FTL drive hypothesis

Why won't this work?

Getting past E=mc2 by keeping mass a constant as you accelerate:


Gravity: Let us assume gravity is a wave (explanation at bottom). Waves degrade as they pass through a denser material (i.e.mass). If two people were pushing you from opposite sides with equal force (gravity) the result would be no movement. If one person eased up a bit and stopped pushing you as hard (gravity wave through mass) which way would you move? The denser the mass (less the other person is pushing you) the stronger the push towards that mass. Gravity is a push not a pull. Invert Newtonian physics so you are pushed into a weaker gravity field not pulled into a stronger one. More mass= greater attraction to that mass. Newtonian physics still works, we just invert the fields.

Matter: What would happen if you started to compress these waves together? Compressed them until they almost had a measurable mass... wouldn't you have the foundation for the subatomic? How could we prove this? Using the fact mass increases as speed increases approaching infinity as you approach (c). Imagine gravity waves permeating space time... and you decide to start accelerating an object. As that objects speed increased it would encounter more and more gravity waves the faster you went. Akin to a speed boat accelerating from wave crest to wave crest, the faster the boat goes the more waves it encounters in a given time frame and the more energy it would take to overcome the resistance. What if these oncoming gravity waves compress... compress to a measurable density. Energy to matter as you approach (c). It would take infinite energy to overcome this mass increase. Unless...

Using mass/energy/gravity propagating as a wave through space time we come to the conclusion that mass does not move through space. Instead it moves like a wave ( a very dense wave) through the ocean (the ocean being the membrane of 12 dimensional super string theory). The water molecules themselves do not travel with the wave, they just pass the energy along.We do not actually move through space, we just pass our energy along the membrane as a propagating wave front. If E=mc2 suggests energy and matter are the same, they are both waves...of different density and amplitude.

So... if we found the amplitude of a gravity wave, inverted it and using wave cancellation in front of a ship, we would avoid mass increase. Since these waves are no longer compressed in front of the ship mass remains a constant. This design would also require no additional thrust since gravity would push the ship into the area of lower gravity ahead of it. Speed is controlled by the amount of wave cancellation and the theoretical upper limit is the speed of gravity. No infinite mass=no infinite energy.

So I guess I'm saying all energy and matter are simply different density and amplitude waves propagating along membrane space. Thus they can be manipulated by wave interference.

This theory is a lot more intricate then i put here, I would appreciate any feedback.

reply to post by b309302


Interesting theory, but what mechanism would you use to create and control these waves?

You would also have to account for the theoretical loss of gravity to the membrane sheet as well(since it is thought that gravity either leaks to membrane space or originates from it), how would you bypass this?

[edit on 1/25/2010 by jkrog08]

reply to post by jkrog08

Mechanism is form verses function. Still doing the math to find gravity wave amplitude. Not impossible just a lot of work.

While I agree gravity waves originate in M space (super string vibration) and transcend dimensional planes, we're not talking hyperspace. Were bypassing the mass increase and going straight through c in normal space, not around it. Loss of gravity should only occur if we left our dimensional space. That's why I think this would actually work, as opposed to some sci-fi hyperspace drive. However if you want to talk hyperspace, known physics goes out the window, and that's anyones guess.

Being that this is a theory, I don't have all the answers on how to actually build it. I'm just trying to show it can be done. I would need an engineering degree to actually design it. I'm just trying to show it is possible. One step at a time...

Originally posted by b309302
Let us assume gravity is a wave (explanation at bottom).

We can assume all sort of things, such as that Universe is permeated with waves of thought, or Radiant Luminescence, or will power of Supreme Being or anything of garden variety of assumptions. You won't get anywhere.

Wave is a specific phenomenon which is associated with observables changing periodically in space and time. Unless you can tell me what the observable is in your concept of wave, that's just empty talk.

Waves degrade as they pass through a denser material (i.e.mass).

Not necessarily. Again, there is no specifics in this proposition.

Originally posted by b309302

Why won't this work?

Okay, you asked... the first and most obvious reason is that it's really unclear what you are talking about...

Getting past E=mc2 by keeping mass a constant as you accelerate:

How do you get past an equation? This equation itself has nothing to do with motion or acceleration so the m is constant. Perhaps you mean having the speed of light as a limiting velocity? So are we to assume then that this is a relativistic argument?

Gravity: Let us assume gravity is a wave (explanation at bottom). Waves degrade as they pass through a denser material (i.e.mass).

What do you mean by a wave "degrading?" Do you mean its wavelength changes? or its amplitude changes? or something else?

If two people were pushing you from opposite sides with equal force (gravity) the result would be no movement. If one person eased up a bit and stopped pushing you as hard (gravity wave through mass) which way would you move? The denser the mass (less the other person is pushing you) the stronger the push towards that mass.

The pushing scenario is just a restatement of the net force acting on a body. If the push you are talking about is gravity, then we know that it is not the density of an object that determines its force due to gravity, it's the mass of the object. Density has nothing to do with the scenario you described.

Gravity is a push not a pull. Invert Newtonian physics so you are pushed into a weaker gravity field not pulled into a stronger one. More mass= greater attraction to that mass. Newtonian physics still works, we just invert the fields.

Yikes, we appear to have moved from relativistic physics to Newtonian. "inverting" the field is just changing the co-ordinate system, there is no difference between a push and a pull since they are linguistic distinctions about speaker point of view. There are no "pushes" or "pulls" with force vectors, just directions.

Matter: What would happen if you started to compress these waves together? Compressed them until they almost had a measurable mass... wouldn't you have the foundation for the subatomic?

"Almost measurable?" That would be a property of the fineness of the observer's equipment rather than a property of the waves... or are we jumping quickly to quantum principles even though we started with relativistic physics. "Foundation for the subatomic?" In what possible sense could you mean? Theoretical? Mathematical? How would you possibly get mass by compressing waves? In the classical sense, waves are movements in a medium.. so this makes no sense.

How could we prove this? Using the fact mass increases as speed increases approaching infinity as you approach (c). Imagine gravity waves permeating space time... and you decide to start accelerating an object. As that objects speed increased it would encounter more and more gravity waves the faster you went. Akin to a speed boat accelerating from wave crest to wave crest, the faster the boat goes the more waves it encounters in a given time frame and the more energy it would take to overcome the resistance. What if these oncoming gravity waves compress... compress to a measurable density. Energy to matter as you approach (c). It would take infinite energy to overcome this mass increase. Unless...

Or alternatively we could imagine the universe filled with orange jello. Starting off this whole paragraph with "How could we prove this?" and then answering with "Imagine.." Gravity waves? How do we know they exist outside your imagination? And then we fill the universe with them.. uh what happened to the mass that pushes to cause gravity? That was something you introduced a while back.

Using mass/energy/gravity propagating as a wave through space time we come to the conclusion that mass does not move through space. Instead it moves like a wave ( a very dense wave) through the ocean (the ocean being the membrane of 12 dimensional super string theory). The water molecules themselves do not travel with the wave, they just pass the energy along.We do not actually move through space, we just pass our energy along the membrane as a propagating wave front. If E=mc2 suggests energy and matter are the same, they are both waves...of different density and amplitude.

"mass/energy/gravity" so are you now saying that these three are all the same? And kn a bone jarring right turn again, you introduce string theory and m-brane theory (which you apparently seem to regard as the same theory). You conclusion is not a conclusion it is a continuation of "Let's imagine..."

There is no science here, just a nice salad of scientific terms drawn from a number of theories and tossed about with liberal doses of "Imagine". There is no logical argument to justify a conclusion and, just to be clear, calling something a conclusion does not make it so.

So... if we found the amplitude of a gravity wave, inverted it and using wave cancellation in front of a ship, we would avoid mass increase. Since these waves are no longer compressed in front of the ship mass remains a constant. This design would also require no additional thrust since gravity would push the ship into the area of lower gravity ahead of it. Speed is controlled by the amount of wave cancellation and the theoretical upper limit is the speed of gravity. No infinite mass=no infinite energy.

More imagine, but I see that all we have to do is invert a gravity wave.. ahh just an engineering problem I assume. "The speed of gravity." huh?

So I guess I'm saying all energy and matter are simply different density and amplitude waves propagating along membrane space. Thus they can be manipulated by wave interference.

This theory is a lot more intricate then i put here, I would appreciate any feedback.

Feedback it is.

Total nonsense. I like fringe science... no, actually I revel in it! But when you start to work within an existing paradigm, you have to have a bloody convincing reason for breaking the paradigm (yes, Einstein did, as did Bohr and others). There are some really impressive formulations of alternative physics out there but they all have a couple of things in common, aside from being attacked by mainstream science... logical and mathematical rigour and empirical evidence. It's not right, it not even coherent enough to be wrong.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by metamagic]

Originally posted by b309302
reply to post by jkrog08

 

Mechanism is form verses function. Still doing the math to find gravity wave amplitude. Not impossible just a lot of work. .

Please post so we can see the math. I really want to see the math that you are using. And yes, I am a mathematician.

Originally posted by b309302

Why won't this work?

Getting past E=mc2 by keeping mass a constant as you accelerate:

That equation is for mass at rest. Try using the right one.

reply to post by b309302


What you seem to be describing is what we call a soliton wave. (there was an episode in ST/TNG where this was a method of a space craft riding this wave to super luminal speeds. AKA, warp drive without a warp drive). In the late eighties this was very heady stuff in the "real" physics community.

Basicly, a soliton wave is what is sometimes called a harmonic focus. In concept, this means you create a self-reinforcing field effect. Once started, by using a burst of energy of a type that takes advantage of the ability to propagate accross a given medium with out energy degradation to quickly. This is not some perpetual motion machine nonsense. In time the energy of the wave will degrade. It just takes a lot longer. A soliton wave is self-reinforcing, but it's not immortal.

reply to post by b309302


Yes but gravity is still lost from real space into the brane space, or hyperspace. This is a pretty well accepted postulate in the theoretical physics community. So what I am saying is you would need to find some way of negating the loss of gravity for this to work in any practical sense IMHO.

Also you must also consider the fact that we may be tethered to a brane, instead of resting on one, so you would have to assume that 12-d superstring theory is correct, as opposed to 11-d m-theory.

I too would like to take a look at the math you are using (I am majoring in cosmology), as I said it is an interesting theory. There are many interesting FTL concepts that have been drawn up, but the main problem is always one, how to test them, and two, how to build an "engine" capable of achieving said effects.

[edit on 1/25/2010 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by b309302

 

Yes but gravity is still lost from real space into the brane space, or hyperspace. This is a pretty well accepted postulate in the theoretical physics community. So what I am saying is you would need to find some way of negating the loss of gravity for this to work in any practical sense IMHO.

J, I thought you just posted in another thread they were trying to prove that with the LHC, so if it's not proven yet, is it really that well accepted? It really doesn't sound too plausible to me but if they come up with some experimental results to prove it I'll be reviewing that.

@b309302, I agree with most of what metamagic said, there's not a lot about this theory that makes sense. And the fact that you are trying to distinguish between whether gravity is pushing or pulling shows some confusion and lack of clarity in thinking, if you show your math, we can see the vector magnitude and direction, and the words push or pull become irrelevant. The math should eliminate that confusion.

So please show your math.

I still like the Alcubierre drive as a model for faster than light travel:

It seems to allow for faster than light travel without traveling faster than light locally, by warping space. Nobody knows how to build it, but at least the math makes some sense, as least I understand the math of that much better than your math. But maybe if you show your math I'll understand that too.

I'll throw in my 2¢.

Unlike electromagnetic force that works on a cube, such that you can convieniently flip-flop the polarity, gravitic force works on a square principle doesn't it? So the result always seems to be positive.

Also mass and energy are the same, as in the formula E=mc². So gravity is probably some kind of artifact related to energy density (like capacitance on the electrical side), and I suspect another form of inertia that's exhibited by a rest mass. (In other words there's movement within the mass to account for momentum even though the mass itself is not moving. So mass always has it's own acceleration component even if Newtonian stuff doesn't account for it, spin perhaps?)

Now I think that if you could somehow make imaginary mass (imaginary as in i=√(-1) ), then you could produce an antigravity effect. (The squaring would cause a negative value wouldn't it?) Since there isn't any imaginary mass that I know of, that seems tricky. But I think if this applied to energy, you might be able produce an useful imaginary value. Certain principles applied to induction and electronics use imaginary numbers to account for working results. If you could figure a way to make it apply to a mass (remember mass is another form of energy) as an effective multiplier value - then you might have it licked. (This might explain what's going on with some scalar based stuff, even if the quality of public documentation is lacking. Just be wary about EM/RF energy possibly cooking ya if you're not sure what you're doing.)

Of course I'm not a physicist, mathematician, nor electrical engineer. So you can take this idea with a grain of salt. (Or you can try throwing known principles and numbers at it to see if anything sticks. Sometimes the average Joes have uncanny insight that more complex thinkers have missed.)

Also I think the LHC probably is the closest bet to explaining the gravity thing in current mainstream science. If they can figure out what's going on, with the complicated stuff - then hopefully the principles will be able to be reduced into simplified methods for useful applications. Of course some person in a garage somewhere just might beat them to it, you never know.

On a side note: I suspect a lot of people would bug out soon after first opportunity to access decent working gravitics. Nothing to do with Earth. Earth really is (was?) a nice planet. The problem is people running things have ruined a lot of it, and who wouldn't want to get away from them?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It is pretty well accepted via the mathematics, but still needs to be physically proven. The math works, but we need to prove it physically first. Most mainstream physicist accept at least something similar to the leading version of M-Theory.