#1
|
|||
|
|||
space travel
well, ive looked throught the forum and see some stuff about the
future for space. ideas and so on. but have any1 of you thought about how we should be able to travel this enoprmues amount of distance? it take atleast 2 month to travel to mars today. and that is to much whit oput artificiel gravity. to travel outside our own system we need warp speeds. what is warp now? its a way to travel faster then the speed of light, now you think, nothing whit a mass greater then 0 cant do it. yes they cant, but what say that the spacetime continuum cant? nothing. my idea to accomplish this is that we biuld somekind generator which stretch out the spacetime continuum in front of the ship while pushing it togheter behind it, when it reach a critical level where the spacetime continuum in front of the ship are to thin and the 1 behind are to fat, it will create a "spacetime wave" and if the ship keep stretching and push it togheter the ship can ride the wave, then its still in normal space whit out moving, while the spacetime continuum is moving. what do you think? :idea: *-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com *-----------------------* |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, let's try it. I'm in a rocket. I make time in front of me move
slower, and time behind me move faster. and umm. I'm still not moving. Ok, well here goes, i make my mega-uber-space ship warp both space and time, behind me is massive, infront of me is slowed. umm wait a minute......insert mandatory paragraph I'm a blackhole. The known universe has already thought of this and they are not moving faster than light either. Try again one dollar. "zelos" wrote in message ... well, ive looked throught the forum and see some stuff about the future for space. ideas and so on. but have any1 of you thought about how we should be able to travel this enoprmues amount of distance? it take atleast 2 month to travel to mars today. and that is to much whit oput artificiel gravity. to travel outside our own system we need warp speeds. what is warp now? its a way to travel faster then the speed of light, now you think, nothing whit a mass greater then 0 cant do it. yes they cant, but what say that the spacetime continuum cant? nothing. my idea to accomplish this is that we biuld somekind generator which stretch out the spacetime continuum in front of the ship while pushing it togheter behind it, when it reach a critical level where the spacetime continuum in front of the ship are to thin and the 1 behind are to fat, it will create a "spacetime wave" and if the ship keep stretching and push it togheter the ship can ride the wave, then its still in normal space whit out moving, while the spacetime continuum is moving. what do you think? :idea: *-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com *-----------------------* |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:45:16 -0400, wrote:
Ok, let's try it. I'm in a rocket. I make time in front of me move slower, and time behind me move faster. and umm. I'm still not moving. Ok, well here goes, i make my mega-uber-space ship warp both space and time, behind me is massive, infront of me is slowed. umm wait a minute......insert mandatory paragraph I'm a blackhole. The known universe has already thought of this and they are not moving faster than light either. Try again one dollar. No that is not correct. There is indeed a solution to general relativity along the lines he suggest. It was first suggested by a Welsh physisist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994. The paper is indeed called warp drive. http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/rel...miguel94a.html -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sounds logical, but it still seems to me that this is what a black hole
does. Even if a b.h. did this in minor amounts they would still be orbiting the galaxy at a faster rate. Don't get me wrong, I belive there are ways to break Einstines rules wether this is one or not. Reminds me of the 'warp drive' in a movie where they place a black hole in front of the ship and just 'fall' into it going faster than light. In my own opinon I think it will have something to do with entangled particals. they are obviously breaking einstines law's. -- Matthew Hagston "John Thingstad" wrote in message news On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:45:16 -0400, wrote: Ok, let's try it. I'm in a rocket. I make time in front of me move slower, and time behind me move faster. and umm. I'm still not moving. Ok, well here goes, i make my mega-uber-space ship warp both space and time, behind me is massive, infront of me is slowed. umm wait a minute......insert mandatory paragraph I'm a blackhole. The known universe has already thought of this and they are not moving faster than light either. Try again one dollar. No that is not correct. There is indeed a solution to general relativity along the lines he suggest. It was first suggested by a Welsh physisist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994. The paper is indeed called warp drive. http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/rel...miguel94a.html -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:15:01 GMT, Matthew Hagston wrote: Sounds logical, but it still seems to me that this is what a black hole does. Even if a b.h. did this in minor amounts they would still be orbiting the galaxy at a faster rate. Don't get me wrong, I belive there are ways to break Einstines rules wether this is one or not. Reminds me of the 'warp drive' in a movie where they place a black hole in front of the ship and just 'fall' into it going faster than light. In my own opinon I think it will have something to do with entangled particals. they are obviously breaking einstines law's. Alcubierre's model is within the confines of general relativity. It does not break relativity. The point s that the stretch of space is local. Inside the field the time lines are normal so this is not a black hole. (Have you actually read the article?) As for entagled states this does not violate general relativity either. Though it is a answer to the Einstein Polensky Rosen (EPR) paradox. That is: Consider a energetic phothon decaying into a positron electron pair. Now measure the momentum of the electron (or positron) and the position of the positron. Now you can calculate the exact energy and position of the photon. But that is impossible according to quantum mechanics. A experiment at Princton in 1984 measuring uncertainty of spin showed that measuring the momentum of one particle changed the spin of the other instantly thus confirming this confusion. Bercley has done extensive studies of 'coupled states' since then. Copled states occur when two events are not independent. (remeber independence from statistics P(A,B) = P(A)* P(B)) The shift between couple states are instant leading to the faster than light property you are implying. But they are a local phenomena which are simply not described by relavivity. The thus do not break relativity. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
honestly, no. I tried to read the artical but not pulling up right on
this computer. Will do so when i get home late tonight. I thought for the entangled pairs, what you did to one, happened to the other, regardless of distance? As far as the original question,... so basicly, you are creating a time bubble around yourself, then create an indifference between front and back so that you flow towards one side. say, like a magnet? -- Matthew Hagston --- "John Thingstad" wrote in message news On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:15:01 GMT, Matthew Hagston wrote: Sounds logical, but it still seems to me that this is what a black hole does. Even if a b.h. did this in minor amounts they would still be orbiting the galaxy at a faster rate. Don't get me wrong, I belive there are ways to break Einstines rules wether this is one or not. Reminds me of the 'warp drive' in a movie where they place a black hole in front of the ship and just 'fall' into it going faster than light. In my own opinon I think it will have something to do with entangled particals. they are obviously breaking einstines law's. Alcubierre's model is within the confines of general relativity. It does not break relativity. The point s that the stretch of space is local. Inside the field the time lines are normal so this is not a black hole. (Have you actually read the article?) As for entagled states this does not violate general relativity either. Though it is a answer to the Einstein Polensky Rosen (EPR) paradox. That is: Consider a energetic phothon decaying into a positron electron pair. Now measure the momentum of the electron (or positron) and the position of the positron. Now you can calculate the exact energy and position of the photon. But that is impossible according to quantum mechanics. A experiment at Princton in 1984 measuring uncertainty of spin showed that measuring the momentum of one particle changed the spin of the other instantly thus confirming this confusion. Bercley has done extensive studies of 'coupled states' since then. Copled states occur when two events are not independent. (remeber independence from statistics P(A,B) = P(A)* P(B)) The shift between couple states are instant leading to the faster than light property you are implying. But they are a local phenomena which are simply not described by relavivity. The thus do not break relativity. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gravity as Falling Space | Henry Haapalainen | Science | 1 | September 4th 04 04:08 PM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |