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.

 

Space Drive Has Come of Age

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Key Concepts

In Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, gravity arises from spacetime being curved. Today, 90 years after Einstein developed the theory’s equations, physicists are still uncovering new surprises in them.

For example, in a curved space, a body can seemingly defy basic physics and “swim” through a vacuum without needing to push on anything or be pushed by anything.

Curved spacetime also allows a kind of gliding, in which a body can slow its fall even in a vacuum.


source

This a precedent in physics with mind boggling implications, from nanotech to space travel. Discuss!




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Firast of all, great find!! S&F for you. Even though im not an expert on the subject the implications of this is beyond imagination if we can master this. Cant wait for the future.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracySquid7
 


Correct CS7. As you dig deeper into the papers you will find that the equations allow for climbing out of a gravity well.

Imagine spacetime as a plane, and a gravity well deforming the plane like a vortex. A swimmer can "slowly" spiral out of the well as long as the curvature remains negative.

In a 3D world the path is seen as a spiral route away from the gravitational mass.

Also there is no net acceleration, therefore no momentum. Without momentum there is no inertia, which allows for abrupt stops, starts, and changes in course.

What else can you derive from this theory? Is there time dilation? Is FTL possible? Does it work on any scale?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


Nothing new in reality. The 'swimming' reference has been in constant effect since the invention of circular particle accelerators accelerating particles near the speed of light, thus, experiencing curved space-time.

There is no 'free ride' here. Particles undergoing accelerations/decelerations at relativistic speeds experience 'anomalous' resistance(not really anomalous, just too long to describe here). So this isn't as energy efficient propulsion means as imagined... But it could be as efficient as aircraft propulsion system, unlike inefficient rockets...

Finally, the apparent violation of Conservation of Momentum isn't completely realized. The apparent violation of momentum is briefly compensated by a shower of Gamma or X-rays

Two ways you can have curved spacetime 1st by gravity and 2nd, by acceleration to relativistic speeds. We can do the 2nd but seem impractical, inefficient, even dangerous to use for space travel(yet it still *vastly* more efficient than rockets, but probably too cumbersome with present technology). They first is yet to be done on practical level. Generating artificial gravity/blackhole? Is still years in the making.

This won't allow FTL speeds, unless we do the 1st method by dragging frames at FTL



[edit on 27-7-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


I agree. We still can't even fathom what gravity really is even. Basically we have no clue. I do think however that once that leap is made and we can manipulate gravity on any kind of level the rest will follow.

Good explanation!



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
It's sometimes difficult to grasp the concepts that they discussed in this article.

I loved it.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk
reply to post by Matyas
 


Nothing new in reality. The 'swimming' reference has been in constant effect since the invention of circular particle accelerators accelerating particles near the speed of light, thus, experiencing curved space-time.


I did not know that. According to the article and peer reviewed papers, this effect was hidden in the GR equations for over ninety years.


There is no 'free ride' here.


I never said there was, and I did not read it into the papers.


Particles


Particles? Who is talking particles? I thought it was about mass, and masses with ill defined centers of gravity, the only acceleration being within the system. No net acceleration. Do you think I am wrong on this?


undergoing accelerations/decelerations at relativistic speeds experience 'anomalous' resistance(not really anomalous, just too long to describe here).


Well, when you are talking relativistic speeds, you are implying moving through space, not swimming in it, right?


So this isn't as energy efficient propulsion means as imagined... But it could be as efficient as aircraft propulsion system, unlike inefficient rockets...


First off, I believe rockets are very efficient. More so than the public is aware. There is a reason they have been around so long and are the primary sole workhorse of today. But when propellant becomes an issue, such as climbing out of a gravity well or deep space flight, then it is time to look for another method. I have been for years, and it has been staring at us for a century.


Finally, the apparent violation of Conservation of Momentum isn't completely realized. The apparent violation of momentum is briefly compensated by a shower of Gamma or X-rays


So you are telling me I can produce gamma and x-rays by some sort of deformed breast stroke. Are you joking or did you read the article?


Two ways you can have curved spacetime 1st by gravity and 2nd, by acceleration to relativistic speeds. We can do the 2nd but seem impractical, inefficient, even dangerous to use for space travel(yet it still *vastly* more efficient than rockets, but probably too cumbersome with present technology). They first is yet to be done on practical level. Generating artificial gravity/blackhole? Is still years in the making.


I quoted this because there is nothing wrong with it. Why then do we agree here, but not anywhere else?


This won't allow FTL speeds, unless we do the 1st method by dragging frames at FTL


Now this is great insight. I have been beating my drums for the Lense-Thirring effect for years, and even pointed out space is accelerating, not just being dragged. So if you do possess a deeper understanding of GR, why then do you so readily dismiss the insight of Jack Wisdom, Eduardo Gueron, and Ricardo A. Mosna without revealing some real effort in the process?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by ahnggk
 
We still can't even fathom what gravity really is even. Basically we have no clue.


For that we do have a clue, from Ivor Catt's work. Gravity is the result of pulses of transverse electromagnetic waves eminating from the atom and interacting with each other. There are two regimes where this happens, in parallel and series.

Series:

atom-----o o
TEM waves_/

Parallel:

atom-----------o
TEM waves
atom-----------o

But this a subject for another thread. We do know the result of this interaction effects mass as a curvature. Perhaps in the future these two theories will be worked together.

Well, I can't draw it on this platform. Straight on and tangential. The way I see it, gravity is the result of how mass interacts with itself, and that is initiated by the electromagnetic interaction of matter. The curvature exists because of the presence of mass.

Now let's get back to space drive.

[edit on 7/27/2009 by Matyas]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
For you geniuses out there who can't be bothered by a Scientific American article I am including Jack's paper.

And I'll bring more, as many as ya'll want to read, or willing to.

Waiting another hundred years for my grand children to enjoy space drive is not an option. It's gonna happen here and now. So if you're with me, defend the science. If you're against me, then bring something to disprove it. But don't come into here with your hammers cocked and expect easy shootin'.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas


Finally, the apparent violation of Conservation of Momentum isn't completely realized. The apparent violation of momentum is briefly compensated by a shower of Gamma or X-rays


So you are telling me I can produce gamma and x-rays by some sort of deformed breast stroke. Are you joking or did you read the article?


Yes, I read the article, and it mentioned curved space times a lot. Sorry, I based my response based on my own theory that mass variances in the presence of curved space-time can emit radiation!


Curved space time means, you can make your hand heavier in one part of the space than the other(if the article missed this, there you go). This is what I understand that causes violation of Newton's Third Law. If you rotate your hand in a non-curved space time, no net force(thrust) results, obviously. But if you can magically make your hand heaver at one point of the rotation, expect some thrust, that is the point of curved space time in your article...

I based my theory that mass variance will emit radiation based on the interchangeability of mass and energy. Mass can be directly converted to energy in the form of gamma rays, say matter-antimatter reaction. You can say the mass decreases as it's converted to energy (gamma rays)

In curved space times, an object can *magically* lose mass and that loss in mass must result in spontaneous emission of radiation to conserve energy.

My theory is also partly based on this.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm also not trying to say the article sucked. It can be developed into practical space transportation technology if we can also learn to harness free energy from space. The hard radiation 'pollution' might be unavoidable (heck even UFO's also emit lots of hard radiation!!)

But to make clear myself, I'm not even sure what kind of radiation, with suitable warping of space-time. The hard radiation could be red-shifted enough to be emitted as brilliant visible light, therefore, rendering it relatively harmless and non-polluting.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggkI based my response based on my own theory that mass variances in the presence of curved space-time can emit radiation!


Thank you for stepping up to the plate again. What you mean by variances would be a change or loss of mass. Could it be that Bremsstrahlung radiation is the result of inertia when the motion of a mass is changed? Or does the rule exist only for masses with a charge?


Curved space time means, you can make your hand heavier in one part of the space than the other(if the article missed this, there you go).


The article mentions this as having a property to do with time.


...if you can magically make your hand heaver at one point of the rotation, expect some thrust, that is the point of curved space time in your article...


Still I interpret the article as maintaining the thrust within the system, with the individual masses of that system. As a result, the entire system has no (net) thrust, acceleration, or kinetic energy built up. I am more inclined to view curved space as not having any actual existence, but rather the EM interaction of mass with another mass or light with mass. It has also been shown that light can attract as well as repel itself based upon the same EM principles. If this is the actual case, then there is validity to your theory, and without having to conjur up weird new family members like gravitons.


You can say the mass decreases as it's converted to energy (gamma rays)


Mmm, when inertia is felt by the change of the mass in motion. The gamma radiation could be interpreted as the result of the EM radiation of the mass compensating for its change relative to the EM radiation of other masses.


In curved space times, an object can *magically* lose mass and that loss in mass must result in spontaneous emission of radiation to conserve energy.


So, what if we move the Moon from its present orbit? Do we get a really big purple photon burst? This may be a matter of scaling, where what you are citing exists on a subatomic or micro scale, and what I am perceiving is in non-Eucledian Newtonian space, or the macro scale.



It can be developed into practical space transportation technology if we can also learn to harness free energy from space. The hard radiation 'pollution' might be unavoidable (heck even UFO's also emit lots of hard radiation!!)


Well then, let's do it! I propose a tetrahedral semi rigid body consisting of electroactive polymers tested aboard the ISS. And if we are going to do it, then we need the toughest hard hitting physcists on board.


But to make clear myself, I'm not even sure what kind of radiation, with suitable warping of space-time.


You have cleared yourself as well as making yourself clear. Thank you.


The hard radiation could be red-shifted enough to be emitted as brilliant visible light, therefore, rendering it relatively harmless and non-polluting.


Pha! Have you seen the gamma Moon? Space is filled with radiation, that is its natural environment. And I know for a fact that gamma radiation can be converted directly into electrical energy. There is a good source of power.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk
reply to post by Matyas
 


Nothing new in reality. The 'swimming' reference has been in constant effect since the invention of circular particle accelerators accelerating particles near the speed of light, thus, experiencing curved space-time.


What does the velocity of a moving particle have to do with "experiencing curved space-time"? I'm truly very sorry, but this doesn't make an iota of sense.


Two ways you can have curved spacetime 1st by gravity and 2nd, by acceleration to relativistic speeds.


Motion of particles at relativistic speeds by and in itself (w/o presence of mass) is described by special relativity which does not have anything to do with curved space-time.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Wouldn't you either already have to be moving at relativistic speeds or else near a massive object in order to do this 'swimming' trick? Sure, spacetime is curved, but if the degree of curvature in a particular location is extremely small, you wouldn't be able to use this trick, if I understand it correctly.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Erm, to an extent, you are correct. I think the components are limited by the speed of light within the system. A fast cycle might be possible on the microscopic scale resulting in a little movement, and a slower cycle on the macroscopic resulting in more movement. But you have to understand the universe is finite, therefore space is "curved" everywhere. If gravity is the Poynting component of EM waves oscillating in the ultra cosmic bandwidth, and Machian in nature, then the shadowing effect within the systems components could account for the translation as the components move through these regions.

Pure speculation in a curved ST.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join