- This topic has 132 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
How long until we have FTL craft?
-
Never, take your meds
-
Around 40s, only 15s while my mantis boarding
-
Woke af Basilisk boarding party abuser
-
-
>how long
Depends on your reference frame -
>we
how much work have you put into the project so far?>1897
>Dayton, Ohio
>Hey Orville, how long until we have flying machine? -
Never. Also, your pic rel is not an FTL craft.
-
Sure it is. The bubble moves faster than light, and the ship stays in the bubble.
-
Spacetime itself can’t move faster than the speed of light. A bubble with a spacecraft inside it will not be able to break the speed of light.
-
Spacetime does move faster than light, at the edges of the observable universe and beyond. Nothing can move through spacetime faster than light, but there’s no such constraint on the speed of spacetime itself.
-
>no such constraint on the speed of spacetime itself.
Kind of perhaps sorta maybe who really knows possibly true, BUT: You have to add up the cumulative effects of spatial expansion over the majority of the observable universe to make your point.
Still not seeing an example of one "piece" of spacetime moving FTL in relation to its immediately surrounding spacetime.
Thanks for playing, though.-
Live in denial of science if you want to. The ftl expansion of the universe is in no way controversial among astronomers and astrophysicists.
-
>in no way controversial among astronomers and astrophysicists.
I never said it was, Mr. Strawman.
Please refute my actual post instead of your deliberate mis-reading.
-
-
>>no such constraint on the speed of spacetime itself.
>Kind of perhaps sorta maybe who really knows possibly trueThere was one big bang and from this the universe was created.
Nothing can move faster than the speed of light
Universe is 13.8 billion years old
Universe is 93 billion light years wideONLY way these four statements can be true is if is spacetime expands faster than the speed of light
-
>Nothing can move faster than the speed of light
Expansion of space does not involve anything moving in the classical mechanical sense.
No acceleration, no causality, no hope for your denial of modern physics.
-
-
-
"immediately surrounding spacetime"
what kind of measure is that supposed to be?
also: ofc you can’t see it moving faster than light you fuck. the fuck is wrong with your brain?
-
-
-
>How long until we have FTL craft?
Never because light doesn’t travel, let alone "has a speed".>The means of travel is not faster than what travels in it
"it’s already there".https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1633294535234.pdf
People have reproduced the Michelson-Morley results with sound waves and classical fluid waves.
Did those ones yield null results too?
The relativistic model for light emission is incorrect.
>Light follows the same emission model as sound waves; there is a fixed stationary frame, and waves travel at a constant speed with respect to that frame, and only that frame.
>When I whip my hand in the air I’m "emitting sound"
>When I splash them in water, they "emit water" in the form of waves.Light is an "emission" how? Also "waves" of what? It’s what something does.
The giants in the field still don’t know what a freaking "field" actually is.
-
>The giants in the field still don’t know what a freaking "field" actually is.
But you do?
Surely you must know better than them, to fit into the "special" group in this thread.
-
-
-
-
Yes and no, it will be faster for those inside the vessle.
-
-
even if you could presumably bend spacetime about you as in an alcubierre drive, how would you cross the bent spacetime once you reach your destination without having to actually traverse said spacetime
-
have you seen Star Trek? With style, obviously
-
-
No, you can’t go faster than light anon
-
https://i.imgur.com/DAieKFU.gif
won’t know until we try
-
Saved, have more like this?
-
Not at the moment, more coming soon though
-
https://i.imgur.com/dt7KCLS.gif
A new Panel
-
https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1633321822541.webm
One of you science scrotes explain why the claims in this link sound scrotebrained, because I’ve been looking into this for years and it seems entirely possible
https://m.fark.com/comments/4371964/50903132/Scientists-think-warp-driven-starships-may-be-possible-one-day-at-least-until-some-acting-ensign-pulls-o#c50903132>Zel’dovich tested, DoD approved
-
>fark.com
Seems legit.-
Read it, scrote.
-
>Read it, scrote.
Pass.
If you have a point to make. make it.
Otherwise, fuck off.-
were alone in a universe, with no other matter, what speed are you going? If you accelerate, what speed are you going NOW? Would acceleration in such a universe produce the normal effects of inertia? He concluded it would not, and his postulate was that the properties of "inertia" and "mass" were dependent on the existence of external matter, possibly mediated through the electromagnetic force with the photon as the exchange particle.
The question becomes, if you could "make it didn’t happen" by isolating yourself from the background history of the universe’s EM, could you decouple your test mass from the Machian background ‘drag’ inflicted on it by the EM from distant stellar masses.
The solution ended up involving one of those setups where you effectively slow the speed of light in a medium drastically, which is one reason why you always see the military and DARPA involved with the large scale projects involving that technology. You surround your test mass with a medium that has that property, and you spin it rapidly so that any em field penetrating it has to spiral in forever. If you’ve ever heard the term bandied about amongst the UFOlogists about a "magnetic field disrupter", that’s what it’s for, and why. Only you never hear why you’d want to disrupt a magnetic field, or why that would make something easier to accelerate. Until today. (tada!) It’s a Mach Effect shield. No one on the inside uses the term ‘magnetic field disruption’ outside of reference to the ubiquitous rumor, though, and it’s got jack to do with mercury plasma. The first ones were liquid helium, although it doesn’t work nearly as well as later media.
-
Early on, they tried to do the intersystem stuff that way and it all spun unidirectionally, which is why you see 50’s-60’s "UFOs" doing that weird falling-leaf thing when they descend, it’s gyroscopic forces vs the pilot/avionics trying not to scour the inside of the containment with the rotating delay medium. These days they contrarotate two annuli to compensate on the intersystem craft, and the intrasystem craft don’t do that at all.
In the small, it’s also why you get the Podkletnov effect above a rotating superconductive surface (also why you don’t get much of an effect). The rotating disk is acting as a halfassed Mach Effect shield, but it doesn’t do a great job, and the fringe effects around the disk’s edges nearly swamp any actual shielding from that direction. What they’re seeing is less "antigravity" as "somewhat directional anti-inertia", although it kinda looks the same if you’re not watching for the differences. If they made a closed superconductive surface, a hollow cylinder maybe, and spun that instead, you’d see a bigger effect inside.
The thing with the cosmological constant has to do with how much ass you can get with a Mach Effect shield. In regions where it’s relatively high, the expansion of space in that area acts as a drag that can’t be shielded against. Where it’s lower, you go faster. The issue is everyone thinks it’s uniform, and it’s not. Driving through spatial regions with non-zero cosmological ‘constant’ causes pseudo-acceleration inside the field which is quite handy for "artificial gravity", except where it’s non-uniform and sort of "ripply" you get the paint-mixer effect. Which is pretty much all over, only some places it’s worse, making your FTL experience a tooth-rattling one with used lunch accompaniment. (the CC non-uniformity is also why you get the Voyager/Pioneer anomalies, and why they’re in different directions, but I digress)
If the Universe weren’t rotating, you couldn’t do it at all, but with rotation there are exact solutions that permit FTL that way, I think it was some proof by Godel, but it BTFOOM how that works, you’d have to be a drive systems designer to understand it, and I’ve probably misremembered it anyway. I’m lucky to do simple tensors on a good day.
WOW, a fuckton of word salad that adds up to nothing more credible than "fark.com".
Why even bother posting?-
Anyone else besides this ignorant scrote?
-
>ignorant scrote?
I’ve read every word of your self-important nonsense, and yet, somehow, the human race is no closer to FTL.
But somehow, *I’m* the ignorant scrote?
Prove conventional physics wrong, build an FTL drive, collect your Nobel prize, and I promise I’ll come over and eat your "rusty starfish" like it was a little girl’s pussy.
Meanwhile, just fuck off. -
Once again, ignorant scrote, I’m asking if this is possible.
-
>I’m asking if this is possible.
Seems super unlikely.
Not sure why you insist on insulting random strangers who never did anything other than ask you to make your case.
-
-
-
You’d think the structure containing the medium would protrude outside and defeat the purpose, but there’s some sort of frame-dragging effect that deals with most of that, and at any rate you don’t want to totally shield because if you could, you’d go simultaneous, it acts sort of like a skeg on a ski.
Early on, they tried to do the intersystem stuff that way and it all spun unidirectionally, which is why you see 50’s-60’s "UFOs" doing that weird falling-leaf thing when they descend, it’s gyroscopic forces vs the pilot/avionics trying not to scour the inside of the containment with the rotating delay medium. These days they contrarotate two annuli to compensate on the intersystem craft, and the intrasystem craft don’t do that at all.
In the small, it’s also why you get the Podkletnov effect above a rotating superconductive surface (also why you don’t get much of an effect). The rotating disk is acting as a halfassed Mach Effect shield, but it doesn’t do a great job, and the fringe effects around the disk’s edges nearly swamp any actual shielding from that direction. What they’re seeing is less "antigravity" as "somewhat directional anti-inertia", although it kinda looks the same if you’re not watching for the differences. If they made a closed superconductive surface, a hollow cylinder maybe, and spun that instead, you’d see a bigger effect inside.
-
In the small, it’s also why you get the Podkletnov effect above a rotating superconductive surface (also why you don’t get much of an effect). The rotating disk is acting as a halfassed Mach Effect shield, but it doesn’t do a great job, and the fringe effects around the disk’s edges nearly swamp any actual shielding from that direction. What they’re seeing is less "antigravity" as "somewhat directional anti-inertia", although it kinda looks the same if you’re not watching for the differences. If they made a closed superconductive surface, a hollow cylinder maybe, and spun that instead, you’d see a bigger effect inside.
The thing with the cosmological constant has to do with how much ass you can get with a Mach Effect shield. In regions where it’s relatively high, the expansion of space in that area acts as a drag that can’t be shielded against. Where it’s lower, you go faster. The issue is everyone thinks it’s uniform, and it’s not. Driving through spatial regions with non-zero cosmological ‘constant’ causes pseudo-acceleration inside the field which is quite handy for "artificial gravity", except where it’s non-uniform and sort of "ripply" you get the paint-mixer effect. Which is pretty much all over, only some places it’s worse, making your FTL experience a tooth-rattling one with used lunch accompaniment. (the CC non-uniformity is also why you get the Voyager/Pioneer anomalies, and why they’re in different directions, but I digress)
If the Universe weren’t rotating, you couldn’t do it at all, but with rotation there are exact solutions that permit FTL that way, I think it was some proof by Godel, but it BTFOOM how that works, you’d have to be a drive systems designer to understand it, and I’ve probably misremembered it anyway. I’m lucky to do simple tensors on a good day.
-
Einstein’s first forays into general relativity were spawned by Ernst Mach’s theories. Later, once GR was out, there were Machian universe solutions discovered, and although the deSitter model is more mainstream, the Machian universe is the way to go.
In a nutshell, Mach had this for a thought experiment. If you were alone in a universe, with no other matter, what speed are you going? If you accelerate, what speed are you going NOW? Would acceleration in such a universe produce the normal effects of inertia? He concluded it would not, and his postulate was that the properties of "inertia" and "mass" were dependent on the existence of external matter, possibly mediated through the electromagnetic force with the photon as the exchange particle.
The question becomes, if you could "make it didn’t happen" by isolating yourself from the background history of the universe’s EM, could you decouple your test mass from the Machian background ‘drag’ inflicted on it by the EM from distant stellar masses.
-
-
-
-
source for schwinng webm?
The question becomes, if you could "make it didn’t happen" by isolating yourself from the background history of the universe’s EM, could you decouple your test mass from the Machian background ‘drag’ inflicted on it by the EM from distant stellar masses.
The solution ended up involving one of those setups where you effectively slow the speed of light in a medium drastically, which is one reason why you always see the military and DARPA involved with the large scale projects involving that technology. You surround your test mass with a medium that has that property, and you spin it rapidly so that any em field penetrating it has to spiral in forever. If you’ve ever heard the term bandied about amongst the UFOlogists about a "magnetic field disrupter", that’s what it’s for, and why. Only you never hear why you’d want to disrupt a magnetic field, or why that would make something easier to accelerate. Until today. (tada!) It’s a Mach Effect shield. No one on the inside uses the term ‘magnetic field disruption’ outside of reference to the ubiquitous rumor, though, and it’s got jack to do with mercury plasma. The first ones were liquid helium, although it doesn’t work nearly as well as later media.
Makes intuitive sense to me.
>Light slows down in Bose-einstein condensates
> Gravity-speed = light speed
> surround oneself in cesium bose-einstein condensate
>delay imparting of the graviton relative to the surroundings
> spin that BSC around, making the light take a long time to reach the inside, make it loop-de-loop
> float
>…
>profit-
Some guy from LANL or Sandia posted in on a thread related to this topic on LULZ. It’s described in further detail in the link below. My best guess it’s from Ketterle’s experiment that won him the Noble Prize or from the LiJun Wang stuff at NEC Laboratory Princeton in the late 90’s.
https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread901726/pg3
Apparently what makes the drive system "go" can also be converted into a terrifying weapons system. The next link is from some UFO nutters out at UTTR looking for aylmao in 2004. They definitely saw something they weren’t supposed to. There are also eyewitness accounts from the same time that saw the flashes from I-80 outside Wendover.
http://www.aliendave.com/Photos_Skywatch_UTTR_72204.html
Read the effects on it had on their health and film at the bottom. Also, have another related forum discussion
https://test.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread637964/pg2
https://m.fark.com/comments/1203844/9730023
>Postironium particle beam FTW-
Thanks for the sources, more to look into
-
-
Also, the post you screencapped was freaking me lmao. What board did you pull that off of…/k/?
-
ahahaha, I believe that one was /poo/
http://archive.4plebs.org/poo/thread/269359345/#269368090This positronium stuff is quite fascinating
-
I have a whole treasure trove of university and DTIC PDF’s in my Google Drive, but I won’t post them. I was high on mushrooms and accidentally doxxed myself on LULZ during a similar discussion because I forgot the uploads had my real name attached. Have a Raytheon patent that’s related to Mills’ GRASER work and Edwards’ NIAC PDF instead.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6813330
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
/x/scrotes seething because LULZ beat them to to schizo-mania.
-
I like you. You can keep posting here.
-
-
a loooong time if ever. we may start seeing non-FTL warp craft in the medium to long term imo
-
how is a ship supposed to bend spacetime like that, what type of tech do you need to achieve this?
-
Negative energy
-
-
Until and unless we start thinking of scientific progress beyond financial and political gain and give way for people to introduce new ideas. A system better than rigged peer review. That would give way for scientific progress to take pace in future and do r&d independent of corporate funding.
-
this is a very hihicue take (Future English for ‘very high IQ’)
-
You seem like an angry man-child who lives in his Mom’s basement and will die a virgin.
-
so newton?
-
>so newton?
Newton was probably gay, but couldn’t admit it in public.
If he was a virgin, it was almost certainly voluntary, unlike _your_ v-card status.
I don’t think anyone would describe him as an angry man-child.
And I’m gonna need a source on "Mom;s basement". What I get is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Early_life
>When Newton was three, his mother remarried and went to live with her new husband, the Reverend Barnabas Smith, leaving her son in the care of his maternal grandmother,
…and…
>revealed by this entry in a list of sins committed up to the age of 19: "Threatening my father and mother Smith to burn them and the house over them."-
>le historical person was secretly gay
Ah, I see you have surpassed the critical amount of hours on twitterThere is no going back
-
Oh noes! my post can only be refuted by le epic shitposting, and no actual arguments!
Whatever shall I do? -
Um ackchually, "he" was a woman. Get it right.
-
-
There is no going back
he was not only gay, he would also advocate for trans rights while running around half naked wearing dildos and dance with little children
-
Oh noes! Unsourced claim that Newton was gay! Whatever shall I do?
-
>Unsourced claim that Newton was gay!
>so newton?
Newton was probably gay, but couldn’t admit it in public.
If he was a virgin, it was almost certainly voluntary, unlike _your_ v-card status.
I don’t think anyone would describe him as an angry man-child.
And I’m gonna need a source on "Mom;s basement". What I get is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Early_life
>When Newton was three, his mother remarried and went to live with her new husband, the Reverend Barnabas Smith, leaving her son in the care of his maternal grandmother,
…and…
>revealed by this entry in a list of sins committed up to the age of 19: "Threatening my father and mother Smith to burn them and the house over them.">Newton was probably gay,
English a second language for you?-
You’re probably scrotebrained, so we shouldn’t acknowledge what you say.
See how this is a problem?-
>See how this is a problem?
Really not sure how you see me as scrotebrained, if you don’t actually read what I say.
Bit of a mystery there.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
if i become a billionaire i’m going to live frugally and just hire hundreds of scientists to work on far out ideas, ftl included
-
-
To even start you need to find matter that creates negative spacetime curvature. I guess it’s an engineering problem after that.
-
2060’s
built by Ai, way too hard to be solved by human researchers
-
> humans haven’t discovered FTL cum yet
ngmi -
Yesterday
-
this reminds me of when Elon musk was talking about some kind of multiverse theory or AI and expanded intelligence
-
>Elon musk
Isn’t he a simulation-scrote?
-
-
>How long until we have FTL craft?
Likely never.
Pick any two, but definitely not all three:
► Relativity, as we understand it.
► Causality, as we understand it.
► FTL.-
I choose… FTL
-
>I choose… FTL
Great!
Now… are you giving up on causality, GR, or both?-
Definitely throwing out GR. That shit’s gone. As for causality… quantum physicists gave that up, not me.
-
>That shit’s gone.
It stands unchallenged for over 100 years now.
Gonna need more than "because I said so".>As for causality… quantum physicists gave that up, not me.
Again, I’m calling ipse dixit. Please elaborate, especially considering we’re talking macroscopic phenomenon, and not some trivial, sub-atomic shit like quantum tunneling.-
>unchallenged
Just because the physics community accepted it doesn’t mean that the theory wasn’t thoroughly debunked. You can start with Herbert Ives.>Please elaborate, especially considering we’re talking macroscopic phenomenon
Really, what macroscopic phenomenon have you observed lately that violates causality? At best you could point to celestial mechanics since it requires gravitational forces to propagate instantaneously. That doesn’t violate cause and effect though.-
>doesn’t mean that the theory wasn’t thoroughly debunked.
Debunk it then, and I’m sure you’ll win a Nobel prize.>Really, what macroscopic phenomenon have you observed lately that violates causality?
None. As far as I know, this has never happened, BUT FTL WOULD, which is my entire point.
Try to keep up.-
>Debunk it then, and I’m sure you’ll win a Nobel prize.
Done: https://vixra.org/abs/2103.0149Inb4 >you didn’t debunk it on my peer-reviewed publication of choice
-
>https://vixra.org/abs/2103.0149
>Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular,
>Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Sure, dude. Seems legit.
-
-
-
>start with Herbert Ives.
OK,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_E._Ives
> He is best known for the 1938 Ives–Stilwell experiment,
>which provided direct confirmation of special relativity’s time dilation,[-
>which provided direct confirmation of special relativity’s time dilation
freaking midwits, man. Why don’t you go read his original paper and see what Ives actually wrote about it?-
>go read his original paper
How about you post something besides fringe bullshit.
Just like cars that run on water, pH woke af cancer cures and Bigfoot’s baby, I’m pretty sure any legit news isn’t going to come from some obscure internet link on a southeast Asian underwater basket weaving forum.
You’ve made an astounding claim, please provide astounding proof.p.s. So sorry your Buck Rodgers FTL fantasy isn’t going to actually come true, my condolences.
-
https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1633294535234.pdf
People have reproduced the Michelson-Morley results with sound waves and classical fluid waves.
-
And you point is?
-
The MM null result is a CLASSICAL phenomenon. There is nothing in it that requires relativity to explain. ALL waves experience transverse Doppler shift; there’s no need to posit Lorentz contraction or time dilation or anything non-classical to explain the Lorentz transform. Light follows the same emission model as sound waves; there is a fixed stationary frame, and waves travel at a constant speed with respect to that frame, and only that frame.
The relativistic model for light emission is incorrect.
-
>The relativistic model for light emission is incorrect.
Congratulations, I’m sure you’re right and your Noble prize is in the mail.
Be sure to post a pic once it gets there.Why do pop-sci scrotebrains think they know better than the bulk of modern physicist’s accumulated knowledge over the last 100+ years?
-
>modern physicist’s accumulated knowledge
Modern physicists have accumulated theory. They’ve accumulated observations. They have NOT accumulated knowledge. -
>t. Brainlet who thinks he is on the same level as Dirac, Schrodinger, Einstein, Faraday, etc.
-
Not at all. I wouldn’t put them on the same level as me.
-
-
-
-
-
>trivial
FilteredThe microscopic world is the same place as the macroscopic world. They work according to the same laws. We just don’t precisely know what those laws are, yet. We have sets of ideas woke af on where we were looking when we developed those ideas, but they seem to differ if not actually contradict each other. This difference and apparent conflict arises from imperfect observation and flawed interpretation and thinking. The difference is non-existent in nature.
The quantum eraser experiment has implications for the macroscopic world, because it happens in the macroscopic world on a microscopic scale. We just haven’t observed or figured out what the implications are yet.
-
>The microscopic world is the same place as the macroscopic world.
Not when it comes to QM.
If you’re going to challenge conventional causality in relation to MACROSCOPIC EVENTS, either tie QM to real-world scale engineering (good luck) or drop the QM angle.-
>My patchwork of broken theories doesn’t satisfactorily explain observations at multiple scales, therefore reality is inconsistent across different scales
Just go back to plebbit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gonna go against the grain here and say it’s possible. Our understanding of existence is very rudimentary and the fact that speculative math implies theoretical possibility indicates that sufficient understanding and control would make it possible. Probably not for a long time though, and our psyche and values might be different enough as a result of achieving the required understanding that FTL at that point will be seen as pointless.
-
Never. Never. You’re born in this universe. You’re stuck in this universe.
-
Whenever the intergalactic council decides we’re ready.
-
No idea but I hope its possible and I hope it happens in my lifetime
-
>How long until we have FTL craft?
no idea, but this year someone checked the math behind alcubierre drive and found out we don’t need exotic matter. we just need much ordinary matter to bend space enough-
Couldn’t we end up turning this into an extremely powerful weapon
-
Darpa notices…
-
-
-
Since no hint of negative mass exists and our understanding of the fundamental physics in our universe is not going to change, I would say ftl just isn’t possible.
>inb4 we don’t understand all of physics
doesn’t matter. The speed of light is absolute. You understanding of physics doesn’t change fundamentally, it only gets more precise.
-
Electrons have negative mass
-
>Electrons have negative mass
Nope, you seem confused.-
Nope, it’s pretty simple. Electrons have negative charge, so they’re electromagnetically attracted to protons, and have negative mass, so they’re gravitationally repulsed. The electron orbit forms due to the balance of these two forces.
-
>have negative mass
Nope.>they’re gravitationally repulsed.
Nope.>electron orbit forms due to the balance of these two forces.
Nope.I really, REALLY wish this were true. We’d have anti-gravity tech as easily as basic electricity tech, and the Alcubierre drive as well. But you’re wrong.
-sigh--
>We’d have anti-gravity tech as easily as basic electricity tech
Sure, if we could just put enough charge on an object then it would start floating. I wonder if anyone ever tried that….-
Still not hearing about negative mass, just your continued confusion relating to electrostatic charge vs mass.
-
Ok big guy, so why don’t you post proof that electrons have positive mass? Show your work.
-
>post proof that electrons have positive mass?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
>Mass 9.1093837015(28)×10−31 kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Negative charge, not negative mass dumbshit
-
Negative charge and negative mass
-
-
-
-
you will never hjave a vehichle thats faster than light. nasa floated that "warp" drive shit and cant make it. they claim they need exotic sub atomic particles. the particle they are looking for doesnt exist. its real generic and we have all of the stuff on earth. there is no particle that will solve the problem. its not like elements where you can say well some of it doesnt like oxygen. if you break open any atom you get 3/4 of whats possible. cern does that shit every now and then. never found the particle nasa needs. for reference a lepton equals 1/3 of whats left of the 1/4 of whats out there
aside from that the craft being able to survive faster than light speed means nothing. nothing inside will survive the speed. earth to mars in less than a day and all you sent there is chum. good work. *golf clap
-
https://i.imgur.com/XkmNJzu.gif
Everybody here needs to read this now. Einstein had the right idea with the unified field theory. The problem was that he couldn’t explain the mechanical origin of gravity. Unfortunately he died 10 years before the discovery of the quarks. If he had known about quarks he would have realized that quark non-linear acceleration within the proton generates spatial contraction and therefore gravity. The contraction is spherically symmetric, like gravity, due to the dynamic geometry of the three quark motion in the proton and neutron.
Also the Michaelson and Morley experiment is completely wrong. They should be using relativistic massive particle to detect the aether wind instead of photons. Repeat the Michaelson and Morley experiment using protons at CERN and you will find aether wind in the data.
-
>Einstein had the right idea with the unified field theory.
He never produced one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory#Current_status
>Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything.>https://phys.org/news/2015-11-theory-stumped-einstein-dying-day.html
>How the search for a unified theory stumped Einstein to his dying dayDo you just make this shit up as you go along, AND never Google your imaginary bullshit?
>Repeat the Michaelson and Morley experiment using protons at CERN and you will find aether wind in the data.
Seems super unlikely. But go ahead, don’t let me stop you. Make your case to CERN and let’s see what they think. Let me know when you win that Noble prize.-
you are a scrotebrain scrote. Quantum mechanics is useful there’s no doubt, but QM is as right about reality as Newtonian physics. They are both just approximations, and in the case of QM it completely get bonked with infinities that have to be re normalized and not even that shit works with the innumerable QM woke af gravity theories that always fail. The aether is the one true field of the universe. Read the paper link I gave you pea brained fuck before you open yourdumb scrote mouth gain. We aint gonna get the truth of reality by throwing the same broken shit model at it over an over. Think outside the box and question the assumptions of logic that have been made in modern physics.
-
>QM is as right about reality as Newtonian physics.
And yet ANOTHER twat who knows more about physics than the actual physicists!
But surely, *I’m* the scrotebrained "Basketball American".
So sorry for not endorsing your use of the "n-word".-
QM is fundamentally wrong in the same way Newtonian physics is wrong. QM is a wonderfully accurate theory of the very small. It completely breaks when you try and quantize gravity. It also makes absurd predictions about the magnitude zero point energy of space which any LULZscrote knows about. scrotebrain scroteS LIKE YOU never shut up that the experts are always right because they are experts hurr durr. Actually freaking think, why have we not been able to quantize gravity???Why does QM make so many absurd unphysical predictions??QM can never take mankind to the ultimate TRUTH of physics, its nothing more than an incredibly accurate approximation of small particle kinematics.
-
-
-
-
-
ITT: Popsci scrotebrains self-convinced they know better than the giants in the field, but utterly unable to make a convincing point.
-
It is never happening. We will never leave the solar system. Just move on
-
>We will never leave the solar system.
Generation ships are still an (unlikely) option. -
What the fuck?
We can already leave the solar system with current technology, you know?Conventional solar sails or plasma magnetic sails could both get you to 0.3c acceleration. That gets you to Alpha Centauri in roughly 12 to 15 years.
In fact, Breakthrough Starshot, which is a project that is actually ongoing, plans to send a fleet of micro-ships with cameras using this solar sail method, travelling at 0.2c and getting there in a little over 20 years.
Another method would be a nuclear pulse propulsion system, as in pic related. This spaceship concept, called Medusa, could also accelerate to 0.3c, though it would be controversial among normies and we would need to refine some aspects of materials science, it’s also doable with current technology.
There’s also the issue of time dilation. Time dilation is your friend. On the example of a 12 year trip to Alpha Centauri at 0.3c, time would tick at a slower pace for the astronauts travelling, so from their perspective only 4 years would pass.
So you have no idea what you are talking about. If we can leave the solar system with the primitive tech we have right now, we will certainly get better at it in the future provided we are still around and interested in funding these efforts.
-
>Conventional solar sails
Not him, but…
You might want to wait until there’s at ;east ONE real-life solar sail before you use the word "conventional".>Breakthrough Starshot,
>getting there in a little over 20 years.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
>it would take between twenty and thirty years to complete the journey, and approximately four years for a return message from the starship to Earth.Plus another 25 to (hopefully) develop the tech required by the project.
And a little over 4 for data to be sent back.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
>Milner places the final mission cost at $5–10 billion, and estimates the first craft could launch by around 2036So results by (maybe) 2060-2070?
Certainly not "current technology", though.>controversial among normies
This phrase should be a super-obvious red flag.>On the example of a 12 year trip to Alpha Centauri at 0.3c, time would tick at a slower pace for the astronauts travelling, so from their perspective only 4 years would pass.
Do you just make these numbers up?
Try this:
tau = sqrt(1-v2/c2)
At v = 0.3c, tau (your time dilation factor) is 0.954. A 12 year journey (to the outside world) will take 11.44 years to those on board.
Also SUPER skeptical about reaching 0.3c with near-future technology.-
>tau = sqrt(1-v2/c2)
should be v squared over c squared, not sure what went wrong.
-
-
>We can already leave the solar system with current technology, you know?
"We" cannot. We can send machines out there, though. We’re stuck here. We’re Earthlings.-
The technology to send a Human into Alpha Centauri already exists. Project Orion, Medusa. It’s not unattainable, there is just a lack of political will. Humans could endure a trip of 12 years there.
So the idea that "we will never leave the solar system" is utterly scrotebrained.
-
>already exists. Project Orion, Medusa.
Neither exists.> It’s not unattainable,
True.
But isn’t the same as "exists".>Humans could endure a trip of 12 years there.
Sure, but even "Breakthrough Starshot" says 20-30 years of travel for microbots to reach Alpha Centauri, and we’ll hopefully have developed the tech to do that within the next 25 years.
-
-
-
-
-
We won’t even know if something like warp drive is possible until we have a reliable theory of gravity at all scales.
-
>until we have a reliable theory of gravity at all scales.
Help me connect the dots here, please.
I’m not sure how these two relate.
See also:>Pick any two, but definitely not all three:
>► Relativity, as we understand it.
>► Causality, as we understand it.
>► FTL.
Honestly not sure how a more complete understanding of gravity can resolve the obvious conflict here.-
>Help me connect the dots here, please.
GR is only reliable at large scales. So many of the more obscure things that the theory allows for, like the Alcubierre drive, are not reliable predictions in anyway.
Because in a proper full theory of gravity, these would be affected by quantum phenomena, and once you incorporate that into the theory these obscure predictions might just go away.
-
>GR is only reliable at large scales.
Macroscopic scales.
Atom sized or bigger.
Like any practical FTL.
Wait, even at subatomic scales, it’s still reliable, it just doesn’t explain all the weirdness we need QM for.>might
Ok, cupcake.
Still not hearing how FTL is "I don’t know" with our current knowledge.
GR’s conflict with FTL is woke af on causality, not gravity.
I’m pretty sure we’ve know FTL is a pipe dream since the Harding administration.
-
-
-
-
Don’t you need negative mass for this to even possibly attainable? How would you get that?
-
https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2017/04/10/negative-mass-created-at-wsu/
Acoustic black holes and related metamaterial research, which was big news in the late 90’s, subsequently and conveniently disappeared around the early 2000’s for good reason.
-
-
Probably 1-200 years. We need to understand how gravity actually works rather than just observe its effects, in order to have an FTL drive. Because in order to move an object across space times at higher than relativistic velocities without exceeding the speed of a photon, you need to be able to create a positive and negative gradient in spacetime which can only be done via a manipulation of gravity.
Your pic is literally just that, a manipulation of gravitational gradients to cause "movement" across spacetime without violating causal localities.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.