It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

page: 140
80
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:39 PM

Sorry, what?

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:42 PM
and by space-time warp: do you see it as you scooping sand on the beach? You think it is going to bring objects that are away closer to you?

thanks

D0.
edit on 3-8-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:45 PM

More like a balloon. You are expanding and contracting the 'volume' of spacetime, not merely altering the 'shape', like the common illustration of the way gravity does.

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:51 PM

originally posted by: pfishy

More like a balloon. You are expanding and contracting the 'volume' of spacetime, not merely altering the 'shape', like the common illustration of the way gravity does.

Cool. How do you suggest contracting ( I assume) space-time?

Be honest.

D0.

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:55 PM

I don't suggest any method of doing it whatsoever. I'm not trying to create a warp field. I don't have any idea how it would be done. That's why it's NASA working on it, not me.
I'm just explaining the basics of the Alcubierre warp theory.

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 08:27 PM

originally posted by: pfishy

I don't suggest any method of doing it whatsoever. I'm not trying to create a warp field. I don't have any idea how it would be done. That's why it's NASA working on it, not me.
I'm just explaining the basics of the Alcubierre warp theory.

Well actually the warp drive works much like riding a wave on a surf board. If you create a wave in space time and get to the top of the wave you get carried along. But you need negative energy to create this wave. The wave you create moves you through space time.

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 09:39 PM
what's a broglie elastic deformation cycle?

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:39 AM

originally posted by: darkorange
according to it, mass causes space-time distorted to a degree. I meant to say if to move a vessel off the ground you would need to counter Earth overall gravity rate by creating even greater rate gravity 'well' immediately in front of the vessel. Meaning the vessel should fall into locally more abrupt gravity well that would go in front of it to create propulsion, no?)))
This is not the idea which is explained in the warp mechanics 101 link I posted in the 2nd post on page 139 which says:

The concept of operations as described by Alcubierre is that the spacecraft would depart the point of origin (e.g. earth) using some conventional propulsion system and travel a distance d, then bring the craft to a stop relative to the departure point. The field would be turned on and the craft would zip off to its stellar destination, never locally breaking the speed of light, but covering the distance in an arbitrarily short time period of time just the same. The field would be turned off a similar standoff distance from the destination, and the craft would finish the journey conventionally.
So warp drive has nothing to do with gravity in this scenario, though others have suggested some other possible applications related to gravity later, but it wasn't the original idea.

The idea of warp drive is to cover light years of space in as little time as possible, space which has very low levels of gravitational attraction from relatively distant objects. As Alcubierre envisioned it, the warp drive would have no role in escaping Earth's gravitational field.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
what's a broglie elastic deformation cycle?
Where did you come up with that? Give me some context. The first word looks like a misspelling of de Broglie, a famous Nobel prize-winning physicist. That phrase is mentioned in a dodgy looking anti-gravity patent where if they can't even spell the physicist's name, I don't have a lot of confidence in their other citations about his work. I'm not picking on you, but I am picking on the patent where I expect to see de Broglie, not just "Broglie". Actually the patent spells it both ways so it's very sloppy with spelling and probably also with physics.
edit on 201584 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 05:53 AM
a lot of words none which explained the origin of magnetic fields and the chem light thing was silly. it should be brighter inside the sun

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 05:56 AM
another one skirting the origin of magnetic fields and why the sun spots are black

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 05:58 AM
again, a lot of words and no answers

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 06:31 AM

I wasn't skirting the origins of the magnetic field. I don't know it. So I didn't attempt to address it. And I did explain why sunspots appear dark, in comparison to the surrounding photosphere. Heliophysics is not my profession.

(post by GetHyped removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:42 AM

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a lot of words none which explained the origin of magnetic fields and the chem light thing was silly. it should be brighter inside the sun

Saying I'm wrong and proving I'm wrong are to very different things and your welcome to try. What evidence do you have that fusion doesn't occur?

I must be getting psychic I told you in my post someone would argue.
edit on 8/4/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:09 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:43 AM

I found the theory fascinating when I was younger, actually. But it doesn't seem to line up with observations very well...

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 11:12 AM

originally posted by: darkorange
But how do you contract a space-time?
First you need exotic matter. Where do you get exotic matter? Nobody knows, that's why it's speculative, and might be impossible. The NASA researcher leading the project says dark energy has similar properties so we can't say there's no such thing, but nobody has any idea how to gather up some dark energy (or exotic matter equivalent) and use it to propel a space ship, which again might be impossible.

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 01:45 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: darkorange
But how do you contract a space-time?
First you need exotic matter. Where do you get exotic matter? Nobody knows, that's why it's speculative, and might be impossible. The NASA researcher leading the project says dark energy has similar properties so we can't say there's no such thing, but nobody has any idea how to gather up some dark energy (or exotic matter equivalent) and use it to propel a space ship, which again might be impossible.

And barring unforeseen circumstances like ripping apart space time.

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 01:48 PM

originally posted by: pfishy

I found the theory fascinating when I was younger, actually. But it doesn't seem to line up with observations very well...

Try at all we have probes and those probes told us to bury this idea. The only place it still lives is on the net for people who know little about science. To them it makes sense because they think they understand ekectricity.

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 01:53 PM

Yes, certainly the data we have gathered have put this theory to bed rather nicely, from a standpoint of possibility.

top topics

80