Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

NASA to "Boldly Go"


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#76    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:06 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 19 September 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

You spend several days trying, and failing, to get across something as simple as the concept that you can't actually achieve the impossible and you see how calm you are.
The guy in the Aliens section that keeps going on about how light can travel at 2c if the emitter is moving super fast comes to mind. He's been unbending for months now and without a single piece of evidence on his side. He does not buy that c is a hard limit and that light always measures at c regardless of the frame of reference. He is stuck on somekind of ballistic light sub-theory.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#77    27vet

27vet

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the tropics

  • Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits.

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:13 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 18 September 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

What you're describing is called time dilation and it is one of the predictions of Relativity.

Unfortunately you are also ignoring another part of Relativity. As an object with mass approaches the speed of light its mass increases. This means that the amount of energy required to accelerate it also increases. Maintaining a 1g acceleration to just under the speed of light would require phenomenal amounts of energy. You reach a point where you would require all the energy in the universe to accelerate any more.

I'm afraid it's not as easy as you have implied.
That's why I said we don't have a suitable source of propulsion yet :)


#78    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,216 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:58 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 21 September 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

Remember NASA does THe Impossible really well. And on a regular basis !
No they don't. They never have and they never will. DONTEATUS, this is very, VERY simple. I'll try and explain it to you again.

Whilst "The difficult we do right away, The impossible, takes just a while longer." is a nice little motto it isn't actually true. (It isn't even NASA's official motto either, that is "For the Benefit of All").

Nothing NASA has done has ever broken the laws of physics. Nothing NASA ever will do will break the laws of physics. People often say that something is impossible because it seems too technologically difficult, that is not the same as being forbidden by the laws of nature.

Now DONTEATUS, as I said before, you can keep repeating the same old mantra over and over again... you will be equally wrong each time you do.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 21 September 2012 - 01:00 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#79    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,216 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:26 PM

Ok DONTEATUS, I'm going to try another approach, to see if you can get the difference between something being forbidden by the laws of nature and something appearing impossible because of a lack of technology.

In 1903 mankind could not have gone to the Moon. They simply did not have the technology. It was impossible for them to achieve it at the time. But was it forbidden but the Laws of Physics... absolutely not. In 1905 a Russian called Konstantin Tsiolovsky published a paper called "Investigation of outer space rocket appliances". This showed that rockets could perform in outer space. So in 1903 scientists and engineers did not have the ability to achieve a flight to the Moon, but they knew it could be done if the technology became available. NASA's "impossible" Moon landing was an engineering problem, not a scientific one, it was never truly impossible, just out of our reach.

Fast forward to today. We have Einstein's Theories of Relativity, published in 1905. They tell us that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. If correct this is an unbreakable universal law. No amount of money or engineering genius will break that law.

It is because the speed of light is an unbreakable limit that so much research is being done to find loopholes... which takes us beak to the original post and back on topic.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 21 September 2012 - 01:28 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#80    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 23 September 2012 - 11:23 PM

So says you Waspie ! That is in its self a oxymoron ! Nothing is known about the Future, Are you saying that FTL travel is Impossible ?

This is a Work in Progress!

#81    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,216 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:01 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 23 September 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

Are you saying that FTL travel is Impossible ?
I'm not, physics is.

If you are still having to ask the question then it is time for you to give up. This is incredibly simple concept I've been try to explain to you. If you haven't grasped it by now you never will.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 24 September 2012 - 12:05 AM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#82    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,216 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:14 AM

Let me try this one more time DONTEATUS. I'll try and make it simple for you by highlighting a few important parts.

The Laws of Nature can not be broken.

Our understanding of Laws of Nature can change
The Laws of Nature as we currently understand them say that faster than light travel is impossible.

If our understanding is correct then nothing we can do will be able to make an object with mass reach the speed of light.

In the future Einstein maybe proven wrong, bt currently it is the best model we have

As there is no better model and in the absence of a single piece of evidence to suggest that faster than light travel is possible, it must be assumed, until proven otherwise, that faster than light travel is impossible

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 24 September 2012 - 12:16 AM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#83    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:30 AM

This alone is why people on this planet think ,and also why We do evolve ,THe point being that He whom only thinks of the here and now See`s not the Future that awaits us. It will become a reality FTL. We will all be gone that read this ,and for many years  from now.But It will Happen!
WHy is it you always only see it this way?

This is a Work in Progress!

#84    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,521 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Blighty!

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:01 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 20 September 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Simple refraction by what medium? The ether?
I am absolutely sure that you have enough "smarts" to come up with plausible possibilities.... perhaps an accretion disc composed of ice or gas particles around a massive object? Perhaps a dark energy field? There are many potentials here that to rely on any one Theory just strikes me as being too restricted, and too blinkered.

I am quite sure that I do not need to remind you that C is stated for a vacuum, but a vacuum does not exist in nature (there is always a quantifiable number of atomic / sub - atomic free particles in even the hardest of vacuums).

I am a little bit confused by your reference to The Ether? Are you referring to Quantum Mechanics pointing to a universe "broiling" with energy? ZPF? Or... perhaps just an ill-tempered outburst to refute anything that contradicts GR and SR? If the latter then I find it disingenuous

Edited by keithisco, 24 September 2012 - 01:09 PM.


#85    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:55 PM

keithisco is right. :tu:

This is a Work in Progress!

#86    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 September 2012 - 11:38 AM

How to Make an 'Energy Efficient' Warp Drive


Quote

Our everyday experience of interstellar travel usually comes in the shape of the U.S.S. Enterprise zooming around the galaxy at warp speed. Unfortunately, the warp drive is primarily used as a tool by scriptwriters to condense the extreme interstellar distances into hour-long episodes. But there's a growing field of study that actually attaches some physics -- albeit rather "exotic" physics -- to superluminal (a.k.a. faster-than-light) travel.
Earlier this month, scientists and engineers were able to discuss their warp drive concepts at the 100 Year Starship Symposium in Houston, Texas, and there was some good news for sci-fi fans everywhere: the warp drive might not be as energy hungry as previous studies suggested.
SLIDE SHOW: Introducing the Warpship
Sonny White of NASA's Johnson Space Center presented his calculations on the energies required to travel faster than Einstein's famous speed limit: the speed of light. By White's reckoning, his design of starship -- that is "adjusted into more of a rounded doughnut, as opposed to a flat ring" and oscillates the warp intensity -- could be powered by the approximate mass-energy of the Voyager 1 space probe.
  
...

ANALYSIS: Warp Drives: Making the 'Impossible' Possible
The upshot is that the energy requirement for the warp drive is decreasing, albeit theoretically. With the help of quantum mechanics, we've seen a massive reduction in the amount of energy needed. And now, with White's tweak of warpship design, the energy has been reduced by many orders of magnitude. But the biggest news of all is that White and his NASA team are designing laboratory experiments that will, hopefully, form the foundations for a practical solution to building a warp drive.
"The findings I presented today change it from impractical to plausible and worth further investigation," White told SPACE.com's Clara Moskowitz at 100YSS. "The additional energy reduction realized by oscillating the bubble intensity is an interesting conjecture that we will enjoy looking at in the lab."
And as pointed out by Davis in the video below, there's no predicting when the next big physics breakthrough will happen, potentially aiding warp drive studies.
"Disruptive innovations are not predictable, they can pop up at any time between now and 200 years from now ... we could have warp drive within our lifetime," Davis said. "We just can't predict when some genius is sitting somewhere and a lightbulb goes off over his head and he figures out an innovation which can overcome this problem of producing negative energy in large enough quantities."
So the next time someone tells you that the warp drive is "impossible," just tell them that real science is being applied to warping spacetime, NASA is even trying to replicate some of the warping effects with lasers in the lab and, besides, we never know what breakthroughs are just around the corner.


http://news.discover...ive-120924.html

Edited by Render, 25 September 2012 - 11:53 AM.


#87    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,216 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 25 September 2012 - 03:14 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 24 September 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:


I am absolutely sure that you have enough "smarts" to come up with plausible possibilities.... perhaps an accretion disc composed of ice or gas particles around a massive object? Perhaps a dark energy field? There are many potentials here that to rely on any one Theory just strikes me as being too restricted, and too blinkered.
Your theory, your burden of proof. It's up to you to provide me with the evidence not the other way around, particularly as I think you are talking nonsense.

There is one enormous problem for you, the sun bends the light of stars as it passes in front of them. This has been measured during solar eclipses and been shown to be consistent with Relativity. Where is the evidence for your magic light bending substance around the sun?

View Postkeithisco, on 24 September 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I am quite sure that I do not need to remind you that C is stated for a vacuum, but a vacuum does not exist in nature (there is always a quantifiable number of atomic / sub - atomic free particles in even the hardest of vacuums).
Indeed, but I don't see the relevence.

View Postkeithisco, on 24 September 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I am a little bit confused by your reference to The Ether? Are you referring to Quantum Mechanics pointing to a universe "broiling" with energy? ZPF? Or... perhaps just an ill-tempered outburst to refute anything that contradicts GR and SR? If the latter then I find it disingenuous
No need for the personal attacks. You made a statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up. You have continued to provide no evidence to back it up and indeed have suggested I do the work. My reference to the ether should not have been lost on you if you really know your stuff. As I'm sure you are aware refraction needs a medium to bend the light. Pre-Einstein it was often believed that light waves need a medium to travel through. This was referred to as the ether. Very few believe in it any more. I was simply asking if the ether was the medium you were suggesting for your refraction. The fact that you didn't understand the question and had to resort to bad mannered personal attacks tells me that this was not your suggestion.

View PostDONTEATUS, on 24 September 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

keithisco is right. :tu:
Prove it.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#88    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 26 September 2012 - 03:27 AM

I have to get my neutrino powered starship outta the Shop And let you take a spin in it Waspie ! :tu:
It has a First gear scratch at 700 million  MPH, And past that Were talking Moving the Beef like nobodys busyiness !

This is a Work in Progress!

#89    Chooky88

Chooky88

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Joined:03 Jun 2005

Posted 26 September 2012 - 01:10 PM

Well I reckon if we don't try we will never know. I reckon go for it.


#90    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,521 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Blighty!

Posted 26 September 2012 - 02:44 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 25 September 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Your theory, your burden of proof. It's up to you to provide me with the evidence not the other way around, particularly as I think you are talking nonsense.

There is one enormous problem for you, the sun bends the light of stars as it passes in front of them. This has been measured during solar eclipses and been shown to be consistent with Relativity. Where is the evidence for your magic light bending substance around the sun?


Indeed, but I don't see the relevence.


No need for the personal attacks. You made a statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up. You have continued to provide no evidence to back it up and indeed have suggested I do the work. My reference to the ether should not have been lost on you if you really know your stuff. As I'm sure you are aware refraction needs a medium to bend the light. Pre-Einstein it was often believed that light waves need a medium to travel through. This was referred to as the ether. Very few believe in it any more. I was simply asking if the ether was the medium you were suggesting for your refraction. The fact that you didn't understand the question and had to resort to bad mannered personal attacks tells me that this was not your suggestion.


Prove it.

Let me take this slowly.

1. It is not a THEORY, it is a postulate,completely different thing (consider Einstein's Thought Experiments). Therefore my question   of you (basically to think of alternative possibilities) is entirely consistent with my statement.

2. There is no contradiction with my POSTULATE that perhaps a Dark Energy field surrounds our sun. Your evidence does not prove SR (which is what we are speaking of here), all it  proves is that there is an effect around a massive body.

3. "Magic Light" - you know, one of the devices of those who are hidebound by Orthodoxy is that they must belittle anything that contradicts, or potentially contradicts, their immutable belief system. YOU are the one who makes ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with you.

4. Your reference to the Victorian belief in an "Ether" most certainly was not lost on me. Your choice of words was yet another attack to belittle a postulate which you, yourself, have not contributed any information to other than "Relativity is the only correct solution". Your reply in this case was just sarcastic, and therefore unworthy of replying to in the sense that you stated it.

5. Actually, this a thought that I have considered , because refraction is well understood in our local FOR, why can it not be extrapolated on a Cosmic Scale, but using a medium that is theorised (Dark Energy)?

6. I gues you are not up on your String Theory", because it most certainly does not place C as a limitation on a Cosmic Scale (only in a localised volume) in fact String Theory POSTULATES that there is no limit to the speed of Mass .

7. My contention that C is not known still stands, because it has not, and cannot be measured in a vacuum, as such a thing does not exist in nature. "Our"  measurements are based in a highly particulate medium (signals from LOCAL satellites, bouncing light off of reflectors on the moon and other near planets, through the Cosmic Wind

Overall, your attempt to tarnish me with the brush of Orthodoxy only shows up your own lack of inquisitiveness and curiosity - so please, if you have nothing relevant, other than "Show me the money" then a debate / discussion with you is a waste.

Edited by keithisco, 26 September 2012 - 03:17 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users