Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
LastLast
  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    It's complete nonsense.
    You're either an ignorant(did not read anything at all) or just plain dumb(did not understand).
    Last edited by ducklino; 2012-09-21 at 03:04 AM.

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by ducklino View Post
    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

  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by ducklino View Post
    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.

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolercaust View Post
    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.

  5. #185
    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!

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lolercaust View 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.
    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.
    Last edited by ducklino; 2012-09-21 at 03:36 AM.

  7. #187
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by kivipää View Post
    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.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by ducklino View Post
    >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.

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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.

  10. #190
    This is how the world ends in 2012. lmao

  11. #191
    I wonder how much all of this will cost. What an utter waste of money.

  12. #192
    How can you say its a waste of money when you don't know how much it will cost?

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by ducklino View Post
    >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.

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeavline View Post
    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.

  15. #195
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by kivipää View Post
    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
    Last edited by mmoc098be2d235; 2012-09-21 at 05:02 AM.

  16. #196

  17. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeavline View Post
    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.

  18. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    Wouldn't it be funny if our entire concept of space-travel was revolutionized by some physicist saying "Hey, what if instead of a ring, we made it a donut?"
    Isn't that how science has always worked?
    It's like crossing an intersection. There's shit going on all over the place and you don't panic and act like an idiot then do you?

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalnik View Post
    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.
    I think the concern for short trips would be either navigation (risking crashing into something) or acceleration/deceleration (being able to safely control the reaction over such a distance). I wish I knew enough about the subject to even begin to guess if there might be negative effects of manipulating spacetime so close to a planetary body.

  20. #200
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalnik View Post
    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.
    The cost to send a cluster of bananas would still be astronomical at best.
    These crafts will probably not be aerodynamical and therefor cannot enter or leave an atmosphere without being ripped asunder.
    Traditional means would have to be used such as fossil fueled space crafts or a space elevator (if that ever happens) to send goods from earth up to the warp ship and then at site down from the warp ship to the planet. Then we're talking about $10.000/ 1 KG again, that's one expensive banana cluster

    The key to colonizing other planets is self-efficiency and don't think that'll ever change even with technology.
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    I think the concern for short trips would be either navigation (risking crashing into something) or acceleration/deceleration (being able to safely control the reaction over such a distance). I wish I knew enough about the subject to even begin to guess if there might be negative effects of manipulating spacetime so close to a planetary body.
    Also this^
    Last edited by mmoc098be2d235; 2012-09-21 at 06:12 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •