Do you NEED an explanation for "everything"?

[Hermit]

We might be able to reach the Alpha Centauri system in under 100 years using some form of fusion-powered propulsion. ref

Or use Windmills and hugging trees combined with the power of crystals and wishful thinking....... Odd to think that the UK will lead the universe in space travel within the next 5 years.

Man will never fly, I tells 'ya. If man was meant to fly, god would have given him wings.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Presuming that the speed of light remains an insurmountable barrier, we will likely end up more or less marooned in this solar system

The speed of light is an insurmountable barrier. However, that doesn't mean that we can't reach the nearest stars - or even more distant ones! It only means that we can't reach them and return in a useful timeframe.

As a moving body approaches the speed of light, space contracts along the direction of travel. In other words, the faster you go, the less distance there is between you and your destination! If you could travel at the speed of light (which you can't), the distance to ANY destination would shrink to 0.

From the POV of an observer on Earth, a traveller at 99% of c would take just over a year to travel a light year. But from the POV of the traveller, the same journey would take less than a year. Travel fast enough (while still slower than c) and thousands of lightyears can be covered in a few years from the travellers POV - however, while a return trip might only take a decade for them, upon returning to their starting point many thousands of years will have passed there.

So we can go to the stars, we just can't get back and tell anyone!

More details here.

[apophenia]

[hide]

Presuming that the speed of light remains an insurmountable barrier, we will likely end up more or less marooned in this solar system, with ever dwindling resources -- the nearest star being far too distant to reach. Let's also assume that some point in the future, medical science conquers death. No more disease or dying; everybody lives forever. So we have limitless life, and limited resources. Some sort of rationing of existing/living would have to take place, to prevent all our resources being consumed overnight. What kind of ethic or morality would you use to determine who could live, and when, and for how long?

Me would ration things by firing people into the sun. Jews mostly. and black people. and gingers. more Jews. and anyone called Mohammed.

MUST. HELP.... PLEASE... STOP. STOP.. MUST. CAN'T BREATHE... CAN'T... MUST. STOP. BREATHE... NEED. HELP....

[apophenia]

Presuming that the speed of light remains an insurmountable barrier, we will likely end up more or less marooned in this solar system, with ever dwindling resources -- the nearest star being far too distant to reach.

We might be able to reach the Alpha Centauri system in under 100 years using some form of fusion-powered propulsion. ref

Exactly how big is this space ship carrying 100 years worth of supplies supposed to be? And will our crisps still be crisp when we get there? (NASA is actually working on such problems, with respect to a journey to mars; one of the major obstacles is that food stores are hard to sensibly preserve over any length of time. But I suppose if we perfect the nutrient pill, we could supplement it with bulk hydrocarbons. Of course, more advanced aliens like the Vulcans will be pissed when they plow into the trail of poop and pee left in the wake of our brave explorers.)

[hiyymer]

Presuming that the speed of light remains an insurmountable barrier, we will likely end up more or less marooned in this solar system

Presuming we will be around then, which "we" certainly won't be. Maybe we'll be the birds from the dinosaurs a couple of times over by then.

[GrahamH]

Presuming that the speed of light remains an insurmountable barrier, we will likely end up more or less marooned in this solar system, with ever dwindling resources -- the nearest star being far too distant to reach.

We might be able to reach the Alpha Centauri system in under 100 years using some form of fusion-powered propulsion. ref

Exactly how big is this space ship carrying 100 years worth of supplies supposed to be? And will our crisps still be crisp when we get there? (NASA is actually working on such problems, with respect to a journey to mars; one of the major obstacles is that food stores are hard to sensibly preserve over any length of time. But I suppose if we perfect the nutrient pill, we could supplement it with bulk hydrocarbons. Of course, more advanced aliens like the Vulcans will be pissed when they plow into the trail of poop and pee left in the wake of our brave explorers.)

I assume it would be a big ship, with a recyling ecosystem (powered by waste heat from the fusion engine), skeleton crew, passengers in a state of induced hibernation and lots and lots of fusion fuel for 100 years of continuous acceleration. There would be no discharging of waste, it would be far too valuable to throw away.

It might be possible. Someone would have to calculate how much fusion mass to ship mass is required to make the trip in a reasonable time.

[Santa_Claus]

MUST. HELP.... PLEASE... STOP. STOP.. MUST. CAN'T BREATHE... CAN'T... MUST. STOP. BREATHE... NEED. HELP....

That's pretty much what my last girlfreind said.

I named a pillow after her

[ughaibu]

Explanations are how we simplify complex behaviors in the environment into simple rule governed behaviors that allow us to predict responses in our environment.

You seem to mean an explanation in the Hempelian sense of a logical argument, with laws of science as premises and taking the form of a prediction, basically, algorithms which appeal to deterministic or probabilistic models. I think what Santa Claus is getting at, in the opening post, is well illustrated by free will denial. Such denial is conspicuously popular among members of dedicated atheist discussion sites and apart from directly religious reasons, denial is usually based on refusal to accept the inexplicable (if the thing cannot be modeled either deterministically or probabilistically, then it cant exist).

[apophenia]

Explanations are how we simplify complex behaviors in the environment into simple rule governed behaviors that allow us to predict responses in our environment.

You seem to mean an explanation in the Hempelian sense of a logical argument, with laws of science as premises and taking the form of a prediction, basically, algorithms which appeal to deterministic or probabilistic models. I think what Santa Claus is getting at, in the opening post, is well illustrated by free will denial. Such denial is conspicuously popular among members of dedicated atheist discussion sites and apart from directly religious reasons, denial is usually based on refusal to accept the inexplicable (if the thing cannot be modeled either deterministically or probabilistically, then it cant exist).

Dude, if you want to make hay about free will, start a thread about it. (include pictures. lots of them. and big words. lots of them.)

ps. I think you are perhaps conflating the notion of inexplicability with that of incoherence.

[laklak]

Fuck all that cosmic speed limit bullshit. Give me a big enough anti-matter drive and a few six packs of PBR and I'll go directly to ludicrous speed. I ain't lettin no frizzy-haired euro-weenie physicist tell me how fast I can fly. Light speed schmight speed.

[ughaibu]

(include pictures. lots of them. and big words. lots of them.)

What the fuck bullshit is this?

I think you are perhaps conflating the notion of inexplicability with that of incoherence.

I'm not, and if you think I am, then you haven't understood my post.

[Bella Fortuna]

(include pictures. lots of them. and big words. lots of them.)

What the fuck bullshit is this?

I think you are perhaps conflating the notion of inexplicability with that of incoherence.

I'm not, and if you think I am, then you haven't understood my post.

Yes, well... welcome.

[hiyymer]

Explanations are how we simplify complex behaviors in the environment into simple rule governed behaviors that allow us to predict responses in our environment.

You seem to mean an explanation in the Hempelian sense of a logical argument, with laws of science as premises and taking the form of a prediction, basically, algorithms which appeal to deterministic or probabilistic models. I think what Santa Claus is getting at, in the opening post, is well illustrated by free will denial. Such denial is conspicuously popular among members of dedicated atheist discussion sites and apart from directly religious reasons, denial is usually based on refusal to accept the inexplicable (if the thing cannot be modeled either deterministically or probabilistically, then it cant exist).

The experience of color is, so far, inexplicable. Color doesn't "exist" out there. It is an experience created by the brain. Yes it is true that colors correspond to the absorption patterns of light waves striking the retina. But that is just removing the problem one step. We still haven't explained how the brain creates the experience of color. We can theorize that the brain does so because color differentiation is useful for our survival. But we still haven't explained how the brain creates the experience of color.

When it comes to color we are pretty sure there must be a physical causal explanation for how the brain does it, and it must be the brain doing it for where else would it be coming from. It's not inexplicable, just not yet explained. Why isn't the same thing true for free will or God or souls or any number of other inexplicable experiences? They are all created by the brain. No? Do you think they "exist"? Can I "accept" them even if they don't "exist"? Do I need an explanation for everything?

[amused]

Except, color is also a physical attribute of the surface of the object with a color. The object with a color is absorbing all other parts of the light spectrum and reflecting one, the one that is the object's color. Given that happening in the environment, it's not hard to see how evolution would select for the ability to distinguish colors.

[Hermit]

The experience of color is, so far, inexplicable. Color doesn't "exist" out there. It is an experience created by the brain. Yes it is true that colors correspond to the absorption patterns of light waves striking the retina. But that is just removing the problem one step. We still haven't explained how the brain creates the experience of color. We can theorize that the brain does so because color differentiation is useful for our survival. But we still haven't explained how the brain creates the experience of color.

Colour is actually explained by the difference in light frequencies. If it did not exist out there, in the real world, Issac Newton would never have been able to do anything with his prisms. Saying that any gaps in the explanation mean that colour doesn't exist out there is akin to saying that because we don't know the ultimate meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything, some god created it.