Sandrot & Crew:... that several possible solutions to the Propellantless Propulsion question might be available if we are willing to work with it.
[...] IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.
Quote from: hop on 07/02/2008 04:50 am[...] IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.One possible explanation is that actually aliens are all over, they don't use radio signals to communicate and they abide to Prime Directive.This explanation fails Occam's Razor, but that's another story.
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.
Quote from: nacnud on 07/02/2008 07:32 pmThe main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone. I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti
[...]Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.
Quote from: Lampyridae on 07/03/2008 01:53 am[...]Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.As long as these giant planets in habitable zones don't sport a nasty radiation environment as our own Jupiter, you might be right.Guys, we're OT.
That's only becuse you've cut the search for a solution off at the pass before even trying. For instance, the latest Excel spreadsheet tool we've developed for Woodward's MLT over the last seven months, based primarily on electrical and mechancial engneering issues, has over 100 controlling variables that have to be in "just so" relation to each other to get a predictied thrust of any appreciable value. And by appreicable value I mean in the hundreds to thousands of Newtons instead of micro-Newtons where most of the possible solutions end up. We hope to have an experimental verification of these latest MLT predictions later on this year, but the main point here is that with so many controlling variables, getting one of these PFP devices to run correctly and efficiently is like trying to balance a broom on your finger tip, in the dark. It isn't easy, but it's NOT impossible!
BTW, this thread is also suppose to be about space applications of PFP drives if anyone was so bold as to actually build one. Did any of you download and read the MLT application paper by March on his Warpstar concept Lunar vehicle? Now that puppy would be paradigm changing, (From the Earth to the Moon and back again in less than 12 hours and that's loafing.), and it's just the first step once its basic 22,500 Newton Mach-Lorentz Thruster module is in the bag...
Quote from: cpcjr on 07/03/2008 12:19 amQuote from: nacnud on 07/02/2008 07:32 pmThe main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone. I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. tiHot jupiters only appear in about 5% of all stars surveyed. There are plenty of giant planets in habitable zones that could host multiple terrestrial-sized moons. Take HD 82493 b for example:http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?PlanetID=131
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.
mboeller:The MLT R&D is very much alive, but this work is currently in the oven, so I see no point in publishing papers that cost ~$1,500 a pop for the author unless there is something major to document for the community. We are also pursuing a more basic experimental series that we hope will demonstrate conclusively the existence of Woodward’s conjectured mass fluctuations using rotary induced centripetal acceleration as the bulk acceleration variable, along with charging and discharging a set of ceramic capacitors at 40 kHz. Initial results for this test series appear to be positive, but we are currently characterizing and quantifying the error sources in the experiment to make sure we just aren’t looking at garbage.
OK, now you asked about what gravitoelectric waves were and as best I can determine, and I’m not the expert to consult here, gravitoelectric waves are spacetime compression waves in the G/I field and are the primary momentum carriers for inertial forces. However you must remember that these gravinertial compression waves use radiation reaction effects to convey their momentum from the particle to the field and back and therefore their transit times from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe is nearly instantaneous.
khallow:I'll let you argue with the folks like John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, (well that might be a tad hard since both gentlemen are dead), but have at with John Cramer (Washington State U) about his Transactional QM thesis over whether energy can be transferred at effectively superluminal speeds or not, but either inertia is a Machian effect which requires at a minimum local (sub-luminal) energy transfers between the accelerated mass and the preexisting gravinertial field and/or it’s a "spooky action at a distance" momentum transfer between the locally accelerated mass and all the rest of the mass in the universe via wormhole like momentum transfers. If you think QM’s “local” quantum vacuum fluctuation approach is a better model for these types of inertial interactions OK, a case can be made for that view as well, though Woodward regularly shoots down that case in his papers. Oh yes, and some other folks think that the QVF is driven by background instantaneous QM entanglements between mass elements, so then we are right back conflicting with your no FTL transactions edict, so let me direct you to another one of Woodward's tutorials on this tpoic: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm Woodward is of the opinion that this argument will not be settled until there is a viable quantum gravity theory brought forth, experimentally verified, and accepted by the physics community, but until then we have to make do with the overlapping and conflicting views of GRT, QM and the conservation laws as our only guides if we want to make any progress in this field. However, as a certain LM/Fort Worth scientist is fond of saying; “Follow the data, theory be dammed!” Being more of an engineer than scientist this is my view as well. And our ten plus years of data says that there are mass fluctuations or QVF LIKE effects available to be engineered, so we press on.
Khallow:Well, you've given us the reasons why you think propellantless propulsion (P-P) can't work, so do you have any contributions to this forum on how P-P could be made to work, or are you just content with the status quo? BTW, we do have tentative data supporting the existence of mass fluctuation like signals. However from your previous comments, I have to assume that the P-P test article will have to levitate under its own power before you will concede that there MIGHT be something interesting going on...
It doesn't buy us what we really need IMO and that is interstellar flight with effective flight velocities greater than c.