Warp Drive could Become Science fact - NASA small scale testing underway

**Borvo** · 2012-09-21, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Urti

It would. That's basically the idea behind gravity. The moon orbits the earth due to the warping of spacetime by the earth. Same thing applies here, the ship=earth and the rock/debris=moon. The time frames and amount of warping would be different obviously, but the idea is the same.

So if you where happily plodding along in your warp bubble for a while and you slapped the brakes on anything you encountered on the way would be there when you stopped? That sounds like it could be fun!

**semaphore** · 2012-09-21, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by ducklino

If you're just a curious and don't really understand this stuff you can start by reading papers about Plasma cosmology; wiki page about it is very incomplete but can give you an idea. but If you truly want to do a research about this subject, because plasma cosmology is just one part of it, i suggest you do check this site thunderbolts and its forum.

It's complete nonsense.

Originally Posted by Verain

It doesn't matter who you parrot it from, it's still just more hysteria-inciting stuff.

If you get hysterical over harmless, inoffensive jokes, that's kinda sorta your own problem.

**Grizzly Willy** · 2012-09-21, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Verain

It doesn't matter who you parrot it from, it's still just more hysteria-inciting stuff.

Oh boy. Really going to incite hysteria by jokingly making a pop culture reference.

God, if that's bad then it is absolutely mind boggling how mankind has gotten this far without breaking into hysterical riots every week.

**ducklino** · 2012-09-21, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by semaphore

It's complete nonsense.

You're either an ignorant(did not read anything at all) or just plain dumb(did not understand).

**semaphore** · 2012-09-21, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by ducklino

You're either an ignorant(did not read anything at all) or just plain dumb(did not understand).

A crackpot theory is a crackpot theory. Throwing personal insults around doesn't change the fact that you are promoting nonsense.

Even your own source says

Today, almost all cosmologists and astronomers are dismissive of the idea

**Lolercaust** · 2012-09-21, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by ducklino

Kid, you think electric universe is something to do with Tesla No, it has nothing to do with you said. Try Plasma cosmology instead.
you didn't even check what you're saying before posting this? You're perfect example of why main-stream-science is a religion. You said what BELIEVE instead of looking for the actual thing. At least semaphore tried to check the stuff him self unlike you.

DARK ENERGY, DARK MATTER fairy's and unicorns. Current main-stream-science dogma wont last forever; in the future it will die, just the dogma that the earth was the center of universe did.

The stench of irony is strong about this post. Plasma cosmology is not currently the best-fit model for the expansion of the universe which is why it is not accepted by mainstream science as worth as much consideration as General Relativity. And yet here you are proselytizing about it.

**semaphore** · 2012-09-21, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by Lolercaust

The stench of irony is strong about this post. Plasma cosmology is not currently the best-fit model for the expansion of the universe

It doesn't really even fit at all.

**kivipää** · 2012-09-21, 03:21 AM

Now the theory has been optimised to only require the mass energy of voyager 1 to power it, so... about 75 eksajoules? Output from approximately 55.000.000.000.000.000 modern nuclear reactors? Sounds feasible!

**ducklino** · 2012-09-21, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by semaphore

A crackpot theory is a crackpot theory. Throwing personal insults around doesn't change the fact that you are promoting nonsense.

>Talks about crackpot and nonsense
>believes in dark energy, dark matter
Lol

Originally Posted by Lolercaust

Plasma cosmology is not currently the best-fit model for the expansion of the universe which is why it is not accepted by mainstream science as worth as much consideration as General Relativity.

I can see you're not ignorant(like others in this topic) so i respect your opinion but i shall ask you to read more recent articles about this subject. It will surprise you.

**Jevlin** · 2012-09-21, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by kivipää

Now the theory has been optimised to only require the mass energy of voyager 1 to power it, so... about 75 eksajoules? Output from approximately 55.000.000.000.000.000 modern nuclear reactors? Sounds feasible!

I'm going to pretend I know what your on about and argue about it. 550 trillion nuclear reactors? That sounds like a pretty hefty exaggeration.

**semaphore** · 2012-09-21, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by ducklino

>Talks about crackpot and nonsense
>believes in dark energy, dark matter
Lol

Where did I say I believe in "dark energy, dark matter"? If you are hallucinating words like that then I can see why you might be duped by completely baseless nonsense.

But for the record dark matter has substantially more evidence to support it than your crackpot idea.

**nyc81991** · 2012-09-21, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by Wells

we are all going to die.

No way? I thought we were all going to live forever! This ruins everything...

But seriously, I'm interested to see where this goes. If we could develop this in my lifetime I would be very happy.

**Arkamedis** · 2012-09-21, 03:44 AM

This is how the world ends in 2012. lmao

**Itisamuh** · 2012-09-21, 03:51 AM

I wonder how much all of this will cost. What an utter waste of money.

**Wells** · 2012-09-21, 03:53 AM

How can you say its a waste of money when you don't know how much it will cost?

**s_bushido** · 2012-09-21, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by ducklino

>Talks about crackpot and nonsense
>believes in dark energy, dark matter
Lol

Give it a rest.

Those are hypotheses that are being used to try to explain something we don't yet fully understand. That's the way *real* science works. It's not about coming up with something and defending it (by insulting everyone else) to exclusion of everything else. If you don't want to believe what the mainstream says, that's fine. Just don't pretend you're better than everyone else because you have some insider knowledge or are some sort of misunderstood rebel.

**kivipää** · 2012-09-21, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Jeavline

I'm going to pretend I know what your on about and argue about it. 550 trillion nuclear reactors? That sounds like a pretty hefty exaggeration.

Ahem... true, actually. I woke up way too early today and made a rudimentary mistake. The correct amount is, of course, only 55.000.000.000 nuclear rectors. Way to forget the "mega"-annotation -.-

It's of course assuming that the thing isn't powered by mass itself somehow, and that the energy announced needs to be supplied continuously instead of beaing used over an unspecified timespan. Can't wait to actually dig into this theory and see how it's actually supposed to work. That linked article is painfully light on details.

**Jevlin** · 2012-09-21, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by kivipää

Ahem... true, actually. I woke up way too early today and made a rudimentary mistake. The correct amount is, of course, only 55.000.000.000 nuclear rectors. Way to forget the "mega"-annotation -.-

It's of course assuming that the thing isn't powered by mass itself somehow, and that the energy announced needs to be supplied continuously instead of beaing used over an unspecified timespan. Can't wait to actually dig into this theory and see how it's actually supposed to work. That linked article is painfully light on details.

A slightly more reasonable number, still not feasible with today's technology though.
Maybe they'll figure out how to make a zero point module in a few years :>
But it was loosely pointed out in the article (quote below) that a continuous output would not be required to sustain this warp state.

Furthermore, if the intensity of the space warps can be oscillated over time, the energy required is reduced even more, White found.

But that would probably require you to travel over larger distances to become effective.
Taking the warp drive to the "store/mars" would probably just be a waste.
As I understand (with a lot of assumptions being made) you would only have to reach this state once and then "ride the ripples", only occasionally giving yourself another push. So energy requirements would be extremely low while in this state.
It's a very interesting theory, can't wait to have it explained to me by Michio Kaku hehe :P

**Teru** · 2012-09-21, 05:01 AM

I love it!

**Nalnik** · 2012-09-21, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by Jeavline

But that would probably require you to travel over larger distances to become effective.
Taking the warp drive to the "store/mars" would probably just be a waste.
As I understand (with a lot of assumptions being made) you would only have to reach this state once and then "ride the ripples", only occasionally giving yourself another push. So energy requirements would be extremely low while in this state.
It's a very interesting theory, can't wait to have it explained to me by Michio Kaku hehe :P

When numbers are released, I'd find it interesting to see if this turns out to be true. [If I made a math mistake, please correct me.] At 10c, we'd turn a 5-10 month journey from Earth to Mars (at their closest point to each other and depending on speed) into a ~18 second journey or just a few minutes at their furthest (traveling around the Sun).

That'd mean a colony on Mars would have a constant supply line (and/or be a constant supply source for Earth). Depending on what's on Mars, if it can be terraformed, etc, it might be worth the inefficiency.

Thread: Warp Drive could Become Science fact - NASA small scale testing underway

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions