Poll: Should Faster than Light propulsion technology be released to the public?

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Bobbox1980

 

That still doesn't mean anything. We might as well be asking if the US should release, to the public domain, their infinite sandwich technology, where they can make a sandwich of infinite proportions. Cheese only, though, obviously.

Of course, it would take at least 200 years to perfect the Subway Cold Cut Trio of infinite proportions...

I'll settle for a monstrous grilled cheese until then

reply to post by Bobbox1980


Half these drivers suck at driving up to 80 km. Do you seriously want people handling a vehicle that could reach those speeds? Really?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

However this theory in no way proves that FTL travel is possible as davesidious said.

I realize Extended Heim Theory and the alcubierre warp drive concept do not prove FTL is possible, they remain untested theories. But those theories combined with the eyewitness testimony regarding the McCandlish ARV does make for compelling evidence. To my knowledge no one has shown McCandlish to be a hoaxer, fraudster, or liar. The theories and the ARV are not physical tangible proof but they are testable which would allow the tester to create the proof themselves.

But I think what makes this thread off topic in the science and technology section, is going beyond the science of the Alcubierre drive and assuming that the government has such technology and asking what the government should do with it.

If EHT and the warp drive concept are correct then it dramatically increases the odds that the ARV is a real craft manufactured by defense contractors for our government. The odds that the ARV was a made up story at that point would be incredibly small, what are the chances someone would make up a story about the components of a FTL craft that just so happened to have the correct components to achieve FTL? If EHT and the warp drive concept proved correct it would still not be physical tangible proof that the U.S. government had built such craft but it would be incredibly compelling evidence in my opinion.

reply to post by andre18

No matter how secretly advanced we might have gotten over the past few decades, we simply haven't reached that point yet and i doubt we ever will.

That is awfully cynical. The theories and eyewitness testimony behind FTL technology I am espousing is not proof but imo it is compelling evidence that is testable and reproducible. You can choose to ignore it if you wish but I would never say never if I were you.

reply to post by davesidious

That still doesn't mean anything. We might as well be asking if the US should release, to the public domain, their infinite sandwich technology, where they can make a sandwich of infinite proportions.

And you said my position was irrational...

I am talking about compelling evidence that is testable and reproducible, you flat out made up your claim about the sandwich maker, offered no theories to explain how it would work and no eyewitness testimony claiming to have seen such a sandwich maker making infinite sized sandwiches.

Perhaps I have not explained Extended Heim Theory adequately or clearly, perhaps I have not explained the alcubierre warp drive concept adequately or clearly, perhaps I have not shown the specific parts of the ARV and where the dents and hills in spacetime would be created on the craft adequately or clearly.

If that is the case then I would encourage you to read up on these theories and the McCandlish ARV. I can give you links if you wish or you can go to my profile and check out my posts in other threads which have many links.

If the problem for you is lack of physical tangible proof, I cannot help you. As it stands propulsion technologies are reviewed by the patent office for reasons of National Security. It stands to reason that the MacDaddy of them all, the King of the Hill, FTL propulsion would have the highest secrecy of all propulsion technologies and would be among the 5000 odd patents that have not been issued for reasons of National Security.

I started this thread not to debate the existence of the technology but to gauge the average person's view on whether or not it should be released.


Everyone who reads this thread Please Take My Poll.

I seriously doubt that such technology exists, and even if it did, would the human body withstand such speeds? I doubt this also.

reply to post by Equinox99

Half these drivers suck at driving up to 80 km. Do you seriously want people handling a vehicle that could reach those speeds? Really?

I imagine the flying of the vehicles would be handled by computer. Airplanes have autopilot, why wouldn't flying cars? Maybe there would be some open airspace which would allow people to fly freely not under computer control or slower models would be allowed to fly free from computer control but people not flying for recreation would just use autopilot.

P.S. If you haven't taken my poll, please do so. I have a lot of "Yes, it is time for humankind to travel the stars" votes but I am concerned that those who disagree with the technology going public are voicing their concerns in the forum but are not voting in the poll.

So far among 34 votes, 89% are in favor of releasing the technology to the public.

reply to post by Bobbox1980


Stating a non-peer-reviewed hypothesis (as it is not a theory) does not mean ANYTHING.

There is no evidence of FTL travel, and no evidence that it is possible. That is why this discussion is abjectly pointless.

reply to post by davesidious

Stating a non-peer-reviewed hypothesis (as it is not a theory) does not mean ANYTHING.

Extended Heim Theory has already been used to predict particle masses and with more accuracy than currently accepted physics theories.

The German team of Droscher and Hauser submitted a paper on their work on Extended Heim Theory to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (an organization composed of engineers for American aerospace companies) back in 2004 and won a best paper award from the Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion category. This German team has been giving presentations to the AIAA ever since.

Not all of EHT's predictions have been proven like its claims on gravitophotons and ability to use them for FTL propulsion but some have like the particle mass predictions.

I get the feeling that you are completely unwilling to look at the theories or the McCandlish ARV evidence. That your mind is already made up, evidence be damned. Suit yourself.

Myself? When the single greatest lead on how to create FTL propulsion crosses my eyeballs, I am not willing to just dismiss and ignore it. I have not seen a better lead, have you?

There is no evidence of FTL travel, and no evidence that it is possible. That is why this discussion is abjectly pointless.

There is evidence of FTL travel, there is no physical tangible proof but there is evidence. McCandlish said a 3 star general was at the exhibit and claimed the ARV could go faster than the speed of light. Last time I checked testimony was considered evidence.

This discussion is very important and one that as a nation we need to have. Even if these theories turn out to be wrong, the ARV turns out to be a hoax, and the government does not have this technology, if FTL is possible we will likely someday have the technology. When that day arrives what should our government do?

Should the technology be made public or should it be kept hidden?

Our government is supposed to be by, for, and of the people. I am interested to know where the people stand on the issue.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Bobbox1980]

Originally posted by jephers0n

Amazing that you, in your infinite wisdom, seem to have such amazing precognitional skills, to be able to say with 100% certainty that our race will in no way travel to remote galaxies, nor meet any type of 'Alien' beings, ever.

I guess we can send probes but no, not personally we can't. If you can figure out how to turn a person into light and then turn it back to normal get back to me ok lol

So amazing of you to produce irrefutable evidence to prove that what you say is the absolute truth.

Not evidence, but simple reasoning. The only way i'm even able to even think of it being possible, is if we invented an AI that figures it out for us. But we as a human race will never figure it out on our own. But you know what, it's not up to me to prove it can be done, it's up to you to prove it can be done, you're the one making the damned claim.

Otherwise i could say it's up to you to disprove something that hasn't been proven. You can't disprove a negative. I can't say it's not possible to go faster then light until you give me an example of how it is possible. Until then there's nothing to go on, all i can do is tell you it's not possible because of the lack of evidence.

Otherwise, i could say it's possible to turn our eyes into small little universes in the future and you'd be like that's absurd and i'd be like well, Mr who knows everythin tell me how it's not possible -

"Prove to me that it is indeed IMPOSSIBLE FOR ALL TIME, and I will concede, and immdediately cease to believe in the unknown, as you do. I will immediately say that the human race knows EVERYTHING about the universe, and its inner-workings. I will immediately claim to know the highest reaches of our technologies, AS WELL AS how effective these technologies will EVER grow to be."

reply to post by Bobbox1980


The hypothesis has not been peer reviewed, so it's just a hypothesis, and not even close to being a scientific theory. You can say what you want, but until that has been rectified, this discussion is pointless.

A passing remark to FTL travel being possible is anecdotal evidence, if even that.

There is no evidence the technology exists, and no half-understanding of a scientific hypothesis, or some claimed words from some claimed source proves otherwise.

If you can't even adhere to scientific rigour, please keep this nonsense out of the Science & Technology forum.

Originally posted by davesidious


If you can't even adhere to scientific rigour, please keep this nonsense out of the Science & Technology forum.

Well, THIS explains my problem here. I thought this was in skunk works, as it seemed to me to be a hypothetical situation from the thread title.

I'll bow out of this one, as, it's true, FTL is impossible for us to achieve, at present.

Originally posted by jephers0n

Originally posted by davesidious


If you can't even adhere to scientific rigour, please keep this nonsense out of the Science & Technology forum.

Well, THIS explains my problem here. I thought this was in skunk works, as it seemed to me to be a hypothetical situation from the thread title.

I'll bow out of this one, as, it's true, FTL is impossible for us to achieve, at present.

Yes I agree this thread belongs in skunk works, per my earlier post:

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

But I think what makes this thread off topic in the science and technology section, is going beyond the science of the Alcubierre drive and assuming that the government has such technology and asking what the government should do with it.So without showing that the government has FTL tech, I would suggest that such a claim with no proof would be better suited for the skunk works forum, rather than the science and technology forum.

If EHT and the warp drive concept are correct then it dramatically increases the odds that the ARV is a real craft manufactured by defense contractors for our government. The odds that the ARV was a made up story at that point would be incredibly small, what are the chances someone would make up a story about the components of a FTL craft that just so happened to have the correct components to achieve FTL? If EHT and the warp drive concept proved correct it would still not be physical tangible proof that the U.S. government had built such craft but it would be incredibly compelling evidence in my opinion.

That sounds like a circular argument to me. You already admitted we don't have any tangible proof FTL is possible, so what's so amazing about somebody making up a story that doesn't conflict with something else, what if it's all made up? I'd say the chances are pretty good, to answer your question.

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
There is evidence of FTL travel, there is no physical tangible proof but there is evidence. McCandlish said a 3 star general was at the exhibit and claimed the ARV could go faster than the speed of light. Last time I checked testimony was considered evidence.

McCandlish saying what someone else told him would be considered hearsay, and I think that is usually considered such poor evidence it is generally not allowed in court cases as evidence, partly because the source is not there to be cross examined for clarification. But to discuss scientifically supported concepts, we are talking about evidence that scientists can independently repeat relevant experiments, and I think you agree there is no such evidence, so perhaps you SHOULD ask the mods to move this thread to skunk works.

But this thread wasn't a total waste, dave gave me a great idea for an infinite sandwich tech, so I'm going to start working on that theory. But I need really good evidence, so how about if I say a 4 star general is working with me on it, that sounds even better than just a 3 star general right?

reply to post by bargoose

I seriously doubt that such technology exists, and even if it did, would the human body withstand such speeds? I doubt this also.

The alcubierre warp drive effect leaves spacetime flat within the craft and the craft does not experience acceleration forces because within the warped spacetime the craft is not moving, spacetime is whats moving.

reply to post by davesidious

The hypothesis has not been peer reviewed, so it's just a hypothesis, and not even close to being a scientific theory. You can say what you want, but until that has been rectified, this discussion is pointless.

I would argue that the AIAA committee peer reviewed EHT before they awarded the German team.

You keep saying this discussion is pointless and these theories and ARV testimony don't mean anything even though they are the single greatest lead the scientific community has ever had to create FTL propulsion. You are unwilling to budge a smidgen, unwilling to acknowledge that it is the greatest lead so far even though you have been unable to offer a better alternative.

It is one thing to say EHT and the alcubierre warp drive are untested hypotheses, it is another to say they are nonsense, or they aren't anything and discussing them is pointless. It is one thing to say testimony on the ARV is not proof, it is another to say it is nonsense, it isn't anything and discussing it is pointless.

I am reminded of a quote from Einstein:

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.

The Skunkworks forum is for all manner of bat# crazy ideas with no grounding whatsoever in science or evidence, that is not the case here.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

That sounds like a circular argument to me. You already admitted we don't have any tangible proof FTL is possible, so what's so amazing about somebody making up a story that doesn't conflict with something else, what if it's all made up? I'd say the chances are pretty good, to answer your question.

Mark McCandlish gave his testimony to the Disclosure Project back in 2001. At that time McCandlish's beliefs (the ARV exhibit did not explain how it worked) on how the ARV worked were the Biefeld Brown effect and Zero Point energy which you can read in his testimony. McCandlish barely uttered a word about the flywheel in his testimony clearly because he thought it held no significance.

In 2001 Heim Theory did not have a proposed experiment of a rotating mass above a powerful electromagnetic coil. It wasn't until 2004 with the development of Extended Heim Theory by Droscher and Hauser that the proposed experiment involving a very powerful electromagnetic coil and flywheel spinning above it were proposed.

McCandlish saying what someone else told him would be considered hearsay

I think it's safe to say that the General would deny making the statement.

But to discuss scientifically supported concepts, we are talking about evidence that scientists can independently repeat relevant experiments, and I think you agree there is no such evidence

That is not true.

If one were to construct a 20 Tesla magnetic coil and spin a flywheel above that coil with an outer surface speed of 250 meters/sec, Extended Heim Theory does have equations to predict the amount of force that would be generated up, parallel to the axis of rotation of the flywheel.

This is a testable theory that makes predictions.