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.

 

'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

page: 10
95
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1
Not knowing how or why something happens is a far cry from breaking a law of physics.
2nd.




posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: windlass34

Accelerating at 7.3g (71 m/s^2) for 2 Hours (7200s) gives you a distance traveled of 1,840,320 km. The moon is only 384,400 km.
edit on 30-7-2015 by Nodrak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I'm trying to get my feeble brain to understand the actual concept of this. Is there someone qualified here to enlighten me, preferably without debating inertia or G's in the process?

"It produces thrust by using solar power to generate multiple microwaves that move back and forth in an enclosed chamber. This means that until something fails or wears down, theoretically the engine could keep running forever without the need for rocket fuel."



edit on 30-7-2015 by Skeletonized because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Skeletonized

No one understands how it generates thrust, that is why it is controversial.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Nodrak

The fact that experimenter error hasn't been ruled out is the most contentious point.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

It seems that enough reputable institutions have tested it to move away from an erroneous result, but to be honest, I haven't looked into all the people researching it. I am curious to see if this will spur more exotic research into these areas of the EM spectrum and its interactions.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nodrak
a reply to: GetHyped

It seems that enough reputable institutions have tested it to move away from an erroneous result, but to be honest, I haven't looked into all the people researching it. I am curious to see if this will spur more exotic research into these areas of the EM spectrum and its interactions.


I do know that NASA has at times conducted several lines of research into such exotic things as EM thrusters, Q-thrusters & testing Alcubierre Warp Theory (Harold "Sonny" White) , search strategies for wormholes (Kip Thorne, et al), field resonance propulsion/hyperspace (Alan C. Holt, Eric W. Davis, et al.) and gravity shielding/anti-gravity (Eugene Podkletnov, Ning Li et. al).



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: truthseeker84

They are still at the stage of trying to understand what they are actually measuring.

The rest is sensationalized drivel.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Nibbles

Do you even get g-forces in a vacuum?

Eta: Seriously though. When people are in orbit they are travelling 17k or 27k, I forget the speed but it's mega fast. Are they feeling the Gees? I think not. Speed in space is irrelevant when there is no gravity as far as I know.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.



If you move something from 17,000mph to 17,500mph over ten seconds, the pilot will still feel "g force" because he was going 17,000 mph and then accelerated to 17,500. Remember, an object at rest tends to stay at rest, even if that "rest" is the mind boggling speed of 17,000mph.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

To add to this, if you were to make even a slight course correction in space while traveling at the speeds mentioned in the OP, everyone/everything in the ship could most probably be splattered against a wall. Even Star Trek knew this and that's why they had "inertial dampeners"

I don't think this is true.

First of all, to measure the speed of our hypothetical spacecraft, we would need to measure it relative to something else (Theory of Relativity). Let's say the "something else" we would be measuring our relative speed against is the Earth. Our spaceship is in the middle of nowhere (a void with no stars or planets around for 1000 light years), but the Earth can still magically gauge our speed.

Let's say we were moving at 500,000 mph relative to the Earth. If we were moving at this speed in a constant manner and in a perfectly straight line, we would not know we were moving at all, unless we checked our speed relative to the earth. For us, moving at 500,000 mph relative to earth and moving at 0 mph relative to Earth feel like the exact same thing to us.

Therefore, a slight change in velocity or direction would be the same whether we were moving at 0 mph relative to earth or 500,000 relative to Earth (if the magnitude and direction of that slight change was equal for both cases)


So, no. If I were sitting still relative to earth and made a slight change in direction that resulted in me feeling 2 gs of force, then making that same change in direction while moving at 500,000 mph would also result in me feeling only 2 gs of force.

It would be the same thing, I think.


...By the way, Earth itself is moving through the galaxy at about 500,000 mph relative to the galactic center (that's the speed our solar system orbits around the galaxy). Therefore, in my example above where our spaceship was moving 0 mph relative to the earth (sitting still relative to Earth), that spaceship was still moving at 500,000 mph relative to the galactic center.

Sitting in your chair in in front of your computer, you are moving through the galaxy at 500,000 mph. Making a sudden movement in your chair at this speed will not necessarily kill you.


edit on 7/30/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nodrak
a reply to: GetHyped

It seems that enough reputable institutions have tested it to move away from an erroneous result, but to be honest, I haven't looked into all the people researching it. I am curious to see if this will spur more exotic research into these areas of the EM spectrum and its interactions.

No. No reputable organization has ruled out alternative explanations. That is why it's still being tested. They are getting a positive reading, but have no idea what is causing it, and there are plausible causes already known that have not been ruled out. The only newsworthy part of all this is I think one possibility has been ruled out now.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I already posted the link to the physics of it earlier in the thread.

Watch objects in the space station. They are constantly in motion when left inert because the ship is moving away from them to maintain orbit, it's why things "wander" to the outside wall of the Space station and why they do the same in shuttles.

a 2g turn at 400MPH CAN NOT be the same angle for a 2g turn at 100KMPS. You would have to do a very minuscule course correction for a 2g turn at those speeds. I am suggesting that if for some reason you have to make a legitimate turn, you would just die. If you were strapped to a chair your insides would just shoot out your body.

I definitely worded it in such a way that the above wasn't clear. I was exaggerating my point.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Exciting times we live in friends. The most spectacular thing about this is this isn't the only high speed engine being researched. It will be interesting to see which one finishes first.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Jekka

Good points and I'm glad we have really good, open minded Scientist working on these things.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
gravitational feild = G-Force.
You feel it because of Gravity from eath or any other large body in space with gravity.
If you have no large body with moderate gravity then the effects would be very little if at all.

So, in theroy you could go 186,000 mps and feel little.....

Being as Gravity is all most everywhere in space that we know of thus far.. Gonna be hard to get to that or any speed with out the forces of gravity...just sayin.
edit on 31-7-2015 by DogMeat because: Spell like crap....



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DogMeat
gravitational feild = G-Force.
You feel it because of Gravity from eath or any other large body in space with gravity.
If you have no large body with moderate gravity then the effects would be very little if at all.

So, in theroy you could go 186,000 mps and feel little.....

Being as Gravity is all most everywhere in space that we know of thus far.. Gonna be hard to get to that or any speed with out the forces of gravity...just sayin.


Not exactly.

You could go at ( or almost) 186,000 mps and feel like you aren't moving at all, but to accelerate up to that speed, or slow down from that speed, or change your direction while moving at that speed, you will feel g-forces -- whether or not you are near a body with a large gravitational pull.

Feeling G-forces is all about acceleration (and deceleration and direction change). Feeling g-Forces when moving has nothing to specifically do with having a gravitational body near you; there is no need to have a large gravitational body near you to feel g-Forces.

Put it this way -- if you were in the void between galaxies with virtually nothing around you for thousands of light years (except for a few stray atoms and particles), and you tried to quickly accelerate from zero mph to 1,000,000 mph, you would definitely feel g-forces. If your acceleration was quick enough, the g-forces could kill you.


edit on 7/31/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Maybe I'm having a pretty good day if this guess is accurate, but it feels like a pretty good hunch to me...

It's not really a propulsion system. It's a vectored 'emergency brake.'

How fast are you moving when you are sitting still?

It's all about reference frames. The Earth is orbiting the Sun at 108 000 km per hour. The Sun is orbiting the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at ~828,000 km hour, and it's bobbing up and down as it does so in an overall sine wave pattern. The Milky Way is itself as a whole moving at some obscene speed with respect to other Galaxies.

So if you had a way to 'hit the brakes' with respect to any particular reference frame, it could look like a propulsion system. If you can make it take you in any particular direction, then it basically is a propulsion system except it's not "propelling" anything.

Throwing a lot of energy back and forth in that chamber may be creating something analogous to drag with respect to larger reference frames.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Nodrak

The fact that experimenter error hasn't been ruled out is the most contentious point.
with numerous test articles and testing rigs this isn't as easy to rule out as experimental error though. the devices are not all identical and the mounting rigs and measurement methods and equipment are different and yet the question of what is happening has not went away.

some are mounted horizontally and others vertically. some on a static mount. some on a rotating table. some have the power feed at the top some on the middle. some use gallistan contacts, some mercury. some just straight cabling. the dimensions and material of the device itself varies from team to team though following the same general outline. yet the thrust remains. it has now been tested by NASA and by the europeans. no one has discovered an error. but the thrust remains. they haven't explained it either as a nullification or as a new discovery. Martin Tajmar also tested it. He detected no error but his tests were designed to hunt spurious signals not define a real signal. his failure to nullify is still significant. add that to the NASA effort, Shawyer's own work and the Chinese...

This is not some garage grade wild eyed youtube experimentalist or hoaxer woo hoo stuff.
edit on 31-7-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DogMeat

You are confusing gravity with g-force, which is generic gravity caused by motion.

Think of a space station in the middle of f'ing nowhere spaceville rotating a giant ring. The ring has gravity via motion.

Source


g-force (with g from gravitational) is a measurement of the type of acceleration that indirectly causes weight. Despite the name, it is incorrect to consider g-force a force, as "g-force" (lower case character) is a type of acceleration that can be measured with an accelerometer. Since g-force accelerations indirectly produce weight, any g-force can be described as a "weight per unit mass" (see the synonym specific weight). When the g-force acceleration is produced by the surface of one object being pushed by the surface of another object, the reaction-force to this push produces an equal and opposite weight for every unit of an object's mass. The types of forces involved are transmitted through objects by interior mechanical stresses. The g-force acceleration (save for certain electromagnetic force influences) is the cause of an object's acceleration in relation to free-fall.[1][2]

The g-force acceleration experienced by an object is due to the vector sum of all non-gravitational and non-electromagnetic forces acting on an object's freedom to move. In practice, as noted, these are surface-contact forces between objects. Such forces cause stresses and strains on objects, since they must be transmitted from an object surface. Because of these strains, large g-forces may be destructive.

Gravitation acting alone does not produce a g-force, even though g-forces are expressed in multiples of the acceleration of a standard gravity. Thus, the standard gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface produces g-force only indirectly, as a result of resistance to it by mechanical forces.

edit on 31-7-2015 by raymundoko because: formatting



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko



gravitywellBox



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join