Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Radical space propulsion: warp drive for real?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:14 PM

Originally posted by sardion2000
Also wouldn't Causality be violated if this works? Could bring in the specter of Time travel.

Causality is not violated, according to the theory in the paper, because the craft would displace into a different dimension where the lightspeed limitation is higher/nonexistant. It would essentially leave our Universe in one location and reappear in another location.

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:41 PM


Not to change the subject, but isn't this theory similar as to what aledgedly happened to the USS Eldridge?

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:47 PM
I found some new links this one is the newest

this is one of january the 5th but scroling down pages didnt see it
but i might have over looked.

still hoping this is going to be made , i mean a prototype and that it works
that would be great.

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by junglejake
Rasobasi420, I have a few questions for you. First, you stated "another" instance of alien technology being exposed to the people. What were the others?

Second, you assume the technology came from aliens, and you say so authoritativly. What evidence do you have supporting this claim, or is it just a hunch? Also, what evidence do you have supporting the previous examples of alien technology?

I say that the Technology has alien origin because of the remarkable resemblance the drive has to what Bob Lazar described while studying the remains of the Roswell crash.

I also bring up the reverse engineered morphing metals being "developed" by nasa
not to mention the countless technological advancements made since '48

Of course I don't have any definitive proof that any of this was reverse engineered, if I did I'd either have a book deal or be dead. What I can do is put 2 and 2 together. A man claimed to have worked on reverse engineering UFO's with the USAF. The USAF denies he ever existed, or has any scientific credentules, yet are developing a form of propulsion exactly the same as described by this man with no scientific background.

Often people forget about the whole picture and focus on individual puzzle pieces, like a random group of Germans who develop hyperdrive engines.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by Rasobasi420]

[edit on 9-1-2006 by Rasobasi420]

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:54 AM
Well I think somebody will try it. I'm sure China, Russia, Japan, and India are interested if the US isn't. The US almost has to test this if this theory has half a chance. I thought I read the US was bringing these guys over this week for some interviews...they are going to get grilled. This story reminds me a lot of when cold fusion was announced, I remember what a leap our society was going to take based on this new discovery...still waiting on that one.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:14 AM

no login required

Do you all remember the Star Trek movie First Constact. the Enterprise AND the Borg go back in time to 2063, one to help Dr. Zefram Cochrane get the first Warp drive launched and the other to kill it.

All the good doctor is interested in is sex, alchohol and rock & roll. He has to be motivated. Gordie shows him the statue of him he keeps in his cabin. The ship gets launched. that's the signal the Vulcans were waiting for First Contact.

Meet Burkhard Heim, a former Nazi, who lost both his hands, and became blind and partially deaf performing ;munitions experiments for the Third Reich. He had quantized General Relativity and integrated it with quantum mechanics. His postumously updated eight dimensional theory is an alternative to string theory.

Deja Vu All Over Again!

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:54 AM

His postumously updated eight dimensional theory is an alternative to string theory.

Actually I discovered that the 8d theory was from 2004, the 2005 theory incorporates 12 dimensions. Have not found that paper yet though.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:33 PM

The papers outline a concept for an eight-dimensional universe where gravitational energy can be converted into electromagnetic energy through "gravitophotons."

"I looked through this stuff ... completely crackpot, as far as I can see," theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss told me in an e-mail early today. He said he found the New Scientist report "irresponsible in the extreme ... they did not interview any real particle physicists, nor talk about the fact that the theory appears to have no real quantum field theory in it."


Well this all sounded a little to good to be true. Sort of like that whole cold-fusion story back in the 80's or 90's.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:45 PM
I think we should wait for a more indepth analysis and not take cursory glances and short comments like it's a "Crackpot Theory" without a reason as to why it's a crackpot theory as the truth just yet. This Krauss guy didn't even hint to a reason why he said what he said, he just dismissed it with what a few minutes of study? From what I've been told hypothetical physics theories can take years to understand let alone validate them not less then a day.

Anyway this paper is falsifiable in that it suggests an experiment to test the validity of the claims. I'll be waiting until the day they test it and will be withholding judgement until then. Remember there will always be resistance to paradigm shifts, I call it the Wright Brothers effect(took them years to get people in the know to actually attend demonstrations).

Also the Cold Fusion "breakthrough" that happened a few years back is just a new source of neutrons not energy as it doesn't break even.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:46 PM
That's just critique from one scientist (Krauss). Hey may or may not be correct in his critique. You can't throw the theory out of the window yet because of one scientist IMO. If numerous amounts of scientists refute it then it can be considered "crackpot".

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:59 PM
And not too many "crackpots" are willing to write a Paper.

Let alone publish it in a peer review magazine.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:19 PM
has anyone found a news video item on this ??
like to know what they have to say and what
they like to show in that broadcast if there is any
broadcast at all.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by bodebliss
And not too many "crackpots" are willing to write a Paper.

Let alone publish it in a peer review magazine.

Two words:

David Icke

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:21 PM
Prof Krauss may be right, but one ought not dismiss the theory entirely simply because there is no quantum field theory in it (yet)---which appears to be true.

Background: quantum field theories are the "second quantization" of QM, which significantly extended the structure of the Heisenberg et al quantum theory (first quantization). The canonical example of QFT is QED---fully quantum theory of photons and charged leptons like electrons.

Expecting a new gravity plus dark matter/energy theory (which is what the Heim theory really is) to come fully endowed with QFT structure or more (i.e. string theory, "third quantization") as the true fundamental theory may be too high a requirement.

For example, consider lasers. The true theory of lasers, fully quantized quantum optics---considering photons with creation+annihilation operators and the full multitudes of states---is now known and experimentally verified, but computations with it are very difficult for practical purposes.

For many practical purposes, the rate equations or rate equations with the next practical approximation to quantum optics, are more useful and easy: such a physical theory is what Einstein developed back in maybe 1905-1915, long before the full quantum optics was developed, e.g. 1950's-1960's. A primary feature is that they include the electric field as a physically real classical field not quantum state, as a true, and difficult QFT.

Even more, to design an electric motor you do not need QED, you need Maxwellian electrodynamics combined with macrcoscopic facts about electromagnetic behavior of materials.

The Heim theory and variants appear at first glance to be significant extensions of general relativity with new structure for additional forces, which include the magic new fields.

There is precedent, namely the known combination of Einsteinian general relativity and the Maxwell equations, which can be derived from various theories such as Kaluza-Klein.
There is NO QFT there, and of course physicists wanted to add it, but have found it very difficult except in flat space-time where you get now the Yang-Mills theories and the bulk of modern particle physics development.

Just because the Einstein-Maxwell equations---i.e. electromagnetism in fully curved spacetime---do not incorporate QFT effects doesn't mean they are useful and "wrong" even though they are obviously not everything as they don't incorporate full quantum effects.
(Note that they do predict an interaction between gravitation and E&M---not just gravity on light waves as we all know, but E&M can bend spacetime through the stress energy tensor just like matter. Problem is that the coupling constant is extremely extremely small.)

The bulk of modern development on incorporating new forces, i.e. weak force and strong force (now "color force" as force between quarks) of course went in the QFT direction, and dropped off gravity because it was too difficult.

Note, there is NO "classical theory" of weak and strong interactions. Why? Because it would be pointless, as the physical properties of weak and strong forces---short range interactions---REQUIRE quantum effects for useful physical prediction.

But suppose there were some new macroscopic classical field or two. Shocking yes, but that's what the Heim theory effectively predicts. In that case the classical unification of such fields with electromagnetism and gravity (a la Einstein plus Maxwell) would still be VERY USEFUL (if they are experimentally accessible!) even if the theory isn't fully quantized.

Therefore my entire point: dismissing a theory because it isn't a fully quantized field theory is premature.

It would be quite a "shock to the system" to find that classical physics wasn't complete in 1915 (Einstein GR), but I don't see any other possibility if it were really true that ETs can come here by FTL (in flat space) spacecraft.

The dark matter and dark energy anomalies are not going away, and the Pioneer anomaly ought also to be suggestive.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:15 PM

Isn't this kind of how ships on Star Trek go to warp speed, by creating a 'warp field' around the ship which intern allows them to go the speed of light and faster...

No, not really, in StarTrek they create a WARP bubble arond the ship, thus allowing them to Warp space, which is to say, compactiung the space in front of the ship and expanding it behind it, the ship does not travel at superluminal speeds, quite the contrary, it stays still within the WARP-bubble, it is actually the bubble that is traveling at FTl speeds, it is remarkably alike to the Alcunierre WARP concept.

This Hyperspace drive would push the ship into another dimension, in which the ship itself would be traveling.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:17 PM

This Hyperspace drive would push the ship into another dimension, in which the ship itself would be traveling.

That is still a HUGE maybe even if we confirm that the Gravitophoton exists.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by sardion2000
That is still a HUGE maybe even if we confirm that the Gravitophoton exists.

True, and I hope it does turn out to all be right.

Just to state though, I was'nt insinuating that it was all true, and we know it, when I said what I said in my last post, just describing the difference in the two theories.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:13 PM
A warp drive would pull space in ahead of the ship and thow it out behind.

Hyperdrive(transport drive) would use dimensional doorways.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:22 PM
This would be the greatist achievement of all time. Such tech would allow humanity to survive forever. The ability to travel and colonize the galaxy and maybe even the universe would ensure we will survive the destruction of earth or just a plague on earth.

Not to mention how awesome it would be to travel and explore.

I hope though doubtfull as can be that this becomes reallity in my life time. Even if only robots are able to explore extra solar space in my life would be awesome.


posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:01 AM
Lets just say this is possible. It may not be so for another 100 years after much more study and understanding of space and space-time etc. Don't go thinking that in 10 or even 20 years we'll have it.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in