# In the year 2100



## Tycho (Oct 14, 2008)

...scientists will devise a way for people to transport themselves through fiber-optic cable.  This technology will be banned when a hacker teleports into the Pentagon via their computer network, and says "Oh hi I upgraded your RAM."



edit: son of a bitch, I borked the title.

edit edit: double son of a bitch, can't use strikeout in thread titles.

edit edit edit: fuck it then.

Point of the thread: make some funny predictions, you furfags.


----------



## south syde dobe (Oct 14, 2008)

Hahahaha


----------



## Jonnaius (Oct 14, 2008)

..Children will be made from lego.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

I think the kitty beat that hacker to it x3

so what are you getting at? WE can teleport, and then a day later, it gets banned? 0_o


----------



## Takun (Oct 14, 2008)

In Soviet Russia jokes will become so overused that the Country will rename itself to Stalin prompting the joke In Soviet Russia name change YOU!


----------



## Thatch (Oct 14, 2008)

I predict this thread will get closed after image macro abuse comences


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 14, 2008)

Nuclear war would have already broken out. No life will be left, unless someone has terraformed another planet, moon, etc.


----------



## Kume (Oct 14, 2008)

in the 2100, the human race will be completly gone. No doubt about it


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> In Soviet Russia jokes will become so overused that the Country will rename itself to Stalin prompting the joke In Soviet Russia name change YOU!


Yakov smirnoff said that you bitch 

am I the only one who thinks good things about the future? I never thought we'd kill ourselves in our own stupidity, cause believe it or not, there ARE smart people out there who do good things 0_o


----------



## Tycho (Oct 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> so what are you getting at? WE can teleport, and then a day later, it gets banned? 0_o



Shortly after its invention, yes.  Avoid the image macros, I want to see if people are creative/intelligent/humorous enough to keep this going and keep it funny.


----------



## Kajet (Oct 14, 2008)

No one will drive cars, thus bicycles will cost thousands to repair.


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Oct 14, 2008)

we all look like in "Wall-e"


----------



## TwilightV (Oct 14, 2008)

Why the hell are you all guessing? It's obvious it all ends in 2012.


----------



## Azure (Oct 14, 2008)

Kajet said:


> No one will drive cars, thus bicycles will cost thousands to repair.


Capitalism


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> we all look like in "Wall-e"


omg, I love that movie!.... hehehe... wait, I don't wanna look like them! NUUU!


----------



## Tycho (Oct 14, 2008)

...the first successful transplant of a human brain into a robotic body will occur.  Unfortunately, the robotic body will run on the latest version of Microsoft Windows, and the Blue Screen of Death will take on a tragic and far more literal meaning.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> ...the first successful transplant of a human brain into a robotic body will occur.  Unfortunately, the robotic body will run on the latest version of Microsoft Windows, and the Blue Screen of Death will take on a tragic and far more literal meaning.


ok, you have to give me the site!

so, are we talking, an actual AI? and how do we know it'll work?


----------



## Thatch (Oct 14, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> we all look like in "Wall-e"



Ironically, the present tense is true for a chunk of the population.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 14, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> we all look like in "Wall-e"


Wall-e will be used for spare parts to fix a can opener.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Wall-e will be used for spare parts to fix a can opener.


how dare you talk such filth about one of my heroes TT___TT


----------



## makmakmob (Oct 14, 2008)

In the year 2100, children will have no limbs until the age of fourteen, and be utterly Dependant on the parents until then. Also, in developed nations, children will be so rare it is considered lucky to see one alive.


----------



## KittenAdmin (Oct 14, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Wall-e will be used for spare parts to fix a can opener.



I loved that movie! You are a horrible person for saying such things T-T

I honestly believe we will either be in another world war, or going to mars to start a colony that will eventually break away, causing a solar system war.

Humans are predictable


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> how dare you talk such filth about one of my heroes TT___TT


Your hero?.... sorry


KittenAdmin said:


> I honestly believe we will either be in another world war, or going to mars to start a colony that will eventually break away, causing a solar system war.
> 
> Humans are predictable


Ive already said this Look at my first post on this thread. Dont go to scifi.


----------



## GatodeCafe (Oct 14, 2008)

FA will get a search engine.
A cats don't dance sequel will be made.
My grandkids are going to be fucking awesome.


----------



## LizardKing (Oct 14, 2008)

In the year 2100, SecondLife will have evolved to The Matrix level, and it will actually become FirstLife for a billion furries, who all sadly die due to a floating point error.


----------



## Madness (Oct 14, 2008)

In 2100 Cockroaches will become the dominant lifeform on earth through a bloody uprising.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 14, 2008)

...cannibalism will be made legal, and McDonald's will sell the first Big Mac actually made from a person named "Big Mac".


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 14, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> ...scientists will devise a way for people to transport themselves through fiber-optic cable.  This technology will be banned when a hacker teleports into the Pentagon via their computer network, and says "Oh hi I upgraded your RAM."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's scalefag to you.  >:C

We better be driving flying cars by then.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

Madness said:


> In 2100 Cockroaches will become the dominant lifeform on earth through a bloody uprising.


amazing... my worst nightmare... and it's possible! TT___TT


----------



## Madness (Oct 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> amazing... my worst nightmare... and it's possible! TT___TT



I dunno, i personally welcome our new Insect overlords. Its not like they could do a worse job than the current world goverments.


----------



## Wreth (Oct 14, 2008)

I want aliens to visit

WAIT! ARE THOSE DALEK PARTS IN YOUR AVI?


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Oct 14, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> ...the first successful transplant of a human brain into a robotic body will occur.  Unfortunately, the robotic body will run on the latest version of Microsoft Windows, and the Blue Screen of Death will take on a tragic and far more literal meaning.



I lol'd. Hard.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

Madness said:


> I dunno, i personally welcome our new Insect overlords. Its not like they could do a worse job than the current world goverments.


that's just plain........................... logical....

government =






I love using that pic x3


----------



## KittenAdmin (Oct 14, 2008)

Humans will be worse off then we are now...


----------



## Lillie Charllotte (Oct 14, 2008)

We would all get AIDs.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

KittenAdmin said:


> Humans will be worse off then we are now...


I still don't fully believe that... lazier.... possibly, but in my mind, I'm thinking so advanced in technology, that we're over-riding so many flaws in today times, rather than making it worse

I guess I'm the only one who thinks positively about the future 0_o


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> Yakov smirnoff said that you bitch
> 
> am I the only one who thinks good things about the future? I never thought we'd kill ourselves in our own stupidity, cause *believe it or not, there ARE smart people out there who do good things* 0_o



Problem is, they're out-voted by the idiots....

In the year 2100, due to Global Warming, clothes will be outlawed, and all pets will have to be shaved... the protective lotion industry will boom.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Problem is, they're out-voted by the idiots....
> 
> In the year 2100, due to Global Warming, clothes will be outlawed, and all pets will have to be shaved... the protective lotion industry will boom.


well, MAYBE if SOME people would listen to Leonardo DiCaprio's message  (refer to "the 11th hour", directed and produced by Leo DiCaprio)

stop farting, and burping, and maybe the ozone layer will be less of a problem in the future...


----------



## bane233 (Oct 14, 2008)

Mr_foxx said:


> in the 2100, the human race will be completly gone. No doubt about it


and all that will remain is the furrys!


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 14, 2008)

bane233 said:


> and all that will remain is the furrys!


One can only hope XD


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 14, 2008)

>.-.>  Star Wars will be a reality.  *joins the Empire*  DIE REBEL SCUM!


----------



## Gnome (Oct 14, 2008)

In the year 2525 if furry is still alive if vixen can survive...........


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 14, 2008)

In the year 2100, the Earth as we know it will no longer exist.


----------



## Kangamutt (Oct 14, 2008)

In the year 2100, alternative fuels will be a total reality, and super cheap. However, all that will be threatened when Exxon-Mobil's private army invades.

That, and space ninjas.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 14, 2008)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> In the year 2100, alternative fuels will be a total reality, and super cheap. However, all that will be threatened when Exxon-Mobil's private army invades.
> 
> That, and space ninjas.



alternative fuels: water =D


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 14, 2008)

MASSIVE HYENA OUTBREAK

And every single animal on earth will wear top hats and monocles for protection against the stupid monkey-humans.


----------



## Monak (Oct 15, 2008)

First contact will be on a microbial level and we will completely destroy it.  Second contact will come in the form of a forced compact FTL signal that we catch by chance with deep space listening posts.  The most dominant power source will be Solar , and wars will be fought over who has the right to place light gathering facilities where.  Whole mountains will be leved to make room for an ever growing population.  Several major diseases will be cured (including AIDS) , only to have worse ones take their places.


----------



## VGJustice (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100, people will argue if it's still the 21st century or not.


----------



## Kajet (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100 the english language will be so bastardized by the internet it will be called email.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Oct 15, 2008)

...War was beginning?


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100, Speedy Cat will finally establish his dominion over the whole of this earth.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2008)

Japan creates a Gundam, days later everyone is Asian


----------



## capthavoc123 (Oct 15, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> Japan creates a Gundam, days later everyone is Asian



TURNING JAPANESE I THINK I'M TURNING JAPANESE I REALLY THINK SO

DUH-NUH-NUH-NUH NUH NUH NUH


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2008)

oh forgot to mention:
It becomes legal to kick someone down a hole
Japan create a way for people to be anthro
and the moon crashes into the earth in 3 days


----------



## Kajet (Oct 15, 2008)

All religions find a way to peaceably co-exist, and practice a fellowship ritual every week, a satanic furry sacrifice every tuesday.

Cyber sex will be the ONLY kind of sex you can perform due to mandatory gender nullification surgery performed within a week of birth.

Someone set us up the bomb, We get signal.

Cell phones will evolve to their natural extent, a colonic implant now NO ONE will be able to use their cell without actually shoving their head up their ass...

Car accidents inexplicably rise dramatically.


----------



## Magikian (Oct 15, 2008)

Kajet said:


> Cell phones will evolve to their natural extent, a colonic implant now NO ONE will be able to use their cell without actually shoving their head up their ass..



Do they still have a vibrate function?


----------



## Azure (Oct 15, 2008)

In 2100, black people will still be shiftless losers.


----------



## Neybulot (Oct 15, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> omg, I love that movie!.... hehehe... wait, I don't wanna look like them! NUUU!



Ew. Definitely. Do not want tons of fat in the future.


----------



## Kajet (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100 all white people will be slaves, this of course is due to Obama's true master plan.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100, disco will be back in style... permanently.


----------



## Kajet (Oct 15, 2008)

Due to genetic manipulation and everyone's fixation on selling drugs that make dicks grow EVERYONE will be a goatse man.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2008)

In the future...everyone has sniper rifles and camps during wars


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 15, 2008)

In the future.... if we have one.... All of the above will happen.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Oct 15, 2008)

In the future... There will be things called 'automobiles'. Horseless carriages. Of course, people will still walk.... but for sport and recreation *holds whiskey shot*


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 15, 2008)

In the future, the fusion of a ninja and pirate will be a reality.


----------



## Seratuhl (Oct 15, 2008)

In 2100, furries will be captured and placed upon concentration camps. The guards there will then brutally execute each one LIVE on television. Meanwhile, whilst the guards commit their heroic deeds, billions of people will cheer from their seats whilst they drink the latest and greatest beverage, Pepsoke Coli.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100, Coca-Cola will have cocaine legally re-added to its recipe.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 15, 2008)

I wonder if we'd perfect bio-enginering by then.Hmmmmm....on second that I don't think I want to fathom the results.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 15, 2008)

In 2100, /b/ will not be shit.  >.-.>


----------



## Talvi (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100, I will be 111 years old and still kick ass.


----------



## Tagwyn (Oct 15, 2008)

We will have installed computers into the bases of our skulls, and some hacker will use them to take over our bodies, thus creating an army of loyal subjects, which he will then use to take over the world, or would, if there was anyone to take over, seeing as we would all have these computers in the first place.  Summed up, we all get screwed by some hacker.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 15, 2008)

Tagwyn said:


> We will have installed computers into the bases of our skulls, and some hacker will use them to take over our bodies, thus creating an army of loyal subjects, which he will then use to take over the world, or would, if there was anyone to take over, seeing as we would all have these computers in the first place. Summed up, we all get screwed by some hacker.


I think they're doing that already,two pattys all special sauce....lol


----------



## TwilightV (Oct 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> In the future, the fusion of a ninja and pirate will be a reality.


 
Don't you play Animal Crossing? Pirate Ninjas are already a reality.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 15, 2008)

Sweet.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 15, 2008)

TwilightV said:


> Don't you play Animal Crossing? Pirate Ninjas are already a reality.


I was more along the lines of Ninja Pirates.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2008)

in 2100 America will finally admit it fucked up and isnt so badass


----------



## TwilightV (Oct 15, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> in 2100 America will finally admit it fucked up and isnt so badass


 
And then the world will end? LOL


----------



## Azure (Oct 15, 2008)

Duke Nukem Forever STILL won't be released.  I like this website, it illustrates just how absurd it has become.  http://duke.a-13.net/  The list just keeps growing and growing, it's truly absurd.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2008)

TwilightV said:


> And then the world will end? LOL


nah, they get invaded by Canada


----------



## Wreth (Oct 15, 2008)

It is the 2100th century..... and there is only war!


----------



## TwilightV (Oct 15, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> nah, they get invaded by Canada


 
Uhh... we're talking the world, right? Not just the US???


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Oct 15, 2008)

Everyone in the world will realize that they are a furry. Suicide rates increase exponentially.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2008)

TwilightV said:


> Uhh... we're talking the world, right? Not just the US???


can it not be an event?


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 15, 2008)

-Cell phone companies release the telephone called the "Text Messenger". This model of telephone is free of that bothersome and worthless "Phone" feature the cell phones of old had. 

-Gaming consoles now sport DVD players, Radios, Internet connection, emulation of old games, data managaement, memory card slots, memory stick outputs, detachable hard drive, porn searcher, TiVo parental controls, mp3 players, CD players, iPod connectability, HD and Non HD, online capability, built-in-wireless networks, software, hardware, an operating system....and oh yeah a feature that allows you to play video games. 

-Art sites decide to rename to something a little more appropriate....liek say deviantPHOTOGRAPHs, SheezyPhotos. 

-American Animation is done ENTIRELY through laptops with Flash....oh wait a second.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Oct 15, 2008)

A war like no other will rage with the furries fighting the trolls in a power struggle for control of earth and her colonies. The trolls will use battle tactics used by the french who won the war of 2056 against the furry marines on the moon while the furries create allies with the moonenites. Then the trolls find all the HALO rings to destroy the furries  but is to late because the second DEATH STAR is fully operational and ultimately ends with the furries party at endor which will be "totally off the hook."


----------



## Kajet (Oct 15, 2008)

Thanks to the internet anyone who doesn't like horse porn will be labeled a heretic, additionally the pope's new staff will be modeled by zeta toys.

After numerous lawsuits McDonald's be the most expensive fast food around, thus their new TV dinner line becomes a rare collectible.

Spongebob becomes the first children's show to have it's own official porno, soccer moms end the world the next day.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100, mankind will wage war in giant military robots known as Mobile Suits.  >.-.>


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100 its only 50 years till Europe and Asia becomes one, Women live on the moon and America consist of both north and south america, and oh...the planet earth earth is floating towards the sun due to nukes going off at the north pole.

but within that time we have anti-gravity vehicles, Mechs, and nukes still being dangerous


----------



## pheonix (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100 I'll be dead so I don't care what this retarded species does.


----------



## Kangamutt (Oct 15, 2008)

In the year 2100, your face will be illegal. 
Punishment: dumped out an airlock.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2008)

In the year 2100, a law will pass, requiring all toilet "paper" to be made from recycled plastic.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 16, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Duke Nukem Forever STILL won't be released. I like this website, it illustrates just how absurd it has become. http://duke.a-13.net/ The list just keeps growing and growing, it's truly absurd.


Looks like it could be awesome,looks like it could of been released for the PS2 or XBOX,but I still love the one on the 64.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 16, 2008)

Satan and Buddha have three kids.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 16, 2008)

Is that so?I think I've met one before.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 16, 2008)

seekerwolf said:


> Is that so?I think I've met one before.


You probably have 2 of them are furries, one is a president.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 16, 2008)

good one.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 16, 2008)

In the year 2100, timetravel is real. And everyone is their own ancestor.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2008)

In the year 2100, being a "smartass" is the only crime punishable by death.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 16, 2008)

whoops I better stop construction on that time machine.what bad luck.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2008)

by 2100, white folks can finally say "nigga" to their black friends out in public


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 16, 2008)

In 2100 there wont be white or black people, only grey and pink.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2008)

In the year 2100, humanity will finally learn to communicate with dolphins... however, all they'll want to talk about is sex, fish and swimming.


----------



## Exedus (Oct 16, 2008)

In the year 2100, we will have virtual schools


----------



## Kajet (Oct 16, 2008)

In the year 2100 virtual school shootings will increase exponentially, no one except thin skinned pussies will care.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2008)

by 2100...NOTHING runs on Windows


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2008)

By the year 2100, EVERYTHING runs on Windows!


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 16, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> by 2100...NOTHING runs on Windows


The future is nigh!


----------



## Kajet (Oct 16, 2008)

By the year 2100 Linux will still only be used by super computer nerds


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 16, 2008)

In the year 2100, all art is porn. ._.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 16, 2008)

Silibus said:


> In the year 2100, all art is porn. ._.


god I hope not... 

in 2100, commercials will ONLY consist of props 1- however many there are... those commercials are getting annoying


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 16, 2008)

In the year 2100 every name starts with neo.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 16, 2008)

Silibus said:


> In the year 2100 every name starts with neo.


or better yet... the world will be like mirrors edge storyline =D

doesn't the future depend on idot presidents anyway? I mean, years from now, we're probably gonna have a complete wackjob change everything around for the "greater good"


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 16, 2008)

In the furture... the future............. the future...............


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2008)

by 2100...its perfectly fine to kick someones ass in public and then Tea-bag em


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 16, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> by 2100...its perfectly fine to kick someones ass in public and then Tea-bag em


that's just the worst thing that could happen to society that I can think of... god I hope that doesn't happen -.-'


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> that's just the worst thing that could happen to society that I can think of... god I hope that doesn't happen -.-'


Sorry...didnt have my tea today...*sips tea* Forget what I typed before.
2100-year when yelling "BOOM HEADSHOT" becomes illegal


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 16, 2008)

In the year 2100, everyone is 2D.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 17, 2008)

2100, Sega returns to the Console wars


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 17, 2008)

2100 Sonic beats Mario finally.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 17, 2008)

In the year 2100, Michael Jackson's corpse will make its second world tour.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 17, 2008)

2100 Michael Jackson's corpse is translucent.


----------



## Kajet (Oct 17, 2008)

In 2100 evolution is finally proven without a shadow of a doubt, however creationism is still taught in schools to prevent mass suicides.

The national IQ is lower than ever.

Cartridges return as the dominant gaming medium, mostly because of computers lodged in the base of the skull, the meaning of "blowing" someone changes drastically due to 8-bit NES like unreliability.

100 year old people have sex, elder porn quickly replaces 2girls1cup, cobweb removal instrument sales skyrocket.

George Bush Jr.'s head is kept alive in a jar that's randomly electrocuted for treason, this mandate is by far President elect george bush the 15th's most popular decree.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 17, 2008)

Silibus said:


> 2100 Sonic beats Mario finally.


Which cause Luigi to become Nintendo's New mascot


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 17, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> Which cause Luigi to become Nintendo's New mascot


Which causes a rift in the space-time continuum.


----------



## Kajet (Oct 17, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> Which cause Luigi to become Nintendo's New mascot



Despite this SMB2 remains Luigi's best game appearance, and in his final game before Nintendo's end he digs up and attempts to resurrect Mario's corpse.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 17, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Which causes a rift in the space-time continuum.


where we end up with the same scenario but in a parallel universe, where nintendo drops out of the console wars


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 17, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> where we end up with the same scenario but in a parallel universe, where nintendo drops out of the console wars


And the PS3 is the most popular console, Bill Gates is a prostitute, and pigs fly crop dusters.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 17, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> ...scientists will devise a way for people to transport themselves through fiber-optic cable.  This technology will be banned when a hacker teleports into the Pentagon via their computer network, and says "Oh hi I upgraded your RAM."
> 
> Point of the thread: make some funny predictions, you furfags.



Let's see, my fursona's bio is chock full of predictions about stuff that happens by 2100.  I'm still writing it, but I'm well into the 22nd century portion of it so I'll go ahead and list the 21st century stuff I reference:



Transparent aluminum begins to replace glass for military vehicles (2010)
Plasma reactive armor (2010s)
High temperature superconductors (late 2010s)
Cold fusion (2020s)
Human colony on the Moon (2020s)
Hot fusion (late 2020s)
 Confirmation of life on Europa (late 2020s)
Human colony on Mars (2030s)
Self-healing reactive armor (2030s)
 Confirmation of life on Callisto, Ceres and Mars(2030s)
 Cloaking devices (2040s)
 Confirmation of life on Ganymede, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan and Iapetus(2040s)
 Over-the-counter longevity drugs (2050s)
Confirmation of life on Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon and Triton (2050s)
Confirmation of life in the high pressure exotic ice oceans of Uranus and Neptune (late 2050s)
 Androids being declared citizens with full rights (2059 in Japan, in the late 2060s everywhere else)
 Optical SETI finding evidence of stainless steel on one of the moons of a gas giant orbiting the star Gliese 876, 15 light years away (2062)
 Confirmation of life in all of the ice dwarf planets (2060s & 2070s)
 Matter Teleportation (information teleportation's actually been around since 1999) (2070s)
 Human colonies on or around every one of the 23 planets (2070s)
Construction of a city floating in the Venusian clouds begins (2080s)
 Self-Teleportation (the ability to teleport yourself & your teleportation device, without the need for a second device) (2080s)
 Neural simulations (the ability to transfer your memory into a computer simulation of your very brain) (2090s)
 First contact with an alien civilization, the Evyttakians (2092)
 Custom Bodywerks opens its doors in Lubbock, TX.  They make custom andoids that can run a neural simulation... effectively allowing for technological reincarnation. (2098 )
10GeV neutrino thrusters (2100)  (With the aid of Evyttakian technology, they're made microscopic & implantable by 2110, effectively allowing anyone with the $$$ to fly.)
Interstellar Teleportation (2100)
Oh, as a note: all the technologies on this list are possible, and a vast majority of them are actively being researched right now.  Sure, some technologies will come online a bit faster or slower... but I think this list is a pretty realistic one.  And chances are, a good number of you will live to see all of it.  I'd love to, but being born the early '70s makes living to see 2100 a statistical impossibility.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 17, 2008)

People will time travel back to the year 2000.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 18, 2008)

2100, Hitler is back and joins forces with Darth Vader, to kill Jesus in his 8th return to Earth.


----------



## Thatch (Oct 18, 2008)

Silibus said:


> 2100, Hitler is back and joins forces with Darth Vader, to kill Jesus in his 8th return to Earth.



Jesus won't return, the bible lies. He came here once, saw the shithole, begged people to kill him before he does it himself (so we could at least benefit some of it), went back.

You know Telnac, I wouldn't say a single thing, until I saw this


Telnac said:


> Oh, as a note: all the technologies on this list are possible, and a vast majority of them are actively being researched right now.  Sure, some technologies will come online a bit faster or slower... but I think this list is a pretty realistic one.


Are you for real? 
Most of the second part is as far from realistic as possible... Plus, some of that is absurdal, like cold->hot fusion... 
And 10GeV neutrino thruster for flying... Just LOL, how the hell would that be supposed to work XD


----------



## Thatch (Oct 18, 2008)

shit, double post


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 18, 2008)

In the year 2100, surgeries for animal tails, ears, and penises will be performed. Of course, these attachments will quickly rot and decay, thus giving the furfags the proper motivation to An Hero.

More successful surgeries will be made in the form of shitting dick nipples. Tubgirl will be on the face of our global currency. Drama Prairie Dog will be the Secretary of Defense. /b/ controls all. SUBMIT, PEWLING SPAWN. THE END IS NIGH, I HAVE SEEN IT WRITTEN ON A BATHROOM STALL IN ALBUQUERQUE, SATAN WALKS ABROAD IN HIS GOLF TROUSERS AND LEATHER BONDAGE ITEMS, REPENT, REPENT, YOU POOR FOOLISH SINNERS. OAKDJM;LKFNAOKNERNE


----------



## Kangamutt (Oct 18, 2008)

In the year 2100, Windows and Apple will merge together. This occurs after years, and years of bad sales, and was further perpetuated when Bill Gates and Steve Jobs (Their heads sustained in jars, of course) were stuck in a broken elevator car for several hours. 

Their new computer/operating system, the XPLion, proved a success with users. Any program that was made could be downloaded, it featured a simple, streamlined interface, and it was a superpowered gaming/imaging machine. However, XPLion had major drawbacks as well. The system constantly crashed, hardware upgrades were impossible, repairing/relpacing components were extremely expensive, and worse, a combonation of the blue screen/red ring of death! Graphic designers and gamers alike united against the computer monopoly, and marched to their headquarters in Seattle, where the rioters tore down their office building by hand. Gates, nor Jobs survived.

And thus, the "vintage computer movement" was birthed out of a small suburb in New Jersey. Users returned to using systems separately. However, most people just said "Fuck it", and went to Linux.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 18, 2008)

2100, food walks - hunting people down, to make them fatter.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2008)

szopaw said:


> Jesus won't return, the bible lies. He came here once, saw the shithole, begged people to kill him before he does it himself (so we could at least benefit some of it), went back.
> 
> You know Telnac, I wouldn't say a single thing, until I saw this
> 
> ...



Neutrinos are so insubstantial, they can pass through lead... no way can they move anything, even at 10GeV.  Though I do imagine installing such a device would serve as a very effective form of birth control, if not a slow form of suicide.  Radiation is radiation, after all!


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 18, 2008)

Uranus crashes into Earth.


----------



## Thatch (Oct 18, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Neutrinos are so insubstantial, they can pass through lead... no way can they move anything, even at 10GeV.  Though I do imagine installing such a device would serve as a very effective form of birth control, if not a slow form of suicide.  Radiation is radiation, after all!



Hah, 'EVEN at 10 GeV' is saying too much. 10 GeV is almost nothing. And seeing as those are neutrinos, they wouldn't even sterilize you. It's just some technobabble.



Silibus said:


> Uranus crashes into Earth.



A probe crashed into uranus.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 18, 2008)

szopaw said:


> A probe crashed into uranus.



Uranus swallows the earth.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 18, 2008)

AlexInsane said:


> Uranus swallows the earth.


Uranus burns up in the sun. Making the Milky Way smell like ass.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2008)

szopaw said:


> Hah, 'EVEN at 10 GeV' is saying too much. 10 GeV is almost nothing. And seeing as those are neutrinos, they wouldn't even sterilize you. It's just some technobabble.



Hmmm... you're right.  My bad.  Of course, I'm also right that neutrinos can't be used for flight-level thrust (or any level of thrust, for that matter).


----------



## Bambi (Oct 18, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> Yakov smirnoff said that you bitch
> 
> am I the only one who thinks good things about the future? I never thought we'd kill ourselves in our own stupidity, cause believe it or not, there ARE smart people out there who do good things 0_o


 
This, and I'm one of 'em.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 18, 2008)

In 2100, we all worship robot #6984.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 18, 2008)

In the year 2001, they'll have cured dyslexia!


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 18, 2008)

In 2100, it will be 842X*LR90. Yes I totally blew your minds.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 18, 2008)

in 2100, they find a safe way to Divide by Zero


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 18, 2008)

In 2100, the rules of the internet are in the constitution.


----------



## Kajet (Oct 18, 2008)

In the year 2100 a cure to all child behavioral problems will be solved, it will be legal to beat ANYONE'S child granted they're misbehaving.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 19, 2008)

Kajet said:


> In the year 2100 a cure to all child behavioral problems will be solved, it will be legal to beat ANYONE'S child granted they're misbehaving.


Sorry thats already being in action in the US and British Virgin Islands in the Caribbean, were demoing it out...and its going smoothly


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2008)

10GeV neutrinos are the energy level of neutrinos that are produced during supernova explosions.  They're more energetic than ones produced in fusion reactions, and they can be made in abundance if you have the right conditions (i.e. an exploding star.)  We know how to make them: ram protons and neutrons into each other at enormous speeds.  But we don't yet know how to make them in abundance w/o blowing up a star, much less make them all go more or less in the same direction.

That said, a high enough flux of any particles moving away from an object produces thrust.  If you left a flashlight on in deep space, the light would produce thrust... just a very, very tiny amount.  The advantage of using light is that the particles you're flinging away from the object (namely, photons) are moving at the speed of light, so while the trust is tiny the efficiency of the drive is enormous. But light-based drives have a thrust that's so small that they aren't worth using. But the principle such a thing is based on is what's behind an ion drive, something we're used successfully in spacecraft before. The ions we're flinging into space are moving at speeds that are only a very tiny fraction of the speed of light, but unlike photons (which even at the highest energy state pack only the tiniest amounts of energy) the relatively large mass of an ion lets us give it far more energy.  Thus, even though an ion drive is less efficient than a light-based drive, it produces enough thrust to be practical.

Like photons, neutrinos also move very close to the speed of light. And like photons, neutrinos have a very tiny mass.  But unlike photons, which have a rest mass of 0, neutrinos have enough mass to hold an enormous amount of energy per particle.  Even though they're much smaller than the ions thrown out of an ion engine, they pack far, far, far more energy.  Today's ion engines give the ions an energy of a few keV (kilo electron volts.)  A single neutrino of the highest energy we know how to make is 10GeV, which packs 10 _million_ times as much energy as the ions we throw out of an ion engine today. That's reason neutrino thrusters are even remotely possible.  No, we're nowhere near being able to make a 10 GeV neutrino thruster that can throw out enough neutrinos to lift its own weight.  Quite the contrary!  The smallest machines we can make that could produce 10GeV neutrinos are some of our largest particle colliders!

But is it possible to build a tiny, possibly even microscopic, machine that can produce these things in large numbers?  Yes.  One of the more interesting things about how matter behaves at incredibly small distances is the fact that you can't have two particles of the same type occupying the same quantum state.  This is the principle that causes large atoms to have electron shells instead of a single cloud of electrons all of which are at the same energy state.  For matter that's highly condensed, this principle (called the Pauli exclusion principle... look it up and you'll likely get a better explanation than I can provide) leads to a state of matter where enormous pressures are generated that oppose further compression.  Unlike the extra pressure you get when you compress a gas, this pressure is independent of temperature.  Even at a temperature of absolute zero, you will still get a pressure in opposition to any attempts to compress the material any more.  This is why dead stars (white dwarfs, neutrons stars and some other exotic ones) won't collapse, even though they're no longer producing heat in their cores.

It's possible to construct a device on the atomic scale that will rapidly condense a few atoms of matter, likely held by a catalyst, to this point (called "degeneracy pressure.")  If engineered right, nearly all of the energy of compression would be transferred to a single particle, which would accelerate that particle to enormous velocities, perhaps even approaching that of light.  If you could engineer such a machine right, you can make it slam a proton and electron together, making a free neutron still moving at enormous speeds.  Before that neutron can decay, slam it into another proton moving at near the speed of light, and *bam* you get a 10GeV neutrino, flying in a predictable direction.  The proton and neutron's velocities would be largely stopped, which would allow you to recollect them.  The neutron would decay back into a proton and an electron, but if you can engineer a device that can reliably produce a 10GeV neutrino surely you can ensure that the electron ejected from the free neutron would be recaptured instead of flying off somewhere, possibly even damaging your machine.  Then your machine resets, ready to produce another 10GeV neutrino if you provide the machine with enough energy to do it all over again.

This machine would be microscopic.  But because it produces a particle with such enormous energy, it would provide far, far, far more thrust than is necessary to lift the machine off of the ground.  If you had billions of such machines, and a small but powerful energy source, you could build a fairly large device capable of lifting its own weight plus possibly a substantial amount cargo off of the ground.  This device would produce far more thrust than ion drives and likely be far more efficient.

And yes, neutrinos are a form of radiation, but they're so small that they pass right through stars and planets as if they aren't there.  Every once in a blue moon, one hits an electron and briefly energizes it, which is how we know they exist in the first place!  But they interact with matter so weakly that you could stand directly in the path of a neutrino thruster large enough to lift the Space Shuttle and receive far, far, far less radiation damage than you do when getting a dental X-ray.

So no, we've nowhere near the technology needed to build a neutrino thruster.  But we're getting better and better at atomic-scale engineering.  Yes, the field is in its infancy but I see no reason why we couldn't build a neutrino thruster by the end of the century.  And once we do, I expect they'll be the engine of choice for most spacecraft.


Now, to fusion.

"Hot" fusion is straightforward, and it's not technobabble.  It's what happens when two light nuclei (the heart of an atom) slam into each other with enough energy to fuse together into a heavier atom.  Such a process releases an enormous amount of energy, and it's what's happening at the core of the Sun.  Without hot fusion, Earth would be little more than a ball of ice.

Hot fusion is also at the heart of our biggest nuclear bombs.  So we know how to make it happen on Earth, too.  But because of the high energies involved, making a controlled long-duration reaction continues to elude us.  When we do figure it out, a hot fusion reactor would likely produce more power than several fission reactors, do so with little radioactive waste and no danger whatsoever of meltdown.

"Cold" fusion is the ability to take two light nuclei and stick them together with enough force (not kinetic energy) to force them to fuse.  This is something that was once dismissed as fantasy (especially after a non-reproducible experiment back in the 80s that was hailed at the greatest discovery of all time days before it as lampooned as the greatest hoax of all time.)  But as we understand more and more how matter responds at high pressures, high energies and at small scales, the concept has come back into vogue and we may even have an explanation as to why the experiment back in the 80s could have worked, but not be reproducible.  The platinum catalyst they used in that experiment could have held deuterium (a form of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron) atoms close enough together that a modest increase of temperature (a few hundred degrees Centigrade) could have forced fusion to take place.

The problem is that the catalysts would have to have atomic-level features that would have to be fairly precise to allow the reaction to occur.  Such a configuration could happen by just dumb luck, which may be what happened in the experiment back in the 80s.  Engineers are working on ways to design platinum catalysts that may allow for cold fusion.  Even if the succeed, such a reaction chamber would make far less energy than a hot fusion reactor, but it would do so cleanly and with very little radioactive byproducts.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 19, 2008)

O____O Im not reading all of that...


----------



## Thatch (Oct 19, 2008)

Haha, Telnac - NEUTRINOS! They wont propel shit  They have almost nonexistant mass, and are very uninteractive (as you noticed yourself). And you need mass to use the Newton's 3'rd law.
I even looked up an article, because you mentioned the neutrinos. A stream of 5-10 GeV neutrinos (from a gamma burst) could produce ~7 events/year in a km3 detector. That's really low interactivity. And, dare say, how would you want to make it a propeling device if you couldn't make a propelling stream out of it? (and they wont behave a certian way just because you want them too)
Also, "If you'd make it right"... 'If there was magic, we wouldn't need technology'. Don't operate on "if's", that doesn't lead anywhere.
Another thing is, the energy made to create the neutrinos used (in theory) to propell you, will already be enough to prepel you. So it would be a waste of time too... XD
So, in conclusion, playing with neutrinos for anything other than studying them, is just a waste for resources, as you need more energy to do anything with them than they would provide. It's jost not cost effective and it's wasting energy, that could be utilized otherwise.
^this is technobabble then.
Instead of a neutrino engine, make it a fusion engine, then the machine you are talking about would have sense 

Also, as to the fusion, I aimed at the succesion in which you mentioned them  
We have hot fusion already, though on prototype stage, and it last very shortly, whereas cold fusion is still just an sf dream for now. 
^not technobabble but a rather wishful dream.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 19, 2008)

Personally, I'm more interested in Zero-Point energy....


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2008)

Before I fly into my response, I want to apologize beforehand for these long posts.  But I can't defend the assertion that neutrino thrusters aren't technobabble or an idle fantasy without explaining the physics behind them.  Doing so pretty much requires a long post with some pretty complicated concepts.  I sincerely hope all of you take the physics classes that explain all of these concepts.  It's a fascinating field of study that I rather enjoy.  Even if you never enter the field professionally, a good understanding of physics will show you how seemingly impossible and wonderful things very well may happen in our lifetimes!

Now, to the heart of my response:



szopaw said:


> Haha, Telnac - NEUTRINOS! They wont propel shit  They have almost nonexistant mass, and are very uninteractive (as you noticed yourself). And you need mass to use the Newton's 3'rd law.
> I even looked up an article, because you mentioned the neutrinos. A stream of 5-10 GeV neutrinos (from a gamma burst) could produce ~7 events/year in a km3 detector. That's really low interactivity. And, dare say, how would you want to make it a propeling device if you couldn't make a propelling stream out of it? (and they wont behave a certian way just because you want them too)
> Also, "If you'd make it right"... 'If there was magic, we wouldn't need technology'. Don't operate on "if's", that doesn't lead anywhere.
> Another thing is, the energy made to create the neutrinos used (in theory) to propell you, will already be enough to prepel you. So it would be a waste of time too... XD
> ...



I personally think the engineering challenges posed by cold fusion, which as I noted is something that is receiving serious attention again, is smaller than the challenges posed by hot fusion.  And yes, we know how to do hot fusion.  But we've been working without success for decades to make it a practical energy source.  Yes, we'll get there but I think cold fusion will happen before hot fusion will.  But cold fusion isn't likely to produce all that much energy compared to the cost of the device so even if we do get cold fusion first, hot fusion will still be the power choice for the future.  But I can agree to disagree on this topic.  It's not the one I'm chiefly concerned about.



When talking about any thruster, you're talking about Newton's third law, as you've already mentioned. And yes, it talks about interaction (which I will discuss soon.)  But the law is chiefly about the conservation of momentum.  That's the principle that underlies how rocket engines work in the first place.

The low interactivity of the neutrino makes no difference whatsoever as to whether or not it produces thrust.  Yes, 5-10 GeV neutrinos are very rarely detected in enormous detectors.  That's a good thing!  That's why you could stand under a neutrino thruster throwing potentially trillions of neutrinos through your body and not get irradiated.

To produce thrust, the neutrino need not interact with the thruster in any way.  Even ion thrusters don't need the ions to touch the engine.  Quite the contrary, they use magnetic fields to discourage such interactions as they actually make the engine less efficient if they do so!  The thrust comes by the force required to throw an ion away from the engine.  To make anything fly away from an engine requires an equal and opposite force that is applied to the engine. An ion engine propels the ions with an electric field.  As the ion is thrown backward, the same field pushes against the electrodes producing the field and the engine is pushed forward.

A neutrino thruster would get its force by accelerating the proton + electron + proton to the speeds needed to make a neutrino.  The momentum of the collision is transferred to the neutrino, making it fly out of the thruster.  The protons and the electron are re-captured by the thruster, having spent their momentum in the production of the neutrino.  Thus, a net force is produced that will propel the thruster forward when a neutrino is thrown backward.

You can't talk about momentum without talking about mass.  We know how to make three varieties of neutrinos: tau neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the electron neutrino.  Electron neutrinos are made via nuclear fission or fusion.  They have the least energy and mass.  We also have no way to control where electron neutrinos go.  Since they aren't produced by the conversion of kinetic energy into mass, their direction isn't dictated by the conservation of momentum.  To conserve the momentum of the system, wherever the electron neutrino goes, the byproducts of the nuclear reaction go the opposite way.  Tau neutrinos, the largest and least interactive of the three, are very difficult to make.  We've succeeded in doing do, but making muon neutrinos is much easier to do, so when I discuss neutrino mass I'm doing to be discussing these.

Mass and energy are ultimately the same thing.  The rest mass of a proton is close to 1GeV.  The rest mass of a muon neutrino is 170keV, roughly 5900 times smaller than a proton.  So yes, they're tiny.

You said that the energy used to make neutrinos would already be enough to propel me.  But that's not how thrust works.  Energy doesn't produce thrust, conservation of momentum does.  Momentum is defined as mass times the velocity vector.  Energy can be used to create neutrinos and send them flying, but total momentum of the system must be conserved.  Thus, the momentum of a given particle leaving an engine can be used to calculate the total thrust that engine can produce.

To match the thrust generated by a proton leaving an ion engine, a neutrino would have to be moving at 5900 times the speed of the proton.  Modern ion engines use Xenon atoms, not protons, so each particle is quite a bit heavier.  We can calculate the momentum of each Xenon atom by looking at its mass and energy to infer its velocity.  Xenon is a heavy atom.  It has about 131 times the mass of a proton, for a total mass of a little less than 13GeV.  With all the conversions, the math's to calculate the velocity is a bit ugly so I did it outside of the post, but you can do it yourself if you don't believe me.  Since the kinetic energy is MV^2, the velocity is 36,335 m/s (pretty damn fast.)  To match the momentum, the neutrino (being 5900 * 131 less massive than a Xenon particle) must be traveling 29,629,401,494 m/s (much faster than light.)

Now, this is where things get fun.  Enter Einstein.  Newtonian physics breaks down when you start talking about velocities near that of light.  And guess what?  We are!  Neutrinos travel just a hair's breadth under light speed.  If you use Newton's equations for mass, velocity and kinetic energy you'd find that a 10GeV neutrino should be moving at speeds much, much higher than the speed of light.  But they don't.  Why?  Because of a fun quick about relativity that states that the mass of an object _*increases*_ when that object approaches the speed of light.  Even though the mass of a neutrino is really, really puny at rest it gets a lot beefier when it's moving.

So, let's do the math.  At velocities approaching the speed of light, the momentum of a particle is defined as y * m0 * v^2, where y is the Lorentz factor and m0 is the rest mass of the particle.  Because the Lorentz factor is the same for energy as it is for mass, we can calculate the Lorentz factor for a 10GeV neutrino.  Again, I did the math outside of this post, but the Lorentz factor for a 10GeV neutrino is 6320, which means it has a mass that's 6320 times the mass of the same neutrino at rest.  That means a 10GeV neutrino actually has more mass than a proton!

Yes, it's still lighter than a Xenon atom, but since it's moving very close (0.999999987) to the speed of light, its momentum is enormous.  Now that we know the true mass and velocity of everything we're comparing, we can compare their momentums.  The momentum of the 2keV Xenon atom is 7.9216 x 10^-21 (kilograms * meters/second.)  The momentum of the 10GeV neutrino is 5.3430 x 10^-19 (kilograms * meters/second.)  That's roughly 67.5 _*times*_ the momentum of the Xenon atom fired from a modern ion engine!

Thus, every particle coming out of a 10GeV neutrino thruster will produce 67.5 times the thrust of every particle coming out of today's ion engines.  So if we can build a neutrino thruster of the same mass as an ion engine that can produce the same number of particles, it would produce 67.5 times as much thrust and be able to go much faster.

What's more, because neutrinos don't interact with ordinary matter much at all, we can stack neutrino thrusters on top of each other.  Given that they'd have to be microscopic to take advantage of the Pauli exclusion principle, if we couldn't stack them, on a large scale a neutrino thruster system would look like a thin membrane.  While it could certainly produce enough thrust to lift itself, it wouldn't have enough thrusters to produce enough neutrinos to lift any real cargo.  Yes, each neutrino would produce the same amount of thrust as 67.5 Xenon atoms.  But you have to launch trillions of these things per second to lift a kilogram off of the Earth.  The only way you get trillions of neutrino thrusters is to stack them.  But stacking them is perfectly OK and is exactly how we'd build a neutrino thruster system, whenever we have the technology to build these things.  A block of neutrino thrusters the same size of an ion engine would likely have many times its mass, but it would likely be able to lift much, much, much more.  No ion engine can produce enough thrust to lift its own weight off of the ground.  I expect a neutrino thruster system would have little problem accomplishing that feat.


Which brings me to the last objection: the "if we can do this" one.  I've demonstrated that the laws of physics say that a neutrino thruster system not only can work, but it can work even better than the ion engines we use today.  I've never said there aren't a number of daunting engineering challenges we'd face to build such a system.  And yes, there are a bunch of things that we simply don't know how to do yet.  If that weren't the case, spacecraft wouldn't need to carry giant propellant tanks that are many times the mass of the cargo we want to send aloft.  Space travel would be ubiquitous and we'd all be able to fly to Mars this afternoon if we could pay the $$$ for the ticket.

We're discussing things that might happen by 2100.  "If's" are a part of every one of these predictions.  Leonardo da Vinci believed that we could build heavier than air flying machines if we could only make the right type of airframe.  He draw examples of what we thought some of those flying machines could look like... and drew both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.  The aircraft we have today aren't all that different than what he conceptualized.  But it was many hundreds of years before we knew enough about aerodynamics and fluid mechanics to allow his flying machines to soar across the sky.

"If we can do this right" isn't same as wishing that purple fairies can dance in my head tonight.  Just because something like a neutrino thruster is well beyond today's technology doesn't mean it won't be beyond tomorrow's technology.  Physics says it can be done.  History is replete with predictions by people that we'd never be able to do various things.  Then a few centuries, decades, even days later, someone's doing it.

So again, neutrino thrusters are _*not*_ technobabble and while they're not possible to build today, I believe they could be built in the future.  And if so, I believe they'll be the engine of choice for future spacecraft... and who knows? Maybe even people.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 19, 2008)

>_> Too much spare time?


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2008)

Silibus said:


> >_> Too much spare time?


I wish; I burned most of the afternoon with that post and I really needed to be using it to do other stuff.

But it's a pet peeve of mine when someone takes a concept that I know a great deal about,  laughs it off a ridiculous and claims that I'm an idiot for dreaming up such a thing in the first place.  His argument strikes me as being similar to ones made by "experts" who claimed that a fission bomb could never work, or that rockets can't fly in space "because they'd have no air to push against."

Saying stuff like that is like waving a red flag in front of a bull: I have little choice but to charge in and defend my case.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 19, 2008)

Telnac said:


> I wish; I burned most of the afternoon with that post and I really needed to be using it to do other stuff.
> 
> But it's a pet peeve of mine when someone takes a concept that I know a great deal about, laughs it off a ridiculous and claims that I'm an idiot for dreaming up such a thing in the first place. His argument strikes me as being similar to ones made by "experts" who claimed that a fission bomb could never work, or that rockets can't fly in space "because they'd have no air to push against."
> 
> Saying stuff like that is like waving a red flag in front of a bull: I have little choice but to charge in and defend my case.


 
I think its interesting how you can take a vague topic and go into so much detail. Im just to lazy to read all of it. Sorry. ^_^;


----------



## Azure (Oct 20, 2008)

In the year 2100, we'll all be dead.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 20, 2008)

In the year 2100, all of us but Azure will be dead. Azure is immortal.

Like some sort of gay god.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 20, 2008)

2100 Power Rangers and Voltron fight, the universe is destroyed in battle.


----------



## Kume (Oct 20, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> In the year 2100, we'll all be dead.


 

Finnaly! Somone who agrees with me!!!!


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 20, 2008)

well, let's see... it's theorized that in 2050, human-robot marriage will become legal... so in 2100, I assume human-game system marriage will become legalized... possibly... if the game systems could talk to you

also, pokemon... might be more real than you ever thought possible >=3


----------



## Azure (Oct 20, 2008)

I hope not, pokemon are ugly.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 20, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I hope not, pokemon are ugly.


even the famous lucario? .___.

and are you saying you'd consider human-robot marriage?


----------



## Tycho (Oct 20, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> even the famous lucario? .___.



I never saw what was so great about Lucario...

Only Pokemon I can stand are the ones that have been whacked repeatedly with the "anthro form" stick.



NekoFox08 said:


> and are you saying you'd consider human-robot marriage?



Would give new meaning to the saying "He/she fucks like a robot."


----------



## Azure (Oct 20, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> even the famous lucario? .___.
> 
> and are you saying you'd consider human-robot marriage?


Robosexuals?  Also, I'm married to a robot.  It lives in my drawer by the bedside, and though he needs frequent lubrication, he's always happy to see me, never gives me any back talk, and always satisfies.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 20, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Robosexuals?  Also, I'm married to a robot.  It lives in my drawer by the bedside, and though he needs frequent lubrication, he's always happy to see me, never gives me any back talk, and always satisfies.



Where do you put the wedding ring?


----------



## Azure (Oct 20, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Where do you put the wedding ring?


You know were...


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 20, 2008)

by 2100...theres over 3000 Chan sites


----------



## Tycho (Oct 20, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> by 2100...theres over *9000* Chan sites



fix'd.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 20, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> by 2100...theres over 3000 Chan sites



how many are there now?... I think we're close enough


----------



## Azure (Oct 20, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> fix'd.


So 7 chans then, right.  At least, that's what the word filter tells me.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 20, 2008)

The best part is that all the Chans hate each other and troll each other mercilessly.  This is further compounded by the fact that the 3-D holographic displays in common use in 2100 allow much more graphic and realistic presentations of goatse and tubgirl.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 20, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> So 7 chans then, right.  At least, that's what the word filter tells me.



I remember there was a random number chan... like 3,704 chan... can't quite remember the exact number


----------



## Thatch (Oct 20, 2008)

Telnac, I know that energy itself isn't what will propell you, but instead of wasting the energy on creating neutrinos, it could be used to propell us with the use of fusion itself (and I'm not talking about an ion-drive, it's the least powerful). It's just not cost-effective (and rather illogical, see below). 
Even if the theory is plausible, it creates too many engeneering difficulties, Too complicated for the sake of the results it may bring.

And I rechecked some articles, you were right as to the mass, sorry.

But that is rather irrelevant, as there is one other itty bitty problem, coming right fom the low interaction. The neutrino has a momentum, because of the energy of the fusion. But here's the catch - to use it as a propelling method, it has to follow the 3'rd rule of dynamics. But the only part following that rule will be the core that creates the fusion and the particles, as it would have to accelerate the particles (which would work as the ion engine). But they react only with each other, not with any by-product.

Any momentum resulting from the fusion will work in an independat setup of the fused particles and their products, as only the energy of the particles will be used up, not interacting with the device by the law of momentum preservation (all the momentum that the machine gained will be, as I said, the one gained from accelerating the particles).  The only effect would be that the particles would be brought to a halt (or changed their direction and lost much of their energy, which is of no real difference to this situation) and accelerated again by the engine, but that is no different than the ion engine. So the creation of neutrinos is of no use to the device (like accelerating atoms in the ion engine is, because it causes the engine to 'push' itself off them).

If not 'pushing' itself off the particle directly, then the method would have to be the pressure created by the reaction, as in the present day rocket engine. But as neutrinos are of very low interactivity, they create no pressure. So it's also useless. The only pressure would be created by the fusion, so wheter a neutrino is created or not, is irrelevant. That's why I said that it would be another story if you were talking about a fusion engine (though I'm not sure how much force would it grant in the vacuum of space, so I will not discuss wheter it is, or not, cost effective).

So whatever mass and energy calculations you will make, it all brakes down on simple mechanics.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 20, 2008)

szopaw said:


> Telnac, I know that energy itself isn't what will propell you, but instead of wasting the energy on creating neutrinos, it could be used to propell us with the use of fusion itself (and I'm not talking about an ion-drive, it's the least powerful). It's just not cost-effective (and rather illogical, see below).
> Even if the theory is plausible, it creates too many engeneering difficulties, Too complicated for the sake of the results it may bring.
> 
> And I rechecked some articles, you were right as to the mass, sorry.
> ...



The muon neutrinos I'm discussing aren't created through nuclear fusion.  Electron neutrinos are created through fusion, and they're the smallest variety and we can't easily control the direction they go.  The energies I'm discussing are actually too high to result in proton+neutron fusion.  The neutrino gets its momentum from the fact that one particle is larger than the other when they collide.  The net momentum from the collision is transferred to the neutrino, which flies off in a fairly predictable trajectory.  And I now realize I made an error in my earlier post: the neutron can't be recaptured.  It's destroyed when the neutrino is made.  Once a neutrino is created, you can't accelerate it by any means other than gravity and the weak nuclear force.  So all of the neutrino's momentum must be generated by the same process that generates the neutrino.

Now, if you want to compare the efficiencies of fusion drives vs neutrino drives, that's fine.  Personally, I think there are plenty advantages and disadvantages to each approach.  The biggest problem with a fusion drive is that it has a relatively low specific impulse when compared to a neutrino drive.  I say relatively low, since the specific impulse of a fusion drive utterly destroys the specific impulse of any chemical engine!  So unlike a neutrino drive, you're going to be stuck with large tanks of propellant that you'll be ultimately throwing out the back end of your engine.

But fusion drives have several signifanct advantages, chief among them is simplicity.  You have a core that compresses the fuel, uses lasers or some other means of rapidly heating it to create the pressures required for fusion.  You reflect most of the gamma rays and the fast neutrons from the core into the exhaust nozzle, where you also throw the byproducts.  They're heated to a few million degrees, which causes enormous pressure which produces throust when everything's thrown out the back end of your engine.  Done.  We can probably build a prototype this type of engines 10 years or so after we get a viable fusion reactor going.

But it does have some disadvantages.  Like conventional engines today, the pressures generated are pretty close to the breaking point of the materials we know how to build.  Even with more advanced materials, if the engine suffers any failure at all, the whole thing will explode.  Yes, that's much less likely than the chemical engines we use today, but the chance will always be there.  Furthermore, you need to build your engines so that they face away from the direction you want to move.  Because the propellant tanks and all the support hardware won't easily change direction, you'll be stuck with either the traditional "engine down" rocket design or "rocket back" design for a winged craft such as the one used in SpaceShipOne.  Once in space, you'll still need much less efficient chemical thrusters to manuver.

I expect fusion rockets will become a mainstay in spaceflight for many decades once they're invented.  But neutrino thrusters have some advantages of their own.  Becuase they're so small and because what they throw out the back of them is so non-interactive, they could be placed anywhere on your spacecraft.  On top of that, their non-interactivity will allow a spacecraft to lift off without jeopordizing anyone around it.  You could have a spacecraft with one of these drives take off from your front yard, if you so chose.

The problem with neutrino thrusters is that they'll be energy hogs.  Unlike fusion, neutrino production is strongly endothermic.  It's efficient: nearly all of the energy goes into the neutrino itself.  But you will need a pretty large energy source.  So any spacecraft using them will need a nuclear reactor just to power them.  If cold fusion becomes possible, small spacecraft could use cold fusion cells to power these things, but I expect hot fusion will be the power plant of choice for most spacecraft employing this technology.

...of couse, all of this assumes that we'll find a way to miniturizing any of these things.  Right now, fusion reactors are the size of large buildings and the smallest we could build a neutrino thruster would be the width of a few football fields!


----------



## feilen (Oct 20, 2008)

You should split off to a serious futurism topic XD

I'd subscribe, and maybe even read it XD

In the year 2100...


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 21, 2008)

2100, comics are actually funny.


----------



## Kingman (Oct 21, 2008)

2100 I will still be alive and in firm command of the United Nations, as it fights its first intergalatic war. And surprisenly wins.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 21, 2008)

2100, Skynet is online. >3


----------



## GatodeCafe (Oct 21, 2008)

2100 I finally understand how to play jazz piano.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 21, 2008)

2100, I level up.


----------



## Thatch (Oct 21, 2008)

Telnac said:


> *post goes here*



Ah, I've been using the term fusion just as a habit. Let's stick to the 'reaction' then. 
I won't discuss the fusion engine further, because it can work, and to dive into it further would require too complicated calculations. So it's plausible, only the efficiency left open for debate, let's leave it at that (though someone probably already calculated it, it's only a matter of searching).

But returning to the neutrino, it doesn't matter which type it is and by what means it is created, unless the machine can interact with it, it will not work as a thruster. 
It is one of the basic laws of physics that what happens inside a setup, does not affect the correlation between it and the other setups, where the reaction is a closed setup (the input energy is is equal to the output energy). The machine can only then interact with any of the products of the reaction by means of gravitational and electromagnetic forces, while a neutrino is electrically neutral and insignificantly reactive to gravity. So the neutrino itself won't grant the machine any thrust. It's just a form of excess energy from the reaction that has no ability of affecting it's surroundings.

So the only benefit would be the other forms of excess energy from the reation (and the chance to accelerate any charged particles that may have been created, giving us additional momentum to what we were getting by accelerating the initial particles), but that can be gained as well by smashing together two protons (or other charged particles), which grants as twice the energy in one run (as both are accelerated, instead of targeting the neutron with a proton, because thrusting a neutron would require a reaction itself, which would be further wasting energy), which in return means that we need half the fuel (or at least significantly less, only the protons themselves, instead of protons and neutrons) .
I hope that is clear enough of a reason why creating neutrinos on purpose is redundant.

Ah, and you said it would be safe... If you made a reaction with a microscopic machine, the energy of the reaction would damage it, even if slightly. But any damage to such kind of machinery are important. It would be highly malfunctional.
Not to mention that there still would be radiation (I have to remind you that such neutrinos are created in high energy gamma burts. it's not a coincindence, the burst is one of the effects of the reaction). It would be no safer than a nuclear reactor.



GatodeCafe said:


> 2100 I finally understand how to play jazz piano.



2100, I understood that there can be a defference between a jazz piano and a normal one.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 21, 2008)

In 2100, Happiness is $1.50


----------



## Telnac (Oct 22, 2008)

szopaw said:


> Ah, I've been using the term fusion just as a habit. Let's stick to the 'reaction' then.
> I won't discuss the fusion engine further, because it can work, and to dive into it further would require too complicated calculations. So it's plausible, only the efficiency left open for debate, let's leave it at that (though someone probably already calculated it, it's only a matter of searching).
> 
> But returning to the neutrino, it doesn't matter which type it is and by what means it is created, unless the machine can interact with it, it will not work as a thruster.
> ...



I'll draw you a diagram explaining the whole process when I have the time.  I researched the topic some more in response to your mention of gamma rays and confirmed that you are right: the proton+neutron collision will produce gamma rays.  But there is a reaction that still does what I'm talking about and produces no gamma rays: neutron+neutron.  The reason that reaction isn't commonly done in particle accelerators is that it's quite difficult to make a neutron move at the velocities we're talking about.  It's not impossible, but throwing a charged particle around is a lot easier than turning a fast moving charged particle into an uncharged one by slamming it into an electron and hoping it's still on course.  So when we want to make muon neutrinos in modern particle accelerators, they throw protons at neutron targets instead of two neutrons.

But if you're accelerating the neutron via the Pauli exclusion principle, that won't be an issue.  It does completely destroy both of the neutrons involved in the collision, so it turns out there is nothing to recapture.

The reaction is when a high energy neutron slams into a stationary neutron target.  The initial neutron is given an energy of 120GeV, so it's really hauling ass.  When it smashes into the other neutron, both particles are demolished and 6 pions are created.  Pions have a charge and they strongly interact with matter, so care must be made to design a reaction chamber that will keep them away from the chamber walls until they can decay into muons.

It turns out that muons are what will be leaving the thruster, not just neutrinos.  Pions decay into muons after shedding an electron neutrino.  Since the electron neutrino's energy is small (~3GeV), it might be more appropriate to call them muon thrusters.  Muons do have a charge, but they interact with matter just as weakly as do neutrinos.  Most of the energy still ultimately turns into 10 GeV muon neutrinos so the the underlying principle of the drive is still sound.  But there is some residual radiation.  When the muons decay, roughly 50km away from the spacecraft, they turn into muon neutrinos (which carry off the bulk of the energy and momentum) and either electrons or positrons (depending on the charge of the muon) which carry off the remaining energy (~7GeV worth.)

So ironically, you'd be perfectly safe standing directly under one of these thrusters.  But 50km away, you'd get some radiation.  That said, at 50km away, the cone of the particles is so large that the actual dose of radiation still wouldn't be all that high.  We get hit by tens of thousands of these things each day from cosmic rays.  Scientists can detect them even under kilometers of rock.

Now as I said before, I'll draw you a diagram showing exactly what is interacting with what since that seems to be the only way that you'll accept the fact that neither the neutrinos nor the muons need to interact with anything for momentum to be given to them upon their creation, and that momentum comes from the acceleration of the neutron which starts the whole chain reaction.  Pushing that 120GeV neutron toward the rear of the thruster is what ultimately pushes the whole thing forward.  Once that neutron is moving, the drive need not interact with any of the other particles.

But that diagram will be my final post on this subject.  If you can't understand the concept after you see it, then you never will.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

2100, I will actually read what Telnac posts... @_@


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 22, 2008)

In the year 2100 sunday will be non-existant, and will be replaced with Funday.


----------



## Kajet (Oct 22, 2008)

In 2100 all discussions on theology and physics will be replaced by "penis penis penis penis" the rate of blindness in women of legal age slowly decreases.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 22, 2008)

In the year 2100 all robots will be Johnny #5's.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 22, 2008)

Kajet said:


> In 2100 all discussions on theology and physics will be replaced by "penis penis penis penis" the rate of blindness in women of legal age slowly decreases.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 22, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> by 2100, white folks can finally say "nigga" to their black friends out in public



Nonono, more like this.


By 2100, Caucasian people are an ethnic minority in the U.S....but it's still alright to say whatever the damn heck you want about them. Who gives a crap?


----------



## TwilightV (Oct 22, 2008)

seekerwolf said:


> In the year 2100 all robots will be Johnny #5's.


 
Are you trying to make me die of happiness?

In the year 2100 we (or what's left of us) will probably be laughing because everything is almost exactly the same as it is now...


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

2100, All Johnny #5's are now weak, Wall-e looking things.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 22, 2008)

by 2100, everyone camps during wars.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

In 2100, words mean nothing.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 22, 2008)

2100, Bartering returns


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

In 2100, drinking coke and pop rocks together cures cancer.


----------



## Thatch (Oct 22, 2008)

Telnac said:


> Pushing that 120GeV neutron toward the rear of the thruster is what ultimately pushes the whole thing forward.  Once that neutron is moving, the drive need not interact with any of the other particles.



Oh, that would work, if you could accelerate a neutron to such energies of course, I agree here. But that has nothing to do with neutrinos, aside from them being one of the products. That's the only thing I was going at. 
If the main product would be a muon as you say, then it's completely different, and would probably work (it's still debatable how well, but would).
Only that IMO there are systems that would be far less complicated to built (and probably of comparable effectivness or better, with the same energy input. Think how effective would be a simple ion drive with energies like that), so even if possible to built, they would be impractical.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 22, 2008)

Silibus said:


> 2100, I will actually read what Telnac posts... @_@



In 2100 I'll finish reading what Telnac posts, and actually understand it.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 22, 2008)

szopaw said:


> Oh, that would work, if you could accelerate a neutron to such energies of course, I agree here. But that has nothing to do with neutrinos, aside from them being one of the products. That's the only thing I was going at.
> If the main product would be a muon as you say, then it's completely different, and would probably work (it's still debatable how well, but would).
> Only that IMO there are systems that would be far less complicated to built (and probably of comparable effectivness or better, with the same energy input. Think how effective would be a simple ion drive with energies like that), so even if possible to built, they would be impractical.



That's what I was trying to get at this whole time!  A "neutrino drive" isn't pushed along by neutrinos.  It's called that b/c neutrinos are what's streaming out of the back end of the drive.  That's the same reason ion drives are called what they are.  They're actually pushed forward via an electric field which accelerates the ions, but it's called an ion drive because that's what comes out the back end.

That said, now that I see that both muons and neutrinos would be coming out the back end of my "neutrino" drive, I'm going to start calling it a muon/neutrino drive.  It's more accurate, and hopefully less likely to raise eyebrows when I put my 22nd century fursona's bio online.


The main advantage to a muon/neutrino drive over an ion drive is the ability to stack multiple drives on top of each other, since what goes out the back end effectively flies through just about everything. If you use the Pauli exclusion principle to accelerate a 120GeV proton or neutron and just let it fly off into space, that would be far more efficient, yes.  But your propulsion drive would be thinner than a coat of paint and could be no thicker.  But if you can transfer that energy & momentum into muons & neutrinos, you can make a giant block containing billions if not trillions of microscopic drives, and you could house that block in the center of your spacecraft where could simply turn it to produce thrust in any direction.

But the fact that you have to make pions to make muons adds a considerable technical hurdle to muon/neutrino drives. They'd still be possible, but they'd be a lot more efficient if there was some way to just create muons directly. The best reaction I see that does that involves matter-antimatter annihilation which, needless to say, also produces oodles of gamma rays. :-x



Tycho The Itinerant said:


> In 2100 I'll finish reading what Telnac posts, and actually understand it.



Sorry.    I do tend to be a bit verbose.

As for understanding it, it's a discussion that combined Newtonian physics, relativity and quantum mechanics.  I think some college physics majors would have a hard time following it.  

But what I posted earlier encouraging others to study this stuff is true: it's a really fascinating topic!  And for those of you who are in high school and pondering what to study in college: atomic-level and high energy engineering are fields receiving _*billions*_ of dollars of funding from private industry alone!  So recession or no recession, anyone who is qualified to work in that industry can practically print their own money!

Just something to think about...


----------



## Cody Von King (Oct 23, 2008)

In the year 2100 bacon will be good for your heart


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 23, 2008)

In 2100, you will need to breath in lead to live past 100.


----------



## Thatch (Oct 23, 2008)

I would, personally, abolish the 'neutrino' in the name completely. That's just a byproduct, not the mean of thrust (as opposite to the ions in the ion drive, where the ions come out of the back because it makes the ship move, not just because they are there). But nevermind that.
There's still the question if the reaction wouldn't damage the structure (on the molecular scale such eneregies could be dangerous, especially if it was some runaway particle from the reaction), but I guess that can be unswered for real only after someone goes and builds it. So let's leave it at that


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 23, 2008)

Everyone will have to dance the hoochie koo, even better everyone will have to continuously move while standing in place like an old RPG.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 23, 2008)

VR will become common and our bodies will become useless.


----------



## TwilightV (Oct 23, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> 2100, Bartering returns


 
2100, Batman Returns (again...)


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 23, 2008)

2100 Poke-Digi war, all humans are dead.


----------



## TwilightV (Oct 23, 2008)

Silibus said:


> 2100 Poke-Digi war, all humans are dead.


 
Let me guess... with the exception of teh nerdy fans who know how to tame them?


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 23, 2008)

TwilightV said:


> Let me guess... with the exception of teh nerdy fans who know how to tame them?


Nope they're all dead, and all the pokemon and digimon go insane without owners. Causing chaos and war.


----------

