Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by buoy

  1. Hi all,


    Recently I've watched a few BBC Documentaries re the moon. Previous to this I really didn't think going to the moon was worth it - going to mars was the next logical goal. Perhaps the moon can allow us to "practice" - or at least that was my line of thought.


    The documentary I watched (link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMAC0ZZxZC4#t=50m -- watch from 50 minutes onwards) talks about using the moon for practical applications such as energy collection and using the raw materials on the planet as a manufacturing base for things like rocket fuel, water and "fibreglass".


    I also had the idea that to shield occupants for long space journeys, encasing the craft in many dozens of feet of water betwen the exterior and interior hulls would work quite well - except for the fact that it would take an enormous amount of fuel to get that water up there from earth.


    Since the moon has 400 billion liters of water in the poles (apparently, refer to youtube link above) one use for that water, along with the ability to produce fiberglass from fabrication plants close by would be to create hulls filled with water and get these giant monolith tankers into space. Not only would they provide shielding from high energy rays but other tankers could be used in a life support role etc.



    So, to recap. The moon appears to be a potential boon for doing everything else since we can most likley do the following:


    - Manufacture more rocket fuel

    - Manufacture more structural components

    - Huge water reservoir

    - Low gravity leads to more cost-effective launching of these huge reserves of water and other spacecraft

    - Communications on the far side of the moon have less noise from earth (already the James Webb telescope is going to be positioned there for this very reason)

    - No atmosphere allows solar array collection at almost 1.5x the energy conversion as that of earth. Constructing a lunar-based array of solar satellites "... would be cheaper than Earth-based materials for a system of as few as thirty Solar Power Satellites of 10GW capacity each." (source: "Lunar Resources Utilization for Space Construction" by General Dynamics' Convair Division, under NASA contract NAS9-15560 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1983077470.pdf )

  2. ^ Very true. I must point out an error I made --- I said there was only 18 tons of platinum on earth in total. This was wrong (my mistake!) I think the output of one plant somewhere is 18 tons or something but thankfully from the massive meteorite showers that bombarded the early earth billions of years ago we have an abundance of gold and platinum that, if it was able to all be mined and processed (impossible obviously with our technology at least for the moment) we would be able to coat the entire earth in a gold and platinum sphere 4 meters thick.


    I think the moon would be an awesome place to set up a base for several reasons. I might start another thread for that one since this one seems to have a lot more interest than I thought it would get!

  3. Well, astronomers have found asteroids the size of half a football field which are basically made of pure platinum. When the previous star went supernova and ejected the elements, all the elements were arranged in descending order. You had uranium right at the core and helium on the outside. Then it goes boom and all this stuff just flies apart... and when they coalesque around various points in orbit around the new sun they may crash into each other and break apart... but these newly formed celestial bodies sometimes reach hydrostatic equilibrium and sort out all the elements for us in nice layers... then they get broken apart and that's what we got between mars and jupiter.... a huge asteroid belt. Some asteroids are pure gold. Others pure diamond. Even others are made of pure platinum... and they are just floating out there :lol:


    There is only 18 tons of platinum that is estimated to exist on earth in total! That stuff is crazy for certain things........... and we got an asteroid the size of half a football field floating out there. Yeah I think these billionaires minds are ticking over. I think you're right! :)

  4. But wouldn't it take the same amount if time to deaccelerate, so if it took 1yr to reach close to that speed would you need another year to stop?


    Braking distances would be epic lol


    Yep I'm sure we mentioned turning the ship around and decelerating. But to be completely clear, yes, you basically cut your trip into quarters. 25% accelerate, 25% brake (as in the half way point of the journey you turn the ship around and point the thrusters towards your destination)... reach destination. Turn back to earth. 25% accelerate, 25% brake.

  5. So once again, If 'light speed' was called "Light Time", would there be an argument? Would there be the confusion that now exists which scares people or keeps space travel (and time travel for that matter) in the "sci-fi" category?


    I wish they called it something else besides a speed limit. It just........ aah well. They had their reasons but they confuse the crap out of the general populace and many bright sparks who would enter science end up being billionaries on wall street reading stocks and building useless dot coms and go work for oil companies and law firms in useless but hightly lucrative dead-end occupations.... when if they were inspired enough by what they saw around them to pursue science we may have a few more "einsteins" alive and kicking working all this stuff out for the rest of us :P


    Do we delve into the multi-verse theories? i.e. travelling at light speed would mean you could jump 'membranes' and slide into another version/time/possibility of the universe?


    There was some debate on what would happen... perhaps the rules of that other brane is not the same as ours and you'd, well, get f**ked up at the sub-atomic level or something like that :P if it were even possible to get to doing such a thing.



    I think some of you have already worked it out but yes, this would lead logic to ponder the usefulness of this time dilation effect to move forward (fast-forward) in time in relation to other areas of spacetime.


    There are simpler methods on the horizon like cryonics and suspended animation which can put a human body in stasis for long periods of time, but let's say that in the following decades they decided to send someone to Proxima Centauri (Alpha Centauri) using nuclear reactor engines and an array of ion drives (these exist, NASA uses them and are testing more powerful prototypes for such interstellar travel)... depending on how close they get to c (c is the speed of light in the famous equation E=mc^2) they would experience a degree of time dilation.


    Unfortunately the time dilation effect isn't very extreme until you get quite close to c.... perhaps over 0.75 and greater or three-quarters of the way to c. Travelling at half light speed, although an amazing feat, nets you very little time dilation (thus my quoting the "almost" 94 billion years it would have taken a craft to traverse the 47 billion light-year-wide observable universe in an earlier post). But if you get closer to c... and I mean close enough to get into the 0.9's you are starting to push for some serious time dilation effects.


    Here's a little scenario:


    The reason why I initially picked 1g of acceleration for the spaceship example was because that 9.8m/s/s thrust by an array of ion drives is a magical amount of thrust NASA is aiming for with its drives (they are NOT anywhere near this yet unfortunately but the tech is very very early and they are making huge advances with very simple tweaks). Why? Because

    1. Since 9.8m/s/s is the gravitational pull of the earth, being able to exert 9.8m/s/s of acceleration means you can defy earths gravity with very little extra thrust. That means ion engine equipped spacecraft can take off........... from the surface of the earth.

    2. 9.8m/s/s continuous acceleration solves the problem of astronauts bones becoming brittle in a weightless environment and which is plaguing plans for a trip to mars etc, etc. You would use this inertial force as a gravitational SUBSTITUTE since it's not gravity at all it is simply a g-force experienced as a function of acceleration, it does the same thing to the occupants of the craft. Same with a spinning centrifuge and the centrifugal force.

    3. If a craft is accelerating at 9.8m/s/s they will reach 0.97c (within 0.03% of the speed of light) IN ONE f**king YEAR.


    That is amazing. If you can accelerate for 1g for 1 year you are time-travelling into the future as a bi-product of your interstellar voyage.


    Mind = blown.


    Thus if you have a property investment on earth you could conceivably set up your assets to be managed by funds, have the rent put into accounts and when you come back from your holiday enjoy a sizeable small fortune of accumulated wealth with no additional personal living expenses (gosh buoy, you're thinking like that O_o your mind is warped [ED: I know] ).


    But what if in the future we could take these trips............... one could use time dilation to your advantage not just for financial wealth accumulation back on earth but to "stick around" for decades longer than you would have. Perhaps taking a few trips and being able to live to the next century or two in the future would allow you to take advantage of further advances in science, longevity, life extension etc........... and coupled with your investment plans on earth you'd be one wealthy S.O.B who sped his/her way into the 23rd, 24th and 25th century on a rocket and a prayer. :)



  7. This is a very interesting read, thanks buoy smile.png


    But I'm currently more interested in hitting a koala at the speed of light (in which you reach the destination/your catchers mit in a instant)

    I think I can answer that hypothetically : Imagine if you were accelerating just under the speed of light and have the entire combined energy of the observable universe that got you to that speed. When you hit the koala you'd be hitting it with the force of the entire observable universe. In the Halo universe a MAC round accelerates a depleted uranium shell to 0.04% light speed or around 12,000km/sec. That is enough kinetic energy to cause something like a nuclear explosion upon impacting a planet (as an example) - many megatons of force being released. That is a shell at 0.04 light speed. Can you imagine what a larger spaceship travelling at 99.9999999999999999999% c would release if it hit........ a koala?


    There would be no more galaxy... and that's at least. I wouldn't like to be where Andromeda is either. Of course following relativity, the blast wave would still take 3 billion years to reach those suckers :P



    PS: Obviously travelling *at* the speed of light is impossible as it would require an impossible amount of energy... infinite energy... an undefined amount of energy. Thus if you really were going to imagine that you'd hit a koala whilst somehow travelling AT the speed of light, you'd release...... an infinite amount of kinetic energy. An infinite amount of energy would obviously require an infinite amount of space. You'd blow up the universe basically :P thats how bad it would be.


    But everything ties together once again. Such an event would not happen since there isn't enough energy to accelerate your spaceship to such a speed... so you'd never be able to hit a koala at light speed and blow up the universe.



    Let's paint the arena for a sec: The observable universe. Scientists so far have mapped out the observable universe as being (to the nearest billion light years) 47 billion light years across from end to end. It could obviously be much more than that - perhaps keep going to infinity - who knows, but from what we can "see" through our huge telescopes and instrument data we are at LEAST in a universe that is 47 billion light years wide.


    So, that is the arena. Let's put our spacecraft on one end of this 47 billion light year expansion of space. On the other end we're going to put a catchers mit. Yep - a baseball catchers mit except of course big enough to catch the spaceship. I'm using this analogy for good reason and it will become more evident later on, but try and not be freaked out by it :lol:


    You have to suspend your disbelief here and disregard the massive g-forces that would no doubt cause a catastrophic fatality if there were to actually be a catchers mit etc... but for demonstrating the experiment please give these obvious ill-effects some "latitude" of leniency... :)


    TEST 1: Use up the power of a nuclear reactor and attain half light-speed.

    You get in your rocketship and accelerate to half light-speed with the help of a small nuclear reactor that pushes you forward with your ion drives. The drives are slow and the nuclear reactor is a shitty one... but after a few decades you manage to get to half light speed. At this speed you would take almost 94 billion years to reach the catchers mit.... and be pretty much dead... and your ships atomic structure would have devolved into dark matter.


    TEST 2: Super advanced nuclear reactor with an array of ion drives attaining nearer light speed.

    Let's say you refine the tech and can achieve 0.99c - whatever the rough calculations would be at that speed you would (say) reach the catchers mit in some fraction of 47 billion years - say in 0.47 billion years or so. You'd still be dead as a doornail and your ship would have been a floating relic for most of the time.


    TEST 3: The power of 1 solar mass.

    Somehow the earth grew a few Einstein brains in a generation building your rocket and could somehow harness the power of an entire star the size of our sun to propel you forward. With such a massive jump in energy you traverse the 47 billion light year journey in a few decades. Incredible! You might still be alive at the end... mit collision catastrophe not withstanding of course.


    TEST 4: The power of 1 galaxy.

    I'm not going to try and explain how... it's already gone hyperbolic here lol... but let's just say for arguments sake you've got the entire milky way's energy output under your right foot and you mash the accelerator. Apart from getting dreadfully sick, you manage to traverse the observable universe in ohhhhhhhhhhhhh say a few minuites. 2 mins at most. Wonderful stuff.


    TEST 5: The power of the entire observable universe.

    Ok well if you thought test 4 was crazy... yes I'm going there: You now have the total output of THE ENTIRE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE at your disposal. You mash the throttle and reach the catchers mit in milliseconds. Perhaps even nanoseconds.




    Where is all this going? Well its to demonstrate 2 things:

    1. The speed of light is not a barrier you can feel. You just (seemingly) accelerate past it as if it were nothing at all.

    2. It would take more power than exists in the observable universe to accelerate even something the size of a safety pin TO the speed of light... but it can get it very close.





    So............... what would it be like if you actually COULD reach the speed of light with this experiment. Ok, so I've rigged up the ship with a button you see. It says "light speed" on it. When you press it, you'll instantly be at the speed of light (just for the sake of the argument ok). How long would it take you to reach the catchers mit 47 billion light years away?


    Answer: Instantly. The moment you press the button you WOULD BE at the catchers mit.


    The Problem: Yes there is a problem. Everybody else on earth would have aged 47 billion years.... the sun would have turned into a red giant - burned the earth and released its debris in a massive explosion leaving a small neutron star in it's wake........ and you in the spaceship........ travelling at the speed of light...... wouldn't have aged at all. No time would have passed.


    That's the thing. When you are travelling at light speed, time doesn't move. You went from one side of the observable universe to the other and time did not move forward for you. The particles of air exiting your mouth would still be in perfect formation from the time you hit the button to the moment you hit the catchers mit... and if somehow we were able to remove the inertial g-force that would have otherwise obliterated you, you'd look out the window and you'd be on the other side of the universe as if changing the TV station.


    That is why you can't go faster than the speed of light. You can't go faster than instant. Also since there is no such thing as instant when talking about acceleration there is no way of achieving instant transmission of travel since no matter how much energy we pour in to the spaceship it will invariably still move the ticking of time forward...... even if we are able to get it down to nanoseconds. billionths of a second. it's still slower than what light speed would have achieved: zero seconds.


    But now is a good time to ask yourself this: Was it really necessary to get to light speed after all? We can get close. Is close good enough? Can you live with a journey taking perhaps hours, days, weeks.......... as opposed to instant? Do we really need instant travel? Do we travel anywhere instantly now in 2013?


    If you travel at close to light speed you may not be "at" light speed but if it takes light 4.3 years to get to the nearest star and you get there in 4.33 which is perhaps a few weeks or months flight time - would that really be so bad? Sure, everyone on earth would have aged a few more years and you would have skipped an olympic games - but is it so bad? If you were traveling AT light speed the situation would have been roughly the same... except you'd have no journey memories to speak of since you'd just "get" there immediately... but you'd have still missed out on an olympic games and your loved ones would have still aged 4.3 years.... so... who cares in the end! Same shit to me O_O


    Another question to pose at this point would be this: Would you even WANT to go at the speed of light? O_o I mean seriously. You could never get out of it... because you have stumbled into a realm where there is no concept of time. You'd be f**ked. If you were travelling at the speed of light and zero time has elapsed, that means that nothing on the ship could possibly de-light-speed you since no time is elapsing. Computers need clock cycles to tick over so they can "calculate" stuff. They need time to move forward. In other words, if we didn't HAVE a catchers mit you'd have exited the universe, the universe would have died and who knows what happens then? Space and time disintegrate? And all this.............


    If you could get closer and closer to the speed of light, that's just like saying we can get to our destination faster and faster, right? But obviously we can't get to our destination instantly. If we could travel from one side of the universe to the other in a few months wouldn't that be sufficient? That's not light speed, but at least you'd be able to move around and pea and enjoy the view, right? :)


    speaking of view.............





    This is interesting. well there is no point talking about what you'd see out the window at light speed since it would be over before the sound of the button click reached your ear drums... so we'll dial it back and say it took you 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% at the speed of light.... so perhaps the journey took you, gosh, an hour or so?


    EDIT: I just realised that you'd see a very stretched out view, so stars would wizz by like lines instead of dots... but bah since I wrote all this stuff anyway you got to just "factor this bit in" :P


    What would you see? Well you'd see the formation of the galaxies, when looking AT the galaxies they'd be not stationary like we see them in the night sky.... they'd be spinning - and the stars would look like paparazzi..... flashing and blinking like a disco ball as the stars went supernova thousands of times a second. The clouds of dust and gas that makes up large swathes of the spiral galaxy arms would move like a smoke machine. As you pass the galaxy you may see it start to teeter out as the light got dimmer, like popcorn reaching the end of its run..... perhaps you'd get your telescope out and with some super duper computer tracking mechanism lock onto 1 star for a few seconds.... and perhaps mistake it for a very drawn out planet saturn...... with all these rings around it. Those weren't rings..... that was the motion blur of the planets wizzing around their orbits.... at some massive rpm from your viewpoint. Thousands of revolutions per minute.... you take out a high speed camera and snap a few shots............. you get the outline of a planet, still stricken with motion blur - but at least you could see it's spherical shape.


    Your craft moves on past the galaxies that look more like spinning firecrackers.... and then eventually you reach the mit. You saw the universe age 47 billion years in 1 hour. Thats what you'd see. Ohhh........ and as EnFlamed suggested, you'd probably see a very blue tint from the forward window and a very red tint in the rear window.






    I don't like calling it a speed limit.... because it's a speed limit you just seemingly pass straight through - unlike the sound barrier. You can't feel it. Everything in your space ship works as per normal. Looks normal. Feels normal.


    I'd rather describe the speed of light as this: This is the fastest observable speed that you can see OTHER objects moving at from a third person perspective. THAT'S IT! It doesn't mean that YOU can't travel for all intents and purposes - from your observations - at ridiculous speeds well past 300,000km/s/s and feel the galaxies blazing by :no: no! All it means is that everyone else watching you can only see you approaching 299,300km/s/s and you won't be seen getting any faster. You're not travelling at the speed of light to them, but from your perspective you've exceeded it. The speed of light "limit" effect is relegated to the observers only. Poor them. You in the cockpit are blazing past shit at what looks like multiple times light speed.

  9. wow... you guys are fken awesome with what you've come up with. Those answers are pretty good stabs.


    Well if you are traveling a reasonable distance at light speed the biggest question is: 'What kind of defense systems does your rocket have'


    Because I've hit a Koala at 80km/h and it f**ked the front end of my car up really bad. What kind of damage will space junk, a small rock or meteoroid will do if you hit it at light speed? And we all know that even thought space is empty it is full of shit just floating around and not illuminated and I don't think even Colin McCrae himself would have the reaction speed to dodge a dim piece of space rock floating around in your flight path while you are traveling at light speed.


    The reality is without some kind of defense the whole premise of light speed even if physically possible is practically pretty much impossible.


    But to answer your question I have no idea. I imagine things would be blurry at that speed. But I'm interested to know.


    That is a very interesting and good point - but people far smarter than me have already had these discussions decades earlier when sending our satellites around the solar system. Some of these craft attain speeds in excess of 26,000 km/hr and they travel at these speeds for years and years and years - within our solar system in some of the most "populated" parts. These probes have never ever encountered a single piece of foreign debris - even the voyager craft which has passed the orbit of pluto and continues to send back signals from within the kuiper belt - an area infested with small chunks of unformed planetary material.


    Thus a deep space craft travelling at an incredible speed's main enemy is energetic particles and cosmic rays (hence the huge shielding). As in, a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion to 1 chance. But there IS a chance :) just a very small one. The chance of encountering space debris is effectively zero. You have more chance being killed by a falling koala.


    Don't swerve for space koalas.


    My answer- you would get to 99.99% o the speed of light and time would slow down to prevent you from reaching light speed. At 99.99% the speed of light 1 week would equal 100 earth years. I beleive they (scientists, Physicists) know this as that is the speed they are able to get particles to flow at in the hadron collider.


    How did I go?


    You are right and that's kinda the classic textbook answer but I'm more interested in actually hearing what you see out the window and why it isn't really a "speed limit" per se - calling it a "speed limit" is (i think) really a misleading way of talking about the speed of light. But alas, what you said is dead on the money.


    im going have a stab and say that you wont feel shit because your experience is relative to the spaceship only. As for what you see, I guess there would be some kind of red shift or blue shift, depending on which direction you looked, in the colour of stars like when light is bent around a gravity well.


    Yeah... a doppler effect on the world around you. Could very well be - I hadn't thought of that but now that you mention it that sounds likely - a blue shift in front, a red shift behind. Very insightful.


    Now I'm no physics scholar or student of such topics so could be well off but in the spirit of feeding an interesting topic, I'll have a crack using some 'world according to Kurtis' thinking.


    Q: What will you see out the window?


    A: A combination of lots of space stuff, darkness and brightness.


    Q: What will you feel? will you still feel the 1g of acceleration?


    A: The sensation of acceleration would be determined by the gravitational forces exerted onto the ship. Up until the distance where your ship completely breaks free of the earth's gravitation pull, the sensation would steadily decline. Once the ship has broken free and is in a zero-gravity environment, you will have very little physical sensation of speed at all. Considering you are travelling through space for years, it is inevitable that you will pass other large objects who's gravitational forces may be strong enough that as you pass by them, you will experience a similar sensation to that experienced when overcoming earth's gravity. The g forces felt would obviously be dependent on the size of the object as well as the ship's proximity to the object's surface as the effect of gravity is greater as you get closer to the surface.


    Remember that all this time your ion drives are accelerating you at 1g: Net result - you experience 1g of gravity constantly for the whole time of acceleration and, granted, the gravitational effects of near by celestial bodies that exert their gravitational forces upon you and the ship.


    Q: What will the stars and galaxies look like?


    A: The stars and galaxies would look the same as they do when you are stationary at the same range. From inside the ship, you would continue to have clear vision; however, an alien pedestrian watching you fly past might just see your ship as a blur.


    A good stab - but this is actually not what we would see. I'll write it up shortly after.


    Q: After a few years, you turn around and return to earth, would you feel some sort of barrier pushing up against you as you approach the speed of light?


    A: I don't think approaching the speed of light would have the same feeling of approaching the speed of sound. Assuming your little ship does have the energy required to propel it up to the speed of light, I'm not sure that there would be any change in sensation at all. Objects seen through the front windscreen would be getting heaps big real quick though.


    You are correct. You won't feel a "barrier" approaching at all.


    Q: If you had a speedometer referenced off the stars, what would it read as you continued faster and faster?


    A: It would be a real mission to develop an accurate speedometer considering the time delays involved in bouncing signals from far away stars and the sheer speed of your ship. The algorithms required to make sense of the signals would be ridiculous. Also, when up close to the speed of light, your ship would pretty much be going the same speed as the signals which are referencing the stars. Once you get to that fast I think it would stop reading a definite speed and instead would just say "f**king fast".


    This is a juicy revelation so I might as well say it: If your computers / navigation systems just use observational instruments for calculating your speed, as far as it is concerned - even if the speed of light is 300,000km/s/s you would pass that "barrier" without any big fanfare. Your speedometer would read 290,000km/s/s, 300,000km/s/s, 310,000km/s/s, 320,000km/s/s etc.... in fact, your instruments would tell you that you keep on getting faster and that this whole speed of light barrier is utter bullshit. After a few years you'd be hitting perhaps 3,000,000,000km/s/s ... 4,000,000,000km/s/s etc and it would just keep going up. The stars would start wizzing by your window like in those start trek movies.


    Q: Would it show that you have slowed down?


    A: If it could be measured it might say that you have slowed down depending on whether it is measuring the physical speed of the ship or the space time taken to travel between point A and B. Although your physical speed would be close to the speed of light, the space time experienced would getting slower as you go faster and would be far less than that experienced on earth. With that, at the conclusion of this journey which has lasted say 4 years, you will find you have aged far less than your friends and family who stayed on earth. Effectively propelling yourself into the future.


    I think that's touching on the topic of time travel though, and with your reference to Hawkings, I sense will be covered more in your next topic along with things like black holes, event horizons and frame distortion. Anyway, keen to hear the answers and without actually having experienced the situation described, how you know they are correct answers and not just a hypothesis.


    I don't really know if it's correct but I have high confidence based on one anecdote we use every day: We rely on general and special relativity for running the entire GPS network. The GPS satellites floating above our heads use a combination of special and general relativity to adjust their internal clocks for time dilation. The original engineers that sent up "test" satellites (nothing to do with GPS yet, just satellites for testing "stuff") had time dilation tests set up... and since they couldn't agree with each other whether or not Einstein's effects would be felt they had a toggle switch that could turn their time dilation compensation system on or off. They found that if they didn't compensate for time dilation the clocks on the satellites drifted by as much as 6 billionths of a second every day and the accuracy of the satellite triangulation would drift by approx 11 km. So you could say that without compensating for time dilation we would have no GPS system... or it would only be accurate to perhaps the nearest 5 suburbs you are in, instead of the nearest few meters --- and we compensate for them and get them to triangulate the position so accurately by using the equations Einstein came up with and what was written down in the papers of general and special relativity.


    So if those equations need to be factored in for keeping our GPS network going then I'm guessing if you extrapolate their effects closer to the speed of light - along with all the other tests / observations made by scientists over the years - these phenomena appear to be pretty close to what would actually happen if we were to do it.


    As far as far as answering the question. Does the whole E=mc2 equation come into play when trying to reach the speed of light and show that we can never achieve it?


    Yes - we all seem to be "hung up" on never achieving the speed of light and we seem bummed out by it. Ohhh we'll never reach other stars they are just too far away. It appears that this whole "speed limit" concept has turned the general population off of space - it's just too big, too far, too long to do anything. I'll explain a situation for you where it would be very easy to understand why we can't get to the speed of light - but we could get very close and it would make sense why it can never be achieved............. BUT it would also demonstrate that there's nothing really limiting for not "reaching" the speed of light as far as space travel is concerned and it's plenty fast for us.

  10. PRELUDE: If you aren't interested in this question, just look at the topic. It's pretty self explanatory. If you don't like it please just save yourself the hassle and just hit the back button.


    Ok... so now everyone reading this far is fully aware of the type of topic they are getting into. Here we go...



    I have been perusing the physics forums and generally watching some interesting youtube vids by Neil deGrasse Tyson and they are fun to watch but there is real confusion about what the speed of light limit means.


    Some people think that the limit is a barrier that you "bump" into and can't go any faster.



    Other people think that it's some sort of frustrating drag on the rocket... the closer you get to the speed of light, the less efficient your rockets get or something, like perhaps something akin to a car trying to accelerate to 400km/hr due to wind drag.



    Well then if it's not something you bump into or if it doesn't cause drag, what the f**k sort of limit IS this speed of light barrier?


    Ok? Anyone care to have a stab at this? :P



    You have a rocketship. It's a nice ship with say a good few decades of food supplies for you and a few buddies. You have an array of 512 ION drives powered by a couple of very energetic nuclear reactors producing many megawatts of power... enough power to push your moderately sized spacecraft (with 7" LED shielding followed by boron and plastic... and a good few feet of water around the hull that not only serves as your water supply but also as your high energetic particle moderator to prevent these things from piercing holes in your DNA).


    The rocketship can accelerate at 1g - that's 1 g of earth's acceleration or 9.8m/s/s for... gosh... decades.


    QUESTION: As you approach the speed of light barrier, what will you see out the window? What will you feel (will you still feel the 1g of acceleration?) What will the stars and galaxies look like? ... and after a few years you decide to decelerate... then turn around and re-accelerate back to earth, eventually getting back to earth (you have obviously some fancy nav computer that can calculate its bearings and always keep track of our solar system's sun for homing purposes).


    Would you feel some sort of barrier pushing up against you as you approach light speed? If you had a speedometer that tracked the position of yourself in relation to stars, what would it be reading as you continued faster and faster and closer to the speed of light? Would it show that you've slowed down?



    Now I'm throwing these questions out just to see what people think is going on. I've already got the answers to them... but obviously I'll have to withold it for the sake of the topic experiment. I'd also like to say that time travel is possible (whoa! hey there fella! you're toast now!!! :P ) but since it is an extension to the previous set of questions you may want to double-check what I must be alluding to when making that statement (hint: hawking agrees with me).


    Good luck ladies and gentleman. Time to put down the pipe and talking about shit that annoys you and what ever else. Time to exercise that brain a bit. Off topic never felt so good, right?

  11. I was put on to Ableton Live by another Producer friend of mine (except he does electro / house and set up all of these "wierd" modules and side-chain presets etc... all great for his genre and production style :lol: but I liked how Ableton worked).


    I currently use Alicia's Keys, NI Kontact and NI Default patches for a lot of the brass and woodwind sections. The strings are usually handed by SOS Strings separately. Additional sounds like synthetic / human vocal choir I use some sounds from Nexus. EWQL also seems rather important and a staple in many virtual orchestras. I really want to get Action Strings plus a few other niceties that people seem to be using... so you can get the more"authentic" feel of the strumming... there is a great video of these strings in action here:




    You can hear it in action in the Cloud Atlas soundtrack / trailer here:



    Track: Sonera (1:57 - 3:15)

    Company: -

    Album: Illusions

    Composer: Thomas Bergersen

    Year: 2011

    Genre: Epic Drama Trailer Score

  12. Hey Andy glad you like it. Everybody seems to like that track for some reason O_o and the irony is that track was the one that took 10 minutes to do, from opening the software to recording the piece and saving the WAV/MP3.


    The other pieces don't get anywhere near as much love :( for example, the track "Heroes and Legends - The Magnificent Ones" I slaved over for a week. Has strings section, brass section, woodwind... timpani and bass drums - basically a full orchestra ensemble happening - it changes it's key signature no less than 5 times within the first minute! It has allegro, ritenuto, rallentando, piano, forte... pizzicato, legato - all that jazzy orchestral stuff in there - and nobody cares lol! They still go straight to the piano rambling.


    :o aah well.

  13. Lol you guys really need to look into things before you make judgement :P


    The "trillion dollar coin solution" is not related to debt payment, it's a legal way of continuing government spending without messing up the debt limits..


    BOTTOM LINE: This won’t create hyperinflation, and it’s not the solution to all of our economic problems. It’s just a way to stay within the law, while avoiding the debt ceiling nonsense.


    So yeah, it's a silly idea but it's not really as detrimental to, well, anything, as it sounds.


    One of a million articles on it: http://business.fina...ericas-economy/


    yeah... thats... my... link... O_o that i used right at the top. lol

  14. I've just started using SoundCloud last month and I originally just wanted to use it as a cloud-based hosting storage for my film / orchestral soundtrack clippets - but what I found was something much much more than just a storage service.


    SoundCloud is full of musicians, composers, producers, pianists, guitarists, vocalists ... the list goes on. Even DJs (although the uploading of mixtapes seems to have been discouraged half way through 2012 due to legal repercussions).


    The stuff on there is phenomenal. True actual gold. Since joining SoundCloud and joining some of the many Groups that piqued my interest, I've begun following some great composers and artists - Michael Maas who composed the filmscore NASA used for the International Space Station, Dmitry Noskov who composes incredible orchestral soundtracks for Russian movies, TV and film. Jason Cullimore who is a master at orchestral composition details the sound and instrument packs that he used to create the beautiful music showcased on his profile. The list goes on...


    Recently I stumbled upon another composer who wanted some critique on new unfinished work. I obliged and we opened up a wonderful dialogue via PM and I got to go through - albeit briefly - some of the issues that I thought were unique to me and the way I create music. SoundCloud is a great empowering service that brings musicians and composers who would have otherwise not had the opportunity to speak or converse. It brings likeminded AND diverse musicians closer together and allows them to share ideas and musical styles and influence the direction of each other's music.


    If you haven't checked out SoundCloud - perhaps now is a good time, being the beginning of the year and all. In fact, if you click on my channel you can see not only the tracks I've uploaded but those people that I follow - such a diverse range of music and styles - I've spent hours just listening and enjoying music that had me mesmerized. Truly top notch engineering, scoring, production............ and without paying a single cent.


    Also, if you are an indy film producer, SoundCloud has so much gold - so much win - it's incredible. The soundtracks on here just blow me away and a lot of them are ready to be licensed. So if you are looking for top notch audio sound for your film - check out SoundCloud.






    My Profile: www.soundcloud.com/roysherfan


    Some of the music that's inspired me: www.soundcloud.com/roysherfan/likes


    Some music of note:

    Michael Maas - originally composed for the International Space Station https://soundcloud.c...el-maas/mem-ria



    From Dmitry Noskov - Massacre


    Imagine that on your next film project eh....

  15. (5 min in)

    That second song got me.


    She's quite the package! She has the looks/image and the voice and it appears the personality to really go far in the industry commercially.

  16. platinumcoin_wiki.jpg


    Since the USA wants to pull another pony trick out of it's hat by minting a trillion dollar coin (yes I'm being serious) in the hopes that it will offset the budget deficit and foreign debt so that the economy can continue in it's unsustainable trajectory - what do you guys make of this trillion dollar coin solution?





    Here's what I think: They are dreaming.


    I think it's time to wake up, smell the mustard and get moving on this shit. Get it sorted. Go through with it and join the rest of the world as a fairer more appropriate member of humanity. This is not a reflection of the people, just the way the US economy works is just not sustainable and the "correction" means hard times for all those over there. Time to harden the f**k up and get on with it I think.






    Peter Schiff : “…"Some people that got stranded on an island, and I think it was 6 or 7 were Asians and there was one American and as soon as they were on the island they had to divide up the jobs. And one Asian was given the job of fishing, the other one was hunting, one of them got the job of gathering fire wood. So they all had jobs, and the American was assigned the job of eating. And so at the end of the day, they would all gather around and prepare this feast and the American would sit there and eat it. But he would´nt eat it all, he´d just leave enough crumbs so he could give to the 6 Asians so they could go on and repeat it again tomorrow, spend all day preparing a meal for the American to eat. Now, the way modern economists would look at it, they would say "Well, this American is vital to the whole island economy. Without him nobody would have to fish, nobody would have to hunt, nobody would have to gather fire wood. He is creating all this employment on the island". But the reality is, every Asian on that island, his lot in life would be dramatically improved if they kicked the American off the island because now they would have a lot more to eat or maybe they wouldn´t have to spend all day hunting and fishing and they can lay on the beach a little bit"….”


  17. Love em or hate em, Australian Memes are being used to showcase Australia to the rest of the world. Probably not representative of Australia :lol: but I guess stereotyping is going to happen. Anyway I've tried to find the hilarity in these memes and some of them do raise a laugh from me. So far I've seen the fabled STRAYA *milkshake* and MEANWHILE... IN AUSTRALIA memes doing the rounds. I want to post up ones that I found raises my eyebrows the most.


    Lots of ranga material also. Usually the posts revolve around beer, cars, farmers, spiders and large animals. If you have any awesome Australian Meme images please post it up for all to see.









  18. Name: buoy

    Age: 36

    Location: Sydney, NSW.

    Where do you train?: Pure Energy Fitness.

    How long have you been lifting?: 18 years.

    What are your short-term goals?: Lose some more bodyfat.

    Long term goals?: Trim down and work on keeping fit and healthy.

    A bit about yourself:

    Began training at 18 - had absolutely no clue what to do. Then after years of bsing around it all just came together and my weight took off. This was around the year 2002 / 2003. Overbulked and became quite fat (over 90kg) in 2004-2005 and then started to trim it back. By 2007 my bodyweight was in the 80s but bodyfat was still high. By 2010 I was in the high 80s / low 90s. I settled into a routine. I stopped looking up information on nutrition, diet, exercise. By then I just knew what to do. Nothing much changed after that. Just kept going to the gym. Just kept training and feeling happy / satisfied with my progress.


    Vid taken 31st Dec 2012


  19. Now that the director's cut is out, ComicBookGirl19 (a youtube erm... girl who posts videos about comics, movies etc) has shed some light that gives some input about what this film was trying to achieve. Lots of info from the director's cut dvd.


    I've included 2 videos from her exhaustive series of about half a dozen clips (an hour's viewing time for those of you who have time) but here is a 20 min summary broken up into 2 of the clips that will help you get "the jist". If you watch these 2 clips and like to know more, go ahead and watch the rest :thumbsup:



  20. Ok, It's getting late so I'm just going to make this post short and sweet:


    First, here's the source vid that's just gone live in the last few days :




    Now, Eric's view on the Android vs iOS debacle:


    Android now on approx 500 million devices world-wide. Will reach 1 billion devices sometime late next year. Global market share on smartphones is 71% compared with iOS's 14%


    Eric mentions many things in his interview - about the future of technology, google glass, driverless cars etc. He's releasing a book soon also about the new coming digital age.


    So........................................... what are your thoughts? Is he a genius? Is he a nutcase?

  21. I was disappointed with the new YouTube app released December 11th - I could not get the videos to display full-screen...........


    solution :

    - Uninstall updates of YouTube, reverting it back to the "native" app (do this in settings / apps).

    - Grab a previous apk from some place like android drawer ( http://www.androiddrawer.com/7215/download-youtube-4-1-47-app-apk/ )