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.

 

SCI/TECH: Earth to Mars in 3 hours possible?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Here's a couple more sites:

math.ucr.edu...

NASA:

www.grc.nasa.gov...

Warp Drive, when?

www.nasa.gov...

[edit on 1/7/2006 by bodebliss]




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Could this be the reason that the Bush Administration created the 123 pages of guidelines pertaining to space tourism?

I don't think so, but it is a definite possibility.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
..with all the experiments, both government funded and even hobby level, of gauss cannons, and high powered magnetic fields, there has been absolutely *no* observed "antigravitational" phenomena?

"levitiation" by creating a magnetic field of opposite polarity over another magnet is not antigravity. Otherwise, I'm doing it right now with no power input and two old hard-drive magnets.

This would be the Holy Grail of physics-the actual experimental proof of linkage between strong and weak forces. The biggest thing since sliced antimatter. But no rumble of this on the journals? No accidental discoveries by anyone like this guy? www.powerlabs.org

I recommend that the "Baloney Detection Kit" be called upon for this.

And as for "official" interest in this, even NASA got involved in the whole "lifter" craze and found that there was no "antigravity" there either-the process only works when there's atmosphere to ionize and "pump" for lift (an electric jet engine)

Sadly, we're stuck here, unless we gather the patience to travel worldship style or develop human hibernation.



Immediately dismissing an idea because it doesn't fit with current thinking is dangerous, especially as we know we don't know everything. Its that line of thinking that had people burnt at the stake in the middle-ages, except now they will just discredit you publicly until people don't believe you.

The only way of knowing is to give it a try. As Eddison (I think) once said, "I have not failed, I have found 1000 ways in which it doesn't work".

Even if this theory/device doesn't do what is intended, it may well do something else, or demonstrate something that doesn't fit with current theory, allowing us to learn more and possibly succeed next time.

Thought for the day:

"Don't knock it unless you tried it...."



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
"The only way of knowing is to give it a try. As Eddison (I think) once said, "I have not failed, I have found 1000 ways in which it doesn't work".

Even if this theory/device doesn't do what is intended, it may well do something else, or demonstrate something that doesn't fit with current theory, allowing us to learn more and possibly succeed next time. "


Good point!

As you can see by my links above that is NASA's view as well. They are open to any and all ideas on Breakthrough Propulsion as they are aware that rockets for distant travel in space are lacking "everything".



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
it sounds like stargate is closer to reality lol.....



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Phugedaboudet, this hasn't even been tested yet and is just another form of "String Theory". Comparing this to Lifters is really just silly as they are completely different. One can be built and tested with 20 bucks worth of supplies. This will require a Z-Machine to test and is PURELY THEORETICAL(we don't know wether this will work or not quite frankely) up until the point we start to test it. As some of the articles posted pointed out(and others on here have also pointed out) This is a longshot at best but we will never know till we try.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by sardion2000]


apc

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
"I think it's important to note that there is a distinction between a biological effect and a health effect. ..."


I maintain my position of devices such as this posing no danger to organic function. However, due to the evidence presented, I retract my stance of there being no biological effect. I was obviously operating under outdated information, and was mistaken. Thank you for bringing me into the light, soficrow.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
For those of us in the know, Mars in 3 hours is nothing new.

www.amazon.com...=1136748554/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_12/103-7812188-5883006?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Above is the link to a book called "Occult Ether Physics - Tesla's Hidden Space Propulsion System"



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Here's the original paper this is based on:

www.hpcc-space.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Speed of light too slow in your neck of the universe? No problemo! Try another dimension where the speed limit is higher. Sounds like why I moved to New Mexico.

I would add one thing. It is one thing to have an engine that will deliver you to Mars in three hours, but it is quite another to send a human being along for the ride.

How does a thing go from our 3 dimensional universe to another dimension and how do we know what the light speed limit is when we get there? I wouldn't put a limit on human achievement, but I remain a little skeptical.



[edit on 2006/2/20 by GradyPhilpott]


apc

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I think the "different dimension" term is more or less just a relation to the layman. In reality the craft would form its own dimensional "bubble" independent from our universal restrictions. If our universe doesn't see the mass (because it is encapsulated and isolated in its own bubble universe) then our laws of physics would not apply to that mass. The only thing that would interact with our universe is the bubble itself.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
I think the "different dimension" term is more or less just a relation to the layman.


No. I think they're serious.


In reality the craft would form its own dimensional "bubble" independent from our universal restrictions. If our universe doesn't see the mass (because it is encapsulated and isolated in its own bubble universe) then our laws of physics would not apply to that mass. The only thing that would interact with our universe is the bubble itself.


Well, if you say so. I can't argue this point. I'm just suggesting that even if it works out, it would seem to be a very big risk sending a human along, but then, the space shuttle is no drive to 7-Eleven.

I don't know if this is related but the President, after his rather enigmatic SOTU address, is now making the rounds of energy-related industries heralding soon to be announced energy breakthroughs. I hope these turns out to be more revolutionary than the overly-hyped Segway.


"Our nation is on the threshold of new energy technology that I think will startle the American people," Bush said. "We're on the edge of some amazing breakthroughs — breakthroughs all aimed at enhancing our national security and our economic security and the quality of life of the folks who live here in the United States."

news.yahoo.com



[edit on 2006/2/20 by GradyPhilpott]


apc

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
It could be described as an alternate dimension, yes, but it is really just a segmented portion of our own dimension. Judging from the physics described I dont see an implication of jumping to another universe where everyone has goatees or anything of that nature.

Using gravity as a form of propulsion can be visualized by imagining a water droplet forming. First it is just a buldge, but as soon as a critical limit is reached the droplet breaks free. The droplet is this dimensional bubble.

>(hah I thought I'd used that goatee example before... God I'm a nerd.)

[edit on 20-2-2006 by apc]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

GradyPhilpott wrote: I would add one thing. It is one thing to have an engine that will deliver you to Mars in three hours, but it is quite another to send a human being along for the ride.


Oh they are going to send people. Why do you think the U.S. Government is interested? The reason the U.S. is interested is they watch Startrek also. Does Federation Of Planets ring a bell? Of course the FOP would have a U.S. government moral twist to it. This would suit 'Big Bro' fine.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
Oh they are going to send people.


Of course, humans will go as far into space as it is possible to go. There is no doubt in my mind of this. However, I remain a little skeptical of the practicality of a vessel that leaps from dimension to dimension without ill effect on human beings.

Regardless, if such propulsion does work out in the time frame the article mentions, we could very well see unmanned probes sending data back from other solar systems in the next twenty years. That would be pretty spectacular considering these facts:


The most obvious challenge to practical interstellar travel is speed. Our nearest neighboring star is 4.2 Light Years away. Trip times to reach our nearest neighboring star at conventional speeds would be prohibitively long. At 55 miles-per-hour for example, it would take over 50 million years to get there! I don’t think even the twinkies in the glove box would survive that long. At a more typical spacecraft speed, for example the 3-day trip time that it took the Apollo spacecraft to reach the moon, it would still take over 900 thousand years. I still don’t think the twinkies will make it. And even if we consider the staggering speed of 37-thousand miles-per-hour, which was the speed of the NASA Voyager spacecraft as it left our solar system years ago, the trip would still take 80,000 years. Maybe the twinkies would make it, but there would be nothing left on board to eat them. In conclusion, if we want to cruise to other stars within comfortable and fundable time spans (say, less than a term in Congress), we have to figure out a way to go faster than light.

www.nasa.gov


I'd like to see it happen, but I'm not holding my breath.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
The article makes it sound like an Alcubierre drive, but I'm not trained in physics so I can't be sure....



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
The article makes it sound like an Alcubierre drive, but I'm not trained in physics so I can't be sure....


Well, if it is, let's hope they work out the kinks first.


There is no known way to induce such a wave, however, or to leave it once started...



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Well... it's been over three and a half years now since the NewScientist article released. When do we learn if Burkhard Heim had the answer to 'fast' spaceflight? How long does it take the US military to build a magnet, and spin a metal ring above it, to see if it anti-grav's off into space?



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
"The only way of knowing is to give it a try. As Eddison (I think) once said, "I have not failed, I have found 1000 ways in which it doesn't work".

Even if this theory/device doesn't do what is intended, it may well do something else, or demonstrate something that doesn't fit with current theory, allowing us to learn more and possibly succeed next time. "

...


Err.. isn't Edison the guy that denigrated Tesla and smeared the idea of Alternating Current power transmission?



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Funny how this scientist came up with this idea in the 50's. When Rosewell was what, in 1947? And yes, it seams very close to the ufo propulsion systems. Coincidence? I doubt it.


Your post landed at 1:11. Something that should not be overlooked. Your intuition tells you the truth. Do not ignore it. We live in strange times indeed.







 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join