Why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs?

[Skashion]

I'm siding with Damocles argument here. I think wiping out everyone would be near impossible.

 

[tonea2003]

I'm siding with Damocles argument here. I think wiping out everyone would be near impossible.

but not impossible, like i said advances in technology could bring something we don't want.
i agree currently its unlikely, but would be highly unpleasant for those that would survive.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I read somewhere that the Human race will be, in terms of longevity the most unsuccesful inhabitants of this world. Unlike ants, sharks, cockroaches etc who have been here for hundreds of millions of years and look set to continue, in the scheme of things our extinction, (which is an inevitability) is not far off.
We are just a higher animal which is now rapidly becoming far too numerous which nature will adjust accordingly, apparently.
It does make the idea of a God ordaining all this all a bit strange really.

That's because humanity has a large guilt complex built in that likes us to think that we are somehow evil, inferior and small.

In reality, we are by far the most successful animal ever to inhabit this planet, and the chances of us EVER going extinct before the end of the Universe is slim. Space travel, which should be a real reality in a couple of hundred years, gives us the opportunity to live forever.

Nature isn't a force, it doesn't have a personality, the adjustments that they are talking about will be fixed by greater production of food and resources.

I'm not saying that the argument I quoted is necessarily correct, we will never know but I do have some affinity with it. You are quite right about the human guilt complex; it is probably what influenced religious teachings in the first place. However, although I live in hope I think space travel will not be the saviour; travelling at the speed of light is theoretically impossible and given the unimaginable distances involved it is accepted that anything less than this will not lead to colonisation elsewhere. I'm certainly no physicist and could be wrong but taking the pessimistic view means we should enjoy it now!

 

[Anonymous]

someone mentioned on here about nano-bots being used to create strains of killer virus's (as in human virus's)

surely, if technology like that gets into the wrong hands, the end of the world will come about very swiftly

and to counteract damocles' post, you missed out human arrogance, which surely is the catalyst for everything we think we are going to achieve.

 

[Skashion]

However, although I live in hope I think space travel will not be the saviour; travelling at the speed of light is theoretically impossible and given the unimaginable distances involved it is accepted that anything less than this will not lead to colonisation elsewhere. I'm certainly no physicist and could be wrong but taking the pessimistic view means we should enjoy it now!

Where is this accepted? It doesn't even make logical sense. If we can't travel at c, even travelling at 0.9c would be useless, what because the journey would take 10% longer?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I remind you of the scientific teachings of the educational videos Star Wars, Alien and Terminator.

Anything is possible.

 

[Damocles]

That's because humanity has a large guilt complex built in that likes us to think that we are somehow evil, inferior and small.

In reality, we are by far the most successful animal ever to inhabit this planet, and the chances of us EVER going extinct before the end of the Universe is slim. Space travel, which should be a real reality in a couple of hundred years, gives us the opportunity to live forever.

Nature isn't a force, it doesn't have a personality, the adjustments that they are talking about will be fixed by greater production of food and resources.

I'm not saying that the argument I quoted is necessarily correct, we will never know but I do have some affinity with it. You are quite right about the human guilt complex; it is probably what influenced religious teachings in the first place. However, although I live in hope I think space travel will not be the saviour; travelling at the speed of light is theoretically impossible and given the unimaginable distances involved it is accepted that anything less than this will not lead to colonisation elsewhere. I'm certainly no physicist and could be wrong but taking the pessimistic view means we should enjoy it now!

The impossibility of travelling beyond the speed of light is something that I disagree with. Just to be clear, I have no scientific basis for thinking this, just a faith in humanity and an understanding of how science progresses.

Travelling above c is only impossible because the faster an object travels, the more mass it acquires, therefore the more energy is needed to speed it up. At speeds nearing c, the mass is almost infinite, so we need an impossible amount of energy.

If we could find a way to turn the added mass into energy, we'd be all set. Bosons turn energy into mass, so why not?

This fantasy apart, we could use energy sources in the future that would bend the fabric of spacetime, thus shortening the distance we have to travel. There's also wormhole technology, or even massive sleeper ships to carry humanity off into the stars.

We've been in space for around 60 years and now have geosynchronous satellites, satellites in the furthest reaches of our galaxy, robots on other planets, men stepping on the Moon and soon to come, Mars. We have solar sails, ion engines and other new forms of propulsion. 60 years that took us. Imagine what we can do in 50,000 years.

 

[mancityvstoke]

How does light travel at the speed of light?

 

[Damocles]

How does light travel at the speed of light?

That's a very, very good question. You're entering a world of hurt with it though.

The first thing to wrap you head around, is Einstein's famous mass-energy equation, E=mc^2. People always pronounce this as "energy = mass multiplied by the speed of light squared". This is somewhat incorrect, a more accurate version would be "energy = mass multiplied by c squared".

c isn't really the speed of light in a vacuum, it is the Universal speed limit. Light just happens to travel at the Universal speed limit which is where the confusion comes into play.

I say that "light happens to travel" at c, and that's a bit inaccurate. What I mean, is that light HAS to travel at c due to the way that light is made, so to speak.

e=mc^2 states that the faster an object travels, the more mass it builds, thus the more energy is needed to make it go faster.
Think of it as a bullet. If I threw a bullet at your head, it would most likely bounce straight off of you. This is because the energy that I put into the throw doesn't add much weight to it and not enough to break your skull. However, if I shoot it out of a gun, it has much more energy in it, travels much faster, therefore weighs more, therefore hurts more.
If you drop a bowling ball from 1cm above your foot, it won't hurt that bad. If you drop it from 1 mile above it, it will hurt like a woman because the gravity of the Earth is pulling it down, thus giving it more energy, thus more mass and weight.

Same principle applies in space. The easy way to remember it is more energy = more speed = more mass. Heavier things require more energy to move.

Now that that is hopefully clear, we must examine light itself. You see, light is a form of electromagnetic radiation and is made up of photons. Photons are a special type of beast in that they are "massless particles". This is important.

Just as heavy things need lots of energy to move because of their mass, things without mass need no energy to speed up. In fact, the concept of acceleration doesn't exist for light, as c is the only possible speed that it can travel in a vacuum.

Therefore, light (the illuminating thing) travels at c because it is light (as in it has zero mass). Any other massless particle should also travel at c.

(I was going to do the math and actually show WHY relativity dictates that massless particles such as light must travel at c, but it's a bit dense and I'm not sure if anyone would have any interest in it. I'll explain it the best that I can if somebody wants)

 

[Skashion]

This is because the energy that I put into the throw doesn't add much weight to it and not enough to break your skull. However, if I shoot it out of a gun, it has much more energy in it, travels much faster, therefore weighs more, therefore hurts more.
If you drop a bowling ball from 1cm above your foot, it won't hurt that bad. If you drop it from 1 mile above it, it will hurt like a woman because the gravity of the Earth is pulling it down, thus giving it more energy, thus more mass and weight.

The mass objects like bullets and bowling balls will gain at non-relativistic speeds is absolutely negligible.