UFO propulsion and space-time manipulation

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


here's a pretty interesting video on the subject of warp drive. at the end of the video a nasa engineer talks about his experimental research in this field.



spaceengine impressively shows that you need something like warp drive if you want to travel through the galaxy let alone intergalactic.

en.spaceengine.org...

In my theory,space is a giant computer.It can be hacked,cheated if you have the command code,A interdimensional code that breaks the laws of fiziks.I think the universe is made out of numbers,codes,formulas and higher laws of fiziks that humans cannot understand or are not even yet discovered.In my opinion, once your mind knows those higher laws the universe automaticly gives you access to more options or maybe interdimensional travel.The way that UFO's travel that they use portals or that they bend space using a "manipulator" ,diverted gravity field that acs like a object with high gravity but actually it doesnt have high gravity,or does not have a gravity field at all.Maybe UFO's use the sun for traveling,it has a high gravity field and it can bend space.For example; Take a piece of paper,place a coin in the middle of the paper and lift the piece of paper up,you'l see that in the middle the coin is bending the paper,thats how the sun acs in space.I think high energy isn't needed for interdimensional or space travel,because energy is all around us,in space,in the sun,black and dark matter,everywhere,you just need to learn how to harnest it.

dlbott
reply to post by Harte

 

Have read few theories, one is that not all alien races have this tech, that in fact they are at different levels of advancement themselves. They have also fought wars amongst themselves.

There is also another theory of travel and it follows that the universe has a current no unlike our wind or ocean current. This current is believed to travel at or near the speed of light.

Could explain how some travel.

The Bot

Regardless of how you get there, any search of the galaxy for life would be extremely unlikely to turn us up because of what I said.

The 4700 years is just the sum of all the one-second stops. It includes no travel time at all.

And that's only half the star systems in the galaxy.

Harte

Harte
Regardless of how you get there, any search of the galaxy for life would be extremely unlikely to turn us up because of what I said.

The 4700 years is just the sum of all the one-second stops. It includes no travel time at all.

And that's only half the star systems in the galaxy.

Harte

If you started your search locally you would find 11 space-faring species within 50 light years, perhaps a few more, and way more that aren't that advanced yet. Life is everywhere, its bloody ubiquitous, prolly exist in a vacuum.

I'm starting to wonder if many UFO sightings are actually piloted alien craft. Perhaps they are the part of a highly advanced observation platform or technology that we perceive as being vehicular. We sometimes over simplify things we see using comparative logic. We see something in the air and it looks metallic so it naturally compares to the only technology that we have that flies and looks metallic - an airplane.

I think we need to expand our minds and imagine what else this phenomenon might be. I'm not discounting all sightings as not being alien piloted spacecraft but they could be vehicles that just transition from one dimension into another and never travel actually move through space-time. The theory I heard lately and intrigues me is that these ETB's are actually beings who inhabit our world in a parallel universe. Perhaps they have somehow detected our universe and were attracted by the thousands of nuclear tests that took place in the recent past. Perhaps they see us at a wreck less and critical stage of technological development. Perhaps our nuclear arsenals set off an alarm and are concerned that we may pose some threat to ourselves or our region of space or even the very fabric of space-time that they travel through. Maybe the ETB'S are actually humans who evolved on their Earth in a parallel universe millions or billions of years before us and have learned how to peer or even travel into other parallel universes.

The sobering reality of UFO's as alien piloted craft is that they are far more advanced than we are and have ultimate authority over our place in the universe yet have displayed patient discretion (so far) to not wipe us out or enslave us as many would want you to believe. I would like to assume that species of beings that are thousands, millions or billions of years more evolved than us are not bound by emotional, fear based consumption-based logic. I would like to believe that they must see our potential as a benevolent race of beings in its technological infancy that needs help to survive this critical stage of development. They heard our baby cries and have responded. If they were a predatory race of beings then we would have been consumed already. If they wanted to harvest our planetary resources they would have taken all they wanted by now.

I believe they are here for either of these reasons:

1. They were always here! They created our universe in a lab and are developing not only us but the thousands of worlds that exist in this universe. For what purpose? If they have the advanced ability to do this then we are just too stupid at this stage in our evolution to comprehend that.

2. They discovered us by our technological burps as an infant civilization. They were intrigued initially by our radio and television transmissions blasting through space, then alarmed when the blasts became nuclear. They are hear to keep an eye on us and make sure we don't blow ourselves or worse, some other nearby system.

Something I've wondered about it the following, though I suspect relativity covers it, I would love to hear the "official word" on the it.

The speed of light through a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second however, the speed of light through supper cooled sodium gas, i believe it's sodium, is just under 30 mile per hour. Ergo, would it still require almost infinite energy to accelerate past the speed of light in super cooled sodium gas?

If, on the other hand, that's not the case and one can exceed the speed of light in a super cooled sodium gas then what are the ramifications of such an effect? OK, so 31 mph isn't going to take us far, or is it? What would happen if we could do it?

reply to post by FireMoon


Now there is something I haven't been able to understand; where y'all get the idea that to exceed the speed of light requires infinite energy. I've not ever seen any equation that states that, not ever, and I have two master's degrees (engineering).

I don't know about the speed of light in other media, however, I might have a small issue with your "super cooled Sodium gas"; I think that would likely be Sodium metal, and a solid, through which light does not pass. But, be that as it may; it is not difficult to exceed the speed of light.

All One needs to do is set-up a constant acceleration of 1G and hold that for just over 1 year: you will be traveling over the speed of light. One only needs the energy of an "Aircraft Carrier sized nuclear power plant (about 1GW), and a Gravito-electromagnetic drive.

Actually the biggest issue with interstellar travel isn't the speed so much as it is the "time". strange things happen to time at those velocities. Time dilation can be a real party pooper, and is a far greater issue than velocity,

tanka418
reply to post by FireMoon

 

Now there is something I haven't been able to understand; where y'all get the idea that to exceed the speed of light requires infinite energy. I've not ever seen any equation that states that, not ever, and I have two master's degrees (engineering).

Take the equations of motion for a positive mass particle in special relativity. Add a force, and compute the total energy balance. You will find speed asymptotically approaching c but never exceeding it and energy increasing arbitrarily.

It's like asking what positive value of Y makes (Y+1)/(Y+2) larger than 1.

All One needs to do is set-up a constant acceleration of 1G and hold that for just over 1 year: you will be traveling over the speed of light.

Close to.

One only needs the energy of an "Aircraft Carrier sized nuclear power plant (about 1GW), and a Gravito-electromagnetic drive.

There's no such thing as an engineered gravity-electromagnetic drive as far as we know.

Actually the biggest issue with interstellar travel isn't the speed so much as it is the "time". strange things happen to time at those velocities. Time dilation can be a real party pooper, and is a far greater issue than velocity,

Actually the problem is extreme hazard from any dust----encountering even the smallest particles at relativistic speeds give catastrophic results, and the crew fatally irradiated a few hours into the voyage.

Curious2Know
Perhaps they have somehow detected our universe and were attracted by the thousands of nuclear tests that took place in the recent past. Perhaps they see us at a wreck less and critical stage of technological development.

This is like anthropologists briefly being seen by uncontacted tribesmen in the Amazon. The wise council of the tribesmen say, "it's all our fault, ever since we started making bows from rubber treesand raiding our enemy tribe, the gods are angry!".

Stop being so egotistical.

If there are any ET's here, one thing is for sure: they don't give a crap about our own needs enough to lift a fingernail to do anything about it.

reply to post by mbkennel

There's no such thing as an engineered gravity-electromagnetic drive as far as we know.

Perhaps you should get out more artificial gravity

These things probably already exist!

Take the equations of motion for a positive mass particle in special relativity. Add a force, and compute the total energy balance.

Okay, what are the equations? source please.

If I add as a "force" a 1G gravity well, at a fixed distance, and this gravity provides a 1G acceleration ...

In one year I'm traveling 191,127.27 MPS (miles per second). or does some how the device I'm using to generate my artificial gravity get weaker with velocity?

Also, I rather suspect that the physics will appear to change at luminal velocities; kind of like it does at the "very small", where quantum physics comes into noticeable play.

And again, the largest issue is that of time. the issues of dust and micrometeorites, while significant, pales in comparison. Which is to say, there are existing technologies that can provide at least some of the shielding needed. However, the effects of time dilation have no such work arounds, there are no known technologies to deal with the effects of time dilation...well maybe.

There are effects like Doppler that may become significant at luminal speeds, these effects may either aid or complicate time dilation mitigation. But, time dilation is probably the largest issue; it would do little good to send out a mission that no one at home would live to see completed. Further, those sent would never be able to complete their original mission due to later generations doing it for them.

tanka418
reply to post by FireMoon

 

Now there is something I haven't been able to understand; where y'all get the idea that to exceed the speed of light requires infinite energy. I've not ever seen any equation that states that, not ever, and I have two master's degrees (engineering).

It's not stated explicitly in a single equation.

However, here's how it works.

Mass increases with velocity:
m' = m/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]
where m is the mass of an object at rest and m' is the mass at velocity v.

The moving mass wouldn't notice any increase, BTW. The mass increase would be noticed by an observer in a reference frame that is at rest with respect to the moving mass.

But propulsion by any means is action-reaction, meaning the propellant - be it gaseous or ions - must leave the moving mass.

Now, I understand your statement that "All One needs to do is set-up a constant acceleration of 1G and hold that for just over 1 year." That would work in a Newtonian universe.

As you are no doubt aware, force is equal to mass times acceleration (F=ma.) That yeilds F/m=a. So a one g acceleration of an object at rest with rest mass m requires a force of F. But since the denominator of the fraction F/m increases with velocity, and increases radically when one nears c, then the original force would not suffice. The force would have to increase to maintain the acceleration of g at a constant rate.

If you check the relativistic mass equation I provided above, you'll note that the mass of an object traveling at the speed of light is infinite. This would require an infinite force to maintain. And applying infinite force requires infinite energy (mech. energy = force X displacement.)

Now you have finally seen an equation (equations, actually) "that states that."

Harte

mbkennel

Actually the biggest issue with interstellar travel isn't the speed so much as it is the "time". strange things happen to time at those velocities. Time dilation can be a real party pooper, and is a far greater issue than velocity,

Actually the problem is extreme hazard from any dust----encountering even the smallest particles at relativistic speeds give catastrophic results, and the crew fatally irradiated a few hours into the voyage.

Even dust-free, the vehicle would be incinerated by any ordinary light, as it will have been blue-shifted (from the perspective of the moving vehicle) into ultra gamma wavelengths.

Harte

Developing a drive is only 1/2 of the issue. What about navigation? It's great to have this epic ability to speed out into space but where are the hazards?

reply to post by Harte

Mass increases with velocity:
m' = m/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]
where m is the mass of an object at rest and m' is the mass at velocity v.

I presume that "c" is the speed of light.

So then: this equation when solved for any v < c : m' < m. when v = c : m' = m.

So, mass does increase with velocity, but that is [I]after[/I] an initial decrease, then it increases back to the original "rest mass" at the speed of light. That a bit different than what yall said.

If you like I can provide a web page that shows that equation in action.

Also, the system I'm proposing is not an "action - reaction" system, it is a field drive. It works by creating an artificial gravity along its longitudinal axis thereby creating a "thrust vector".

tanka418
reply to post by Harte

 

Mass increases with velocity:
m' = m/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]
where m is the mass of an object at rest and m' is the mass at velocity v.

I presume that "c" is the speed of light.

So then: this equation when solved for any v < c : m' < m. when v = c : m' = m.

So, mass does increase with velocity, but that is [I]after[/I] an initial decrease, then it increases back to the original "rest mass" at the speed of light. That a bit different than what yall said.

Mainly because you did it incorrectly.
For v=c, m'=m/0. m divided by zero.

Get it?

You're "artificial gravity" will first have to be invented. And then, the gravity source will have to be accelerated. To c. It will have mass. Back to the same problem.

Harte

Harte
Mainly because you did it incorrectly.
For v=c, m'=m/0. m divided by zero.

Yes, I interpreted the equation incorrectly at first; my bad.

However, the notion that dividing by zero results in infinity may be incorrect. In reality the operation is "invalid", not something that returns an infinite result. This could indicate that, as I predict, some thing change at "c".

You're "artificial gravity" will first have to be invented. And then, the gravity source will have to be accelerated. To c. It will have mass. Back to the same problem.

Harte

A few posts above you will see a link to "artificial gravity" there are a whole bunch of papers explaining the science. The science was published in 2003, and more in 2006. The gravity source produces an "acceleration vector" which provides all the propulsion needed to reach c+.

And, the increase in mass may help to increase inertial frame dragging and provide assistance in off-setting time dilation.

Anyway; one more question; why is the mass of a photon not infinite?

tanka418

Harte
Mainly because you did it incorrectly.
For v=c, m'=m/0. m divided by zero.

Yes, I interpreted the equation incorrectly at first; my bad.

However, the notion that dividing by zero results in infinity may be incorrect. In reality the operation is "invalid", not something that returns an infinite result. This could indicate that, as I predict, some thing change at "c".

Pick an arbitrarily small value for the denominator, then. After that, pick an arbitrarily smaller number for the denominator. Continue this process all you want, until you realize that the closer v is to c, the larger the mass is.

It's true that division by zero is undefined. Einstein's equation (the Lorentz transform part) tells us that it is undefined for an object with mass to have velocity v=c by the same rule you mention.

tanka418

You're "artificial gravity" will first have to be invented. And then, the gravity source will have to be accelerated. To c. It will have mass. Back to the same problem.

Harte

A few posts above you will see a link to "artificial gravity" there are a whole bunch of papers explaining the science. The science was published in 2003, and more in 2006. The gravity source produces an "acceleration vector" which provides all the propulsion needed to reach c+.

The "science" you mention here is speculative, and the engineering is nonexistant.

That's why you'll have to invent it.

Acceleration does not happen without force. Force between two things does not happen without reaction.
Either your artificial gravity will accelerate you to c instantly, in which case you would be less intact that smashed jello, or it will do so gradually, in which case you have to account for the action-reaction and also have to accelerate your gravity maker along with you.

tanka418
Anyway; one more question; why is the mass of a photon not infinite?

Because photons are massless. That is, they have no rest mass.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Here please go read.

I know there is a lot of material there, but, it will show you that there is nothing speculative about this. It is hard, real, contemporary science. Perhaps a bit novel for some, but real none the less.

This science uses Heim - Lorentz force to create propulsion...no reactions.

If photons have no mass then how is it they are affected by gravity?
If photons have no mass how can they be considered a particle?

Photons have mass, even if it is infinitely small. Logically no individual object can have infinite mass, regardless of velocity. And, of course; even the infinitely small can become infinitely large, if infinity large is possible.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Id like to think its not so, but I'm sure that even highly advanced, trans-dimensional propulsion systems can succumb to operator error or "engine problems".

tanka418
Life is everywhere, its bloody ubiquitous, prolly exist in a vacuum.

Yeah, but if that's true, it should be extremely easy to find. Life is certainly everywhere on Earth, and if you randomly land anywhere on Earth it would take you about five seconds to find it. Because it's everywhere, in every little nook and cranny, it's obvious. However, life is apparently not as obvious in the rest of the universe, or even with our limited explorations we would have already seen and identified it. Therefore, your argument that life should be "everywhere" is actually an argument against there being any life anywhere other than Earth.

As far as we know at this point, life is extremely rare, and possibly a cosmic fluke, happening on Earth but nowhere else anywhere.