What is Digg?73 Comments
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"There once was a traveler named Blight,
who could travel much faster than light.
He departed one day,
in an Einsteinian way,
and came back, on the previous night! - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"There once was a swordsman named Fisk
whose fencing was exceedingly brisk.
So quick was his action,
the 'fitzgerald contraction'
reduced his rapier to a disk! - applehill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4where's my flying car in the year 2000
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"where's my flying car in the year 2000"
Your flying car will be late...so we're sending you this Ipod instead!
LMAO - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3After the government finally admits that it's in cheyenne mountain, I'll be taking the Stargate to places. You can keep your weak ass warp drives...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2light speed isn't too slow for the space ship riders.. time dilation rocks.
if we want to go light speed all we have to do is make a spaceship out of light.
no but this really doesn't make any sense.. general relativity says that all physics is valid in any state of uniform motion. Unless there is an ether (which has all but been disproved) then 57.7%c is just as meaningless as 0%c. What this report seams to depend on is the not at all agreed upon force responsible for the expansion of the universe. Such a spaceship operating on anti-gravity would cause the universe to expand, you could go as fast as you want and never get anywhere.
plus anti gravity would deform space like a hilll just as gravity deforms space like a valley.. a spaceship would have great dificulty staying on the crest of the hill.. to keep from spinning you would need somekind of gravitational stabilisers. Probably by deforming space to the right and left of the back end of the spacecraft. this would cause a crushing force equal to the force of accelleration.
I'll digg this when they find the cause of universal expansion which i currently dont believe is due to abberations of gravity over large scale distances. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If, in the future, we discover how to time travel,
I shall go back in time and do whatever is necessary,
to prevent the discovery of time travel.
So then I will ultimately be unable to go back in time, to prevent its discovery.
So that we will discover time travel.
Then I shall go back in time and prevent its discovery!
...So that I can't prevent it.
So that I can! - TheGalacticFork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2By all means, shouldn't we have light speed now? Someone in the future will have acheived lightspeed or Faster Than Light travel and therefore gone back in time up to now and giving FTL to us, thus causing a massive world war for the technology?
- AndrewMayne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Seriously though, light speed is not very useful. It would still take 40 to 80 years to get to the nearest star, and there aren't really too many other places we could go."
So where exactly are you posting from???
Here on earth our nearest star besides our sun is 4 light years away. Which at light speed would take, hold on....let me get my calculator....um, 4 years. - witooo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Some post nonesense:
"After reading that article I came back to Digg and you were all 50 years older....."
Sone others post silly stuff:
"No more "bad traffic" excuse for being late to work."
Others post funny stuff:
"Yet it will still take an hour to get a pizza delivered to your house."
Many post for the sake of posting:
"ill be dead so i dont care."
Few post poetic stuff:
""There once was a traveler named Blight,
who could travel much faster than light.
He departed one day,
in an Einsteinian way..."
And hardly no one posts coherent stuff:
So when was Galilean relativity proven incorrect? Last I heard there was no such thing as absolute speed. That is, you could observe and measure relative speed but there was no way to distinguish which item was moving and which was at rest. Just two different frames of reference. So why would there be "massive pressures" at any speed?
Thanks to the least of you guys! - ConEEE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I predict that in 2150 robots will take over the earth. Now, that wasn't very hard was it?
- Werdock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If any of the diggers happen to go for a ride on one of those, they are very welcome to tell us here how it went. Then we might consider going somewhere else using this one. Anyway, digg.
- virga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wouldn't the payload also be squeezed into something very small, due to the lorentz contractor? as in you through a baseball close to the speed of light and quantum effects take over, and it is squeezed into the shape of a pancake.
- SlashNot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ill be dead so i dont care. lol
- Kashey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Care less in year 2100 I would be dead. Or will be just to old to travel faster then turtle speed.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Warp speed captain! - MrWizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Could they hurry it up a bit? I want to see another world without cataracts.
- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Meh, light speed isn't nearly fast enough for any sort of decent travel. Work on non-inertial travel (e.g. Alcubierre's warp field) is much more promising, IMO.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To quote Dark Helmet: "No no no no, light speed is too slow."
Seriously though, light speed is not very useful. It would still take 40 to 80 years to get to the nearest star, and there aren't really too many other places we could go. This would speed up in-system navigation, but in that case acceleration/deceleration times would probably be significant. - macro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sounds like "blablab...speed of light...blablabla...soon...blablabla..actually very easy"
- PlainJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There already exist technologies that will push us closer to the speed of light. Carl Sagan was a huge advocate for Solar Sailing. Using a laser or the solar winds to increase the speed exponentially. The first solar sail launced earlier this year...it didn't work...but the ideas seem sound.
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I herd the Air froce is working on somthing that could reach superluminal speeds in 5 years.
It's called the hiem theory(or somthing like that) - AndrewMayne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"There already exist technologies that will push us closer to the speed of light. Carl Sagan was a huge advocate for Solar Sailing. "
Best estimates for solar sails don't come anywhere close to the speed of light. - TridenTBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll be ALIVE!!! HAHHAHAA! YES LIGHT SPEED, ILL GET TO LIVE IT! W00T!
- BIllyBobFett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dubious light speed articles + Russian tabloid articles + Apple articles = Digg.com front page.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1his company is dificult to find any information on.
all i can find is a road runner address
which doesnt look good for a company that is going to open the universe for us.
I think this is scientific scam spam designed to get money. - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"""""By all means, shouldn't we have light speed now? Someone in the future will have acheived lightspeed or Faster Than Light travel and therefore gone back in time up to now and giving FTL to us, thus causing a massive world war for the technology?"""""
WOW every word in that paragraph was wrong.
1. Faster than light under normal conditions is not possible.
2. Article says NEARLY the speed of light.
3. You wouldn't go back in time, Perspectively it would appear you are going forward in time but in reality you are not.
4. Who would risk creating a paradox if this happened. Some theories say that in itself is impossible.
5. WHAT????
Eric Wilson - ixalarx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A nifty theory, but let's wait until Tuesday to see his proof.
Dugg. - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yet it will still take an hour to get a pizza delivered to your house.
- Empyrean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By 2100 a $1000 computer (in todays money, negating inflation) will as powerful a few thousand human brains.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
"My estimate of brain capacity is 100 billion neurons times an average 1,000 connections per neuron (with the calculations taking place primarily in the connections) times 200 calculations per second. Although these estimates are conservatively high, one can find higher and lower estimates. However, even much higher (or lower) estimates by orders of magnitude only shift the prediction by a relatively small number of years.
Some prominent dates from this analysis include the following:
* We achieve one Human Brain capability (2 * 10^16 cps) for $1,000 around the year 2023.
* We achieve one Human Brain capability (2 * 10^16 cps) for one cent around the year 2037.
* We achieve one Human Race capability (2 * 10^26 cps) for $1,000 around the year 2049.
* We achieve one Human Race capability (2 * 10^26 cps) for one cent around the year 2059."
Just because you didnt get your cheesy flying car doesnt mean that other things arent possible you know? - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Delivering payload. Hmm, they're not talking about space tourism or interlanetary mining are they? Of course not! As people noticed, we're too far from anywhere in the universe, really, to make even a lightspeed travel benificial, however, there's always a ton of military applications. Weapons. Look at the bio of the scientist who claims the discovery. I'm sure first party to jump in will be the army core hungry for 90% lightspeed projectile technology.
Bet they're already figuring out how to fit this stuff into a gun to deliver a pound payload of lead straight into your brain half way around the world in less than a millisecond! - TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1See, the key is to predict something incredible in a plausible way and then cover your bases by estimating a date no one will live to see. That way, if you're right, you're a hero. If you're wrong, who cares.
- sdbryan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"while negating the massive pressures that were assumed to exist at that speed"
So when was Galilean relativity proven incorrect? Last I heard there was no such thing as absolute speed. That is, you could observe and measure relative speed but there was no way to distinguish which item was moving and which was at rest. Just two different frames of reference. So why would there be "massive pressures" at any speed?
Certainly as one accelerates from one inertial frame to another there are observable physical effects. But once you are not accelerating there should be nothing intrinsic that implies some "absolute" speed. I tried to read the article but it seemed to be largely uncontaminated by content. No digg. - Jetfire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"How about for a start we stop using oil for energy NOW!"
Hmm, because we have nothing to replace it with? Oil is cheap and safe to store. Everything else cost to much. Hydrogen is too expensive to make (usually using oil as the Energy source to make it) and a lot more dangerous to store. Idiots in the US stopped us form using Nuclear power.
Don’t believe it because anything that take 5 years or more never seems to appear. - JaggedEdge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0By that time ill be dead, i hope. I'll make sure to warn my son not to travel like that....Its ludacris to even fathom such an idea.
- Eraserhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Slow down cowboys.
I have never heard of this guy, so he is not a "noted physicist" - Eraserhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Slow down cowboys.
I have never heard of this guy, so he is not a "noted physicist" - witooo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My little bro, glad to see you around.... the article talks about "antigravity beam" which would pull the spaceship forward as it accelerates ie. making the necessary force to accelerate the craft much lower.
"In the 'antigravity beam' of a speeding star, a payload would draw its energy from the anti-gravity force..."
Off course light speed would not be reached but extremely high speeds could be achieved with "anti-gravity" force helping. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How about for a start we stop using oil for energy NOW!
- BenStockwell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^^ Probably.
- javinm75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In order to make a spaceship go faster we have to add energy to it. As we approach the speed of
light, each progressive step up in velocity takes more and more energy for less and less addition to the speed. . No matter how much energy you give to the spaceship, it still will travel at a speed less than that of light. In other words it would take infinite energy in order for the spaceship to reach the speed of light because the mass of the spaceship would increase at a grater rate than speed.
So why worry about pressures when there is still mass to overcome? - Namco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This article reads like a UAC video disk.
- yvovandoorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0weren't we supposed to all own a flying car by now (year 2000?).
- Zerocool.956, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0who cares we will all be dead by then
- allarise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah i call *****. we should have flying cars by now.
i say the same things happens with this. - redrighthand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can't wait.... no really I can't
- johnnyjohnfrank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i just done a poo
- JustMatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Score. My digg makes exactly 1000.
- LostSeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They also thought we'd all be in flying cars in the year 2000 from the 1980's, like the Jetsons. :P
- steviefungi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anything that travels at the speed of light has to/must become light. That's a known fact. Would you and/or the ship be able to go from light back to its original state??? Ponder on that one, because I don't have the answer.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is