/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

Because it has no mass. Universe has expanded for a shitload of time. Life is cruel.

get the fuck out with your "physically impossible" bullshit

I don't care what economics say

The solution is to put our brains into robots and get launched to space. When you're immortal you don't care about distances. Fuck, the robots could even be spaceships for all I know. Could you imagine your body being a spaceship? That would be so cool.

What about the nucler powered rocket that could take us there in 40 years?

There, there, anon. One day your great grandkids could be cryogenically frozen and sent off on a 4000 year voyage to AC.

>>580
A better question is why are our lives so short?
These problems wouldn't even be depressing, they would be motivating to find solutions if we had an indefinite lifespan.
Funny how drastically time can change how we look at things.

>bend space around you
>profit

what don't you understand

>>580
Stasis technology, travel at something "slow" like 0.005*c and you get there in 800 years.

Could be feasible, of course the question becomes who would voluntarily take part in a 800 year stasis when in all probability better technology would be invented in that time frame to accomplish the same travel faster.

or what
>>598
said, 1,000,000,000 independent robot husks slowly drifting through space sounds rad as fuck. Even if a few million get knocked out by asteroids or gamma rays the bulk could still drift to the planet.

I'm getting a sci-fi boner I gotta take a breather.

>>685
>of course the question becomes who would voluntarily take part in a 800 year stasis when in all probability better technology would be invented in that time frame to accomplish the same travel faster
But it's not like you're going to be alive for that 800 years.
If they do get there faster, then that's great, you just got yourself a ticket to 800 years in the future and can learn all sorts of stuff from the people that got their before you while you were asleep. If they don't get there before you well then mission accomplished, maybe earth was destroyed shortly after you left or something. Either way it's win win.
If I were 40-50yrs old and it didn't look like we were going to conquer the aging process any time soon then I would volunteer for this

>>580
>Time dilation only kicks in at ~90% lightspeed
You missed the point of relativity. It's about acceleration, not speed.

>>616

And we are getting older, there's a real prossibility that interplanetary travel will be common in our lifetime, so that's something.

I just hope to not be a geriatric fuck so i can enjoy it.

>>580
if we were to travel at light speed and keep increasing speed from our point of view, in actuality we'd be bending time. For you, it is exactly the same as moving faster. It's for observers that it looks different. As such, space colonization is theoretically possible.

>>859
It's actually about speed, but the effect of time dilation only actualizes as acceleration changes.

Traveling at light speed won't burn you as long as you don't collide with anything. With fusion we could potentially produce enough energy to move at that speed. Also you can move at a constant speed in a vacuum as there is no air resistance

>>620
this. I believe we'll need to think 4th dimensionally before we're able to make any significant movement throughout our universe.

ALCUBIERRE DRIVE
L
C
U
B
I
E
R
R
E

D
R
I
V
E

>>620
Wouldn't you be bending the space around you at speeds faster than light?

How is that an exploit?

I think someone needs a cheery hot cup of Ray Kurzweil's Singularity. There you go, bub. Cheer up.

>>1342
I should add on however, that I am not sure of how Mankind should solve the problems of proton decay, the great rip that threatens to tear everything apart (due to the metric expansion of space) and the chance of a brane of another multiverse colliding with our own brane and creating another big bang event. These problems must be solved if mankind wishes to live on to around the age of 10^90 years old.

>>1166

vapor ware ;_;>>1166

light travels faster than itself when getting sucked into a black hole. It is an infinitely big universe and the possibilities are equally as infinite. the only thing that is impossible is for something to be impossible.

>>1358
And 2+2=5 somewhere, in some place faraway right? No. One cannot prove a falsity. A falsity is an absurdity that prove everything and as such would prove its own inexistance. ∀a. a is not true and cannot be true.

>>1366
At a more sneaky level, I could also go on to argue that even if you do not except truths such as Modus Ponendo Ponens or Modus Tollendo Tollens that things that are possible are still limited by the ability of your logical system to describe them. A logic is a machine or mathematical function that takes in a proposition of some carefully defined type P that results in a yes or no answer. Even in some logic that returns yes for any proposition of the type P (say for example, the empty type ∀a. a) the logic cannot return yes for a proposition not of the type P because it cannot be applied to a proposition not of the type P. Even if you have some logic of the type (∃a. a) → {0,1} that takes in ANY proposition of the type ∃a. a (which is any proposition at all) you cannot take into the function a metaproposition that generalizes over logics in general as such as a metaproposition is a type itself. Even if you introduce a type of types (lets call it Type0) and say that your logic reasons about propositions of type (∃a. a) ∨ Type0 you still cannot reason about types of types (let's call these Type1's). Even if you introduce a hierarchy of types and have a Typeℵ₀ where ℵ₀ is the infinity of the size of the set of natural numbers Georg Cantor proved that there are still greater infinities beyond that and it is not possible to great a greatest possible set or infinity. So it is impossible to have a logic where everything is true because it is impossible to reason about everything itself. Infinity is simply too big to call true.

>>1366

you know, there are about a hundred examples that mathmatically prove that 2+2=5.

>>1366
In a big enough universe (like 10^100^100^100^100^100 hubble volumes or something), there is a hubble volume where any empirical experiment and any thought experiment would yield 2+2=5, by Boltzmann brain quantum fuckery. So yes, there are Hubble volumes where 2+2=5 for all intents and purposes.

For every hubble volume where 2+2=5 breaks down at t=0 there are like 10^100^100 as many hubble volumes where it broke down a femtosecond earlier, but it still fits because the universe is just that big. There would be a Hubble volume where t=0 is billions of years after the end of inflation.

Similarly, there are Hubble volumes where, by random chance compensated by anthropic selection, FTL travel empirically works because the spaceship dematerialises and rematerialises at a greater distance than light could have traveled. There are even Hubble volumes where, by random chance, this occurs only while obeying specific bullshit sci fi rules. In a sufficiently large universe, Star Wars is occurring somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, a shadowplay that only exists because it is never fully impossible, where the odds of the next second occurring are unfathomable, but overcome by sheer anthropics.

>>1371
> olbert's paradox

Is obsoleted by cosmological redshift. It presumes a steady state. As it turns out there is light from every point in the universe - the CMBR - it's just redshifted to 2.7 Kelvin because the universe has gotten two thousand times bigger since it was last a sea of light.

The history before 370000 years after when by blind extrapolation the big bang singularity would have occurred is invisible.

>>1368
Like common core?

>>1377
Interesting, but you realize that argument has nothing to do with the actual truth or falsity of the actual proposition 2 + 2 = 5 but only humanity's weak fragility and limited ability to reason about things.

>>1385
You said "one cannot prove a falsity". As I showed, any physical form of "proving" can end up with one proving 2+2=5. So unless you have access to an extraphysical computer which does not have the possibility of quantum-mechanical error, you wouldn't be able to prove 2+2=4 either, by a definition of proof that is simple and consistent with your statement that you can't prove 2+2=5 anywhere.