WARP DRIVE
Graham Prouse
Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
any drive that could make you go faster than light?
Francisco A. Shi
Brad J Cadle
In article <32316E...@cynergy.com.au>,
Under the Currently accepted laws and theories of physics
(That is accepted in the Academic community) there is no
way to get a signal (ie any means of communication or travel) faster
than light. there are theoretical methods of short cutting space
(ie wormholes and the like), but the motion is still traveling
at a rate less than the speed of light (in a vacuum). Also there is
the possbility of virtual particles violating these laws, but
they are only in existance for a very minute fraction of a second, and
could not be used as a means of travel or communication.
There is however, the idea of the existence of a particle
the travels faster than light, but could never travel
slower than light. But such a particle is speculation.
Now, there are also those that do not accept some of the
tenet's of modern physics (such as Special Relativity). Indeed,
these individuals usually characterize the acceptance of these theories
as Dogma. One individual has an online Web Page entitled the
"Farce of Physics". Another supports a replacement to Special relativity
called Autodynamics. There is also a Web page on this.
So the answer to your question is that Physics accepted
by the academic community, and the private community of engineers
currently provides no means of traveling faster than the speed of light
in a vacuum. If you want to look at what some might call,
fringe ideas, than faster than light travel can be allowed. Who knows,
sometimes fringe ideas end up being the accepted ideas of the future.
The current claim however, is that evidence seems to support special
relativity. Ofcourse, the Autodynamics people and the Author of the
Farce of Physics would disagree.
-Brad
RICHARD J. LOGAN
>
> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
Francisco:
Over 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster than
the speed of light. Be very suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise
because they are probably making this claim in ignorance of all the hard
work and effort that preceeded them.
As for warp drives, where did you hear of such a thing? Can you please
tell us a little about yourself: what did you study in college, what
motivates your interest in space science, why the interest in travelling
faster than light? I'd honestly like to know.
Rich
--
___________________________________
Richard J. Logan, Ph.D.
University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.
630 Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center
Athens, GA 30602-7411
Phone 706-542-3819 Fax 706-542-5638
us...@nwu.edu
Graham Prouse <bec...@cynergy.com.au> wrote:
>Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>
>
Well isn't this a loaded question.
The warp drive you may be reffering to was called a Bussard
ramscoop,this Roddenbary? took gussied it up and called warp(started out
as time warp>just warp now )for the pop culture of the 60's it does not
have instant acceleration but will at least acheive Light+1-,the next
kind would have to be a magnetic tractor drive using mag-coils
dynamically aligned with local space possibly tied into planetary
gravity fields(hint).The first two methods require raw energy in
a continuos supply,the next two do not require you to make yourself
know to those into whose system yer passin by. Okay bear with me here;
SLFM =Subtle Linking to Faraway Magnetic fields,this entails a method
similar to the indian putting ear to train tracks to hear a
train..Except this is like having a instant encounter with your heard
train,the ships hull is aligned with a part of space that has a grid
point corresonding to your destination when a matching flow/ride/pointer
is found(this is in billionths of asec)the ships mass is reverse charged
to a matching point in space and your drawn there with alacrity,also you
slide out of"reality"and make a beeline for your destination.Second the
particular vessel your occuping has what is affectionately been called
a tachyon/hyperspace drive where a particle build up is generated and
released for a boosting into a kind of overspace or hyperlight mode
where this potential is allowed to fade until you drop into park again
hopefully not into/onto something,personally my theory uses blackholes
as a method of travel,its basically a gravity lens if you look over some
of its other nasty qualitys,if one can generate that kind of potential
they could bounce their ship like a piece of flotsam in a backyard pool.
strelnecov
Graham Prouse <bec...@cynergy.com.au> wrote:
>Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>Francisco A. Shi
magnetic bottel is the only theorie around..ie by the use of a
magnetic bottle all particles are acccelerated as one
and mass increase is avoided and the need for infinate
energy like wise
Daniel A. Morgan
> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or any drive that
> could make you go faster than light?
Yes. They properly belong in the realm of sci-fi.
Daniel Morgan
Alan Douglas
Graham Prouse <bec...@cynergy.com.au> wrote:
>Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>
>
>Francisco A. Shi
There is the very theoretical Alcubierre warp drive which is described
in:
The Warp Drive: Hyper-fast Travel Within General Relativity, Miguel
Alcubierre, Class. Quantum Grav. #11 (1994) L73-L77.
Note that this is published as a letter to the editor and not as a
proper article.
This theory uses contracting and expanding spacetime in a "warp field"
around a ship. Within this dynamic region of spacetime, the craft
travels at less than the speed of light, in accordance with special
relativity. But an observer outside the disturbance will see the
craft travelling faster than light. The author points out that
intuition based on special relativity can be deceiving when one is
dealing with dynamic spacetimes.
The problem with the theory is that the energy density distribution
which general relativity requires to produce this "warp field" is
pretty much impossible to achieve given our current understandings of
physics. As I recall, it requires the breaking of two fundamental
conservation laws, although I think quantum physics has shown that
these laws can at least be temporarily bent.
There is also the problem with causality violations which can arise in
faster than light travel. I'm not sure if you can get a genuine
paradox out of it, but you can get deeply weird things to happen.
Cheers,
Alan/
Steve Gilham
bec...@cynergy.com.au
> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
By appropriately cheating (working backwards from the required
answer), Miguel Alcubierre produced a solution to the field equations
of General Relativity that looks rather like a warp drive. There are
a couple of problems with it, however
1) The solution involves creating a field with negative energy
density (if you can do this, then there are a number of different
ways you can cheat the lightspeed limit while remaining consistent
with GR)
2) the solution doesn't have a stop or start - the warp continues at
speed from the infinite past to the infinite future.
The paper can be found via
http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/local/groups/relativity/papers/abstracts/miguel94a.html
The main use of this paper would be to provide a different set of
justifications for a rubber-physics FTL drive for an SF story.
-- Personal mail to st...@windsong.demon.co.uk (for which PGP is preferred) --
Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |My opinions, not those of GDS
Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |Corporation or its affiliates.
steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |---------------------------------
uk.gdscorp.com |Tel:(44)1223-300111x2904|http://www.windsong.demon.co.uk/
Jon
If you say "warp" drive meaning "faster-than-light", that is
impossible according to Einstein.
To travel the speed of light requires an infinite amount of
energy. Why? Because one's mass increases towards infinity.
To accelerate an infinite amount of mass requires an infinite
amount of energy.
An observer who was observing an astronaut in a rocket that traveled
at light speed could not see the rocket? Why? Because its
length would be zero.
The passenger on the rocket could not see the observer on
Planet Earth. Why? because Planet Earth--and all the
universe-- would seem squashed into an infinitesmal amount of
space, to the same factor by which the observer saw the
*astronaut* condense. He travels an infinite amount of
distance in no time, from *his* perspective.
Star Trek talks about subspace. I don't have any idea what
that means, save a gimmick to keep the plot going smoothly.
I think some kind of warp generator creates a shell of space/
time around the starship. To an outside observer, the subspace
literally disappears from our universe and instantly bubbles
back into another quadrant. In practice it is not
instantaneous, because the starship still has to cross the
subspace, itself. How do they do that? Who knows?
Hollywood will do to great lengths to recapitulate the old
Western movie theme-- heroes galloping around the unexplored
and wild, open frontier, shooting at bad guys. Only the setting and
toys have changed, really.
--
Jonathan Carson | Please! Forgive us for what we've done--
(804) 296-9831 | Ms. and Mr. Little Ones
101-a summit st. | --Stevie Wonder--
charlottesville, va. | http://dayhoff.med.virginia.edu/~jpc4e/home.html
BECMan
RICHARD J. LOGAN wrote:
>
> As for warp drives, where did you hear of such a thing? Can you please
> tell us a little about yourself: what did you study in college, what
> motivates your interest in space science, why the interest in travelling
> faster than light? I'd honestly like to know.I studied electrical eng. At the time I did not understand SR very well. I
have done some reading in the last few days and I now understand very clearly
why.
I now understand about the paradox that comes about from TFL.
I now have another question:
Light travels slower in glass.
If we did an experiment where all light travelled inside a "glass universe"
and then we had a parallel path with vaccum, where light would travel faster
than the light inside the glass. Could this then be consider (from the glass
universe's point of view) to be able to TFL and test the paradox?
It sounds too simple for some one not to have tried so I would like to know
what the explanation is.
Francisco A. Shi
ps When the lecturer explained SR no one understood, every one tryed to laugh
at him (the lecturer) so I opted to do a different question. hence I never
really understood it very well. now I am trying to understand it with better
chances.
S.A. Belmonte
Graham Prouse (bec...@cynergy.com.au) wrote:
: Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
: Francisco A. Shi
If you can get to a university physics library near you then you might
like to try to find the following reference. It has become quite a
famous paper and has been discussed on the physics newsgroups a
little bit.
"The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity"
Miguel Alcubierre, Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 11, p L73
(1994).
It describes how faster than light travel is possible within the
framework of general relativity. Unfortunately, to actually do it you
need a source of negative energy density; and these things aren't very
common, actually they probably don't exist, no-one has ever found one
-- a macroscopic source of negative energy that is.
But who knows?
Scott.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Scott A. Belmonte | e-mail: S.A.Be...@dl.ac.uk |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Codner
In article <516ato$k...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>, ste...@uk.gdscorp.com
(Steve Gilham) wrote:
> > Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
> > any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>
> By appropriately cheating (working backwards from the required
> answer), Miguel Alcubierre produced a solution to the field equations
> of General Relativity that looks rather like a warp drive. There are
> a couple of problems with it, however
>
> 1) The solution involves creating a field with negative energy
> density (if you can do this, then there are a number of different
> ways you can cheat the lightspeed limit while remaining consistent
> with GR)
>
> 2) the solution doesn't have a stop or start - the warp continues at
> speed from the infinite past to the infinite future.
>
> The paper can be found via
>
>
http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/local/groups/relativity/papers/abstracts/miguel94a.html
>
> The main use of this paper would be to provide a different set of
> justifications for a rubber-physics FTL drive for an SF story.
>
> -- Personal mail to st...@windsong.demon.co.uk (for which PGP is preferred) --
> Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |My opinions, not those of GDS
> Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |Corporation or its affiliates.
> steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |---------------------------------
> uk.gdscorp.com |Tel:(44)1223-300111x2904|http://www.windsong.demon.co.uk/
"Rubber physics"? What a perfect term! Did you coin it? It's a great
way to describe the attitude of people who look at physics as a Chinese menu.
"No, I won't have the chicken fried special relativity today. Just some
hot and
sour Galilean transformations and an order of pan-fried instantaneous gravity,
please."
Jerry Codner
gco...@lightlink.com
_________________________________________
"I'm an engineer, Jim, not a magician."
Andy Newman
In article <32378C...@cynergy.com.au>, BECMan
<bec...@cynergy.com.au> writes
>
>Light travels slower in glass.
>If we did an experiment where all light travelled inside a "glass universe"
>and then we had a parallel path with vaccum, where light would travel faster
>than the light inside the glass. Could this then be consider (from the glass
>universe's point of view) to be able to TFL and test the paradox?
Don't mistake "the speed of light" and the universal constant "c".
light travels at c in a vacuum, because that's how it all works out...
I can't see how a being living in glass could observe a causaility
violation due to light in a vacuum...
>
Almighty, Inviolate, and Omnipresent - Physics.
Andy Newman
Kris Schumacher
On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Andy Newman wrote:
> In article <32378C...@cynergy.com.au>, BECMan
>
> Don't mistake "the speed of light" and the universal constant "c".
>
> light travels at c in a vacuum, because that's how it all works out...
>
> I can't see how a being living in glass could observe a causaility
> violation due to light in a vacuum...
> >
I think the point was pretty clear, though basically useless (What
does it matter if there is anything other than our universe, because it
has absolutley no effect on our universe. If there was any way we could
ever know about it, that would mean that there was some influence and then
it had always been part of our universe, we just hadn't noticed it.
The fact that the people in the glass universe would be able to
see outside of the glass means it wasn't a glass "universe" My little pet
peeve is wrong use of the word universe, which complicates simple
concepts.
I think what that person was trying to say was, "What if what we
thought was a vacuum was actually filled with the aether? then light
might travel faster outside the aether, so c could be measured
inaccurately." who cares? I'm sorry that I don't, but this issue
confused me alot when I was in elementary school, but I figured it out by
high school. I used to say, "what if there were a group of people who
were blind and had no way of sencing anything that travelled faster than
sound? wouldn't something breaking the sound barrior make it cease to exist,
creating a singularity? then, would it matter, if they couldn't sence
light?" Basically, I just had a romantic dream that there would be some
alien life form or something somewhere that would help us to find a new
thing that we previously had no way of sencing. . . for the exact reason
that it travelled faster than light(strange dream for an elementary
student to have...)
kris.
Lectricant
Warp Drive?,,sci fi maybe,, BUT "MATTER-ANTI MATTER ENGINES is a definate
possability. Anti Matter has been made (not created) and stored and used
to collide with Matter since the 70's.
Pat
Lee Jaap
|>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
|>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
|>
|>Francisco:
|>
|>Over 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster than
|>the speed of light. Be very suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise
|>because they are probably making this claim in ignorance of all the hard
|>work and effort that preceeded them.
Actually, the way I understand it, current theory says only that
nothing can move AT the speed of light. The equations say funny
things (imaginary mass) when v > c, but I think they remain
consistent.
Only when coupling this with the fact that there is no known way to
discontinuously go from v < c to v > c is there a problem with v > c.
Is this understanding correct?
--
J Lee Jaap <Jaa...@ASMSun.LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 757/865-7093
employed by, not necessarily speaking for,
AS&M Inc, Hampton VA 23666-1340
Jeramie Hicks
>|>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>|>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>|>
>|>Francisco:
>|>
>|>Over 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster than
>|>the speed of light. Be very suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise
>|>because they are probably making this claim in ignorance of all the hard
>|>work and effort that preceeded them.
It was my understanding that warp drive would create a shortcut in
space, such that you would never have to approach the speed of light.
Since space is variably curved, you could theorectically create an
artificial tunnel between two almost-touching curves in space.
- Hicks
Richard Auer
In article <JAAPJL.96...@asmobj.larc.nasa.gov>, jaa...@asmobj.larc.nasa.gov (Lee Jaap) writes:
|> In article <32358D...@OVPR.UGA.EDU> "RICHARD J. LOGAN" <R...@ovpr.uga.edu> writes:
|>
|> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
|> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
|> |>
|> |>Francisco:
|> |>
|> |>Over 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster than
|> |>the speed of light. Be very suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise
|> |>because they are probably making this claim in ignorance of all the hard
|> |>work and effort that preceeded them.
|>
|> nothing can move AT the speed of light. The equations say funny
|> things (imaginary mass) when v > c, but I think they remain
|> consistent.
|>
|> Only when coupling this with the fact that there is no known way to
|> discontinuously go from v < c to v > c is there a problem with v > c.
|>
|> Is this understanding correct?
No. Obviously light can move _at_ the speed of light. Tachyons (were we ever to
find any) would have the property that they have an imaginary mass and always
travel faster than light. Other than that, I have nothing to gainsay your words
directly. Only this: faster than light, or speed in general, is a relative term.
If I were to find a wormhole, I would never have the impression that I
accelerated, but someone on earth would first detect my presence in one part of
the universe, a while later (or earlier, depending on where you entered and where
you exited) in another part of the universe. Taking the distance and dividing by
the time, he would say "Wow! He just moved X times faster than the speed of
light!"
Richard
--
"You will _wish_ you only had hordes chasing you" -Groo the Wanderer
Brian Douglas Koberlein
Jeramie Hicks wrote:
>
> >In article <32358D...@OVPR.UGA.EDU> "RICHARD J. LOGAN" <R...@ovpr.uga.edu> writes:
>
> >|>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
> >|>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
> >|>
> >|>Francisco:
> >|>
> >|>Over 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster than
> >|>the speed of light. Be very suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise
> >|>because they are probably making this claim in ignorance of all the hard
> >|>work and effort that preceeded them.
Actually, 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster
than the speed of light IN AN INERTIAL FRAME. General relativity does
not have such a constraint per se. The theory of warping space to move
from point A to B faster than light would in flat space is well known.
The real question is how can we do it experimentally?
Warren York
Way back in my senior year in colledge my professor was from
China. He gave me some advice that I will pass along here for it
has not let me down yet.
He said that whenever you have a problem (in physics) that you
can't seem to get a good grip on to just take a long hard look at
Nature for your answer.
Now I am not saying we can or can't go FTL. What I am saying is
where in nature does this seem to take place if at all?
I have found one place that it SEEMS to. I am in the process of
checking it out. I have noticed something very strange about some
lighting strikes that does not fit into the ion trail explanation.
I am waiting for a report from Russia that seems to back this
observation up but using magnetic fields. Anybody interested may
contact me.
Susan52
I'm interested in finding out anything known about the Dean Drive. It was
created in the 1950s by a government worker named Norman Dean. It
converted circular motion into linear motion. If it works as described it
would violate the third rule of thermodynamics which states that for every
action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It made the media in the 1960s. A good example is an article in Analog
Science Fact and Fiction, June 1960, page 83, The Article is titled "The
Space Drive Problem" by John W. Campbell, Jr.
If there is anyone currently looking at this device I would be greatly
interested. A patent was granted on the device. If the drive works then
we can get to the moon in a couple of hours, and to Mars in a week or two.
Since the drive mass to react against, it eliminates the need to carry
tons of fuel. I'd love to know whether it can be made to work.
Sincerely, Susan Jordan, Sus...@AOL.COM
Bond
Jerami...@mail.utexas.edu (Jeramie Hicks) wrote:
>>In article <32358D...@OVPR.UGA.EDU> "RICHARD J. LOGAN" <R...@ovpr.uga.edu> writes:
>>|>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>>|>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>>|>
>>|>Francisco:
>>|>
>>|>Over 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster than
>>|>the speed of light. Be very suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise
>>|>because they are probably making this claim in ignorance of all the hard
>>|>work and effort that preceeded them.
>It was my understanding that warp drive would create a shortcut in
>space, such that you would never have to approach the speed of light.
>Since space is variably curved, you could theorectically create an
>artificial tunnel between two almost-touching curves in space.
>- Hicks
If you are considering warp drive from Star trek, you can more then
likely forget it. However, the idea Hicks put forward about space
being curved is much more believable and probably than any othre form
of interstellar travel. Personally, I think if there is any sort of
'faster than light travel' it will come in the form more out of
Babylon 5 or from Iassic Asimov's suggestions. These both put forward
the idea of traveling through hyperspace, and that is the idea I think
which will finally unlock interstellar travel. In hyperspace, nothing
can move slower than the speed of light, so all you have to do is
figure out how to open a door into hyperspace and then navigate
through it to arrive at your destination. Warp drive just ain't gonna
happen.
007
The Truth Is Out There
Calvin/Hobbes '96
Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists
elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to
contact us. - Calvin
Rick Ellis
In article <325C33...@intercenter.net>,
Brian Douglas Koberlein <br...@intercenter.net> wrote:
>Actually, 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster
>than the speed of light IN AN INERTIAL FRAME. General relativity does
>not have such a constraint per se. The theory of warping space to move
>from point A to B faster than light would in flat space is well known.
>The real question is how can we do it experimentally?
You'll need some exotic matter. See The Warp Drive: Hyper-fast Travel
Within General Relativity by Miguel Alcubierre, Univ. of Wales.
RICHARD J. LOGAN
Bond wrote:
> Babylon 5 or from Iassic Asimov's suggestions. These both put forward
> the idea of traveling through hyperspace, and that is the idea I think
> which will finally unlock interstellar travel. In hyperspace, nothing
> can move slower than the speed of light, so all you have to do is
> figure out how to open a door into hyperspace and then navigate
> through it to arrive at your destination. Warp drive just ain't gonna
> happen.
I'd just like to point out there is no such thing as "hyperspace".
Hyperspace is a fiction created by writers to get around the problem that
the universe is VERY big and obeys the equations of special relativity.
The way the universe really works is far more interesting than anything
dreamed up by an SF writer.
Comp...@jk-o.demon.co.uk
> Jerami...@mail.utexas.edu (Jeramie Hicks) wrote:
>
> >>In article <32358D...@OVPR.UGA.EDU> "RICHARD J. LOGAN" <R...@ovpr.uga.edu>
> writes:
>
> >>|>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
> >>|>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
> >>|>
> >>|>Francisco:
> >>|>
> >>|>Over 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster than
> >>|>the speed of light. Be very suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise
> >>|>because they are probably making this claim in ignorance of all the hard
> >>|>work and effort that preceeded them.
>
> >It was my understanding that warp drive would create a shortcut in
> >space, such that you would never have to approach the speed of light.
> >Since space is variably curved, you could theorectically create an
> >artificial tunnel between two almost-touching curves in space.
>
> >- Hicks
>
> If you are considering warp drive from Star trek, you can more then
> likely forget it. However, the idea Hicks put forward about space
> being curved is much more believable and probably than any othre form
> of interstellar travel. Personally, I think if there is any sort of
> 'faster than light travel' it will come in the form more out of
> Babylon 5 or from Iassic Asimov's suggestions. These both put forward
> the idea of traveling through hyperspace, and that is the idea I think
> which will finally unlock interstellar travel. In hyperspace, nothing
> can move slower than the speed of light, so all you have to do is
> figure out how to open a door into hyperspace and then navigate
> through it to arrive at your destination. Warp drive just ain't gonna
> happen.
>
> 007
Ok, let's assume some civilization out there has unlocked the secrets
of FTL interstellar travel. They travel through hyperspace with one
destination in mind - Earth. How would we spot their approach?
It's my guess that if we take FTL travel seriously we should concen-
trate our monitoring efforts on areas of space close to black holes,
since it's through these doors into hyperspace that strangers would
step in!?
This still leaves them with several light-years to be covered at sub-
relativistic speed.
--
Jens Kieffer-Olsen, M.Sc.(Eng.)
Homer G. McCall
Lee Jaap wrote:
>
> In article <32358D...@OVPR.UGA.EDU> "RICHARD J. LOGAN" <R...@ovpr.uga.edu> writes:
>
> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
> |>
> |>Francisco:
> |>
> |>Over 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster than
> |>the speed of light. Be very suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise
> |>because they are probably making this claim in ignorance of all the hard
> |>work and effort that preceeded them.
>
> nothing can move AT the speed of light. The equations say funny
> things (imaginary mass) when v > c, but I think they remain
> consistent.
>
> Only when coupling this with the fact that there is no known way to
> discontinuously go from v < c to v > c is there a problem with v > c.
>
> Is this understanding correct?
> J Lee Jaap <Jaa...@ASMSun.LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 757/865-7093
> employed by, not necessarily speaking for,
> AS&M Inc, Hampton VA 23666-1340
I have read a book titled "The Physics of Star Trek," which presents
a theory about traveling using a "warp drive," but the energy needed to
do use this device would be many times in excess of all the energy ever
used on the entire earth.
BM
tadchem
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:06:46 -0500, Homer G. McCall said...
>
<snip>
>> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
Check out Brian G. Wallace's work on c+v velocity for light. I don't have
the URL handy, but you can get it from a web search on the full name "Brian
G. Wallace" or contact dbw...@arn.net (his son the chemist).
<snip>
>> Actually, the way I understand it, current theory says only that
>> nothing can move AT the speed of light.
Relative to what?? Don't forget that "Relativity" refers to relative motion
- the motion of A as perceived by B in B's own frame of reference. B never
moves from or in his own frame of reference. What counts to an interstellar
craft is the motion of its own propellant relative to itself. The
unheralded conclusion of General Relativity is simply that, if A's velocity
relative to B exceeds c, then A ceases to become relative to B - that is A
leaves B's universe, because no information about A can leave A going
towards B can _ever_ get to B.
>> The equations say funny
>> things (imaginary mass) when v > c, but I think they remain
>> consistent.
Don't forget that the equations say nothing about what is really happening
to A, but only about what information B gets that is relative to A, and
therefore what B can perceive about A. The fundamental assumption of GR is
that every observer throughout the universe, making independent measurements
about the nature of the universe, each in his own frame of reference, will
get the same results - there are no local variations in the Laws of Nature.
Thus A will get the same value for a measurement of c that B gets,
regardless of their relative motions. A (and B) will be able to determine
whether their frames of reference are accellerated, but neither will be able
to measure an "intrinsic" velocity of their own frame because velocity is
relative to the separation (or approach) of two different frames, and
neither observer can function in both frames simultaneously.
There is nothing in GR that says A can't exceed c relative to B, just that
when A does, he drops out of B's universe.
========================================================================
"Before you can do something new, you've got to think something new."
- Tom Davidson <tdav...@ho.blm.gov>
<tad...@arn.net> Lead Chemist
2704 Curtis Dr. Apt A. BLM - Helium Operation
Amarillo, TX 79109-3321 801 S. Fillmore St. #500
806-355-1516 Amarillo, TX 79101-3545
806-355-3934
Unknown
"Homer G. McCall" <don...@inu.net> skrivningar: > Lee Jaap wrote:
> >
> > In article <32358D...@OVPR.UGA.EDU> "RICHARD J. LOGAN" <R...@ovpr.uga.edu> writes:
> >
> > |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
> > |>
> > |>
> > |>Over 70 years of experiment tells us that nothing can move faster than
> > |>the speed of light. Be very suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise
> > |>because they are probably making this claim in ignorance of all the hard
> > |>work and effort that preceeded them.
> >
> > things (imaginary mass) when v > c, but I think they remain
> > consistent.
> >
> > discontinuously go from v < c to v > c is there a problem with v > c.
> >
> > Is this understanding correct?
> > --
> > J Lee Jaap <Jaa...@ASMSun.LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 757/865-7093
> > employed by, not necessarily speaking for,
> > AS&M Inc, Hampton VA 23666-1340
>
> I have read a book titled "The Physics of Star Trek," which presents
> a theory about traveling using a "warp drive," but the energy needed to
> do use this device would be many times in excess of all the energy ever
> used on the entire earth.
>
> BM
>
On the other hand, there might be a "minor" problem with no mass at all, but surely not as complex(!) as the case above.
So why discuss the case of v>c, when we could look at the case v -> infinity.
?!?
Jan-H. Raabe
Hi everyone
Homer G. McCall (don...@inu.net) wrote:
: I have read a book titled "The Physics of Star Trek," which presents
: a theory about traveling using a "warp drive," but the energy needed to
: do use this device would be many times in excess of all the energy ever
: used on the entire earth.
Recently I read in a german astronomy magazin (Sterne und Weltraum),
that according to Space News NASA is looking into "warp drives",
wormholes and similar exotic technologies.
Can someone here confirm this or check the source ?
Regards
Jan-H. Raabe
Edgar Lynk
Jan-H. Raabe (y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de) wrote:
: Hi everyone
: Regards
: Jan-H. Raabe
Nov '96 issue of "The Institute", an IEEE newsletter,
reports that NASA is pursuing "breakthrough propulsion
physics" in its "Advanced Space Exploration Program".
The only project mentioned in the newsletter involved
"gravity-modification devices". Ning Li of U. of Alabama
was named as grant recipient. Eugene Podkletnov of Tampere
U., Finland also working in this area.
You could contact NASA for more details.
Hope this helps.
ET
--
Three-step algorithm that will lead to worldwide peace:
1. Forswear revenge as a means of ego gratification.
2. Develop a relationship with each member of your family
that is reciprocally respectful, nurturing and helpful.
3. Realize that every human being on Earth is in your family.
Jan-H. Raabe
Edgar Lynk (el...@Capital.Net) wrote:
: : Recently I read in a german astronomy magazin (Sterne und Weltraum),
: : that according to Space News NASA is looking into "warp drives",
: : wormholes and similar exotic technologies.
: : Jan-H. Raabe
: Nov '96 issue of "The Institute", an IEEE newsletter,
: reports that NASA is pursuing "breakthrough propulsion
: physics" in its "Advanced Space Exploration Program".
: The only project mentioned in the newsletter involved
: "gravity-modification devices". Ning Li of U. of Alabama
: was named as grant recipient. Eugene Podkletnov of Tampere
: U., Finland also working in this area.
: You could contact NASA for more details.
: Hope this helps.
Yes, it did. Thanks a lot.
The article is also on the page of the IEEE at
(look at: The Institute, current issue)
Best regards
Jan-H. Raabe
Kiran Reval
In article <54vf0a$7...@services.arn.net>, tad...@arn.net says...
>>> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>>> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
No, I just love the simple fact that light travels, well at the speed of
light, and therefore, from one, not very practical point of view, must travel
at infinite speed, ie be everywhere at once, leaving us mere relatives
(groan) to see things in terms of distances. And just as well it doesn't have
any mass...
But, more down to earth, who would want to go FASTER than light: as long as
you are not returning, you could travel across the galaxy in minutes,
provided you reach the required 99.999% or whatever of light.
KR
Kiran Reval
>>> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>>> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
Who'd want to go faster? At 99.999% or whatever of light you can travel
across the galaxy in minutes, all as long as you didn't intend to return. But
not needing to return has never stopped an explorer.
KR
Todd Miller
Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
years to reach even the nearest star.
-todd
Armin Gerritsen
Todd Miller <safet...@aol.com> wrote in article
<328879...@aol.com>...
I think Kiran means that the time for the traveler is only a few minutes.
That's why he added as long as you don't want to return. Because if return
the rest of the world has grown older for thousands, maby even milions of
years. But that's exactely why warp-drive would be interesting. Warp drive
would theorecticly be possible if you could temporarly bent space. The
distance between two points in spave would then be smaller. But there is no
real theorie about warp-drives.
Armin
pm...@aol.com
> >>> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
> >>> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>
> Who'd want to go faster? At 99.999% or whatever of light you can travel
> across the galaxy in minutes, all as long as you didn't intend to
return. But
> not needing to return has never stopped an explorer.
>
> KR
:Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
:years to reach even the nearest star.
:-todd
Years of our time on Earth yes, but isn't it true that the passage
of time decreases as you increase your velocity. My understanding is that
although the journey could last thousands of years for Earthlings, the
explorers aboard the spaceship would only experience the journey lasting
several days.
If this is true then even if a ship could reach light speed (which
I believe is fundamentally impossible) then the astronauts inside would be
effectively frozen in time; and unable to slow the ship down again.
Ofcourse I could be completely wrong...
I'm glad the Enterprise doesn't have to worry about all this!
Paul Morris - Studying Physics, Maths(mechanics), Computer Studies and
Chemistry
at St. Mary's XI Form, College, Manchester, England.
Edward A Gedeon
In article <328879...@aol.com>, Todd Miller <safet...@aol.com> writes:
> Kiran Reval wrote:
> > ... At 99.999% or whatever of light you can travel
> > across the galaxy in minutes, all as long as you didn't intend to return. But
> > not needing to return has never stopped an explorer.
> >
> Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
> years to reach even the nearest star.
>
I believe Kiran was referring to the time from the perspective of the
explorer. To someone aboard a ship travelling at 99.9999+% lightspeed,
time would be dialated to the point where light-years could be
spanned in what seems like seconds.
Of course, at those speeds, interstellar gas molecules would have the
mass of small boulders, ripping your ship to flinders ... drat that
pesky deflector beam, gotta remember to get that fixed one of these
days. :-)
--
Edward Gedeon / The opinions above are not my employers'. / Member DNRC O-
******************************
"I was put on Earth to raise other people's children."
Jody Lynne Gedeon, 1953-1996
Bill K.
On a dark and stormy night, Todd Miller <safet...@aol.com>
published:
>Kiran Reval wrote:
>>
>> >>> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>> >>> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>>
>> Who'd want to go faster? At 99.999% or whatever of light you can travel
>> across the galaxy in minutes, all as long as you didn't intend to return. But
>> not needing to return has never stopped an explorer.
>>
>> KR
>
>
>
>
>Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
>years to reach even the nearest star.
>
>-todd
Good grief guys, I'm not even a physicist, and its up to *me* to
answer the lad? Ok, here goes:
Since light does seem to travel at a constant (c) in linear space, and
since E=mc2 does seem to be the case, infinite energy would be
required to accelerate mass to (c). You can get away with
accelerating to <c (like the aformentioned 99.9999%), but the drawback
is that the rest of the universe proceeds without you, leaving you
with very old well-wishers back in spacedock.
Since the linear acceleration approach has this drawback, the
alternative is to find a way to bend space into a tight curve, so that
you don't have to traverse the boring, long, linear route.
So far, gravity is the only way we know to bend space (like gravity
emanating from a planet or sun, or neutron star or black hole or other
dense body). The best way to approach FTL (Faster Than Light) travel
is not to accelerate, but to fold the space you want to travel across.
Find a way to generate extreme gravity just ahead of you, and bingo,
you bend space, and you are suddenly where you were heading. And you
don't even have to watch the universe die of heat death in the
process.
Cool, eh?
cheers
=======================================================================
Groucho,
1st Armoured Humour Division,
Marx(ist) Militia
SIC SEMPER COMICUS ("Death by Laughter", kinda)
Usenet is so big, and I'm so small.
email me if I should actually read your words.
=======================================================================
David Openheimer
> A.D.Dr...@massey.ac.nz (Andrew Drawneek) writes:
> In article <328879...@aol.com>, Todd Miller <safet...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [...chop...]
>
> >
> >Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
> >years to reach even the nearest star.
> >
> >-todd
>
> traveler gets to light speed, the faster time passes... i.e., several years
> would pass for observers on Earth, but time would pass faster for the travelers
> making the journey... ?
>
> -AD
>
>>>>
You have this reversed.
As an object approaches lightspeed, its local time dilates toward zero, such
that a traveler moving AT the speed of light would perceive himself as moving at
an infinite velocity in no time.
Regards,
David Openheimer
Zia Corporation
Yebo Chen
Todd Miller <safet...@aol.com> writes:
>Kiran Reval wrote:
>>
>> >>> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>> >>> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>>
>> Who'd want to go faster? At 99.999% or whatever of light you can travel
>> across the galaxy in minutes, all as long as you didn't intend to return. But
>> not needing to return has never stopped an explorer.
>>
>> KR
>Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
>years to reach even the nearest star.
I think he meant in the traveler's frame.
Bobby Downes
In article <56ccj1$6...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz>
A.D.Dr...@massey.ac.nz (Andrew Drawneek) writes:
Q: In article <328879...@aol.com>, Todd Miller <safet...@aol.com> wrote:
Q:
Q: [...chop...]
Q:
Q: >
Q: >Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
Q: >years to reach even the nearest star.
Q: >
Q: >-todd
Q:
Q: I thought the theory (or atleast a popular theory) was that the closer a
Q: traveler gets to light speed, the faster time passes... i.e., several years
Q: would pass for observers on Earth, but time would pass faster for the travelers
Q: making the journey... ?
No, I believe it's the other way around. Travelling at speeds like that
of light causes time for the travellers to work more slowly, slower and
slower until at the speed of light, time stops for the travellers.
I suppose this would mean that they would see the events of the rest
of the Universe occur at infinite speed (i.e. instantaneously). Once
you reach the speed of light, you cannot accelerate anymore, because
there is no time left to increase your speed in.
But I may be mistaken.
______________________________
/ Bobby Downes /\
/ e-mail: b...@sv.span.com / /
/ BBS: Sound & Vision / /
/ BBS: [UK] (0181) 288 8444 / /
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/
ET Chilton
Todd Miller (safet...@aol.com) wrote:
: Kiran Reval wrote:
: >
: > >>> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
: > >>> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
: >
: > Who'd want to go faster? At 99.999% or whatever of light you can travel
: > across the galaxy in minutes, all as long as you didn't intend to return. But
: > not needing to return has never stopped an explorer.
: >
: > KR
: Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
: years to reach even the nearest star.
: -todd
I assume Kiran is talking about the travelers time frame. However
it would stiil take years to accelerate. (assuming you dont want to arrive
squashed).
Ewan.
Chuck Federspiel
a coupla points.
first of all, lets remember the one-dimensional clock (the light pulse
reflecting off two mirrors. and the clock is perpendicular to the
ship's velocity) if you are one of an inertial pair and you want to
*see* how your friend percieves time, just look at his clock and compare
it to your own. an earthling would look at the chuck yeager of space
flight and say, 'wow! that guy has a lot of freakin' time on his
hands!' Of course chuck says the same thing about the earthling,
('cause at the moment chuck is not accelerating). this means that
neither would EVER see the other's pulse reach the bottom of their
respective clocks, and thus, they both have an infinite amount of time
relative to the other. finally, if either looks down at thier own
clock, everything looks normal.
If you are in high school, you should be confused now. this is what is
called the twin paradox. the question is 'who dies?' the answer is,
(dadadadaddadadada) THEY BOTH DO!
this is where general relativity comes in. it accounts for what
happens during the interval chuck is accellerating to and from light
speed. (remember equivalence? well, GR doesn't only apply to
gravitational accelleration) I'm not sure exactly what happens, but I
do know that the tide of time is not nearly so forgiving as some of the
latest contributors would like to believe.
now lets digress to a practical model for a warp drive. I find I have
nothing constructive to offer in this regard, as the grip of time/space
will not ease up long enough for me to take hold of it.
chuck
hi everyone! I am new to the 'group. I love this stuff. I also like
turkey.
turkey turkey turkey! long live the .. oh forget it.
Tobias LIndstrvm
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:21:36 -0500, Todd Miller <safet...@aol.com>
wrote:
>Kiran Reval wrote:
>>
>> >>> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>> >>> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>>
>> Who'd want to go faster? At 99.999% or whatever of light you can travel
>> across the galaxy in minutes, all as long as you didn't intend to return. But
>> not needing to return has never stopped an explorer.
>>
>> KR
>
>
>
>
>Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
>years to reach even the nearest star.
>
>-todd
Thats not really true. It is true that it would take several years for
a person standing on earth watching the spacecraft, but for the
austronauts IN the spacecraft the journey wouldn't take so long (I
haven't actuallt done the calculations, right now I'm too tired, but I
belive it would just take a few days if the craft were traveling at
0.999c).
You always have to consider the theory of relativity when it's comes
to spacetravel...
Tobias Lindstrvm, Sweden
David Weinstein
>Kiran Reval wrote:
>>
>> >>> |>> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
>> >>> |>> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
>>
>> Who'd want to go faster? At 99.999% or whatever of light you can travel
>> across the galaxy in minutes, all as long as you didn't intend to return. But
>> not needing to return has never stopped an explorer.
>>
>> KR
>
>
>
>
>Not quite. At the speed of light, it would take
>years to reach even the nearest star.
>
>-todd
According to your own time (in the ship) nope: time dialation makes
things seem bery fast. It is possible to go (using your time and Earth's
maps) VERY VERY fast, as in millions of times faster than the speed
of light. As you approach c, your apparent speed tends to infinity *
light speed.
--
David Weinstein
A Yankee Abroad
dsa...@pacbell.net
> Does any one know of any theories on warp drives or
> any drive that could make you go faster than light?
Current theories dictate that warp drives will tunnel through space (via
wormholes, etc.), since slower-than-light particles cannot accelerate
past the lightspeed barrier. Therefore "FTL drive" and "warp drive" are
not the same thing.
Take a look at JBIS v42 n11, November 1989, for Dr. R.L. Forward's
article, "Space Warps: A Review of One Form of Propulsionless
Transport." I'd appreciate reading any professional reactions to this
article since I'm no physicist. Thanks!
Pete Ross
On 5 Nov 1996 08:29:28 GMT, el...@Capital.Net (Edgar Lynk) wrote:
>Jan-H. Raabe (y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de) wrote:
>: Hi everyone
>
>: Homer G. McCall (don...@inu.net) wrote:
>: : I have read a book titled "The Physics of Star Trek," which presents
>: : a theory about traveling using a "warp drive," but the energy needed to
>: : do use this device would be many times in excess of all the energy ever
>: : used on the entire earth.
>
>: Recently I read in a german astronomy magazin (Sterne und Weltraum),
>: that according to Space News NASA is looking into "warp drives",
>: wormholes and similar exotic technologies.
>: Can someone here confirm this or check the source ?
>
>: Regards
>: Jan-H. Raabe
>
> Nov '96 issue of "The Institute", an IEEE newsletter,
> reports that NASA is pursuing "breakthrough propulsion
> physics" in its "Advanced Space Exploration Program".
> The only project mentioned in the newsletter involved
> "gravity-modification devices". Ning Li of U. of Alabama
> was named as grant recipient. Eugene Podkletnov of Tampere
> U., Finland also working in this area.
> You could contact NASA for more details.
> Hope this helps.
> ET
>--
>Three-step algorithm that will lead to worldwide peace:
> 1. Forswear revenge as a means of ego gratification.
> 2. Develop a relationship with each member of your family
> that is reciprocally respectful, nurturing and helpful.
> 3. Realize that every human being on Earth is in your family.
>
Pete Ross wrote on Nov. 17, 1996:
In response to more advanced methods of space travel by NASA:
What I could never understand is why NASA gave up on the Mass Driver,
and sold the blueprints to England. This method, which uses an
anti-gravity propulsion based on electromagnetics, had the feasibility
of putting a payload into orbit around the earth that at that time
would have cost only $1 per pound to launch, which made all other
propulsion fuels obsolete. In fact, the Mass Driver would have been
so powerful that human beings would not have been able to travel on it
from launch site earth because of the terriffic inertial effect. It
could have been used to take materials up into space and put together
sophisticated space stations, and deep space ships that COULD have
been occupied by humans. It could have put us 50-100 years ahead of
where we are today.
I guess Texaco (who at that time controlled most of the Hydrogen and
Oxygen fuel production) did not see how it would have profited them.
That is nearsightedness, I think, for colonization on planets in our
solar system could have had far reaching economic potential, far
beyond any profits from conventional fuels today.
Now that the financing of the NASA Space Program has been turned
over to private business concerns, perhaps this will be looked at
again. Russian-French-American-British and other alliances have been
formed to work on space station and deep space exploration projects.
This could not have been possible with the structure that was there
previously. Albert Einstein said in 1937 that as long as the space
program is in the hands of the military, there will be no space
program. His words were iintuitive, it seems. Perhaps man can now
take that next leap into real space exploration where pure Science is
of more importance than economics. It is long over due. Thank you
for your insight, Mr. Einstein. You were much more than just a
Theoretical Physicist!
Hopeful at Last;
Pete Ross,
pete...@cyberhighway.net
Philip Brown
In article <328ad769...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
Bill K. <xtr10...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> ...
> The best way to approach FTL (Faster Than Light) travel
>is not to accelerate, but to fold the space you want to travel across.
Or some other kind of "artificial acceleration", which may or may not
involve "folding space"
>
>Find a way to generate extreme gravity just ahead of you, and bingo,
>you bend space, and you are suddenly where you were heading. And you
>don't even have to watch the universe die of heat death in the
>process.
nitpick:
I don't believe gravity "bends space". I believe that it makes most, if not
all known physical processes/reactions behave in a manner similar to if that
were true.
Which means that
a) Yes, light still "bends" (but for different reasons)
b) No, you won't "instantaneously" be where you were heading, after
creating artificial gravity. You'll still have to accelerate to
get there.
--
--------------------------------------------------
ph...@bolthole.com
"Ya see? It's just like I always said: you can get more with a kind word and a
2b'4, than you get with just a kind word" -- Marcus, Babylon 5 ranger
Cam Mayor
In article <328dcfe5...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
Tobias LIndstrvm <f95...@dd.chalmers.se> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:21:36 -0500, Todd Miller <safet...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>years to reach even the nearest star.
>
>a person standing on earth watching the spacecraft, but for the
>austronauts IN the spacecraft the journey wouldn't take so long (I
>haven't actuallt done the calculations, right now I'm too tired, but I
>belive it would just take a few days if the craft were traveling at
>0.999c).
I have my calculator handy...
If we ignore acceleration (i.e. you get up to speed, and can stop
instantly without squashing yourself into a pancake with the thickness
of a carbon atom), and I'm doing this correctly, it works out to
65.3 days for a 4 LY trip if we're traveling at 99.9% the speed of light.
4*365*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = 65.3 days, where v/c=.999
If we get bold, and go to 99.9999% the speed of light, we get there
in 2 days. Not bad!
Of course, time has passed on the order of 4 years for all your friends
and family not on similar vacations.
>You always have to consider the theory of relativity when it's comes
>to spacetravel...
After accepting relativity, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy!
cheers,
cam
Graham Nelson
In article <56f8k5$5...@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>, Edward A Gedeon
<URL:mailto:c2x...@eng.delcoelect.com> wrote:
> In article <328879...@aol.com>, Todd Miller <safetyrisk@aol.
com> writes:
> > Kiran Reval wrote:
> > > across the galaxy in minutes, all as long as you didn't intend
to return. But
> > > not needing to return has never stopped an explorer.
> > >
> > years to reach even the nearest star.
The formula for time dilation is a factor of root(1-v^2/c^2), c being
the
speed of light. So if we want to travel the 4 light years to the
nearest star, but we want it only to take 3 days (a nice Apollo kind
of journey time),
v/c = root ( 1 - (3 days/4 years)^2 )
which (I think) comes to 0.999998 of the speed of light. To really
go "across the galaxy": well, let's do it properly and go to
Andromeda,
2000000 LY away. This I think requires 0.999999998 c. (It ought
to be said that the difficulty in attaining speeds close to c
gets higher and higher the close you get, so these figures aren't
really that near to each other.)
We can return from Alpha Centauri in another three days by our time,
but eight years will have passed for those left behind on Earth.
In the case of Andromeda, 4000000 years will have passed, and there's
a decent chance that the International Space Station will have been
launched. (The Zeta Reticulan First Cargo Element, anyway.)
Somebody posted something about c only being the maximum velocity
in "linear space". I think this is a misunderstanding; c is the
limit everywhere, and no space is actually "linear" from a geometrical
point of view; it's a surface whose curvature is essentially
the gravitational field. Well, I over-simplify a bit.
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United
Kingdom
Bobby Downes
In article <56ihp4$7...@usenet.bham.ac.uk>
cca9...@sun1.bham.ac.uk (ET Chilton) writes:
Q:
Q: I assume Kiran is talking about the travelers time frame. However
Q: it would stiil take years to accelerate. (assuming you dont want to arrive
Q: squashed).
Not if every particle in the ship was accelerated at once at
the same rate somehow.
sip...@aol.com
Wormholes are not well understood so that you do indeed have a lot of
leeway in their use for propulsion. Yes, this type of "motion" is not
restricted by relativity. I suppose that if you wanted to get really
wild, you could postulate maybe that in the future we can create a series
of naked singularity rings front of the ship and somehow control where the
other end of the wormhole(s) would appear. There is nothing in GR that
would explicitly forbid this as far as I know. The most nebolous part of
the story would be controlling where the other end appears.. like ensuring
that you stay in this universe... (aside from more mundane considerations
like the amount of energy required or how you would impart a sufficient
angular momentum to the ring without making your ship spin wildly).
WARNING - I'm just brainstorming here. The article sounds fun. What is
JBIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Sipos, sip...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Does a polar bear,
under an appropriate coordinate transformation,
become a rectangular bear?
----------------------------------------------------------------
sip...@aol.com
In article <ant1812181cbM+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>, Graham Nelson
<gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Somebody posted something about c only being the maximum velocity
>in "linear space". I think this is a misunderstanding; c is the
>limit everywhere, and no space is actually "linear" from a geometrical
>point of view; it's a surface whose curvature is essentially
>the gravitational field. Well, I over-simplify a bit.
c is a limit in flat spacetime, and this is equivalent to saying that it
is also a limit locally in curved spacetime that is continous. Globally,
GR does not restrict you from getting from point A to point B slower than
it would take light to make the trip.
All continous regions of the spacetime manifold have to be locally flat.
This is similar to your freshman calculus class where you learn that all
continous functions must have a well defined tangent at each point.
Bobby Downes
In article <56qsbl$l...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
ma...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Cam Mayor) writes:
Q:
Q: I have my calculator handy...
Q:
Q: If we ignore acceleration (i.e. you get up to speed, and can stop
Q: instantly without squashing yourself into a pancake with the thickness
Q: of a carbon atom), and I'm doing this correctly, it works out to
Q: 65.3 days for a 4 LY trip if we're traveling at 99.9% the speed of light.
Q:
Q: 4*365*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = 65.3 days, where v/c=.999
Q:
Q: If we get bold, and go to 99.9999% the speed of light, we get there
Q: in 2 days. Not bad!
Q:
Q: Of course, time has passed on the order of 4 years for all your friends
Q: and family not on similar vacations.
Q:
Q: After accepting relativity, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy!
Thanks. I just made a Q-Basic program that uses that formula.
I'm now running one that calulates the percentage of the speed
of light that you'd have to be travelling at to perceive time
as moving half as slowly as it does for someone who is stationary.
It's taking a long time because I told it to do it to STEP .0001
or more. It's been ten minutes and it's still only up to 1.2% of the
speed of light. I need a P-Pro 200.
Henrik Sandstroem
In article <56r54r$a...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz>, A.D.Dr...@massey.ac.nz
says...
>
>In article <848117...@sv.span.com>, b...@sv.span.com (Bobby Downes) wrote:
>>In article <56ccj1$6...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz>
>> A.D.Dr...@massey.ac.nz (Andrew Drawneek) writes:
>>Q: I thought the theory (or atleast a popular theory) was that the closer a
>>Q: traveler gets to light speed, the faster time passes... i.e., several
years
>>Q: would pass for observers on Earth, but time would pass faster for the
>travelers
>>Q: making the journey... ?
>>
>>No, I believe it's the other way around. Travelling at speeds like that
>>of light causes time for the travellers to work more slowly, slower and
>>slower until at the speed of light, time stops for the travellers.
>>I suppose this would mean that they would see the events of the rest
>>of the Universe occur at infinite speed (i.e. instantaneously). Once
>>you reach the speed of light, you cannot accelerate anymore, because
>>there is no time left to increase your speed in.
>>
>
>wouldn't take years for the travelers to make the journey at close to light
>speed. What I meant by "the faster time passes" was time would have seemed to
>have passed by faster for the travelers because they would have made the
journey
>in what would seem to be less time (because time had infact slowed down at the
>speed they travelled)... figure of speech I suppose....
>>But I may be mistaken.
>
>
>
>-AD
ok im sorry if i am interrupting, but i felt i had to say this.
if you accelerate, then your mass increase. The faster you go, the
"heavier" will you get. At the speed of light, the mass would be infinite,
so then you must use infinite amounts of energy to accelerate to the speed
of light. that's a bit tricky! ;). but in theory your'e right, i think...
Canis...@cent.com
i like the direction of this thread. I would also like to divert your
attention momentarily to the 4D space-time continuum. Traveling over
such astronomic distances would not be feasible by mechanical means due
to enery considerations. The space-time fabic must be altered - warped
or wrinkled to produce a, for lack of a better term, wormhole. The
continuum is generally deflected by large gravitational masses, i.e.,
black holes. Unfortunately, lack of current empirical data aside, as
sip...@aol.com wrote...
> The most nebolous part of
> the story would be controlling where the other end appears.. like ensuring
> that you stay in this universe... (aside from more mundane considerations
> like the amount of energy required or how you would impart a sufficient
> angular momentum to the ring without making your ship spin wildly).
There simply is no data to even consider the beginnings of a model for
this phenomenon. There was, however, one episode of ST:The Next
Generation where a being did just this...altered the contimuum to take
the enterprise on a journey with astronomic dimensions...one of the
earlier seasons, I believe...anyway.
I enjoy brainstorming with you as well. email me if you wish, i would
enjoy a dialog with any of you.
Bill K.
After repeated alien abductions bolt...@best.com (Philip Brown) opined:
>In article <328ad769...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
>Bill K. <xtr10...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> ...
>> The best way to approach FTL (Faster Than Light) travel
>>is not to accelerate, but to fold the space you want to travel across.
>
>Or some other kind of "artificial acceleration", which may or may not
>involve "folding space"
>
>
>>
>>Find a way to generate extreme gravity just ahead of you, and bingo,
>>you bend space, and you are suddenly where you were heading. And you
>>don't even have to watch the universe die of heat death in the
>>process.
>
>nitpick:
>
>I don't believe gravity "bends space". I believe that it makes most, if not
>all known physical processes/reactions behave in a manner similar to if that
>were true.
Not according to my (admittedly limited) understanding. Gravity does
actually warp the fabric of space-time.
>
>Which means that
> a) Yes, light still "bends" (but for different reasons)
No, light continues to travel in a "straight" line, its just that that line
it travels is "bent".
Gawd, sometimes English just does not cut the mustard...
> b) No, you won't "instantaneously" be where you were heading, after
> creating artificial gravity. You'll still have to accelerate to
> get there.
Not if you fold the space between you and your destination into a
singlularity. OK, maybe you have to sneeze out the back window..
Actually, the singularity would pull you toward it, so I don't think you
need to expend any extra energy, beyond creating the singularity itself.
Or maybe I'm filled to overflowing with crap. I'm not sure :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"We can look forward to four more years of wonderful, inspirational
speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more
goddamn nonsense."
David Brinkley, ABC News, after Clinton clinched his re-election.
Proof that the media does not *always* lie.
sip...@aol.com
In article <3294dd0a...@news.xtra.co.nz>, xtr10...@xtra.co.nz
(Bill K.) writes:
>>>Find a way to generate extreme gravity just ahead of you, and bingo,
>>>you bend space, and you are suddenly where you were heading. And you
>>>don't even have to watch the universe die of heat death in the
>>>process.
>>
>>nitpick:
>>
>>I don't believe gravity "bends space". I believe that it makes most, if
not
>>all known physical processes/reactions behave in a manner similar to if
that
>>were true.
>
>Not according to my (admittedly limited) understanding. Gravity does
>actually warp the fabric of space-time.
You guys are close to being on the right track, but not exactly.
Mass/energy does distort spacetime but it "streches out" spacetime. So if
you create a strong gravitational distortion front of you, and then try to
move across it, you actually have "longer" to go than if you were to move
entirely around the distortion. You can think of the distortion as
similar to Dr Who's time-machine: it appears a small area when viewed from
outside, but once you move into the distortion there is actually "more
spacetime" present than what was apparent. This is why when you throw
something into a black hole it will appear to slow down at the horizon -
in fact, if you were standing right besides the falling object, you
wouldn't see it slow down at all.
By far the best book that I have seen explaining this effect is "A Short
Course in General Relativity" by Foster & Nightingale. It's a small $30
paperback written at an undergraduate level, but it is realtively easy to
follow.
Gregg Germain
o.nz>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]
Message-ID: <3299b...@cfanews.harvard.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 96 15:19:43 GMT
Lines: 14
Bill K. (xtr10...@xtra.co.nz) wrote:
: Gawd, sometimes English just does not cut the mustard...
this is my theory as to why we have such "problems" as the
concept of infinity, complex numbers, and infinite mass at the speed
of light.....a limitation to our language/thought process/set of
concepts.
--- Gregg
Saville
gr...@hrc2.harvard.edu #29 Genie
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics #1762 CRIS
Phone: (617) 496-7713 "A Mig at your six is better than
no Mig at all."