Could a gravity engine work?

[Adam Jensen]

When I first read 'Gravity Engine' I thought of the Normandy from Mass Effect. That used a special element that could, depending on how electricity was run through it, manipulate gravity and project its effects. They used this effect for subluminal speeds as well iirc making the ship "fall" where they wanted it to go.

The Mass Effect idea is about manipulating mass so an object has less or negative mass, thus lowering the amount of energy required to bust C to a practical level. I don't know that the mass effect is based on any valid science rather than fictional pseudoscience. I suspect it is not, but I don't know enough about physics to know if a negative mass would allow for FTL travel or not. Well, I suppose if we ever figure out how to manipulate the Higgs Field, we'll find out.

[Nathiest]

All things are possible. Rather or not they're practical is another question.

POST # 1000

[Dundebuns]

All things are possible. Rather or not they're practical is another question.

POST # 1000

Try lighting a match on a wet doughnut under water

The Mass Effect idea is about manipulating mass so an object has less or negative mass, thus lowering the amount of energy required to bust C to a practical level. I don't know that the mass effect is based on any valid science rather than fictional pseudoscience. I suspect it is not, but I don't know enough about physics to know if a negative mass would allow for FTL travel or not. Well, I suppose if we ever figure out how to manipulate the Higgs Field, we'll find out.

As far as I know it isn't, the way they get to negative mass is through an element named Element Zero

[Polarthief]

I'm fairly sure NASA made a list of things we might see in 100 years, and a kind of warp drive was on it, only rotated due to energy concerns. It works like the above picture more or less. The spaceship doesn't move (And therefore doesn't break the speed of light), but distorts space around it meaning that its position changes crazily fast in distance terms, but its speed remains pretty low.

So... did NASA tell you this or Professor Farnsworth?


*Obviously has no clue how space travel works; just remembers that episode of Futurama where Farnsworth explained it*


OT: I'm pretty excited for what the future will bring. Hopefully, I'll still be alive to see it, but hey, my generation is just getting out of college and whatnot, so... who knows.

[Adam Jensen]

As far as I know it isn't, the way they get to negative mass is through an element named Element Zero

Well element zero can *technically* exist, though it has nothing to do with the higgs field or mass manipulation. If we can create a stable atom that contains bound neutrons and perhaps some electrons but no protons, it would be element number zero.

I don't think we've succeeded in that though.

[Deleted]

Considering this, a "small" black hole "engine" sounds wrong.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803v1.pdf - ARE BLACK HOLE STARSHIPS POSSIBLE

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html - Hawking radiation

[lzsg]

Well element zero can *technically* exist, though it has nothing to do with the higgs field or mass manipulation. If we can create a stable atom that contains bound neutrons and perhaps some electrons but no protons, it would be element number zero.

I don't think we've succeeded in that though.

No protons but electrons would make the atom an ion, and thus not very stable. It would have to lack electrons as well. This would just make it a lump of neutrons, which already exists in neutron stars.

[Garnier Fructis]

Well element zero can *technically* exist, though it has nothing to do with the higgs field or mass manipulation. If we can create a stable atom that contains bound neutrons and perhaps some electrons but no protons, it would be element number zero.

I don't think we've succeeded in that though.

Well we can call a single proton H+, so I guess we could just call a free neutron element 0. That would probably be cheating though.

[Adam Jensen]

No protons but electrons would make the atom an ion, and thus not very stable. It would have to lack electrons as well. This would just make it a lump of neutrons, which already exists in neutron stars.

Well yeah, but I was trying to figure out how to discern, if its even possible, between "element zero" and free neutrons.

[Garnier Fructis]

Well yeah, but I was trying to figure out how to discern, if its even possible, between "element zero" and free neutrons.

I don't think it's possible to make a distinction because "element 0" in the first place isn't a well defined concept.

[haxartus]

You can not, and I repeat, can not, travel faster than the speed of light, regardless of the method of travel. Stop looking for a way to circumvent the limitation and instead try to understand why is it there. If you can travel faster than the speed of light, causality would be broken and it would allow backwards time travel and some serious paradoxes.

[Grummgug]

Technically, an evaporation engine is part gravity engine. Water evaporates and rises, then cools, condenses, and thanks to gravity falls back down as rain.

[Adam Jensen]

You can not, and I repeat, can not, travel faster than the speed of light, regardless of the method of travel. Stop looking for a way to circumvent the limitation and instead try to understand why is it there. If you can travel faster than the speed of light, causality would be broken and it would allow backwards time travel and some serious paradoxes.

Do we know everything there is about physics to know that exceeding C is a complete and total impossibility?

And, this is out of curiousity, but why would exceeding C break causality and allow backward time travel? I thought the only issue with C was the requirement for infinite energy for any object with mass.

[Kujako]

Do we know everything there is about physics to know that exceeding C is a complete and total impossibility?

It is impossible within the framework of what we know to travel faster then light, however that does not mean you cant reduce the distance needed to travel.

[haxartus]

Do we know everything there is about physics to know that exceeding C is a complete and total impossibility?

And, this is out of curiousity, but why would exceeding C break causality and allow backward time travel? I thought the only issue with C was the requirement for infinite energy for any object with mass.

Yes.
Essentially, if you could send a message faster than light, you could receive the answer before you send the message.

[Imtala]

...an engine that would create a small black hole or something small with massive gravity...

Black holes do not make more gravity, they only have the gravity of the mass that comprises them. I can't believe I'm the first to mention this. If you compressed a teapot into a black hole, that black hole would still have the mass and gravity of a tea pot.

[haxartus]

Black holes do not make more gravity, they only have the gravity of the mass that comprises them. I can't believe I'm the first to mention this. If you compressed a teapot into a black hole, that black hole would still have the mass and gravity of a tea pot.

Yes, and if you replace our Sun with a Sun mass black hole, we will continue orbiting it and won't fall into it.
But we will freeze to death.

[Reeve]

Small black hole... do you even know what a black hole is?

Super speed... do you know that as far we know no object with mass can move faster than the speed of light?

This sort of idea falls more in the lines of wishful science fiction than actual science really. Dr. Who isn't coming any time soon.

Using a black hole as a propeller... my oh my.

There is such a thing as a small black hole. They can be incredibly tiny, actually. They usually just evaporate quickly when they're that small.

And while nothing can move through normal space faster than light, space itself can expand/contract/warp, making the objects in that space appear to move faster than light from an external reference frame.

[Gheld]

Gravity is the weakest force. Therefore the worst candidate to propel anything.