Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application (Read 1079295 times)

MP99 · « **Reply #1520 on:** 09/25/2011 09:45 am »

tdperk,

a big rip will decompose every atom, including iron, to subatomic particles. No particle will be causally connected to any other - a true end of the universe.

cheers, Martin

douglas100 · « **Reply #1521 on:** 09/25/2011 10:50 am »

Quote from: mlorrey on 09/24/2011 01:32 am

Neutrinos, while weakly interacting, DO have mass, so they are influenced by gravity, just less than photons are.

And that's why neutrinos should be traveling SLOWER than the speed of light, not faster. A particle with rest mass cannot travel at the speed of light. That's why this result has caused some excitement.

tdperk · « **Reply #1522 on:** 09/25/2011 04:21 pm »

Quote from: MP99 on 09/25/2011 09:45 am

tdperk,

a big rip will decompose every atom, including iron, to subatomic particles. No particle will be causally connected to any other - a true end of the universe.

cheers, Martin

Yes, but my understanding of the inflation of the universe is that it is a stretch and not a rip.

MP99 · « **Reply #1523 on:** 09/25/2011 05:33 pm »

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_rip

Not sure how much this is just a matter of semantics, ie if a stretch only became observable 5b years ago is it now getting stronger? If so, could it eventually become violent enough to be called a "rip'?

cheers, Martin

aceshigh · « **Reply #1524 on:** 09/27/2011 02:45 pm »

Quote from: Sith on 09/23/2011 08:49 pm

Quote from: aceshigh on 09/23/2011 01:56 am
no, the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity is the Mach Effect. Although its not really PROVED yet. So maybe FTL neutrinos are the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity and until Mach Effect is proved without a doubt.
How can the Mach Effect be proven inside CERN? Who will do the research?

Who said Mach Effect would be proved at CERN? We are talking about the biggest discoveries in Physics, not the biggest discoveries at CERN.

anyway, returning to the neutrinos issue... experiments that have detected neutrino bursts from distant supernovas have found absolutely no evidence of FTL. They arrived 5 hours before the supernova light. From a distance of 160 thousand ly. That 5 hours difference is the expected difference of neutrinos passing through the star layers as if they were nothing, unlike light, that has difficulty transversing all that mass.

Thus, we do have experiments that prove beyond a doubt neutrinos do NOT travel faster than light.

but we also have a CERN experiment showing neutrinos travelled faster than light. Or did they???

the CERN experiment does not shows neutrinos travelling faster than light. They show the neutrinos arriving EARLIER than light.

Maybe, the neutrinos did not travel faster than C... but they made a "jump", or in some way, here was a small spacetime distortion that the neutrinos took a ride on... and of course, its quite known that spacetime can expand faster than light.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1525 on:** 09/27/2011 03:23 pm »

These FTL neutrinos don't necessarily mean they have violated the ultimate speed limit. Some physicists are speculating (assuming the results are accurate and not due to systematic error) that the neutrinos might have taken a shortcut through an extra dimension or a wormhole. If this phenomena can be explained by extra dimensions, I'm sure the string theorists will have a field day.

Giovanni DS · « **Reply #1526 on:** 09/27/2011 04:42 pm »

Or, more probably it will proved to be just a measurement error.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1527 on:** 09/27/2011 07:24 pm »

I highly doubt it will be "just a measurement error." The data is very impressive.

But I suppose we'll see how this unfolds in the coming months.

qraal · « **Reply #1528 on:** 09/27/2011 08:11 pm »

Quote from: GeeGee on 09/27/2011 07:24 pm

I highly doubt it will be "just a measurement error." The data is very impressive.

But I suppose we'll see how this unfolds in the coming months.

If it's an error, it'll be a very interesting one.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1529 on:** 10/06/2011 04:53 pm »

I've found Harold White's presentation on warp drive from the 100 SS symposium. It's an interesting approach, but it also relies upon brane cosmology being an accurate model of reality.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110015936&qs=Ns%3DLoaded-Date%7C1%26N%3D4294950110

93143 · « **Reply #1530 on:** 10/06/2011 08:31 pm »

Quote from: aceshigh on 09/27/2011 02:45 pm

Thus, we do have experiments that prove beyond a doubt neutrinos do NOT travel faster than light.

You seem to be assuming that all neutrinos travel at the same speed.

Of course, if they really were tachyons, you'd expect higher-energy ones to go slower, not faster, which goes against the observation (I believe the supernova neutrinos were lower-energy)...

Were they the same type of neutrino?

Or perhaps they can be tachyonic, but aren't always?

You can't make such a declaration based on the data we have.

Star-Drive · « **Reply #1531 on:** 10/07/2011 04:06 am »

Quote from: GeeGee on 10/06/2011 04:53 pm

I've found Harold White's presentation on warp drive from the 100 SS symposium. It's an interesting approach, but it also relies upon brane cosmology being an accurate model of reality.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110015936&qs=Ns%3DLoaded-Date%7C1%26N%3D4294950110

GeeGee:

"It's an interesting approach, but it also relies upon brane cosmology being an accurate model of reality."

Well, you've got to start from somewhere and brane cosmology is as good a place as any to start from. Especially if Sonny White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) model really turns out to have the high predictive accuracy it appears that it might have. If it does, well then, we have interstellar "Boost Factors" to consider in our travel plans...

Best,

madsci · « **Reply #1532 on:** 10/07/2011 11:08 am »

What is the latest paper/communication with the formula for the mass variation of a charging capacitor ?
I understand that an earlier version of that derivation was incorrect ?

Sorry if that should be easy to find: for me it's not clear where to look since Dr. Woodward's web site is quite difficult to navigate and I can't find a web site for Paul March.

The current one I have is from Cramer et al.'s paper:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

There it is assumed that phi=c^2. Is this assumption still true in the latest version of Woodward's theory ?

MP99 · « **Reply #1533 on:** 10/07/2011 12:26 pm »

Quote from: 93143 on 10/06/2011 08:31 pm

Quote from: aceshigh on 09/27/2011 02:45 pm
Thus, we do have experiments that prove beyond a doubt neutrinos do NOT travel faster than light.

You seem to be assuming that all neutrinos travel at the same speed.

I believe current understanding is that neutrinos have a very small rest mass (required for them to be able to change flavours).

If that's correct, presumably they travel at a speed slightly below C, and dependent on their energy (same as electrons, etc).

Not sure how that ties in with the supernova observations, though.

cheers, Martin

Star-Drive · « **Reply #1534 on:** 10/08/2011 03:57 am »

Quote from: madsci on 10/07/2011 11:08 am

What is the latest paper/communication with the formula for the mass variation of a charging capacitor ?
I understand that an earlier version of that derivation was incorrect ?

Sorry if that should be easy to find: for me it's not clear where to look since Dr. Woodward's web site is quite difficult to navigate and I can't find a web site for Paul March.

The current one I have is from Cramer et al.'s paper:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

There it is assumed that phi=c^2. Is this assumption still true in the latest version of Woodward's theory ?

Yes, it's still phi= c^2.

Woodward’s current M-E derivation can be found in his “Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia" paper, which has been posted at this site before and is reposted below for you. Woodward also has a still unpublished Stargate paper that adds some bells and whistles to this 2004 M-E derivation, but I can't post that one just yet.

And Paul March doesn't have a web site.

Best,

madsci · « **Reply #1535 on:** 10/08/2011 05:43 pm »

Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/08/2011 03:57 am

Yes, it's still phi= c^2.

Woodward’s current M-E derivation can be found in his “Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia" paper, which has been posted at this site before and is reposted below for you. Woodward also has a still unpublished Stargate paper that adds some bells and whistles to this 2004 M-E derivation, but I can't post that one just yet.

And Paul March doesn't have a web site.

Best,

Thanks for the paper and the additional info.
Please post the Stargate paper when you can.
I'll take a look at Woodard's web pages and at the paper. I'll probably have some questions, so please let me know if there is a better forum/website to discuss them or if I should post them in this thread.

aceshigh · « **Reply #1536 on:** 10/08/2011 06:06 pm »

Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/08/2011 03:57 am

And Paul March doesn't have a web site.

Best,

either Paul March started talking about himself in 3rd person, or you are not who I thought you were!

Joris · « **Reply #1537 on:** 10/08/2011 06:22 pm »

Quote from: MP99 on 10/07/2011 12:26 pm

I believe current understanding is that neutrinos have a very small rest mass (required for them to be able to change flavours).

It's because they carry away the observerd energy-loss in nuclear reactions.

This requires them to have mass.

93143 · « **Reply #1538 on:** 10/08/2011 06:30 pm »

No, it requires them to have energy, without being photons or any other easily-detected agent. That's all. Even photons have both momentum and energy.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1539 on:** 10/08/2011 08:12 pm »

Paul,

Is Eagleworks Laboratory already operational? Does it have a website?