The difficulties of interstellar travel and the implausibility of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I like others have mentioned believe the key ingredient to this is gravity used in some manner.

Gravity is EVERYWHERE in the universe, so if some craft were able to measure the gravitational fields around it, and "charge" itself in such a manner as to repel itself from one gravitational field, and attract itself to another, then you should see movement.

There is then the debate of how fast does gravity propagate, subluminal / postluminal speeds, but even ignoring this fact, it should if possible be able to generate enough speed to make local and near exasystem travel possible.

I have nothing to back this theory up, just speculation from a night of "thinking" a while ago


Btw, I LOVED the comment whoever said it about "not enough hay to feed the horses for interstellar travel " if this argument was brought up 200 years ago....lmao!




posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Tell that to them.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
It's highly plausible that ET's have visited our planet over the years due to many witnessed UFO sighting's, including my own perported alien starship sighting, back one night in 1976, approx. 40 miles west of Washgington D.C.

Since then...it has given me plenty of time to speculate about how starships function in our atmosphere and beyond. I'll save my speculation on how starships function in our atmosphere for another day --- save for my conclusion that since I''ve seen one --- they {otherworlders} would have to have a starship that is capable of superluminal speeds, since the likelyhood of such a civilization coming from our own star system is nil.

The probability of a superluminal capable starship using photons for fuel --- should be high --- because photons are probably a 99% unlimitless fuel in our universe. That given...the starship would need a gravitational pull that attracts photons, and expells them with tremendous thrust --- that would easily get the starship up to the speed of light --- and increase speed exponentially squared, to many times the speed of light; into the superluminal realm.

In the superluminal realm...the starship would need a magnetic field to protect itself and the passengers --- that would negate the effects of faster than light speeds. The only way for the starship to have both photon propulsion/magnetic field would be a photon engine that mimics the effect of some black holes.

We can possibly create a black hole in a collider --- but otherwise --- a civilization might have to travel to an existing black hole, pulverize it, grab a piece and tractor beam it to some refinery on some isolated asteriod. It would then be pulverized into smaller particles --- some particles given a negative/positive charge {inorder to stop the particles from coming back together} and spread the black hole particles into a molten ceramic plate; which could be {when solidified} the bottom hull of a saucer starship.

The saucer would be eguipped with a photon receptor {which is aimed at a star or galaxy} which funnels the starlight photons towards the black hole dust infused ceramic plate --- and is expelled from the starship through various directional thruster ports with tremendous thrust!!!

Cheers,

Erno86



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Erno86
 


Physics isn't my strong point but aren't photons devoid of mass ? They'd have no effect on your velocity.

Also any energy spent on demolishing a black hole would merely end up making it bigger, I'm pretty sure they're immune to all forms of real or imagined interference. You wouldn't even be able to get within it's event horizon before ending up a part of it.

Oddly enough though if you had an infinte piece of string tied to a generator you could theoretically have unlimited energy if you threw one end into a black hole - you would of course end up with an infinitly big black hole!
edit on 18-3-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: typo



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Well I just had to throw up this new thread and headline.... Miniature Black Holes easier to create then thought.

New little info for those who talk about the inability to create or contain a singularity. Here's an off site link to the same story. Creating black holes easier then thought. Source is Live Science, as well as the original thread of course.
edit on 18-3-2013 by Shark_Feeder because: Bad grammar...and spelling.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


Quadrillion times more energy than the hadron collider can generate to create one, in theory.

Would only last for millionths of a second, according to Hawkings.

Not really much use other than proving a theory about dimensions.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
If you look back through history, for everything they said was untrue or couldn't happen, happened. so now as time and technology is still in its infancy we still have these theorists telling us it cant or wont happen because its impossible,yet most of us believe in a god ,a son, and a holy ghost that's never been seen, unquestionably.

with that being stated..everything's possible, because if it wasn't, the aliens and their spacecraft wouldn't be here advancing our civilization and we wouldnt be on the internet talking about it


just think of space travel as the internet and you'll understand how its done



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Not really much use other than proving a theory about dimensions.


At this point in our time I have to agree with you....but proving a Theory correct has major bonuses for science. Remember, relavtivity was only an equation and a strange concept at one point in our past.


This opens up the possibility of creating singularites, and containing them...That alone will be a game changer; with a potentially huge impact on space travel, and energy production alone.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Urantia1111
I don't think scientists know everything there is to know about space or physics. In fact id estimate their comprehension of the universe at practically zero percent. Our pathetic species is barely out of the jungle technologically. We've only been engaged in heavy industry for a couple hundred years. You really think that's all the time we need? Our understanding of existance is in the fetal stages at best. In short, its WAY too early for Man to be spouting off about what's "impossible".


That may be true, but you're falling into the same illogical trap that all of the other believers are on this thread. Indeed, there is so much more to learn, which is fascinating. However, that does not at all mean what we currently is know is outright wrong.

The physics that governs everyday life is fully understood. This is where any practical applications in the near or distant future will come from. The few area we have to fill in (intergalactic distances, planck scale, etc) will never lead to anything practical.

I highly suggest you read a more indepth analysis of this in this [url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/]article[/ url] by renowned cosmologist Sean Carroll.

There will be no inertial dampeners, mass manipulators, space warps, and all of the other nonsense that has remained in science-fiction for the past 50 years. Using the fact that there is much we still don't understand as a justification for these fantasies is a non-sequtiur.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos
The physics that governs everyday life is fully understood. This is where any practical applications in the near or distant future will come from. The few area we have to fill in (intergalactic distances, planck scale, etc) will never lead to anything practical.


Wow really? We understand it? I do believe that your hubris is showing my friend...remember when Einstein was in school Issac Newton suppossedly understood the whole universe... and the same thing for Einstein with Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking.

When I hear, or read things like this I always think of Yahoo Serious in the movie "Young Einstein" when he tells the flabbergasted nobel foundation that "newton is wrong".



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 



Here's an interesting Open Uni perspective on how long it would take for humanity to colonise the galaxy using available, or soon to be, technology. Turns out it's only 1 million years at 10th speed of light. Not sure if it's right as my brains too dead to do the maths.

OU Galactic colonisation idea
edit on 18-3-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by Erno86
 


Physics isn't my strong point but aren't photons devoid of mass ? They'd have no effect on your velocity.

Also any energy spent on demolishing a black hole would merely end up making it bigger, I'm pretty sure they're immune to all forms of real or imagined interference. You wouldn't even be able to get within it's event horizon before ending up a part of it.

Oddly enough though if you had an infinte piece of string tied to a generator you could theoretically have unlimited energy if you threw one end into a black hole - you would of course end up with an infinitly big black hole!
edit on 18-3-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: typo



Photons have zero rest mass --- the photon has no rest mass. You can grab a flashlight --- turn it on --- and the resulting photons exhibit thrust from the flashlight.


Alternative theorys of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a "massive" photon. Photons are traditionally said to be massless, this is a figure of speech.
In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E=pc.
Source: photon mass {Wiki}



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Erno86
 


Well yes but you'd need a surface to direct your photons at to gain thrust. You'd also need a sun in the back of your space ship to get any kind of usable force.The pressure exerted on earth at 1 AU is pretty feeble 9.15 µPa (µN/m²). Using the solar radiation from the sun , using solar sails you can cut the time taken to get to pluto ( v conventional rockets) by 1/4 to 1/2. It's an acumulative effect

Ultimatly you'd still be confined by Einstein - to try get to faster than light speeds you'd just end up creating a black hole, asuming you had the energy to go for it in the first place.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
About the difficulty of producing antimatter, it was first assumed that antimatter for space travel would be positrons until someone pointed out that the energy they produce is in the form of gamma rays. So science fiction, to avoid that, started referring to antiprotons. But the fact remains that positrons are hugely easier and cheaper to produce and pack the same punch gram for gram as antiprotons, which don't really "burn cleaner" than positrons, anyway. Gamma rays are not nice, admittedly. Just watch where you point that thing. And positrons are easier to contain. So the mainstream thinking about antimatter is way off base. NASA agrees with me on that, and there is positron-rocket R&D going on.

The NASA article linked below mentions $250 million worth of positrons for a Mars mission, not the trillions assumed for positrons. But I would rather see positrons for spacecraft fuel manufactured in space from sunlight, using a large array of sausage-shaped balloons (transparent on one side for sunlight to enter and silvered on the opposite inner surface to act as a concentrating mirror aimed at a collector in the center of each balloon. That's to avoid the danger of antimatter explosions on Earth at the factory or at the launchpad. It's similar to the new trough solar arrays being build now in deserts, but in space you can get away with using balloons. And positron production has become far easier than previously imagined, thanks to the discovery that 1-mm gold plate zapped with a very powerful laser produces a shower of positrons. And scientists have said that developing magnetic bottles to store positrons is doable if funded.

The NASA article doesn't cover all that, but here it is:

New and Improved Antimatter Spaceship for Mars Mission



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
No, he's right guys. Let's pack it up.

I'm headed back to the cave. I'll just be waiting there. Waiting for the Sun to eventually burn up all life in our Solar System.

Darn shame all those physics. We almost started something here in this little slice of the Galaxy, but oh wells.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Well, okay, but consider that my first hard drive was 10MB (Winchester) and cost $1,500. That's $150/MB in 1981. My last hard drive was 1,000,000MB (1 TB) and cost in the neighborhood of $150. That's 1.5 thousands of one cent per MB. To be more serious, of course, the distances involved in space are of a far greater scale and cannot be overcome using traditional mechanics. It might help to know that c is NOT the speed limit of the universe and that Einstein's field equations are bunk. But it doesn't help, you just can't go that fast.

Maybe it helps to know that these little space critters, aka gray aliens, and their ships can mutate in and out of this dimension. The trouble with that is that these are demons in reality, and it isn't likely they can blaze around the physical universe as easily as they want us to think. Nor do they seem in much of hurry to be letting us in on their secrets.

It makes a lot more sense to ignore Stephen Hawking's claims that there is no God. If you become born again, you're well aware that there's only one worthwhile destination at the greatest possible distance from here, and it requires no money and no propellant at all other than the holy spirit. Been der, done dat, and going back.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I remember back in the dark ages when they thought that everything in the universe was originally created from some super hot/dense primeval atom that suddenly exploded and eventually formed quadrillions of super massive stars and planets ... lol ... all from this little, ultramicroscopic, tiny atom floating in empty, vast vacuum of space.

Oh wait. Never mind. That wasn't the dark ages. That's the current scientifically accepted theory.

I'd say "lol", but honestly ... I don't find it funny. Seriously guys? That's the best you can give me? Some crap about cosmic microwave background and thermal radiation to substantiate someone's best guess?

Just say, "We have no freaking idea". I'd feel much better with that answer.

My point being: Our understanding of the Universe, the means by which it functions and the rules that govern it are going to change a lot of the next 1000 years (as it has over just these past 100 years). And I certainly hope we don't have a bunch of naysayers sitting around telling us, "Hey! You can't cross that ocean, you'll fall off the edge of the world!" all the while we're trying to experiment with and explore the unknown aspects of our Universe.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
here's an interesting analysis of the stan romanek equations (yeah yeah please spare me your "fake!" cries), for people interested in the subject of time travel, bending time and zero point propulsion
synchronizeduniverse.com...
edit on 19-3-2013 by ZeroPropulsion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroPropulsion
here's an interesting analysis of the stan romanek equations (yeah yeah please spare me your "fake!" cries), for people interested in the subject of time travel, bending time and zero point propulsion
synchronizeduniverse.com...
edit on 19-3-2013 by ZeroPropulsion because: (no reason given)


Dr. Claude Swanson... physicist-turned-paranormal enthusiast.

I would count his assessment of the Romanekuations as less than objective. His current gig seems to be acting as a traveling endorsement for all things pseudoscientific.
edit on 19-3-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


If we look at ET reports and mythology only a very few of the ancient ones would suggest the use of rocket engines. That alone is interesting as the use of rockets would signify close proximity. Note that even if we had lunched a multi-generation ship to Alpha-Century (4.37 light years) after "getting to the moon" we would had to use rocket engines to land at the destination.


Who is to say you need to go that far with rockets? Just because reality works a certain way here do not mean it does it everywhere. We can be in a local reality bubble where certain effects are dampened. People cannot even prove the effect that is close to the idea of chakras. Trusting humanity to know the truth at this stage in time is to think a monkey in the jungle knows anything about how life in a city works.

That you OP for your view, it is very logical from certain assumptions that cannot be proven.
edit on 19-3-2013 by LittleByLittle because: Spellchecking





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join