NASA Scientists to Test Warp Drive Theory

We, and everything in our definition of space, could already BE riding a space-time wave, in fact we probably are, and our velocity, relative to some fictitious reference point, is what is creating the timescale we live by.

Chew on that.

zayonara
We, and everything in our definition of space, could already BE riding a space-time wave, in fact we probably are, and our velocity, relative to some fictitious reference point, is what is creating the timescale we live by.

Chew on that.

There's nothing to chew on. You have just described what we're all taught in school as the origin of the universe. Inflationary theory aka The Big Bang and Einstein's General Relativity.

reply to post by JadeStar


First of all this is very old news. Second of all this theory has huge flaws in it.

1) We know of nothing that can expand space. We can condense it but can not expand it (just yet). There is hope for this but no one knows when or how.

2) This bubble needs to be completely void of our space within it. The reason being is that every particle will still fall under the laws that govern physics meaning that space will cause so much turbulence to the particles at that speed that the life of the particles will be questionable at best.

3) There will be a transitional period where the particles that make up the ship will turn into "digital particles" meaning that they will not exist in time to interact with other particles. This is good because there will not be a detrimental collision between the particles on the ship and stationary ones it may run into. It is bad because there is no determination where or when the particles will reappear into our known reality. If the ship comes to a rest it will likely be fragmented pieces of its former self.

4) Any moving object coming back into normal space will shoot forward radical particles that could obliterate entire planets or stars in front of its position.

tanka418

What do you suppose the differences in manual dexterity would be between a actual "hand" and the small end of a tentacle? Do you not think the Hand is by far the superior device / manipulator?

There is no reason why a hand or something superior to it would not evolve on the end of 8 limbs. I think you're not thinking broad enough. You're limiting evolution to the biology of earth when we know nothing about what forms life might take in completely different environments with different environmental pressures/stressors.

You understand why we evolved hands right?

reply to post by zayonara


Actually, the "time wave" we are riding, is the event horizon of an expanding structure- possibly an immense black hole, that has been expanding since is explosive inception.

Dynamike
reply to post by JadeStar

 

First of all this is very old news. Second of all this theory has huge flaws in it.

1) We know of nothing that can expand space. We can condense it but can not expand it (just yet). There is hope for this but no one knows when or how.

We know that space/time itself is expanding. Nature did it. Typically if something occurs in nature it's only a matter of time before we figure out how to do it ourselves.

JadeStar

zayonara
We, and everything in our definition of space, could already BE riding a space-time wave, in fact we probably are, and our velocity, relative to some fictitious reference point, is what is creating the timescale we live by.

Chew on that.

There's nothing to chew on. You have just described what we're all taught in school as the origin of the universe. Inflationary theory aka The Big Bang and Einstein's General Relativity.

I'd say those theories are worth chewing on, but in all fairness I am hungry.

reply to post by JadeStar


True. But it is being pressurized to expand as a whole from another source that we probably can't interact with. I would imagine that making even a tiny piece of space expand in a small bubble would require more energy than is being used to cause the entire universe to expand at its current rate- which is more energy than what is contained in the entire universe. This would require us to be able to tap into energies in alternate dimensions, I would assume.

reply to post by JadeStar


More realistically speaking, I bet the way we defeat faster than light travel would be much like sending a letter in the mail- you fold the letter in size to fit it into an envelope.

Wouldn't it be easier to travel the third dimension on a two dimensional plane? Eliminate one axis of movement and you have reduced the travel distance immensely. Reduce it to a single dimension and you have instantaneous travel.

I could go into more detail about this but it is probably beyond imagination and a bit ludicrous.

JadeStar
You're limiting evolution to the biology of earth when we know nothing about what forms life might take in completely different environments with different environmental pressures/stressors.

Yes, I suppose I am intentionally limiting this a bit. However, Hermes tells us that life elsewhere is going to be very much like life on Earth, or indeed any random planet. (Please don't try to use this solar system as an example; it is NOT a large enough sample in this instance)

So...yes, limiting; to the greatest probability.

Environments on other worlds may not be all that different; just because its a different star, doesn't necessarily alter planetary conditions a great deal. Course that doesn't mean that they will all be the same either, only that there will be a plethora of close enough planets out there to support life just as I describe. And, that will be the most common.

ThePeaceMaker
One thing I've always thought when watching Star Trek and they go into warp .. When travelling so fast through space that has asteroids planets stars suns meteor/ asteroid fields .. When travelling so fast what's going to stop you slamming into one of these

most of space is just that, space.

for example the asteroid belt. from movies and t.v. we think a bunch of rocks, fairly close together, just bouncing about. not so much. the average distance between them is 600,000 miles, the diameter of 75 earths. and thats a fairly crowded area.

the closest star to us is 4 light years. yet the average is one star every 4,150 light years.

since you can only go straight at warp, just a simple telescope will tell you if anything is in your way. the law of averages takes care of the rest.

btw, warp drive is not faster than light travel. its cheating in a way.

take two straws with wrappers. with one you scrunch the wrapper up at the end, the other leave straight. now pull both straws out of the wrappers at the same speed. the scrunched one covers far more distance relative to the other, but travels the same speed.

JadeStar
We know that space/time itself is expanding. Nature did it. Typically if something occurs in nature it's only a matter of time before we figure out how to do it ourselves.

Here is a point where I have a serious break with Terrestrial science; space, itself, expanding. Logically, this ain't happenin'.

In my cosmology; there are essentially three "entities" (think object in the software sense), infinite space (the infinitely large), the infinitely small , the particles that compose the material Universe, and the conjunction of these (the Universe itself). The infinitely large cannot expand, and everything (the Universe) expands to fill it.

So...space does not expand, and the physical Universe is infinitely small (kind of like what science says the Universe was [I]before[/I] the big bang.

Time by the way is a "side-effect" of motion.

JadeStar

thruthseek3r

NASA is not a military agency. If it was they'd be getting a crapload more money and would not have to shut down science programs left and right due to budget cuts (which never seem to affect the black budget by the way).

Well, from my knowledge, NASA, has it's origin from NACA

From the NACA wikipedia page here is a quote:

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

I could be wrong, but from this, I see NASA as being from military origins indirectly of course, but this is part of its history doesn't it?

Thruthseek3r

You would be wrong. NACA was a civilian organization, the FAA came out of it too. No one would argue that the FAA is a military organization.

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NACA was pronounced as individual letters, rather than as an acronym.

edit on 30-10-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

What about this quote from Wikipedia :

NACA began as an emergency measure during World War I to promote industry/academic/government coordination on war-related projects. It was modeled on similar national agencies found in Europe. Such agencies were the French “L’Etablissement Central de l’Aérostation Militaire” in Meudon (now Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales), the German “Aerodynamical Laboratory of the University of Göttingen” and the Russian “Aerodynamic Institute of Koutchino”. However, the most influential agency upon which the NACA was based was the British “Advisory Committee for Aeronautics”.

"L’Etablissement Central de l’Aérostation Militaire" translate in english to "The establishment of the Central Military Aerostation". So in it's origin N.A.C.A. has some military inspiration as quoted earlier, does not mean it is all military owned, this would be another topic for discussion which is outside the realm of this thread.

Overall it seems a bit military to me, but what is going on behind the curtain that NASA does not show to the general public, this is the big question.



Thruthseek3r

Some interesting, apparently recent, results from Dr. Harold White's space warp experiments, together with an explanation of how it may be possible to create a space warp without exotic matter.
We read that a very small effect, which could be due to the warping of space was found when an a high voltage electric charge was introduced across one of the two laser interferometer beams. The effect is too small to be considered conclusive evidence of the warping of space, but may be a tantalizing hint that this has occurred.
The next goal is to increase the sensitivity of the measurements substantially, in hopes of removing uncertainty about the results. I link to the brief Wikipedia article. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Dynamike

Dynamike
True. But it is being pressurized to expand as a whole from another source that we probably can't interact with. I would imagine that making even a tiny piece of space expand in a small bubble would require more energy than is being used to cause the entire universe to expand at its current rate- which is more energy than what is contained in the entire universe. This would require us to be able to tap into energies in alternate dimensions, I would assume.

Dr. White seemed to disagree based upon the experiments he has run so far, but I haven't read any elaboration on the point. With regards to exotic matter and the the energy needed others asked about in this thread:

Wikipedia: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer
"In the process, they described how a toroidal positive energy density may result in a spherical negative-pressure region, possibly eliminating the need for actual exotic matter."


A Lab Experiment to Test Spacetime Distortion
"So it’s interesting stuff, and it takes us to an even lower energy requirement, from the mass-energy of a planet the size of Jupiter to, in White’s view, a mass about the size of one of our Voyager probes. The reduction in the exotic matter/negative pressure required is managed by optimizing the warp bubble thickness and also by oscillating the bubble intensity, which according to White’s mathematics reduces the stiffness of spacetime. Thus we go from a Jupiter-sized portion of exotic matter to an amount weighing less than 500 kg. "


Warp Field Mechanics 101
Dr. Harold “Sonny” White
Warp Field Mechanics 101 PDF (NASA)

reply to post by Ross 54


I feel silly. I went through this whole thread to make sure I wasn't repeating information and missed the very last post from a few hours ago (yours) which covered the interferometer and the much lower energy requirements.

Wikipedia: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

A Lab Experiment to Test Spacetime Distortion
comments about only needing 500kg worth of mass energy

Warp Field Mechanics 101 PDF (NASA)

The really intriguing things to my mind were that something as easy to produce as a high voltage electrical charge, mediated by something as simple as a 1/2 centimeter ring of capacitors may have already created a very small warp field.

thruthseek3r

JadeStar

thruthseek3r

NASA is not a military agency. If it was they'd be getting a crapload more money and would not have to shut down science programs left and right due to budget cuts (which never seem to affect the black budget by the way).

Well, from my knowledge, NASA, has it's origin from NACA

From the NACA wikipedia page here is a quote:

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

I could be wrong, but from this, I see NASA as being from military origins indirectly of course, but this is part of its history doesn't it?

Thruthseek3r

You would be wrong. NACA was a civilian organization, the FAA came out of it too. No one would argue that the FAA is a military organization.

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NACA was pronounced as individual letters, rather than as an acronym.

edit on 30-10-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

What about this quote from Wikipedia :

NACA began as an emergency measure during World War I to promote industry/academic/government coordination on war-related projects. It was modeled on similar national agencies found in Europe. Such agencies were the French “L’Etablissement Central de l’Aérostation Militaire” in Meudon (now Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales), the German “Aerodynamical Laboratory of the University of Göttingen” and the Russian “Aerodynamic Institute of Koutchino”. However, the most influential agency upon which the NACA was based was the British “Advisory Committee for Aeronautics”.

"L’Etablissement Central de l’Aérostation Militaire" translate in english to "The establishment of the Central Military Aerostation". So in it's origin N.A.C.A. has some military inspiration as quoted earlier, does not mean it is all military owned, this would be another topic for discussion which is outside the realm of this thread.

Overall it seems a bit military to me, but what is going on behind the curtain that NASA does not show to the general public, this is the big question.



Thruthseek3r

You went to a French wikipedia page for the history of an American agency? That's grasping. Not to mention wikipedia itself is weak support. You don't have to go to Wikipedia for this stuff anyway, it's a fact that NACA was a civilian agency, so is NASA and so is the FAA. So is the Post Office for that matter. All at some point had a relationship with the military but that does not make them military agencies.


Your microwave oven was "inspired by military radar" so by your logic it is a military device.

The thing about testing this for real I guess is that if you are the test pilot and you have to take it for a spin for one hour at light speed , you will notice that a year have past when you step out of that vehicle...

So don't do it when they say you have to test this for a week or month, because your loved one could be you grandparent...

I was sure i seen a news article awhile back about Warp Drive being possible..

Makes sense all on paper and to explain - just as much as anti-Gravity - that "force" around imagined being a grid pulled around or accelerated..

So - if this is possible or made possible in testing, then teleportation should be or could be done easier, no? and if that was so the automatic idea of launching something into space, End B, leaving end A here on earth, and as one poster said - a "digital" like state would form... Some awesome sconce is yet to come- Wish we had a solution to radiation though...