Okay, so what is so rediculous? The man believe that faster than light travel is possible...lots of people do, and it's not a conspiracy theory either. There are scientists who think it's possible. It's an open area of debate. I really don't see the folly of Clark's comments, it's not like he's planning to pour billions and billions in taxes into developing light speed travel. It's just one of those little motivational things. The StarWars thing however IS a little off, first of all there is prominent people all over saying how rediculous it is...the money that goes to that could better be spent on fighting terrorism for real. Who know's maybe StarWars will work, it's still to early to tell. As for rediculous believes, you ostracize Clark and make him sound like a Trekie, when in fact he was just commenting on the Technological Progress of mankind.

The notion of shooting down a missile- something that has been demonstrated to be quite possible- is "a little off", but traveling faster than the speed of light is possible... despite the fact if violates laws of physics that have withstood decades of scrutiny... OK then.

Enjoy those "Farscape" reruns.

Personally I don't watch sci-fi, it's just never interested me...as for that little post above, you completely missed the point fuckface. Clark isn't proposing billions of dollars into developing a light speed star-ship or something, that's for the leader of the white robe wearing cult your in, talk to him about that after target practice this weekend. The comment by clark was simply how fast man is progressing technology wise, he doesn't aim to travel to distant galaxies...perhaps a literalist like you wouldn't understand. Can I ask you something, do you take the bible literally? If so I think you should get involved in the discussion of Evolutionism vs. Creationism, where I will downright own you. I'm in a fucking crappy mood today, so all fights are on if anyone want's to give me shit... ;)

As if that meant something impressive in the world of science?

Lots of things have withstood whole "decades" of scrutiny. How long did we think the world was flat?

Science ADVANCES dude. Thats what it does.

Physics apparently never interested you either. The whole point isn't whether Clark wants to build the Millenium Falcon, but the fact that he's talking out his ass. Nothing more, nothing less. Seriously, this is sophmore level college physics at most, and Clark says something that would appeal to few outside the UFO conspiracy geek crowd.

What's the matter, did the store run out of Clamato and salt / vinegar chips? Someone burn your back bacon this morning? Did your dog sled team that takes you to school daily get attacked by a moose?

"We" didn't think the world was flat- this was pushed by certain religious edicts, not science (which knew better).

I'll stand by what's been supported by decades of extensive experiments and scrutiny... rather than the speculation of those who would cast aside all we know with stupid statements like "science advances". No shit, Sherlock. I suppose Newtons laws of thermodynamics could be wrong too... but given how long they've been around without being proven wrong, I'll accept them as accurate. As stated above, this is college freshman / sophomore level physics... dude.

Despite the fact that several well respected theories have not withstood the expansion of human knowledge, it seems highly unlikely we will achieve FTL travel. To do so would require a fundemental shift in what we know of the laws of the universe.

However, even the most respected of scientists will say that however unlikely it seems now, if our understanding of the way things work changes that it may become possible.

I don't see Hp making the point that Clark is an idiot, more that he simply doesn't have a clear understanding of the limitations of science. (like a great many people in the world). Just because millions of people believe they have had out-of-body experiences or believe they have met aliens (usually in the moments just before they fall asleep or awake), or even that there really are ghosts floating around doesn't make it scientifically provable. Once you fall outside the realm of being able to show facts you fall into faith. Which is something science clearly tries to avoid because it is about what people believe, not what they can prove.

In fact, there is absolutely no solid evidence of any of the above. As for FTL travel, even the noted physicist Carl Sagan said that it may become possible, that even he wished it were (Demon-Haunted World), but also that given our current understanding of science, physics and the way the universe works it's highly unlikely.

My thought? Don't attack science and facts for pointing out the limitations of what's possible and don't confuse wanting something with being able to obtain it.

Again I say: I'm not defending that man can achieve lightspeed travel, I'm just pointing out the painfully obvious (which isn't obvious enough for you I guess) Clark was just making a comment about the Technological Progress of man...

As for those poorly constructed personal insults...Clamato tastes like shit, yes I do like Salt and Vinegar Chips-but that's a coincidence...? I don't eat bacon, and dog sleds and moose are WAY up north...man, you claim to understand sophmore college physics, but you know NOTHING about the few hundred miles above you....just pitifull.

Well said.

I'd stand by this as well. In addition to science, sailors long knew the world was not flat. They had their superstitions and myths but the Irish, Icelandic and Vikings sailed to the coast of North America - some as far south as what is now Virginia - for nearly a century before Columbus made his little jaunt. (and if you go back even further for places around the Med. the phoenicians, moors, turks, greeks knew this too)

It's also well documented that the Irish had been fishing off the Grand Banks for nearly a century before Leif Erickson made a community in what is now Nova Scotia.

Next when he says that 2 + 2 = 5, you'll claim that he's merely making a comment about how peoples perceptions differ.

Oh, and moose aren't "WAY up north"... I've seen numerous moose in northern Minnesota, eh. Now go tap some maple trees for syrup on your way to hockey practice, eh.

Um, what religion do you follow? Because I hope you know, the Protestants were VERY opposed to the idea of a spherical earth. They persecuted Gallileo just as bad as anyone...only the Catholic church had enough power to actually do something about it. And further, the Catholic church wasn't opposed to the idea that the earth was round, for Crap Sake, the Pope himself named some of Gallileo's books. Gallileo and the Church were best of friends (something the protestants spoke out against aswell) But it was when Gallileo started to discredit the church, and make fun of it in his writings that they did something about it...

In Canada the Moose are no where in my Area, it's about a 3-4 hour drive to get to the forests...so yeah, I have to go up North to see them...

As for you predicting the future, about how I'll judge Clark's claims, that's rediculous, go watch more of that Miss Cleo. I'm making no large err in stating the obvious...Clark was making a comment about how fast mankind is advancing, does anyone really think he plans to build a Star Ship? Maybe your interpretation is a little off...

And as for Maple Tree', again your ignorance of anything outside the gunclub amuses me. Sorry dude, no maple tree's here...you have to go WAY down East for those....oh, and Hockey...what's wrong with Hockey? It takes a certain kind of person to play hockey, do you know just how rough that game is? Ever seen a guy get body checked, over boards, through the glass, and then have the shit beat out of him with the blade of a hockey stick? Or do you just compensate for your considerably small Penis with Guns and such...

Hehe, there was actually a family guy episode about that...

Actually, the small penis thing is attributed more to weightlifters than gun owners...

So it takes you 3-4 hours on your snomobile to get to where the moose are? That's a pretty long ride.

So the moral is that some people know what others don't?

Perhaps you should consider that before you refuse to question your knowledge.

Glad you could figure the lesson out on your own though!

Lep ... just a pet peeve that you don't have to listen to if you aren't inclined, but it's ridiculous, not rediculous

No worries, thanks man. I type a little fast to be worrying about spelling however...

Weightlifters who use steroids? Yes. Us Natural Weight Lifters? No we're just trying to bulk up so our bodies don't look so small compared to our enormous penis'.

3-4 hours in a car, I wish I had a snow mobile...they're not street legal though...but still, if I could have one for fields and such...man that'd be sweet.

Interesting.

You realize you're the kind of person who was saying it was ridiculous to think that men would ever fly in heavier than air machines because it violated the laws of gravity?

Actually it seems to me that you are confusing science with the beliefs and fears of “people.” “Science” never made the claim that people would never fly because the laws of gravity prohibited it – a few misguided scientists, in their zealousness to declare, “All things knowable are now known,” certainly could have subscribed to this statement, but by and large “science” itself and scientists in general made no such universal statement. The scientific method prohibits such broad statements as fact. Einstein’s Theories in the mid-20th cent merely provided an explanation for why Newtonian physics fail with large numbers, such as planetary mass and speed of light equations.

In fact, Leonardo Da Vinci showed that man could fly if only he could find a way to make aerodynamics work in his favor. Da Vinci showed this, roughly 500 years ago, with both a drawing of a bird’s wings attached to a human torso (in modern times used to make a hang-glider) and a model of a helicopter - he recorded it on paper and surviving records indicate he built working models which he tested in his lab with some success. So it seems clear he at least was fairly certain it could be done, else why waste the time to write it down?

The concept of FTL travel remains highly unlikely because, to date, the physics behind it say that the closer you approach the speed of light the heavier you get and the more you slow down (if you are the one traveling). As HP has pointed out, this is college-level physics.

The following is taken from Sagan's comments on Einstein's published theories. Einstein can be tough to read but Sagan put it into lay-person's terms fairly well.

E=mc**2

Sagan, (Broca’s Brain, 1979)
“Fortunately for us, we live in a universe that has at least important parts that are knowable. Our common-sense experience and our evolutionary history have prepared us to understand something of the workaday world. When we go into other realms, however, common sense and ordinary intuition turn out to be highly unreliable guides. It is stunning that as we go close to the speed of light our mass increases indefinitely, we shrink towards zero thickness in the direction of motion, and time for us comes as near to stopping as we would like. Many people think that this is silly, and every week or two I get a letter from someone who complains to me about it. But it is a virtually certain consequence not just of experiment but also of Albert Einstein's brilliant analysis of space and time called the Special Theory of Relativity. It does not matter that these effects seem unreasonable to us. We are not in the habit of traveling close to the speed of light. The testimony of our common sense is suspect at high velocities.”

Traveling faster than light may be more possible than you think. The best theory of light travel I’ve heard isn’t strapping enough rocket fuel on a ship to do it. Prepare for major dork explanation:


In order to move faster than light, Einstein said since light has zero mass, the only way to travel faster or the same speed you would have to 0 or -1 mass, which would in theory be impossible. But you could also get around it.

Let’s say you were in point of space and you wanted to travel to another point faster than light. What you would have to do is take both points and bend space and time to make them one point. And then once the points are separated, you would be at the destination point. Since the effect is instantaneous it would technically be traveling faster than light, even though you never really moved.

Gee, now all you have to do is bend space and time, sounds easy right? Yea, that’ll probably be the wrench in the gears. But to most of the scientific world, this concept is already thought to be present in many space anomalies, (such as black-holes) so it may be possible for technology as well. “You’re still not thinking fourth dimensionally!!”


Again that’s all theory and not fact, blah blah blah.

Also, what’s wrong with being a Trekkie and a sci-fi geek? Is it not possible we also went to college and took science classes?

i found one of the best explanations on describing the fourth dimension a while back. thought i'd share it with you guys. i'm paraphrasing... bear with me.

essentially it's like this. if you draw a two dimensional object on paper, you can touch it's center without going through one of it's sides. if you drew a square on notebook paper, you could take your finger, and touch the center without having to go through the bounding lines. now then, something that is four dimensional, could take a solid cube, and touch the center, in the same manner, without going through any of the sides. crazy eh?

Correct me if I'm wrong,

but Isn't the 4th dimension time....I never really cared about the subject, I'll do some research.

i used to think so also, but like i said, i did a little research on it. apparently scientists/big thinkers, consider the fourth dimension to be another spatial dimension. you know hyper-space on star trek? that's kinda the fourth dimension. it ties in with time... but it doesn't. hard to explain. and the only way to represent it is with a "hyper cube". look it up. educate yourself. :)

Thanks man, I'm on it.

Yeah, 4th dimension = time is a massive oversimplification.

I think what you are referring to is an Einstein-Rosen bridge, aka "wormhole.” Currently there are two such theories Einstein-Rosen’s and another based on quantum field theory – both are thought to behave very differently.

They are also thought to involve the 4th dimension - something Einstein theorized as “Time.” Einstein's original idea's on wormholes were sparked by his earlier work on the General Theory of Relativity (1916) and were developed with a guy named Nathan Rosen in the 1930s.

They discovered that the equations actually represent a black hole as a bridge between two regions of flat space-time, a phenomenon known as an "Einstein-Rosen bridge". A black hole always has two "ends" (black hole/white hole – one sucks stuff in the other spews it out the other end), a property ignored by everyone except a few mathematicians until the 1980s.

Confused yet? Well it gets just a little better. When Carl Sagan was working on his novel Contact in the early 1980s, he contacted a guy named Kip Thorne at CalTech and asked if there was a way to explain safe travel through such a singularity. Sagan wanted a method of moving his character faster than light while not violating Relativity. Thorne set two of his PhD students, Michael Morris and Ulvi Yurtsever, the task of working out some details of the physical behavior of "wormholes".

The students found that the widely held belief of a singularity having two ends was wrong. The way they set about the problem was the opposite of how everyone before them had thought about black holes. They worked backwards and started out by constructing the mathematical description of a geometry that described a traversable wormhole. They then used the equations of the General Theory of Relativity to work out what kinds of matter and energy would be associated with it.

They investigated to see if there was any way in which the known laws of physics could conspire to produce the required geometry. They found there is, however in order to traverse an Einstein-Rosen bridge from one universe to the other, an object would have to move faster than light at some stage of the journey. They also discovered that this kind of wormhole would be unstable, that any particle of matter that entered it would cause it to collapse. The theories don’t stop there. There are some ideas of how to keep it stable and then there are ideas about the quantum field version which are also very interesting – but highly theoretical. See Stephan Hawking’s work on those.

Yes it is a simplification, however for the purpose of this kind of discussion it seems suitable

i want to see some

i want to see some