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.

 

What needs to be done for faster than light travel?

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: akushla99

lol.


"Sound travels faster in liquids and non-porous solids than in air"

I'm not familiar with the physics, but it may be a case of - being in the right place at the right time...or manufacturing the right place.
I may have said something far too obvious for my understanding - excuse my naivete.



Å99
The speed of light does depend on the medium it is travelling in.

On the bad side of that it is the speed of light in vacuum that really counts for this sort of thing. On the good side; i learned it may be possible to actually alter the properties of space which would presumably then alter the speed of light in space if you could alter the correct corresponding properties. thus far i have only read about the alteration of a term called the "permitivity of space" which controls the resistance of space and time to being compressed, stretched or bent.




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: akushla99

Haha, what ever you contribute to the discussion is appreciated. It's going to take a lot of opinions and ideas on how to solve such a problem. If even truly possible.

If you were wondering why sound travels faster in denser mediums or objects, it is because denser objects contain more atoms, allowing for more collisions to occur within them, more often. For eample, the speed of sound through air is slower than say, water because the space between the air particles is greater than the water particles.

This can most certainly apply to space itself!



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I think this is the trick to it. I don't see why the variants of the resonant cavity thrusters wouldn't have some effect on this.

To be more specific, it's an effect on the impedence of free space. But permittivity is one of the factors. EM fields do affect resistance, capacitance, and even polarization of light.

The experiment to define the impedence of free space was done in regards to the EM affecting space around two parallel ideal conductors. (The ideals don't exist, but it's extrapolated in the math behind the actual experiment.) However if you were to push the same conditions over a surface which was a conic section, you might see more extremes and a non-constant level of permittivity, but a volumetric gradient instead.

A thought came to me where I think a "trumpet" shaped section might be better, taking conditions of geometric progression in phenomena such as resonant standing waves. However that also depends on scaling, a conic section may be the best approximation of a small section of that trumpet that given the size of the drive we're currently working with.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble

I have looked extensively into the Lazar case, many things point to him being a fraud, though there a few slivers of evidence supporting him. Most importantly we need to look at his "science". He says element 115 is used in ET craft to warp space-time. This is done by basically amplifying the gravity wave that is exerted from the element. Which today, is recognized as the strong force (holds the particles within the nucleus together). The strong force is used to create an extremely strong warping of space, very much like the warp drive. A video describing how this is done (40 minutes long): www.youtube.com...



That Lazar video is awful.
He's trying to say that "gravity A" is the strong force. The theory of that force is quantum chromodynamics and was put together in the 60's.

It's likely he chose that because it is an incredibly strong force. It's very short range and does not ever extend beyond the atom like he suggests in element 115. Just because you throw together some more protons and make a higher element that doesn't mean you suddenly create a gigantic violation in the standard model.

The strong force doesn't work that way and even if it did element 115 would have billions of times more weight.
He also says that the particle idea of gravity (gravitons) is false. He states that very clear. But the strong force (gravity A) HAS particles. They are called gluons but under his theory those would be the gravitons. Those particles mediate the strong force. So that means gravity A is a particle theory (gravitons) and he completely contradicts himself.

He also says that gravity is not made of gravitons but that it IS DEFINITELY A WAVE? Well in quantum mechanics there are 2 possibilities for gravity. One is that gravity is made of gravitons which act as particles AND waves, like all quantum objects do. The other is that it's just the geometry of spacetime. Which is what General Relativity says.
He didn't mention the GR version he just said it's a wave, but not a particle. Which again goes completely against the standard model. Quantum objects are all wave-particles. It's way too silly of a mistake.

His science talk is just a bunch of pop-physics that anyone could throw together in the 1980's after reading one Fred Alan Wolf book.
The Einstein-Rosen bridge idea of travel that was big in sic-fi in the 80's and beyond, that just happens to be the exact physics of super-advanced aliens!?!?
The same explanation Carl Sagan just used in his book Contact a few years earlier? That turns out to be the flying saucer method. Whatever.

That guy is a huge time waster. Unless he's disinformation??

Guys like that say they didn't make any money by telling their stories. For one, who knows how much they earned doing appearances? They also might have intended to land a book deal but publishers ran them out of town.

Then ufo people wonder why the field has no credibility? Or why media often steers away from coverage? It's not all a huge cover-up, it's actually an embarrassment to be associated with some of those things.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr

If he did truly work at a top secret facility with technology far superior to the public's eye today, who's to say he wasn't right? I think people assume we're right the moment someone comes up with a theory to describe something with decent accuracy. People fail to realize that there can be more than one explanation for whatever it is you're talking about. It's also arrogant of one to assume that humans have solved these issues so early in our technological history. Every decade we transcend the previous and understand more of what used to be unknown.

Quantum Chromodynamics, is a theory that was 'invented' to explain the mystery of how gluons and quarks interact with one another. It's also based off of the Yang-Mills theory, if I understand it correctly, is partially based off of string theory. That hasn't really gotten us anywhere. Which is beginning to raise question whether it's useful or not.

Basically, I think it's unfair to shoot down Lazar. No one has proven it to be impossible. Therefor, time will tell.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: joelr


The strong force doesn't work that way and even if it did element 115 would have billions of times more weight.
He also says that the particle idea of gravity (gravitons) is false. He states that very clear. But the strong force (gravity A) HAS particles. They are called gluons but under his theory those would be the gravitons. Those particles mediate the strong force. So that means gravity A is a particle theory (gravitons) and he completely contradicts himself.


His science talk is just a bunch of pop-physics that anyone could throw together in the 1980's after reading one Fred Alan Wolf book.


actually in N =8 super gravity there is evidence that the strong force and gravity are essentially the same thing. a science team won the Sakurai prize for theoretical physics for proving no divergence in the relationship to the forth loop and are now partially into the 5th loop using unitariy derived proofs. a graviton looks like two gluons stacked on top of each other if you make a feynman diagram for it in the N=8 supergravity framework. No divergence is a big deal in QM. This supports Lazar's contention pretty well as this was completely unknown anywhere at the time he made his claim. In addition there are many topologies that are warp related that are valid solutions (mathematically) in GR and SR. warp stuff isn't science fiction entirely. However the conditions necessary may not exist in nature which would render them mathematically valid but physically impossible to implement.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
cite: www.preposterousuniverse.com...




This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors. Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other. If you’ve ever looked at the Feynman rules for gravity, you’d be shocked that such a simple prescription could ever work, but it does.





This year’s (2013) Sakurai Prize of the American Physical Society, one of the most prestigious awards in theoretical particle physics, has been awarded to Zvi Bern, Lance Dixon, and David Kosower “for pathbreaking contributions to the calculation of perturbative scattering amplitudes, which led to a deeper understanding of quantum field theory and to powerful new tools for computing QCD processes.”


Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Physics. Not for Kooks. Not for Charlatans.

www.aps.org...



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

From seeing a couple disks myself in the '70's, I had the sense that they were not the conventional mass that other solid things would be, and that they were reducing their mass to near zero. If an object can do that first, then it would not need unimaginable energy to go anywhere quick. It could go faster than light by skipping through space with ease. Rumor has it that some military aircraft have varying small degrees of this mass reduction in an on demand kind of option on a few black budget aircraft.. Put a unit on a drag car and win every race as soon as the lights turn green. 1/4 mile in 1/4
second and no sound.
No mass, no inertia, no G-forces at all. No mass would allow extreme speeds and instant accelerations that have been reported so much. I have seen it myself, but not too many people give a crap since they have to drag themselves out of the sack every day to go make a few bucks so the wife can go shopping.

Sort of beyond most peoples priorities, at least publicly.. It is still a career killer, except it isn't a career killer for the pro debunker. To them it puts food on the table.. Imagine that. That itself is a bit of a mind bender.




posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
magic. honestly i dont know but i no longer think its possible. once upon a time i did. i think the best we can do it a propulsion method that used gravity or something but not faster than light travel.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Generally, what needs to be done for faster than light travel is to run out on your in-system drive until you're in gravimetrically flatter space, then engage the Mach drive.

That takes a while to start up, it's the checklist from hell.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

So basically run on the Arharonov-Bohm Uncurled A Drive until out by the Oort Cloud and then engage the Mach Shield?

How does one ensure the most homogeneous space -time density path to travel. Or is that still not well charted and a guessing game?

I get the Mach Drive for the most part but can you explain a little better the Intra-System Drive?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Also would Jaynes Cummings Dimmers be useful for the Mach Drive? Like a circuit regulator or something?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR

How does one ensure the most homogeneous space -time density path to travel. Or is that still not well charted and a guessing game?


For the ranges we go, and the places that are commonly visited, the best routes are well known. It's when you start doing creative things that you run into 'bumps'. The bad part is, even if the drive doesn't decide to find out if you'll blend for no particular reason anyone can ferret out afterwards, if you hit a big gravimetric distortion or a large lump of something you'll get a star on a wall and a dolorous (and usually off-key) rendition of the Navy Hymn with the special verse added for interplanetary flight.

Mostly because if the space you're in is too distorted the computer can't solve the math, and turns you into borscht as you find the poles and zeroes in the drive equation the hard way. And the drive can absorb small impacts like OH radicals and dust. But if you find a rock bigger than a baseball, it's 'Eternal Father' time.

That's improving, though, eventually I suspect it may be nearly safe to do.



I get the Mach Drive for the most part but can you explain a little better the Intra-System Drive?


One reduces inertia, the other affects the local speed of C. You actually never go faster than C, that's impossible. Instead, you push the goalposts.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I've looked into many of the alleged cases where someone has dealt with the technology of the disc. Part of the problem is some of their explanations for how it works are different. They also make different claims for how the "laws of physics" actually work. For example lazar states the warping of space is the method, where as others say there is complete mass cancelation, that allows for ftl travel.

I do believe Lazar, but it's hard to take other accounts seriously. Especially when Lazar uses relativity in his explanation. Which has been nearly proven, with how effective it is.

Someday I hope to see some secret craft flying through the air. I'm still young, I've got some time left to see one.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

So mostly confined to well paved paths essentially. If there were a way to engineer a clear or homogeneous path using like say a beam in front of the vehicle wouldn't that help smooth out things and prevent the insides looking like some jackson pollok Rorschach splatter pattern. Or like a beam from one system to the other that maintains a clean level path. Like a intergalactic subway tube or highway. Or one you can generate in front of the vehicle like a gravimetric cattle plow. Or a space time steam roller.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

So we would have to pick and choose very carefully where we decide to explore and colonize it seems.

What is the primary interest, system or star wise, that becomes the determining factor as to where we decide to travel? Mining? Cause there's not much in system. Basic exploration? Just cause. Looking for something special or lost? Any strategic posturing? We finally sick of tribbles and plan to eradicate their entire home world for the betterment of the galaxy?
edit on 30-12-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

If there were a way to engineer a clear or homogeneous path using like say a beam in front of the vehicle wouldn't that help smooth out things and prevent the insides looking like some jackson pollok Rorschach splatter pattern.


I'd settle for a concentric field setup with a large low power bubble around the main drive volume that would collapse in time for the computer to stop or dodge.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: BASSPLYR

So we would have to pick and choose very carefully where we decide to explore and colonize it seems.


Considering how bad we are at it, it's an issue.

Planet Dirt was a sort of godsend, there possibly WAS something there at some point, that's either died out or left. There's enough of a residual biome to produce enough oxygen to breathe, but mainly what you have is lichens and snot depending on if you're in the desert or 'ocean', which are the two main things you have there. And they're different enough in terms of sugars and aminos that we don't interact readily. So there's no real issue of contamination, as long as we're halfway careful.

So we ended up with a sort of practice place that's not really researched yet.

Exploratory missions are sort of sparse. Definitely no 'star trek' planet of the week thing. Because it's friggin' dangerous. Possibly terminal. What you want are lifeless rocks.

Consider - if you find a planet with life, or what you imagine is life from orbit. But now what? Land? Can you tell if it's dangerous? That alone is a monumental effort. It's more obvious if it's all methane and ammonia and whatnot, but if it appears breathable, that doesn't mean it will be when you try. What if the air is full of something that's innocuous to local life, but is an extreme allergen to people? Or if it's carcinogenic, but only after about 10 years. Or it's contagious and likes our cell structure.

Worse, if there's intelligent life, the ship is considered expendable on the spot. It's a death sentence, more or less. You can't come home, anyway. And you can't allow any crew to fall into alien 'hands', and you can't let them onboard, so you're sort of limited to proceeding to a cut-out world that's got supplies cached and there you will spend your days, or destroying the ship.

Most targets are checked by automated probes. That doesn't mean that your target isn't inhabited by someone who is hiding, or can mask, or is doing lapwing, or can co-opt the probe.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Like a physical buffer? Or are you thinking just something that's a "feeler" extending beyond the drive volume just giving the computer enough advanced warning to calculate and react to changes?

The real trick is how to get a low powered field to eclipse the main drive volume.

And would that low powered field be like a over-tone of the main drive field and simply bleeds if tweaked right beyond the main volume?

Or, would it have to be something totally different, and if so how would it keep up with the vehicle if beyond the influence of the main drive volume?

That's why I was thinking somewhere way down the line they should develop a beam (I won't say the kind I'm thinking but you know what I mean) between systems like a rail way to ensure smooth safe travel reliably.

Finally if they can work the bugs out of this concentric set up wouldn't that usher in a golden age of exploration?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join