Is there any point in manned space travel if it's impossible to move faster than light?
It seems to me that if humans aren't going to go out and colonize the galaxy there's no point leaving Earth at all. Might as well just send probes and fix up the planet we've got.
>>8043802
Resources from nearby asteroids, m8. Also the exploration factor from making new settlements even in our solar system.
We definitely do need to fix our problems here on Earth, though.
>what is time dilation
>>8043802
You are a wise man, anonymous anon. Your words reflect truth and justice.
>>8043802
Interstellar travel is possible at sub-light speeds, its just not nearly as exciting
>>8043802
There can be n-light. So there is a useful and meaningful purpose to manned space travel. It certainly is not impossible to move faster than light,
>>8043816
There can be n-light. So there is a useful and meaningful purpose to manned space travel. It certainly is not impossible to move faster than light.
I also add, it is certainly possible cheaply. Post videos and photographs of your work. Thanks.
- Victor
>>8043816
oh i see so you must exceed 1-light but there are further bounds n-light
>>8043802
Nope that's why we will send robots
>>8043830
I don't know what you mean by further bounds. Not all light is "light." There is, the light from a flashlight or the light from a livingroom lamp or the light from a computer pc. So I do think that by induction there can be more that one light. Light is not particularly or uniquely singularistic - it is in a case a set of projected discrete quantum units of maybe photons or electrons. In the original post No.8043802 the post is interpretable as without light. I do think that is possible as well. According to "without light" it does seem like there is no problem at all.
>>8043815
>Interstellar travel is possible at sub-light speeds, its just not nearly as exciting
Even warp drive wouldn't be as exciting as we'd like to believe.
Let's say we found one (but _just_ one) other world with life, even pre-Cambrian explosion.
Ideally, we'd want to avoid physical contact lest we destroy the ecosystem of the only other planet fond with life.
It would likely take decades of study before anyone dared risk walking on an alien world.
>>8043802
>Is there any point in manned space travel if it's impossible to move faster than light?
>It seems to me that if humans aren't going to go out and colonize the galaxy there's no point leaving Earth at all.
You've been watching too much science fiction.
Do you have any idea how fucking huge the solar system is? You're saying "Well, I'll never be able to have a planet made entirely out of money, so I might as well not even bother claiming the giant Scrooge-McDuck-style money pool right next door."
The weird thing about space opera is how *small* it makes people think, to the point where an entire solar system seems restrictive and valuless beyond a single plot-relevant planet (which has exactly one biome, one culture, and one city.)
>>8043802
As long as you don't run out of light according to n-light energy and a nice perfectly durable and compact aircraft or light spaceship - then yes I do think such faster than light voyage is possible. Cheaply as well. Kindly post videos or photographs. I do think such a project is quite documentable.
>>8043802
>if it's impossible to move faster than light?
There's really nothing to say that science fiction "warp drives" are absolutely 100% forever impossible by the way, but lack of disproof doesn't necessarily mean that we will find away around the "cosmic speed limit."
That said don't expect to become a space trucker cyborg pilot smuggler action hero any time soon, it took almost sixty years for the idea of manned spaceflight to advance up to Gagarin's flight. It's been over 110 years and we've yet to put a human truly beyond our own gravity well, and if that timeline continues we'll spend the next 300 years barely settling the inner solar system. This is even assuming that somebody's wild and very, very expensive idea of making a "warp capable ship" even gets funding.
>>8044062
>if that timeline continues we'll spend the next 300 years barely settling the inner solar system
I'm sure we'll send people all over the inner solar system eventually, but I really don't think we're looking at "settlement" in the foreseeable future.
Human population growth has been in decline since 1963, and has dropped from 2%/year back then to just 1.1% /year today.
Much of our continued growth is caused by modern medicine extending people's lifespans.
In the long run, we're unlikely to expand into space because of population pressures.
>>8044180
>Human population growth has been in decline since 1963
I'm really going to need a source on that one.
>In the long run, we're unlikely to expand into space because of population pressures.
Actually if you look at the rate of urbanization and the associated problems with how most of the world does the whole city thing... yeah, "tomorrow's Earth" isn't going to be a fun place and that alone could prompt people to expand outward.
Though I do agree that self-sustaining settlement (the only kind that matters) in the foreseeable future is rather unlikely.
>>8044196
>>Human population growth has been in decline since 1963
>I'm really going to need a source on that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate
>Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.2% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.[4]
>>8044232
>source was asked for
>provides a source
Thanks! That is interesting, I didn't think it was so low because my career has been focused around Southeast Asia and I know first-hand that cities like Hong Kong are fucking packed and it's just getting worse.
