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.
I figured that chances of interplanetary travel is nil if a craft required more than one type of propulsion; one to drive it through space, and another to travel in an atmosphere.
Originally posted by boncho
Originally posted by rigel4
Originally posted by boncho
Originally posted by n00bUK
reply to post by boncho
But...they're not real(?)
I think you might be on to something.
Really........ You should just accept that you're wrong and shutup.
Sarcastic humour, boncho, I was kidding with ya
In what way was I wrong?
Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by Cosmic911
I figured that chances of interplanetary travel is nil if a craft required more than one type of propulsion; one to drive it through space, and another to travel in an atmosphere.
The main issue with interplanetary travel is the distance, which will eventually dictate the propulsion type. Getting into the atmosphere can be accomplished without a propulsion.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Larryman
They have already produced light from ZPE (vacuum energy).
How much energy did they use to "produce" that light?
Originally posted by Larryman
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Larryman
They have already produced light from ZPE (vacuum energy).
How much energy did they use to "produce" that light?
The article does not state the amount of energy input.
"Moving mirrors make light from nothing"
www.nature.com...
But the input energy is irrelevant, if no portion of it is passed on to the output light energy. That would only be a measure of efficency... which could improve with further improved techniques - like spinning magnetic super-conductors, to replace the shaking mirrors, for instance.
edit on 10/10/2011 by Larryman because: (no reason given)
But the input energy is irrelevant, if no portion of it is passed on to the output light energy. That would only be a measure of efficency... which could improve with further improved techniques - like spinning magnetic super-conductors, to replace the shaking mirrors, for instance.
While there's ample reason to be skeptical, the inability of a ship to have multiple means of propulsion isn't a sticking point.
Originally posted by Cosmic911
The point of the original question, which I guess I should have clarified, was to help establish (or debunk) the possibility of extraterrestrial life travelling to Earth in space. I was trying to figure out how realistic the possibility is. Not understanding propulsion, anti-gravity, physics, etc, I figured that chances of interplanetary travel is nil if a craft required more than one type of propulsion; one to drive it through space, and another to travel in an atmosphere.
Originally posted by Cosmic911
Originally posted by n00bUK
reply to post by boncho
But...they're not real(?)
The point of the original question, which I guess I should have clarified, was to help establish (or debunk) the possibility of extraterrestrial life travelling to Earth in space. I was trying to figure out how realistic the possibility is. Not understanding propulsion, anti-gravity, physics, etc, I figured that chances of interplanetary travel is nil if a craft required more than one type of propulsion; one to drive it through space, and another to travel in an atmosphere.
I was surprised to read a statement such as "there is now gravity in space".