Posted on 11/28/2003 1:49:27 PM PST by LibWhacker
I agree with a probe to a specific location. However, shotgunning them thru the galaxy is not very practical IMHO.
:-)
Most likely a third-generation star. Hard to imagine a first-generation star consisting mostly of H and He manufacturing enough heavier elements to complete the Periodic Table and give us our terrestrial composition...an issue which speaks to the heart of this debate.
No matter how intelligent and dexterious the life-form, without sufficient raw materials, they're not going into space. Thus, a metallic-rich planet orbiting a third-generation star may be essential. If this is so, then perhaps all life in Universe is at about the same stage of development that we are...with interstellar space travel as yet impossible.
If they are using 'empire time' there can be
Fair enough :-)
More than likely, however, a second generation star is not out of the question.
This is just one site of many that postulates either: :-)
http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/7b.html
I do agree with your assessment. We just don't have enough data to make an informed proclamation about ET and/or ET exploration.
A pound.
Anti-matter falls down, not up. This is a consequence of the Principle of Equivalence of Inertial Frames which is part of General Relativity. Indeed, GR was once tested by checking that anti-particles fall down.
Any brand of "matter" that fell UP would destroy the Equivalence Principle and hence GR. 'Negative' matter (upsidasium) is thus highly improbable.
--Boris
We call it Viagrium.
Quite practical, and rather the point of the exercise. After the first one that works gets moving, all the rest are free, from our point of view, here on this mudball. It costs us nothing to build and randomly vector another few million self-replicating nanobots from junk circling alpha centauri.
It is an investment for future generations to reap the harvest of. Kind of like when you build a huge campus building on your alma mater by bequest.
1) Since they are made of "stuff", they would be subject to GR just like we are. So the velocity would always be sublight.
Right. So it takes a long time until payback. Already conceded.
2) If they replicate and they are complex enough to record and do "useful" stuff, IMHO, evolution (or replication error) would be inevitable.
Not playing in the right ballpark. This is not biological engineering, it is factory robotics reduced to a tiny scale. Sure there will be transcription failures. That's why we're sending replicators instead of straightforward probes. We can tolerate lots of replication failure when producing a multitude of offpring. Ask any bacterium. The laws of evolution apply to competition for finite resources where there is both variation, and selection. Where there is effectively no such competition, there is not going to be evolution, even if you have variation. The failures drop by the wayside, and the accurate copies continue on shipping out copies to distant regions.
Thanks for the book recommendation. Just added that one to my holiday Amazon wish list. FR is a great place for book tips ;-)
Anyhoo, I had some more questions, if you have the time (and patience).
I have read layman texts regarding speed limitations, and the consequences that has on manned inter-stellar travel. However, as one of you stated earlier, with less mass we can enjoy higher speeds. Would it be possible to propel a massless object faster than light? Sort of like the propogation of gravity (1.4 C or something)?
Also, what if our biological evolution steers us into sentient computers? If humans wound up producing conscious computers, or even more fantastically, implanting human consciousness into a computer, wouldn't that eliminate all these time problems?
As "Doc" Smith pointed out, if you can nullify inertia, an infinitesimal force will result in a velocity of "c" in zero time. Velocities greater than "c" involve imaginary quantities and lots of juicy paradoxes.
You might want to read up on Mach's Principle, if you want your mind bent. I understand it on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; it is lucidly clear. On other days I am completely bamboozled; it is ludicrously opaque.
--Boris
What about gravity? It propagates faster than light, no?
Brief article on this: HERE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.