most scientists it will take millions of years before we even explore our own galaxy.
That lazy belief is unacceptable, we are long overdue for exploring the Milky Way.

Overdue?

The internal combustion engine is less than 200 years old. Air flight 100 years. Manned rocketry and space flight less than 50. Reusable space platforms less than 30 (within my lifetime... and we have had serious problem with it as it is.)

Given the entire timeline of modern humans as a species, this is a phenomenal rate of technological progress. But faster than that seems like it would be unsustainable.

My parents were born in 1930... before the jet plane, television, and a number of other technologies we take for granted. I'm sure neither of them would say that things are moving too slow.

I don't believe that the human colonization of the galaxy could have possibly occurred at any point before now. I can't see how we are already overdue.

He's saying that we should probably focus on our ills before we spread them to other planets.Exactly. Humanity and the planet is, quite frankly, a mess. We're in 2007. We've existed for 200 000 years. Isn't it time we eradicate hunger and fix our Earth and make this a good place to live for everyone, not just the English, South Koreans, Scandinavians, Canadians and other middle class industrial nation residents?

If our society keep complaining about our ills, then we won't ever spread to other planets.Worse. If society keeps complaining about our ills, we might actually get around to fixing them:eek:.

There is no reason to prioritize space colonization over our own world's problems. It's like being ill and buying a PlayStation instead of anti-biotics. Sure, it's ten times more cool than some boring little white pills, but in the long run...

Since, not many people aren't willing to eat the trillions of eatable bugs we will always have some in the 6 billion populous being hungry. I sincerely hope you're joking. There's more than enough food for all of us. It's not just distributed properly. Basic social studies.

Overdue?

The internal combustion engine is less than 200 years old. Air flight 100 years. Manned rocketry and space flight less than 50. Reusable space platforms less than 30 (within my lifetime.)
Well, I'm not sure what is the complete history concerning ancient societies 10,000s years ago.
But, the Dark Ages, 800 years wasted.

Given the entire timeline of modern humans as a species, this is a phenomenal rate of technological progress. But faster than that seems like it would be unsustainable.
Phenomenal rate ! :lol:
More like a snail's pace.
Computer technology is the only thing that has been a phenomenal rate over the last 50 decades, in my opinion.
The internal combustion engine is too old it's way overdue, it's time to retire that technology.
Manned rockery should've been done and over with by now in 21 century.
The 60s & 70s should've been a period of manned solar system exploration.
If our society didn't become lazy after the Moon landing.
I just think outside the box, I don't close my mind or have the "it will take a long time" belief as others do.
I'm more like do it now, do it now and do it now.
But, our society is not truely sure if there was any advance civilization here before what we know of in the history texts.
So, the jury is still out on how advance we are.

The 60s & 70s should've been a period of manned solar system exploration.
If our society didn't become lazy after the Moon landing.
More like broke and focused on other societal problems (hard to colonize the stars when engaged in expensive wars overseas.)

But did we really have the tech to colonize the moon back then? Do we have it now?
For human beings to live somewhere you need a constant and renewable oxygen, food, and water supply, as well as sanitary waste removal.
Were we ever truly capable of terraforming the Moon in that way in the 60's, 70's,.. or even today?
We barely had the capacity of hauling a single capsule and a couple of men and their life support that distance with the technology we had then. Bringing all the cargo needed for long-term human survival on the Moon is, in my opinion, STILL outside of our current capabilities... at least at a cost that anybody would be willing to pay for it.

How many gallons of water does the average human require in a year (and that's for drinking, bathing, cleaning, and the growing of vegetables and supplying the needs of possible livestock of some sort)? Calculate that, then multiply it for the amount of people in your colony, and the period of time you are planning on being there. (Permanent? Then factor in population growth...)
You will have to bring that water with you. Even with calculating waste-water reclamation technology, that's a very, very large and heavy payload to get all the way to the Moon.
Same goes for oxygen. And the soil for hydroponic gardens. And all the food it would take to sustain human life until the gardens are constructed and the first crops are grown. (And exactly what is the process of storing all this stuff and growing crops in a low gravity environment?) Then all the construction materials for the surface pods to contain this stuff in.

Even if we had the tech and resources to get all this crap there in one piece, it actually makes far more sense to have robots set all this stuff up for us before we get there. Why risk human lives on that type of process? However: Robot technology still isn't that advanced, even today.

I honestly don't believe we could have ever pulled that kind of activity at any point in the last 30 years. I have my doubts about doing it even in today's day and age.

If anything, I would say that we are not behind the times, but that the moon missions of the past were premature. We proved we could get there and back. But we never had a chance at the time of keeping humans there for any sustained period of time.

More like broke and focused on other societal problems (hard to colonize the stars when engaged in expensive wars overseas.)
I was refering to the whole planet not just America.


But did we really have the tech to colonize the moon back then?
Do we have it now?
Well, since United States government don't tell all it's secrets.
Who knows?
For human beings to live somewhere you need a constant and renewable oxygen, food, and water supply, as well as sanitary waste removal. Duh !
Were we ever truly capable of terraforming the Moon in that way in the 60's, 70's,.. or even today? Yes, if the world was working together back then.
at least at a cost that anybody would be willing to pay for it.
Yes, at the cost, money, that sh*t is a major hinderance to any profound progress of our society, as I have said before.
How many gallons of water does the average human require in a year (and that's for drinking, bathing, cleaning, and the growing of vegetables and supplying the needs of possible livestock of some sort)? Calculate that, then multiply it for the amount of people in your colony, and the period of time you are planning on being there. (Permanent? Then factor in population growth...)
You will have to bring that water with you. Even with calculating waste-water reclamation technology, that's a very, very large and heavy payload to get all the way to the Moon.
Same goes for oxygen. And the soil for hydroponic gardens. And all the food it would take to sustain human life until the gardens are constructed and the first crops are grown. (And exactly what is the process of storing all this stuff and growing crops in a low gravity environment?) Then all the construction materials for the surface pods to contain this stuff in.

Look, I don't give damn about lunar or Mars colonization, I'm more interested in Milky Way colonization; I was giving an example, that we need to speed things up. :)


I honestly don't believe we could have ever pulled that kind of activity at any point in the last 30 years. I have my doubts about doing it even in today's day and age.
Because you have that "it will take a long time" belief, so you will always feel that way about the creation of profound technologies like a Hyperdrive engine.

Well then, we keep coming back to the issue of solving the world's problems first, before we head out and make them the galaxy's problems. If the entire planet needs to work together to make these things a reality then that's still a pretty big thing to overcome on it's own.

Money is simply a reality in our world. There's no way around it. Without it we'd all still be each growing our own food and building our own houses and making our own clothing. Nobody would have time to even speculate about space travel... or much of anything else for that matter. Money allows to concentrate on issues other than our own survival.

If we can't colonize even our nearest planets and satellites, there's no way we will ever be able to survive outside our solar system. That's an even larger hurdle to overcome.

And even if you were able to get the entire planet to put aside all it's differences tomorrow and concentrate every ounce of energy into creating this technology and populating the galaxy, it would still take a long time. There are an insane amount of purely logistical problems to overcome... let alone the theoretical ones. It's just not going to happen any time soon.


Go ahead and prove me wrong...

So we have the hyperdrive, and then what? Power my neighbour's old ladies' bicycle with it? Like I've said already a couple of times, we need a lot more than a hyper/star/warp/subspace/chocolatemilk-drive just to leave our solar system let alone the fact that we actually need to arrive at another one.
What would, what could, what should isn't going to be any helpful in that matter.
Earn some money and pump it all into the "space industry" or make up your own space company - in other words, turn those theories and ideas into reality - now that would be helpful. Oh, and don't forget to call me if you need any astronauts.

I could easily change things around a bit and ask if we should colonize Mt. Everest (the world's tallest mountain), the Mariana Trench (the world's deepest ocean) or Mt. Vesuvius (a volcano). All three would teach us a huge deal in many fields, but is, apart from that, about as pointless as colonizing the Moon.

The only reason why everyone are so crazy about colonizing some dead rock out in space as opposed to some dead trench or mountain or some active volcano is the "cool factor". It's not that we'll learn this or advance that way. It's that space travel fascinates. The abundance of sci-fi movies, games, and television series proves as much. It's not about learning, advancing technology, or "finding out how we came to be here". It's about having fun.

Look, we'll get man to Mars in time. We'll estabilish our colonies in the Andromeda Galaxy. We may even one time in the far future have grown to tens of thousands of billions of people and spread our colonies, explorers and probes to all over the galaxy. What's the bloody hurry?

Again, if you've got a moderately serious illness, what do you do? Do you spend your money on that cool, awesome PlayStation 3 you want so much - or do you buy antibiotics and save the console for the next time you've got the money?

Well, if you want to live to see it done within your lifetime, that would justify the hurry.

I don't think I'll ever live to see humans get much farther than Mars at best before my clock winds down.

Even if by some miracle we find a workable hyperdrive technology some time before I croak... I'm positive I'll never see manned missions take place to the outer reaches. The first several hundred hyperspace flights to other solar systems will no doubt be unmanned probes.

Money is simply a reality in our world. There's no way around it. Without it we'd all still be each growing our own food and building our own houses and making our own clothing. Nobody would have time to even speculate about space travel... or much of anything else for that matter. Money allows to concentrate on issues other than our own survival.
There is always away around problems, such as money.
It's end will come one day.
If we can't colonize even our nearest planets and satellites, there's no way we will ever be able to survive outside our solar system. That's an even larger hurdle to overcome.
And even if you were able to get the entire planet to put aside all it's differences tomorrow and concentrate every ounce of energy into creating this technology and populating the galaxy, it would still take a long time. There are an insane amount of purely logistical problems to overcome... let alone the theoretical ones. It's just not going to happen any time soon.
Well, I'm not in that opinion as you are, there is no "just not going to happen any time soon".
It's more like our society is unwilling to overcome the problems, because it's too hard or they believe it to be too hard.
I'm new to the physics of this Hyperdrive propulsion mechanism, but the scientists who are working on Heim's theory, says that the problems to overcome is not that difficult, of course if the physics pans out.
Warpdrive propulsion depends on warping the fabric of spacetime itself by creating a pulse distortion wave from initial point to destination point,the spaceship will be pushed away from the Earth and pulled towards a
distant star by spacetime itself.
The energy requirements depends on the curvature of(rate of change of spacetime geometry) spacetime metric, the metric is the shortest distance between two points in this curve spacetime.
So, it depends on the shape of the pulse destortion wave; warpdrive works by expanding spactime in front of a spaceship and contraction of spacetime behind the spaceship proportionaly to negate relativistic time dilation effects, cause by motion through spacetime; this leads to no or little motion through the spacetime in the center of the pulse, or warp bubble.
A spaceship basically ride a wave, and don't move itself.
The energy needed to achieve this feat need to have
negative energy density: energy density is pressure, energy/volume , the properties of this energy : make a apple fall up in a gravitational field.
This energy is needed to overcome the curvature of intermediate background spacetime; curvature cause by Earth's gravitational field and it's complex interaction with the Sun and all the matter in the solar system, that will have complex effects on a spaceship at warp. The density of matter in the intermediate space between initial point and the destination point, that will either slow the warp velocity or increase it depending on the energy density setting in the pulse and the dampening factor cause by interaction of low or high curvature regions cause by low or high mass densities per unit volume of the matter, respectively.
To achieve the warp velocity at about v>>c velocities like 10000 c, with a warp bubble radius of 1000 meters, warp shell thickness of 1E-6 meters and a ship size of about 100 meters I have calculated the negative energy requirements to be some -3.1288E+3*Me approx. where Me is mass of Earth or E=Me*c^2 , E=-1.6813E+45 J approx., where J is Joules.
But Hyperdrive travel only require power ratings for magnetic fields of some 50-60 T in ranges around 10s kW for 1000kg mass spaceship & 1-10 MW for 100,000 kg ranges for a spaceship.
So, I will say if the theory is right we will achieve interstellar travel much sooner than you realize, edlib. ;)



Joule: A SI unit of work or energy; the work done by a force of one Newton acting over a distance of one meter.

Earth mass: 5.979e24 kg approx.

Newton:A unit of force equal to the force that imparts an acceleration of 1 m/sec/sec to a mass of 1 kilogram.

Well, good luck with it.

I'm still not going to hold my breath, though.

This war on terror is leading to a new dark age where science and technology will again be heresy.
Unless, of course, the science and technology can be used to hunt down and kill more terrorists.:xp:

OT: None of us are going to live to see this, but it's a cool concept to ponder.

Unless, of course, the science and technology can be used to hunt down and kill more terrorists.:xp:

OT: None of us are going to live to see this, but it's a cool concept to ponder.
All the pondering is getting tiresome, it's about time our society get to doing this.

OT: None of us are going to live to see this, but it's a cool concept to ponder.Q.E.D.

(edit: from "QFD" to "QED":p)

Q.E.D.

(edit: from "QFD" to "QED":p)
You know Dagobahn if people keep having that kind pessimistic belief, like you do about any kind of breakthrough technology, many coming future generations(as you see it) would die without seeing this possible hyperdrive technology realize.
People in our society need to stop being lazy, close-minded and uninspired about science fiction technologies like a highly possible Star Wars hyperdrive engine technology as Heim's Quantum Gravity theory suggestes.
All science fiction will become science one day, if you don't believe it then you will be left in the dust of close-minded thinking like those doubters and uninspired skeptics in the past, with their flawed thinking of our present day technology we have right now.
The path from sci-fi to science is just left to the so called "geniuses" of our species to make it happen. :)

But, if the theory leaves one's ass out then it just not possible in this universe apparently to travel in this universe in a reasonable time scale.
But if one accepts that belief then one should accept that damn Bible literally and accept the possibility that all those stars and galaxies we observe to the measured 13 billion light-years observation range, is just all decoration for us to imagine to our brains melt away into oblivion.

But I'm not the one that will lose my optimism early until or if the theory proves be another ass out endeavor for our species, toward interstellar travel.

Nobody's saying to not investigate this guy's theories... just not to count on this to be a quick process.

Even if all his theories are eventually proven to be true (a process, if you do it correctly, that could take years or even decades in itself...) building workable prototypes, testing, then scaling them up to human size, and going through the logistics of planning missions, training, and preparing for them is not a fast process.

Even if there was a massive public interest in this technology, it still wouldn't be instantaneous.

How does one navigate in hyperspace? Do we even understand what hyperspace actually is... other than in theoretical mathematical models, that is?
Little problems like that will need to be overcome before you can safely propel humans.

You want to keep an open mind... but not so open that your brains fall out! ;)

There are always realistic considerations with any new theory and technology. Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean that everyone is going to jump on it immediately with you.

The necessity of this tech is going to be a hard sell, even if it looks like it's going to pan out, as you can no doubt tell just by the responses in this thread alone.

You know Dagobahn if people keep having that kind pessimistic belief, like you do about any kind of breakthrough technology, many coming future generations(as you see it) would die without seeing this possible hyperdrive technology realize.

He wasn't being pessimistic, he was just being realistic.

We just got to the moon less than 40 years ago...so, let's start with Mars, shall we? :)

Also, while space exploration is interesting, I don't see why it should be a top priority. We have enough problems to work on here that I believe are much more important and there is still a lot to learn about our own planet.

You know Dagobahn if people keep having that kind pessimistic belief, like you do about any kind of breakthrough technology, many coming future generations(as you see it) would die without seeing this possible hyperdrive technology realize.And if we prioritize this Star Wars utopia of yours, generations will die not only without seeing an end to the conditions in developing countries, but because of the conditions therein.

Prioritizing a White Elephant space project while millions suffer is simply incredibly selfish. We have the more than enough resources to make the world a better place for others than ourselves, and we are to spend it on re-enacting Star Wars just because it'd be cool to do so?

The awesome PlayStation 3 for yourself or the life-saving antibiotics for your sick cousin. Rich man's dilemma. Plain and simple.

If you want space explored, let the private sector handle it so our tax dollars aren't wasted. I love space exploration, too, but come on, isn't our well-being higher on the priority list?

You know Dagobahn if people keep having that kind pessimistic belief, like you do about any kind of breakthrough technology, many coming future generations(as you see it) would die without seeing this possible hyperdrive technology realize.

Simply inventing a "hyperdrive" is not going to enable humanity to colonize the universe. Let's say that someone does, in fact, invent a engine that can send a decently-sized vessel into nearby solar systems fairly instantaneously. This, alone, won't mean much unless we're able to also accomplish the following:


A pressurized suit that can handle the rigors of an atmosphere without puncturing for prolonged periods of time.
Botanical farms that can host plants and provide nutrients solely by those stored in the said planet.
Proper equipment to mine and process said nutrients.
A cost-effective shuttle that can safely enter and exit an atmosphere using only the fuel it has stored while having enough protection to not light on fire or disintegrate.
Be able to produce durable buildings that can withstand the rigors of an environment that most likely will be filled with noxious fumes or turbulent climates.


And that's just the beginning.

:wstupid:
Yeah, just what I said... only with more specifics. ;)

I said it earlier in the thread: The logistics would be a total nightmare.

However: If the Earth was in some catastrophic imminent danger, I'm pretty sure we'd make it work somehow in a hurry... but without the threat of destruction, the motivation to have this up and running before our grand-kids graduate college is going to be hard to muster. Just no incentive on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average, who are just worried about their own day-to-day survival, and making a better world for thier kids.

And if we prioritize this Star Wars utopia of yours, generations will die not only without seeing an end to the conditions in developing countries, but because of the conditions therein.
Why it got to be a utopia all of a sudden, I see there is no use trying to interest a doubter of scientific progress.
When is you going to get this in your head man, there will be no end to the horriable conditions in developing countries, one the rich countries don't give a damn about developing countries, because they are poor countries that don't have enough paper to ensure the continue interest of sucessful prospering countries.
Povery won't end completely here on this rock, if you keep believing that it will then you are living in a utopia.
Africa for one example, racism, racism and racism; genocide will continue there like it is currently happening now; the UN is a organization of failure and of pitiful cowards, they let the genocide in Rwanda happen without lifting a damn finger; AIDS will continue to kill Africans because of money and the scum of racism, racism that is still present in our own species.
Prioritizing a White Elephant space project while millions suffer is simply incredibly selfish. We have the more than enough resources to make the world a better place for others than ourselves, and we are to spend it on re-enacting Star Wars just because it'd be cool to do so?

Make the world better! We are destroying the environment, because of the idiots of the oil companies and the worry about the effect on the economy if we liquidate oil companies.
If we don't have a environment, money won't keep us living, we will perish as a species on this rock if money and the economy keep being more of a priority then the safety of our own environment of Earth.
And who the hell said, make Star Wars happen because it is cool, I think now since becoming of aware of Heim's theory, that Geroge Lucas or whoever put the idea of hyperspace in Star Wars got it from Burkhard Heim's Quantum Gravity theory, since it has been known to the public since 1957.
And of course, I think Star Wars is cool I'm a fan and this is a Star Wars forum isn't it?
Oh, I get it since I talk about Star Wars technology this must be fantasy,
oh damn, I thought this was a Star Wars forum where I can discuss Star Wars technology with Star Wars fans, my bad, I should've known better. :rolleyes:
The awesome PlayStation 3 for yourself or the life-saving antibiotics for your sick cousin. Rich man's dilemma. Plain and simple.
What the hell is you talking about? :)
If you want space explored, let the private sector handle it so our tax dollars aren't wasted. I love space exploration, too, but come on, isn't our well-being higher on the priority list?
Tax dollars wasted! :lol:
Money, money and more money is that all you think about.
Since you care about all these suffering people on this planet, money is the simple fact, why we have suffering people on this world, the world don't give a damn about the poor, if they can't scratch up enough paper to pay back the rich countries who they have ask the help from, then the hell with them, as the opinion of those rich countries would have.
If you are a developing country and you don't have enough paper, diamonds, gold, silver or any other precious commodity then you stay poor and developing.
Forever!
I guess I will have to wait and see if or when a comet or asteroid threaten this planet, if the stranglehold of money on our species will determine if our species perish or prosper in this galaxy.
If this disaster happen and I have delayed death of it's prize, then I will have to put my head in between my legs and kiss my ass good bye, because I believe money will cause our species to perish in this galaxy. :lol:

Faster-than-light travel has been a staple of classic science-fiction for decades... long before Star Wars and Lucas came along.

I would look to the works of Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Dick, Hebert, Niven, et. al... that were the obvious inspirations of what eventually became Star Wars. I seriously doubt that Lucas did a whole lot of research into the actual mechanics and theories behind that type of travel. It was just a solution to an obvious story problem.

After all: If you are going to tell a space opera that makes any sense, you need the ability to get from planet-to-planet very quickly. Hence the need for hyperspace engines, warp factors, wormholes, etc... all roughly based on actual scientific theories.

I don't read more into it than that.

And the use of money, as well as all the socio-political institutions in place to control it, are just simply the obvious reality of life on the planet today. Any issue brought up has to be viewed in that context, since it's not likely to change any time soon. So instead of bitching about the unfairness of it all, try to find solutions that can work within those systems.

I doubt that most of us like it a whole lot better than you... but nobody has ever proposed anything better yet.

If hyperspace travel becomes a reality, do you think it's going to cure any of those pre-existing problems? No... it will only serve to exacerbate them; because only the very wealthiest and powerful will be allowed to travel and colonize other planets, and the Earth with become the Galaxy's ghetto... filled with the very poorest, who exist only to build and supply colony ships as the elite flee from the decay they have left in their wake.

Speaking of Sci-Fi visions: that's pretty much the vision presented in Blade Runner. That could just as easily become the reality as well... Human nature is unlikely to change just because we have the technology to travel the universe.

Okay, this is all just getting silly.

Windu6, I don't know where you're getting all these "Mankind got lazy after going to the moon", "We have to go go go go right now, before my breakfast gets cold!", or "We should already be racing through hyperspace now, why are we still stuck here?!" stuff from...actually, check that, I do know. You've seen too many sci-fi movies and tv shows and you're impatient for them to become real.

It's embarrassing to still be earthbound? I mean, for who? Technology is moving at a snail's pace...? That's a good one. The internal combustion engine is little more than two hundred years old. The human species has had powered flight for little more than a century. The jet and rocket engines are barely sixty years old. Less than forty years ago, we took our first ever baby steps off of our planet to the moon. And let's not forget that we went to the moon largely just to discover if we could, not because there was ever any real tangible reason for humans to be there. Antibiotics, nuclear power, satellite networks, space stations in near earth orbit, home computers, DVDs...all of these things would be incomprehensible and wondrous seen through the eyes of someone from just 1907. You're not seeing huge quantum leaps of technological and societal development in the 20 some-odd years you've been around, and you're saying "C'mon c'mon c'mon!!! Faster faster faster!!! I wanna go to Alpha Centauri!!! Hurry u-u-u-up!!!" Calm down and be patient, dude.

The planets and stars are still going to be there in 50-100 years from now; we have to solve our earthly problems (yes, including racism, money, Nazis, and all your other favourite topics for incoherent, technicolour ranting) in order to make sure that we as a species are still around in 50-100 years' time. Yeah sure, a big meteorite could threaten to wipe us out if we don't move shop elsewhere, but as it stands right now, we're in a lot more danger of wiping ourselves out through war, famine, pestilence, global warming, voting Republican/Sinn Fein/DUP, etc etc etc than we are from spaceborne debris. Our history as a species is just the tiniest eye-blink in galactic or even geologic time scales. Charging out across the cosmos isn't going to solve our problems if we can't figure them out here on earth first; it'll just postpone the inevitable.

The hell, you're right Mace. Mankind ain't ready for intargelucktique trips. But I'm willing to be helpful here.

I make dem girls familar with my space rocket. :naughty:

Why it got to be a utopia all of a sudden [...]Utopia? I never claimed it had to be an utopia, I claimed it has to be livable. Think about the conditions in your average middle class American neighborhood, then think about the women in Africa who have to walk for two miles just for a bucket of mucky, bacteria-infested water. I don't aim for the Rwandans of North Koreans to live in an utopia, I merely want them to live good lives, like the lives of us lucky Norsemen and Americans and Brits and South Koreans born with silver spoons up our anal openings.

And "all of a sudden"? I think humans have been dreaming of happiness for quite some time now.

[...] I see there is no use trying to interest a doubter of scientific progress.On the contrary, I've already stated that I'm very interested in space technology. But not at the cost of the poverty-stricken in the world, the victims of crime, slavery and violence, and the millions bound to suffer from global warming.

When is you going to get this in your head man, there will be no end to the horriable conditions in developing countries [...]Why not? We've ended horrible conditions in other countries. Look at how little was left of Germany and Japan after World War II and then consider how well they're doing today.

Povery won't end completely here on this rock, if you keep believing that it will then you are living in a utopia.Again, I'm not aiming for abolition of poverty. I leave that to the more optimistic socialists.

What the hell is you talking about? As I explained earlier, it's a metaphor depicting the choice we've got to make regarding space travel. Space travel is the new gaming console, solving our planet's problems is the antibiotics for your sick cousin. We've got two options: The cool and the necessary.

Tax dollars wasted!
Money, money and more money is that all you think about.I don't understand how this idea got into your head, especially when your next sentence begins with "since you care about the poor...".

And yes, many rich people and countries do care about the poor, as do humanitarian organizations. It's not unsolvable problem.

And yes, I've got faith in the fixing of the corrupt and non-functional UN, just like you've obviously got faith in your incompetent NASA.

The planets and stars are still going to be there in 50-100 years from now [...]Exactly. It's not like we're chasing some Mystery Trader from Stars!. We're looking at a universe that's been there for billions of years and shows no sign of planning to vanish in the near future.

[...] as it stands right now, we're in a lot more danger of wiping ourselves out through war, famine, pestilence, global warming, voting Republican/Sinn Fein/DUP, etc etc etc than we are from space-borne debris.Correct. It's a common argument that we should prepare ourselves against Mr. Doomsday Asteroid™, but what about the environmental threats right here at our doorstep? I'm sure the victims of natural disasters, crime and terrorism will be really happy to know that they're at least safe from some huge rock that may hit us in 400 years, but I doubt it provides them much comfort.

I don't know what makes anybody think they could ever get a seat on one of these missions anyway.

Okay, this is all just getting silly.
Of course it is silly to you.
Because discussion is about interstellar travel, this kind of discussion is always silly as you see it.
So, it is pointless trying to interest you, so I'm not going to bother trying to.



The planets and stars are still going to be there in 50-100 years from now
See, that is the kind of laziness I'm talking about.
we have to solve our earthly problems (yes, including racism, money, Nazis, and all your other favourite topics for incoherent, technicolour ranting) in order to make sure that we as a species are still around in 50-100 years' time.

Racism will not be solve that is a fool's errand, even my ranting ass will accept that; when we ever or IF we ever travel the Milky Way racism will still be present, it will be racism of other species in this galaxy.

Windu, seriously, there is more needed than "hyperspace drive technology" to go "out there".

Of course it is silly to you.
Because discussion is about interstellar travel, this kind of discussion is always silly as you see it.
So, it is pointless trying to interest you, so I'm not going to bother trying to.Who said I'm not interested in interstellar travel? Of course I'm interested in interstellar travel. I'm also interested in solving our terrestrial problems like everyone else here except you. As usual.
Racism will not be solve that is a fool's errand, even my ranting ass will accept that; when we ever or IF we ever travel the Milky Way racism will still be present, it will be racism of other species in this galaxy.Well, now who's being lazy? I for one believe that it is possible to solve problems like that, and that we should put more effort and expense into doing so, rather than pouring all society's resources into hyperdrive research just because some college kids are chomping at the bit to run away from their problems.

If the girls on Earth all ignore you, why would the ones on Sirius be any different?

Because Sirius girls eat only human flesh? :p

Siriusly? :D

OK... with that, I'm think I'm done with this thread.

When United starts starts booking cheap vacation flights to the Pleiades, give me a call... and please feel free to come back and tell me "I told you so!"

Until then I think I'll just sit back and wait and see if anybody can provide conclusive proofs that this guy's theories have any merit.

Oh, and prioritizing≠Laziness.

Who said I'm not interested in interstellar travel? Of course I'm interested in interstellar travel. I'm also interested in solving our terrestrial problems like everyone else here except you.
As usual.
So, if this hyperdrive engine become a reality, we should remain here and solve every single problem at a 100% success value?

Problems: environmental destruction, global warming, diseases, poverty and etc.
What else?
We will always have diseases; poverty will always be present to a degree, global warming: oil campanies and some chemical companies are responsible of this problem.
Possible solutions of global warming : hydrogen fuel cells, get rid of oil companies, stop using oil completely, more nuclear power plants creation & stop heavy deforestation(plants live off CO2, more plants and trees the better) and etc.
Well, now who's being lazy? I for one believe that it is possible to solve problems like that, and that we should put more effort and expense into doing so, rather than pouring all society's resources into hyperdrive research just because some college kids are chomping at the bit to run away from their problems.
The only thing I believe that is going to solve racism, is when the aliens reveal themselves or they land on the proverbial White House lawn, after all the religious rioting.
If the girls on Earth all ignore you, why would the ones on Sirius be any different?
What the hell is this suppose to mean?
Let me guess you are calling me a loser, because I want to travel the Milky Way today so, I must not have a women or getting any.
Huh? :lol: