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.

 

Nasa scientist has created a warp drive in his garage and demonstrated it

page: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Yes. Are you willing to lay your cards down and set a time limit for this farce to reach some sort of closure?




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: liejunkie01

Edit to add: The article... Very very interesting, and I really don't think a coincidence that it seems to rhyme with several converging areas of research I've been looking at. HINT: It's outright admitted in REPUTABLE sources that vast amounts of information was completely scrubbed from science textbooks as the manhattan project came online.


Please quote and cite these reputable sources. Does the subject involve something other than nuclear fission and isotope enrichment?



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
It's good to see stuff like this, the garage tinkerers, bedroom coders and garden shed inventors...I don't think anything new is being proposed here, I believe we are simply acquiring lost knowledge that the ancients may very well have had (control and mastery of).

We presume that because we live in the 21st century we must be more advanced than those in the previous centuries down to the fact that we have technology - these devices that we seem to submit to as they take over our lives but this doesn't make us superior it makes us ignorant.

I believe lost civilisations had great knowledge and made huge advancements however our perception of their technology and sciences is wrong or we have been fed a narrative of history that chooses to elevate our current status above our predecessors (maybe both).

As for this chap I don't think he is personally in it for the monetary gain he seems passionate about what he is doing and obviously has enough know-how and experience regarding what he is working on to believe it is feasible.

BUT...

He appears to be making the mistake of many people the same field of study i.e. he assumes because a result has been observed at a particular (small) scale in a given series of tests those tests can be scaled up and as such the results should scale up as well however that doesn't always hold true.

This discovery is good regardless though and eventually someone will workout how to put it all together and make something demonstrable and the world will probably go "Oh UFO's are man made....".

I still hold to the premise that the military and certain fields of science are far in advance of the general public and this is deliberate for many reasons, one being to ensure a hierarchy is present and means to ensure control of the "many by the few" after all knowledge is power if you choose to share it or hide it.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

Obviously static magnetic fields are. This is why permanent magnet "perpetual" motors wont work.

Flux is what's key to where magnetism is important. Basically electromagnetism is a means of transferring energy. However in this process of transferring energy, there is some loss. This loss isn't transferred and showing up as current in other coils or antennas, but it's also not showing up as heat anywhere either. So what exactly is this energy that's being marked down as efficiency losses going to? (So far it's been written off, and just accepted "as is" without much other thought behind it.) I have a feeling some aspect of the field as it's being generated is propagating in a domain that's currently not readily observable, and that's where the energy is going. If we can figure out how that works, my suspicions would say that it likely has something to do with gravity and the so-called dark matter/energy. There is likely also some relationship with resistance breakdowns and permittivity of a vacuum.

And this warp phenomenon the guy talks about in storms relates to a lot of energy. This is true. Also keep in mind there is one phenomena that exhibits this that's not even as exotic in nature as thunderstorms. It's gravity as we see it exhibited by massive objects. (Or any object, but more obvious when scaled up.) Convert the mass of something like the Earth or Sun to its energy equivalent, and that amount of energy has a direct relation to how much space-time is being distorted (or warped) in order to cause the gravitational field. I think this is why general relativity is interesting again (vs. special, which also has it's uses), it's the form of the equation that shows where any loopholes may be (such as Albecurrie's hypothetical warp equation) as those factors aren't being cancelled out. Also when the effects of relative space-time are factored in, some constants aren't. Rather they're coefficients based on ratios that remain in a fairly constant proportion vs. variables that can dynamically affect the domain those measurements are being made in. Speed of light remains c no matter where you measure it, but the c as measured near a black hole still wouldn't be the same c outside that strong gravitational field. It's part of why gravitational lensing occurs.

And if there's any dangers to warp field jumping, such as particle acceleration and things like Cherenkov radiation, it's likely it could be mitigated by using a series of much shorter hops rather than one long jump. It's also likely if the theory is sound, that's the way we'll start out with it. (Since it requires much less energy, thus easier.) Yeah you could weaponize it like we did nuclear tech, but Manhattan project didn't start out with the A-bomb either - rather some small crude reactor built under some statium stands University of Chicago. And it still developed into civilian applications for fission tech as well.
edit on 3-1-2015 by pauljs75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: old_god

I could not have send that better myself. Its always the the garage tinkerers, bedroom coders and garden shed inventors who invent/discover inventions that change the world. Apple was started in a garage & Google did as well.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: XlllLLLXX
a reply to: old_god

I could not have send that better myself. Its always the the garage tinkerers, bedroom coders and garden shed inventors who invent/discover inventions that change the world.


In reality, since 1880 or so, most of the people who invent/discover things have been professional scientists and engineers who excelled in formal training and then went on to dive further.


Apple was started in a garage & Google did as well.


The ideas behind Google were started in a well-funded major computer science department with federal research money.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: pauljs75

Magnetism is overrated, at least here on ATS


The magnetic field can be fully understood as a relativistic effect of the electric field, or any other field with a finite propagation speed.


Yes, you can explain the forces and acceleration on a particle which we attribute to B field as a consequence of relativistic transformations of electric only fields. Learned that in freshman physics, mind was blown, and Albert worship commenced.

Now quite a few years later I start to think.....how does that argument help explain the intrinsic magnetic moment of an electron, perfectly at rest? A charged test particle (call it zero spin for now) will experience accelerations from an electron, at rest, which is generating both electric and magnetic fields.

oh yeah back on topic: warp drive in the garage. The problem is the total lack of serious experimental controls. The paper reads like a half advertisement and half sci-fi teenage doodle, with pictures of hovercraft etc. Discussion of the experiment and result is meagre. Most importantly, completely lacking is any further investigation of the interpretation as "warp field" versus any number of experimental interferences.

What other tests were done? How do we know the RF isn't interferering with the measurement equipment or laser or its power supply? What antenna configurations do NOT make 'warp field'? What is the scaling of the effect with any number of parameters? (To try to have any sense of its physical nature)? What sources of systematic error might there be? For discovering warp drive, the guy is remarkably uncurious about nearly all of the physics.

I mean this wouldn't remotely get funding without a clear experimental plan. It's obvious the tinkerer desperately needs an experienced experimental scientist to design experiments and to write up results of what was seen and done, and not fantasies of hoverboards.
edit on 4-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701




A weight displacement @ 100 watts was recorded at 0.5 grams using a spring scale. A Compression Metric of 0.1 mm was also recorded at this power level.


That means for 1 kg that 100watts x 2000 lots of 0.5g grams = 200000watts, 200 kwatts required (this assuming the efficiency doesn't change as power increased). A star craft of say 20, 000 kg (about the weight of a Apollo module) then that's 20, 000 x 200000 watts or 4000 millons watts. This technology isn't going anywhere until a reactor technology (mabey fusion) is available to generate the power levels required.


To put that in context Wiki indicates a Nuclear submarine reactor can generate 38 to 50 000 000W power, or about 50 million watt. That's means the Nasa Warp craft reactor may need a reactor design which is 80 mabey even 100 times as powerful. Where talking Startrek Matter/Anti matter reactors at this point.

edit on 4-1-2015 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   
This dude dave pares thinks space is bent eh? his contraption is not going anywhere.
case closed



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Yes. Are you willing to lay your cards down and set a time limit for this farce to reach some sort of closure?


not without additional data not in evidence. You see i ran across this fellows web site at some time in my past delvings into the web long ago. i dismissed him as a kook. but since then and since the article i learned a whole lot about EM drives. i am even an onlooker and occasional poster in the analysis thread at the NSF advanced propulsion thread analyzing things like Shayer, Cannae, White, Woodward and others. so i have learned a lot. and there are genuine engineers and physicists discussing and analyzing these things in the most excruciating and by turns boring and exciting detail. Some of them have even published papers answering White's analysis of the Cannae device. Questioning if it could have been a thermal effect or not.

My support for the present article does not mean i believe it one way or another. it means i forebear pronouncing judgement until more is known. And I hope that he's onto something. for now i only note that like most of the others it has a general schematic in common with the rest of the EM drives. Excepting of course Tajmar and Podkletnov. Thats a whole other family of shcema working on a different principle.

and forgive the acid in my last few responses i was not feeling well and not in the mood for exercising the patience it takes to actually try to persuade. I was feeling a bit put upon and trollish.

edit on 4-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
This dude dave pares thinks space is bent eh? his contraption is not going anywhere.
case closed
your brilliant and comprehensive analysis and commentary has no doubt resulted in nomination for many scientific awards and prizes and has contributed greatly and immeasurably to the debate at hand.
edit on 4-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Double post. pls delete.
edit on 4-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: stormbringer1701




A weight displacement @ 100 watts was recorded at 0.5 grams using a spring scale. A Compression Metric of 0.1 mm was also recorded at this power level.


That means for 1 kg that 100watts x 2000 lots of 0.5g grams = 200000watts, 200 kwatts required (this assuming the efficiency doesn't change as power increased). A star craft of say 20, 000 kg (about the weight of a Apollo module) then that's 20, 000 x 200000 watts or 4000 millons watts. This technology isn't going anywhere until a reactor technology (mabey fusion) is available to generate the power levels required.


To put that in context Wiki indicates a Nuclear submarine reactor can generate 38 to 50 000 000W power, or about 50 million watt. That's means the Nasa Warp craft reactor may need a reactor design which is 80 mabey even 100 times as powerful. Where talking Startrek Matter/Anti matter reactors at this point.
it is the hope of all of these various EM thrust type guys that they can scale up the efficiency or power. questions of experimental error aside for the moment. But some of these EM drives are comparable or even superior to ion drive technology already in use. You do not need a a TWR >1 to be useful. It just means you cannot use it to lift off of earth's surface. once in space you're golden.


EDIT: A Completely new thought.

I am currently Reading Dr Woodward's excellent book on Mach Effect Thrusters and Wormholes. It has an excellent overview of the history of related sciences from Galileo to present day. And it occurs to me that these sorts of thing as a class don't necessary have to provide all of that power themselves. if they fulfill the requirements to engage existing "Vis Inert" or "Fictitious" energy fields (examples of such fields include inertia and gravity among others) then the power available is that exerted by all the energy of that type in the universe and not the puny amount of energy provided by thier device itself. it's more like an energizing coil in a power relay. a tiny bit of power closes the switch allowing whatever power is available to the circuit the relay turns on.

Woodward's book: www.amazon.com...
edit on 4-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: typos! typos everywhere!



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: NiZZiM

if it could be attached to rc drone, maybe the first thing i would like to do is to fly it to the moon...


peace



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: pauljs75

I was curious about the "laser compression" and red shift displacement he mentions in the video. Doing a little research, I found this project which seems to have some similarity in principle. Pares says that he shouldn't be able to do that - you seem to understand what's going on here - any opinion on that? Thanks.

www.sandia.gov...

The other question I had was about the "warp bubble". If he's creating a warp bubble, shouldn't he be able to measure time as well as space displacement? How does he know that the movement of the object isn't caused by some magnetic anomaly? What do you think?



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: pauljs75

I was curious about the "laser compression" and red shift displacement he mentions in the video. Doing a little research, I found this project which seems to have some similarity in principle. Pares says that he shouldn't be able to do that - you seem to understand what's going on here - any opinion on that? Thanks.

www.sandia.gov...

The other question I had was about the "warp bubble". If he's creating a warp bubble, shouldn't he be able to measure time as well as space displacement? How does he know that the movement of the object isn't caused by some magnetic anomaly? What do you think?





that's what the laser interferometry does though; any change to the laser beam can be taken not just as a change in the space dimension but a corresponding change in the amount of time it takes the beam to traverse the measured area.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Nochzwei
This dude dave pares thinks space is bent eh? his contraption is not going anywhere.
case closed
your brilliant and comprehensive analysis and commentary has no doubt resulted in nomination for many scientific awards and prizes and has contributed greatly and immeasurably to the debate at hand.
You are way too confusing there, Hombre. Care to elaborate?



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Thanks for the reply. How does Pares measure that? Are there any links to more detailed information about his work? I haven't found any so far.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Thanks for the reply. How does Pares measure that? Are there any links to more detailed information about his work? I haven't found any so far.



I am not aware of any yet. his thing is not as detailed as a peer review level paper would be. i think you would probably have to assume he just set up the lowest acceptable level of interferometry and sent one leg through the region he believed to be subject to warp by the device. one of two things will happen. he will either do the larger test he intends or he won't. if he doesn't you will have to assume that he did not find what he thinks he found and some experimental error is involved. that or hoax. OTOH if he does get levitation you can be sure he will be in the news again. possibly even he fails but gets a much larger effect that S/N sigma cannot be questioned. knowing the dynamics of such oulier science even with people who have a lot better physics credentials you need something spectacular to overcome institutional bias against this sort of thing. even professor's Emeritus of Physics such as (Kramer of Washington University or Prof Jim Woodward of UC fullerton, Or Dr White of NASA JPL ) get snickered* at when they try to do such things.

*Stupid word filter it's a legitimate word not even related to the n word. punk.
edit on 4-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
really word filter? really? wow.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join