Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Nasa May Have Accidentally Figured Out How To Make A Warp Drive.


ContraBardus

Recommended Posts

For now a nice 4 month round trip to Mars including a week on planet is all I'm asking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nothing can move faster than light. Einstein said. I believe it. That settles it. smile.png

If they can create thrusters by way of tachyon emissions...

 

 

The wheel...what craziness is that?

 

An airplane? Impossible! 

 

(lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Nothing can move faster than light. Einstein said. I believe it. That settles it. smile.png

If they can create thrusters by way of tachyon emissions...

 

 

The wheel...what craziness is that?  An airplane? Impossible! 

 

(lol)

 

 

Yes, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." : - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere I read that the innermost torus of black holes might reach great speeds but this is mostly dust with little or no large matter, which I believe was concluded in the article. I too will keep my eyes peeled for any source claiming speeds (relative to a nearby reference frame) of large, solid matter (or stars) exceeding .1C. If so I will post the link in this section. smile.png

Yup that's going to be dust or single atoms most likely... but as far as I understand it that's less because of speed but because of spaghettification. Close to black holes the gravitational pull is extremely different between near and far end of an object - it eventually gets so strong a difference that objects are literally torn apart.

 

Space is so damn weird... tongue.png

 

(Caveat: That's less true for the largest black holes, for reasons that I never tried to fully understand - I'll just take the scientists' word for it here. So, ironically, spaghettification will be less around S A* than it will be around a "normal" black hole)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmmmm -- spaghetti!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmmmm -- spaghetti!

 

Yes, you must eat of the Noodley Appendages and drink the Holy Marinara, praise the FSM (stinky cheese be upon Him).  I don't have anything to add to this conversation other than that, but this is Science vs. Religion after all, and I thought it might be a good place to throw in some religion. 

 

No thing can travel faster than the speed of light. God used to be able to, when it was just Him and His Spirit, but once He added Jesus to the mix, He added mass, because Jesus was and is half human. You know that's true. 

 

Sometimes Einstein, that old goat with his cotton batten hair was right.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect another speed limit may exist about 1/10th the speed of light at which time the molecular structure of matter could begin to disintegrate as could any spacecraft traveling at that speed or greater in space.  Of course such a limit is still unknown to science and future high-speed craft will need to be tested very extensively to see if any such speed limits exist, contrary to present theory, before any manned craft could ever consider such speeds.

 

Do you have a good reason for this conjecture, or is it just speculation?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Somewhere I read that the innermost torus of black holes might reach great speeds but this is mostly dust with little or no large matter, which I believe was concluded in the article. I too will keep my eyes peeled for any source claiming speeds (relative to a nearby reference frame) of large, solid matter (or stars) exceeding .1C. If so I will post the link in this section. smile.png

Yup that's going to be dust or single atoms most likely... but as far as I understand it that's less because of speed but because of spaghettification. Close to black holes the gravitational pull is extremely different between near and far end of an object - it eventually gets so strong a difference that objects are literally torn apart.

 

Space is so damn weird... tongue.png

 

(Caveat: That's less true for the largest black holes, for reasons that I never tried to fully understand - I'll just take the scientists' word for it here. So, ironically, spaghettification will be less around S A* than it will be around a "normal" black hole)

 

 

Yes, IMO the line between spaghettification and disintegration becomes blurred for matter very near stellar black holes.  As you say, less is known concerning the approach to galactic black holes and what they really consist of, their make up, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I expect another speed limit may exist about 1/10th the speed of light at which time the molecular structure of matter could begin to disintegrate as could any spacecraft traveling at that speed or greater in space.  Of course such a limit is still unknown to science and future high-speed craft will need to be tested very extensively to see if any such speed limits exist, contrary to present theory, before any manned craft could ever consider such speeds.

 

Do you have a good reason for this conjecture, or is it just speculation?

 

 

It could be called conjecture, speculation, or It might be called an independent hypothesis based upon theory and fact.The hypothesis is my own. smile.png   It is not required to support a theory, but it would lend support to aether type theories in general. What the hypothesis points out  is that there is a omni-present background field, like an aether, called the Zero Point Field. This field's existence is well known for many decades now and is a proven energy field, with known particles called virtual particles which go in and out of existence.

 

According to the hypothesis at very high speeds, maybe .05 times the speed of light, matter would begin to be ionized by contact with virtual particles (or their energy equivalence) in this background field. At a speed of maybe .1C relative to this field this ionization would accordingly begin the process of molecular disassociation, and to continue at this speed or greater would result in molecular disintegration. The calculated estimate of the required speed and time required for this to happen is based upon scientific evidence concerning how long virtual particles (or their energy equivalence) have been calculated to stay in existence, and an estimate of how many such virtual particles (or their energy equivalences) would contact matter traveling at these speeds, for minutes, for hours, for days, for years, for decades, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I expect another speed limit may exist about 1/10th the speed of light at which time the molecular structure of matter could begin to disintegrate as could any spacecraft traveling at that speed or greater in space.  Of course such a limit is still unknown to science and future high-speed craft will need to be tested very extensively to see if any such speed limits exist, contrary to present theory, before any manned craft could ever consider such speeds.

 

Do you have a good reason for this conjecture, or is it just speculation?

 

 

It could be called conjecture, speculation, or It might be called an independent hypothesis as I call it since it is my own  smile.png . It is not required to support a theory, but it would lend support to aether type theories in general. What the hypothesis says is that there is a omni-present background field, like an aether, called the Zero Point Field. This field's existence is well known for many decades and has been proven to be an energy field, with known particles called virtual particles which go in and out of existence. According to the hypothesis, at very high speeds maybe .05 times the speed of light, matter would begin to be ionized by contact with virtual particles in this background field. At a speed of maybe .1C this ionization would begin the process of molecular bonding, and to continue at this speed or greater would result in molecular disintegration. The calculated estimate of the required speed is based upon scientific evidence concerning how long virtual particles stay in existence and how many such particles will be contacted by matter traveling at this speed, for minutes, for hours, for days, and for years.

 

 

 

So in other words, you don't have a good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, IMO the line between spaghettification and disintegration becomes blurred for matter very near stellar black holes.  As you say, less is known concerning the approach to galactic black holes and what they really consist of, their make up.

Well supermassive black holes are technically nothing other than normal black holes... just larger because they've swallowed much more matter. That spaghettification thing is about the hole's gravitational gradient being less than with a stellar hole (that's exactly the part I don't fully understand yet), it's not like there's anything totally different at work there.

 

At least according to scientific projections and simulations. Technically we don't really know... but holes are very nicely explainable by our current science so I guess we can be quite confident that we got it right.

 

As for your matter disintegration hypothesis, we do know that subatomic particles and such survive at almost c because that's the speed we get them to in our accelerators before we crash them into each other. If such an effect exists (not that we have any scientific reason to assume it) then it must only work beyond some size limit.

 

But on a purely theoretical level I find it interesting to imagine what this disintegration would mean to a future universe where we do have the propulsion tech and such to take on interstellar travel. Aaah imagination... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, IMO the line between spaghettification and disintegration becomes blurred for matter very near stellar black holes.  As you say, less is known concerning the approach to galactic black holes and what they really consist of, their make up.

Well supermassive black holes are technically nothing other than normal black holes... just larger because they've swallowed much more matter. That spaghettification thing is about the hole's gravitational gradient being less than with a stellar hole (that's exactly the part I don't fully understand yet), it's not like there's anything totally different at work there.

 

At least according to scientific projections and simulations. Technically we don't really know... but holes are very nicely explainable by our current science so I guess we can be quite confident that we got it right.

 

As for your matter disintegration hypothesis, we do know that subatomic particles and such survive at almost c because that's the speed we get them to in our accelerators before we crash them into each other. If such an effect exists (not that we have any scientific reason to assume it) then it must only work beyond some size limit.

 

But on a purely theoretical level I find it interesting to imagine what this disintegration would mean to a future universe where we do have the propulsion tech and such to take on interstellar travel. Aaah imagination... tongue.png

 

 

 

 

Yes, IMO the line between spaghettification and disintegration becomes blurred for matter very near stellar black holes.  As you say, less is known concerning the approach to galactic black holes and what they really consist of, their make up.

Well supermassive black holes are technically nothing other than normal black holes... just larger because they've swallowed much more matter. That spaghettification thing is about the hole's gravitational gradient being less than with a stellar hole (that's exactly the part I don't fully understand yet), it's not like there's anything totally different at work there......

Technically we don't really know... but holes are very nicely explainable by our current science so I guess we can be quite confident that we got it right.

 

 

Yes, this is present theory but there are other theories that propose otherwise. Even the idea that black holes are matter-less voids has been questioned by many.

 

As for your matter disintegration hypothesis, we do know that subatomic particles and such survive at almost c because that's the speed we get them to in our accelerators before we crash them into each other. If such an effect exists (not that we have any scientific reason to assume it) then it must only work beyond some size limit.

 

This proposed effect only concerns primarily large molecular matter, spaceship sized, for instance.

 

But on a purely theoretical level I find it interesting to imagine what this disintegration would mean to a future universe where we do have the propulsion tech and such to take on interstellar travel. Aaah imagination... tongue.png

 

If this effect is true I suspect that someday we will figure a way around it smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Large molecular matter? Do you know how fast the 6s electron in a Mercury or Gold atom is moving? The effects that these tremendous velocities have do not result in the breakdown of these rather large atoms. However, what we do notice is that relativistic effects cause the 6s orbital to contract. This in addition to a few other effects is what causes Mercury to exhibit interesting properties. These effects also explain the interesting colour that Gold takes on. However, no disintegration of Gold at the molecular level occurs. These effects are well studied and a search for the term "lanthanide contraction" will put you in the right direction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grabs popcorn and waits for Pantheory to respond to the RogueScholar.

 

Popcorn.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Large molecular matter? Do you know how fast the 6s electron in a Mercury or Gold atom is moving? The effects that these tremendous velocities have do not result in the breakdown of these rather large atoms. However, what we do notice is that relativistic effects cause the 6s orbital to contract. This in addition to a few other effects is what causes Mercury to exhibit interesting properties. These effects also explain the interesting colour that Gold takes on. However, no disintegration of Gold at the molecular level occurs. These effects are well studied and a search for the term "lanthanide contraction" will put you in the right direction.

 

I will research "lanthanide contraction."

 

As I said above, I was talking about large molecular matter the size of spaceships as I explained in several postings above. Atoms don't break down in a molecular way as you know. They will ionize further at high velocities in an accelerator but when slowed down the same atoms will pick up new electrons again. But when formed in molecular structures of different elements I proposed that this ionization would be the beginning of molecular breakdown.

 

I expect the Zero Point Field is at least one of the reasons for the rapid decay of the largest man-made atomic elements as well as natural radio-active elements, not necessarily just the weak nuclear force.

 

The point you made above that I think is most appropriate is that normal matter in the field at speeds well below .1C would impact with matter at high speeds, especially atomic particles in great numbers, and erode molecular structures away through impact. This I believe is a more likely event as did you. I suggested magnetic shielding of some kind but again such shielding may not be good enough to allow for speeds as great as .1C if otherwise the Zero Point Field were not a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it when one of these science threads gets like this too.

 

Bill-Hader-Eating-Popcorn-Smiling-SNL.gi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this is how I know molecules to "break down." Ionisation is a very common and problematic issue when it comes to how many toxic drugs and substances exert their toxicological effects. Regarding the weak nuclear force, you would have to present a robust framework that makes better predictions than our current models and still accounts for charge conservation and such before I'd seriously entertain said model. Also, we've all seen rooms full of gold, certainly that would be a reasonable poxy for some sort of space craft? So, rooms full of gold, full of 6s electrons moving at relativistic velocities that create effects our current models predict quite well, but no molecular breakdown as far as we can tell due to interactions discussed earlier.

 

I'm not trying to be an arse, but I am not sure how to find these ideas compelling. I also understand that you appear to be highly tentative regarding these thoughts? If there is merit in these ideas, I'm willing to explore these other possibilities however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this is how I know molecules to "break down." Ionisation is a very common and problematic issue when it comes to how many toxic drugs and substances exert their toxicological effects. Regarding the weak nuclear force, you would have to present a robust framework that makes better predictions than our current models and still accounts for charge conservation and such before I'd seriously entertain said model. Also, we've all seen rooms full of gold, certainly that would be a reasonable poxy for some sort of space craft? So, rooms full of gold, full of 6s electrons moving at relativistic velocities that create effects our current models predict quite well, but no molecular breakdown as far as we can tell due to interactions discussed earlier.

 

I'm not trying to be an arse, but I am not sure how to find these ideas compelling. I also understand that you appear to be highly tentative regarding these thoughts? If there is merit in these ideas, I'm willing to explore these other possibilities however.

 

Yes, I have done no robust analysis or substantial thought concerning exactly how the ZPF would influence nuclear decay but my theory suggests that it does. Where theory is not well developed, as in this case concerning exactly how radio-active decay takes place when more than one hypotheses consistent with the theory is possible, my proposal is more tentative as you suggest. Since the theory addresses all of modern physics there is much to consider for just one person smile.png

 

Concerning electron speeds: Don't want to get too far off topic, but in my model atoms are primarily vortices within the background field produced by spinning fermions and nucleons of the atom. Relative to the vortex the speed of atomic electrons within it would accordingly be traveling at much slower velocities within the vortex field itself than their speeds would appear to be relative to the surrounding field. In this atomic vortex model involving the ZPF, atomic electrons accordingly would be somewhat protected from ZPF (vortex) interactions surrounding it since this field material would be traveling with it (within the vortex) also at high speeds.

 

Bonding of dissimilar materials, such as a spaceship, would likely involve more tenuous molecular bonding as well as mechanical bonding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Since my theory addresses all of modern physics..."

 

And therefore everything else that modern physics impacts on.

Such as chemistry, cellular biology (biochemistry & evolutionary biology), functional biology (physiology, medicine & ecology), geoscience (climatology, geology and oceanography) and astronomy (planetary science & cosmology).  Leaving only the formal sciences of math (computer science & statistics) and logic (reasoning & philosophy) and the social sciences of psychology (developmental & cognitive) and sociology (law, ethics & economics) unaffected by Pantheory's theories.

 

So is your job safe, RS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Since my theory addresses all of modern physics..."

 

And therefore everything else that modern physics impacts on.

Such as chemistry, cellular biology (biochemistry & evolutionary biology), functional biology (physiology, medicine & ecology), geoscience (climatology, geology and oceanography) and astronomy (planetary science & cosmology).  Leaving only the formal sciences of math (computer science & statistics) and logic (reasoning & philosophy) and the social sciences of psychology (developmental & cognitive) and sociology (law, ethics & economics) unaffected by Pantheory's theories.

 

So is your job safe, RS?

 

 

"And therefore everything else that modern physics impacts on."

 

Nope, just modern physics, not most crossover fields that might also be developed. The applicable fields are post-Newtonian physics which involves a large range of physics. The term is used here to refer to any branch of physics either developed in the early 20th century and onwards: They are different theories and related hypothesis explaining new "far simpler understandings" of reality, "proper definitions" necessary for understandings of reality, cosmology, cosmogony, theoretical physics, theory involving the fundamental structure of matter, new particle physics and forces (or lack thereof). Different theories of: quantum physics, gravity theory, magnetic theory (basic and planetary), light theory, a background (aether) field theory. New physics/ calculations for redshift distance galactic redshifts, new gravity equations, explanations concerning what's wrong with present-day theory in modern physics. Proposed explanations for nearly all known quandaries in physics.

 

For this thread it concerns the possibilities of relativistic velocities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've not seen Star Talk with Niel deGrasse Tyson I highly recommend it. It's showing on Nat Geo if you get that channel and worth checking out.

 

I watched the show that spoke where he interviewed Chris Nolan about Interstellar and the topic of discussion was relativity. It was very cool.

 

He also does a radio version of the show that you can usually find online You can find it here.

 

Here's another article on the subject of the EmDrive that explains things a little better and that says flat out that it is not a warp drive of any kind. Just that there are some similarities to the math involved and that it seems to break the currently understood laws of physics by converting energy into thrust without a propellant.

 

 

Those rumors stemmed from information posted on the NASASpaceflight.com forums regarding the EM Drive, a proposed method of interstellar vehicle propulsion that uses an electrical power source, has no moving parts, requires no material fuel and breaks the laws of physics.

In its report, Tech Times cites one forum post, which reads, “…this signature (the interference pattern) on the EmDrive looks just like what a warp bubble looks like. And the math behind the warp bubble apparently matches the interference pattern found in the EmDrive.”

Based on those comments, the website said, it was “entirely possible” that NASA has created a “stable warp bubble” that could make “faster-than-light travel” a possibility. Other online media outlets, including CNET, io9 and IFL Science (among many others), also posted versions of the report ranging from “the EM Drive works” to “ZOMG! Here comes warp speed!”

So could the rumors actually be true?

As cool as it would be to travel faster than the speed of light ala Star Trek, sadly, it does not look like we’ll be doing it anytime soon. If you visit the NASASpaceflight.com forums  and check out the discussion, you’ll see that it is rather complex and technical in nature – highly open to misinterpretation by those of us without a Ph.D. in our pocket.

The EM Drive, also known as the electromagnetic drive, could theoretically propel objects to near-relativistic speeds, according to io9, and NASA Eagleworks has apparently been working with the device to see if they can make it work in a space-like vacuum. If that the site reports is accurate, they may have done that, but there are still other obstacles to overcome.

For instance, the EM Drive appears to violate conventional physics and the law of conservation of momentum. It allegedly converts energy to thrust without requiring a propellant, doing so by firing microwaves into a closed container. Without the expulsion of propellant, however, there is nothing to offset the change in the spacecraft’s momentum when it accelerates.

If the technology could somehow be proven to work, it could provide faster, cheaper and more efficient travel throughout the solar system and beyond – and yes, in theory, it could potentially lead to the development of a warp drive. But for now, as NASA itself explained, while there are “some credible concepts in scientific literature, however it’s too soon to know if they are viable,” meaning that “traveling at the speed of light is simply imaginary at present.”


Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1113382558/no-nasa-did-not-accidentally-invent-the-warp-drive-050115/#TxGWCu2qiCqLzU4V.99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks ContraBardus,

 

I too have high hopes for EmDrive as a means of continuous acceleration and future space travel, but even if continuous acceleration were achieved by this or other means there are still the theoretical restrictions of the speed of light being the ultimate speed limit. Warp drive would seem to require something else other than just continuous acceleration. For this I have no real expectations for EmDrive alone anywhere near relativistic speeds sad.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be called conjecture, speculation, or It might be called an independent hypothesis based upon theory and fact.The hypothesis is my own. smile.png   It is not required to support a theory, but it would lend support to aether type theories in general. What the hypothesis points out  is that there is a omni-present background field, like an aether, called the Zero Point Field. This field's existence is well known for many decades now and is a proven energy field, with known particles called virtual particles which go in and out of existence.

 

According to the hypothesis at very high speeds, maybe .05 times the speed of light, matter would begin to be ionized by contact with virtual particles (or their energy equivalence) in this background field. At a speed of maybe .1C relative to this field this ionization would accordingly begin the process of molecular disassociation, and to continue at this speed or greater would result in molecular disintegration. The calculated estimate of the required speed and time required for this to happen is based upon scientific evidence concerning how long virtual particles (or their energy equivalence) have been calculated to stay in existence, and an estimate of how many such virtual particles (or their energy equivalences) would contact matter traveling at these speeds, for minutes, for hours, for days, for years, for decades, etc.

The Sun orbits the galactic center at approximately 6.67% C. By extension, the Earth and all other bodies orbiting the Sun are doing the same dance. This is greater than the 5% C you hypothesize would cause ionization. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the solar system orbits at around 800,000 km/hr. This is pretty slow when compared to C.

 

 

Regarding this physics issue:

Chemistry is a direct extension of "modern" physics and as such, I would expect any latest and greatest model to explain concepts such as chemical bonding. We've already discussed this and I have not seen anything that explains contemporary chemical problems better than what we already have in our tool box. Hartree-Fock, Density Functional and others are examples I've discussed a couple times already. Please feel free to enlighten the field of chemistry with this spinning vortex theory. Be sure to predict the effects that happen at relativistic velocities, or sub-relativistic velocities as you claim. You could rewrite your own inorganic chemistry textbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much faster than light? The nearest star is something like 26 light years away. We need very, very, very, very fast speeds to make space travel of any sort feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.