|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 11, 2018 16:47:48 GMT
To split up quyotes, this is how I do it Isapop blah blah blah blah blah blah You wrap "quote" around each paragraph I have never figured out how to quote the person and the quote without a lot of pointless work.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 11, 2018 17:07:20 GMT
First, YOU tell ME something.
How do you break up quotes so you can respond to a piece at a time? It's annoying that I don't know how to do that.
So here we go. Like this? Here goes.
I think I have it. Utilizing what I took from you, Bryce, and CoolJGS. Thank you to all three.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 11, 2018 19:19:03 GMT
1) No physical craft can travel at the speed of light because that would give it infinite mass and require infinite energy. It would also cause time dilation according to Einstein’s theory of special relativity. 2) IF it were possible to travel at the speed of light, a trip to Alpha Centauri would take approximately 4.3 years, not 20 years. 3) No crew would survive a trip of that duration in space aboard a “tiny aircraft”. They would run out of food and water within days/weeks (assuming they didn’t perish from cosmic radiation, explosive decompression, or micrometeoroid impacts first). They would require a large ship, with massive engines, fuel reserves, and some kind of suspended animation or cryogenic hibernation to sustain even a small crew for that amount of time in deep space. No such technologies currently exist (or have even been tested). So this is not going to happen in a couple decades! I think one can reasonably infer from the article that the nanocraft would be unmanned and travel at a fraction of the speed of light, and that it would serve as a first step reconnaissance mission. Perhaps. But then, that would still be very poor writing.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 11, 2018 19:25:40 GMT
Burn, baby burn!!
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Jan 11, 2018 22:05:14 GMT
1) No physical craft can travel at the speed of light because that would give it infinite mass and require infinite energy. It would also cause time dilation according to Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Hawking of all people knows this. My bet is that the statement in the article is from the (scientifically illiterate) author of the article, not Hawking himself. Edit: Yep. Here's an article about the same thing from CNBC. It describes the ship as an "ultra-fast, light-powered spacecraft". No mention of it traveling "at the speed of light". 2) IF it were possible to travel at the speed of light, a trip to Alpha Centauri would take approximately 4.3 years, not 20 years. You need to factor in acceleration and deceleration time. The propulsion mechanism mentioned in the article isn't really clear ("The idea behind this innovation is to have the nanocraft on the light beam"), but sounds a bit like a solar sail which I believe accelerates VERY slowly. You'd basically spend half the trip accelerating and the other half decelerating. There's also the time dilation effect you mention. That would make the trip seem to take longer from our perspective.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jan 11, 2018 22:12:30 GMT
Well, we know for a fact that he is wrong. Ecclesiastes 1:4 says "Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever."
At some point, our Sun will expand and engulf the Earth; therefore, the Earth will not remain forever. However, I'm not sure about the year 2600 bit.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Jan 11, 2018 22:14:41 GMT
If we don’t, the world will become overcrowded and increased energy consumption will turn the planet into a ball of fire because of our soaring energy consumption as the population rises. I don't know if Hawking is right or not, but I have observed that most (secular) predictions about the future assume that a current trend will continue indefinitely at the same rate without any mitigating factor to oppose it, and because of this omission, they usually turn out to be wrong. It's sort of like observing the rise in temperature between sunrise and noon, and predicting that by midnight, the ambient air temperature will be 150 F.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 11, 2018 22:19:21 GMT
I hate to say it about Hawking, but for the past few years he's seemed (at least to me) to be more about shock value pop-sci than anything resembling real science. Maybe he's jealous of Tyson's popularity.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 11, 2018 23:01:30 GMT
Time to colonize the Moon
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 11, 2018 23:15:11 GMT
Well, at least one country will have developed interstellar travel and established space colonies by then. Also, I'd probably be dead.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jan 11, 2018 23:38:24 GMT
...duh!!! whut else is new and who the f-ck cares???
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 12, 2018 0:24:31 GMT
Wait.... So, the world will by destroyed by my old Atari? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/svo7b2k61/mjeyds.gif) Cool. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/b114zbst5/evil4.gif)
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 12, 2018 13:00:38 GMT
IsapopHave you reconsidered your position, given the passages I quoted?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 12, 2018 14:19:06 GMT
Isapop Have you reconsidered your position, given the passages I quoted? Ah, yes, sorry for not getting back to you. I hope you see that my post, along with my tongue-in-cheek responses to Graham, was an attempt to "stir the pot" a bit. Remember how we spoke earlier about a lack of Christians on this board willing to earnestly engage? This very thread is an example. (I stalled on answering you hoping that some real Christians might jump in. They didn't.)
Anyway
Your point is certainly well taken. Of course it could lead to an argument over which Bible references to earth are literal and which ones figurative. Maybe the earth lasts forever, but not in its current form. And that's assuming the Bible isn't contradicting itself (large assumption). Here's something you might find interesting from someone who thinks it can all be reconciled (you can tell from the title of his website). defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Psalm_104.5.php
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 12, 2018 14:23:16 GMT
Why on earth would a Christian need to engage on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 12, 2018 14:43:43 GMT
Why on earth would a Christian need to engage on this thread? When the assertion that the earth will be destroyed appears on a RELIGION board, it's surprising when Christians don't weigh in with what Christianity teaches about it.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 12, 2018 14:53:39 GMT
Why on earth would a Christian need to engage on this thread? When the assertion that the earth will be destroyed appears on a RELIGION board, it's surprising when Christians don't weigh in with what Christianity teaches about it. As always, that's largely because theophobiacs only want to discuss the part of the belief that they think contradicts with their views which are decidedly literal. They spend too much time pretending the Bible is discussing things as if God isn;t involved in them too which is odd given the litaral slant they take on other stuff. To comment on this one would be goofy since Hawking is talking like a loon. There's not much to do in regards to comparing doomsday prophecies. Has the topic changed?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 12, 2018 15:36:21 GMT
When the assertion that the earth will be destroyed appears on a RELIGION board, it's surprising when Christians don't weigh in with what Christianity teaches about it. So there would have been a notable response from Christians IF ONLY this prediction sounded weightier? Sorry, not believable. Well, so what? Even if one accepts your description, none of that prevents any Christian from making HIS perspective clear, especially if he thinks the Christian viewpoint can hold its own against the "theophobiacs".
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 12, 2018 16:01:38 GMT
They spend too much time pretending the Bible is discussing things as if God isn;t involved in them too which is odd given the litaral slant they take on other stuff. There is no inconsistency in thinking that an actual deity literally has had no input in scripture just 'inspired' by the supernatural and lacking belief in a literally existing God.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 12, 2018 17:54:47 GMT
Isapop Have you reconsidered your position, given the passages I quoted? Ah, yes, sorry for not getting back to you. I hope you see that my post, along with my tongue-in-cheek responses to Graham, was an attempt to "stir the pot" a bit. Remember how we spoke earlier about a lack of Christians on this board willing to earnestly engage? This very thread is an example. (I stalled on answering you hoping that some real Christians might jump in. They didn't.)
Anyway
Your point is certainly well taken. Of course it could lead to an argument over which Bible references to earth are literal and which ones figurative. Maybe the earth lasts forever, but not in its current form. And that's assuming the Bible isn't contradicting itself (large assumption). Here's something you might find interesting from someone who thinks it can all be reconciled (you can tell from the title of his website). defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Psalm_104.5.php
That is essentially consistent with what I believed when I was a practicing Christian.
|
|