NASA: Working on Proof Of Concept for Faster Than light Travel.

#51
#51
LouderVol said:
Thats the point of this whole space bubble theory. You get the bubble moving at almost the speed of light and the ship inside the bubble moving as well the apparent speed of the ship going could be faster than the speed of light. That is what my mind thinks anyway. I always compare this bubble to walking from one end of a plane going just under the speed of sound to the other. As far as the world is concerned you are walking faster than the speed of sound, but according to the plane you are only walking. So in this case the space ship is 'walking' inside the bubble which is also moving, increasing the space ship's apparent speed while not breaking any rules. And even if we only got to 99.999999% of the speed of light that is still amazingly fast and could make settling planets in other solar systems a possibility.
Click to expand...

Why don't we try this the way Einstein tried to explain it. First according to einstein it is not possible to break the speed of light. He using his famous train that travels at the speed of light states If you walk from the back of the train to the front you're still not traveling faster than the speed of light, because nature won't let you. It is against the physical laws of Universe. Like stated above and General Realitivity I think it was. It's all realitive to your position

So someone like NASA who finds a loophole around these laws it is indeed a very big thing. Circumventing or proving Einstein was wrong with this, would be perhaps the biggest accomplishment in all of human history.
 
#52
#52
LouderVol said:
Thats the point of this whole space bubble theory. You get the bubble moving at almost the speed of light and the ship inside the bubble moving as well the apparent speed of the ship going could be faster than the speed of light. That is what my mind thinks anyway. I always compare this bubble to walking from one end of a plane going just under the speed of sound to the other. As far as the world is concerned you are walking faster than the speed of sound, but according to the plane you are only walking. So in this case the space ship is 'walking' inside the bubble which is also moving, increasing the space ship's apparent speed while not breaking any rules. And even if we only got to 99.999999% of the speed of light that is still amazingly fast and could make settling planets in other solar systems a possibility.
Click to expand...

The speed of light is constant no matter the frame of reference. I don't think the train example applies.
 
#53
#53
This is all fascinating stuff and I for one really hope that in whatever form we are able to at least reach the speed of light. I do think we will at some point.

Now one question, at that speed how would the vessel avoid objects, meteors and ext.
 
#54
#54
hog88 said:
This is all fascinating stuff and I for one really hope that in whatever form we are able to at least reach the speed of light. I do think we will at some point.

Now one question, at that speed how would the vessel avoid objects, meteors and ext.
Click to expand...

Deflector shields.

Maybe something different if it turns out that space is a Super Fluid, which is the latest theory to claim many merits to solving the theory of everything.
 
#55
#55
Grand Vol said:
We'd still have to get suspended animation or some form or cryostasis perfected before that could happen. Unless you are talking a generational type star ship, which would end up being pretty large.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the Alpha-Centari system is the closest system, at 4.6 light years. If we got that close to the speed of light we might make it in 5 years. I forget the name of the next closest that 'might have a habitable planet' but I think it was 6.4 or something. So maybe 7 years to get there. Still a long time but no need for a generational type ship. And to start off anyway I don't see these as two way missions. This is a launch and hope you have success type of thing. I could see them launching probes first to 'find' the planet and act as a locator that would allow the ship to pin point its direction once it got relatively close. The ships will have to be big for any chance of success at all. The only problem with big ships is getting them into space. However if we built it in space we get rid of the worst part.

Even if we did have a suspended animation system, cryo stasis or whatever I think somebody would still have to stay awake, this is based purely on the fact that I don't trust machines.
 
#56
#56
orangeblooded2 said:
Why don't we try this the way Einstein tried to explain it. First according to einstein it is not possible to break the speed of light. He using his famous train that travels at the speed of light states If you walk from the back of the train to the front you're still not traveling faster than the speed of light, because nature won't let you. It is against the physical laws of Universe. Like stated above and General Realitivity I think it was. It's all realitive to your position

So someone like NASA who finds a loophole around these laws it is indeed a very big thing. Circumventing or proving Einstein was wrong with this, would be perhaps the biggest accomplishment in all of human history.
Click to expand...

"It's all realitive to your position" That is what I am saying at no point is the ship moving faster than the speed of light, what we are changing, and apparently in these experiments have done, is change the space you are moving through. I don't know the perfect way to explain it, or even if it actually works but these people think it is now within the realm of possibility.
 
#57
#57
LouderVol said:
If I remember correctly the Alpha-Centari system is the closest system, at 4.6 light years. If we got that close to the speed of light we might make it in 5 years. I forget the name of the next closest that 'might have a habitable planet' but I think it was 6.4 or something. So maybe 7 years to get there. Still a long time but no need for a generational type ship. And to start off anyway I don't see these as two way missions. This is a launch and hope you have success type of thing. I could see them launching probes first to 'find' the planet and act as a locator that would allow the ship to pin point its direction once it got relatively close. The ships will have to be big for any chance of success at all. The only problem with big ships is getting them into space. However if we built it in space we get rid of the worst part.

Even if we did have a suspended animation system, cryo stasis or whatever I think somebody would still have to stay awake, this is based purely on the fact that I don't trust machines.
Click to expand...

I checked it last night and the closest planet in the Goldilocks Zone is Tau Ceti e which is 11.9 ly away. And even that's unknown. Alpha and Proxima Centauri don't have exoplanets (that we're aware of right now) and happens to be a binary system which could cause significant tidal force problems on a ship entering that system.

The next closest systems with good potential for habitable planets are the Gliese 581 and 667 systems which are 20 and 23.6 ly away respectively. So a minimum of 20 years to get there at 0.99999 of the speed of light.

So cryostasis or suspended animation would be required and like you said, the automation I wouldn't necessarily trust. It would be a one way trip for some of the crew no matter what if we went.

And we aren't even getting into the relativistic effects lol
 
#58
#58
rjd970 said:
The speed of light is constant no matter the frame of reference. I don't think the train example applies.
Click to expand...

I am not saying to change the speed of light, or even to go faster than it. The way i understand it is you are changing how far you are moving by whatever magic method this guy thinks he has discovered. No breaking the laws of the universe just working within them in a way we didn't understand before. Before Einstein we had a completely different view of how the universe works, who knows this may be part of the switch to understanding the universe a little better than Einstein could. We know through black holes that the speed of light can be changed it just involves the gravity at such an extent that it breaks the laws. Maybe they found a way to do something similar. I haven't brushed up on my law of relativity recently :) but I don't know if Einstein accounted for black holes and them swallowing light.
 
#59
#59
Grand Vol said:
I checked it last night and the closest planet in the Goldilocks Zone is Tau Ceti e which is 11.9 ly away. And even that's unknown. Alpha and Proxima Centauri don't have exoplanets (that we're aware of right now) and happens to be a binary system which could cause significant tidal force problems on a ship entering that system.

The next closest systems with good potential for habitable planets are the Gliese 581 and 667 systems which are 20 and 23.6 ly away respectively. So a minimum of 20 years to get there at 0.99999 of the speed of light.

So cryostasis or suspended animation would be required and like you said, the automation I wouldn't necessarily trust. It would be a one way trip for some of the crew no matter what if we went.

And we aren't even getting into the relativistic effects lol
Click to expand...

yeah there is a whole lot of science to work out between now and then. And personally I don't see it possible to go out and colonize the first habitable world we come across I believe we are going to have to colonize other planets along the way as 'rest stops' if you will. They would just have to exist in bio-domes and what not like that. Or even just set up other space stations as fueling & locators centers.
 
#60
#60
hog88 said:
This is all fascinating stuff and I for one really hope that in whatever form we are able to at least reach the speed of light. I do think we will at some point.

Now one question, at that speed how would the vessel avoid objects, meteors and ext.
Click to expand...

at that speed it would be impossible to detect the objects before we struck them. Luckily space is mostly empty, so while we would undoubtedly hit small stuff I think larger objects could be accounted for. Maybe it is the deflector shield, force field or whatever you want to call it, but it could be a a giant piece of steel that just takes the impact for us. after any impact we no matter the system, we would have to make course adjustments and that could really suck. So when shooting for whatever destination we would have to aim well outside its orbit just to be safe and then work our way in after we have slowed down and corrected our course.
 
#61
#61
LouderVol said:
yeah there is a whole lot of science to work out between now and then. And personally I don't see it possible to go out and colonize the first habitable world we come across I believe we are going to have to colonize other planets along the way as 'rest stops' if you will. They would just have to exist in bio-domes and what not like that. Or even just set up other space stations as fueling & locators centers.
Click to expand...

According to some it's a fool's errand no matter what. Even expressed themselves in this thread...

I think the idea of rogue planets could help with your "way station" idea as well. Who knows what kind of random space debris is between here and there so there is a good possibility that there are rogue exoplanets in our neighborhood, cosmically speaking, that could serve as bases for further journeys towards stellar systems for exploration and (potential) colonization.
 
#62
#62
Grand Vol said:
I checked it last night and the closest planet in the Goldilocks Zone is Tau Ceti e which is 11.9 ly away. And even that's unknown. Alpha and Proxima Centauri don't have exoplanets (that we're aware of right now) and happens to be a binary system which could cause significant tidal force problems on a ship entering that system.

The next closest systems with good potential for habitable planets are the Gliese 581 and 667 systems which are 20 and 23.6 ly away respectively. So a minimum of 20 years to get there at 0.99999 of the speed of light.

So cryostasis or suspended animation would be required and like you said, the automation I wouldn't necessarily trust. It would be a one way trip for some of the crew no matter what if we went.

And we aren't even getting into the relativistic effects lol
Click to expand...


By this I am assuming you are referring to the problem of us going faster than the pieces that make us up, the electrons? and how that would effect weight and gravity of the object going super duper fast
 
#63
#63
LouderVol said:
By this I am assuming you are referring to the problem of us going faster than the pieces that make us up, the electrons? and how that would effect weight and gravity of the object going super duper fast
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of time.

But if it makes me sound smarter, sure I was talking about electrodes and stuff. :)
 
#64
#64
Grand Vol said:
According to some it's a fool's errand no matter what. Even expressed themselves in this thread...

I think the idea of rogue planets could help with your "way station" idea as well. Who knows what kind of random space debris is between here and there so there is a good possibility that there are rogue exoplanets in our neighborhood, cosmically speaking, that could serve as bases for further journeys towards stellar systems for exploration and (potential) colonization.
Click to expand...

exactly. This goes back to why are we colonizing? Is it to create a colony and expand our boundaries, and have trade and whatnot? or is it just for survival so we are sending out 'seeds' to ensure we don't get snuffed as a race. In the second case a series of stations or communication would not be necessary at all.
 
#65
#65
I almost feel jiped, I fully believe this will happen just not in my lifetime. My grandparents went from horse and buggy to a man on the moon. I quess the biggest innovation in my lifetime so far has been the internet.
 
#66
#66
Grand Vol said:
I was thinking more along the lines of time.

But if it makes me sound smarter, sure I was talking about electrodes and stuff. :)
Click to expand...

too many problems for me to figure out certainly. Or even to keep straight. damn you science for not having all the answers already and in easily explainable terms so that I can understand it.
 
#67
#67
hog88 said:
I almost feel jiped, I fully believe this will happen just not in my lifetime. My grandparents went from horse and buggy to a man on the moon. I quess the biggest innovation in my lifetime so far has been the internet.
Click to expand...

Again, damn you science for not having this figured out yet. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
LouderVol said:
exactly. This goes back to why are we colonizing? Is it to create a colony and expand our boundaries, and have trade and whatnot? or is it just for survival so we are sending out 'seeds' to ensure we don't get snuffed as a race. In the second case a series of stations or communication would not be necessary at all.
Click to expand...

You've missed the space exploration thread in the politics forum where this was discussed.

I'm with a lot of scientists that think we should be getting off this rock to ensure the continued survival of the human race.
 
#69
#69
Grand Vol said:
You've missed the space exploration thread in the politics forum where this was discussed.

I'm with a lot of scientists that think we should be getting off this rock to ensure the continued survival of the human race.
Click to expand...

damn, by missed you mean it happened a while or ago, or the debate has been settled and its too late for me to weigh in? A link would be appreciated
 
#70
#70
#71
#71
LouderVol said:
I haven't brushed up on my law of relativity recently :)
Click to expand...

Just to remind people about something I keep seeing mentioned here. It is the "Theory of Relativity", not a proven Law. I know it has been almost 2 decades since I studied any of this in school, things may have changed since then, but that is how I remember it. It hasn't been proven as an absolute, not like the Law of Gravity has been for example. Like all theories it can still be proven or disapproved, when Einstein came up with it they didn't have the tech available to prove it absolutely, heck I doubt we do yet. There may be exceptions to it that we haven't even discovered yet.
 
#72
#72
LouderVol said:
"It's all realitive to your position" That is what I am saying at no point is the ship moving faster than the speed of light, what we are changing, and apparently in these experiments have done, is change the space you are moving through. I don't know the perfect way to explain it, or even if it actually works but these people think it is now within the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...

Ah, I got ya. For whatever reason I thought you had gone in a different direction. But it looks like you got it so.....
 
#73
#73
chatsworth_vol said:
Just to remind people about something I keep seeing mentioned here. It is the "Theory of Relativity", not a proven Law. I know it has been almost 2 decades since I studied any of this in school, things may have changed since then, but that is how I remember it. It hasn't been proven as an absolute, not like the Law of Gravity has been for example. Like all theories it can still be proven or disapproved, when Einstein came up with it they didn't have the tech available to prove it absolutely, heck I doubt we do yet. There may be exceptions to it that we haven't even discovered yet.
Click to expand...



It is not that they haven't proven it. I think it is what the tread title implies. Proof a of concept based on part of the theory and\or a loophole in it. Now your last sentence taken seperatly, I could not more agree with.


NASA - NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories
 
#74
#74
Oh I agree my emphasis was ment to be on the term absolute, and it being a "theory" not a "law". I agree with you that I think it is possible. Its just a matter of when. I think it may take leap in concept/ thought along the lines of the discovery of the atom /dna/radio waves, but it will happen.
 
#75
#75
chatsworth_vol said:
Just to remind people about something I keep seeing mentioned here. It is the "Theory of Relativity", not a proven Law. I know it has been almost 2 decades since I studied any of this in school, things may have changed since then, but that is how I remember it. It hasn't been proven as an absolute, not like the Law of Gravity has been for example. Like all theories it can still be proven or disapproved, when Einstein came up with it they didn't have the tech available to prove it absolutely, heck I doubt we do yet. There may be exceptions to it that we haven't even discovered yet.
Click to expand...

obviously I haven't brushed up on my THEORY of relativity :) thanks for pointing that out. :hi:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top