It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

A theory on surface to orbit transport

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 10:38 PM
A long time ago I came up with the idea that if you could spin a mass fast enough, very close to the speed of light, the mass would eventually become locked on a point in space. At first as the velocity approached c the mass would drag on space, as according to relativistic laws you cannot pass the speed of light. If you were travelling in a linear manner, time would slow down, etc..

Originally my idea was to take a cylinder, attach it to a rotating axis, attach this construction to a "space ship"and begin rotating it. Taking into account the Earth's position, rotation etc... if you rotated this cylinder inside the ship, eventually the mass would begin to drag. The reason for this is that as the tangential velocity of the surface of the cylinder approached light speed the earth's motion through space (rotating, around the sun, around the center of the galaxy) would be adding energy to a system that was already approaching infinity. In theory, with the proper calculations, you could lift large freights into orbit, and perhaps land large freights in the same manner.

Now I admit I am no physicist by any means, I have only read some good books. So if the idea of an object rotating at light speed becoming fixed in a point in space is flawed, please do not flog me too severely.

However, I had brought this idea up a long time ago, on a message board far, far away. It was I believe Kano who pointed out to me that the material to construct a cylinder does not exist, it would most like vaporize from internal momentum.

However I am still wondering. Theoretically, would it be possible to "take" a micro-black hole, and contain it with powerful magnetic fields, and use those fields to rotate the black hole to the speed of light, thereby achieving the desired effect? I cannot think of an object more densely put together than a singularity.

This thought is a tangent to my theory, but thinking about this has led me to another line of questions: If a black hole is infinitely dense, how is it possible that they rotate at all? I have read that they do, so if the basic premise of my theory is solid, it isnt an issue.

Unless of course you cannot rotate a black hole using magnetic fields...

*edit my poor spelling

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by William One Sac]

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:26 AM
this theory is pretty cool, but it may be impractical for transporting organic items or anything that isn't all that solid. something that comes to mind for now is centrifugal forces and how it has the tendency to puree soft items at very high G-forces

and there probably isnt an object more densly packed than a singularity, just as you said. as far as I know, it's impossible to have something more infinitely compressed than a quantum singularity.

I think your idea on containing a very small black hole is pretty nice, as well. That's something I have wanted to experiment on, but am kinda afraid of doing... well... because, who wants an event horizon in their back yard? am i right, folks? whoa, hold yer tomatos!

[Edited on 3/24/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:45 AM
Right... but in theory if you controlled the acceleration of the mass, you could control the deacceleration of the craft, as it is actually slowing down as the mass becomes fixated. And I considered a micro-singularity as the effects of its gravity wouldnt extend greatly beyond it. (I think) I realize the gravity is enormous at close, microscopic distances, but wouldnt it weaken considerably the further you moved away from it? I appreciate your comments...

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 03:26 AM
But ofcouse, is it even possible to contain a black hole?
Why would magnetic fields work? The matter inside the blackhole can't interact with anything outside it right, so it wouldn't have any magnetic properties.(plz correct me if im wrong)

Anyway infinite density isn't really much, it just means you can pack as much as you want in the same amount of space(singularity; infinitely small? how can it? it still must have some 3 dimensional values right?wrong?)

I dont know how you would get it up to light speed, or how your thing is supposed to work, but i always thought it was only the energy in the system. ie since our galaxy is hurtling through space, it doesn't add on to the energy, its only in your local frame or somthing.

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 06:52 AM
WOS,

This is interesting, because I, myself, have theorized if there was an achievable method of locking an object in a particular point in space, then travel would be achieved by "jumping on the merry-go-round" when the desired object goes by...LOL.

Cool theory! Thanks for sharing.

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 08:07 AM

Originally posted by quiksilver
But ofcouse, is it even possible to contain a black hole?
Why would magnetic fields work? The matter inside the blackhole can't interact with anything outside it right, so it wouldn't have any magnetic properties.(plz correct me if im wrong)

You could very well be right, for some reason I was thinking the blackhole had magnetic north and south poles. I may be getting confused with the theory that they evaporate over time. Anyhow, it is just a thought experiment, like you say, it isnt really feasible to go out and catch one and put under the hood into the engine, so to speak...

Originally posted by Valhall

This is interesting, because I, myself, have theorized if there was an achievable method of locking an object in a particular point in space, then travel would be achieved by "jumping on the merry-go-round" when the desired object goes by...LOL.

It is true that when I first thought of the idea, I was trying to figure out a way to lock onto a point in space, a way to achieve "absolute stillness" or a way to measure all motion relative from a stationary point in space. Although I am not sure how this would really be achievable in the presence of gravity or with space expanding constantly.

*spelling

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by William One Sac]

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 09:56 PM
it isnt possible, nothing is EVER still.

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 10:00 PM
Wait a minute quiksilver. Just because you cannot conceive that something can be "still" relative to all else, doesn't mean it can't be so.

I mean, REALLY! It could be...maybe.

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 10:34 PM
As far as the original idea, of causing an object to become extremely massive with the aim of flinging it off Earth. I don't think it would quite work like that.

The problem is Gravity, moreso than inertia. As the object got more and more massive, the Earths gravity would exert more and more force on it. Eventually if it became massive enough it would even start to induce a wobble in the Earths rotation. Because the planet rotates around its centre of mass. If there is a hugely massive object at a point on the Earths surface, it will move the centre of mass of the Earth. The object will be sucked harder and harder towards the centre of mass of the system.

Not to mention the Moon (and all satellites) orbits would decay. As far as the Earths orbit around the sun. I don't think it would be effected too much. (ie the Earth wouldn't fall towards the sun or flinging away) As the gravitational pull exerted by the sun would increase as the mass of the system increased.

Thats just off the top of my head though, probably made some glaring mistakes.

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 10:37 PM
**WOS**

Ignore Kano.

Maybe your initial idea won't work, but there's got to be some way.

whisper (Kano's a fuddy-duddy on these things
)

posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 12:53 AM
The escape velocity from the earths gravity is 10 m -2

which means 10 metres per second per second. So you would have to fling it faster than that, which is pretty fast, but you would have to go far faster than that because it would lose speed as it got higher up, anyway as you were approaching that speed i dont think that the mass would increase that much, as i thought it only starts increasing noticeably at far higher speeds.
Ofcourse i would expect the heat to be high but i don't think high enough to melt the object, but maybe as it goes through the atmosphere? Anyway, dont you have to be travelling at a certain velocity 'sideways' to the planet, because the whole point of orbit is to be travelling to the centre of the mass but missing it because u are travelling to fast sideways, so you would still need engines.

Ya always here in physics about how there is no absolute frame of reference - all motion is relative. However, in physics they also say that all energy, and thus all matter, can be defined as a complex ripple in the fabric of space-time.

Wouldn't this mean that you could use the fabric of space-time as an absolute frame of reference for motion?

Very clever. But strings are moving. Obviously, "stillness" is an illusion.

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by quiksilver]

posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 12:38 PM
Kano, the original idea was that as the mass approached light speed, it would be impossible for it to move any faster. So you have speed of mass spinning + speed of earths motion through space = FTL. Of course I forgot the blaringingly obvious mistake that as the object rotated toward light speed, its mass would also become infinite. If that is what you meant I stand corrected. Indeed I already do stand corrected!

Val, we will just have to think of another way around this...........

posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 02:00 PM
entangle a whole lot of particles together(can be done now) and then make the one in the centre spin close to light speed, making the rest do the same but will be far easier because you are only doing it to one particle at a time? AM i random? or will this work lol.

posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 07:52 PM

Originally posted by William One Sac

Val, we will just have to think of another way around this...........

I know, and fight the dark cynical Kano all the way. May the force be with us!

posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by William One Sac
would be adding energy to a system that was already approaching infinity.

How can you approach infinity? By the very nature nature of inifinity it is not a finite value you can approach. So all talk of approaching infinity is totally paradoxical

If you want to talk about radical surface to space system check out space elevators

www.spacedaily.com...

There is also a host of material on the web

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by Popeye]

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by Popeye]

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by Popeye]

posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 12:08 AM
It doesn't matter about the speed anyway! its 14% of the speed of light, or about 42 million m/s before you change the mass by 1%!

Anyway as you approach light speed your mass will increase drastically.

Velocity 1) 0.99986 c 2)0.999999996 c
Mass 1)60 m0 2)11,180 m0

Relative time for auto trip : 2 hr : 1 hr 59 min 59 sec

This increase in velocity requires a 186x increase in energy, yet only saves one second off a two hour journey.

as you see its pointless to go on as the energy usage is far 2 high. Anyone consider what i said about the particles?

[Edited on 27-3-2004 by quiksilver]

posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 04:13 AM

Originally posted by William One Sac
Kano, the original idea was that as the mass approached light speed, it would be impossible for it to move any faster. So you have speed of mass spinning + speed of earths motion through space = FTL.

No, you can add velocities in relativity like you do in normal life. The addition of two thing moving away from each other with low speed is u = v + w, but with relativistic speed in becomes u = (v + w)/( 1 + vw/c^2 ). These are only special cases of a more general formula, but that one is bit too complicated and I don't anyone is interested in the formula anyway.

top topics

0