Star Trek

Quote (GStone7 @ Oct. 12 2007, 2:29 pm)

Quote (Star_Fleet_Command375 @ Sep. 12 2007, 9:42 pm) For more info Google "Transformational Relativity Theory" it explains many of the aspects involved in breaking the light speed barrier & explains how FTL travel is possible. It didn't work for me. Nor on yahoo. Do you have a specific link?

don't bother it is crank science...

As it stand nothing points to breaking the light barrier at this moment ( other to the known exception). At best some physicists hope that relativity is a weak energy condition, like newtonian physics are with non relativitic velocities and low power gravitation fields, and when we approach energy densities in the Tev ranges we will see a new form of physics.
Such hints of a new physics has appear with some rare and powerful cosmic rays that may be acting different to the standard rules of Einstein relativity. But such rays are rare ( on the average it believe only 6 hit the earth in this range per year!

So we must wait till we can create such energic particles with particle accelerator. This could be a long wait as our most powerful accelerator are only in the Gev range.

Here is a little theory that I have been working on using lasers.

We know that lasers travel at the speed of light. We also know that the photons travel along orbital paths. We also know that lasers use gases as a source to create the beam which contain atoms.

I will use two lasers for this theory,

Laser one: Laser one would have inert atoms attached to the photons that remain inert (meaning the two atoms do not create a release of energy when joined together)

Laser two:Laser two would be a mirror of laser one except for the atoms attached to the laser photons would react with the atoms attached to the photons from laser one.

These lasers would need to be aligned to such precision that
the orbital paths from each laser would collide with each other at the same time. When the photons collide with each other they should cancel each ones energy out but when the two inert atoms that have been attached to the photons collide and become active their collision in theory would release an amount of energy equal to that of the atoms used.

This release of energy would not be a light speed reaction but would be close to that of lightspeed. This is because  the process of when the atoms collide would create a planck time moment where reaction would be stalled due to the restructing of the atoms colliding and then releasing their energy.

To increase the thrust yield more lasers would be used to create a more energetic release or thrust.

To decrease the thrust yield fewer lasers would be used to create a less energetic release or  thrust

I have postulated that E=MC**2 is only feasible in the constant state that is related to modern atomic era, and that the equation will function on another constant in another terreformic constant, such as those portrayed by dark energy in the early universe after the big bang.  if this is the case then the fact that faster than light can be achieved may be directly limited to not being feasible in our current atomic state.  This means that for this reaction to stabalize we would have to stabalize an entirely different latitude of demensional constants or the demensional constants in our type universe would destabalize the reaction.  Possibly a contained stabalized bubble of differential demensional constants.

Quote (dryson @ Oct. 18 2007, 11:37 pm)

Here is a little theory that I have been working on using lasers. We know that lasers travel at the speed of light. We also know that the photons travel along orbital paths. We also know that lasers use gases as a source to create the beam which contain atoms. I will use two lasers for this theory, Laser one: Laser one would have inert atoms attached to the photons that remain inert (meaning the two atoms do not create a release of energy when joined together) Laser two:Laser two would be a mirror of laser one except for the atoms attached to the laser photons would react with the atoms attached to the photons from laser one. These lasers would need to be aligned to such precision that the orbital paths from each laser would collide with each other at the same time. When the photons collide with each other they should cancel each ones energy out but when the two inert atoms that have been attached to the photons collide and become active their collision in theory would release an amount of energy equal to that of the atoms used. This release of energy would not be a light speed reaction but would be close to that of lightspeed. This is because ¿the process of when the atoms collide would create a planck time moment where reaction would be stalled due to the restructing of the atoms colliding and then releasing their energy. To increase the thrust yield more lasers would be used to create a more energetic release or thrust. To decrease the thrust yield fewer lasers would be used to create a less energetic release or ¿thrust

stick to sci fi..:) Won't work..

Quote:
I'm not an expert on magnetic fields but it seems to me that the spotty magnetic fields on mars are probably caused by iron ore deposits. Each iron molecule has it's own north and south pole but when connected to another molecule they combine. Put more and more iron molecules together and your magnet grows. Each deposit would have it's own north and south pole so that's why the instruments detected so much flipping.

I'm not sure if the iron ore has to be formed (cooling magma high in iron content) in the presence of a magnetic field. If so maybe mars had one long ago and now we are only seeing what remains of it, large and small magnets across the planet.


-Dook-

Now in order for gravity or electromagnetic fields to be present throughout the Universe, the above stated fact would imply that only planets and suns or gas giants generate a field large enough to keep a solar system together. When this is applied to a galaxy the same can be said to be true.

But what about outside of a galaxy?Quote:
Put more and more iron or other molecules together and your magnetic field grows.


With most matter being contained within a galaxy can it be safe to say that between galaxies there would hardly be any gravity if any at all, Given the stated fact made by Dook above? Another question to ask, are there areas of space between solar systems where the spacial bodies contained within each solar system produce just enough gravity to keep the system held together? Are there areas outside of these types of systems or between neighboring solar systems where gravity may not create a pull to the center of the largest mass that is producing the gravitational pull?

Meaning that gravity does not encompass all of the Universe because in order for the gravitional field to effect the given area the largest spacial object in that solar system must be at least the mass of our sun. A smaller massed sun would not be able to keep the solar system held together.Meaning that there are areas of space void of any gravity based on the relative mass of the sun in each system.

How this relates to FTL travel. We know that gravity exerts a pull on a body which on a planet is called weight but in space is called mass. The larger a sun's mass is the more pull it will create on an vessel meaning that the vessel will have to use more thrust to escape the gravitational pull of the sun in question. But in an area outside of a sun's gravitational pull the mass of the vessel would be considerably less when trying to goto FTL in system. This means that the vessel could attain higher flight velocities once outside a solar system. Even a conventional rocket motor would reach new levels of velocity given the gravity of the solar system would diminish the farther the vessel got away from the sun.

So my theory may possibly work.

How do you know it work Lancer? Just because you didn't come up with the theory or idea it doens't work. Sounds like jealousy to me that you can't come up with anything original and are common place in your thinking. It is you that needs to stick to sci-fi, better yet go back to your own galaxy. Just leave Romi here. KICK! Watch out for those two black holes Lancer.

Quote (dryson @ Nov. 18 2007, 10:29 pm)

Quote: I'm not an expert on magnetic fields but it seems to me that the spotty magnetic fields on mars are probably caused by iron ore deposits. Each iron molecule has it's own north and south pole but when connected to another molecule they combine. Put more and more iron molecules together and your magnet grows. Each deposit would have it's own north and south pole so that's why the instruments detected so much flipping. I'm not sure if the iron ore has to be formed (cooling magma high in iron content) in the presence of a magnetic field. If so maybe mars had one long ago and now we are only seeing what remains of it, large and small magnets across the planet. -Dook- Now in order for gravity or electromagnetic fields to be present throughout the Universe, the above stated fact would imply that only planets and suns or gas giants generate a field large enough to keep a solar system together. When this is applied to a galaxy the same can be said to be true. But what about outside of a galaxy?Quote: Put more and more iron or other molecules together and your magnetic field grows. With most matter being contained within a galaxy can it be safe to say that between galaxies there would hardly be any gravity if any at all, Given the stated fact made by Dook above? Another question to ask, are there areas of space between solar systems where the spacial bodies contained within each solar system produce just enough gravity to keep the system held together? Are there areas outside of these types of systems or between neighboring solar systems where gravity may not create a pull to the center of the largest mass that is producing the gravitational pull? Meaning that gravity does not encompass all of the Universe because in order for the gravitional field to effect the given area the largest spacial object in that solar system must be at least the mass of our sun. A smaller massed sun would not be able to keep the solar system held together.Meaning that there are areas of space void of any gravity based on the relative mass of the sun in each system. How this relates to FTL travel. We know that gravity exerts a pull on a body which on a planet is called weight but in space is called mass. The larger a sun's mass is the more pull it will create on an vessel meaning that the vessel will have to use more thrust to escape the gravitational pull of the sun in question. But in an area outside of a sun's gravitational pull the mass of the vessel would be considerably less when trying to goto FTL in system. This means that the vessel could attain higher flight velocities once outside a solar system. Even a conventional rocket motor would reach new levels of velocity given the gravity of the solar system would diminish the farther the vessel got away from the sun. So my theory may possibly work. How do you know it work Lancer? Just because you didn't come up with the theory or idea it doens't work. Sounds like jealousy to me that you can't come up with anything original and are common place in your thinking. It is you that needs to stick to sci-fi, better yet go back to your own galaxy. Just leave Romi here. KICK! Watch out for those two black holes Lancer.

How? easy particle physicists deal with particle accelerated close to speed of light all the time. These particles are observed to obey Einstein theory of relativity, and according to this theory It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle to the speed of light.

Particle accelerator all over the world use Einstein equations in their design to take in account the addition mass and energy that particle possess as they accelerated too relativitic velocity, and to date no single experiment or observation has proof Einstein work wrong.

Not just particle in the lab, but cosmic rays have show that this is true. One Proton had been observed travelling so close to the speed of light that it mass had been increase that it possessed the same energy of a baseball hurl at 90 mph..

At this point we know that it take the energy of Galactic black hole to be able to do this.

The magnetic fields involved in doing this are millions of time stronger than you generate with magnetic..

Just look a species of Neutron stars call Magnstars, their magnetic field are so powerful that it literally turn gamma rays into showers of positron and electrons..Yet no FTL particles have ever been observed with observation of them..

Quote

How? easy particle physicists deal with particle accelerated close to speed of light all the time. These particles are observed to obey Einstein theory of relativity, and according to this theory It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle to the speed of light. Particle accelerator all over the world use Einstein equations in their design to take in account the addition mass and energy that particle possess as they accelerated too relativitic velocity, and to date no single experiment or observation has proof Einstein work wrong. Not just particle in the lab, but cosmic rays have show that this is true. One Proton had been observed travelling so close to the speed of light that it mass had been increase that it possessed the same energy of a baseball hurl at 90 mph.. At this point we know that it take the energy of Galactic black hole to be able to do this. The magnetic fields involved in doing this are millions of time stronger than you generate with magnetic.. Just look a species of Neutron stars call Magnstars, their magnetic field are so powerful that it literally turn gamma rays into showers of positron and electrons..Yet no FTL particles have ever been observed with observation of them..

So what your underlying tone suggest is that all particles have to obey a theory designed by a man who was only
on the earth for a short period of time and since he developed the theory that all particles that came before einstein's time
were nothing more then a bunch of outlaws that needed to be governed or laws placed on them to get them in line. The only thing you are doing Lancer is combining religion and laws together to generalize about something you don't know anything about. Because if you had your own mind to think "out of the box" then my suggestion would be reasonable, but because you can neither think for your self or come up with anything original you can only use generalized aspects to what you what people to think. Which since you have included religion in your downing process can only be shown that you are just some little speck that hates when something is talked about that you don't have an understanding of or can claim as your own original thought.

The ony thing that Einstein did was take what the Greats before him discovered, twisted some math around it to make it sound fascinating just to woo and wow people into thinking he was some kind of god.

Quote (dryson @ Nov. 19 2007, 6:28 pm)

Quote How? easy particle physicists deal with particle accelerated close to speed of light all the time. These particles are observed to obey Einstein theory of relativity, and according to this theory It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle to the speed of light. Particle accelerator all over the world use Einstein equations in their design to take in account the addition mass and energy that particle possess as they accelerated too relativitic velocity, and to date no single experiment or observation has proof Einstein work wrong. Not just particle in the lab, but cosmic rays have show that this is true. One Proton had been observed travelling so close to the speed of light that it mass had been increase that it possessed the same energy of a baseball hurl at 90 mph.. At this point we know that it take the energy of Galactic black hole to be able to do this. The magnetic fields involved in doing this are millions of time stronger than you generate with magnetic.. Just look a species of Neutron stars call Magnstars, their magnetic field are so powerful that it literally turn gamma rays into showers of positron and electrons..Yet no FTL particles have ever been observed with observation of them.. So what your underlying tone suggest is that all particles have to obey a theory designed by a man who was only on the earth for a short period of time and since he developed the theory that all particles that came before einstein's time were nothing more then a bunch of outlaws that needed to be governed or laws placed on them to get them in line. The only thing you are doing Lancer is combining religion and laws together to generalize about something you don't know anything about. Because if you had your own mind to think "out of the box" then my suggestion would be reasonable, but because you can neither think for your self or come up with anything original you can only use generalized aspects to what you what people to think. Which since you have included religion in your downing process can only be shown that you are just some little speck that hates when something is talked about that you don't have an understanding of or can claim as your own original thought. The ony thing that Einstein did was take what the Greats before him discovered, twisted some math around it to make it sound fascinating just to woo and wow people into thinking he was some kind of god.

Yes all matter does!! The theory basically descript the under lying principle that Einstein observed. The principle is due to restriction in the structure of space and time itself..

Einstein brillant was the fact that he was able to see how all the data and work other scientist did before him came together to form this underlying principle.

The fact is that Maxwell who first came up with the equations on electro magnetism notice that C was special, but he couldn't see how this would effect matter traveling at near light velocity. Lorentz came up with original equation for dilation of time and space, but did not understand the mechanism of how energy and mass would alter the structure of space..

Einstein did, and all scientist build on the work of others. Newton was the first to state it, Standing on the shoulders of Giants as it called.

Einsteins also was one of the founders of Quantum mechanics , his work on photon electric effect earn him a nobel prize in physics.

person attacks against him doesn't alter the fact that Relativity works, it has survived almost an entire century of testing. Its equations are used by particle physicists, it use in calculations of GPS coordinates, and even in solid state physics used in creating microchips..

If it is wrong we have not detected it after all these years...

simple as that, Einstein work have survived the test of time and there is no current theory to replace Relativity.. simple as that.

Lancer there is no structure to space. There are no invisible beams or girders holding space together and if these theories are proven wrong then sapce will collapse.

Time does not dialate, theat notion is taken from how a human eye id effected when light interacts with the various parts of the eye. Less light the pupil becomes larger to allow more light in the brighter the light the smaller the pupil gets

Time is nothing more then a measurable distance an atom takes from point A to Point B based on how much energy the atom generates within a body (space, air, water, ect) along with the external pressures placed upon it.

Outside of a galaxy where planets are not located at, which by the way has anyone ever seen a planet just floating around in space? No planets only orbit solar masses or suns.

Outside of a suns (not son) gravitational field, which by the way diminishes based on the type of sun is in the solar system there is not any gravity. Only matter compacted to form nebulaes, planets, roids, comets, suns blackholes generate gravity outside of these areas there is not any gravity.

So yes FTL is possible, you just choose to not have faith in FTL because you have the mentality of thinking that it would happend over night and everyone would leave you behind.

I for one would leave you behind as you would put the mission success and the crews lives at danger.

Quote (dryson @ Nov. 20 2007, 8:07 pm)

Lancer there is no structure to space. There are no invisible beams or girders holding space together and if these theories are proven wrong then sapce will collapse. Time does not dialate, theat notion is taken from how a human eye id effected when light interacts with the various parts of the eye. Less light the pupil becomes larger to allow more light in the brighter the light the smaller the pupil gets Time is nothing more then a measurable distance an atom takes from point A to Point B based on how much energy the atom generates within a body (space, air, water, ect) along with the external pressures placed upon it. Outside of a galaxy where planets are not located at, which by the way has anyone ever seen a planet just floating around in space? No planets only orbit solar masses or suns. Outside of a suns (not son) gravitational field, which by the way diminishes based on the type of sun is in the solar system there is not any gravity. Only matter compacted to form nebulaes, planets, roids, comets, suns blackholes generate gravity outside of these areas there is not any gravity. So yes FTL is possible, you just choose to not have faith in FTL because you have the mentality of thinking that it would happend over night and everyone would leave you behind. I for one would leave you behind as you would put the mission success and the crews lives at danger.

Actually you are wrong, space time has a structure, and this structure is what it warped by matter and energy.

While it is not made of matter like beam sand struts, it has a physical reality, and it this structure that is responble for the bending of light in gravitational field.

time does dilate, it has been proven over and over in countless experiments ranging from the original Michelson and Morely experiment to test done by the B probe satellites.

Even if Einstein theory is proven wrong, that doesnot eliminate the physical evident.. At best what ever theory Replaces Relativity will still need to explain and include Einstein's equation within the body of the theory just like Newtons equations are still valid and usable after addings valiable for effects of time and space dilations..

FTL may be possible, since Relativity does show instants where one can cheat, such as wormholes and warp bubbles.
But Quantum tunneling will not yield such a means of FTL travel since it only effect subatomic particles and individual light photons over short distants..

One additional method by the use of the Casmir effect, would actually raise the value of C...

As it stand I donot see FTL travel anytime soon..

Time is a measure, not a living entity. Time is the measurable distance a body broken down into a single atom moves over a a distance relative to the atoms energetic properties.

Space cannot be bent unless the following is found to be true, otherwise space is the adsence of something.

Since an atom generates a small amount of gravity based on the interaction between the protons,electrons and nucleus, what would happen if all of the protons and electrons were stripped from the nucleus? Would the nucleus still retain a certain amount of energy? Would the nucleus become inert and then decay into black radiation? (radiation that is emitted from an inert atom) that would survive in space for thousands of years? Or would the Atom simply cease to exist?

Does an atom become space or the vacuum when the nucleus has been stripped of all its electrons and protons? If this can be proven to be true then I would concede that space can be warped just as light is bent around a larger more powerful gravitational force.

Perhaps when light enters a blackhole and since the light cannot escape the gravity of the black hole, perhaps the photons revert to another form of energy perhaps anti-photonic, meaning the opposite of light which is the darkness or space.

Has there ever been any attempts to fully strip an atom of all it's protons and and electrons?

Quote (dryson @ Nov. 22 2007, 10:42 pm)

Time is a measure, not a living entity. Time is the measurable distance a body broken down into a single atom moves over a a distance relative to the atoms energetic properties. Space cannot be bent unless the following is found to be true, otherwise space is the adsence of something. Since an atom generates a small amount of gravity based on the interaction between the protons,electrons and nucleus, what would happen if all of the protons and electrons were stripped from the nucleus? Would the nucleus still retain a certain amount of energy? Would the nucleus become inert and then decay into black radiation? (radiation that is emitted from an inert atom) that would survive in space for thousands of years? Or would the Atom simply cease to exist? Does an atom become space or the vacuum when the nucleus has been stripped of all its electrons and protons? If this can be proven to be true then I would concede that space can be warped just as light is bent around a larger more powerful gravitational force. Perhaps when light enters a blackhole and since the light cannot escape the gravity of the black hole, perhaps the photons revert to another form of energy perhaps anti-photonic, meaning the opposite of light which is the darkness or space. Has there ever been any attempts to fully strip an atom of all it's protons and and electrons?

Space does bend, we have measure this in the area around our own planet, in the obrit of mercury ( which can only be explain by this warping and dragging of space around the sun).

As it stands, the physical existant of space and time is more solid than that of sub atomic matter. Quantum physics show that these particles have no true existant until they are measure, while space and time always seem to exist from a stand point of quantum and string theory.

Space and time are bend by enery, matter, pressure and dark energy.

Now if you strip all particles from an atom, you have nothing. All the energy is tried up in these particles and their interaction. Neutrons by themselves would decay into protons and electrons in around 6 minutes. It only by diverting energy to binding protons and neutron together are they spared this fate in stable nucleus..

There are no atoms nucleus just composed of neutrons, even neutron stars are a matrix of neutron, electrons, protons and degenerative matter.

You cannot have an inert atom, particles only exist thru their interactions, now if they are not interacting they exist as a quantum waveform, but they are still part of the overall particle field associated with that wave form..

space cannot measured. How can something that doesn't exist be measured?

What is energy? An active atom moving about at certain rate of velocity to create either a gas, solid or liquid. So if you flip this over then space can be said to be the opposite of what energy is.

Now if the big bang is true then a hell of alot of energy would have been released. In a Universal aspect this amount of energy released at one time COULD have stripped the electrons and protons and neutrons from an atom thus rendering the atom and inert or an inactive form of energy that does not react with any other forms of energy.

Perhaps though, if a large enough energetic causality effected some of these inert atoms perhaps the atoms would re-gain their lost electrons,protons and neutrons thus creating a singularity. There is so much about space that we don't know and formal conviental thinking and theories can't even contest with what is going in the next galaxy.

Quote (Jarriss @ Sep. 27 2007, 3:52 pm)

That does it: Ban all reseach on this 'String Theory'. And more money to Fusion Research, we need the power source.

That's some attitude you have on it.

Banning one type of research doesn't mean you'll get faster results in another.

I think you've left the bounds of reality, Dryson, and are making up you own views as you go.

We have tested the ideas given by Einstien, and so far, they've turned out to be true.
Haven't you heard of gravitational lensing?
Time dilation itself has been observed as well in experiments.
General relativity has in fact not only explained planet Mercury's motions, but also has been incorperated into how GPS works.

It's not that scientists see Einstien as a god. Rather, he made the connections to what was already known. If it wasn't for the fact that he used to support the Steady State model of the universe, he could've predicted it's expansion, as observed by Edwin Hubble.

Quote

There is so much about space that we don't know and formal conviental thinking and theories can't even contest with what is going in the next galaxy.

Citation, please?