Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Alisdair.MacDonald

NASA to "Boldly Go"

97 posts in this topic

So how is creating your own dimple in the fabric of space time breaking a natural law?

I think Waspie is not saying that these experiments or even warp drive would break the Natural Laws. Since those laws will always be the same. It is only our human understanding of these Laws that change. Thus if warp speed works, it was always within the natural law. We cannot break Nature, we can only learn more about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is in the maths, and that is alright. M Theory even states the idea of multiple universes, gravitons travelling through them and the possibility of travelling through any of them.

But taking it all to actual plan work is gonna take a whole load of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm left wondering what exact "laws of nature" we are referencing when we herald them as unbreakable or universally true in every place/time in the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No DONTEATUS it isn't how we get things done. Have you actually read any of my previous posts?

In the whole history of mankind we have never once broken a scientific law. Never. And we never will.

We can not break the laws of nature. It's impossible. It can't be done. They govern the way the universe works and we get no say in them.

It doesn't matter how many times you post that we can you will still be equally wrong.

Would breaking the sound barrier be different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would breaking the sound barrier be different?

No, you're not breaking any laws of nature, merely travelling quicker then another medium (sound). Nothing we do will break the laws of nature, since if it can be done then it's because the laws of nature allows it to be done, we just didn't know that aspect of the laws until we either do it, or had a theory in place that allowed it to happen, and is then tested and proven true (which is the same thing really).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would breaking the sound barrier be different?

To add to what The Sky Scanner said, breaking the sound barrier was an engineering problem. There were no laws of nature that forbade it. After all bullets had been leaving the end of rifles at supersonic speeds for a considerable time before Chuck Yeager flew the Bell X-1.

The problem with the sound barrier was producing an engine powerful enough and a airframe strong enough. When the technology was ready the sound barrier was broken.

The speed of light is a whole different kettle of fish. If Einstein is right and our current understanding of physics is correct then it is impossible for an object with mass to achieve light speed. No amount of engineering genius can get around that. That is why people are looking for loopholes that will allow interstellar travel without breaking the laws of nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how is creating your own dimple in the fabric of space time breaking a natural law? The earth and moon together are in the earths dimple. It's the pressure of the fabric of space that holds the moon in contrary to what we thought IE earth gravity holding the moon to it. Perhaps you missed that little breakthrough in theoretical physics.

No I didn't miss it, but no laws of nature were broken. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in... our understanding of the laws can (and do) change, the laws themselves remain the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats just it ! THe BIG "IF" IF Einstein is right, I will go on record and say this, Maybe Einstein had most of or some of it right as far as the physicis as we know it down. But We would be quite the Arrogant to think we know all in the universe towards the laws we have yet to claim we know all about.

The key there is Claim and we. :tu:

I do agree with 99% of your post Waspie ! ITs that 1% of we dont know that will get ya every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITs that 1% of we dont know that will get ya every time.

Yet again you have failed to understand a VERY simple point. I have repeatedly said that we need to continue experiments to find out what is possible. I have repeatedly used phrases such as "as we understand it."

Science is the continued investigation of what is and isn't possible. It relies on logical deduction and evidence to come to those conclusions. When it has no supporting evidence its default position is "we don't know". Science is not arrogant, the arrogance is in those that keep claiming the impossible IS possible WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again you have failed to understand a VERY simple point. I have repeatedly said that we need to continue experiments to find out what is possible. I have repeatedly used phrases such as "as we understand it."

Science is the continued investigation of what is and isn't possible. It relies on logical deduction and evidence to come to those conclusions. When it has no supporting evidence its default position is "we don't know". Science is not arrogant, the arrogance is in those that keep claiming the impossible IS possible WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

I think there are people who have already done it, if Ben Rich and others are to be believed, but it's just classified. I am not sure why that is exactly, but it could just be the sensible desire of preventing hostile powers from getting their hands on this technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, many Americans think that the Russians stole the atomic bomb information from us and it allowed them to build their own bomb in a much shorter time than they would have been able to do otherwise. That's one reason we would try very hard to keep major breakthroughs like this secret from other countries, if in fact Ben Rich is correct and such breakthroughs have been made. They would only use our own inventions against us because, well let's face it, they all hate us anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats just it ! THe BIG "IF" IF Einstein is right, I will go on record and say this, Maybe Einstein had most of or some of it right as far as the physicis as we know it down. But We would be quite the Arrogant to think we know all in the universe towards the laws we have yet to claim we know all about.

The key there is Claim and we. :tu:

I do agree with 99% of your post Waspie ! ITs that 1% of we dont know that will get ya every time.

There was nothing in Waspie's post that spoke about us currently knowing the limits of what is possible. He said the complete opposite to that.

The laws of Nature is a very simple concept to understand, it has nothing do with time scales, or what technology would be involved, it is simply that if something is possible (regardless of how long it takes us to work it out) then that is because the laws of nature allow it. That is it. All that exists outside the laws the nature are ideas that do not work (ever).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waspie_Dwarf. Calm down pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waspie_Dwarf. Calm down pal.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waspie... of course you are right that our CURRENT understanding of Natural Laws (Superluminal speed aside, as that is still purely theoretical) dominates our understanding of the Universe. But.. that is not to say that the Natural Laws as understood today are immutable or even correctly stated.

It may be that a repeatable and verifiable experiment that proves the existence of Tachyons, or other supposed Superluminal particles (with Mass), may be invented.

Not forgetting that Scientific endeavour (verifiable) is still a very young branch of the greater Scientific method, and detection methods improve vastly over their predecessors.

A real problem that I have always had is the Theory of Special Relativity, Energy and Mass are quantitatively massive particulate emanations, whilst C has no mass. Is it possible that C actually refers to something other than the speed of light? Perhaps something more esoteric that we are not yet able to detect, a constant that Einstein deduced incorrectly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waspie... of course you are right that our CURRENT understanding of Natural Laws (Superluminal speed aside, as that is still purely theoretical) dominates our understanding of the Universe. But.. that is not to say that the Natural Laws as understood today are immutable or even correctly stated.

It may be that a repeatable and verifiable experiment that proves the existence of Tachyons, or other supposed Superluminal particles (with Mass), may be invented.

Not forgetting that Scientific endeavour (verifiable) is still a very young branch of the greater Scientific method, and detection methods improve vastly over their predecessors.

Whilst true we simply can not investigate that which we don't know the existence of. We have to assume that our understanding is correct otherwise no science would make sense. Scientific experiments would become nothing more than guesses and the vast majority, if not all, would simply fail.

You have to push the boundary of what is known from the inside.

A real problem that I have always had is the Theory of Special Relativity, Energy and Mass are quantitatively massive particulate emanations, whilst C has no mass. Is it possible that C actually refers to something other than the speed of light? Perhaps something more esoteric that we are not yet able to detect, a constant that Einstein deduced incorrectly?

What is your problem based on? Observation, reproducible experimentation, logical deduction or just personal opinion? If it is the latter then it is no more than a guess and unscientific.

Anything is possible, but Relativity has been tested and tested again. So far the theory fits the observations extraordinarily well. Relativity made predictions. things that were not even observed at that time (such as the apparent bending of light by mass and time dilation). Experimentation has verified most of these predictions and shown that relativity fits very, very well. Given this why assume it is wrong UNTIL their is evidence to that effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically what this is trying to tell us is that they have technology, they have built the crafts but they just don't know how to travel through space in them. I wondered what all those triangles we're.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that in order to 'warp' space it will require a means to generate an enormous amount of gravity. Anyone who posesses that will not only have the means to project themselves crazy distances seemingly instantaneously, they will also have the means to destroy entire solar systems with a gravity weapon. This is the type of technology that unenlightened non-peacful societies (like humanity) have no business possesing.

edited for massive spelling errors

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I didn't miss it, but no laws of nature were broken. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in... our understanding of the laws can (and do) change, the laws themselves remain the same.

To my understanding, The Bullwhip is the first man made object to break the sound barrier. That crack you hear is when it's being broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im skeptical of this. But I like surprises, so lets se.

Maybe even if they fail, they may uintentionally discover something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst true we simply can not investigate that which we don't know the existence of. We have to assume that our understanding is correct otherwise no science would make sense. Scientific experiments would become nothing more than guesses and the vast majority, if not all, would simply fail.

You have to push the boundary of what is known from the inside.

What is your problem based on? Observation, reproducible experimentation, logical deduction or just personal opinion? If it is the latter then it is no more than a guess and unscientific.

Anything is possible, but Relativity has been tested and tested again. So far the theory fits the observations extraordinarily well. Relativity made predictions. things that were not even observed at that time (such as the apparent bending of light by mass and time dilation). Experimentation has verified most of these predictions and shown that relativity fits very, very well. Given this why assume it is wrong UNTIL their is evidence to that effect?

Highlighted (mine): Gravitational Lensing is far from proven because simple refraction offers a better model to explain "Einsteins Cross" etc. Neither could time dilation have an effect on light because it carries no mass therefore should not be affected by mass. It is more usually explained as mass causing Spacetime to bend, and light having to traverse these local irregularities in uniform space that produce multiple images at the same time ( that curiously focus at the Earth).

That is one of the reasons why have doubts about Special Relativity - it is a Theory that has slipped into the state of Orthodoxy, therefore must not be challenged because to do so is "Unscientific".

Gravitational Waves are also predicted by SR - yet our best endeavours have led to nothing. No detection of any Gravity Wave, anywhere which is another reason I state that "We" are currently not capable of devising an experiment that conclusively proves any part of SR.

GR and SR may well turn out to be correct - but the Jury is out until irrefutable proof is provided. I dont mean another Theory to support this theory - but actual quantitative evidence that cannot be refuted.

Unscientifically yours

Keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple refraction by what medium? The ether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is it ? Possible,Impossible ? Remember NASA does THe Impossible really well. And on a regular basis !

WHo really knows ? We are just looking into the Looking Glass for the first time it seems.

Dont forget the Topic, To Boldly Go ,It also comes with Try everything to Get there ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.