Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by mikeman

Quote: Original post by owl
The ilussion that the engine works at a slower rate, is just that, an ilussion. It is working exactly as if it was on earth. The guy analysing how the engine works should use the space-time frame the engine is working into, not his own.

It's not an 'illusion'. It's very very real. For example, it has been observed that the half-life of a fast moving particle is increased for static observer. That's because time moves slower for the particle, so it decays slower. Look here under 'Time Dilation For Particles'. That's how muons reach the surface of the earth before decaying. It's a real phenomenon alright.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

I just noted a major flaw in the logic of that experiment.

Is time dilating, and actually traveling 'slower' for the high speed frame of reference? Or does the added energy given to the particle to accelerate it to that speed increase the stabilization of the atomic structure, and increases the halflife?

Hehe, well frankly I couldn't tell for sure, I'm just repeating what scientists say to explain the phenomena. Honestly I don't know of any theory that states that added energy 'stabilizes' the 'internal structure' of a particle...you know something like this, or expressed your own thoughts? In any case, I don't think special relativity is seriously debated in science today; it seems to be in really solid ground.

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Silvermyst
I just hope we/they will figure out a way to upload the contents of my brain before I die. After that, the time spent traveling to a star won't be quite so much of a factor.

Yeah, sadly enough there is no guarranty that those contents will be you (as in being)... If it was possible to transfer brain functions one by one in such a way that at some point most of your thought and motor functions are processed by the computer, then, maybe, your self being could be considered to be the same.

Only continuity could guarranty identity me thinks.

Yeah, that thought is scary; if I was about to die, maybe I could think about doing such a thing, nothing to lose. But if I was young and healthy, no way I would go such a process, be it 'uploading' my brain into a computer or replicating myself atom-by-atom or any such thing, assuming all those are actually possible. I'm not much of a believer in an eternal 'soul' or anything, but you never know...not to mention that these goddamn flies have the tendency to always be at the wrong place at the wrong time :)

Anyway I was thinking; from technology/engineering standpoint, maybe things aren't so grim...it's not impossible that we could achieve,say, 5%-10% speed of light, and coupled with cryostasis(which I believe is possible and will be realized), passengers can execute very long trips. It's more of a economic/cost thing...here on Earth nobody would gain from that trip, so the financing would have to come from the people that are taking the trip themselves...maybe some very privileged people that are aiming for an already discovered(by telescopes) 'healthy' planet in order to escape from a decaying Earth...?

This discussion got me thinking... Wasn't there some kind of cloning technique figured out where you start with an egg with the DNA removed and then insert some DNA and it starts growing a person? If that sort of tech exists or is close to existing then I think if I were to try and colonize another planet I'd load up the rocket with cloning equipment and a large bank of DNA. Then with myself onboard, maybe one or two women to keep me company for the trip. Then when we arrive I get the cloning machine going, decide on a story to teach them all about how great I am. Truly be the ruler of the world for a few more years and then pass leadership along in the standard monarch tradition.

Perhaps a little sci-fi but who wouldn't want to be an idolized ruler of their own planet?

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Silvermyst
I just hope we/they will figure out a way to upload the contents of my brain before I die. After that, the time spent traveling to a star won't be quite so much of a factor.

Yeah, sadly enough there is no guarranty that those contents will be you (as in being)... If it was possible to transfer brain functions one by one in such a way that at some point most of your thought and motor functions are processed by the computer, then, maybe, your self being could be considered to be the same.

Only continuity could guarranty identity me thinks.

Its an interesting idea.
I think a good example of it is, the whole star trek teleportation scenario where you may very well die during every trip, and then a copy that thinks its you is created at the other side, no one is the wiser as from the outside that entity believes its safely made it through the teleportation.
Sure your presence may continue on in the world, but I don't think you'd be perceiving it.
Uploading a copy of your brain/thought patterns (if eventually possible) may very well create a machine representation of yourself, but if this process was non destructive(say somehow imaging your brain without damaging it), I don't think you'd expect the original you/your body to stop functioning. So why if it was destructive would your conciousness be transferred to the machine representation?
I mean we don't really have conciousness pinned down so there may be a way to transfer it somehow, or we may be quite firmly attached to the organism thats our body.

Quote: Original post by SuperRad

So why if it was destructive would your conciousness be transferred to the machine representation?
I mean we don't really have conciousness pinned down so there may be a way to transfer it somehow, or we may be quite firmly attached to the organism thats our body.

I was thinking more of switching functionality to the machine till 100% of it is performed by the machine. If you never lose counciousness, would still be you?

Probably the question is what are we? Our body, or the information our body holds?
Is being dead just the fact that our body can't process that information anymore?
If that were the case, then yes, having no body or probably not your original neurons would mean your clinically dead.

Better yet: Could that information be stored in some other layer of reality and be our brain just an interface to it? Like an acrobat reader of our soul? LOL

Jesus. Hitlar. etc.

Quote: Original post by kseh
This discussion got me thinking... Wasn't there some kind of cloning technique figured out where you start with an egg with the DNA removed and then insert some DNA and it starts growing a person? If that sort of tech exists or is close to existing then I think if I were to try and colonize another planet I'd load up the rocket with cloning equipment and a large bank of DNA. Then with myself onboard, maybe one or two women to keep me company for the trip. Then when we arrive I get the cloning machine going, decide on a story to teach them all about how great I am. Truly be the ruler of the world for a few more years and then pass leadership along in the standard monarch tradition.

Perhaps a little sci-fi but who wouldn't want to be an idolized ruler of their own planet?

I would just tell them that I was the son of God and have them write books about me then before I die I would tell them I was going to a great kingdom in the sky.

The way I see it:

Seeding von Neumann probes:

Step1: Develop human friendly AI
Step2: Develop self replicating machines, capable of mining a planet for raw materials that can be used to create copies
Step3: Develop slow boat interstellar spacecraft, that can be built by the machines
Step4: Develop method for growing a human baby outside of a womb
Step5: Package clone-able embryos or genetic material that can be used to grow children
Step6: Send 1 or more ships to high potential star systems, these ships arrive and setup infrastructure for creating more ships. If the star system can potentially sustain human life, create infrastructure to comfortably house and maintain a human colony. The machines grow first generation of children and raise them to maturity. Humans use the pre-constructed cities and facilities, and sustain there own population by traditional means.
Step7: Machine made seed craft are sent to new star systems, and the whole process is repeated in an exponential fashion.

Waalaa in about 50,000 to 100,000 years you have populated the galaxy.

[Edited by - Ender1618 on March 4, 2010 6:28:39 PM]

Quote: Original post by mikeman
Hehe, well frankly I couldn't tell for sure, I'm just repeating what scientists say to explain the phenomena. Honestly I don't know of any theory that states that added energy 'stabilizes' the 'internal structure' of a particle...you know something like this, or expressed your own thoughts? In any case, I don't think special relativity is seriously debated in science today; it seems to be in really solid ground.

Any scientist that Doesn't question our fundamental view of the universe isn't a scientist, as they are relying on blind faith that someone before them was right. And you know what that is? That is religion, not science.


As for a theory that allows a particle to become more stable, well it is just a theory for an option with nothing solid to back it up.

Measuring time based on the decay of something is based on the theory that said decay is always a constant rate. If the time measured changes then it means one of two things. Either the rate of decay has in fact remained constant and it is time that has changed, or time has stayed the same and the rate of decay has changed.

Original post by mikeman

Quote: Original post by Talroth
Any scientist that Doesn't question our fundamental view of the universe isn't a scientist, as they are relying on blind faith that someone before them was right. And you know what that is? That is religion, not science.

Well it's not exactly 'blind faith'...if the theory is sound and you understand the reasoning and math behind it, and see they're solid, it's not faith, is it? Of course relativity will probably be revised in the future, but right now it's taken as something that models some things very well. It's not very productive to second-guess your every step, just like it's not productive to never question the existing models. You won't solve many geometric problems if you keep doubting that pi=~3.14, if you don't have a solid reason for that doubt. If you can reason that the theory fails at some point, then of course that's great...but if you keep going 'well, what if it isn't so?' without any reason, you won't get any real work done I think...

Quote:
As for a theory that allows a particle to become more stable, well it is just a theory for an option with nothing solid to back it up.

So that's not a theory, that's a hypothesis. Actually it is more like a speculation, and it certainly is not in equal grounds with relativity, I think we all understand that.

Quote:
Measuring time based on the decay of something is based on the theory that said decay is always a constant rate. If the time measured changes then it means one of two things. Either the rate of decay has in fact remained constant and it is time that has changed, or time has stayed the same and the rate of decay has changed.

Well, since there are numerous other experiments and applications(with atomic clocks, particle accelerators,GPS synch etc) that support the predictions of relativity, and since relativity equations are able to quantitively predict the change in the decay rate as it is observed in reality, I think the sane thing to do is to go with the most succesful and encompassing theory. I haven't heard of any theory that explains that the internal structure of the particle becomes more 'stable'(whatever that means) in higher energies, so...