It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Thoughts On Exotic Propulsion Systems...

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 06:40 AM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

I have thought about this too, and I came up with a mini black hole that is "projected" close to the craft so that it will suck the craft in any direction that is wanted. Of course this mini black hole needs to be controlled and it needs also to be made smaller and bigger if needed. And it needs to be moved also. So

Maybe that is what they are really up to in CERN.....

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 07:16 AM

You have just touched on another of my designs called a Compulsion Drive or Compellor Drive. Hopefully more people will think of it.

By creating a "black hole EFFECT" in front of the craft and with proper containment you can influence velocity and direction (to an extent) of whatever object is in the immediate vicinity... many uses for such a device.

However, since no such anomaly can be sustained, it would have to be repeatedly reformed to continue acceleration .

Because of this unfortunate limitation, any such drive that we would currently make could only be considered "Impulse drive" (star trek?) at best...

Would you like to know more? Ask away.

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 07:59 AM
reply to post by doctormcauley

What if you could create an object so dense that a singularity appears? An object that is dense and stays dense without needing to "eat" and compensate for radiation leaking out as is probably the case for imploded stars creating the black holes as we know today (or think we know).

Are you actually trying to build something? Please tell more

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:06 AM
And Doctor, something I have thought about is that for interstellar space travel you do not need to change your speed/direction most of the time. This provided you say: that star over there is the one I am going to and you stick to this plan. And then it takes years to get there.

So even if you create an unstable black hole that will only accelerate the craft to the desired speed than that is ok as lang as the craft just needs to continue on its path.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by QueenofWeird]

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:11 AM
Build such a device? I am not a country, I'm just a person.

No one person could ever construct such a device. I wouldn't bother entertain the idea of building any of my non-medical patents, these patents serve a purpose all their own.

You cannot currently create a black hole in space, you can however create something similar here on earth and bring up to space with you.

Then you can initiate a "controlled" release to get a "predictable" reaction.
I really must choose use those terms loosely... especially concerning predicting directionality.

The math can be done and is used heavily to represent the function of various parts within such drive systems as representations of the technology present on the area of a device.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by doctormcauley]

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:46 AM
Interesting so far, but I've never trusted the se of black holes for travel. I'm still not sure wheter they even work as we think they do, but it's been shown that they 'emit light and sound' so who knows.

One way of travelling vast distances is Quantum Entaglement theory, basically, it's 2 particles (doesn't matter if theyre are 2 metres or 2 galaxies away) that react to each other instantaneously due to them resonating on the same frequency, one fluctuates, the other fluctuates (Im guessing invertedly due to polarity, but I'm not sure). This happens instantaneously, no time needed, no 'light speed' (which to me is just a perception made and not a limit). If we could somehow get the craft to adjust to the resonance frequency of the particle, then maybe we could manage to trasport the craft from point A to B instantly?

This would be for long distance travel, and it's essentially teleportation. For short distance I believe in a ZPE drive, aswell as a Electromagnetic Field generator around the craft to avoid the velocity and G-force problems and overcome gravity and air resistance. If the field can be charged + then the surrounding air would become - charged (+ charge pushes the + away and draws in the -). This would cause 'friction' between the 'air' and the 'bubble' around the craft, could this be utilized to draw energy from the environment?

IF, accepting that Einstein was 100% right, the energy could be drawn from the environment (be it space or terrestrial), the faster you went, the more energy that would be absorbed from the environment due to increase in the kinetic interaction (this coupled with the bigger the craft the more energy recieved). So, as you HIT SOL or hyper luminary speeds, mass becomes infinite and therefore the energy absorbed would be infinite? I'm very visualally orientated, so you have no idea how hard this is to explain in words, lol. If faesible, the only thing to inhibit this would be the 'potential energy of the universe'. Hard to talk about our idea of infinity and actual infinity.

Just my ideas, formulated from various sources I've read, again, sorry if it isn't coherent, but I'm better a showing you a diagram than writing the premace for the diagram.

thanks. EMM

[edit on 13-4-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:51 AM
quick question, how do we measure light speed?? is it the time it takes for the light from the sun to reach earth and then we extrapelate from there? Because surely the speed of light is influenced by the gravitational bodies between here and the sun? again. just thoughts,


posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:05 AM
If we could trick the Universe into thinking that we were heavier than we actually are, faster than light speed become feasible.

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:10 AM
reply to post by doctormcauley

Heavier? So our limitations would be that of a 'heavier' object? therefore we would be able to surpass light speed, but the universe still would think we are under the 'threshhold'?

If this would be possible (manipulation of local gravity would make us heavier, yet our weight would still be relative to the universe, therefore same problem), surely it would be less hastle to reduce our weight to 0, then light speed could be reached and exceeded faster?

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:18 AM
You are starting to get it.

Have you read all my posts in this thread?

I suggest you do, it has info about three different systems.

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by doctormcauley

I see were your coming from, and I have read your threads, although I did get a bit lost, could you outline your theory. I saw you analogy of the pearl necklace, but what I didn't understand was how this would work. Transference of energy through kinetic interaction? because from what I understand, energy would be lost with each interaction, sort of like Direct Current, or does the temperature variances avoid this?

As I said, was a bit confused as to what you were getting at.

How would we 'trick' the universe into accepting us as a heavier object? from what I have read, your weight is relative to the universe, so even if you weren't actually that weight, wouldn't you be seen by the universe as this weight? therefore the limitations of this 'heavier' object are now our limitations? even if we switrch back at the last minute, are original weight would be relative again?

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:35 AM
I don't know how to "trick" the universe in any such way... I was just trying to help people understand that conventional science does not impose as many limits as we are led to believe.

You do not have to redesign the laws of physics to travel extremely ridiculously fast.

As for explaining an already oversimplified analogy, that I will not do.

There is info in this thread that you will find in nowhere else, that I can assure you of. So no, I will not give away any more of my money, as the math took years to do and the concepts alone are extremely valuable.

I will however answer any questions that you cannot figure out by looking at the given info.

Time is money and this stuff takes time. I could be working on kidney implants right now... making money, instead of trying to teach the internet a new trick.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by doctormcauley]

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by doctormcauley

Ok, fair enough, assuming that these laws are 100% correct, but I still think SOL is a perception, one that isn't constant throughout the universe, but thats me.

as for your earlier questions, I'll try and answer them to what I know..

"1)Monoatomic elements are used... learn about their weight at different temperatures."

-They lose weight when they are heated? what monoatmoic elements are you using? I've only read about gold which was quite interesting

"2)Particle Accelerators in space? Well sort of... Guess why?"

-only answer I can think of this would be particle drift, positively charged particles leaving the sun speed up the further they get away from sun, consistent with a + charged particle in a static vacuum. Although this is part of the ESM and many think of it as inferior or plain laughable (not me).

"3)What happens when a particle is lighter at it's point of origin than it's point of Impact? Do you See where I am going?"

Do you mean this as in the particle gains mass? not sure what can cause this to be honest (only ever heard about this through gravity manipulation)

"4)What happens when you superheat a Monoatomic element? What happens when it is at absolute zero? How do these different states affect the element?"

No idea, depends on what form you are superheating them, but a quick guess... loses weight? refraction of EM radiation? to be honest, I don't know.

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:13 AM
"Monoatomic gold can exhibit substantial variations in weight, as if it were no longer fully extant in space-time."

Thought this was very interesting and may in some way apply to what you are hinting at?

If you know more about this could you elaborate on this part please:

"In the advanced technique, the carbon electrodes are sheathed with an inert gas (such as Argon). This allows the emission spectroscopy process to be continued far beyond the typical 15 seconds, in order to fully identify all of the elements in their various forms.

When this was done, in the first seconds, the ghost gold might be identified as iron, silicon, and aluminum. But as the process continued for as long as 300 seconds, palladium began to be read at about 90 seconds, platinum at 110 seconds, ruthenium at 130 seconds, rhodium at 145 seconds, iridium at 190 seconds, and osmium at 220 seconds. These latter readings were the monoatomic elements. Commercially available grades of these metals were found to be including only about 15% of the emission spectroscopic readings."

Is this saying that the gold they found (during the “fractional vaporization”), began to form into other various metals the longer it was under this test? or just taking on their properties? I may have read it wrong.

thanks. EMM

[edit on 13-4-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:19 AM
You are heavily confused.

You have taken related concepts, posted by me for ease of understanding... then you blended them and created a totally different set of ideas than the ones I am trying to convey...

This is not some grand unified theory, nor should you seek to try and create one from the info I supplied.

The reason I posted them is I know for a fact you will not read them anywhere else, for legal reasons.

These are new concepts, all that is asked of you is that you think about them, even if you will never be able to apply them in your life.

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by doctormcauley

would you please clarify them for me, I am not trying to turn them into unified theory, only trying to understand were your coming from. If you answer your points from before this may help.

thanks. EMM

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:29 AM
I am done talking to you.

Good luck with it.

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by doctormcauley

If your here to teach people, how does coming on, posting questions and when people ask for clarity, you refuse to help, further this discussion

It sounds more and more that you've tried to pass off someone else's work as your own and now you don't want to discuss it as you may slip up. Only my impression, but you are acting highly suspicious for someone who wants to 'spread their new theory'.

You haven't answered any of my questions, only said that I don't understand your theory and that you won't discuss it further.

Poor form.


posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:11 AM
Whose work am I trying to pass off as my own?

Please provide a name, I would be interested in contacting this person.

Stop trying to derail the thread with stupid questions.

If you don't understand something, just say so. There is absolutely No need make up for it with aggression.

If I give you information in question form, it is to help you learn by yourself a set of concepts that can be easily understood with a minimum of research.

Did you take science class? Grade 12 level covers much of the basics of this stuff.

I pointed you in the right direction, do you want me to carry you the rest of the way also?

Please form your questions so that they do not require an essay as an answer. I will not do your work for you.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by doctormcauley]

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by doctormcauley

I have stated twice that I wasn't sure about your theory and asked for ellaboration and twice, you have not explained it:

ME: "I see were your coming from, and I have read your threads, although I did get a bit lost, could you outline your theory. I saw you analogy of the pearl necklace, but what I didn't understand was how this would work."

YOU: "As for explaining an already oversimplified analogy, that I will not do.


I will however answer any questions that you cannot figure out by looking at the given info." COMPLETE PARADOX

ME: "would you please clarify them for me, I am not trying to turn them into unified theory, only trying to understand were your coming from. If you answer your points from before this may help... thanks. EMM

YOU: "I am done talking to you. Good luck with it."

You seem to be arrogant and aggresive, not once until you were rude and abrasive was I anyway aggresive, I merely asked for ellaboration on your points.

I stated that this doesn't seem to be your work as most people who I have met who had an 'exciting theory' wanted to discuss it and throw it around, see what people thought, you on the other hand blatantly dismissed me when I asked for ellaboration, the only information I got out of you was 'I was wrong'.

I have in know way derailed the thread (except maybe here
), but I have only been asking for ellaboration on your theory.

now...your were saying?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in