It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Psynic
Calling BS on that one.
As someone with a degree in marine biology and who has been to a lab where sea-star (in science circles, they're called "sea-stars" rather than "starfish", since they're not fish) regeneration investigations were conducted, I can tell you authoritatively that the "phenomenon" which you describe does not exist.
The Alcubierre drive or Alcubierre metric (referring to metric tensor) is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre,by which a spacecraft could achieve faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (i.e. negative mass) could be created. Rather than exceeding the speed of light within its local frame of reference, a spacecraft would traverse distances by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it, resulting in effective faster-than-light travel.
Yes this is in the realm of possibility.
originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
My truthful opinion on this is that sort of research exists and more than likely there is communication. I have heard things from researchers in various fields though have also heard that it is denied and that heads of research facilities have orders in preventing those other than 'above top secret' access to such things.
originally posted by: ctdannyd
The only possible way to communicate across the vast distances of the galaxy and, the universe would be utilizing gravity waves.
The team was testing a theory that there’s a new way to propel satellites, instead of using rockets powered by a limited supply of fuel. So they put a radio antenna in a specially designed, sealed container. Turned on, the antenna bounced 935MHz radio waves (similar to those used by some cell phones) around, and the container apparently moved a tiny, tiny bit. This violates Newton’s third law of motion, one of the basic tenets of physics.
Loosely put, Newton taught us that no action can occur without an equal and
opposite reaction. Because there is nothing pushing against the container, propelling it along—no hot gases exploding out the back, for example—it shouldn’t be able to move. It’s like moving a broken-down car by pushing it from the inside.
But radiative interactions propagate at the speed of light. Inertial reaction forces, however, are instantaneous upon the application of "external" forces. How can a radiative interaction that propagates at the speed of light be responsible for a seemingly instantaneous interaction between a local object and the most distant matter in the universe?
The answer to this question is muddied by a formal property of field equations called "gauge invariance" which makes it possible to look at things in several different, but equivalent, ways.
Because of gauge invariance, there are several ways you can try to finesse the answer to this question, but the least artificial answer invokes "absorber" theory (first argued with considerable elaboration by J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman in the 1940s). This theory says that when you push on something, it creates a disturbance in the gravitational field that propagates outward into the future. Out there in the distant future the disturbance interacts with chiefly the distant matter in the universe. It wiggles. When it wiggles it sends a gravitational disturbance backward in time (a so-called "advanced" wave). The effect of all of these "advanced" disturbances propagating backward in time is to create the inertial reaction force you experience at the instant you start to push (and cancel the advanced wave that would otherwise be created by you pushing on the object). So, in this view fields do not have a real existence independent of the sources that emit and absorb them. [This and other relevant stuff is explained nicely in John Gribbin's, Schrödinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality (Little, Brown and Co., New York, 1995).]
Believe it or not, the other "interpretations" of the formalism -- all allegedly equivalent -- are even less physically plausible than this. (Yes, that's pretty hard to believe, but true nonetheless.) For some details see the "Origin of Inertia"