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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keithisco is right. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to Make an 'Energy Efficient' Warp Drive

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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.

keithisco is right. :tu:

Prove it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we go any further, this has got unnecessarily personal. I apologise for my part in that and hope that we can carry this conversation in a more civil manner.

My comment about ether was not meant to be sarcastic (please stop telling me what I meant). It was short and sweet because I had to rush to the shops before they closed. I apologise if that led to a misunderstanding. I believe, however, that it was a legitimate question given that you had not put forward in medium for the refraction. There are still those that believe in the ether and I was trying to find out if that was what you were referring too.

We both agree that our understanding of the Laws of Nature are subject to change. I also agree that the orthodoxy should be questioned. However your posts seem to suggest that you reject Relativity simply because it is the orthodox belief. Is that a fair assumption? Very early on I asked if your rejection of Relativity was based on evidence or belief. I have to say that whilst you have put forward your postulate I simply see no evidence to support it. Given that, is it an unfair assumption to assume your rejection of Relativity is not based on the weight of evidence?

Thought exercises are a wonderful thing in science but science must be evidence led. Forgive me if I don't accept your postulate for two reasons, firstly because I don't see the supporting evidence and secondly because we are at the edge of my knowledge of theoretical physics. I simply do not have the knowledge to go further with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody good on you mate ! THats the Waspie we all Love and Know ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waspie... I offer my own apology for reading more into your posts than you obviously meant to convey. Textual - based discussions have the obvious drawback in that intonation and meaning is very difficult to convey, as is nuance.

I have enormous respect for your knowledge in matters astronomical and cosmological and continue to have such respect.

I will be the first person to agree that String Theory, Superstring Theory, and Super symmetry has no irrefutable evidence to support it, but as experimentation develops there are tantalising hints (it is difficult to accredit stronger terms) that something of its nature is underpinning the Standard Model and MAY redefine it with greater fidelity and precision.

No ill - feelings Waspie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No ill - feelings Waspie

None at all. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are others in the the military space program who do indeed have a more advanced understanding of these things than is commonly known.

Ben Rich said:

“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do.”

“We now have the technology to take ET home. No, it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars. First, you have to understand that we will not get to the stars using chemical propulsion. Second, we have to devise a new propulsion technology. What we have to do is find out where Einstein went wrong.”

When Rich was asked how UFO propulsion worked, he said, “Let me ask you. How does ESP work?”The questioner responded with, “All points in time and space are connected?” Rich then said, “That’s how it works!”

Lockheed Skunkworks Engineer USAF, and CIA Contractor Admitted : UFO Are Real

"Don Phillips, “These UFOs were huge and they would just come to a stop and do a 60 degree, 45 degree, 10 degree turn, and then immediately reverse this action”. During the Apollo landing, Neil Armstrong says, “They’re here.They are right over there and looking at the size of those ships., it is obvious they don't like us being here”. When I was working with the Skunkworks with Kelly Johnson, we signed an agreement with the government to keep very quiet about this.

Anti-gravitational research was going on. We know that there were some captured craft from 1947 in Roswell, they were real. And, yes, we really did get some technology from them. And, yes, we really did put it to work. We knew each other from what we call an unseen industry. We can term it black, deep black, or hidden.

The knowledge I have of these technologies came from the craft that were captured here. I didn`t see the craft, nor did I see the bodies, but I certainly know some of the people that did. There was no question that there were beings from outside the planet.

Are these ET people hostile? Well, if they were hostile, with their weaponry they could have destroyed us a long time ago. We got these things that are handhold scanners that scan the body and determine what the condition is. We can also treat from the same scanner.

I can tell you personally that we’ve been working on them. And we have ones that can diagnose and cure cancer. One of the purposes I had for founding my technology corporation in 1998 was to bring forth these technologies that can clean the air and can help get rid of the toxins, and help reduce the need for so much fossil fuel. Yes, it is time. I can tell you personally that it has already started."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxenophilius.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2F14%2Fben-rich-lockheed-ceo-admits-on-deathbed-et-ufo-are-real%2F&ei=VrVjULSMNKf0igKhg4DgDA&usg=AFQjCNGEAlfW7VoAwN-e3UB_uiIbgFHtUQ&sig2=q7pfPOBxJ5YPdRtzpws4Tw

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article you reference:

McDonald said: “Well Hal, you asked for it! Now that legendary Lockheed engineer and chief model kit designer for the Testor Corporation, John Andrews, is dead, I can announce that he personally confirmed the design connection between the Roswell Spacecraft and the Lockheed Martin Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs), spyplanes, Joint Strike Fighters, and Space Shuttles.

I see no connection between these projects and some "supposed" basis in alien technology that apparently was used. All of these projects evolved (still evolving) from well described engineering practise. All are based on simple reaction mass technology, the avionics are straightforward developments (I worked myself on JSF, and UAV avionics - nothing alien about them).

Why use reaction - mass if some super-duper instantaneous alien drive is available??

There is no coherence between the claims and reality of these projects.

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How NASA might build its very first warp drive

A few months ago, physicist Harold White stunned the aeronautics world when he announced that he and his team at NASA had begun work on the development of a faster-than-light warp drive. His proposed design, an ingenious re-imagining of an Alcubierre Drive, may eventually result in an engine that can transport a spacecraft to the nearest star in a matter of weeks — and all without violating Einstein's law of relativity. We contacted White at NASA and asked him to explain how this real life warp drive could actually work.

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive

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.