General / Off-Topic Hyperspace travel explained by NASA
- Thread starter Norbert
- Start date
Interesting.No need of science fiction to explain hyperspace in 3300AD, NASA is already seriously working on it in 2013
Link here.
vulcans , whats wrong with you man !! everyone knows they are fake !! but we could meet thargoids , there real
I imagine traveling through Hyper space to be something like this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HY_nwi29Ik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HY_nwi29Ik
Yeah - that was very good - but would be a brown trousers time too if it went wrong
Never seen that series of captain Hardock but to mee that seemd like a ship plummeting down to a planet. Didn't look like hyperspace to me! (But if you guys are sure I'll accept it
)
I am not sure I could justify the cost of researching and building this. The problems to overcome dwarf the concept and realization of CERN or the ITER.
We have people dying of malnutrition every day yet the rich west wants to leave them behind and reach for the stars.
Who would reach there? The white elitist scientifically minded people of the first world countries. If science is not paired with ethics, it is useless to me.
And what would go there? Humans. What are humans? A species that acts immorally towards itself, the flora and fauna of their mother world, through the paradigms of capitalism, open market theories and individualism. Would we bring that to a new habitable world? Or would we change a world's unique flora and possible fauna to match our needs?
I don't want the human race to reach any star while we are still so infantile. And there is a serious worry here. It might just turn out to be the case that there are civilizations out there that are checking our progress. Surely the UFO phenomenon points in that direction, validated by the high secrecy of governments about this issue. These civilizations might not be pleased with the way humans treat themselves and their habitat. And they might intervene.
I propose that we stop spending hundreds of billions of currency in such fancy notions and spend it on improving the conditions of life for all people that exists now, before we think of colonization and terraforming of other worlds, or even trying to build the means to get away from Earth.
The problem with science is that it is material, reductionist and nihilistic. It no longer has a heart and all progress is defined not by evolving moral understanding of ourselves as a species but by your value in the economic life in the sense that we are consumers first and most, who buy gadgets of many kinds on open markets in a capitalist system, where scientific research and understanding is valorized by universities and private and corporate research labs into technology in the form of consumer goods.
Since Descartes separated nature into two epistemological parts, the primary and secondary qualities, things have been going downhill.
Despite our self-admiration and breast beating on the 'progress' we have made technologically, at the cost of climate change and the dying off of many species in nature by using fossil fuels, we still have at each other mercilessly.
Moral progress must go hand in hand with any other, if not, the word is unbalanced because we deny 50% of what reality is, which is, the secondary qualities that make life worthwhile.
Therefore I would see science merge with spirituality, like it used to be over 2000 years ago, when people such as the great thinkers of those days dabbled not just in mathematics and such things, but also wrote poetry or plays.
To me that model is not outdated but very much needed.
And as you all will understand, the whole concept of Elite Dangerous seems nothing else than to transport our current paradigms into the future. And most people embrace this mercantile society as something worthy to strife for. Even slaves are no longer a moral issue in that future, which seems to me to be a bleak hopeless and gloomy future.
But there is hope in it as well, because I know that such a future can never exists. For if science does not merge again with spirituality, if ethics do not again begin to guide the hand of progress, then the human race will end up stranded in a swamp it cannot get out of.
Simply because our culture as it is now cannot endure. We are disharmonious with ourselves and the world through the adoption of reductionist science, that leads to climate change and possible extreme conditions on Earth. Climatologists warn us that even if we go green immediately, the Earth will still have a momentum of warming.
I cannot see our culture go on like this for 100 years, let alone thousands. We are reaching the hard boundaries of a finite world. Therefore, to believe that our current culture will somehow muddle along for hundreds of years, then reaching a technological point of being able to build warp drives and colonize other worlds after finding them of course is ridiculous.
It would be utterly apprehensible if we would colonize the stars and re-create 20th and 21st century capitalism on every world. Would we not be parasites, in the same way we create a science fiction film called Independence Day where a species attacks us as a plague of locusts.
It worries me that people project our current way of life into the future based on reductionist materialist science and celebrate it through playing a game.
The only reason I like such space sims is because I know from out of all that I am and believe in, that it will never happen. And this frees me up to enjoy it, but make no mistake, it will never happen because currently, as a species, we might not exist with any ability to create science in 100 years.
At this stage of the human evolution we remain an immoral species, driven by greed and pre-occupied almost solely to material wealth. Our species is overly obsessed with matter. We are beings that take matter and through industrial progress based on scientific (mis) understanding create new arrangement forms of matter we call consumer goods.
If we keep doing this, there cannot be any future like ED predicts.
So that is how I look at science and technology. These things are not neutral to society despite this claim by most scientists. Science currently lies in bed with business. Just look how Information and Communication Theory had lead to the NSA's massive spying capabilities. Science is en enabler of immoral conduct because it is not paired with spirituality.
Science is the business of throwing a club in the hen house, startling all the hens, causing chaos and disruption and then asking the hen society to work out for themselves how to deal with the new situation.
Last edited:
Couldn't be bothered reading your post, stopped after that ^
Thankfully, nobody will ask you to justify it!
Couldn't be bothered reading your post, stopped after that ^
Thankfully, nobody will ask you to justify it!
So why could you not be bothered after that specific line?
The way you worded it. If you'd said "I'm not sure they could justify the cost of researching and building this" I might have made it to line two. Seemed a trifle presumptuous, arrogant even.
But anyway, I did go back and start reading again but it started turning into a weird socialist hippy "my god, who will think of the children" rant and nothing to do with the topic, so I stopped again.
vulcans , whats wrong with you man !! everyone knows they are fake !! but we could meet thargoids , there real
Vulcans...Thargoids...whatever. If we don't meet women in short skirts who need to learn about this human thing called 'kissing', I'm not interested!
Vulcans...Thargoids...whatever. If we don't meet women in short skirts who need to learn about this human thing called 'kissing', I'm not interested!
Vulcans...Thargoids...whatever. If we don't meet women in short skirts who need to learn about this human thing called 'kissing', I'm not interested!
I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's dangerous!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y_nACag-Oc
Yes it is very difficult. To have a personal moral code, that is, to view the world and make a judgment on it. Somehow in today's society, well, actually, even back in the hippy 60's that was unwelcome by those who would rather not think for themselves but just vote in the elections.
Come to think of it, it was always unwelcome, wasn't it.
Strangely, I find myself less and less able not to review society or science for that matter, on its actions.
Last edited:
Well, you know, just try and stick to the topic a little bit... and yes, I realise the irony seeing as I am now off-topic!
If you're so worried about starving people, why are you sitting typing away on a PC you do not need, using electricity you do not need, when the money for that could be helping them? Easy to sit and type and blame governments, etc. I'm not terribly impressed with the level of commitment your "personal moral code" exhibits! Well, you know, just try and stick to the topic a little bit... and yes, I realise the irony seeing as I am now off-topic!
Then again, you do not know anything about me.
But when I respond in any topic I bring all of myself there, so in this topic that means not to criticless accept certain assumptions we have of the world or our society. If there are people who wish to discuss NASA related scientific stuff pertaining to warp drive capabilities they should realize there are costs connected to that, choices made by society because you can spend money only once.
I bring in a point of morality and often people regard that as off topic, but like I argued, science and technology or not neutral endeavors. Often it is not just considered off topic but also unwelcome because in our society we glorify technology and people who step back to frame it in a larger context get told off.
Your argument is hopeless. Because I have an opinion on technology and science and the moral choices we make as a species or as a society and do not without criticism accept how it impacts all of us I would be a hypocrite because I use electrical power?
If that is a valid reasoning then nothing can ever be discussed because in one way or another we are all hopelessly connected to the societal structures in which we are enframed.
It is the same idea that someone who works for a good cause like...Greenpeace e.g. should not earn a lot of money, that they should be poor or make sacrifices greater than the average person would make.
It is not a reasonable argument. It is saying 'go live in a cabin in the swamp if you don't agree with it'. But there is a whole spectrum between extreme opposites, don't you think? I do a lot in my life to save energy and reduce my ecological footprint. No, I am not going to live in the woods like a hermit, why should I be expected to do so? Because I have a valid alternative point of view? Not saying that you suggested that to me, but it is a matter of degree.
So why hold me to a higher standard than you apply to yourself?
Last edited:
Why not? Put up or shut up, as the saying goes! If you're going to expound on the evils of spending money on the development of technology as you sit there at your PC, drinking a cappuccino from your bean-to-cup espresso machine (I made that bit up
) then you should be held to a higher standard. I'm making no such claims - I do give regularly to a charity of my choice but I could do a lot more if I chose. And if I went around preaching about it then I definitely would feel that I should be doing more than the average person.
Never before has a thread on hyperspace engines been so boring...
Back on topic, the maths behind the proposed engine is interesting, but this quoted energy required for the thing to operate is still beyond imagination. You're talking billions of times the strength of our most powerful H-bombs. And even if the energy could be directed there's still no proof that it'll actually bend space like they suggest.
Still, it's cool to think of the *possibility*. So much of the science is stacked against the future of humanity! It would be nice to think we could get out of this solar bubble at some point before the heat death of the universe
Back on topic, the maths behind the proposed engine is interesting, but this quoted energy required for the thing to operate is still beyond imagination. You're talking billions of times the strength of our most powerful H-bombs. And even if the energy could be directed there's still no proof that it'll actually bend space like they suggest.
Still, it's cool to think of the *possibility*. So much of the science is stacked against the future of humanity! It would be nice to think we could get out of this solar bubble at some point before the heat death of the universe