News Flash! Time travel by the year 2536

Great Debates
1

Human beings are on track to be able to run - unassisted - faster than the speed of light, and actually travel back in time, by around the year 2536.

I know this from an article published in the current issue of Nature magazine (September 30, 2004), and widely quoted in other major news outlets.

In that article they point of that since the year 1928, when women started competing in the Olympic 100m sprint events, the world-record speeds of both women and men sprinters have improved, but that the women’s has improved more than the men’s.

In fitting a curve to the data, they considered several different curves but find that there is no need to use any more complex than a straight line. Further, they also find that neither men nor women “seem to be hitting a plateau” in improving their times. Following this line, then, they conclude that women will run the 100m faster than men by the 2156 Olympic games.

Unfortunately, the table that accompanies the article only projects the lines out to about the point where the women’s time reaches about the 6 second mark (in about the year 2252.)

As a public service, however, I have continued the work of these august researchers, calculating the trends out further. Using their methods, the data clearly shows that by the 2536 Olympics, women will be able to run faster than light and, indeed, actually arrive at the finish line before the starting gun!

Men will, of course, take longer to reach this level. Perhaps they can learn to “draft” behind the women, which should improve their times considerably. But, then, that would conflict with the linear nature of the data, which would not make any sense.

2

That is weird. I am surprised that Nature let a conclusion like that (even a graph) slip in. Then again, maybe the weight-limited knee rockets that will be allowed in the Olympics by then will give a greater boost to females because of lighter average body weight.

3

What’s the debate? They’ll actually confirm this finding in the Augut 2357 issue of Human Sports Illustrated, delivered to me yesterday by a sprinter.

Daniel

4

I thought maybe it was poking fun of this post.

5

I saw this, too, and had the same reaction-- WTF??? The only conclusion that makes sense is that the Nature article was misquoted, or some key elemets of hte article was left out by the popular press. Has anyone read the actual article? If so, did they really screw up that badly?

But, to be fair, it would be possible for women to get faster than men without having to take relativistic effects into account. Had the chart been extrapolated as you suggest, I have no doubt that Nature would have used the proper higher order terms in the equations so that faster than light travel would not have been predicted. :slight_smile:

6

Yes, and yes. The cites I originally saw made me go look up the original article in Nature. It’s written just the way it’s quoted in the popular press. I read it several times to make sure.

7

Have they taken into account relativistic gamma ? i don’t think so.

8

Relativity issues aside, what is the debate here? That some extrapolations are absurd?

9

That THIS extrapolation is absurd.

10

OK, are we debating how it’s impossible for human beings to run that fast, that women will never be faster than men, or both?

11

If you’re looking for validation that there isn’t much of a debate here, I’ll agree. And maybe this is something that would be better addressed in GQ.

The one thing that makes it interesting is that it’s reported in Nature-- one of the most prestegious Science periodicals on earth. It would be interesting to see if there actually is a reasnable case to be made that the Nature assertion is correct. There are a lot of smart people around here, so if it flunks the SDMB test, I’ll be more inclined to believe that Nature just made a mistake.

12

Strange. 2536 is the year of the next Red Sox World Series victory, too.

Over the Cubs.

13

Well, I thought it was pretty debatable…

Especially when you consider that, even leaving my extrapolations aside, the numbers shown in the *published * chart show the ladies hitting a gnarly 35 MPH (average) speed over 100m, on foot! :eek:

Anyway, kidding aside, I figured this might trigger a discussion on either 1) their methods or 2) how an article like this got published in a reputable journal. If all we can do is shrug our shoulders at it, then <shrug>

14

I think the real debate here is whether or not the publishers have a sense of humor or not.

Apparently they do, and even they will stoop to letting “funny” articles into a magazine of their stature. I’m sure that this is neither the first nor last funny article either.

15

Impossible.
After the polar ice-caps melt due to global warming their will be no ‘Boston’ in five hundred years.

16

As a hijack, I can prove that time travel will never become possible.

17

Yeah right. When I went to bed last night it was midnight. When I woke up, it was 8 am. Explain that.

18

You’d think a bunch of brainy folks like the publishers of Nature would know that April is the time for funny articles.

19

Okay, okay, Shagnasty, I’ll give you time travel into the future as a real possibility.

But time travel into the past is another kettle of flux-capacitance altogether.

Larry Niven once said that, if time travel were ever discovered, the odds approach certainty that someone, at some time in the future, will travel back in time and prevent time travel from having been discovered in the first place. And, heck, anyone who hypothesizes a star-girdling ringworld made out of indestructible Scrith can’t be wrong!

20

I suspect the authors and the editors are well aware the conclusions in the article are nonsensical and it is, in fact, a demonstration of how some extrapolations are absurd. A cautionary tale for others working in fields with less of a “real world” aspect.

I used to read Nature all the time and this doesn’t sound out of character. Some scientists do in fact have a sense of humor.