Diametric Drive works!

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Do you think this technology could be applied to ion thrusters?

i think that proving reaction and action can be subject to disjunction in photons makes it more probably that the same could be done for other systems. so indirectly at least; you could say that.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: stormcell

So, if we can figure out how to reduce/alter the mass of an object...then it would become much easier to move it to relativistic speeds? Did I get that right?

Reduction would not work. If you want to reach SOL you need zero mass. Otherwise it requires infinite energy no matter the mass. it's 0 or bust.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

If i comprehend this correctly, the Higgs particle can be thought of as a 'matter mass seed'..a bit like a tiny grain of dust in the atmosphere will attract water molecules and a water droplet will form around the grain of dust until it has sufficient mass to fall as rain.

IOW, the higgs creates a 'mass seed'...the mass of which attracts more mass, like in the raindrop analogy?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

So essentially the drive would allow us to circumvent the light speed barrier by way of reduction of mass so that the amount of energy required to travel faster is no longer infinite?

What happens if the ship/probe collide's with some form of debris or particles traveling at near superluminal velocity considering the reduction in mass?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Nochzwei

So...finding the Higgs and understanding it could lead to FTL or near light speed travel?!

Hm...I'm wondering if in some secret government research facility they've already been working on mass reduction technologies...

Actually imo higgs does not exist, as you cannot create a particle out of time itself. Yes you can achieve ftl or even instant travel, if you set the time to zero, or completely stop time
As for govt labs. who knows. But I do know that they mess with your life, if you take a step out of line and go into gravity research.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stormbringer1701

At a glance this "optical diametric drive" requires particles of negative mass to be theoretically possible. How would we create such particles?

Since mass is derived from space-time density... it would be impossible....

The moment you take mass to it's ultimate density of 0.... it disperses to energy... which are simply propagated waves across space-time. A shockwave if you like... increasing of universal inflation.

Korg.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: stormbringer1701

If i comprehend this correctly, the Higgs particle can be thought of as a 'matter mass seed'..a bit like a tiny grain of dust in the atmosphere will attract water molecules and a water droplet will form around the grain of dust until it has sufficient mass to fall as rain.

IOW, the higgs creates a 'mass seed'...the mass of which attracts more mass, like in the raindrop analogy?

except for a few particles the way higgs allegedly adds mass is in a pervasive field in space or a sea. when something moves in space the higgs field resists the move. this resistance is felt as mass increase of the moving object. kind of like moving in molasses. some of the molasses sticks to you (intrinsic mass.) but even the molasses that does not stick to you impedes your movement. However the higgs they found does not actually seem to do that. thus they think there is more than one higgs particle. and the search is on.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stormbringer1701

At a glance this "optical diametric drive" requires particles of negative mass to be theoretically possible. How would we create such particles?

Since mass is derived from space-time density... it would be impossible....

The moment you take mass to it's ultimate density of 0.... it disperses to energy... which are simply propagated waves across space-time. A shockwave if you like... increasing of universal inflation.

Korg.

if it is impossible why have they found real examples of negative energy in several ways? and why are they looking for evidence of negative deflection around some celestial objects? why is negative energy and mass needed to make the standard model work? without the negative bare mass in the sources side of the equation no description of matter actually makes sense.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Nochzwei

So...finding the Higgs and understanding it could lead to FTL or near light speed travel?!

Hm...I'm wondering if in some secret government research facility they've already been working on mass reduction technologies...

Actually imo higgs does not exist, as you cannot create a particle out of time itself. Yes you can achieve ftl or even instant travel, if you set the time to zero, or completely stop time
As for govt labs. who knows. But I do know that they mess with your life, if you take a step out of line and go into gravity research.

mucking about with higgs is not the only way to alter mass. the presently known higgs really does not do what they thought it would.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think you are probably right about the research going on.

What are your thoughts about exploiting Mach's inertial principals? Mach Effect. Mach effect shielding. Woodward's work on transient mass fluctuations. ... Etc?

Also, sorta off on a tangent here. Ever notice if you sketch out Lazar's "Sport Model" components and workings, (if the terminology of said components were changed to the format and medium of Woodwards patents), looks a whole lot more like a mass fluctuation inertial impulse woodward-esque drive than some sort of gravity drive?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So essentially the drive would allow us to circumvent the light speed barrier by way of reduction of mass so that the amount of energy required to travel faster is no longer infinite?

What happens if the ship/probe collide's with some form of debris or particles traveling at near superluminal velocity considering the reduction in mass?

can a zero mass object collide with anything? but if it could then the energy would be enough to destroy a planet and fling the rubble out of the galaxy. but you also have to bear in mind that inertial mass is not the only reason there is a light speed barrier.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stormbringer1701

At a glance this "optical diametric drive" requires particles of negative mass to be theoretically possible. How would we create such particles?

Since mass is derived from space-time density... it would be impossible....

The moment you take mass to it's ultimate density of 0.... it disperses to energy... which are simply propagated waves across space-time. A shockwave if you like... increasing of universal inflation.

Korg.

if it is impossible why have they found real examples of negative energy in several ways? and why are they looking for evidence of negative deflection around some celestial objects? why is negative energy and mass needed to make the standard model work? without the negative bare mass in the sources side of the equation no description of matter actually makes sense.

Negative energy is not the same as negative mass. Negative energy simply put is energy that has a negative charge... There are many many real world examples of negative energy..... Gravity being a chief example among these.

And no you are compltely wrong...

There is every evidence to suggest that when all mass and energy within the universe is added together that indeed the equations balanced out to zero.... that does not mean there has to be an exact negative of each force or mass... it simply means that if all the universe were converted to energy all the forces and matter would cancel each other out entirely.

To coin a phrase... the Universe is the ultimate free lunch.....

a reply to: stormbringer1701

"Can a zero mass object collide with anything?"

That was kind of my point. Another interesting question would be if an object of zero mass did somehow manage to collide with another object of zero mass, what would happen? Would they simply pass through one another or would they somehow interact given the fact that they posses similar mass/the same mass?

"But you also have to bear in mind that inertial mass is not the only reason there is a light speed barrier."

I imagine there is only a barrier due to our understanding of what constitutes infinity. End of the day we still work from the premise that 1+1=2. Our understanding of mathematics, and the manner in which we quantify values still leaves a lot to be desired.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stormbringer1701

At a glance this "optical diametric drive" requires particles of negative mass to be theoretically possible. How would we create such particles?

Since mass is derived from space-time density... it would be impossible....

The moment you take mass to it's ultimate density of 0.... it disperses to energy... which are simply propagated waves across space-time. A shockwave if you like... increasing of universal inflation.

Korg.

if it is impossible why have they found real examples of negative energy in several ways? and why are they looking for evidence of negative deflection around some celestial objects? why is negative energy and mass needed to make the standard model work? without the negative bare mass in the sources side of the equation no description of matter actually makes sense.

Negative energy is not the same as negative mass. Negative energy simply put is energy that has a negative charge... There are many many real world examples of negative energy..... Gravity being a chief example among these.

And no you are compltely wrong...

There is every evidence to suggest that when all mass and energy within the universe is added together that indeed the equations balanced out to zero.... that does not mean there has to be an exact negative of each force or mass... it simply means that if all the universe were converted to energy all the forces and matter would cancel each other out entirely.

To coin a phrase... the Universe is the ultimate free lunch.....

energy and mass are equivalent. see EEP. furthermore without negative mass the mass of ordinary particles would be infinite and there would consequently be no universe.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stormbringer1701

"Can a zero mass object collide with anything?"

That was kind of my point. Another interesting question would be if an object of zero mass did somehow manage to collide with another object of zero mass, what would happen? Would they simply pass through one another or would they somehow interact given the fact that they posses similar mass/the same mass?

"But you also have to bear in mind that inertial mass is not the only reason there is a light speed barrier."

I imagine there is only a barrier due to our understanding of what constitutes infinity. End of the day we still work from the premise that 1+1=2. Our understanding of mathematics, and the manner in which we quantify values still leaves a lot to be desired.

well i have said elsewhere that these other limits may be more a philosophical law than a physical law. but that remains to be fully understood. as it is the optical diametric drive seems to say some of them are full of poop.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think you are probably right about the research going on.

What are your thoughts about exploiting Mach's inertial principals? Mach Effect. Mach effect shielding. Woodward's work on transient mass fluctuations. ... Etc?

Also, sorta off on a tangent here. Ever notice if you sketch out Lazar's "Sport Model" components and workings, (if the terminology of said components were changed to the format and medium of Woodwards patents), looks a whole lot more like a mass fluctuation inertial impulse woodward-esque drive than some sort of gravity drive?

woodward says that if all the terms in his math are not correct he could not get the mass fluctuations he gets experimenting with the first term. so that is evidence the second term is also correct. which means wormholes.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stormbringer1701

At a glance this "optical diametric drive" requires particles of negative mass to be theoretically possible. How would we create such particles?

Since mass is derived from space-time density... it would be impossible....

The moment you take mass to it's ultimate density of 0.... it disperses to energy... which are simply propagated waves across space-time. A shockwave if you like... increasing of universal inflation.

Korg.

if it is impossible why have they found real examples of negative energy in several ways? and why are they looking for evidence of negative deflection around some celestial objects? why is negative energy and mass needed to make the standard model work? without the negative bare mass in the sources side of the equation no description of matter actually makes sense.

Negative energy is not the same as negative mass. Negative energy simply put is energy that has a negative charge... There are many many real world examples of negative energy..... Gravity being a chief example among these.

And no you are compltely wrong...

There is every evidence to suggest that when all mass and energy within the universe is added together that indeed the equations balanced out to zero.... that does not mean there has to be an exact negative of each force or mass... it simply means that if all the universe were converted to energy all the forces and matter would cancel each other out entirely.

To coin a phrase... the Universe is the ultimate free lunch.....

energy and mass are equivalent. see EEP. furthermore without negative mass the mass of ordinary particles would be infinite and there would consequently be no universe.

Completely incorrect.

Mass is derived by the number of Prions in space-time... in other words mass is just another name for space-time density.

To understand this you must first gain an understanding of quantum gravity....

There can never be a negative mass because this would be like saying there would be a negative space-time... since this is only possible outside of space-time itself it would be impossible to experience negative mass within space-time.

It is true that mass and energy are interchangeable and that is because energy is just another name for the space-time volume equivent of mass. In other words the volume of space-time if mass was unraveled.

This is why the whole field of particle physics, which is ultimately the study to find the fundamental particles (building blocks) of the universe, is in itself an almost laughable pursuit.... there is no such thing as fundamental particles as such... more there are only varying degrees of stable possibilities within space-time.

The higher they are able to smash particles together the more fleeting and exotic particles are created.... if they were able to splash together perfectly with enough force then there would be nothing left but pure energy equivalent..... yes..... KABOOM!!!

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Do you think this technology could be applied to ion thrusters?

ion thrusters or QVPTs? yes for the latter. for ion thrusters i don't see much in the way of immediate benefit other than the same thing that would help a plane a helicopter or a normal rocket. if you lighten the load the things can fly faster or sue smaller engines or less fuel.

But since a qvpt is an introverted warp drive it can of course benefit from the accessto negative energy/mass as an intrinsic part of what a QVPT does.