A real Starship Enterprise in 20 years?

I think we need to develope and refine the Flux Capacitor first.

DBCassidy

 

I don't think we can build a full size replica (non-working) of the Enterprise in low earth orbit for the price he gives.

3,250,000 Metric tonnes = 7,163,000,000 Pounds @ $2,000 per pound to boost to LEO = 14 Trillion. Just to get the stuff up there. Even at SpaceX low guess of $500 / lb They would be 3.5x overbudget.

 

But chinese communists(always small letters) murdered, tortured & starved 100 million of their own BROTHERS, SISTERS, CHILDREN & BABIES. Of course, chinese communists(always small letters) are proud of their history & suffocate the Chinese people with propaganda that chinese communists(always small letters) are so nice.

 

No, the theory of warp does not violate laws of physics. The link I included clearly goes over why the theory does not break the theory of relativity. As I have gone over before, and you ignore to add creedence to your belief in future technologies being silly, FTL theories are not based on linear acceleration.

Again, please read my link: it is an article referenced by physicists who know a thing or two about space. It seems you're still not understanding about curved space: if you're traveling in linear time, then there would be issues with relative time for the spaceship and those on Earth. The premise of warp, though, is that you're curving space-time. You're being quite silly now with the cheese and beer statement. It's not a far off stretch at all to think that if we had developed a way more advanced technology like warp, generating invisible energy fields is not a stretch by anymeans (warp is plausible, however unattainable with current technologies).

Now that is silly. The title of this thread is: "A real Starship Enterprise in 20 years?" The proposal is still wanting to build a huge spaceship that technically wouldn't be a "starship" because it can't travel interstellar distances. Where do you draw the line? The Star Trek Enterprise is a future ship that's practical for their technologies. Even if we exclude warp and transporters, there's no way to approximate a real starship Enterprise. Besides the obvious absurdity in trying to build something that big in Earth orbit: this "aproximation" would still have inferior computer technology, wouldn't need a crew of 600 people, would not use the advanced composites that a future spaceship would have from technological evolvement, and then would we arm this useless satellite with any weapons? Just because you don't have an imagination for future plausable technologies, you're saying it is "real-world" to wish for a life sized model of the starship Enterprise to orbit Earth in 20 years. I think that's being pretty silly, as there's no delineation of how it would approximate the actual Enterprise and it could not have the same purpose of an actual starship that naturally developed over time.

 

Maybe we should build Arthur C Clarke's space elevator first.

 

Every hear of quantum teleportation? That was performed in 1998.

It turns out that your statement that transporter violate the most basic laws of physics depends on what you think constitutes a "transporter".

I'm going to postulate a transporter that is limited by technology, not physics. At the source is the object to be deconstructed. At the destination is where the object is to be reconstructed. All that is to be transferred is information, not matter or energy. (The destination supplies all the raw matter and energy needed by the process.) Using the transporter device, the quantum state of every atom and particle is determined, transferred to the destination, and then used to re-establish the original copy. A couple of notes for the fine print:

1) The transfer of information would be at the speed of light, or less.
2) The process would happen fast enough not to significantly interfere with biological processes.
3) All quantum mechanical laws are maintained. The critical one being that successfully transferring quantum information requires obliterating the information at the source in order to recreate it at the destination.

 

So do some of the theories of evolution yet you believe in evolution, correct? Dial it back a smidgen this is just a weekend discussion among a group of guys with dreams. Don't kill the dream, weird wonderful stuff comes out of them. :thumb:

BTW: You owe me a new iPad. . . DrDave in the real world!?!? ound: I spit my coffee out when I read that. . Thank you.

 

We should do it . . .

 

Well if we mastered warp drive (a technology that's only theoretical now), why not have computers and transport devices that seem fantastical now.

I recently rewatched STNG after so many years. They actually had a few episodes that had some interesting dilemmas. Such as, can you actually create a living person from a holodeck simulation. I would think that technologically, if you can make an exact duplicate of any object, then that could include living organisms. It is very advanced technology that would have to duplicate any substance atom by atom: but I think our consciousness/soul is a composite of our body. On a side note, topics of a soul, I'd recommend reading Mary Roach's Spook. I like her style and she surveys what kind of "studies" have been done to try to quantify any soul....which is entertaining in itself.

 

Yet another example of how Trebuchet has no knowledge of science. Evolution breaks no laws of physics.

Says a wingnut who confused his own rhetoric of Arthur Brooks with Arthur Miller!!

 

It will be the Jesuits. If this comment doesn't make sense, you need to read "The Sparrow" by Mary Doria Russel:

The Sparrow (novel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tom

 

Great idea! Anyone got any ideas how to make 44,000 mile long carbon nano-tubes?

 

Ruled out via the immense technology needed or a fundamental physics limitation? One of the fundamental misunderstanding of physics is the concept that our "laws" of physics are universal. Assumed, but not proven.

An even bigger lay misunderstanding is that every physics "law" has a region of validity, and often a region of non-applicability. The most common one is that "nothing" can travel faster than the speed of light. That's a special relativity result.....not a general relativity result. Guess which one has the wider applicability. Additionally, it's been PROVEN that quantum correlations have infinite speed. So in that case the special relativity limitation above had "nothing" replaced with "mass and energy".

That gets smaller with quantum computers. A LOT smaller. The first basic components are being developed. The first quantum computers are some time away, but only due to technology development. The theory has been worked out and demonstrated. Now it is an engineering problem of immense difficulty.

The theorist would say yes (or no). The experimentalist would prove it.

That said, Quantum teleportation has made it clear that cloning is impossible within the existing Quantum Mechanics theory in hand. Most of the rest of your question is difficult to answer since physics does not have a good definition or understanding of either "Consciousness" or/and "Soul". In the case of Consciousness, no question that it exists, but what is it? In the case of the Soul, what is the definition of that?......from a physics equation Point of View. (Let me clear, if my theological belief is that if we have one, that has no bearing on this question.)

 

We're working on it. It's probably less of a problem than FTL travel and teleportation.

It makes for an interesting cultural phenomenon, but I don't expect it will all be real someday.

But if it ever does, a food replicator would be the most useful to most of us.

 

It's one thing to say "beam me up, Scotty", and quite another to invent the technology in the first place. In TV-land theory, you can just go from place to place without gaining or losing anything, or getting anything mixed up with the rest of the away team. The first experiments will no doubt have 'unexpected results'.

As for a soul, it's my understanding that our thoughts and feelings, and our sense of identity and existence - the essence of who we are - are the product of chemical and electrical reactions within our brains and bodies. They can be conveyed to others in various ways, but cannot exist outside of it.

 

Here is where that get complicated. In 1940 a lot of epilepsy patients had there right and left cortexes separated. A long series of experiments in the 70's conclusively proved that the patients had "two consciousnesses". Now each half of the brain was limited in capability, such as the left side controlled speech and the right side controlled the left hand. (This includes one of the patients having the left and right hands "fight" each other to answer a question.)

As you can see, when trying to define consciousness as "one sense of identity and existence", even that has experimental evidence to the contrary.

 

Clearly, I have to agree that such capabilities are closer to magic than feasible technology. But my starting comment was pointing out the fundamental limitation of physics MAY not be the showstopper.