It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We need artificial gravity pronto.

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Jukiodone
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Seems a sensible conclusion.
Meanwhile you arrive at your destination at 99.9% of C and ...it takes you so long to accelerate (de-celerate sic) to a speed where you can exit the craft safely, you overshoot it by 10 AU's.


Or more (since the galaxy would have rotated as well) plus 1 to 40 million years dependent on the distance traveled LOL

Cheers - Dave




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   

bobs_uruncle

Jukiodone
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Seems a sensible conclusion.
Meanwhile you arrive at your destination at 99.9% of C and ...it takes you so long to accelerate (de-celerate sic) to a speed where you can exit the craft safely, you overshoot it by 10 AU's.


Or more (since the galaxy would have rotated as well) plus 1 to 40 million years dependent on the distance traveled LOL

Cheers - Dave
i'm not going to be a smart azz. that was my first impulse because it look like a deliberate redcutio ad absurdem. but you do realise that any civilization that can figure out interstellar travel can also calculate "windage" and lead the target right? and can figure out when to start braking so as not to overshoot. we have computers and software for that sort of thing. heck we can even calculate it with pen and paper with a slide rule too. plus we are not likely to strike out towards the ends of the galaxy before we explore the local neighborhood where its pretty simple. line your boresight cross hairs on proxima and instruct the computer to keep the target cursor on the object there. it will move some by the time you get there but that is what final course corrections are for. but you wouldn't waste that much more fuel just following the pretty red orange ball in the target recticle.

you add a little difficulty when the light from the target is blue shifted out of the visible spectrum because of your velocity. but even at 99 c there is gamma ray light that you can use for a visual image with digital processing of the signal data from a gamma telescope. or x ray. or microwave or THZ depending on the degree of blue shift. the other thing is you would want an algorythm to adjust your acceleration and deaccerlation time for time dilation. as you know there are formulas that are sued to determine time dilation effects. a computer can completely model the positions velocities and so forth for every known stellar object and planet in a good fraction of the galaxy without breaking a sweat.

Add to that XNAV positioning system position fixes and you are good to go. there is currently an XNAV prototype on the ISS. XNAV is a set of X-Ray telescopes that track puslsars like a GPS receiver tracks satellites. it works the same way. it is accurate to within a few kilometers of your position even across the galaxy.
edit on 17-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

Laykilla

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave


This is why "forcefields" are actively being researched. We can see low level concepts in applied sciences today with anti-missile systems on tanks.

If you had a perimeter field that pushed micro dust away or deflected micro meteors before they could ever even touch the hull, this becomes a non-issue.

Space flight is complicated, but nothing has ever been proven too complicated to be done. It's just such a massive puzzle that it'll take a long time to get there [or maybe we've been there already, just not publicly.]
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)


Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.

Cheers - Dave
actually if felber and hilbert are correct you impart up too twice your energy (the caveat here is: you cannot get it to go above C) via the hilbert effect. also it takes a tiny amount of energy to nudge something out of the way assuming you can impart it far enough away for the vector to clear your front. according to research just painting a earth impacting asteroid white on one side is enough to deflect a full on asteroid millions of miles away from intercept point. so photon pressure differences are enough. Another caveat to the hilbert felber effect though; is your mass is a lot less than a star or a planets so likely your own velocity would suffer appreciably if Hilbert's effect was used.


Personally I don't think the Hilbert effect will work as postulated by Frank Felber and therefore particles and objects will not be repelled by a ship traveling at close to C, the particles and objects will simply not have enough time to get out of the way without a massive injection of energy. If we look at at other propulsion methods such as "warp" type drives that create gravity wells in front of and gravity expansions behind a ship, we get a similar problem in that local objects will be drawn in towards the gravity well created in front of the ship. Similarly, if a spatial "vacuum" is created in front of a ship, the same problem arises, matter is drawn into the controlled area.

I have the same problem with inertial propulsion, you can achieve very close to C at a g or more acceleration over time, but there is still that nagging problem of particles and objects impinging your ship at the speed you are traveling. One thing I have considered is that an object of mass traveling at close to C might create an enormous electrostatic field, which could possibly repel particles and objects, but I have not been able to test this experimentally yet.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

Laykilla

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave


This is why "forcefields" are actively being researched. We can see low level concepts in applied sciences today with anti-missile systems on tanks.

If you had a perimeter field that pushed micro dust away or deflected micro meteors before they could ever even touch the hull, this becomes a non-issue.

Space flight is complicated, but nothing has ever been proven too complicated to be done. It's just such a massive puzzle that it'll take a long time to get there [or maybe we've been there already, just not publicly.]
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)


Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.

Cheers - Dave
actually if felber and hilbert are correct you impart up too twice your energy (the caveat here is: you cannot get it to go above C) via the hilbert effect. also it takes a tiny amount of energy to nudge something out of the way assuming you can impart it far enough away for the vector to clear your front. according to research just painting a earth impacting asteroid white on one side is enough to deflect a full on asteroid millions of miles away from intercept point. so photon pressure differences are enough. Another caveat to the hilbert felber effect though; is your mass is a lot less than a star or a planets so likely your own velocity would suffer appreciably if Hilbert's effect was used.


Personally I don't think the Hilbert effect will work as postulated by Frank Felber and therefore particles and objects will not be repelled by a ship traveling at close to C, the particles and objects will simply not have enough time to get out of the way without a massive injection of energy. If we look at at other propulsion methods such as "warp" type drives that create gravity wells in front of and gravity expansions behind a ship, we get a similar problem in that local objects will be drawn in towards the gravity well created in front of the ship. Similarly, if a spatial "vacuum" is created in front of a ship, the same problem arises, matter is drawn into the controlled area.

I have the same problem with inertial propulsion, you can achieve very close to C at a g or more acceleration over time, but there is still that nagging problem of particles and objects impinging your ship at the speed you are traveling. One thing I have considered is that an object of mass traveling at close to C might create an enormous electrostatic field, which could possibly repel particles and objects, but I have not been able to test this experimentally yet.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

Jukiodone
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Seems a sensible conclusion.
Meanwhile you arrive at your destination at 99.9% of C and ...it takes you so long to accelerate (de-celerate sic) to a speed where you can exit the craft safely, you overshoot it by 10 AU's.


Or more (since the galaxy would have rotated as well) plus 1 to 40 million years dependent on the distance traveled LOL

Cheers - Dave
i'm not going to be a smart azz. that was my first impulse because it look like a deliberate redcutio ad absurdem. but you do realise that any civilization that can figure out interstellar travel can also calculate "windage" and lead the target right? and can figure out when to start braking so as not to overshoot. we have computers and software for that sort of thing. heck we can even calculate it with pen and paper with a slide rule too. plus we are not likely to strike out towards the ends of the galaxy before we explore the local neighborhood where its pretty simple. line your boresight cross hairs on proxima and instruct the computer to keep the target cursor on the object there. it will move some by the time you get there but that is what final course corrections are for. but you wouldn't waste that much more fuel just following the pretty red orange ball in the target recticle.

you add a little difficulty when the light from the target is blue shifted out of the visible spectrum because of your velocity. but even at 99 c there is gamma ray light that you can use for a visual image with digital processing of the signal data from a gamma telescope. or x ray. or microwave or THZ depending on the degree of blue shift. the other thing is you would want an algorythm to adjust your acceleration and deaccerlation time for time dilation. as you know there are formulas that are sued to determine time dilation effects. a computer can completely model the positions velocities and so forth for every known stellar object and planet in a good fraction of the galaxy without breaking a sweat.

Add to that XNAV positioning system position fixes and you are good to go. there is currently an XNAV prototype on the ISS. XNAV is a set of X-Ray telescopes that track puslsars like a GPS receiver tracks satellites. it works the same way. it is accurate to within a few kilometers of your position even across the galaxy.
edit on 17-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)


I realize that and I was being a bit facetious, at the time I wrote that I was also thinking about the technological singularity and the concurrent dumbing down of society that is presently ongoing. What if you had fantastic technology and a bunch of button pushers like in the movie "Idiocracy?" LOL

Cheers - Dave.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   

bobs_uruncle

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

Laykilla

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave


This is why "forcefields" are actively being researched. We can see low level concepts in applied sciences today with anti-missile systems on tanks.

If you had a perimeter field that pushed micro dust away or deflected micro meteors before they could ever even touch the hull, this becomes a non-issue.

Space flight is complicated, but nothing has ever been proven too complicated to be done. It's just such a massive puzzle that it'll take a long time to get there [or maybe we've been there already, just not publicly.]
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)


Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.

Cheers - Dave
actually if felber and hilbert are correct you impart up too twice your energy (the caveat here is: you cannot get it to go above C) via the hilbert effect. also it takes a tiny amount of energy to nudge something out of the way assuming you can impart it far enough away for the vector to clear your front. according to research just painting a earth impacting asteroid white on one side is enough to deflect a full on asteroid millions of miles away from intercept point. so photon pressure differences are enough. Another caveat to the hilbert felber effect though; is your mass is a lot less than a star or a planets so likely your own velocity would suffer appreciably if Hilbert's effect was used.


Personally I don't think the Hilbert effect will work as postulated by Frank Felber and therefore particles and objects will not be repelled by a ship traveling at close to C, the particles and objects will simply not have enough time to get out of the way without a massive injection of energy. If we look at at other propulsion methods such as "warp" type drives that create gravity wells in front of and gravity expansions behind a ship, we get a similar problem in that local objects will be drawn in towards the gravity well created in front of the ship. Similarly, if a spatial "vacuum" is created in front of a ship, the same problem arises, matter is drawn into the controlled area.

I have the same problem with inertial propulsion, you can achieve very close to C at a g or more acceleration over time, but there is still that nagging problem of particles and objects impinging your ship at the speed you are traveling. One thing I have considered is that an object of mass traveling at close to C might create an enormous electrostatic field, which could possibly repel particles and objects, but I have not been able to test this experimentally yet.

Cheers - Dave
the gradient is spherical with the highest point of the gravity well on the center line. in other words stuff falls from the center line following the curved space. stuff that managed to get through would only be traveling at warp during passage into the interior where velocity of the ship is zero. upon entering the interior space it's warp velocity boost simply goes away. warp acceleration does not carry over in real space. so the only velocity that counts is the particles velocity from before impinging on the warp region shell.

as with hilbert and felber: if you accept other parts of relativity theory which has pretty much passed every test every done of it for over a century it is irrational to dismiss another aspect of relativity because it smells peculiar to you. time dilation is peculiar. gravity lensing is peculiar. most of relativity is peculiar. the only grounds to dismiss felber and hilbert is to find an error in their calculations. that has not been done. i don't think it can be. I certainly know i lack the math skills required to critique them. i believe they were right. ifthey weren't other theoreticians and would have flogged them but they haven't.
edit on 17-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   

bobs_uruncle

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

Jukiodone
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Seems a sensible conclusion.
Meanwhile you arrive at your destination at 99.9% of C and ...it takes you so long to accelerate (de-celerate sic) to a speed where you can exit the craft safely, you overshoot it by 10 AU's.


Or more (since the galaxy would have rotated as well) plus 1 to 40 million years dependent on the distance traveled LOL

Cheers - Dave
i'm not going to be a smart azz. that was my first impulse because it look like a deliberate redcutio ad absurdem. but you do realise that any civilization that can figure out interstellar travel can also calculate "windage" and lead the target right? and can figure out when to start braking so as not to overshoot. we have computers and software for that sort of thing. heck we can even calculate it with pen and paper with a slide rule too. plus we are not likely to strike out towards the ends of the galaxy before we explore the local neighborhood where its pretty simple. line your boresight cross hairs on proxima and instruct the computer to keep the target cursor on the object there. it will move some by the time you get there but that is what final course corrections are for. but you wouldn't waste that much more fuel just following the pretty red orange ball in the target recticle.

you add a little difficulty when the light from the target is blue shifted out of the visible spectrum because of your velocity. but even at 99 c there is gamma ray light that you can use for a visual image with digital processing of the signal data from a gamma telescope. or x ray. or microwave or THZ depending on the degree of blue shift. the other thing is you would want an algorythm to adjust your acceleration and deaccerlation time for time dilation. as you know there are formulas that are sued to determine time dilation effects. a computer can completely model the positions velocities and so forth for every known stellar object and planet in a good fraction of the galaxy without breaking a sweat.

Add to that XNAV positioning system position fixes and you are good to go. there is currently an XNAV prototype on the ISS. XNAV is a set of X-Ray telescopes that track puslsars like a GPS receiver tracks satellites. it works the same way. it is accurate to within a few kilometers of your position even across the galaxy.
edit on 17-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)


I realize that and I was being a bit facetious, at the time I wrote that I was also thinking about the technological singularity and the concurrent dumbing down of society that is presently ongoing. What if you had fantastic technology and a bunch of button pushers like in the movie "Idiocracy?" LOL

Cheers - Dave.


we already do have an idiocracy. but there are always some individuals who are not idiots who can still function at the heights of human intellect. they just get rarer in an idiocracy. i mean look at the schmucks we elect and re-elect and the B.S. voters fall for. "i can give you very thing you want for free. there are no consequences or price to pay. vote for me. I'll pay your gas and mortgage and give you a phone and healthcare all for free!" and when it costs more and screws up employment and the economy and makes us a world wide joke they are too dumb to realize where the fault lays and correct it.

on XNAV: spectrum.ieee.org...

i did read an article that said XNAV had been lofted to the ISS and testing was underway. but have not fount the article again (so far...)

weirdly XNAV was the (tertiary) back up navigation system for federation vessels in Star trek.
edit on 17-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

Jukiodone
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Seems a sensible conclusion.
Meanwhile you arrive at your destination at 99.9% of C and ...it takes you so long to accelerate (de-celerate sic) to a speed where you can exit the craft safely, you overshoot it by 10 AU's.


Or more (since the galaxy would have rotated as well) plus 1 to 40 million years dependent on the distance traveled LOL

Cheers - Dave
i'm not going to be a smart azz. that was my first impulse because it look like a deliberate redcutio ad absurdem. but you do realise that any civilization that can figure out interstellar travel can also calculate "windage" and lead the target right? and can figure out when to start braking so as not to overshoot. we have computers and software for that sort of thing. heck we can even calculate it with pen and paper with a slide rule too. plus we are not likely to strike out towards the ends of the galaxy before we explore the local neighborhood where its pretty simple. line your boresight cross hairs on proxima and instruct the computer to keep the target cursor on the object there. it will move some by the time you get there but that is what final course corrections are for. but you wouldn't waste that much more fuel just following the pretty red orange ball in the target recticle.

you add a little difficulty when the light from the target is blue shifted out of the visible spectrum because of your velocity. but even at 99 c there is gamma ray light that you can use for a visual image with digital processing of the signal data from a gamma telescope. or x ray. or microwave or THZ depending on the degree of blue shift. the other thing is you would want an algorythm to adjust your acceleration and deaccerlation time for time dilation. as you know there are formulas that are sued to determine time dilation effects. a computer can completely model the positions velocities and so forth for every known stellar object and planet in a good fraction of the galaxy without breaking a sweat.

Add to that XNAV positioning system position fixes and you are good to go. there is currently an XNAV prototype on the ISS. XNAV is a set of X-Ray telescopes that track puslsars like a GPS receiver tracks satellites. it works the same way. it is accurate to within a few kilometers of your position even across the galaxy.
edit on 17-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)


I realize that and I was being a bit facetious, at the time I wrote that I was also thinking about the technological singularity and the concurrent dumbing down of society that is presently ongoing. What if you had fantastic technology and a bunch of button pushers like in the movie "Idiocracy?" LOL

Cheers - Dave.


we already do have an idiocracy. but there are always some individuals who are not idiots who can still function at the heights of human intellect. they just get rarer in an idiocracy. i mean look at the schmucks we elect and re-elect and the B.S. voters fall for. "i can give you very thing you want for free. there are no consequences or price to pay. vote for me. I'll pay your gas and mortgage and give you a phone and healthcare all for free!" and when it costs more and screws up employment and the economy and makes us a world wide joke they are too dumb to realize where the fault lays and correct it.

on XNAV: spectrum.ieee.org...

i did read an article that said XNAV had been lofted to the ISS and testing was underway. but have not fount the article again (so far...)

weirdly XNAV was the (tertiary) back up navigation system for federation vessels in Star trek.
edit on 17-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)


Wait a second, you don't really believe any of these tools in government are elected do you? It's funny actually, a little off topic that the US claims that the "democracy" in Crimea isn't correct, but that it is in the US, when the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic. And when it's a republic, like South Africa in the 80's, the US has issue with that saying it's not a democracy, which it isn't it's a republic. Reminds me of those old porn circle jerks, where you open one window and 10 others open, you close them and 20 more open, it just goes and around until it crashes.

Back to topic, I still don't think Hilbert's postulate is correct, not because it smells peculiar, just because from a logistics vantage at first glance it doesn't make sense, something like Einstein cosmological constant. Actually, I take issue with some of Einstein's theories. Others which I have personally worked on like BEC's and ER/EPR solutions I do find a bit more elegant, of course those theories were produced in collaboration with Bose, Podolsky and Rosen (I built the first adiabatic reactor for BEC analysis and manipulation in 1992 and have two ER/EPR based devices under study at universities). I'll have to check that article you mentioned, but it's getting late, I have a lot of programming to do tomorrow ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

Laykilla

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave


This is why "forcefields" are actively being researched. We can see low level concepts in applied sciences today with anti-missile systems on tanks.

If you had a perimeter field that pushed micro dust away or deflected micro meteors before they could ever even touch the hull, this becomes a non-issue.

Space flight is complicated, but nothing has ever been proven too complicated to be done. It's just such a massive puzzle that it'll take a long time to get there [or maybe we've been there already, just not publicly.]
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)


Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.

Cheers - Dave
actually if felber and hilbert are correct you impart up too twice your energy (the caveat here is: you cannot get it to go above C) via the hilbert effect. also it takes a tiny amount of energy to nudge something out of the way assuming you can impart it far enough away for the vector to clear your front. according to research just painting a earth impacting asteroid white on one side is enough to deflect a full on asteroid millions of miles away from intercept point. so photon pressure differences are enough. Another caveat to the hilbert felber effect though; is your mass is a lot less than a star or a planets so likely your own velocity would suffer appreciably if Hilbert's effect was used.


Personally I don't think the Hilbert effect will work as postulated by Frank Felber and therefore particles and objects will not be repelled by a ship traveling at close to C, the particles and objects will simply not have enough time to get out of the way without a massive injection of energy. If we look at at other propulsion methods such as "warp" type drives that create gravity wells in front of and gravity expansions behind a ship, we get a similar problem in that local objects will be drawn in towards the gravity well created in front of the ship. Similarly, if a spatial "vacuum" is created in front of a ship, the same problem arises, matter is drawn into the controlled area.

I have the same problem with inertial propulsion, you can achieve very close to C at a g or more acceleration over time, but there is still that nagging problem of particles and objects impinging your ship at the speed you are traveling. One thing I have considered is that an object of mass traveling at close to C might create an enormous electrostatic field, which could possibly repel particles and objects, but I have not been able to test this experimentally yet.

Cheers - Dave

the gradient is spherical with the highest point of the gravity well on the center line. in other words stuff falls from the center line following the curved space.


Matter, particles and objects fall IN towards the center line towards the point of highest gravity. Just as the gravity pulls the ship forward in relativistic terms or in the alternative, moves space past the ship.


stuff that managed to get through would only be traveling at warp during passage into the interior where velocity of the ship is zero. upon entering the interior space it's warp velocity boost simply goes away. warp acceleration does not carry over in real space. so the only velocity that counts is the particles velocity from before impinging on the warp region shell.


Again, in relativistic terms the ship is moving and any matter in the way or off center than is close enough would be accelerated towards the centerline gravity well, just as the ship would be.


as with hilbert and felber: if you accept other parts of relativity theory which has pretty much passed every test every done of it for over a century it is irrational to dismiss another aspect of relativity because it smells peculiar to you. time dilation is peculiar. gravity lensing is peculiar. most of relativity is peculiar. the only grounds to dismiss felber and hilbert is to find an error in their calculations. that has not been done. i don't think it can be. I certainly know i lack the math skills required to critique them. i believe they were right. ifthey weren't other theoreticians and would have flogged them but they haven't.
edit on 17-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)


Time dilation is only peculiar because we are forced to think in relativistic terms and if you examine BEC based time lines you will find that there is an underlying absolute temporal frame of reference. Gravity lensing in as interesting consequence of relativity. And "ifthey weren't other theoreticians and would have flogged them but they haven't," yet, everything in it's own time ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

bobs_uruncle
Time dilation is only peculiar because we are forced to think in relativistic terms and if you examine BEC based time lines you will find that there is an underlying absolute temporal frame of reference


By "BEC" do you mean Bose-Einstein Condensate? Could you please elaborate on this subject of "BEC based time lines" etc?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   

bobs_uruncle
Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.


Why would the energy to move 50 kg be more than the energy to move 50,000 kg if that's the mass of your starship which you have already presumed to get moving?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

paranormal78
I recently read about an experiment done in a lab in London UK on gravitoelectromagnetism (mouthful I know) in hopes of achieving artificial gravity for long term space travel. I'm not talking about the annoying impractical way of generating gravity by rotation, but gravity we see commonly like in star trek and other works of science fiction. One of the main reasons we haven't been to mars yet is because of the effects of weightlessness on the human body. The reason There hasn't been any actual achievements in space missions in creating artificial gravity is because they just don't take it seriously on most missions and ignore it as science fiction and never bothered to test any platforms for generating artificial gravity in a weightlessness environment. Artificial gravity would make manned space flight far less challenging and much more safer. Anyone else truly believe artificial gravity is possible for space travel or know of any other serious experiments being conducted on artificial gravity?
edit on 13-3-2014 by paranormal78 because: (no reason given)


Whoa! Artificial gravity! 2-10 times gravity on the ship... hmm but will artificial gravity protect your bones from breaking down? I never thought of this because I haven't gotten to the study of gravity yet. I have much to learn with my possession!

Possession as in my highest reception of idea's. its pretty much ascention in the area of reception.

Good find OP!
edit on 17-3-2014 by RevelationsDivad because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

RevelationsDivad

paranormal78
I recently read about an experiment done in a lab in London UK on gravitoelectromagnetism (mouthful I know) in hopes of achieving artificial gravity for long term space travel. I'm not talking about the annoying impractical way of generating gravity by rotation, but gravity we see commonly like in star trek and other works of science fiction. One of the main reasons we haven't been to mars yet is because of the effects of weightlessness on the human body. The reason There hasn't been any actual achievements in space missions in creating artificial gravity is because they just don't take it seriously on most missions and ignore it as science fiction and never bothered to test any platforms for generating artificial gravity in a weightlessness environment. Artificial gravity would make manned space flight far less challenging and much more safer. Anyone else truly believe artificial gravity is possible for space travel or know of any other serious experiments being conducted on artificial gravity?
edit on 13-3-2014 by paranormal78 because: (no reason given)


Whoa! Artificial gravity! 2-10 times gravity on the ship... hmm but will artificial gravity protect your bones from breaking down? I never thought of this because I haven't gotten to the study of gravity yet. I have much to learn with my possession!

Possession as in my highest reception of idea's. its pretty much ascention in the area of reception.

Good find OP!
edit on 17-3-2014 by RevelationsDivad because: (no reason given)


Yes. its the stress load caused by gravity that keeps the bones strong, and the body's muscles and organs too for that matter.

but the really spectacular news today about inflation plainly means that antigravity is/was real. not some piddly weak connection to magnetism but a full on repulsive force. it also means that worm holes are real too. and it means alcubierre type warp drives are possible. It was a good day all around for "woo Woo" science.

edit on 17-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: typo patrol



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   
My solution to the zero gravity problem in space travel is a fairly simple one. I am not a scientist. I have no idea if it would actually work. But here it is.

The idea is to create a "gravity chamber" that will be attached to or built in to whatever spacecraft you are using. This chamber would utilize the linear acceleration of air at 9.8 meters per second squared to simulate gravity. This would theoretically be achieved by pushing the air downward from the top of the chamber and pulling the air downward from the bottom, effectively creating a constantly moving fluid stream of air inside the enclosed chamber.

What is the very definition of g-force? The measure of acceleration felt as weight.

The idea would be that each astronaut would spend time in the chamber each day, to minimize bone density loss and muscle atrophy.
edit on 17-3-2014 by allenidaho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   

mbkennel

bobs_uruncle
Time dilation is only peculiar because we are forced to think in relativistic terms and if you examine BEC based time lines you will find that there is an underlying absolute temporal frame of reference


By "BEC" do you mean Bose-Einstein Condensate? Could you please elaborate on this subject of "BEC based time lines" etc?


BEC's are quite capable of "communicating" information via quantum tunneling, you set up string entangled pairs. I spoke to Kaku about this in the mid 90's when we were experimenting with the reactor and a pair of spherical monopoles that were acting as tunneling emulation devices. What we found in our experiments was that our time and the time expressed by communicating through the monopoles was much different than what we experienced as relativistic time. We performed dual blind counter experiments and measured the speed of communication between different devices taking into consideration propagation delays and consistently came up with a loss of 15ns when information was communicated through the monopoles which were 15 feet apart.

At the time I was developing an interferometer to measure gravity waves and came across this effect almost by accident while I was measuring the monopoles and running the reactor at the same time, but it gave rise the idea that a temporal proxy could be used to measure gravity waves, we ran with that idea and continued the experiments for four months.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   

mbkennel

bobs_uruncle
Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.


Why would the energy to move 50 kg be more than the energy to move 50,000 kg if that's the mass of your starship which you have already presumed to get moving?


Because the more mass you want to move the greater the energy required, we are talking about acceleration here, right?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

bobs_uruncle

mbkennel

bobs_uruncle
Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.


Why would the energy to move 50 kg be more than the energy to move 50,000 kg if that's the mass of your starship which you have already presumed to get moving?


Because the more mass you want to move the greater the energy required, we are talking about acceleration here, right?

Cheers - Dave


Yes. If you're doing conventional flying and getting 50,000 kg to 0.9999 c, then that has to take more energy than moving 50kg out of the way at 0.9999c.

Am I missing something obvious?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

mbkennel

bobs_uruncle

mbkennel

bobs_uruncle
Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.


Why would the energy to move 50 kg be more than the energy to move 50,000 kg if that's the mass of your starship which you have already presumed to get moving?


Because the more mass you want to move the greater the energy required, we are talking about acceleration here, right?

Cheers - Dave


Yes. If you're doing conventional flying and getting 50,000 kg to 0.9999 c, then that has to take more energy than moving 50kg out of the way at 0.9999c.

Am I missing something obvious?


No, not missing anything but the actual numbers and I don't really feel like working them out. However, if you are moving a ship of 50k kg's at 99.99% C that will take a specific amount of energy to accelerate and then maintain that speed. If you come upon a mass of 50kg and have to force it our of the way, that will also take a specific amount of energy because of the relativistic speed at which you are approaching the object and the simple fact that it has to be moved, quite possibly at right angles to the direction you are traveling. It wouldn't obviously take as much energy to move the object at 0.1% of your ships mass as it would to change the ship's direction, but it would probably take something in the range of 0.2 to 0.4% of the energy being used by the ship to travel through space for both deflection and course correction (action and reaction).

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

bobs_uruncle
[

No, not missing anything but the actual numbers and I don't really feel like working them out. However, if you are moving a ship of 50k kg's at 99.99% C that will take a specific amount of energy to accelerate and then maintain that speed. If you come upon a mass of 50kg and have to force it our of the way, that will also take a specific amount of energy because of the relativistic speed at which you are approaching the object and the simple fact that it has to be moved, quite possibly at right angles to the direction you are traveling. It wouldn't obviously take as much energy to move the object at 0.1% of your ships mass as it would to change the ship's direction, but it would probably take something in the range of 0.2 to 0.4% of the energy being used by the ship to travel through space for both deflection and course correction (action and reaction).

Cheers - Dave


Agreed, no argument. The original claim was more like "would take more energy than the Universe".



Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.

edit on 19-3-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
would be cool to have artificial gravity



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join