[News]

News: Help me get the word out!  If anyone has advice or knows media people who might be interested, please let us know!

[three-dimensional-world]

Suppose you were in the vacuum of space - how could you move? You can't 'swim' like you could in water because there's no water to swim against.. for the same reason you can't use a propeller or jet engine because they need wind to work.

When you drop a cat it is possible for it to turn around in the air without making use of the air flow (I think) so perhaps a spaceship would have to employ a similar phenomenon to that for maneuvering in space. The most efficient method would be to modify gravity (i.e. bend space according to Einstiens space MINUS time theory) so that 'downhill' (in the 3D sense rather than literally downhill) and you just roll downhill to where you wanted to go.. the problem with this method is that the quantum gravity theory is not well understood enough to allow local perturbations especially as many people have wasted time with nonsense like wormholes and timetravel.

The most realistic method at the current stage appears to be intertia as defined by Newton, you need to model the solar systems motion accurately and propell yourself correctly so that you reach your destination simply by travelling as the cosmos takes you. This is the actually the basis of a computer game too. The main drawback of this method is the n-bodie problem but quantum computing might help to solve this.

So to summarize the prospects for space travel seem quite dire and the pessimistic conclusion would be that this explains why no tangible aliens have approached earth.

[three-dimensional-world]

oh I forgot to mention the ether, it might be possible to swin through the ether if you have sails made out of a holographic material which transcends matter but the details of this have not been worked out and realistically it doesn't seem promising.

[jackofhearts]

You seemed to give one of the explanations, inertia.  This is what NASA's done for a long time to send probes long distances to places like Mars and Venus.  To do this, they need an incredibly accurate measurement of all the forces active upon said probes during their trip, namely gravity.  If you believe in NASA, you know that they've harnassed gravity to send probes to their intended destination with incredible accuracy. 

In general, though, space craft use rockets/thrusters.  Swimming is impossible, because swimming relies on the action/reaction principle; you push backwards on the water, and you move forward.  It may sound weird, but if you think about it, it makes sense.  Here's a site that might explain more.

[Trekky0623]

BBC - Japan unfurls solar sail

[jackofhearts]

BBC - Japan unfurls solar sail

That's so fucking cool.

[SupahLovah]

Rockets/Thrusters. You introduce a form of propulsion.

[Parsifal]

Rockets/Thrusters. You introduce a form of propulsion.

This. lrn2conservationofmomentum

[General Disarray]

Bring stuff on your spacecraft and throw it backwards out of your ship really fast.

The usual method of doing this is to bring something combustible, burn it, and direct the exhaust behind you. It moves backwards and you move forward.

The ether does not exist.

[Trekky0623]

1. Point at the target.
2. Fire rocket until you reach desired speed.
3. Drift 'til you get there.

Disregarding complications like gravity from other objects, etc. which would cause you to have to rethink your initial course.

[jackofhearts]

At this point, I still don't understand why it's impossible to go into space, as FE'ers so ferverently suggest.

[Nolhekh]

When you drop a cat it is possible for it to turn around in the air without making use of the air flow (I think) so perhaps a spaceship would have to employ a similar phenomenon to that for maneuvering in space.

A spaceship could in fact do this, but it's not necessary, and likely impractical.  The cat uses something we call the law of conservation of angular momentum, which means that when it brings it's weight closer to the axis of rotation, it will rotate faster.  When it spreads it's legs it'll rotate slower, giving it some, but not absolute, control over it's orientation.  A spacecraft relying on this method would have to be already rotating for it to work, and it would only be able to control the speed of rotation on only one axis.  Instead spacecraft use thrusters, which can, if correctly designed, give them absolute control over their orientation.

[Raist]

Suppose you were in the vacuum of space - how could you move? You can't 'swim' like you could in water because there's no water to swim against.. for the same reason you can't use a propeller or jet engine because they need wind to work.

When you drop a cat it is possible for it to turn around in the air without making use of the air flow (I think) so perhaps a spaceship would have to employ a similar phenomenon to that for maneuvering in space. The most efficient method would be to modify gravity (i.e. bend space according to Einstiens space MINUS time theory) so that 'downhill' (in the 3D sense rather than literally downhill) and you just roll downhill to where you wanted to go.. the problem with this method is that the quantum gravity theory is not well understood enough to allow local perturbations especially as many people have wasted time with nonsense like wormholes and timetravel.

The most realistic method at the current stage appears to be intertia as defined by Newton, you need to model the solar systems motion accurately and propell yourself correctly so that you reach your destination simply by travelling as the cosmos takes you. This is the actually the basis of a computer game too. The main drawback of this method is the n-bodie problem but quantum computing might help to solve this.

So to summarize the prospects for space travel seem quite dire and the pessimistic conclusion would be that this explains why no tangible aliens have approached earth.

You throw an object out the back and you then go forward. I don't see how that's complicated.

[jackofhearts]

You throw an object out the back and you then go forward. I don't see how that's complicated.

I still fail to see why FE'ers insist sustained space flight is impossible.

[EnglshGentleman]

You throw an object out the back and you then go forward. I don't see how that's complicated.

I still fail to see why FE'ers insist sustained space flight is impossible.

Lurk moar. There are countless threads on this.

[jackofhearts]

You throw an object out the back and you then go forward. I don't see how that's complicated.

I still fail to see why FE'ers insist sustained space flight is impossible.

Lurk moar. There are countless threads on this.

I will, as soon as someone fixes the retarded search function and fixes the FAQ.

[EnglshGentleman]

You throw an object out the back and you then go forward. I don't see how that's complicated.

I still fail to see why FE'ers insist sustained space flight is impossible.

Lurk moar. There are countless threads on this.

I will, as soon as someone fixes the retarded search function and fixes the FAQ.

Or maybe you need to stop being so retarded.

Click the "search" button.
Click the "advanced search button.
Type in, "Space Flight".
Click the "topic only" tab.
Search.

It really isn't that difficult.

[jackofhearts]

I lurked, and the only excuse for "sustained spaceflight is not possible" = Conspiracy.  That, and, under UA, the Earth would eventually catch up to whatever craft tried to escape the Earth.

So really, sustained space fligth is only 'not possible' under FET...

...meaning it's perfectly attainable (and has been attained) under RET.  Therefore, I see no reason why people are convinced we haven't achieved sustained space flight.

[Parsifal]

Therefore, I see no reason why people are convinced we haven't achieved sustained space flight.

Due to this bit:

So really, sustained space fligth is only 'not possible' under FET...

[EnglshGentleman]

Therefore, I see no reason why people are convinced we haven't achieved sustained space flight.

You answered you own question

I lurked, and the only excuse for "sustained spaceflight is not possible" = Conspiracy.  That, and, under UA, the Earth would eventually catch up to whatever craft tried to escape the Earth.

So really, sustained space flight is only 'not possible' under FET...

What is possible under RE is irrelevant to the group of people you are addressing. It doesn't matter what is and isn't possible under RE when we are talking about FE

[jackofhearts]

That's only when one assumes (incorrectly) that the Earth is flat.