|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossible in principle?
I think the answer must be "yes". There are 2 parts to that answer.
The first is a general comment about FTL and causality violation. The second is in terms of the impossibility of an alien visit (puerde leer en espanl - the AI question). This second point covers both FTL and sub luminal Von Neumann technology. You can (without causality violation) travel FTL iff you have an absolute frame of reference. In other words the negative mass you would need for a warp drive has to be tied to an absolute frame of reference. Could someone tell me please what that absolute frame is? Is it tied in some sense to the apparent center of expansion of the Universe. There is one important point here. The maths given by Jack cannot be right for this reason. The positive mass is relativizstic and has no frame of reference. The negative mass is tied to a FOR and cannot obey the relativistic equations fully. FTL with PARTICLES can be made paradox free by postulating a self consistent Feynmann diagram, in which past and future are combined. I have a feeling at the back of my mind. If you were to take a wormhole, warp drive or any other FTL device it would cause infinities in its Feynmann diagram. That is because a return journey could be made before you had started. Deep question - Is Inflation itself caused by infinities in a FD? Is it a valid way of looking at it? On the question of AI. ET (if there is one, I am doing reducto ad absurdam here). ET on arrival will have established AI on the Web. He will already have done what Google is struggling to do (and admittedly making some progress). ET does not need Guardians, the AI will perform that job. Postings will all be multilingual. If a warp drive were possible there is one of two possibilities. Either the design would be published and we would all agree about it, or it is wrong. ET would not allow the publication by you of a correct design. - Ian Parker Puerde leer en espagnol - (razon segundo) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossiblein principle?
Ian Parker wrote:
I think the answer must be "yes". There are 2 parts to that answer. Feynmann diagrams are insignificant in the broader picture, they are abstract concepts conjured up by the human mind to assist in understanding calculations which were also fabricated mentally. From a cosmic perspective, proof itself is suspect, by definition. What you need to be doing is looking at philosophical foundations. Generally, one attempts to confirm or deny whether reality is real. The mere existence of reality confirms the notion that 'nothing' is impossible, but since clearly 'something' exists, if reality is real. This gets you directly into indistinguishability theory because for 'something' to be impossible, you must specify what that 'something' is, and once you do that, it exists, at the very least inside of your mind. Do you see the fundamental contradiction there? I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe. I wrote a seminal paper on this once. Eventually, you get down to a nub of a concept of the geometry of information, but whether that is reality is debatable. Your theory of nature has to conform with the reality of nature, otherwise it's just fantasy, and your entire mathematical construct is nonsense. It's easy to build nonsensical stuff, crackpots do it all the time. It's called Art. http://cosmic.lifeform.net/index.php?paged=4 -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossible in principle?
On Jun 14, 9:09 am, Ian Parker wrote:
I think the answer must be "yes". There are 2 parts to that answer. The first is a general comment about FTL and causality violation. The second is in terms of the impossibility of an alien visit (puerde leer en espanl - the AI question). This second point covers both FTL and sub luminal Von Neumann technology. You can (without causality violation) travel FTL iff you have an absolute frame of reference. In other words the negative mass you would need for a warp drive has to be tied to an absolute frame of reference. Could someone tell me please what that absolute frame is? Is it tied in some sense to the apparent center of expansion of the Universe. There is one important point here. The maths given by Jack cannot be right for this reason. The positive mass is relativizstic and has no frame of reference. The negative mass is tied to a FOR and cannot obey the relativistic equations fully. FTL with PARTICLES can be made paradox free by postulating a self consistent Feynmann diagram, in which past and future are combined. I have a feeling at the back of my mind. If you were to take a wormhole, warp drive or any other FTL device it would cause infinities in its Feynmann diagram. That is because a return journey could be made before you had started. Deep question - Is Inflation itself caused by infinities in a FD? Is it a valid way of looking at it? On the question of AI. ET (if there is one, I am doing reducto ad absurdam here). ET on arrival will have established AI on the Web. He will already have done what Google is struggling to do (and admittedly making some progress). ET does not need Guardians, the AI will perform that job. Postings will all be multilingual. If a warp drive were possible there is one of two possibilities. Either the design would be published and we would all agree about it, or it is wrong. ET would not allow the publication by you of a correct design. i think you are misunderstanding the proposed physics of the alcubierre drive this drive does not locally cause faster-than-light effects the space is warped such that the vehicle/particle/matter is in flat spacetime and only the space is curved outside this area general relativity is locally lorentzian not globally so i do not understand some of your other points -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossible in principle?
On Jun 14, 3:34 pm, galathaea wrote:
so i do not understand some of your other points of course you don't. one must be the ALPHA MALE to understand. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossible in principle?
On Jun 14, 6:54 pm, " porky_pig...@my-
deja.com wrote: On Jun 14, 3:34 pm, galathaea wrote: so i do not understand some of your other points of course you don't. one must be the ALPHA MALE to understand. or an extraterrestrial? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossible in principle?
On 14 Jun, 20:34, galathaea wrote:
On Jun 14, 9:09 am, Ian Parker wrote: I think the answer must be "yes". There are 2 parts to that answer. The first is a general comment about FTL and causality violation. The second is in terms of the impossibility of an alien visit (puerde leer en espanl - the AI question). This second point covers both FTL and sub luminal Von Neumann technology. You can (without causality violation) travel FTL iff you have an absolute frame of reference. In other words the negative mass you would need for a warp drive has to be tied to an absolute frame of reference. Could someone tell me please what that absolute frame is? Is it tied in some sense to the apparent center of expansion of the Universe. There is one important point here. The maths given by Jack cannot be right for this reason. The positive mass is relativizstic and has no frame of reference. The negative mass is tied to a FOR and cannot obey the relativistic equations fully. FTL with PARTICLES can be made paradox free by postulating a self consistent Feynmann diagram, in which past and future are combined. I have a feeling at the back of my mind. If you were to take a wormhole, warp drive or any other FTL device it would cause infinities in its Feynmann diagram. That is because a return journey could be made before you had started. Deep question - Is Inflation itself caused by infinities in a FD? Is it a valid way of looking at it? On the question of AI. ET (if there is one, I am doing reducto ad absurdam here). ET on arrival will have established AI on the Web. He will already have done what Google is struggling to do (and admittedly making some progress). ET does not need Guardians, the AI will perform that job. Postings will all be multilingual. If a warp drive were possible there is one of two possibilities. Either the design would be published and we would all agree about it, or it is wrong. ET would not allow the publication by you of a correct design. i think you are misunderstanding the proposed physics of the alcubierre drive this drive does not locally cause faster-than-light effects the space is warped such that the vehicle/particle/matter is in flat spacetime and only the space is curved outside this area general relativity is locally lorentzian not globally so i do not understand some of your other points Look, the whole point about warp drives is that they are FTL. They LOGICALLY have to have negative mass which does in fact imply the possibility of FTL assemblages. FTL is always "gedanken" in any warp scheme. There is one further point. If you have negative mass and do not want to travel FTL, it is much simpler simply to put your mass close to zero and accelerate to 0.99c (say. OK as Sam Wormley says any speck of dust is a nuclear bomb, but there are methods of shielding. General relativity if locally not globally Lorentzian. I don't really know what that means. GR deals with space - true. The expansion of the Universe is FTL. This is so since the cosmological principle states that the Universe looks the same everywhere. We are at the center of the Universe as is everone else. For this to be so the distant parts are FTL. However we have an event horizon. We cannot travel there. Globally then space expands so GR is obeyed where we are (ie. at the center of the Universe). There is no paradox in this. If however we have a black box, or a series of black boxes in the local Universe through which we can pass FTL there certainly are. I would like to make one correction to what I said previously. If you have 2 wormholes, or perhaps one complicated wormhole might do, you arrive from a double journey before you have started. As far as Feynmann diagrams being an aid to visualization, of course this is true. The philosophical solution is that the particle creates a self consistent past and future. If we go deeper into this we find that the tachyon has interactions with other particles, and would be bound up with the whole of elementary particle physics even though we would not be aware of it immediately. - Ian Parker |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossible in principle?
Ian Parker wrote:
General relativity if locally not globally Lorentzian. I don't really know what that means. Then you should learn what it means before trying to understand the implications of space-warping FTL travel. You *must* learn what it means before trying to describe those implications, much less *derive* them. Start your education by searching for the phrase "Lorentz invariant". |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossible in principle?
On 15 Jun, 12:54, Alan Anderson wrote:
Ian Parker wrote: General relativity if locally not globally Lorentzian. I don't really know what that means. Then you should learn what it means before trying to understand the implications of space-warping FTL travel. You *must* learn what it means before trying to describe those implications, much less *derive* them. Start your education by searching for the phrase "Lorentz invariant". These are the impications of ANY FTL. I am well aware of worholes warping and the general theory. If you have FTL (any method) you have a defined process within SU2 (I prefer in fact to write the Lorentz equations in trigonometrical form. A black box - any sort of black box - is invariant under SU2. I feel that the warp (wormhole) paradox arises out of incomplete Feynmann diagrams and an incomplete theory. Let me take an example the Dirac equation. Schroedinger's equation is not relativistically invariant (ie does not transform according to SU2). If we construct an equation which does (the Dirac equation) we get an SU2 invariant formalism. We can treat FTL as a pure problem in particle physics. On the face of it going through a wormhole and the going through another wormhole at a different speed (rotational angle) will bring you out before you started. The only thing that can stop this is some form of interaction between the two wormholes. A sinilar situation holds with warp drive. A warp drive is a time machine. If I go somewhere and come back I can travel back in time. If I send a particle through a pair of wormholes I am going to get out a super (possibly infinite) massive particle. I am quite close, am I not, to Inflation. If I travel to a star 1000ly distant I am in a sense electronically tagged to prevent me violating paradoxes. What is the nature of the tagging? Now for warp/worhole any FTL negative mass is needed. The tag can only exist in the form of the negative mass and its interactions. Does negative mass exist? Well Inflation is viewed as a runaway process involving negative mass, so it probably does. Can it be produced and conjured up out of the Universe now? Probably not, we know negative mass is tied to other pices of negative mass and the whole process of the Big Bang is responsible, to a degree at any rate to the observed properties of particles. This means that NM is very much associated with the Big Bang. It is unlikely that it could be produced outside a BB and if it ever did surface it would cause a new Inflationary cycle. I think that all our experiments etc. will never come to anything. I am 99.9999999% sure. If it did it would again be 99% certain to be inflationary. This is really what I am referring to when I talk about the arrogance of the military and the risks they take. The military are spending money with gay abandon - pun intentional! They seem intent on second guessing the best scientific effort. Anyway I have some more news for you. The US is distrusted thoughout the Middle East. Inducing people to do things contrary to their culture is going to make the situation in the Middle East even worse than it is now - that is just about possible. Human sexual response is a complex subject (even more complex that cosmology! Many people who had homosexual experiences at independent single sex schools have guilt about it. Do you really want to aid the cause iof extremism. That is what you are doing. You take risks that are totally, totally unwarranted and unnecessary. - Ian Parker |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossible in principle?
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:04:16 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: This means that NM is very much associated with the Big Bang. It is unlikely that it could be produced outside a BB and if it ever did surface it would cause a new Inflationary cycle. I think that all our experiments etc. will never come to anything. I am 99.9999999% sure. If it did it would again be 99% certain to be inflationary. This is really what I am referring to when I talk about the arrogance of the military and the risks they take. The military are spending money with gay abandon - pun intentional! They seem intent on second guessing the best scientific effort. Anyway I have some more news for you. The US is distrusted thoughout the Middle East. Inducing people to do things contrary to their culture is going to make the situation in the Middle East even worse than it is now - that is just about possible. Human sexual response is a complex subject (even more complex that cosmology! Many people who had homosexual experiences at independent single sex schools have guilt about it. Do you really want to aid the cause iof extremism. That is what you are doing. You take risks that are totally, totally unwarranted and unnecessary. I'm not sure that I've ever seen so many non-sequiturs in a single paragraph. I've seen more in a single post, from Chomko, but Chomko usually breaks them up into separate paragraphs. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is alien enemy ET warp drive propellantless propulsion impossible in principle?
On 15 Jun, 15:34, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:04:16 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: This means that NM is very much associated with the Big Bang. It is unlikely that it could be produced outside a BB and if it ever did surface it would cause a new Inflationary cycle. I think that all our experiments etc. will never come to anything. I am 99.9999999% sure. If it did it would again be 99% certain to be inflationary. This is really what I am referring to when I talk about the arrogance of the military and the risks they take. The military are spending money with gay abandon - pun intentional! They seem intent on second guessing the best scientific effort. Anyway I have some more news for you. The US is distrusted thoughout the Middle East. Inducing people to do things contrary to their culture is going to make the situation in the Middle East even worse than it is now - that is just about possible. Human sexual response is a complex subject (even more complex that cosmology! Many people who had homosexual experiences at independent single sex schools have guilt about it. Do you really want to aid the cause iof extremism. That is what you are doing. You take risks that are totally, totally unwarranted and unnecessary. I'm not sure that I've ever seen so many non-sequiturs in a single paragraph. I've seen more in a single post, from Chomko, but Chomko usually breaks them up into separate paragraphs.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What I am in fact endeavouring to show is that elementary particle physics is free from paradox. Sometimes steps need to be taken to make it so, as with the Dirac equation. I know this is difficult to grasp and put across. If you have paradoxes your assumptions are wrong. FTL is paradoxical - no one can say otherwise. - Ian Parker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flying Saucer Warp Drive | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | September 4th 05 10:44 PM |
Sarfatti Lectures in Warp Drive Physics 1 | Autymn D. C. | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 27th 05 09:52 AM |
Propellantless propulsion system | [email protected] | Technology | 12 | January 24th 05 05:57 PM |
We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 18 | June 25th 04 07:50 PM |
UFO Warp Drive (corrections) | Chillyvek | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 24th 03 08:34 PM |