I have a few fundamental problems with this;

1) Relativity is bunk.
2) Gravity 'appears' to be curvature of space-time, but it isn't - it's a change in density of the vacuum.
3) Renormalization of the vacuum energy is bunk.
4) Everything you know is a lie - including some very basic things regarding electricity.

Vacuum is a super fluid composed of Plank length polar particles that are comprised of a positron and electron.

If you want to travel faster than light, you need to reduce the density of the vacuum. Because we measure using these Plank length particles - then the vacuum density appears to be constant, and relativity appears to be valid - but it isn't - as can be deduced by the variation of the gravitational constant over large distances.

Electro-hydrodynamic engines will drive us through space in future - and aligning the vacuum with a powerful magnetic field, then using a pulse of electric charge to evacuate an area of vacuum (creating a black hole) will allow us to travel faster than light.

For interest - galaxies form in EXACTLY the same way that hurricanes and cyclones form.

The density of the vacuum is not uniform - so it flows towards area's of low pressure. Due to it's polar nature - and the relatively infinite length of alignment of electromagnetic fields, the vacuum will begin to spin as it travels towards the low pressure center.

As it rushes in, the increasing velocity and rate of spin amplifies the alignment of particles, strengthening the electromagnetic alignment of the subspace particles, preventing them from reaching the low pressure center. In fact they spin around it, causing even lower pressures at the center. Once the density of the center gets close to zero, then a 'tear' occurs in the vacuum - it suffers cavitation. Because all measurements rely on the use of the Plank length particles to measure things - the center appears to 'vanish' into a singularity.

The black hole grows in strength the vacuum on the event horizon is imparted spin and charge - this is emitted at right angles to the spin. When the spin and charge imparted is high enough, elementary particles are created. These are charged particles, and are locked into the forming galaxies electromagnetic field - much like plasma is locked into the suns heliosphere. These particles strike each other forming more complex matter, some of which bears no charge - this matter then gravitates towards the central axis of rotation.

Originally posted by Amagnon
Electro-hydrodynamic engines will drive us through space in future - and aligning the vacuum with a powerful magnetic field, then using a pulse of electric charge to evacuate an area of vacuum (creating a black hole) will allow us to travel faster than light.

I like this idea. A while ago I had a dream about a craft I was piloting in space beyond the speed of light. From the cockpit, I saw two long trusses extending forward on each side of the craft. The far ends of the trusses at the leading edge of the craft were connected by a beam. In the middle of the beam there was a small black hole. I understood in the dream that the craft was being "pulled" towards the black hole, and thus had accelerated to beyond the speed of light. The beam was slightly below my sight line from the cockpit, so I could see space beyond the beam.

Anyway, that is cool to read your physics explanation. I wonder how long it would take for such a craft to accelerate to light speed, how the black hole could be tethered so that the beam and trusses do not collapse into the black hole, and how to generate the black hole in the first place. Can you elaborate on or point me to a link that explains what you mean when you say an electric charge evacuates an area of vacuum?

Greenorbs -

My explanation is certainly not mainstream - it would be considered fringe at best - however, I am not alone in postulating a superfluid vacuum composed of polar particles.

In terms of how an electric charge can evacuate an area of these proposed (but never detected) subspace particles its very simple.

You could use one of two techniques - you could align the charges with a magnetic field, and use an electric charge to move them, or you could align them with an electric field and use a magnetic 'charge' to move them.

For example if you aligned the particles with negative on the left and positive on the right - you could draw them away from a central point by placing a massive positive charge on the right side, and a massive negative charge on the left side - they would be drawn away from the center - with a strong enough magnetic field to hold them in alignment, and a strong enough electric charge to draw them apart - you could create a singularity.

Nuclear submarines use a lot of the technology in water (a polar fluid) that can be applied to the vacuum - the problem is mainly a matter of the much higher energies required.

My theory proposes that inertia is simply the change in pressure required for the subspace particles to be pushed through the gaps between atoms. It also requires that atoms are basically tiny singularities themselves - this would have been considered a fringe idea not that long ago, but now some pretty famous names like S. Hawkings are looking into the idea.

This is how inertia and gravity look in this theory. Inertia is a bodies resistance to acceleration and deceleration. Now you probably immediately point out that you can see how it might cause resistance to a body being accelerated - but you might might reasonably object to the idea that once it is motion it continues to 'want' to be in motion - isn't it colliding with the subspace particles, won't that slow it down?

The solution to the seeming contradiction lies in the assertion that atoms are singularities - in other words they are bubbles in the fluid of the vacuum. Once you make that connection - then you can see that a moving body will act exactly like a bubble moving through a fluid. THe subspace particles don't actually collide with particles - but they are pushed out of an atoms nucleus - and to a lesser extent the electron cloud by the energy density and motion of energy inside the atoms.

When a bubble moves in a fluid an area of low pressure is created in front of the bubble - and the bubble then travels forward on a pressure wave, as the particles in front rush to move in behind it. In the case of matter - as they pass through us they must speed up to pass between the gaps between the atoms in our bodies - this creates a kind of 'lift' - in effect a low pressure in front, and higher pressure behind. The moving body then will stay in motion carried on this pressure wave in exactly the same way a bubble travels through a fluid.

As I said - this is not the mainstream view - but I contend that ether drift experiments produced positive results - although low ones. The reason why the ether drift rates reported in the experiments was so low - is because they didn't realize the 'ether' they were looking for, was composed of polar particles that would in effect be caught up in the magnetic fields of the earth and sun - so they would move along with any body that had a magnetic field surrounding it - making any drift rate very low and hard to detect.

In terms of this theory I am not really ready to go into gravity in too much detail - because I'm unsure of a good model to explain it completely (but neither is mainstream physics). I think it is composed of two factors - electromagnetism and buoyancy.

The main thing you could take away is that gravity is largely buoyancy - that is atoms are bubbles and they are pressed on by the high pressure fluid of the vacuum towards the lowest density region - low density in this case means the highest concentration of matter - in other words if you are standing on the surface of the earth, then the vacuum is pushing you 'up' towards the middle of the nearest big bubble - the earth.

As for the electromagnetic component - that's still a bit hazy in my head - I think it will be a factor, but it may be so slight that's its hardly detectable.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Amagnon]

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Amagnon]

Interesting thought experiment with some excellent discussion. Says a lot about the mental aptitude of ATS members.

I don't have anything to offer really except for one of the most profound statements I had ever heard about the conundrum regarding the limits of faster than light speeds limited by relativity.

The statement occurred during an episode of Coast to Coast on 4/22/09 that featured Michio Kaku titled "The Future of Science".

Dr. Kaku talked about how a lot of the things we read about in science fiction is actually doable, given time and resources. But he made one simple comment that affected me more than anything I had heard in a long time. "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but that's the answer, "NOTHING" can. We have absolutely no proof about the bulk of what makes up the universe, so the answer could very well be in that "nothing" that we know nothing about.

I love that man. Probably one of the true geniuses that exists on this planet today.

Typically, when presented with two theoretically correct models that can adequately describe the behavior in question (in this case, the behavior of "space"), both models are purely a mathematical convenience and lack substantial detail to infer as to the actual cause.

And therein lies the problem - mathematics.

For the longest time, we've used math to express behavioral relationships amongst the observable universe. However, when we start extending into the realm of that which cannot be observed, the entire concept of math breaks down. We cannot make observations, and cannot derive formulas to predict behavior.

We can derive statistics - but that is akin to attempting to understand the aerodynamics of an arrow by firing a bunch of arrows at a target and seeing how many hit.

To truly understand our universe, we have to develop an entirely new concept and system of 'math' - one that gets away from the quantifiable, and that accepts the influences of perception.

We've still got much to learn.

I think the Bible sums it up best:

"God has put in the hearts of man, Eternity."

We're just trying to be like 'daddy.' We're just not quite ready to be let loose in the workshop, just yet.

BUMP

I've been gone for a while and as to my request it was finally moved. Thank you mods.

Such an experiment would not be carried on by me. I just based my writing off the results of experiments before hand. All of it is a thought experiment that I simply made my mind memorize laws from other experiments and run a simulation in. I came to that result.

Also there must be a way to separate them. Anything bound together can be separated. Not only that, but What I'm talking about is simply bouncing off something smaller than light, then using the radar-like signal received and translating it in a computer to as if a photon had hit it.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Amagnon

Vacuum is a super fluid composed of Plank length polar particles that are comprised of a positron and electron.

I thought it was virtual particles and virtual anti-particles, they are under what you call Zero Point Energy. They are slowly becoming mainstream knowledge actually. They are called virtual because they don't have mass, but they can interact electromagnetically with matter as a normal particle with mass would.

I'm not sure if they exhibit the behavior of a super fluid, since they are vibrating in random directions. However, an ordered state might be induced by some means.

If they are what you mean that decreasing the energy density of such virtual particles, will push the vehicle towards that direction, then you maybe right.

You may not even have to decrease the density but by simply aligning them in a certain direction so that they won't interact with the vehicle. I think it's vastly more efficient this way.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by ahnggk]

mmmmm interesting read.

I think that (dare i say it "Bob Lazar") proposed that kind of propulsion system using gravity hills and troughs. The craft would basically fall down the hill which it created behind itself, basically meaning that the craft would be constantly falling with a forward motion.

interest though .... very interesting idea.