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

1. Originally Posted by sophos1
So, I wonder what happens when they run into rocks? Will the rock pass through the ship at 10c and drill a straw-hole through it or will the rock enter the bubble with relative speed to the ship as if the ship was standing still? Or perhaps the rock will pass through the ship so fast that the atoms won't have enough time to interact and it will be like nothing happened?
If Captain Picard has taught me anything, you plot the course first, then engage warp

But seriously, I think the course would still have to be pre-determined. I am however unsure if matter can even penetrate a bubble that's warping space and time around it.
One thing to remember is that there is "a lot" of seemingly empty space in the universe. All matter we know and understand is just 4% of the universe. If one knew what they were doing, odds of running into random objects are very slim I would think.

---------- Post added 2012-09-19 at 11:00 PM ----------

Thanks, that's a nice Q&A

2. Originally Posted by semaphore
The energy required to accelerate something to the speed of light is infinity. I'm not sure how you propose to find infinite energy, but even if the entire (observable) universe is converted into energy it's still going to be finite. However, it doesn't hold anyone back to say that. Rather, the whole rationale for the Alcubierre drive is to bypass the insurmountable energy requirements of light speed travel.

It's nice to have an imagination, but this indignation at inconvenient realities really doesn't help.
This suggestion isn't a strict propulsion though. You're right, if you propel an object its mass becomes greater the faster it goes, thus requiring more energy and so on . But what they suggest isn't propulsion in that sense. The object technically remains stationary, it's space that moves. And the lightspeed/energy restriction doesn't apply to simply warping of spacetime, as evidenced by wormholes and the expansion of the early universe. The warp drive they propose is a variation of one that was originally proposed back some years ago. It was found to be technically sound, but the energy required was completely impractical. Something like the equivalent mass energy of a large gas planet. What they said here is that theoretically they may be able to lower that energy cost to something much more practical. This doesn't address the difficulty in obtaining the exotic matter needed for the warp ring however, so until that is figured out this is still conjecture. But cool, exciting, awesome, sciencey conjecture. The best kind.

Originally Posted by igame
I I am however unsure if matter can even penetrate a bubble that's warping space and time around it.
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.

3. We just need to get all the timey-wimey wibbledy-wobbly things to fit together right.

4. Originally Posted by Frah
It means hes read that long ago theory that of the electric universe which completely failed under observation. The Tesla nuts caught on to it and claimed science is holding back the truth and so a conspiracy was born. The electric universe marches on years after it was found to not be able to explain any observations and in fact be wrong about many things by followers who wont accept reality.

As for this. Theres no link to any paper so its all talk. Nothign wrong with talk and nothign wrong with having dreams but theres nothing there that is noteworthy or exciting in any way.
I still can't understand what you mean by saying electric universe. The four fundamental forces in the universe are (gravity, electro-magnetism,strong/weak nuclear). Each one's role is very important. Gravity has the most obvious effect on the world, which we can observe with our own eyes.

5. Originally Posted by Powerogue
Yesterday's Sci-Fi is today's reality; that's what I love about science.

Every awesome thing starts out as an idea.

I'm still waiting on my affordable hovercars though.
I'm still waiting for a Real life Stargate, one of the best show.

On topic, this drive is an interesting experiment. I hope we get to hear more about it soon.

6. Originally Posted by Sylvant
I still can't understand what you mean by saying electric universe. The four fundamental forces in the universe are (gravity, electro-magnetism,strong/weak nuclear). Each one's role is very important. Gravity has the most obvious effect on the world, which we can observe with our own eyes.
Frah wasn't the one who said that; he is describing how ducklino bought into that crackpot "theory" called electric universe. And yes, of course it's just nonsense.

Originally Posted by Urti
This suggestion isn't a strict propulsion though.
I know, that's why I said it's bypassing it.

7. Originally Posted by Frah
It means hes read that long ago theory that of the electric universe which completely failed under observation. The Tesla nuts caught on to it and claimed science is holding back the truth and so a conspiracy was born. The electric universe marches on years after it was found to not be able to explain any observations and in fact be wrong about many things by followers who wont accept reality.

As for this. Theres no link to any paper so its all talk. Nothign wrong with talk and nothign wrong with having dreams but theres nothing there that is noteworthy or exciting in any way.
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.

---------- Post added 2012-09-20 at 11:14 AM ----------

Originally Posted by semaphore
What does that mean?
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.

8. And then, Reapers.

9. You probably don't want to be linking pages that start off by saying "pretty much everyone who matters dismisses the idea."

But anyway, all I know is that they need to make the "Cochrane" a unit of measurement of some sort.

10. Originally Posted by zeropeorth
there are quite a few interesting theories out there, that step outside the current 'accepted' boundaries. It always takes people to do this, if we didn't have people like that in the past ... the moon would be cheese, the earth is flat, and everything goes around us, just like it appears from our limited perspective on the ground.
I agree with you.

11. I hope this is true.

But even if it is, I probably won't see it in my lifetime.

12. when you manipulate space-time wtf happens to the ship or the people inside the ship?

13. Originally Posted by hellboyy
when you manipulate space-time wtf happens to the ship or the people inside the ship?
The ship is contained inside a "bubble" of unaffected space. Only the space around it changes in such a way that the bubble of space appears to be moving.

14. How much energy is represented by a "mass the size of Voyager"? I understand the basic idea, but when they say that, what does it actually mean?

15. Originally Posted by cubby
How much energy is represented by a "mass the size of Voyager"? I understand the basic idea, but when they say that, what does it actually mean?
720 kg, or in terms of energy, 6,5x10^19. Which would be about 2/3 of the total yearly energy expenditure of the US. When we master fusion, though, it shouldn't be that big of a problem to turn that much mass into energy, though.

Also, compared to the previous estimated mass, the mass of the planet Jupiter, this is 2,8x10^24 less.

16. Originally Posted by Wikiy
720 kg, or in terms of energy, 6,5x10^19. Which would be about 2/3 of the total yearly energy expenditure of the US. When we master fusion, though, it shouldn't be that big of a problem to turn that much mass into energy, though.

Also, compared to the previous estimated mass, the mass of the planet Jupiter, this is 2,8x10^24 less.
720 kg of energy = 6.5x10^19? Units? Sorry, but I'm not great with energy physics. And if you don't mind another question, would it just be a process of having that much mass available? Like even garbage or something similar? Or would fusion reactors need something specific?

17. Originally Posted by cubby
How much energy is represented by a "mass the size of Voyager"? I understand the basic idea, but when they say that, what does it actually mean?
E = mc^2

So about 65 trillion joules of energy or 16 megatons of TNT.

18. Hold on to your butts!

Originally Posted by semaphore
Well, this'll teach Wells to make references to a well known video game on a video game forum.
I didn't even know he could do that.

19. Originally Posted by Fuzzzie
E = mc^2

So about 65 trillion joules of energy or 16 megatons of TNT.
I thought you were just being a smartass until I sat down and thought about it.

20. Yes, mass distorts space. But it's about the only thing that can do it, in a normal energy regime. Gravity (time-space distortion) doesn't couple with photons, not unless you reach the energy of the unified force (because gravity is the interaction that requires the highest energy to couple with the others). Which is a bucketload high.

Also, we can't manipulate gravitons, we can barely detect them. And we would need to manipulate them to create a bubble of spacetime as suggested.

I am not saying it can't be done. I am saying that whatever they say in a meeting that is (scientifically speaking) the closest thing to bar "serious" discussions, should not be taken at face value. If they had managed to do something as groundbreaking as creating a gravity distortion field, no matter how small, they would be on the run for the Nobel prize forever.

So, let's wait to see what they actually do, and how they explain theoretically what they do.

#### Posting Permissions

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