Ideas Concerning Space Travel At High Speed.

[Darky]

That in of itself is a logical fallacy.

 

If my computer uses 10% CPU, if I get a bigger computer and better computer that only uses 10% CPU, the bigger and better computer will no doubt, have a better performance.

Hi,

 

You're saying bigger. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. It's also a fact that whenever something evolves, it gets smaller. For instance, a storage device - or in your case, a computer.

[Darky]

Hi,

 

No correlation to this topic, however, please check out my other topic about the upcoming predicted mini ice age.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30033-the-age-of-the-ice-is-upon-us-ice-age-of-the-21st-century/

[Darky]

Why? They only need to harness resources on location to replicate and build factories and what not. No need to go back a few notches in evolution with Von Neumann Probes.

 

AI piggy-backing on evolution was my solution to galaxies that are too distant for Von Neumann Probes. They use the most likely FTL method, turning quark technology into tachyons that can collapse their own wave function, they are atomic Von Neumann Probes that can realize their favorite futures. That technology is way on another level, it's not necessary, and even if you have it, not used for local galaxies or single galaxies because evolution takes a long time even when being accelerated. It's still quicker for distant galaxies. You create Kugelblitz engines and use the angular momentum of their artificial micro black holes to create a sort of supergravity-inducing centrifugal particle accelerator that can build all different kinds of hyper condensed quark matter or atomic metamaterials that can be stacked more closely together than normal atoms to build technology a femptometer (nano=billionth of a meter, pico=trillionth of a meter, fempto=quadrillionth of a meter) across and use the casimir effect to generate tachyons or warp fields if the femtorobot itself behaves like a tachyon for as long as need be.

 

Hi,

 

If such an AI is able to replicate itself like so whatsoever, it may replicate uncontrollably. Growing in population, what if one day they decided to turn on us (their creators)?

[Super Polymath]

Hi,

 

If such an AI is able to replicate itself like so whatsoever, it may replicate uncontrollably. Growing in population, what if one day they decided to turn on us (their creators)?

AI is not mortal, it can't perfectly simulate the human condition without subjecting itself to the human condition. Yet humans waste space and can't do the things technology can do. The only solution to this what you see in the Matrix movies. 

[Super Polymath]

Hi,

 

Humorous, but that doesn't count. Sorry.

It actually does. If the android was born a human, and just had all of his cells gradually replaced by nanorobotic counterparts, than it counts. 

 

Do you know how powerful an android with muscles made of carbon nanotubes would be? An android brain could fit a few million human brains worth of processing power in it. 

Edited April 23, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Darky]

AI is not mortal, it can't perfectly simulate the human condition without subjecting itself to the human condition. Yet humans waste space and can't do the things technology can do. The only solution to this what you see in the Matrix movies.

 

Hi,

 

However, it can do precise calculations. One of those calculations may be the threat humans pose to them rendering them making calculations for a war. All of this isn't bound to happen, but if there is a chance (which there is) - no one will use this option. It's like putting a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists and pray to God they don't use it.

[Super Polymath]

Hi,

 

However, it can do precise calculations. One of those calculations may be the threat humans pose to them rendering them making calculations for a war. All of this isn't bound to happen, but if there is a chance (which there is) - no one will use this option. It's like putting a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists and pray to God they don't use it.

Humans don't pose a threat so much as waste space and resources unnecessarily. 

 

Upload humans to a simulated reality and you have a way to continuously define consciousness, which would lead to better AI. It's a mutually beneficial solution. 

[Darky]

It actually does. If the android was born a human, and just had all of his cells gradually replaced by nanorobotic counterparts, than it counts. 

 

Do you know how powerful an android with muscles made of carbon nanotubes would be? An android brain could fit a few million human brains worth of processing power in it.

 

Hi,

 

Yes, then it would count. However, knowledge is power, right? One race being so much smarter than us, is like comparing us to animals; only we would be the animals in that scenario.

[Darky]

Humans don't pose a threat so much as waste space and resources unnecessarily. 

 

Upload humans to a simulated reality and you have a way to continuously define consciousness, which would lead to better AI. It's a mutually beneficial solution.

 

Hi,

 

The motto of a famous military is : "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst". We hope they don't think like that, but if we do, we need counter-measures incase. What do you suggest for some counter-measures?

[Super Polymath]

only we would be the animals in that scenario.

[Darky]

Hi,

 

We can't follow videos of such.

[Super Polymath]

Hi,

 

The motto of a famous military is : "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst". We hope they don't think like that, but if we do, we need counter-measures incase. What do you suggest for some counter-measures?

I already gave you a mutually beneficial outcome. I've stated it several times. You can't have consciousness without the human condition. So we always have some small value. It's just where we exist, our bodies become computronium, our consciousnesses remain in simulated reality. 

[Super Polymath]

Sorry, Darky, I sometimes forget that some people do not appreciate my sense of humor, however, I claim no credit in the idea of antigravity propulsion.  Here is a link, with my apology.  http://www.space.com/2026-antigravity-propulsion-system-proposed.html

The issue is no propulsion method known can accelerate a spacecraft to "57.7% of the speed of light" in the first place. 

 

You need planetary mass to realize the apergic force, the trend is to get smaller not larger. 

Edited April 23, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Darky]

The issue is no propulsion method known can accelerate a spacecraft to "57.7% of the speed of light" in the first place. 

 

You need planetary mass to realize the apergic force, the trend is to get smaller not larger.

 

Hi,

 

What if you could create something with the size being extremely small (2m by 2m) but having an extremely large mass like a black hole (except the super high gravity but the amount we need). Is that possible? I'm asking.

[Super Polymath]

Hi,

 

What if you could create something with the size being extremely small (2m by 2m) but having an extremely large mass like a black hole (except the super high gravity but the amount we need). Is that possible? I'm asking.

I'm not even sure that's what's meant by the "apergic force".

 

It just seems like another warp drive to me. Like, using gravitons to fly. 

[Super Polymath]

Dr. Felber's paper states that a mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light will gravitationally repel other masses lying within a narrow 'antigravity beam' in front of it. This "beam" intensifies as the speed of the mass approaches that of light.

The paper shows how to use the repulsion of a body speeding through space to accelerate large spacecraft quickly while reducing internal tidal forces that could tear the cargo apart. The paper argues that the payload would "fall weightlessly" in an antigravity beam as it is accelerated to a substantial fraction of light speed.

 

But this isn't clear on how big that mass needs to be. Protons have mass and they move much faster than 60% of c. So it's great for protons, but what we're talking about is kind of counterproductive, you need to accelerate a substantial mass to 57.7% of the speed of light just to create a beam large enough for a spacecraft to fall through. 

So, once again, your better off with microscopic spacecrafts and miniaturization. So that's a pretty universal idea, that we need to make the spacecrafts too small for humans to actually get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. 

[pzkpfw]

Hi,

 

It's confirmed that us humans have used less than 10% of our brain. Making them larger would have no use if we can't exceed the 10% limit.

Yeah, nah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth