'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....

Reiku said:
First you made the mistake that the alcubierre drive was funk because of the energy problems associated to superluminal speeds. I explained afterwards that a alcubierre drive does not need to move at superluminal speeds which solved the problem.
Click to expand...

The POINT of a alcubierre drive is to move at FTL speeds but regardless, if one could build one, then the "rocket" would have to have the ability distort Space time in front of it and we have no idea how to produce such a distortion of space-time without enormous amounts of mass, and so we can't actually build this alcubierre rocket.

Then you assumed that the alcubierre drive took ''massive'' amounts of time to reach distant galaxies, which was a complete and utter load of nonesense because the alcubierre drive was did not violate any local laws.
Click to expand...

Nope, I pointed out that those inside the Alcubierre rocket were at rest with respect to locally flat space so there are no time dilation effects. So for them, if you are travelling (as you again just suggested, at subluminal speeds) then if you were travelling 100s of light years in distance then 100s of years would also pass for the crew. Which makes it totally impossible to go between other Galaxies since the nearest is 2.5 million LY away.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw81.html

Then you said something about the slingshot effect not having anything to do with the speed that the celestial object was moving at... Which was a load of rubbish again! Gravity assistance states that the spacecraft's velocity changes by up to twice the planet's velocity.
Click to expand...

Yes, but YOUR claim is still absurd:

ps... this wouldn't even need to be hard. Find a planet moving at half the speed of light and sling shot it. You will get back a speed nearly the velocity of light.
Click to expand...

Mercury travels at ~50 km/s, so even doubling the speed is only 100 km/s, FAR FAR FAR lower than 300,000 km/s

Sure planets could go faster, but nowhere near half the speed of light.
 
Reiku said:
Never, not once have I purported to an alien civilization physically moving faster than light, (and that even includes the Alcubierre Drive) as that expands and contracts space, it does not move the aparatus.
Click to expand...

Then you finally admit that we don't have to consider life in other Galaxies since the closest one is 2,500,000 Light Years from us.
 
adoucette said:
The POINT of a alcubierre drive is to move at FTL speeds but regardless, if one could build one, then the "rocket" would have to have the ability distort Space time in front of it and we have no idea how to produce such a distortion of space-time without enormous amounts of mass, and so we can't actually build this alcubierre rocket.



Nope, I pointed out that those inside the Alcubierre rocket were at rest with respect to locally flat space so there are no time dilation effects. So for them, if you are travelling (as you again just suggested, at subluminal speeds) then if you were travelling 100s of light years in distance then 100s of years would also pass for the crew. Which makes it totally impossible to go between other Galaxies since the nearest is 2.5 million LY away.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw81.html



Yes, but YOUR claim is still absurd:



Mercury travels at ~50 km/s, so even doubling the speed is only 100 km/s, FAR FAR FAR lower than 300,000 km/s

Sure planets could go faster, but nowhere near half the speed of light.
Click to expand...

''The POINT of a alcubierre drive is to move at FTL speeds but regardless, if one could build one, then the "rocket" would have to have the ability distort Space time in front of it and we have no idea how to produce such a distortion of space-time without enormous amounts of mass, and so we can't actually build this alcubierre rocket. ''

I would need to read my history on the subject again, but I'd say this arguement is a strawman since even if the drive had been speculated upon as a faster than light device by manipulating a certain metric solution of relativity, does not defeat the fact that the drive is permitted in the speeds of a fraction less than the speed of light. Such that it may be the course of history that we will not discover with certainty a tachyonic particle even though they may exist (and there are reasons for this which I will elaborate on if you want) that the alcubierre drive would be the next best thing.

''Nope, I pointed out that those inside the Alcubierre rocket were at rest with respect to locally flat space so there are no time dilation effects. So for them, if you are travelling (as you again just suggested, at subluminal speeds) then if you were travelling 100s of light years in distance then 100s of years would also pass for the crew. Which makes it totally impossible to go between other Galaxies since the nearest is 2.5 million LY away.
''

You have either forgotten what you said, or you are lying. You even questioned me saying ''but that would take massive amounts of time,''... which I questioned, atleast three times before any answer. My third queery finally settled with your final answer, which meant that you had initially thought that travelling from one galaxy to another takes a lot of time in general for an alcubierre drive, which I pointed out that this is not the case at all.

''Yes, but YOUR claim is still absurd''

do you think I make this up as I go along?

Cite, Steven Hawking, A brief history of time ''after inflation, parts of the universe were left moving at different speeds, some moving close to the speed of light.''

It is your claim that is absurd.
 
Oh by the way, andromeda is moving relative to us at 300,000 miles per sec if my memory serves me right.
 
Reiku said:
''The POINT of a alcubierre drive is to move at FTL speeds but regardless, if one could build one, then the "rocket" would have to have the ability distort Space time in front of it and we have no idea how to produce such a distortion of space-time without enormous amounts of mass, and so we can't actually build this alcubierre rocket. ''

I would need to read my history on the subject again, but I'd say this arguement is a strawman since even if the drive had been speculated upon as a faster than light device by manipulating a certain metric solution of relativity, does not defeat the fact that the drive is permitted in the speeds of a fraction less than the speed of light. Such that it may be the course of history that we will not discover with certainty a tachyonic particle even though they may exist (and there are reasons for this which I will elaborate on if you want) that the alcubierre drive would be the next best thing.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a strawman, the drive does not actually exist and if it did it would require incredibly enormous amounts of mass, and so we have no conceivable way of building one, so your going on about what it can or can't do is really pointless.

Reiku said:
adoucette said:
''Nope, I pointed out that those inside the Alcubierre rocket were at rest with respect to locally flat space so there are no time dilation effects. So for them, if you are travelling (as you again just suggested, at subluminal speeds) then if you were travelling 100s of light years in distance then 100s of years would also pass for the crew. Which makes it totally impossible to go between other Galaxies since the nearest is 2.5 million LY away.
''
Click to expand...
You have either forgotten what you said, or you are lying.
Click to expand...
BS

adoucette post 384 said:
Well an advantage of traveling close to the speed of light is time goes slower for you, so you can travel long distances without needing generational ships.
But such is not the fate of someone on an Alcubierre drive space ship. Time passes for them at the same rate as it does here. Which means if it takes 100 years to get somewhere they need three or four generations to make the trip.
Click to expand...

See, not lying.


Reiku said:
''Yes, but YOUR claim is still absurd''

do you think I make this up as I go along?

Cite, Steven Hawking, A brief history of time ''after inflation, parts of the universe were left moving at different speeds, some moving close to the speed of light.''

It is your claim that is absurd.
Click to expand...

Again, that has nothing to do with anything in our galaxy.

None the less, you can't use that to move faster than the speed of light, so you still can't travel between Galaxies.
 
adoucette said:
No, it's not a strawman, the drive does not actually exist and if it did it would require incredibly enormous amounts of mass, and so we have no conceivable way of building one, so your going on about what it can or can't do is really pointless.


BS



See, not lying.




Again, that has nothing to do with anything in our galaxy.

None the less, you can't use that to move faster than the speed of light, so you still can't travel between Galaxies.
Click to expand...

When I was speculating slignshot, I never elluded faster than light, now you are putting words in my mouth.

''the drive does not actually exist and if it did it would require incredibly enormous amounts of mass''

Confused muddled nonesense. I think you mean energy, yes? And no, it doesn't. It does for superluminal speeds, but I have told you this atleast three times now.

''Well an advantage of traveling close to the speed of light is time goes slower for you, so you can travel long distances without needing generational ships.
But such is not the fate of someone on an Alcubierre drive space ship. Time passes for them at the same rate as it does here. Which means if it takes 100 years to get somewhere they need three or four generations to make the trip. ''

This says to me you are hinting at the proposal that the drive takes time. We'll see how others read it.
 
adoucette said:
Nope.

Current measurements suggest the Andromeda Galaxy is approaching us at 100 to 140 kilometers per second.

At that speed the Milky Way may collide with it in 3 to 4 billion years

Does that give you any idea how far away it is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
Click to expand...

And you are wrong, I am sure

Speed of the Milky Way in Space
... 21 October 1997. "The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other with a speed of 300,000 miles per hour." 130 km/s ... is what a galaxy is) are moving relative to ...

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PatriciaKong.shtml

i am suspect with a lot of calculations you do, including those involving the Drake equation, which I will be studying over the next few days.
 
Reiku said:
When I was speculating slignshot, I never elluded faster than light, now you are putting words in my mouth.

''the drive does not actually exist and if it did it would require incredibly enormous amounts of mass''

Confused muddled nonesense. I think you mean energy, yes? And no, it doesn't. It does for superluminal speeds, but I have told you this atleast three times now.
Click to expand...

Oh BS.
No one has built this drive so how can you say how much energy it takes?


''Well an advantage of traveling close to the speed of light is time goes slower for you, so you can travel long distances without needing generational ships.
But such is not the fate of someone on an Alcubierre drive space ship. Time passes for them at the same rate as it does here. Which means if it takes 100 years to get somewhere they need three or four generations to make the trip. ''

This says to me you are hinting at the proposal that the drive takes time. We'll see how others read it.
Click to expand...

Well yes it does.

It only bends space time right in front of it, so it doesn't JUMP from point A to point B when those places are light years apart.

Since a ship at the center of the moving volume of the metric is at rest with respect to locally flat space, there are no relativistic mass increase or time dilation effects. The on-board spaceship clock runs at the same speed as the clock of an external observer
Click to expand...

So if the craft is travelling at .99 of C, and it is on a 100 year journey to another star 99 light years away, the time for the people on board will also be 99 years.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw81.html

But all we are doing is arguing about something that doesn't exist and AFAWK can not be built.
 
Reiku said:
Oh by the way, andromeda is moving relative to us at 300,000 miles per sec if my memory serves me right.
Click to expand...

Reiku said:
And you are wrong, I am sure

Speed of the Milky Way in Space
... 21 October 1997. "The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other with a speed of 300,000 miles per hour." 130 km/s ... is what a galaxy is) are moving relative to ...
Click to expand...
Apparently your memory sucks.
 
Reiku said:
And you are wrong, I am sure

Speed of the Milky Way in Space
... 21 October 1997. "The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other with a speed of 300,000 miles per hour." 130 km/s ... is what a galaxy is) are moving relative to ...

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PatriciaKong.shtml

i am suspect with a lot of calculations you do, including those involving the Drake equation, which I will be studying over the next few days.
Click to expand...

LOL

You do realize that you originally posted:
300,000 miles per sec
Click to expand...

Your reference, 300,000 miles per hour, actually agrees with what I posted, 100 to 140 km/s

Do try to get your facts right.
 
Yes. I know that is what I originally posted, but if you read what I said, I said ''relative to'' us.

This is a case were I am arguing with someone who does not know their physics. I am not arguing this any more!

Finished!
 
Reiku said:
Yes. I know that is what I originally posted, but if you read what I said, I said ''relative to'' us.

This is a case were I am arguing with someone who does not know their physics. I am not arguing this any more!

Finished!
Click to expand...

The closing speed is by definition the speed relative to us.

So if Andromeda is moving toward us at 130 km/sec then that IS by definition the speed relative to us.

Duh

No wonder you want to say you're finished, you are totally clueless, since your original assertion was that Andromeda has a relative speed to us 1.6 faster than the speed of light!
 
adoucette said:
The closing speed is by definition the speed relative to us.

So if Andromeda is moving toward us at 130 km/sec then that IS by definition the speed relative to us.

Duh

No wonder you want to say you're finished, you are totally clueless, since your original assertion was that Andromeda has a relative speed to us 1.6 faster than the speed of light!
Click to expand...

I am not speaking to you any more unless you change the subject, hopefully without presumptions without physics which you know nothing about.

By the way, I will hold to my promise. I will be studying your equations intensely this week.

Sianara
 
Reiku said:
I am not speaking to you any more unless you change the subject, hopefully without presumptions without physics which you know nothing about.
Click to expand...

So, do you now admit you were wrong about Andromeda's speed relative to us?
 
NO I DON'T.

I said

''Oh by the way, andromeda is moving relative to us at 300,000 miles per sec if my memory serves me right.''

Note I state clearly the conditions for the understanding I gave. The main key word which highlights the fact I know what I am talking about was the word ''relative''. You need to understand physics before jumping in with remedial concepts and accusations. The tenebrous reality of thinking that things do not move at near lightspeed evolves from a misunderstanding that everything in the universe receeds at the same speed, which it does not.
 
Then you don't understand what the term means.

From your own source:

Speed of the Milky Way in Space
... 21 October 1997. "The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other with a speed of 300,000 miles per hour
Click to expand...
That's 130 km/sec

That's their speed relative to each other.

Don't believe me, then simply find ANY valid scientific reference that Andromeda is moving 300,000 miles/sec relative to us
 
No, their relative speed added is 300, 000 miles per hour. You obviously don't understand relative terms, if originally I spoke of such a thing.


This time, this is enough!

Goodbye!
 
[b ]''ANY valid scientific reference that Andromeda is moving 300,000 miles/sec relative to us ''[/b]

Why are you saying this, when I am the one who said it? Don't answer this, I have enough of your dragging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top