|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:23 pm
I'm a firm believer in the idea that in order to properly enjoy reading or writing science fiction, one must be a fan of science, especially the up-and-coming inventions and the as-yet unexplainable. It is our ability to invent and investigate that drives science to the limits. Sometimes these inventions are debunked, either as a hoax or as a mundane effect that doesn't seem to hold much promise. Sometimes these inventions hold amazing promise, but nobody knows how they work. Sometimes these inventions are ignored.
So, this is a thread for posting about mind-boggling scientific experiments and inventions that may, one day, revolutionize our world. Or at least our science fiction. xd
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:35 pm
Faster Than Light Experiments ( 2) ( 3) -- Some experiments have found it possible to transmit certain things faster than the speed of light. The Joseph Newman Energy Machine ( 2) ( 3) - In theory, this machine utilizes a form of energy that is normally lost in power generators. By doing so, the machine outputs more useable energy than it consumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:43 pm
Ooo, careful. >.< You have to be very careful making claims like that, because the phrase "speed of light" is a very, very complicated thing. Light itself has many "speeds". Photons are not little balls zipping through space at c, they are coherent packages of electromagnetic perturbations (wave-packets) (and wow, do i win an award for awesome technobabble?). There are several speeds associated with wave-packets - the group velocity, the phase velocity, the signal velocity and so on. Which one is the "speed" of light? Depends on the context. Long story short, though, if those claims are the same ones that i am thinking of, they do not really say anything particularly new or exciting about light. They certainly don't imply that any information can be transmitted faster than c. However, are you familiar with the Alcubierre or "warp" drive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:43 pm
Theoretically, if you could travel faster than the speed of light then you would be moving backwards in time so how would we be able to transmit things faster than light? Though I suppose it would get rid of the distance delay. I'd like to travel faster than light and go back in time. blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:33 am
i think,
to travel faster than light yound need a vacuum.
well, obviously space.
and its... SPACIAS (( Apologies for lame jokes... ))
so if we go as fast as we can in space using the "sling shot "
technique with planets,
then create a subspace pocket.
going in,
using the thrust from that out.
then repeating the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:51 pm
I think nanotechnology is seriously underrated. My best friend is in to that kind of stuff, and I can sit and listen for hours and hours about the amazing stuff that goes on at his university in nanotechnology, and the kinds of things that may be possible in the future. Here's an awesome example that he's working on right now. It's a 2D screen that can create true, perfect 3D images. It's actually real, and will probably be available in the next 10-20 years. If you built a room with walls made out of these screens, it would be just like the holodeck on Star Trek (only, nothing would be solid). Have you heard of Richard Feynman? He was one of the most brilliant scientists of the last century, up there with Einstein and Schrodinger and company... and he was a bit of a character. He used to play the bongos. Anyway, this guy gave a speech in 1959 about a dream he had about the future of technology... a dream that we're only now beginning to explore. I recommend reading his speech here - it's very simple to understand, no real science or math, and it is pretty much the vision that started the field. Keep in mind that this speech was given in 1959. That was before the integrated circuit - powerful computers were still the size of buildings. Here's his favourite idea that he loves to talk about - imagine taking your cell phone and dropping it in the middle of the road and letting a car run over it. Trashed, right? Now, imagine being able to take the remains of that phone, leave them on your desk overnight, and in the morning, you have a perfectly good phone again. Here's my favourite. How about being able to live practically forever, and never age? That is what is coming with nanotechnology. And it's closer than you might think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:05 am
I'm not sure about this, but in my Science class, I figured if you were to travel faster than light with a strong enough telescope to look into the earth as you travel back wards, I guessed that you could see everything rewind, I just thought of that and my teacher thought it was pretty smart, so just would like to know what you all think about the idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:06 am
I don't think you are Physically going back in time if you travel faster than light, just visually from the things you are moving away from, and going in time to the objects you fly towards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:48 am
Aenakume Ooo, careful. >.< You have to be very careful making claims like that, because the phrase "speed of light" is a very, very complicated thing. Light itself has many "speeds". Photons are not little balls zipping through space at c, they are coherent packages of electromagnetic perturbations (wave-packets) (and wow, do i win an award for awesome technobabble?). There are several speeds associated with wave-packets - the group velocity, the phase velocity, the signal velocity and so on. Which one is the "speed" of light? Depends on the context. Long story short, though, if those claims are the same ones that i am thinking of, they do not really say anything particularly new or exciting about light. They certainly don't imply that any information can be transmitted faster than c. However, are you familiar with the Alcubierre or "warp" drive? I think you deserve an award not only for thechnobabble but understanding what you said. I think light is one of those interesting things that i don't think we'll ever fully understand. Like how it acts in waves and particles. Btw, Einstein said that it IS possible to SEE into the past/future, but not to physically go there as the human body would not withstand it. I don't know how the seeing would be possible i haven't read up enough on it. But i've thought that was interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:13 pm
Aenakume I think nanotechnology is seriously underrated. My best friend is in to that kind of stuff, and I can sit and listen for hours and hours about the amazing stuff that goes on at his university in nanotechnology, and the kinds of things that may be possible in the future. Here's an awesome example that he's working on right now. It's a 2D screen that can create true, perfect 3D images. It's actually real, and will probably be available in the next 10-20 years. If you built a room with walls made out of these screens, it would be just like the holodeck on Star Trek (only, nothing would be solid). Have you heard of Richard Feynman? He was one of the most brilliant scientists of the last century, up there with Einstein and Schrodinger and company... and he was a bit of a character. He used to play the bongos. Anyway, this guy gave a speech in 1959 about a dream he had about the future of technology... a dream that we're only now beginning to explore. I recommend reading his speech here - it's very simple to understand, no real science or math, and it is pretty much the vision that started the field. Keep in mind that this speech was given in 1959. That was before the integrated circuit - powerful computers were still the size of buildings. Here's his favourite idea that he loves to talk about - imagine taking your cell phone and dropping it in the middle of the road and letting a car run over it. Trashed, right? Now, imagine being able to take the remains of that phone, leave them on your desk overnight, and in the morning, you have a perfectly good phone again. Here's my favourite. How about being able to live practically forever, and never age? That is what is coming with nanotechnology. And it's closer than you might think. You do have a couple of good points, however, should we enable teh human body to live (practically) forever, then something would have ot eventually fail, be it the human body or the machines keeping hte person alive. The most likely thing would be teh human, considering it isn't, and most likely WON'T be designed to handle the kind of stress nano-tech would have on it. Now for use in MEDICINE, I can see it being used in 'miracle' drugs, being that cancers could be removed safely and far more effecently then by a human, not to mention the numerous methodologys of using it for computers. Imagine, having a super computer the size of a fingernail! Not to mention the fact it's use in entertainment! Holograms? simple. Just have a bunch of nano-bots form the object. Virtual Reality? done. Get a whole building set aside, and have nano-bots in rooms form the worlds the players enter. Nanotechnology's uses in all aspects of human life is greater then most people realize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:03 am
Thanks, I didn't know about that nano tech stuff.
I've heard that they're coming out with screens that you can paint on a wall-- and screens that you can roll up and take with you. Can't remember where I read that. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:40 pm
I don't believe one has to enjoy science fiction one need to be a fan of science or up-and-coming inventions. I know a bunch of people who hate science but love science finction, and the GOOD stuff like Asimov and Clake, and I know people who could care less about the new inventions too but they love science fiction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:10 pm
Well If any of u read the orginal I, Robot book... it talks about traveling threw space faster then light but bye that u end up dieing.... but u do come back to life... 0.o weird concept...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:45 am
Time travel / Speed of Light / Sound ... All fields that in time we will break. I can remember reading some old documents that people in older times thought that the car was impossible because one couldn't break the 60mph barrier. We humans only conceptualize on what we haven't done yet. Traveling in time is simply impossible. Things simply evolve and don't de-evolve for a traveler simply because they are moving really quickly. If anything the person who accelerates to a massive speed over a circular orbit around the Earth could see time slow down but certainly not backwards. If anything the person traveling around the planet is changing their own speed of existence- in such a way that they will meet the Light to Energy Barrier. Without some mediation during the speed increase, the traveller would simply atomize - then POOF !! No more traveler as anyone would recognize them.
Kinda' scary. But I imagine the first people to travel a train thought they reached the height of speed also, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:09 pm
thats true... plus theoreticly... if u went to the north or south pole and kept waling across the date line... u would be going back in time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
