If EM Drive works, how long to get to nearest Star?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

I'm glad you brought this up. You have fallen into a trap of pseudo-science...and unfortunately you are wrong. This is a classic example of agenda driven science; a (pseudo) solution in search of a problem.

For nearly 50 years (some) academics have made it a point in their lives to prove Special Relativity wrong, and to prove Einstein wrong. They have nothing more to give to the scientific community, no creative ideas themselves, other than to attempt to prove others wrong. You ascribe to this trap.

Sadly, many postulates have been put out there attempting to prove these same agendas. "Sadly" because the amount of research money it would take to prove them false is non-fundable. And, as a result, this pseudo-science becomes accepted as fact in the academic world going forward.

The notion Lorentz contraction applies to distance is false. It only applies to objects. Doppler effect also only applies to observed effects, not the object itself.

Sorry, but you are a victim of modern educational agenda driven 'pseudo-science'.

How long to reach the moon on this thing? Like mere hours? Minutes?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Xeven

Correct as long as the drive is powered there is a constant rate of acceleration, it all depends as if you want to simply reach the star then you will probably not be slowing down but if you want to visit the star then the craft would have to reverse thrust all at the half way point.

Couldn't you more easily counter the current speed by decreasing the load? I'm thinking some time way out, pushing a giant craft on a trek to many destinations, and evacuating pods detaching along the course.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Couldn't you more easily counter the current speed by decreasing the load?

Less mass means you can slow down easier, yes.

and evacuating pods detaching along the course.

That would work. But each pod would need to have it's own propulsion source, which means more weigh initially, which means more work to get the whole assembly up to speed in the first place. No free lunch.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I'm glad you brought this up. You have fallen into a trap of pseudo-science...and unfortunately you are wrong. This is a classic example of agenda driven science; a (pseudo) solution in search of a problem.

For nearly 50 years (some) academics have made it a point in their lives to prove Special Relativity wrong, and to prove Einstein wrong. They have nothing more to give to the scientific community, no creative ideas themselves, other than to attempt to prove others wrong. You ascribe to this trap.

Sadly, many postulates have been put out there attempting to prove these same agendas. "Sadly" because the amount of research money it would take to prove them false is non-fundable. And, as a result, this pseudo-science becomes accepted as fact in the academic world going forward.

The notion Lorentz contraction applies to distance is false. It only applies to objects. Doppler effect also only applies to observed effects, not the object itself.

Sorry, but you are a victim of modern educational agenda driven 'pseudo-science'.

Nope. it is you who are mistaken if you think time dilation does anything to the home station of a crew of a relativistic space ship. absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happens at home. for some reason there is a whole basket full of people here that attribute time dilation effects to the wrong reference frame.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Who said anything about time dilation affecting those left behind???? I know I sure didn't.

In fact, I said the exact opposite. Time for those left behind doesn't change. Time for the traveler advances at a much slower rate relative to those left behind.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I'm glad you brought this up. You have fallen into a trap of pseudo-science...and unfortunately you are wrong. This is a classic example of agenda driven science; a (pseudo) solution in search of a problem.

For nearly 50 years (some) academics have made it a point in their lives to prove Special Relativity wrong, and to prove Einstein wrong. They have nothing more to give to the scientific community, no creative ideas themselves, other than to attempt to prove others wrong. You ascribe to this trap.

Sadly, many postulates have been put out there attempting to prove these same agendas. "Sadly" because the amount of research money it would take to prove them false is non-fundable. And, as a result, this pseudo-science becomes accepted as fact in the academic world going forward.

The notion Lorentz contraction applies to distance is false. It only applies to objects. Doppler effect also only applies to observed effects, not the object itself.

Sorry, but you are a victim of modern educational agenda driven 'pseudo-science'.

Nope. it is you who are mistaken if you think time dilation does anything to the home station of a crew of a relativistic space ship. absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happens at home. for some reason there is a whole basket full of people here that attribute time dilation effects to the wrong reference frame.

Well if your honest you have to admit that we truly have no idea if some of us left this frame into another if that would have any effect on the "frame they originated from. Given Phage explanation above about less mass, at the very minimum what ever mass that leaves our "Frame" would effect the frame of origination would it not. Now continue that idea into unknown undiscovered physics and we have no idea cause we have never done it nor measured it. Have we?

Essentially what I am saying is your both likely wrong cause you arguing over incomplete theory. No human has observed Physics outside of this frame.

a reply to: Xeven

Well, I'm not sure in what context you are using the word 'frame', but my statements are based upon no one leaving their relative frame of reference. That is actually my point, the relative frames of reference between the traveler and those he leaves behind are different, hence my post. The result (after the journey) is a very real and material physical difference...one which did not exist before the journey.

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I'm glad you brought this up. You have fallen into a trap of pseudo-science...and unfortunately you are wrong. This is a classic example of agenda driven science; a (pseudo) solution in search of a problem.

For nearly 50 years (some) academics have made it a point in their lives to prove Special Relativity wrong, and to prove Einstein wrong. They have nothing more to give to the scientific community, no creative ideas themselves, other than to attempt to prove others wrong. You ascribe to this trap.

Sadly, many postulates have been put out there attempting to prove these same agendas. "Sadly" because the amount of research money it would take to prove them false is non-fundable. And, as a result, this pseudo-science becomes accepted as fact in the academic world going forward.

The notion Lorentz contraction applies to distance is false. It only applies to objects. Doppler effect also only applies to observed effects, not the object itself.

Sorry, but you are a victim of modern educational agenda driven 'pseudo-science'.

Nope. it is you who are mistaken if you think time dilation does anything to the home station of a crew of a relativistic space ship. absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happens at home. for some reason there is a whole basket full of people here that attribute time dilation effects to the wrong reference frame.

Well if your honest you have to admit that we truly have no idea if some of us left this frame into another if that would have any effect on the "frame they originated from. Given Phage explanation above about less mass, at the very minimum what ever mass that leaves our "Frame" would effect the frame of origination would it not. Now continue that idea into unknown undiscovered physics and we have no idea cause we have never done it nor measured it. Have we?

Essentially what I am saying is your both likely wrong cause you arguing over incomplete theory. No human has observed Physics outside of this frame.

nope. (bah- i say bah humbug!) we have of course already measured such things. it be one of the many testable things predicted tested and observed about relativity. relativistic effects are routinely measured including clock speeds between planes and earth, satellites and earth, long distance space probes and earth and in astronomy and at institutes of standards and such things as atomic clocks. to my knowledge there is only one prediction of relativity that has not yet been confirmed/observed: we have not yet seen gravity waves.

originally posted by: Phage
That would work. But each pod would need to have it's own propulsion source, which means more weigh initially, which means more work to get the whole assembly up to speed in the first place. No free lunch.

Perhaps, but I'd wager the increased weight to more than be offset by increased efficiency of such a getup.

If ship is 100x, each pod is x, and you have 24 pods, you would increase size 24%, and decrease the deceleration energy needs by 100x, no? I'm sure the math is much more complex, but I don't think it's an exact trade-off that would null and void the idea.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

That COULD work BUT?,

For me the object of the drive is to allow you to use the space otherwise traditionally used for fuel for the payload instead, since food and other perishables would be recycled in flight if it was manned there would likely be no disposable mass and dragging along a quantity of mass just so that you could shed it at the other end would not be feasible.

Also remember the lighter craft would still be moving at that extreme speed so even then a gravitational capture would be unlikely to work, one sci fi alternative is to use atmospheric braking in the outer layers of the star but of course anything we can make would simply not survive even getting close to a star never mind entering its outer coronosphere unlike the sci fi programs we sometimes see on TV like the stargate spin off based on a fictional hydrogen powered space craft.

If I remember correctly it used to be thought that hydrogen atoms exist at roughly one atom per cubic meter in deep space and intersteller space should be much more densely populated by them, now while solar sails could be used as a slowing mechanism they too would be a massive amount of mass to carry as any sail large enough to make an impact on the craft velocity would have to have an extremely large surface area however something that would look a little like a solar sail could be deployed at the half way point to collect hydrogen atoms and this could then be used to proved a mass based kinetic reverse force as well as potentially being harvested over time and compressed to provide a fuel source gathered in flight to power some form of rocket motor to aid a gravitational capture, however once more this would be massive excess mass for the flight to take with it on such a voyage and so I do not envisage such a method ever being employed as it is too complex and not an elegant solution.

Rather as I suggested, Accelerate half way at 1G, then decelerate the last half way which would also provide a 1G falling force.

An unmanned craft COULD do as you suggest though and deposit low mass probes as it travels through the system that maybe then could be slowed by such method's as atmospheric breaking in any planetary bodys with atmospheres within the system before then entering orbit around the star or it's planet's and as it would then be only passing through deposting these probes the main vehicle could continue on it's journey to gather more information as well as potentially having a large payload of these exploration probes for each system it passed through but I would still expect it to have to decelerate first before dropping them off or such a probe drop could still fail due to the immense velocity's the probes would inherit form there parent craft and this would add another problem as well as the gravitational attraction of the target star adding to it's velocity if the engine stayed at constant thrust (if wear and tear and energy depletion did not factor in) each probe drop would actually reduce the overall mass of the main craft so the main craft would then accelerate faster reaching a higher velocity in the same distance and compound the whole velocity problem further for the next star system it passed through.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: pl3bscheese

That COULD work BUT?,

For me the object of the drive is to allow you to use the space otherwise traditionally used for fuel for the payload instead, since food and other perishables would be recycled in flight if it was manned there would likely be no disposable mass and dragging along a quantity of mass just so that you could shed it at the other end would not be feasible.

I thought the objective was to make interstellar travel a feasible option. I'm not sure this would be adding a mass so that you could shed it? It would be increasing by less than a factor of two the mass to decrease the time to travel by several fold, or no?

How many Gs can human beings sustain for extended periods of time? I guess that's the deciding factor. If it's not much more than 1, then the first hop would not be any quicker, though each additional one would.

Okay I did rough calculations, and it wouldn't shave too many any which way. It takes a year to reach 3/4 of the speed of light at a constant 1G acceleration, and the nearest start is 4.77 light years away. You could potentially cut down the trip a little bit, but at a heavy expense.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I'm glad you brought this up. You have fallen into a trap of pseudo-science...and unfortunately you are wrong. This is a classic example of agenda driven science; a (pseudo) solution in search of a problem.

For nearly 50 years (some) academics have made it a point in their lives to prove Special Relativity wrong, and to prove Einstein wrong. They have nothing more to give to the scientific community, no creative ideas themselves, other than to attempt to prove others wrong. You ascribe to this trap.

Sadly, many postulates have been put out there attempting to prove these same agendas. "Sadly" because the amount of research money it would take to prove them false is non-fundable. And, as a result, this pseudo-science becomes accepted as fact in the academic world going forward.

The notion Lorentz contraction applies to distance is false. It only applies to objects. Doppler effect also only applies to observed effects, not the object itself.

Sorry, but you are a victim of modern educational agenda driven 'pseudo-science'.

Nope. it is you who are mistaken if you think time dilation does anything to the home station of a crew of a relativistic space ship. absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happens at home. for some reason there is a whole basket full of people here that attribute time dilation effects to the wrong reference frame.

Interesting and you both have very good points, of course relativity points out that the guys on the craft are the ones standing still and the universe is the object that is moving so from there perspective time should be going slower for the universe and so it should in theory self compensate.

There was an experiment you are aware of in which they put a time piece in a high altitude flight after synchonising it with one on the ground, the one in flight was ever so slightly slower than the one on the ground and that is due to the fact it was moving faster relative to the one on the ground but it is schewed as it is a non linear experiment and the high altitude one could be argued to be simply further out on a rotational velocity, Rotational not streight linear.

Take a spinning top and spin it, no matter how it is explained why does the outside of the top not simply flop over, one explanation I am sure someone will argue is bunk based on long winded papers that seek to explain it themselves is that the outer rim of the spinning tops wheel is actually moving faster so relative time there flows slower relative compared to the central spindal and of course time slower means that the force of gravity there must also be slower, not less just slower relative to the spindal but of course there is no weight loss overall so it is merely spun into a kind of time gravity vortex that self cancels probably with unseen eddies in dimensions my limited consciousness can only vaguely glimpse and there is no true time distortion or usable gravitation effect involved, or is there?.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

For me the only reason to search out there is to find a way to save our race and ensure we put all our egg's in more than one basket, all our people on more than one world around more than one star, though they would diverge genetically and culturally over time this would ensure the legacy of the human race had a fighting chance of survival and so I would make use of this engine if it truly does work to build large multi generational ships for extreme long duration flight, over many generations a higher gravity would reduce life span of the crew of course but they may adapt and be then able to colonise a super earth type world that would otherwise be too high gravity for us as the earth would seem to be for a hypothetical martian human whom came here to colonise but we can adapt and maybe genetic engineering would be involved in that.

I assume that if the human race ever wakes up this is the current best method available to them of saving there species from extinction that is inevitable if they stay on the earth and the necessity to make this happen may be much closer in time than you may think with some academic's saying the human race could more or less go extinct through environmental and disease factors within the next century or at least the planet the way they manage it would not be able to sustain them with the damage to the eco system already being past the no return point.

I hope for humanity's sake that this technology does work and they can then get to mining the large iron nickel asteroid's and turning them into metalic hull's that would be good radiation insulators as well and then place these engines on them to turn them into colony ship's.

However are there any suitable worlds out there and if there is life already existing on them is it ethical to displace it with our own or can we use that ingenuity to find proto earths and convert them into living biospheres, then again what would the neighbours say.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I've had similar thoughts where let's say within the next 10-15 years the destabilization of the earth's ecosystem and climate becomes so obvious that we have to start taking risky contengency plans to keep civilization going long enough to build a dozen or so ships that travel to different star systems in order to restart and be more wise the next go on a planet not touched by advanced lifeforms.

The thing is, neither of us have a clue how long it will take to make this planet really start becoming inhospitable and uninhabitable for the species or at least sustaining civilization. We could have 30, 60, 200, a millennium. If it's not 30, we're pretty well good to grow. In all these other scenarios, something more like a galactic train station with exits would be a better way. You follow each hop to the end of the line, then take people back wherever they need/want to go. I mean if we don't seriously screw up real soon, we can be making use of even more exotic tech than this.

All of this is just pondering. Not enough known on the civilian no high security clearance side to make a decent assessment of our true situation. Best I can tell world could be poo by 2040, or we could be damned close to being as if Gods. Guess we'll have to wait and see!

a reply to: pl3bscheese

There is one problem with the idea and that is the fact we would be trying to convert another world when in fact we could perhaps more easily fix our own, I envisaged a sustainable managed and partially artificial ecology that would sustain upwards of a hundred billion humans but we need to act as one and that is nearly impossible.

First we need to develop new superstrong materials and build large A frame pyramid type structure, not small ones but thing's bigger than anything we have so far made as a race, we need to calculate light amounts and cultivate crops that give high yeilds with less light.

These A frames would have decks and as you go up the space between the decks would diminish so that the amount of overall light irradiation stayed constant.

On these deck's we would litterally place field's of crops and even our citys, the higher decks would utilise wind breaks and transparrent screens to keep the temperature high at the higher altitudes as well as using geothermal and other power sources to circulate water throughout these megastructures and also to power artificial light to supplement the natural solar irradiation.

But of course we would sooner burn our fossil fuels and destroy what is left of our planet so some fat little rich guy with a mind that is big on numbers but small on humanity can continue to smile to himself.

So yes I think it is the best and perhaps only potential, but of course a ship could go on a long orbit of our solar system them come back to the dead planet and set abour Re terraforming the earth when the rest of us have been killed off by these corporate lunatic's and there intelligence organisation cronies.

Also we need to look beyond our own planet for natural reasons as it is only a matter of time before a supervolcano erupts and that will cause a mass extinction anyway as would a nuclear war or large asteroid strike.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
The analogy I use to explain this concept to people is as follows:

Let's say mankind miraculously devises a spaceship capable of traveling at 99% the speed of light (we'll forget the mass and energy requirements implications for a moment just for the sake of discussion). So, Buzz Lightyear hops in his new space Ferrari and heads off to Proxima Centauri with hopes to save the human race on Earth. His journey takes him roughly 5 years to get there. Once there, Buzz finds a planet just like Earth, but far more advanced (let's call it Earth Redux). Earth Redux has infinite energy reserves, all diseases have been cured, there is no war, no starvation...and the streets are paved with pure gold. In short, Buzz has found Utopia. The people of Earth Redux give Buzz the comprehensive instruction manual on how to fix Earth. The mission has been a smashing success...so far.

Buzz hops back in his space Ferarri and heads back to Earth with the instruction manual to save mankind. With no time to waste, Buzz accelerates to maximum velocity and races back to Earth. Five years later, when he arrives back on Earth he excitedly jumps out of his spaceship, instruction manual in hand, and exclaims "I MADE IT...I'M BACK!" as he holds the manual to save mankind above his head. Puzzled, Buzz looks around and wonders why no one is there to greet him after his long journey. Stranger still, the birds look different and, and...and, everything looks different. Very different.

You see, the 'Earth' Buzz returned back to is not the same Earth Buzz left 10 years ago. Buzz was only gone 10 years, but in that 10 years (for Buzz) the Earth aged hundreds of years. The Earth Buzz returned to had long since forgotten about Buzz and his journey, Buzz was, at best, some distant memory written down in a history book somewhere. Buzz's great grandchildren had grown old and died while he was gone. The Earth that Buzz returned to had either already unlocked the secrets Buzz brought back with him or had evolved in such a way that those secrets were no longer relevant.

...and Proxima Centauri is a really "close" star (relatively speaking). At further distances this effect is even more pronounced.

Nope. I hope nobody actually thinks this is correct. That's incorrect.

This is correct.
Buzz goes towards earth redux for 5 years and then towards earth for 5 years.
Earth has aged 10 real years, earth redux also 10 real years and the whole universe has aged 10 real years.
Buzz has aged 10 real-onboard-spaceship years. But those 10 onboard spaceship years are not equal to the rest of the universe's 10 years due to onboard time being slower.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Who said anything about time dilation affecting those left behind???? I know I sure didn't.

In fact, I said the exact opposite. Time for those left behind doesn't change. Time for the traveler advances at a much slower rate relative to those left behind.

Why are you lying?

You said

"Buzz was only gone 10 years, but in that 10 years (for Buzz) the Earth aged hundreds of years."

Did you not say that?
So now what? There's your lie.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Probe nuthin' how long until we can start colonizing and getting away from each other?

If you want to be a hermit, you can do that on Earth real cheap.