ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

IS warp speed possible

Report this
Created by: Six of Nine

Kornula

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1676

Report this Jul. 26 2011, 9:29 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>If warp travel does ever become a reality, hopefully it'll be faster than warp 1 (speed of light).  Speed of light, as fast as it is, won't get us much as far as intersteller space travel is concerned.  Though according to spatial relativity, one could travel great distances and still survive without aging but everyone else would age very fast in the mean time -- kinda like what happened in the original planet of the apes movie.

>


Something to ponder... According to the orginal theory, the first atomic bomb was supposed to set of a chain reaction that would rip apart every atom in the universe from one blast.   They went ahead anyway and tested the bomb - Luckily, it just caused severe radiation burns, caused skin to melt  off the body, caused excessive anal bleeding.. but it did not rip apart every molocule in the universe.


If we apply this theroy to say.. traveling towards the speed of light, who knows what will reallly happen until we take that chance.

Kornula

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1676

Report this Jul. 27 2011, 2:54 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>No need to apologise Kornula. I took offense prematurally.

>I do agree with you that the future inventor of warp drive will be a Trekkie. Alcubierre who made the first warp metric was...

>


Right on!

Kornula

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1676

Report this Jul. 27 2011, 9:18 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>But if we do invent (Discover?) warp speed it will not become an issue of fuel, material or speed. It will be a tearing of physical space that lets us enjoy interstellar travel.   

>


We will not know until we get there.

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Jul. 28 2011, 10:43 am

I wouldnt use the word tearing of space as an appropiate word for warp speed.


Tearing something means you leave jagged edges. Jagged edges leave behind forces of resistance.


The correct term would be eliptical smoothing. Eliptical smoothing would occur where the interior surface of the warp field or bubble is smooth.


If you tear into space space or Dark Matter will leave behind jagged edged. Edges that will tear the ship apart as it accelerates to faster and faster velocities.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

DammitJim6200

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6876

Report this Jul. 29 2011, 5:00 pm

 


Tearing of space may be possible but Bending of space time might be applicable, as much as I like Star Trek I think Roddenberry got it all wrong, I don't think we'll be that advanced by the 23rd century for Warp speed possibly by the 28th century we'll be making progress towards it, the enormous power is just too great.

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Aug. 01 2011, 10:57 am

Hope is Candle


Inconstant Speed of Light May Debunk Einstein


http://www.rense.com/general28/erin.htm


SYDNEY (Reuters) - A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

"That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters.

"But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones."

Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the August 8 edition of scientific journal Nature.

The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.

Davies said fundamentally Webb's observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans.

The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed.

IN TROUBLE EITHER WAY

"But two of the cherished laws of the universe are the law that electron charge shall not change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever way you look at it we're in trouble," Davies said.

To establish which of the two constants might not be that constant after all, Davies' team resorted to the study of black holes, mysterious astronomical bodies that suck in stars and other galactic features.

They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which Davies summarizes as "you can't get something for nothing."

After considering that a change in the electron charge over time would violate the sacrosanct second law of thermodynamics, they concluded that the only option was to challenge the constancy of the speed of light.

More study of quasar light is needed in order to validate Webb's observations, and to back up the proposal that light speed may vary, a theory Davies stresses represents only the first chink in the armor of the theory of relativity.

In the meantime, the implications are as unclear as the unexplored depths of the universe themselves.

"When one of the cornerstones of physics collapses, it's not obvious what you hang onto and what you discard," Davies said.

"If what we're seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear."

It could be that the possible change in light speed will only matter in the study of the large scale structure of the universe, its origins and evolution.

For example, varying light speed could explain why two distant and causally unconnected parts of the universe can be so similar even if, according to conventional thought, there has not been enough time for light or other forces to pass between them.

It may only matter when scientists are studying effects over billions of years or billions of light years.

Or there may be startling implications that could change not only the way cosmologists view the universe but also its potential for human exploitation.

"For example there's a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity," Davies said. The accepted speed of light is 300,000 km (186,300 miles) per second.

"Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off," Davies said.


Copyright 2002 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


   


Of course the speed of light isn't constant. It never has been.It can change depending on the density of the medium it is traveling in as well as gravimetric flux.In other words, external factors can affect the observed speed of light Considering that the age of the photons they measured was 12 BILLION years, a lot could have happened to those photons in that period of time.


Some thoughts:


Consider also that the density of the universe isn't constant, that the density hasn't been constant as it expands, and that the gravimetric flux changes not only as one travels through it, but because the universe itself is expanding (see note). Perhaps the photons passed through a gravimetric lens of which we aren't yet aware or some other phenomenon.


Perhaps some phenomenon we haven't seen before drifted in and then out of the path of the photons on their way to Earth. Perhaps there is an interaction with "dark matter" which is a newly developing field of theoretical study.


John Albrecht
Phoenix, AZ


(Note: an expanding universe poses an interesting observation. One might assume that as the universe expands, the density decreases because it is occupying an increasing volume, and hence, the speed of light "should" increase over time as the density decreases. However, one might also observe that in some areas the density might actually increase as atoms of matter tend to distribute more homogeneously throughout the volume of space, and thereby actually result in an increased apparent density thereby resulting in an apparent reduction in the speed of light over time, as Davies et al has said.)


Enter the paradox of Dark Matter


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Aug. 01 2011, 11:04 am

Sorry Einstein and other proponents of his theories current day physics is discovering a world of physics not bound by human laws but a world of physics bound by Equal and Opposite reactions.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Aug. 01 2011, 11:13 am

To get technical, the warp metric is not a tearing or smoothing of space. It comes from a contraction of space in the fore direction of the craft and an expansion in the aft direction:


 


http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0009013


 


Unless you refer to the Natario configuration I posted on page 1 of this thread, where space tends to "slide" around the exotic energy bubble. But this is a STL warp drive, not a warp speed drive.


 


And Kirkishkahn, you state that we will invent a time machine before a warp drive? Warp speed violates casualty, hence any FTL travel is essetially time travel into the past. Travelling close to the speed of light slows down time, meaning one travels into the future quicker. So warp drive (whether STL or FTL) will be a time machine. Both will arrive at the same time.


 


The ratio at which time travels on board a ship compared to an observer at rest with the universe is:


 


sqare root of 1 - (v2/c2)


 


Set the speed of light (c) at 1, and velocity (v) as a fraction of it. At close to the speed of light (lets say v=0.99) we come up with a very small number; 0.141... So for every second that passes on Earth, 0.141 seconds passes on board the vessel. If we set velocity at greater than c, we comeinto negative numbers, which can't be squared. Casualty is violated. Our ship is hence travelling into the past.


Your confusing science with literary techniques of telling a fascinating story...nothing more.


You cannot go into the past because the past has already occured and cannot occupy a future or present area of time whether you want to beleive it or not.


Just because we travel closer to the center of the Sol system does not mean that we have time traveled to a point when the Sol System was young. The same is true is true with traveling at light speed and faster. All that would occur is you would occupy points on a time line of measureable distance from point A to point B at a faster rate of velocity then if you were taveling at half the speed of light.


The first area to get rid of in your mind is the foolish notion of time travel being real as well as believing the sensationalism surrounding time travel that you see as t.v. as being real.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

Ayko

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 591

Report this Aug. 01 2011, 11:35 am

If an object is accelerating towards light speed with some hypothetic super propulsion method, then that object is not traveling at a constant speed, Now if the propulsion system hypothetically pushed the object beyond light speed the 0 dimensional/infinite mass point is never reached because while accelerating, which light does not do remaining at a constant speed, the constant light speed is not reached and the negative results are related to the direction of time past the speed of light,

Also, does light have dimensions and/or infinite mass? I mean anywhere you are in the universe their is light, even within a black hole though it cannot reflect back, as far as we know, Point is even without a sun you can see stars and other galaxies which means light is EVERYWHERE so, perhaps light does have infinite mass, and with that, no dimensions that are constant (to be mesured) except the rate of speed, Is that ludicrous?

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Aug. 01 2011, 12:15 pm

Light only exists within the sphere of Dark Matter or the medium that ultimately defines the speed of light.


If light was everywhere then we would be able to see outside of our own Universe to another Universe.


But since wwe can only see the Galaxies within our Universe light is not present everywhere.


Also the post relating to Transparent Aluminum also fits in with traveling faster than light. If a ship were constructed of colored transparent aluminum the ship would be far lighter that a ship constructed of steel or even titanium. A ship that would be lower in weight would use less fuel when traveling to c as well as being porous enough to allow dark matter to travel between the vacuum points within the gorilla glass along with being as strong as the steel structural members.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

captain Nick

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14

Report this Aug. 01 2011, 1:42 pm

Quote: OneDamnMinuteAdmiral @ May. 07 2011, 10:03 pm

>

>Is flight possible? How about communications over long distances? Computers that can fit in your hand? Flat TVs? At one time in history noone could have imagined those things yet we have them now, so I say eventually someone will attain the knowledge to travel faster than light it just might take awhile to learn it.

>
agreed, we have come on in leaps and bounds over the twentieth century, once we get our teeth around something we do not let go untill we find an answer, and (eventually) we generally do.

jennapeterson88

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Aug. 04 2011, 12:44 pm

I'd like to think it will be possible, at some point in the future, to travel "at warp speeds," though I'm not sure that warp drive, as depicted in Star Trek, is the best way to go.


Anyone remember the movie Event Horizon? Granted it's a Sci-Fi horror, and things end badly, but I've always thought the creator of that storyline was onto something.

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Aug. 06 2011, 3:14 am

Lets look at Dark Matter for a moment. Lets consider the Universe like an atom where each orbital represents a multiverse of energy. Our orbital that we live in is based upon a certain amount of energetic reactions based upon the distance from the center of our Universe. Dark Matter is thought of as being a force that keeps even gravity in check. This would mean that Dark Matter is some type of layer energy that resides at a higher orbital that we do. Since Dark Matter defines the velocity of the light photon by constanty making the energy of the light photon jump to a higher orbital and then back to the original orbital would make the light photon travel at light speed. But what if we were able to 'jump' to the Dark Matter orbital itself. Would we be able to travel at faster than light speed velocities because we would no longer be bound by the same energetic reactions within our orbital that would be subjected to the immense pressure of Dark Matter?


Think of the word relative,not the physics, but the word. If all of the Universe is made up of atoms and all atoms have orbitals where the electrons can jump to a higher orbital given the correct amount of energy is present then wouldn't the Universe on a whole function relative to the way that the atom functions given the fact that the Universe is made up of atoms? If so then there would be higher orbitals, dimensions or multiverse present.


Our Universe could be but one electron on a orbital path around the nucleus. Which would then again make all of the Universe's within that atomic Universe simply part of another atom and so forth and so forth into the paradoxial realm of Infinity.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum