Would it help if Mars had a large moon?This is the M-E thread, after all......
Quote from: mlorrey on 02/08/2011 10:37 pmWell I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.The biggest problem with terraforming Mars is its very weak magnetic field. Humans wouldn't be able to survive there for long with the bombardment of cosmic rays. I don't really know any way around that problem besides habitation modules.
Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.
Quote from: 93143 on 02/10/2011 01:29 amWould it help if Mars had a large moon?This is the M-E thread, after all......Talking about moving whole moons or large asteroids? You've got to stop thinking on a small scale. Some of those Earth size planets Kepler is finding could be moved into the Earth and Mars trojan points. Just pick ones that have a decent atmosphere and magnetic field.
Quote from: mlorrey on 02/08/2011 10:37 pmQuote from: kkattula on 02/01/2011 05:58 pmI was thinking the same. The practical difficulties of establishing a wormhole between planetary surfaces would have to be huge:Accurate targetingConstantly compensating for relative movementPressure differentialsBiological cross contaminationNot to mention safety. That's a lot of energy being manipulated. Not sure I want that on the surface of the planet I live on...Most likely if a wormhole can be created and targeted, it would be from interplanetary space (perhaps an Earth Trojan point?) to somewhere in the vicinity of the destination star. Then ME spacecraft would ferry people from Earth through the wormhole and on to their destination.I wouldn't put one anywhere near Earth, in case something bad happened. Like an asteroid from the destination system coming through at high relative velocity. Even though it would be unlikely to hit Earth, it could smash the wormhole generator, or waiting ship, and flood near-Earth space with debris.Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.Did you consider atmosphere transfer from Venus to Mars, or perhaps to Mars from a combination of sources? Water from some ice moons, for example. Would the water pressure be high enough? Just thinking about the make-up of the resulting Martian atmosphere.
Quote from: kkattula on 02/01/2011 05:58 pmI was thinking the same. The practical difficulties of establishing a wormhole between planetary surfaces would have to be huge:Accurate targetingConstantly compensating for relative movementPressure differentialsBiological cross contaminationNot to mention safety. That's a lot of energy being manipulated. Not sure I want that on the surface of the planet I live on...Most likely if a wormhole can be created and targeted, it would be from interplanetary space (perhaps an Earth Trojan point?) to somewhere in the vicinity of the destination star. Then ME spacecraft would ferry people from Earth through the wormhole and on to their destination.I wouldn't put one anywhere near Earth, in case something bad happened. Like an asteroid from the destination system coming through at high relative velocity. Even though it would be unlikely to hit Earth, it could smash the wormhole generator, or waiting ship, and flood near-Earth space with debris.Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.
I was thinking the same. The practical difficulties of establishing a wormhole between planetary surfaces would have to be huge:Accurate targetingConstantly compensating for relative movementPressure differentialsBiological cross contaminationNot to mention safety. That's a lot of energy being manipulated. Not sure I want that on the surface of the planet I live on...Most likely if a wormhole can be created and targeted, it would be from interplanetary space (perhaps an Earth Trojan point?) to somewhere in the vicinity of the destination star. Then ME spacecraft would ferry people from Earth through the wormhole and on to their destination.I wouldn't put one anywhere near Earth, in case something bad happened. Like an asteroid from the destination system coming through at high relative velocity. Even though it would be unlikely to hit Earth, it could smash the wormhole generator, or waiting ship, and flood near-Earth space with debris.
Mars is twice as far from the sun, so it gets a quarter of the insolation[/quoteMars is at 1.52 au, so gets about 1/2.3 as much insolation.
Quote from: mlorrey link=topic=13020.msg691215#msg691215Mars is twice as far from the sun, so it gets a quarter of the insolationMars is at 1.52 au, so gets about 1/2.3 as much insolation.
Mars is twice as far from the sun, so it gets a quarter of the insolation
Quote from: kkattula on 02/07/2011 01:58 amQuote from: aceshigh on 02/07/2011 01:52 amsupposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?What defenses? We don't even know where all the Earth Orbit crossing objects in our solar system are, and have no way to stop any impactors we might detect.Worrying about alien wormholes is a bit premature. If hostile aliens have that technology already we're stuffed.And I for one would welcome our new alien overlords. Interesting concept...The industrial level required to send even a small probe from Alpha Centauri on a 75 year sublight trip is approximately equivalent to the year 2500 A.D. If it was actually a war of conquest with military-level like devotion of the industrial complex, maybe then we could hope to fight back because their equivalent tech and industrial development level would be lower.So if we shoot at the alien equivalents of NASA, we'd be stuffed because then the alien equivalent of the USAF rolls in.
Quote from: aceshigh on 02/07/2011 01:52 amsupposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?What defenses? We don't even know where all the Earth Orbit crossing objects in our solar system are, and have no way to stop any impactors we might detect.Worrying about alien wormholes is a bit premature. If hostile aliens have that technology already we're stuffed.And I for one would welcome our new alien overlords.
supposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?
FINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:A = ΔV = KME × PELECTRIC / MV = KME × PELECTRIC × T / MEKINETIC = ½MV²EKINETIC = ½M × ( KME × PELECTRIC × T / M )² EKINETIC = ½K²P²T²/MWhich is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(K²P) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...FACTOR VALUE UNITS NOTES------------- ------------------------ ------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------Mass 10,000.00 kg 10 ton craftK 0.01 N/W low, but real conversion factorP 9,800,000.00 W power needed for "1 G"2M/K²P 20.41 sec sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imputA 9.80 m/s² Acceleration of craftV 200.00 m/s velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electricalE 200,000,000 J Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that pointIt doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).
Reader GoatGuy at Nextbigfuture has this to say on the main ME conjecture:QuoteFINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:A = ΔV = KME × PELECTRIC / MV = KME × PELECTRIC × T / MEKINETIC = ½MV²EKINETIC = ½M × ( KME × PELECTRIC × T / M )² EKINETIC = ½K²P²T²/MWhich is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(K²P) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...FACTOR VALUE UNITS NOTES------------- ------------------------ ------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------Mass 10,000.00 kg 10 ton craftK 0.01 N/W low, but real conversion factorP 9,800,000.00 W power needed for "1 G"2M/K²P 20.41 sec sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imputA 9.80 m/s² Acceleration of craftV 200.00 m/s velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electricalE 200,000,000 J Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that pointIt doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually). Because it's beyond me, I'm copying it here in case this wasn't already covered earlier in this thread. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/making-stargates-science-of-absurdly.html#comment-150634322
I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.
If we had wormhole technology and wanted to send one end of the worm hole to another star we could use the wormhole to provide fuel for the spaceship. That way we wouldn't have to carry any fuel and that mass wouldn't work against us.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 02/01/2011 04:46 amSith:You might be interested in reading Woodward's latest paper when it's published in Foundations of Physics later this year. It's about how the M-E can be applied to the Warp Drive and Stargate problem discussed in this video. It's 26 pages long and it covers some new and interesting ground on how to make warp drives and stargates using the M-E's wormhole and higher terms to generate the required amount of exotic or negative G/I mass needed to create same. And no, Jupiter sized exotic G/I masses will not be required for that estimate is a worst case. It turns out it could be much, much less...Speaking of warp drives,In the latest paper by Marc Millis (attached below), it is indicated that warp drives are far less energy efficient than wormholes. For example, 10^46 joules of negative energy would be required to open a wormhole of a 100m diameter. If that same amount is applied to the formation of a warp bubble of the same diameter, it would result in a speed of only 1% the speed of light. What I find most interesting about warp drive is the ultimate speed limit as defined by Richard Obousy's approach of the manipulation of extra dimensions: an astounding max velocity of c*10^32. According to Obousy, at this velocity you could cross the known universe in 10^-15 seconds!However, if the efficiency calculations are correct, then I guess wormholes are the way to go; if it's possible that is. Personally, I've always loved the idea of warp drive. It's sad to see it go. P.S. Paul, Do you know how Dr. Harold White's QVF/MHD conjecture experiments are coming along? I'm having difficulty finding any publications on his idea. So far I've only been able to find material from the STAIF 2007 conference.
Sith:You might be interested in reading Woodward's latest paper when it's published in Foundations of Physics later this year. It's about how the M-E can be applied to the Warp Drive and Stargate problem discussed in this video. It's 26 pages long and it covers some new and interesting ground on how to make warp drives and stargates using the M-E's wormhole and higher terms to generate the required amount of exotic or negative G/I mass needed to create same. And no, Jupiter sized exotic G/I masses will not be required for that estimate is a worst case. It turns out it could be much, much less...
Quote from: Cinder on 02/18/2011 04:40 amReader GoatGuy at Nextbigfuture has this to say on the main ME conjecture:QuoteFINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:A = ΔV = KME × PELECTRIC / MV = KME × PELECTRIC × T / MEKINETIC = ½MV²EKINETIC = ½M × ( KME × PELECTRIC × T / M )² EKINETIC = ½K²P²T²/MWhich is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(K²P) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...FACTOR VALUE UNITS NOTES------------- ------------------------ ------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------Mass 10,000.00 kg 10 ton craftK 0.01 N/W low, but real conversion factorP 9,800,000.00 W power needed for "1 G"2M/K²P 20.41 sec sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imputA 9.80 m/s² Acceleration of craftV 200.00 m/s velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electricalE 200,000,000 J Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that pointIt doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually). Because it's beyond me, I'm copying it here in case this wasn't already covered earlier in this thread. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/making-stargates-science-of-absurdly.html#comment-150634322I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.
I'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue. If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(k²P) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really. NOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic. OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation. So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.