GhostShadow Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Also' date=' who says a warp drive has to exceed lightspeed?[/quote'] uhm... the artical that this entire thread is about said that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 hey they said some dude wrote a paper where is it? Let me find the PDF & I'll get you a link to it.......It makes for facinating reading. The reason I'm excited about this is that the Air Force intends to test it. This, in my mind, gives it a great deal of credibility. .....It also takes beyond mere theory. Warp Drive is here, despite our disbelief, and what needs to happen now is a push by the populace at large to encourage actual ship building, instead of alot of "buzy talk". ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Also' date=' who says a warp drive has to exceed lightspeed? [/quote'] uhm... the artical that this entire thread is about said that... NO It DOES NOT. It says faster-than-light is *possible*, but not necessary. It says, "The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft." Translation: The warp drive could also be used for sublight velocities. GhostShadow: Try reading past sentence #1 next time: Also' date=' who says a warp drive has to exceed lightspeed? Poor assumption. [i']In theory, a warp drive could boost a spaceship to a mere 1000 miles an hour for slow orbital maneuvers. In early tests of the warp prototype, it probably won't exceed 10 mph.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yes, that's like saying that men can give birth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 No. YOUR post is in error. Your description violates the Max Speed = C rule. Bodies do not move because the Sun says to the Earth "move towards me". That would require instantaneous communication/infinite speed, which is a violation of the Max Speed = C rule. I can't believe you made such an elementary error. honey stop twisting my words. i did not say that gravity is not caused by warping of spacetime, i said that bodies do not only travel in space because of spacetime curvature i said that movement is not only caused by space time curvature. very elementary examples of movement by reasons other that spacetime curvature are movement under the effect of an EM field and bodies also bodies may move through space relative to other bodies without any force forces and curvatures in space time causes them to accelerate or change direction. you said that: Bodies travel through the universe because they are following curves in space i said: number one bodies do not travel in space BECAUSE they are following the curves in space. or more precisely not only curves in space that causes them to move my quotation is more general, plus as i noted curvatures in space times causes acceleration and change in direction "which is a form of acceleration" not movement in space. Also, who says a warp drive has to exceed lightspeed? Poor assumption. In theory, a warp drive could boost a spaceship to a mere 1000 miles an hour for slow orbital maneuvers. In early tests of the warp prototype, it probably won't exceed 10 mph. i do not accept this statement. making such quantitative predections suchas saying that we can warp at a speed of 10 mph means that you actually know the laws that govenr the movement of sucha described spacetime wave through space time, do you know these laws. i f you do i recommend you publish it i gurantee you a nobel proze. if you dont please dont make quantitative predeictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Seems like a lot more Nobel scientists frequent the board than I ever thought possible ;) I think it's reasonable to say that the theoretcal knowledge to create an FTL drive could far precede the ability to actually create one. Also - just because NASA hasn't cracked something, doesn't mean to say it's impossible. NASA is a horrible bureaucratic nightmare that is funded based on how the US government is feeling. Hence scrapping something that might have wide-stretching applications as the SCRAMjet to make sure there might have been enough money for a voyage to Mars, that would likely have little more than political benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 the real problem is that because we do not have any complete theory for quantum gravity or more precisely we cannot quantize the gravity field. we havent the least of an idea how space time would react to something like that. maybe the answer is closer than we think, maybe we will stumble on it by accident someday, or maybe we will have to wait for the actual quantization of the gravity field, which will propably take more than a decade as physicists predict it will require the derivement of a new type of mathematics in the same way that newton "or libentz depending on how you look at it" derived defferentiation and integration to solve the problem of dynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jounin Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 If this thing actually works, I may wet my pants. No promises, just saying it could happen. Until they test it though, I will remain skeptical, and my pants will, for the most part, remain un-wetted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 number one bodies do not travel in space BECAUSE they are following the curves in space. or more precisely not only curves in space that causes them to move my quotation is more general, plus as i noted curvatures in space times causes acceleration and change in direction "which is a form of acceleration" not movement in space.. The reason I did not understand your original quote? Because you use poor English grammar. You can't expect people to understand you when you don't follow the rules of the language. You point the finger at me and say, "Theaveng is not listening." Wrong. You should point the finger at yourself and say, "I explained poorly." QUESTION - What if the warp drive, like today's propulsion systems, can not exceed lightspeed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Then the theory is proved wrong that warping space in that way allows one to travel faster than light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUESTION - What if the warp drive, like today's propulsion systems, can not exceed lightspeed? well it propably can. because warping of space happens all the time, or to be gramatically correct space that contains matter and energy is warpped no matter what. what is interesting is that the warping moves throught space time think of it like that you have a tight membrane made of rubber, a big steel ball is placed on it it will bend the membrane downwards"although not because of space time warping this is a metaphore" in the same way that masses warp spacetime "only space time is warped in 4 dimensions not 2 dimension such as in the mebrane. now imagine that the ball is moving, the question is if the ball moves at a velocity of V how fast will the warping move. we beleive it is faster than light. let me elaborate: let us say that a mass of 1 Tg "yeah i use SI system so take you Ib ft and rankine and................" that is 10 light years away form a 1 g mass the body would excert a force arising form warping of spacetime that is proportional with botht the magnitude of the masses and the distance between them. now let us say that we are measunring the force excerted on the small i gram mass very precisely with a very fast instrument. the 1 kg mass tarts moving towards the smaller mass at very high speeds close to the speed of light. as anyone who studied mechanics knows that the gravitational pull on the 1 g mass will increase the question is how fast will it increase. if the peed of the warp is slower than the speed of light some pretty amazing stuff may happen. we may for instance escape a black hole if a black hole is moving towards us at very high speeds we may wait untill we are very close to it "provided we are not inside the event horizon" but since the blackhole is moving faster that its own gravitational field, we would not be under the full pull of a black hole thatr close then the commander of the ship would turn on his engines that must be very fast but still sub light and he would escape with the gravitational field following on his heels just like one of us runs on a beach followd by a big wave and out runs it. but before you get excited this will never happen at least in our universe under our phyical law, general relativity sais that the speed of gravitational fields is faster than light. the problem as steven hawking puts it is can we actually so massively warp space ourselves and use it, then get off the bubble. it depends on the quantum nature of matter and spacetime it self, we have a vague half idea about quantum behaviour of matter and no idea about the quantum behaviour of spacetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Hey... another one of my posts has been deleted. What the? Why are my posts disappearing? Anyway I commented that I could have understood this quote better, but it was poorly worded. You say "stop twisting my words," but the truth is that your lack of punctuation/grammers makes it impossible for me to understand you. number one bodies do not travel in space BECAUSE they are following the curves in space. or more precisely not only curves in space that causes them to move QUESTION: And what if the warp drive does not exceed like lightspeed? What if it has the same limitations as ordinary propulsion systems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 ANSWER: It wouldn't be all that great. I'm not sure I see the point of the question. You're asking what it would be like if it had the same limitatons - by definition, it would have the same limitations and hence be... the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 we are in the same spot where late 19th century scientists were in, when they tried to calculate how much overall heat was emitted by a body, they got infinite amounts which means in layman terms that if you stand in the same room with a cup of coffee you should be turned into a pile of carbon. then came plank..... we need another one of those, but we are in a better place, because unlike the 19th century people we know where we are going. we just do not know how to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Indeed - the enduring human condition of having our reach exceed our grasp. Hmm... I've just had a thought. When it comes to scientific progress, if you're NOT invalidating all of your predecessors something is either very wrong or very right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 indeed Tenebrae either your predessors where completely wrong and you are here to make a break through and completely invalidate them or they were really close and you combined all the right things they had and fused them into the right thing but clearly the new theory will invalidate everything we know the broblem hendiring us is that there are very wierd phenomenas in the physics world there are hypes and funky cool things what i mean is that people get excited about something for a while eg: strings during the 80's then it goes out of style and then comes and makes a come back in the begining on this century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I think the problem is that scientists are just human too, regardless of how rigidly they adhere to principles they can still be swayed by things other than facts and it's been common for new theories to take quite some time to gather acceptance. I think that the big problem for physics is still unified field theory. They need to try and reconcile the totally irreconcilable predictable universal scale with the inherently UNpredictable quantum and I imagine that when that is done properly, that will probably represent a paradigm shift in our understanding of the physical universe. Now whether that will be achieved by a breakthrough or slow and steady progress I don't pretend to know but I think it'll be quite some time. We're really only just starting to get a proper handle on quantum mechanics. I don't think that will stop us attempting stuff like an Alcubierre drive though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 What I wonder about is how they know so much about this other 'dimension' that they can say that the speed of light is faster there, or even what he means by 'other dimension' (last I checked, dimensions were things like up, down, left, and time... not things that are ever seperate in the first place.) Personally, I think the use of the term 'dimension' was probably not accurate... but without seeing the paper, I can't really say anything. I think that if there is such a drive in the works, the person writing the article about it totally messed up in talking about what it is... probably due to watching too much Star Trek. ;) Now, using magnetic fields to generate gravity waves... THAT would be useful all by itself. (as I can't see the paper without paying for it, I can't see how well the superluminal aspect of this engine is supported... If you've got the cash, see here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 no in warp propultion there isnt an extra dimension we travel through our good old 4 dimensioned spacetime they trick is we dont travel through space time we surf! we ride a space time wave the wave moves and we are inside it "it is more like a bubble but it is three dimensional" only problem is we do not know how to make one we do not know how to get into one we do not know how to get off safely forget that paper look at the alcubierre stuff i put the guy works at plank's instyitute in germany not in nasa "sorry guys europe kicks usa butt in that stuff" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkR0 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 >>forget that paper look at the alcubierre stuff i put a scientist should resent too quickly, also the idea of the alcubiere drive is quite old couple of decades so maybe just one of those theoretical modells that don't work BECAUSE of the QM-effects on space-time (-curvature, remember the energy-tensor...:) >>the guy works at plank's instyitute in germany not in nasa "sorry guys europe kicks usa butt in that stuff" ? i dont thinkso.... somewhat the thought that its called Plancks constant and Einsteins theorie of GR (remember heisenberg,helmholtz,hertz..) implies a great involvement of german scientists in fundamental discoveries...im not german by origin nor a racist,but we do have a couple of problaby strange but crative minds... oh and well someone thought about the consequences of a magnetic field of a couple of Teslas? as far as i know thats enough power to induce hallucinations in humans.... not that harmfull i think but permanemt damage from longterm exposure aint that pleasant...also, idont want my helmsman singing klingon drinking songs while we head for a red giant :) thats just one thing ...there could be some other radiation generated through the strange conditions involved since the fundamental particle modell seems to be ,at least, incomplete or flawed and i speculate (!) onsome particle transformation (maybe this leads to a way to 'extract energy from zero point fluktuations in vacuum' but..again just speculation) even if in say 20 years this idea or the alcubierre drive could be realised as prototype..still we would need some shielding technology,air would still be a problem and i think that the properties inside such a experimental spacecraft would be too the liking of a human.... while some of it maybe availbe through this discovery ,others most likely will be unsolved for decades so maybe my grandchildren will be piloting a warpcraft.... :) there was this aproximation of the romans (or was it in the Dark Ages?) going to the moon if they've had assimilated more greek science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now