Renders of the new Alcubierre ship being conceptualized at NASA
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/holy-crap...spaceship-concept-is-fr-1589001939/+jesusdiaz
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/holy-crap...spaceship-concept-is-fr-1589001939/+jesusdiaz
Maximum Warp, Mr. Sulu
- Thread starter Kilgs
- Start date
Chuck Anumia
SOC-14 1K
New warp 10 drive
It seems our technology is going to take a giant leap forward very soon.
NASA is working towards a drive for a ship that will warp space and travel 10 times the speed of light.
It seems our technology is going to take a giant leap forward very soon.
NASA is working towards a drive for a ship that will warp space and travel 10 times the speed of light.
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/meet-nasas-newest-design-for-a-warp-drive-ship/
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
I thought warp 10 was 10^10 times the speed of light?
In ST:TOS, the old Cochrane Scale for Warp Drive was (WF)3 x c (possibly multiplied by an additional coefficient).
So Warp 10 would be 103 = 1000c
THis beast, if it works at all, is predicted to do 10C, or about ST:TOS WF 1.8.
Dr White has not (to my knowledge) released any test data yet. He has only said he figured a way to get around the extreme energy requirement by pulsation.
I sincerely hope he's correct, and that his apparatus works (for me, the best case would be it lifts the building - the destruction would be definitive proof of concept).
Dr White has not (to my knowledge) released any test data yet. He has only said he figured a way to get around the extreme energy requirement by pulsation.
I sincerely hope he's correct, and that his apparatus works (for me, the best case would be it lifts the building - the destruction would be definitive proof of concept).
Something similar to this was mention on one of Dr. Kaku's shows on Discovery Science channel. He also said it was more along the line of unobtanium and negative energy. And we don't know how to generate negative energy.
A different show, albeit speculative... I think, is Morgan Freeman's 'Through the Wormhole'. Does says things like this are likely. And that dark matter may have something to do with negative energy.
All of it is waaaaay beyond the physics I learned over 20 years ago.
A different show, albeit speculative... I think, is Morgan Freeman's 'Through the Wormhole'. Does says things like this are likely. And that dark matter may have something to do with negative energy.
All of it is waaaaay beyond the physics I learned over 20 years ago.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
It's the modern equivalent of ether - believe in it because it must be so.
Until someone shows by experiment it isn't.
Current physics is awash with unproved and unprovable theories that the great and mighty endorse so they must be true - which is contrary to the scientific method.
Dark matter, dark energy, negative energy - no evidence whatsoever.
Gravity waves, Higgs boson - evidence.
The next big breakthrough in physics will probably come when some of the sacred cows - dark energy and dark matter - are finally proven to be ether. Or there may be experimental evidence of their existence which will also herald new physics
Until someone shows by experiment it isn't.
Current physics is awash with unproved and unprovable theories that the great and mighty endorse so they must be true - which is contrary to the scientific method.
Dark matter, dark energy, negative energy - no evidence whatsoever.
Gravity waves, Higgs boson - evidence.
The next big breakthrough in physics will probably come when some of the sacred cows - dark energy and dark matter - are finally proven to be ether. Or there may be experimental evidence of their existence which will also herald new physics
Dark Matter - either the theory of gravitation is badly flawed, or there's mass that can't be detected. Since the gravitation theories work just fine at explaining the prior and predicting the future behavior of bodies within our solar system, and of a few observed extrasolar planets (there are a couple that have been detected both visually and have been deduced from solar wobble - and the data matches), it's far more likely that the mass is out there and not detected than that they mass isn't there and Gravitational Theory is wrong.
Evidence can include that something is missing from the observation set. For example, if I show you an observation set array with members 1-7 being "ABCDEFG" and ask you to predict Member 10, and tell you to use the alphabetic rule to predict it, you can predict that 10 should be "J". And also that 24 should be "X". If you can't observe members 8-23, but 24 is "Z", then you know you're looking at an older alphabet - The old Latin alphabet of Rome had no J, and went from I to K, so 10 would then be K rather than J. (Likewise U and V, hence 24th is Z)
Dark Matter just sounds like bad science to me:
Proposal: Hey! Let's try to measure the mass of the universe!
Result: We've found that 70% of the mass in the universe is missing!
Conclusion: Our calculations couldn't be wrong - it must be the universe that's wrong!
I'd bet good CrImps that the calculations they were using were based only on the mass of the sun. Therefore treating every star in the universe as if each only has the mass of the sun. That would result in about 75% of the mass of the universe seen as missing.
I'll believe it when I see it. There've been so many attempts at it that I just yawn every time a new proposal comes around.
Still, it would be cool if it worked, and then went commercial ... because I'd be on the first boat out of here.
Still, it would be cool if it worked, and then went commercial ... because I'd be on the first boat out of here.
That sounds exactly like the arguments made by the proponents of Ether Theory 1.3 centuries ago. "Can't be right."
Well, to be blunt - no one really cares if you do or do not accept it.
All that matters is that the theory works on several scales, and doesn't on another couple (atomic and galactic), indicating that either the theory is incomplete (possible), or our observation is of an incomplete set. Note that the mass of binary pairs nicely correlates to several prediction sets — we can't actually measure them directly, after all — but the visual separation, orbital speed, and brightness correlate to predicted values in a variety of circumstances. The only points they don't work are at the atomic scale (other forces dominate, with faster fade rates), and the galactic and higher (where the orbital speed of the rim of galaxies is too high for the observable mass), and the current theory says the mass needs to be 3.3x the observable mass. Known black holes are counted as observable, since the masses nearby them do in fact move in accordance with predicted paths based upon a derivable mass.
Since the theory works VERY well on the system to just above chemical scales, (absolutely predictive within those regimes,) in fact, it can't be too far wrong. That the predictions of the combined solar mass theory and gravitational theory predict the observed relationships within tiny fractions, again, either they're both wrong in the same direction, or they're very close to right.
And if they're both close to right, or both off by the same magnitude and direction, either way, the "missing mass" needs be explained, either by mass we can't observe, by a term in gravity equations that we haven't discovered, or by a new force that becomes dominant only at the galactic scale and larger. Because, either way, the portion of the mass we can observe is insufficient to justify the speeds of orbit at the edges of the galaxy, but the speeds at the core match the predicted speeds and directions.
Either way, something is broken. The least controversial answer is "we can't detect some of the mass" - but what we know of the masses involved implies strongly that planetary masses are likely to be no more than half the mass of the primary (our system doesn't even go that high). Which, if we presume observable stellar/quasi-stellar mass sum even equalled by the planetary mass sum (a laughably high fraction, IIUC), we're still short by 40%; if the average is closer to our own, the planetary mass sum should be about 0.002 x the stellar mass sum; if the brown dwarf calculations are correct, it could be as much as 0.1 x the stellar mass sum.
Dark Matter is misconstrued by the media - in practice, it's merely code for "stuff we can't find yet, that is needed to make the speeds of orbit fit with the theories of gravitation and orbital dynamics." And note that Orbital dynamics does work predictively exquisitely well - to the point that the predictions for position of the space probes can be predicted to under 1km at several years travel, and planetoids for a decade plus to within a few thousand km.
Which makes more sense:
- "We can't observe a large fraction of the mass except by it's effect upon the galaxies' rotational speeds"
- "We're missing one or more terms for galactic scale gravitational effects"
- "We don't understand galactic dynamics"
- "We have a major dysfunction in our stellar mass theories"
For most of the astronomers and physicists, A is the easiest, B is a viable alternate, but since it's more complex, can't be tested for, and doesn't provide useful benefit...
Meanwhile, we know that the rate of recession of certain stable events can be measured by red-shift - the older and more distant the object, the more the red shift - and that light speed remains constant - so either the speed of light has changed, or space has changed in size, or they're receding at speeds up to 1.3C. Expansion of space is the easiest to fit; random energy release in deep space could also fit. It could be wrong, but then, much of physics would need reevaluation.
Change as little of the theory as needed to fit the observations. Then make predictions, and observe for them. At present, the prediction system works best with "only about 1/3 of the mass can be observed for."
A Constant in their equations where there should be a Variable could account for that.
Or a Constant that has been mis-defined.
We definitely don't have a complete picture of gravity. We have only a theory of how it propagates.
I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that talked about the scientific community's inflexibility to change. One of the scientists they talked about had some choice words about the scientific community and it took two centuries for his theory to be accepted.
And if you want to talk Ether Theory, here's a great read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Last edited:
Last I checked the elusive "ultimate particle" had been found in the last eight months. So there actually is now a cohesive theory of gravity; i.e. not just how it works, but what it is.
That actually always has been the limiting factor for "breaking the c-barrier".
But to me this is all a theoretical exercise. I've only ever read strawman arguments about "poisoning the well" with attitudes of how it can't be done. Rarely have I ever seen any math to back up how it might be done, just speculation of what the math predicts, not how the math transforms when the rules are broken.
It is still science fiction.
That actually always has been the limiting factor for "breaking the c-barrier".
But to me this is all a theoretical exercise. I've only ever read strawman arguments about "poisoning the well" with attitudes of how it can't be done. Rarely have I ever seen any math to back up how it might be done, just speculation of what the math predicts, not how the math transforms when the rules are broken.
It is still science fiction.
As submarines were in Verne's time, when he put Cpt Nemo aboard of the Nautilus...
leo knight
SOC-12
People had built crude submersibles before Verne wrote "20,000 Leagues..." He merely extrapolated a bigger, better, more capable machine. He didn't need new physical phenomena to make it work. That said, I too hope this works. "Second star to the right and straight on till morning!"
When I was a little kid, no many even some scientists, thought we would ever get to orbit or go to other planets in the 20th century.
Now we have an orbiting space station, astronauts have been to Earth's moon, robots on Mars. Probes out by the heliopause.
As for dark matter, when astrophysicists with PhDs argue, I just wait and see what is going to happen.
Plate tectonics took a long time to become accepted by geologists.
Maybe warp drive and bussard ram jets will take as long or longer to become reality.
Now we have an orbiting space station, astronauts have been to Earth's moon, robots on Mars. Probes out by the heliopause.
As for dark matter, when astrophysicists with PhDs argue, I just wait and see what is going to happen.
Plate tectonics took a long time to become accepted by geologists.
Maybe warp drive and bussard ram jets will take as long or longer to become reality.
Actually, submarines were used in the US Revolutionary War, circa 1779.
Verne's nuclear submarine was the SF bit.
Chuck Anumia
SOC-14 1K
I agree
Positive results would be even better!
I would LOVE to see some experimentation in our lifetime.
Positive results would be even better!
Similar threads
