We have the basic elements for a "warp drive"

vonroach wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:41:06 +0000 (UTC), Midjis @ . wrote:

Of course, this question might well be a little premature since we would
have to be convinced that anyone was anywhere near breaking the light
barrier - and I am sure the first announcement of something so momentous
would not appear on Usenet...

Midjis

A tad more than `breaking a barrier', I would say. More like escaping
reality into some personal fantasy realm.

Dale Trynor wrote:
I just recently did a post examining if any sort of FTL might be possible
and its the best argument anywhere on why it might in fact be actually
possible. Here it is re-posted.

Dale Trynor wrote:
Is any form of faster than light possible, it may depend on what you mean.
One of the best gedanken's to get one started on examining this question
involves
the idea of actually not traveling very fast at all but instead slow down
time
for everyone else while keeping our own time unchanged. This would be a bit
impossible to do in practice as it would require everything in the entire
universes voluntarily putting themselves into orbit around black holes sense
it
appears to be about the only way one can actually slow down time without
necessarily involving travel as for our gedanken to work we would need for
objects to stay where they were originally.

Now notice how objects such as our astronaut or ourselves not being effected
by
the same sort of time dilation is now free to make journeys to other solar
systems etc. in very little of their time, alto it wont do us as the
travelers
much good, it will still ends up giving our time slowed observers the same
advantages as if they did have a faster than light, highway. Note that for
our
time slowed observers the age of the probes they send out to other colony's
would
tend to age at a rather rapid rate it would be of rather minor consequence
for a
machine. In this gedanken the spaces between the time slowed black holes will
in
some ways resemble wormholes.

Now ask what would happen if instead of slowing down time everywhere else we
instead speed up time within a bubble and or a wormhole instead, how
different
would this be and why ?. Note how this type of faster than light will not
cause
causality problems as for the example gedanken above will not allow for time
travel either as we do not time travel relative to any black holes despite
the
differences in time.


Later thoughts on this have let to some new questions such as I believe that
if
one were to have a bubble of fast time ( I haven't referred to this as a
warp
bubble because of the way it doesn't actually need to move at all but yet can

travel faster than light relative to us ), is that physical distances might
also
change making the problems associated with fast time less sever assuming its
correct.

Extra stuff that wasn't in the original post where I briefly said that I had
ideas to propose in the way of experiment but never said what they were and I
am still leaving a lot of information out so that I can keep this short..
The proposed experiments to actually prove this involves falling gravitating
bodies and showing that the space between them will briefly display an area
of accelerated time and would become wormhole like for any observers in a
free fall orbit near that area where the coalescing is occurring. It can also
involve examining how black holes coalesce and or if not why, as a means of
support or refutation of the theory.

If practical warp drive becomes possible I have a guess that if negative
energy might display a reverse of the centrifugal force, meaning that the
more you spin a ball of it the more forcefully it would clump together
without any limit, could prove essential.

Dale

In sci.physics MorituriMax wrote:
Midjis wrote:
Given current understanding of physics, exceeding the speed of light is
thought to be impossible. This may well be the case. However, I see no
reason to discard the possibility entirely as future discoveries may change
our understanding of the universe. Of course, they may not. We simply do
not know.

Especially since we would have to throw e=mc^2 out the window first... Unless
you plan on exploding the whole universe and feeding it into the gas tank.

Assuming something wierd doesn't happen with large masses (say over a gram)
at over .99c.
We have good theoretical predictions of what should happen, and solid
experimental background on smaller masses, it just hasn't been tested
yet.

Hell, nobodies even tested if antimatter falls down or up yet.

Midjis wrote:
As I said, I am not a physicist, so I am not planning on exploding anything
or throwing anything out of the window.

I am simply aware that from time to time people discover things that make
us stop and reassess what we thought we knew - even those things that
seemed like unassailable fact beforehand.

And from time to time trolls and cranks post crap in here which isn't related to
physics any more than tomatoes are related to potatoes.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:03:11 GMT, "MorituriMax"
wrote:

Midjis wrote:
As I said, I am not a physicist, so I am not planning on exploding anything
or throwing anything out of the window.

I am simply aware that from time to time people discover things that make
us stop and reassess what we thought we knew - even those things that
seemed like unassailable fact beforehand.

And from time to time trolls and cranks post crap in here which isn't related to
physics any more than tomatoes are related to potatoes.

Sounds like a cue for a song:

"You say neutrinos and I say neutrinos
You say Zee-bosons and I say Zed-bosons
Let's call the hole thing off..."

Hymie, I think we got a hit!

Midjis wrote:
Please yourself. If you prefer to believe that we know all we will ever
know and that nothing will ever change then that is up to you. Personally,
all I would claim about FTL travel is that I do not know enough to know
whether it is possible or not. If you do, then more power to you.

I didn't say that.. but you don't know any more than we do.. just because I have
never seen worms shooting birds with machine guns doesn't mean I can't tell
bull**** when I smell it. Someone may solve the FTL impossibility in the
future, it just won't be whoever is harping on this warp drive thingie.

wrote in message . com...
www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm

we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast

www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm

Its just a jump to the left...

JohnN

Midjis wrote:

"LawsonE" wrote:

But you can't call it that, even if you get it to work.
Paramount will sue.


I would wonder about this. Did they trademark the term 'warp
drive'? I am sure I have heard it used in other stories
without any apparent legal problems. Was there not a 'warp
drive' postulated that involved the generation of a gravity
well in front of the ship, for a 'carrot and stick' approach?

The earliest cite for 'warp drive' at the OED Science Fiction
Citations page (
http://www.jessesword.com/SF/sf_citations.shtml ) is 1951.
There's also a cite from 1958. So Star Trek didn't originate the
term. Furthermore, the phrase 'warp drive' has been trademarked
14 times, 3 of them still live (do your own search at the Patent
and Trademark Office http://www.uspto.gov/ ). I haven't checked
all of them, but none of the live ones are by Paramount. I'd say
Paramount would have a hard time enforcing such a trademark.

--
Dan Tilque

"Midjis" @ . ha scritto nel messaggio
.50...
"asps" wrote:

the only way , on my opinion for FTL perspetives is to work on mass
reduction as velocity increse .....


I cannot speak to you in mathematical terms - I am not a physicist, but
an interested amateur, so I may be speaking out of turn, or asking
questions I could not understand the answers to.

But I wonder, how do you propose to reduce the mass of an object without
changing its composition or the quantity of material? And even then, how
would you reduce it enough?

i must say that i am speaking about mass reduction for a pnn system only by
a theoretical point of view .... and it will happen in analogous manner (for
mass property) in which mass increase for a relativistic system

In *That TV Series*, they have 'inertial
dampers' to counter the effects of acceleration, and it might be that
these devices, or their complementary structural integrity field, serve
to prevent relativistic mass increases. But we do not have the benefit
of either, nor, as far as know, do we have any idea how to make anything
similar. It is also worth noting that ships in Star Trek do not defeat
relativity in this universe, but oscillate between this universe and a
subspace domain in which the rules of relativity are different, staying
in neither domain for more than Planck time. Yet we have no 'subspace'
to work with - let alone any way to access it at will.

the pnn system decrease its "potential magnetic energy " in the e.m. field
as increase its kinetic energy......this might be the 'subspace' to work
with


Gods, I do know some useless garbage about Star Trek, no? Shame I never
managed to learn any actual science... But the technology of the series
and the ideas behind it have always fascinated me.

Sincerely when i try to understand a little bit of "Star Trek technology"
when i try to go in deep of its "scientific ideas" i feel a complete
nonsense about what i need to do with operative actions


--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces

E.Laureti

vonroach writes:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:41:06 +0000 (UTC), Midjis *@*.* wrote:

Of course, this question might well be a little premature since we would
have to be convinced that anyone was anywhere near breaking the light
barrier - and I am sure the first announcement of something so momentous
would not appear on Usenet...

Midjis

A tad more than `breaking a barrier', I would say. More like escaping
reality into some personal fantasy realm.

What makes you think a "warp" drive would accelerate one to a velocity
that exceeds that of light? A true "warp" drive will "warp" spacetime such
that your desired source and destination points are colocated.

scott