q says: "ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics."
- Thread starter spookz
- Start date
Spookz
Spookz has destroyed this thread, by making us all argue and get angry thus forgetting what we are actually talking about.
Spookz has destroyed this thread, by making us all argue and get angry thus forgetting what we are actually talking about.
Nah, that's just the way spooks and wes talk to each other. Why
are you angry?
are you angry?
Well, because the thread was dashed to peices with thier bickering. They have succesfully shot the thread in the head thus forgetting the whole subject.
Why do need ALL proposed propulsion systems for interstellar travel?
One that worked correctly would do nicely. Let's take the warp drive
first. (Always liked Star Trek
)
Alcubierre?s "Warp Drive"
Here?s the premise behind the Alcubierre "warp drive": Although Special Relativity forbids objects to move faster than light within spacetime, it is unknown how fast spacetime itself can move. To use an analogy, imagine you are on one of those moving sidewalks that can be found in some airports. The Alcubierre warp drive is like one of those moving sidewalks. Although there may be a limit to how fast one can walk across the floor (analogous to the light speed limit), what about if you are on a moving section of floor that moves faster than you can walk (analogous to a moving section of spacetime)? In the case of the Alcubierre warp drive, this moving section of spacetime is created by expanding spacetime behind the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk emerges from underneath the floor), and by contracting spacetime in front of the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk goes back into the floor). The idea of expanding spacetime is not new. Using the "Inflationary Universe" perspective, for example, it is thought that spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light during the early moments of the Big Bang. So if spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive? These theories are too new to have either been discounted or proven viable.
===============================================
by Persol:
"Warp Drive"
contradict the same laws of physics that predict worm holes and negative mass propulsion (SR)
=============================================
response:
Quite a statement there, Persol. Which "laws of physics" are these? Perhaps you mean the "postulates" of the Special THEORY
Of Relativity? If you mean spacetime expanding faster than the
speed of light contradicts the special THEORY of relativity, then I'm
afraid STR is in trouble. See my posts in "the application of the
scientific method" thread to address this, rather than me taking up
space repeating it. Dark energy comprises 75% of the universe, so
it is not rare. It is the same as the negative energy needed for the warp drive, also known as repulsive-gravity, and also known as
anti-gravity. I didn't state "we" could build such a propulsion system today, but it should theoretically possible in the
future. If there is a "they" and "they" are much more advanced
than us, maybe they already have. Also, in a similar vein, have
you read Prodkletnov's fairly recient paper? Quite interesting.
You can get the whole paper by clicking on the pdf link.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209051
One that worked correctly would do nicely. Let's take the warp drive
first. (Always liked Star Trek
) Alcubierre?s "Warp Drive"
Here?s the premise behind the Alcubierre "warp drive": Although Special Relativity forbids objects to move faster than light within spacetime, it is unknown how fast spacetime itself can move. To use an analogy, imagine you are on one of those moving sidewalks that can be found in some airports. The Alcubierre warp drive is like one of those moving sidewalks. Although there may be a limit to how fast one can walk across the floor (analogous to the light speed limit), what about if you are on a moving section of floor that moves faster than you can walk (analogous to a moving section of spacetime)? In the case of the Alcubierre warp drive, this moving section of spacetime is created by expanding spacetime behind the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk emerges from underneath the floor), and by contracting spacetime in front of the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk goes back into the floor). The idea of expanding spacetime is not new. Using the "Inflationary Universe" perspective, for example, it is thought that spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light during the early moments of the Big Bang. So if spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive? These theories are too new to have either been discounted or proven viable.
===============================================
by Persol:
"Warp Drive"
contradict the same laws of physics that predict worm holes and negative mass propulsion (SR)
=============================================
response:
Quite a statement there, Persol. Which "laws of physics" are these? Perhaps you mean the "postulates" of the Special THEORY
Of Relativity? If you mean spacetime expanding faster than the
speed of light contradicts the special THEORY of relativity, then I'm
afraid STR is in trouble. See my posts in "the application of the
scientific method" thread to address this, rather than me taking up
space repeating it. Dark energy comprises 75% of the universe, so
it is not rare. It is the same as the negative energy needed for the warp drive, also known as repulsive-gravity, and also known as
anti-gravity. I didn't state "we" could build such a propulsion system today, but it should theoretically possible in thefuture. If there is a "they" and "they" are much more advanced
than us, maybe they already have. Also, in a similar vein, have
you read Prodkletnov's fairly recient paper? Quite interesting.
You can get the whole paper by clicking on the pdf link.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209051
That's my point. Most of these theories are wrong. That's the way science works. I have no problem agreeing that one MIGHT work, but it was ludicrious for spookz to expect Q to dash them to pieces considering we don't even know if they are based on solid ground.
What I've been saying over and over is that using these examples is a red herring, since the only thing we can judge them against is each other (hence the contradiction method to showing atleast most are wrong). The real issue is completely seperate, because even if FTL is avaiable, there is no reason to think that an alien race would develop the same form of FTL travel (assuming more then 1 way is possible).
But all of this is very tentative, and the issue here is that while anything is possible, ET visitiations appears unlikely (ranking the steps that would be needed). To suggest something this unlikely, actual proof that this is what is happening is needed.
. It is the same as the negative energy needed for the warp drive
You are confusing negative energy, with negative matter (which lead to anti-gravity). Anti-gravity is not negative energy.
however...hopefully, perhaps another physicist will drop in and slap you silly
I think not We travel in packs and show no weakness.
What I've been saying over and over is that using these examples is a red herring, since the only thing we can judge them against is each other (hence the contradiction method to showing atleast most are wrong). The real issue is completely seperate, because even if FTL is avaiable, there is no reason to think that an alien race would develop the same form of FTL travel (assuming more then 1 way is possible).
But all of this is very tentative, and the issue here is that while anything is possible, ET visitiations appears unlikely (ranking the steps that would be needed). To suggest something this unlikely, actual proof that this is what is happening is needed.
. It is the same as the negative energy needed for the warp drive
You are confusing negative energy, with negative matter (which lead to anti-gravity). Anti-gravity is not negative energy.
however...hopefully, perhaps another physicist will drop in and slap you silly
I think not
We travel in packs and show no weakness. ludicrious for spookz to expect Q to dash them to pieces considering we don't even know if they are based on solid ground
what am i to make of this? i take it at face value. mindless generalizations will be met with equally "mindless" challenges. i see no reason to accomodate his trolling. if you wanna get caught up in his battles....your call!
so i post the page......and get laughed at
you actually take issue with the post containing the links?
look how the stuff is characterized
Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics
people are actually attempting to do something and you fault them for that?
it is so obvious that this shit is speculative but you insist that i hold them to work.... "most of them are probably right" (persol)
step back please. (at least for a few days, i need to chill)
what am i to make of this? i take it at face value. mindless generalizations will be met with equally "mindless" challenges. i see no reason to accomodate his trolling. if you wanna get caught up in his battles....your call!
so i post the page......and get laughed at
you actually take issue with the post containing the links?
look how the stuff is characterized
Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics
people are actually attempting to do something and you fault them for that?
it is so obvious that this shit is speculative but you insist that i hold them to work.... "most of them are probably right" (persol)
step back please. (at least for a few days, i need to chill)
hey spookz
you were right, it was the wrong thread.
and yes I know this is teh wrong thread to say that was the wrong thread but i'm too lazy to look up the other one.
lol.
emphasis added to highlight stupidity.
double that. this is the right thread so I'm even stupider than the previous assertion of stupid.
you were right, it was the wrong thread.
and yes I know this is teh wrong thread to say that was the wrong thread but i'm too lazy to look up the other one.
lol.
emphasis added to highlight stupidity.
double that. this is the right thread so I'm even stupider than the previous assertion of stupid.
by Persol:
me: "It is the same as the negative energy needed for the warp drive"
You are confusing negative energy, with negative matter (which lead to anti-gravity). Anti-gravity is not negative energy.
=================================================
from the warp drive article:
First, to create this effect, you?ll need a ring of negative energy wrapped around the ship
Perhaps I am a little confused here. Negative energy is what is stated
to be needed for the ship, not negative matter. What is your interpertation of "negative matter"? I am familiar with anti-matter,
which has been created in particle accelerators, anti-protons and
such. It is not believed to have anti-gravity properties, but results
in analiation and the creation of energy when it comes in contact
with matter. Dark matter makes up over 20% of the universe, but
its properties are unknown are far as I know. Dark energy is the
stuff that makes up 75% of the universe and has been called many
names. About all that is known about it is its observed effects, namely the repulsive-gravity properties that is causing the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. Calling it anti-gravity
is debated because of General Relativity, but that seems to be how
it acts, pushing massive objects apart rather than pulling them
together like gravity. Yes, I know GR describes gravity as warping
spacetime rather than an attractive force, but the local group of
galaxies are approaching each other however you want to describe
gravitational properties.Do you believe dark energy is a property of dark matter? It seems
reasonable to me, but I don't recall seeing that stated as a hypothesis so far. I don't know if you read the paper by Prodkletnov and Modanese that I linked earlier, but there seems
to be a repulsive beam generated that passes through all forms
of matter to repulse all forms of matter on the other side, like
a concrete floor does not stop the attractive properties of gravity.
I realize the paper is controversial and Prodkletnov is very secretive about the process. He is said to be very concerned that
the discovery will be used to benefit mankind and not be monopolized by the military to create weapons, such as a beam
to disrupt a satellite's orbit. Controversial and early research I
know, but very interesting to me if it is true. I know it is said to
contradict General Relativity, but so does dark energy. But isn't
that mainly because of GR's interpertation of gravity as a warpage
of spacetime and not a force, and hence, an anti-force is not possible? Not getting into the four known forces, strong and weak
nuclear etc.
me: "It is the same as the negative energy needed for the warp drive"
You are confusing negative energy, with negative matter (which lead to anti-gravity). Anti-gravity is not negative energy.
=================================================
from the warp drive article:
First, to create this effect, you?ll need a ring of negative energy wrapped around the ship
Perhaps I am a little confused here. Negative energy is what is stated
to be needed for the ship, not negative matter. What is your interpertation of "negative matter"? I am familiar with anti-matter,
which has been created in particle accelerators, anti-protons and
such. It is not believed to have anti-gravity properties, but results
in analiation and the creation of energy when it comes in contact
with matter. Dark matter makes up over 20% of the universe, but
its properties are unknown are far as I know. Dark energy is the
stuff that makes up 75% of the universe and has been called many
names. About all that is known about it is its observed effects, namely the repulsive-gravity properties that is causing the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. Calling it anti-gravity
is debated because of General Relativity, but that seems to be how
it acts, pushing massive objects apart rather than pulling them
together like gravity. Yes, I know GR describes gravity as warping
spacetime rather than an attractive force, but the local group of
galaxies are approaching each other however you want to describe
gravitational properties.Do you believe dark energy is a property of dark matter? It seems
reasonable to me, but I don't recall seeing that stated as a hypothesis so far. I don't know if you read the paper by Prodkletnov and Modanese that I linked earlier, but there seems
to be a repulsive beam generated that passes through all forms
of matter to repulse all forms of matter on the other side, like
a concrete floor does not stop the attractive properties of gravity.
I realize the paper is controversial and Prodkletnov is very secretive about the process. He is said to be very concerned that
the discovery will be used to benefit mankind and not be monopolized by the military to create weapons, such as a beam
to disrupt a satellite's orbit. Controversial and early research I
know, but very interesting to me if it is true. I know it is said to
contradict General Relativity, but so does dark energy. But isn't
that mainly because of GR's interpertation of gravity as a warpage
of spacetime and not a force, and hence, an anti-force is not possible? Not getting into the four known forces, strong and weak
nuclear etc.
Answered what?
unable to keep track of the thread? see an answer that i made to persol (a few posts up) that would have rendered your question moot. it is the lack of a meaningful response to the challenge that has you yapping nonsense. for instance..
*Amongst all the billions of star systems in our galaxy, how did ET manage to find Earth?
*How many species of ET do you think are visiting Earth?
*What do you think ET purpose for visiting Earth?
*Why do you think ET has not shown themselves to us all? (q)
what is the relevance of this to interstellar travel. you ask loaded questions in a juvenile attempt to troll the thread.
* How do you think ET manages to travel throughout our galaxy? (q)
just 1 one of 5 actually worth something. what you do here is throw the question back at my face fully knowing that i am not qualified to answer. like i said... a pathetically obvious troll. you lack sophistication and style.
You've done nothing but copy/paste and toss profanities around.
transparent attempt to divert attention. this thread is about you and your claims, not mine. i have to prove nothing here as i have made no claim. i post stuff for your consideration. others are making some headway with material provided. you troll impotently. i am not surprised. the thread is now in the hands of more competent individuals (relative to me) who have some actual knowledge. perhaps if you join that discussion rather than troll impotently at my direction, you could make a positive contribution
Go finish high school.
heh heh. solid retort!
*if there are more promising avenues to approach on this subject, bring em out. no need to rely on a single source
unable to keep track of the thread? see an answer that i made to persol (a few posts up) that would have rendered your question moot. it is the lack of a meaningful response to the challenge that has you yapping nonsense. for instance..
*Amongst all the billions of star systems in our galaxy, how did ET manage to find Earth?
*How many species of ET do you think are visiting Earth?
*What do you think ET purpose for visiting Earth?
*Why do you think ET has not shown themselves to us all? (q)
what is the relevance of this to interstellar travel. you ask loaded questions in a juvenile attempt to troll the thread.
* How do you think ET manages to travel throughout our galaxy? (q)
just 1 one of 5 actually worth something. what you do here is throw the question back at my face fully knowing that i am not qualified to answer. like i said... a pathetically obvious troll. you lack sophistication and style.
You've done nothing but copy/paste and toss profanities around.
transparent attempt to divert attention. this thread is about you and your claims, not mine. i have to prove nothing here as i have made no claim. i post stuff for your consideration. others are making some headway with material provided. you troll impotently. i am not surprised. the thread is now in the hands of more competent individuals (relative to me) who have some actual knowledge. perhaps if you join that discussion rather than troll impotently at my direction, you could make a positive contribution
Go finish high school.
heh heh. solid retort!
*if there are more promising avenues to approach on this subject, bring em out. no need to rely on a single source
an incentive
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31105&perpage=20&pagenumber=3
Originally posted by spookz
ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics. (q)
lay them out and i will expose them to be erroneous. i dare you!
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31105&perpage=20&pagenumber=3
New theories and laboratory-scale effects have emerged in the scientific literature which provide new approaches to seeking major propulsion breakthroughs. NASA has established a program to begin exploring these possibilities. Since the propulsion goals are presumably far from fruition, a special emphasis of the program is to identify affordable, near-term, and credible research that could make measurable progress toward these propulsion goals. To kick-off the program, collaborative networking, internet communication, and workshops are being used. During a recent workshop, many of these new approaches were reviewed, and several research task ideas were generated for taking the next steps toward propulsion breakthroughs. A NASA Research Announcement has been chosen as the mechanism to solicit and support research, once sufficient funds become available. A peer review system has been drafted to rank these and other future proposals. In the interim, other funding opportunities such as the SBIR and STTR are available.
NASA BREAKTHROUGH PROPULSION PHYSICS PROGRAM
so ahh q
what can you bring to the table apart from bleating.....
nay! naaay! naaaaaaaay!!!!
NASA BREAKTHROUGH PROPULSION PHYSICS PROGRAM
so ahh q
what can you bring to the table apart from bleating.....
nay! naaay! naaaaaaaay!!!!