SkepticLance Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Interesting article in New Scientist (Australian printed edition 5 April page 36) by Prof. Michio Kaku - theoretical physics at City University of New York - and author of "Physics of the Impossible." He discusses what scientific and technological developments might occur in the future - which will happen soon, or later, and which are plain impossible. He points out that the history of science is full of luminaries that make lousy predictions. Examples are Lord Kelvin denying that heavier than air flight is possible, claiming that X-rays are a hoax, and that radio has no future. Ernest Rutherford denying that the A bomb will ever be possible. Prof. Kaku suggests 3 classes of development. 1. That which will be done within decades, or 100 years at latest. Examples include teleportation of small items - up to virus size, and invisibility. 2. That which will happen hundreds or thousands of years in the future. Examples include teleportation of large objects, including humans. 3. That which is totally impossible. Examples include precognition and perpetual motion machines. He discusses other interesting 'impossibilities' such as time travel, telepathy (assisted by electronic implants), travel through wormholes etc. Any other suggestions?
iNow Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 To the thread title, my stand is that given enough resources and time, the answer to your question is "nothing."
John Cuthber Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 iNow, please find me a rational square root for 2. Let me know what time and resources you need.
iNow Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 making a square bubble Science is fun. Your suggestion is actually NOT impossible! http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/00000161 Video of this experiment: http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/content/start_video/square-bubbles1
YT2095 Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 erm, the square bubble Can be done, but I`v yet to see someone open a tin can with a banana
Klaynos Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 erm, the square bubble Can be done, but I`v yet to see someone open a tin can with a banana You're just not firing the banana fast enough.
YT2095 Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 you maybe right, now I Certainly have something to look forwards to in the future
Phi for All Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 erm, the square bubble Can be done, but I`v yet to see someone open a tin can with a banana I teach the monkey to use a can opener and guess what I give him if he does it? Vi-o-la! A tin can opened with a banana!
YT2095 Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 now I`m s`posed to say Oh Gosh! there is Nothing Impossible. but I`m like, Naahhhh.....
Phi for All Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 now I`m s`posed to say Oh Gosh! there is Nothing Impossible. but I`m like, Naahhhh..... I didn't say that. I doubt you'll ever find a way to touch your real right elbow (not a photo or other representation) with your real right index finger without chopping something off.
John Cuthber Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 "In what base?" Any integer you like- btw, non integer bases are a bit odd anyway.
Phi for All Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 phi, 1 word: wormholeYour research grant for the use of theoretical spacetime topology as a single appendage solution for ulnar irritation has been APPROVED.
Sayonara Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 I didn't say that. I doubt you'll ever find a way to touch your real right elbow (not a photo or other representation) with your real right index finger without chopping something off. Snapping. You can also do it with snapping.
Realitycheck Posted April 15, 2008 Posted April 15, 2008 I still have yet to see how someone can even theoretically fold space like a piece of paper. There still remains all of this matter in between, even moreso now that we include dark matter. It just doesn't fold the right way. It's like folding a giant piece of rubber. It just never meets up the same way. It just won't flatten out. Maybe it's just me.
midgetwars Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 NOthing is impossible if you think logically everything is possilbe
Sayonara Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 You know, by ignoring the things which are not logically possible.
Phi for All Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Snapping. You can also do it with snapping.You speak from experience? Did you learn this in Rio last year?
John Cuthber Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Midgetwars, if you really think "NOthing is impossible if you think logically everything is possilbe" Perhaps you would like to take up the challenge about the square root of two?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 It's still the same number in base 3 or base 29485. It'd be just as irrational.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now