Beyondial making calculations easier or possibly leading the way to quantum gravity, the discovery of the amplituhedron could cause an even more profound shift, Arkani-Hamed said. That is, giving up space and time as fundamental constituents of nature and figuring out how the Big Bang and cosmological evolution of the universe arose out of pure geometry.
Artist’s rendering of the amplituhedron, a newly discovered mathematical object resembling a multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions. Encoded in its volume are the most basic features of reality that can be calculated — the probabilities of outcomes of particle interactions.
hey! the NIAC 2014 had a presentation on mach drives and mach related stuff
it was there the speaker just before lunch. probably this: 11:30Invited SpeakerGary Hudson, Space Studies Institute“A Matter of Some Gravity"i didn't catch the very beginning. and i see no way to download it. i do have a desktop screen video grabber though. i may get it later. ACK! Dr Winglee was also there and he did not speak about the M2P2.
I've been told you can view my talk here: http://www.livestream.com/niac2014/video?clipId=pla_bd9c1386-03c5-4c18-8349-1fb8ce972be7&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb...starting at the 1 hr 4 min point. I have not checked this out, though so can't confirm.
in this video woodward says we can build prototypes of stargates in a decade or 2, if he have a enough funding and resources. Why do we not spent all our money on this. That would be great. We can go to the stars in our lifetime. Why doesn't nasa fund this project to build stargates ?
Why doesn't nasa fund this project to build stargates ?
Can someone who knows throw me a bone on how to read this properly?
Thank you for posting out-takes from the talks, it's great so see what was shared.I hope you don't mind me asking a question about a problem that has been bugging me for some time. I get the Mach principle and how it is applied. I understand the argument regarding the conservation of energy and it makes sense to me. I understand Dr Woodward’s experimental methods.I have the book and can’t find the answer there.What is bugging me is how the results are presented. I have included a screen grab from the presentation at about 10.44. and a second image where I have used Photoshop to strip out the power and heat trace for clarity. I am going to use the term ‘positive’ to apply to a trace moving towards the top of the graph, and ‘negative’ to a trace moving towards the bottom of the graph.Looking at the (brown) thrust trace, as the power is applied there is an initial negative going spike . It's a little tricky to see as the positive ( blue ) power spike is co-incident in time with the negative going spike.As the power reduces to zero there then follows a positive thrust spike of approximately the same size but with a fractionally longer duration compared to the negative thrust spike. This is followed by a third negative going thrust spike of lower amplitude but longer duration. This pattern is more or less repeated with the second pulse which I take as an indication this is a typical response.What is not clear to me is how the net thrust signal is derived. Initially the first two thrust spikes look to me as if they cancel out, which leaves the third negative going spike as the net thrust. But looking closer I am not so sure. If you sum the areas under the curves, which can only estimate from the graph, I am not sure how the net thrust is derived.For the avoidance of doubt, I am not looking to knock the research; I really want this approach to work. Can someone who knows throw me a bone on how to read this properly?