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 May Have Accidentally Created a Warp Field

page: 4
54
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
this just in: the latest mathematical plots of EM drive data look exactly like the alcubierre warp metric graph.




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: PandaLord

All of this busywork discussing and supposedly studying ways to travel fast are so elememtarily stupid that I about cry every time I read such an account. Seriously. Deny UFOs (these days both theirs and ours) as government and industry does, and you can carry on and on with this drivel. You get the picture? It is all for show and/or done by the unassuming thinking that they are on the cutting edge.

Anyone that has witnessed an active UFO defying gravity and most importantly, mass as long ago as half a century, knows quite well that you don't need some impossibly complex method to travel fast.

The UFOs have demonstrated since day one of their efforts to make themselves known in 1947 (if not earlier) that they contain in those rather compact devices a use of physics that cancels their mass and allows what we consider impossible feats of movement. --They don't fly! They do not use air for lift or to enable propulsion. They produce a very localized, mass-cancelling field around themselves and can move in any direction with scarcely a push. Probably their locomotion is acquired as an aspect of the craft by a mere warping of their encompassing field.

The sooner the public starts demanding this technology to be unleashed commercially, the quicker we can learn the true facts of why no shuttle replacement, possible Moon military bases and even perhaps even on-going manned expeditions to Mars. So it is not just about the US government having the technology of the UFOs in the black triangles as military weapons, but it about a very large chunk of our destiny and supposed existence in a free and democratic country.



Probably one of the better posts I have seen on ATS and I would have to agree all these distractions on FTL are sad, kind of like SETI and anything related to that.

Have you studied Dr. Eric Juliens work on "The Science of Extraterrestrials", if so any brief opinions if such is possible on such a complex topic?



The science of ET's



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
before anyone gets excited. the math plot resemblance to the graphic used to illustrate the alcubierre metric is purely coincidental. the same plot shows up for lots of other things less exciting that a space warp.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
We live in remarkeble times...isn't that what every generation says?

Anyways, is it safe to say that this whole theory of relativity is built around the speed of light? Is the speed of light not the fastest speed perceptible and identifiable by scientists to this day and therefore considered an absolute persistent benchmark?




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
this just in: the latest mathematical plots of EM drive data look exactly like the alcubierre warp metric graph.


That's exciting!


I can't wait for this to be built:




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
before anyone gets excited. the math plot resemblance to the graphic used to illustrate the alcubierre metric is purely coincidental. the same plot shows up for lots of other things less exciting that a space warp.


Ah nevermind...



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
We live in remarkeble times...isn't that what every generation says?

Anyways, is it safe to say that this whole theory of relativity is built around the speed of light?


Well that's what the "c" in E=MC squared stands for. The "c" is the constant for the speed of light.



Is the speed of light not the fastest speed perceptible and identifiable by scientists to this day


Sort of. If something were actually travelling faster than light scientists could tell by measuring it's redshift (or blueshift). At one time, back in the 1970s, a jet from the famous quasar 3C 273 was thought by some scientists to be travelling faster than light. They were mistaken. The faster than light motion was an optical illusion.

So far nothing we know of travels faster than the speed of light.

You can read more here: Superluminal motion


and therefore considered an absolute persistent benchmark?


Yes.
edit on 1-7-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Stupid question: if travelling at warp speed, how are you to determine that you're not heading straight on a collision course with some other object? (asteroid, space debris, planetoid, something unknown)

Map out the route you plan on travelling before hand?

Surely you couldnt maneuver much at that speed.

I just imagine a spaceship warp driving directly into an asteroid along the way and being blown to smithereens.....



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Stupid question: if travelling at warp speed, how are you to determine that you're not heading straight on a collision course with some other object? (asteroid, space debris, planetoid, something unknown)

Map out the route you plan on travelling before hand?

Surely you couldnt maneuver much at that speed.

I just imagine a spaceship warp driving directly into an asteroid along the way and being blown to smithereens.....



At near lightspeed driving directly into a speck of invisible dust is enough to blow you to smithereens.

www.astronomycafe.net...

Just the hydrogen particles will cause lethal radiation without even hititng dust.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Stupid question: if travelling at warp speed, how are you to determine that you're not heading straight on a collision course with some other object? (asteroid, space debris, planetoid, something unknown)

Map out the route you plan on travelling before hand?

Surely you couldnt maneuver much at that speed.

I just imagine a spaceship warp driving directly into an asteroid along the way and being blown to smithereens.....



The ship would exist in a bubble (called a warp) the asteroid or whatever would be outside of that bubbles so the ship would not ever impact with anything in normal space/time while in the warp bubble.

the asteroid would simply not even be there to the ship and the ship would not even be there to the asteroid. Think of the warp bubble as a temporary mini universe separate from ours.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Mmmm. Magic words: SO FAR...

And as for light being the fastest, more magic words,
AS FAR AS WE KNOW, yes it is...



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
before anyone gets excited. the math plot resemblance to the graphic used to illustrate the alcubierre metric is purely coincidental. the same plot shows up for lots of other things less exciting that a space warp.


Ah nevermind...
Yeah i was really excited for a while. But then the more knowledgeable NASA experimenters pointed out that this is natural for a cycling e field in a cylinder or cone in some resonance modes. also on musical drum heads and in a sloshing bucket of water. Still, in my defense, i have to say that the initial reaction of some of the actual engineers and physicists was: "Oh. My. God!" when the 3D graphic plot was first posted.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Stupid question: if travelling at warp speed, how are you to determine that you're not heading straight on a collision course with some other object? (asteroid, space debris, planetoid, something unknown)

Map out the route you plan on travelling before hand?

Surely you couldnt maneuver much at that speed.

I just imagine a spaceship warp driving directly into an asteroid along the way and being blown to smithereens.....


At near lightspeed driving directly into a speck of invisible dust is enough to blow you to smithereens.

www.astronomycafe.net...

Just the hydrogen particles will cause lethal radiation without even hititng dust.


fortunately the warp ship does not have to worry about this because the ships actual speed will be about point ten C and that assumes we develop some propulsion system that can actually provide that speed. (That by itself is an extremely difficult engineering problem) the only place in which speeds that would do what you are discussing is in the interface or "skin" between the warp bubble and normal space.

dealing with collisions at the real speed of the ship and any thing it runs into is problematic enough as it is. but nuclei collisions won't produce that radiation nor have enough relativistic mass energy to present a insurmountable shielding problem. even dust mote sized or sand grained sized masses will not be prohibitively difficult to deal with. Those masses/energies are equivalent to a high velocity rifle round to a stick of dynamite or two.

Relatively speaking... these are easy to defend against even with present technology and materials and the frequency of these will be about 1 per square meter of the frontal cross section of the ship per day.

If you want to calculate the probability for larger impacts the curve is exponentially less as mass of the impactor goes up. We live in an area of the galaxy that was swept clean by something, perhaps a nova, that left this area nearly a true vacuum between here and the nearest local stars.

Though the larger impactors are rarer it is likely whatever defense we come up with will not involve abrupt evasive maneuvers. the resultant G forces from a turn at relativistic speed might tear the ship apart and turn the occupants to pink goo. certainly it would in medium to high relativistic velocity regimes. an artillery round experiences a practically instantaneous acceleration force of 35 thousand G's or more. A human is "good" (good, if you consider it will kill [s]some[/s] many people and cause the remainder to lose consciousness even in a G suit and well trained) for about 14 G's max. And an Artillery round is infinitisimally slow compared to even .10 C. its not the velocity that is problematic though; its the g force during acceleration or deacceleration or turns. so you'd be fine travelling at .10c until you tried to change course abruptly to avoid a collision. then you'd be goo too fine to extract DNA from.

edit on 2-7-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join