El Chupacabra
It Wandered In From the Wastes
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/news_events/exhibits/futuristics/index.html
I'd really like to "ride" one of those GEMs !
I'd really like to "ride" one of those GEMs !
The future of transport as predicted in the 50s and 60s
- Thread starter El Chupacabra
- Start date
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Well, obviously because sperm in penises are very fast.
Designers tend to steal from nature, regardless of how gross it is.
In fact, that's why 'designer' is a synonome for faggot.
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
Nice fifty's concept art of future transportation.
Damn you Maddog...you beat me to it.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
Damn you Maddog...you beat me to it.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
1) for near-future transportation i see many vehicles going diesel as that is where most research is showing productive alternatives to petroleum/oil based fuels and moving twords solutions such as biodiesel.
2) anti-gravity. if we can ever figure this out it would spark easy and fast transportation. just depends on the power consumption.
3) teleportation. this could be extremely dangrous as it possibly would evolve to the point where you could teleport to anywhere.. such as a bomb into a nuclear reactor.
power generation:
1) solar/wind/water power generation forms are extremely easy by todays standards but the power generated from solar and wind is quite low compared to the generated power seen from water.
2) nuclear fission power is extremely quantifieable but the inherent dangers plus the post-product of nuclear waste is extremely hazardus not to mention cleanup/disposal.
3) nuclear fusion power has not been attained but is supposed to be much safer/cleaner than other methods not to mention much more gained in power.
4) "cold fusion" where the input is water and out-put is hydrogen which is burned leaving oxygen is most likely the cleanest type and most abundant but also far ahead unless some guy comes out and figures it out on a massively useable scale.
what i see the current problems inhibiting powerful and useful forms of transportation/power generation:
1) science today is full of "laws" and "theories" which possibly inhibit research into methods to get some of these technologies to work... such as inertial dampners... current science says they are impossible. go back 500 years and science said the world was flat. that was proven wrong just as science today may be proven wrong but all these "laws" and "theories" being accepted as fact inhibits research that would contravene research into these factors.
2) money to provide for the research. most of the "high return" forms of transportation and power generation being seen as "impossible" under current scientific "rules" would prevent anyone with the real ability to fund this type of research wouldnt get done because everyone "knows" that it cant be done so why waste the money?
4) over the long-term capitalisim/socialisim favors those with money to hold on to it and generate more of it than those with less. the problem is that some of this research will possibly cost tons of money but because of the socio-political climate and scientific "blind spots" would prevent people into researching these in the long-term and instead prefer the short-term or people who just "think right" to figure these problems out.
think about it... go back 150 years and look at the high-end of society was living... now look at it today. all that was brought about by research and people who thought just right to see solutions. and most of them made lots of money or their descendants did off their work.
we need to encourage any and all forms of research irrelevant of what science thinks/says because it could be wrong.
2) anti-gravity. if we can ever figure this out it would spark easy and fast transportation. just depends on the power consumption.
3) teleportation. this could be extremely dangrous as it possibly would evolve to the point where you could teleport to anywhere.. such as a bomb into a nuclear reactor.
power generation:
1) solar/wind/water power generation forms are extremely easy by todays standards but the power generated from solar and wind is quite low compared to the generated power seen from water.
2) nuclear fission power is extremely quantifieable but the inherent dangers plus the post-product of nuclear waste is extremely hazardus not to mention cleanup/disposal.
3) nuclear fusion power has not been attained but is supposed to be much safer/cleaner than other methods not to mention much more gained in power.
4) "cold fusion" where the input is water and out-put is hydrogen which is burned leaving oxygen is most likely the cleanest type and most abundant but also far ahead unless some guy comes out and figures it out on a massively useable scale.
what i see the current problems inhibiting powerful and useful forms of transportation/power generation:
1) science today is full of "laws" and "theories" which possibly inhibit research into methods to get some of these technologies to work... such as inertial dampners... current science says they are impossible. go back 500 years and science said the world was flat. that was proven wrong just as science today may be proven wrong but all these "laws" and "theories" being accepted as fact inhibits research that would contravene research into these factors.
2) money to provide for the research. most of the "high return" forms of transportation and power generation being seen as "impossible" under current scientific "rules" would prevent anyone with the real ability to fund this type of research wouldnt get done because everyone "knows" that it cant be done so why waste the money?
4) over the long-term capitalisim/socialisim favors those with money to hold on to it and generate more of it than those with less. the problem is that some of this research will possibly cost tons of money but because of the socio-political climate and scientific "blind spots" would prevent people into researching these in the long-term and instead prefer the short-term or people who just "think right" to figure these problems out.
think about it... go back 150 years and look at the high-end of society was living... now look at it today. all that was brought about by research and people who thought just right to see solutions. and most of them made lots of money or their descendants did off their work.
we need to encourage any and all forms of research irrelevant of what science thinks/says because it could be wrong.
SimpleMinded
Vault Fossil
MadDog -[TO said:
Aye, I've heard about that... does it make it much faster? Why hasn't it become more widely used?
No way them magnets would lift the average American..lilfyffedawg said:
Pretty simple really, it's expensive.
MadDog -[TO said:
Well, it's anti-gravity in that it's a force that works against gravitational force. But by that standard, lifting your feet as you walk is anti-gravity transportation.
Personally, I see no reason to believe that anti-gravitational force exists, as a force that is the exact opposite of gravity has never been encountered in the entire history of scientific inquiry.
And WesDude, as far as science being better off without all the laws and theories... uh... wow. Considering that using laws and theories laid down by previous scientists is basically the only way later scientists have made any progress, and your idea just doesn't work... at all.
Incidentally, I doubt any scientists believed the world was round 500 years ago. Hell, Greek philosopher-scientists theorized the Earth was round back in the BC days, and Eratosthenes even estimated the Earth's circumference to with a pretty good accuracy, considering his tools. Most opponents to Columbus' plan said that the Earth's circumference was much bigger than he thought it was, making a journey to Asia impossible with the resources of the time. It turns out they were correct, they just hadn't known there'd be a continent out here.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/maglev-train.htm
How Maglev trains WORK... cause they do. and they are in europe too.
How Maglev trains WORK... cause they do. and they are in europe too.
Taintspore
First time out of the vault
First off, you're right radial, it's electromagnetic. Secondly... if you like the idea of the Grand Unified Theory then there's only one type of force and gravity would be a subtype of this force so technically anything would be antigravity. 
I'm not really far enough into my physics major to really understand Grand Unified Theory, as we haven't yet talked about forces in terms of strong and weak yet. Would someone pushing against a rock be a form of weak energy?
And the idea of electroweak energy is pretty neat, yes.
And the idea of electroweak energy is pretty neat, yes.
Taintspore
First time out of the vault
I transferred out of physics into comp-sci last year so I won't be getting as much physics as I'ld like to (maybe a phys after degree, hmm....). Anyway, remembering back to my modern physics course there are 4 forces: Strong and weak nuclear forces (these don't really have any implications on bodies outside of the nucleus (might have been outside the atom entirely can't quite remember, comp-sci takes away my time for sleeping)), Electromagnetic forces, and gravitational forces. If I remember correctly S/W nuclear forces and EM forces have been unified but gravity is still out to lunch (if only someone could find a graviton).
I'm not sure about this, but I seem to remember reading about a possible other force that is exerted by empty space (by empty I mean a true vacuum (except for the 1/2h Joules (I think it's 1/2 h, I don't have my phys books with me, maybe it was 1/3 h^2) present no matter what), space in galaxies still has a few atoms per m^3). The reasoning for this force is that the universe should slow it's expansion and eventually stop then begin contracting (mutual gravitation of all things) but it's speeding up, and the acceleration rate seems to be increasing as well. So it would seem that there is another force that is working against gravity, and that the further things get from each other the stronger this force becomes and the weaker the force of gravity becomes. This might be the fabled anti-gravity (I think they were calling it a Dark Force?) people have talked about for a while. But as far as I know no one has come to a definitive conclusion yet and I haven't read up on it for about 6 months so maybe someone has.
Now that I've veered horribly off topic I'ld like to get back on topic. That gallery is really cool, a lot of that would make good concept art, some of the cars look like the FO team found them and put them in the game.
@TheWesDude: WTF? "laws" and "theories"??? What's with the quotes?
A theory in science is not a theory in terms of "ooh ooh, I have a theory, let's see if I'm right". It's a series of facts and laws that have been tested repeatedly and the results have been duplicated by others. It's very common for people to confuse everyday language with scientific language so I'm not harping on you or anything. Many words are spelled and pronounced the same way but have drastically different meanings, unfortunately a lot of people misinterpret the meanings when the context is different.
Modern science isn't held back by it's components as you suggested, it's held back by funding (which you mentioned) and hard headed people that don't want to change their view no matter how much empirical data tells them they're wrong. It's funny how theories usually change when the guy that was the most loudmouthed about how the old one was right dies. I guess I'm saying that Science is pure and that people corrupt it and keep it from evolving.
Here's the link to the site I quoted above if anyone wants to read the whole thing:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
I'm done for now, sorry for the long-winded multipersonalitied post, shouldn't happen again.
I'm not sure about this, but I seem to remember reading about a possible other force that is exerted by empty space (by empty I mean a true vacuum (except for the 1/2h Joules (I think it's 1/2 h, I don't have my phys books with me, maybe it was 1/3 h^2) present no matter what), space in galaxies still has a few atoms per m^3). The reasoning for this force is that the universe should slow it's expansion and eventually stop then begin contracting (mutual gravitation of all things) but it's speeding up, and the acceleration rate seems to be increasing as well. So it would seem that there is another force that is working against gravity, and that the further things get from each other the stronger this force becomes and the weaker the force of gravity becomes. This might be the fabled anti-gravity (I think they were calling it a Dark Force?) people have talked about for a while. But as far as I know no one has come to a definitive conclusion yet and I haven't read up on it for about 6 months so maybe someone has.
Now that I've veered horribly off topic I'ld like to get back on topic. That gallery is really cool, a lot of that would make good concept art, some of the cars look like the FO team found them and put them in the game.
@TheWesDude: WTF? "laws" and "theories"??? What's with the quotes?
A theory in science is not a theory in terms of "ooh ooh, I have a theory, let's see if I'm right". It's a series of facts and laws that have been tested repeatedly and the results have been duplicated by others. It's very common for people to confuse everyday language with scientific language so I'm not harping on you or anything. Many words are spelled and pronounced the same way but have drastically different meanings, unfortunately a lot of people misinterpret the meanings when the context is different.
Modern science isn't held back by it's components as you suggested, it's held back by funding (which you mentioned) and hard headed people that don't want to change their view no matter how much empirical data tells them they're wrong. It's funny how theories usually change when the guy that was the most loudmouthed about how the old one was right dies. I guess I'm saying that Science is pure and that people corrupt it and keep it from evolving.
Here's the link to the site I quoted above if anyone wants to read the whole thing:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
I'm done for now, sorry for the long-winded multipersonalitied post, shouldn't happen again.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
when i was talking about theories and laws in quotes i was talking about them in scientific terms. but i put the quotes around them because i believe the majority of them are incomplete based upon ignorance or mis-understanding.
for example:
go to most highly educated people in physics and the majority of them will tell you that time travel to the past is impossible.
in reality there is no proof saying time-travel to the past is impossible, its just that lots of "theories" and "laws" say it is impossible and they accept it. the majority of what scientists say is impossible, in reality, isnt impossible; its just that we lack the proper science and understanding to say how it is possible.
under true observation of science, nothing can be said to be impossible, but rather we havent found the right way to do it, or lack the proper technology or science to do it.
that is what i was saying in much fewer words above.
for example:
go to most highly educated people in physics and the majority of them will tell you that time travel to the past is impossible.
in reality there is no proof saying time-travel to the past is impossible, its just that lots of "theories" and "laws" say it is impossible and they accept it. the majority of what scientists say is impossible, in reality, isnt impossible; its just that we lack the proper science and understanding to say how it is possible.
under true observation of science, nothing can be said to be impossible, but rather we havent found the right way to do it, or lack the proper technology or science to do it.
that is what i was saying in much fewer words above.
Taintspore
First time out of the vault
Sorry WesDude, I took the quotes to imply sarcasm. You do make a good point about how some scientists have a habit of just dismissing things right off without giving them the proper attention. The perfect example of this is Kinetic Molecular Theory, the guy that proposed it was an as yet unpublished physicist who wrote a paper on it and sent it to the Royal Society who shot it down (damn chemists). I think it was Raleigh (sp?) who found it in the archives many years later (after KMT had been rediscovered) and had the KMT credited to the proper person. As I mentioned above, new ideas/models tend not to be accepted until the supporters of the current model die.
However, back in the day there were only about 30 physicists worldwide, now there are easily half a thousand physicists researching quantum theory and the like and trying to figure out what is missing from certain models that always result in solutions of infinity. Because of the fact that there are many more minds, there are many more ideas, and not surprisingly more models being proven incorrect. But many more are also on the road to being accepted, but unfortunately some of these are near impossible to test by todays technological standards.
I like your time travel example, but you're not entirely correct. A crappy physicist will tell you that will tell you that it's possible, a good physicist will tell you it's impossible, but a great one will tell you that it's not possible now, but may be in the future when our understanding of time is further along than it is now. Hell, last I read, to unify physics the emerging concensus is that time will have to be eliminated as a property of existence (don't ask, I don't know, "End of time" by Julian Barbour is a good place to start, it's a little out there but at least he's trying to work the problem). Before we can say whether or not it's actually possible we need to understand the substance we want to travel through, which we don't.
I read an article about a year ago proposing how timetravel might be possible and it seemed to make sense but was more than likely incorrect. If I remember correctly, you need to create a wormhole of a specific length... I better not keep going about that seeing as how my memory of it is fuzzier than I thought. One thing I do remember is the example of throwing a ball into the "time hole" for lack of a better word. Let's say you have a pipe in time. On one end is the present. On the other end is the instant the ball leaves your hand for the pipe. The pipe is shaped like a horseshoe so that if you could see it, the path the ball takes to enter crosses the path of the ball after it exits. You throw the ball, the instant it leaves your hand, another ball (actually the same one) leaves the pipe and begins moving through the present as the ball you threw is on it's way to enter the pipe. Is it possible for the "futureball" to strike the ball you tossed and prevent it from entering? Going by causality it can't, because it would never have entered the time pipe and therefore could not enter it's past to prevent it from entering the pipe. So either the laws of causality are correct (action THEN reaction, not reaction before the action) at least in our portion of space time, or there are temporal dimensions we don't know about (there are more than three physical dimensions, but we don't interact with them). What I'm getting at is that impossibility in science (at least physics) usually means impossibly improbable.
Anyway, you're right when you say that many models and theories are incomplete, but that's why we have researchers. In fact, we know many of them are just plain wrong, but we have nothing better to go on right now (Solar Nebula model for the formation of the solar system for example, it's just full of holes). Usually we just haven't found a way of obtaining more/better/more accurate observations yet. Unfortunately science relies on observation: if you find proof of something mathematically, yet no evidence for it exists everywhere, either you were wrong, are missing something, or the instruments just aren't there or aren't good enough yet.
So basically, the last paragraph of your last post is almost 100% correct. The only things that are impossible are the undetectable and untestable (given infinite technology and resources, then there's the case of practical impossibility). ie: the undetectable and untestable gremlins that live in the invisible city at the center of the earth.
However, back in the day there were only about 30 physicists worldwide, now there are easily half a thousand physicists researching quantum theory and the like and trying to figure out what is missing from certain models that always result in solutions of infinity. Because of the fact that there are many more minds, there are many more ideas, and not surprisingly more models being proven incorrect. But many more are also on the road to being accepted, but unfortunately some of these are near impossible to test by todays technological standards.
I like your time travel example, but you're not entirely correct. A crappy physicist will tell you that will tell you that it's possible, a good physicist will tell you it's impossible, but a great one will tell you that it's not possible now, but may be in the future when our understanding of time is further along than it is now. Hell, last I read, to unify physics the emerging concensus is that time will have to be eliminated as a property of existence (don't ask, I don't know, "End of time" by Julian Barbour is a good place to start, it's a little out there but at least he's trying to work the problem). Before we can say whether or not it's actually possible we need to understand the substance we want to travel through, which we don't.
I read an article about a year ago proposing how timetravel might be possible and it seemed to make sense but was more than likely incorrect. If I remember correctly, you need to create a wormhole of a specific length... I better not keep going about that seeing as how my memory of it is fuzzier than I thought. One thing I do remember is the example of throwing a ball into the "time hole" for lack of a better word. Let's say you have a pipe in time. On one end is the present. On the other end is the instant the ball leaves your hand for the pipe. The pipe is shaped like a horseshoe so that if you could see it, the path the ball takes to enter crosses the path of the ball after it exits. You throw the ball, the instant it leaves your hand, another ball (actually the same one) leaves the pipe and begins moving through the present as the ball you threw is on it's way to enter the pipe. Is it possible for the "futureball" to strike the ball you tossed and prevent it from entering? Going by causality it can't, because it would never have entered the time pipe and therefore could not enter it's past to prevent it from entering the pipe. So either the laws of causality are correct (action THEN reaction, not reaction before the action) at least in our portion of space time, or there are temporal dimensions we don't know about (there are more than three physical dimensions, but we don't interact with them). What I'm getting at is that impossibility in science (at least physics) usually means impossibly improbable.
Anyway, you're right when you say that many models and theories are incomplete, but that's why we have researchers. In fact, we know many of them are just plain wrong, but we have nothing better to go on right now (Solar Nebula model for the formation of the solar system for example, it's just full of holes). Usually we just haven't found a way of obtaining more/better/more accurate observations yet. Unfortunately science relies on observation: if you find proof of something mathematically, yet no evidence for it exists everywhere, either you were wrong, are missing something, or the instruments just aren't there or aren't good enough yet.
So basically, the last paragraph of your last post is almost 100% correct. The only things that are impossible are the undetectable and untestable (given infinite technology and resources, then there's the case of practical impossibility). ie: the undetectable and untestable gremlins that live in the invisible city at the center of the earth.