Jump to content
Science Forums

Warp Mechanics/ Apathetic Conflux & Universal Structure (the grand scheme)


Sharky

Recommended Posts

Sharky

 

Um. You are replying to posts of a year ago! I suspect that the people you are posting to are no longer around.

 

I tried to comprehend your theory, and failed. I tried the version on your website as well. I got lost just as fast.

 

It might be right, but my guess is that few, if any, will be able to tell unless you find a better way of explaining it.

 

Cheer up, You are in good company. People make the same complaint about my theories as well. I guess presentation is all, and people who specialise in understanding reality, are rarely good at understanding people, or communicating with them. I guess we will both just have to struggle to do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharky! Long time, no see! Where have you been and what have you been up to? I thought that you got banned for that post about physicists pissing you off or something. Oh well... Anyway, you're back! Glad too!

this theory of yours, more speciffically, about how the atom is spinning in on itself kinda helped me to refine my theory of gravity; how it is caused by temporal inertia of mass. the spinning of the atom creates a sorta gyroscopic stability in time (you know how a gyroscope is difficult to turn perpendicular to its axis in space) and it is the expansion of the universe around the atom that warps space to form that curvature that we call gravity. (gosh... that's the shortest version of my explanation that I've ever put to words.)

 

gee... it's been awhile since my old brain gears have turned in that direction. I've got caught up in a whole lot of other distractions in the world of the macro such as remodeling my house in preperation to sell it so that I can buy another, trying to start a custom chopper bicycle business, helping my kids with homework, cooking dinners and a score of other smaller things to occupy my mind and time.

well... see you around, Sharky. I look forward to reading more of your ideas and inputs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Turmod,

 

The answers are comming sir; trust me! I decided to get off my "lazy brain-butt" and unsummarize the entire theory. I even converted my drawings into a postable format also including a few more for "picture learnie people's sake." HA,Ha-ha...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There might be a way around this whole center issue by using the commonly refered to term of hyperspace for the zero point itself. To give somewhat of a background here try refering to a general search under hyperspace or, I could also refer you to the following Cern Documents: http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-120.pdf Article 1

 

http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-116.pdf Article 2

 

http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-115.pdf Article 3

 

To these I might add a bit more recent published article from the Journal of Advanced Propulsion Methods: http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-110.pdf The title of this as it appeared published is Problems with Warp Drive examined.

 

For some time now a group I belong to has been examining the whole field propulsion idea in general which includes almost everything from ideas based upon the Woodward effect, to Alcubierre's warp drive, to some ideas proposed by Fernado Loup involving shortcuts through hyperspace itself. On Fernando's idea I might suggest seeing: http://doc.cern.ch/archive/electronic/cern/preprints/open/open-2004-037.pdf for our own examination of the problems there at the present. I authored the article itself. But the findings were that of the group known as Stardrive1 currently and originally as ESAA.

 

We have also in our current e-Journal an article simular to some done on space.com and elewhere that covers the subject of those often reported Triangular UFO's. See: http://tprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/38/01/The_Triiangular_Craft_Issue.pdf for this article directly.

 

This may help some of you here when it comes to this subject in general. I might also suggest about every six months keeping an eye on the Journal itself by going to: http://www.transtatorindustries.org/JOATP.html which is the Journal's own link. This Journal is both Peer reviewed and listed with the Library of Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem. Basically, for everyone interested the present situation when it comes to this is that a lot of the differing models and theories out there cannot be fully ruled out at this time. Something Hawking is great at saying. But, at the very least we do not have the tech to even begin to produce any of these field drives yet either. One area I think deserves focus is on experiments that prove out or disprove certain aspects of these theories. For one solid science as far as theory goes depends upon observational and experimental evidence for real support of any theory. Even wormhole ideas tends to fail here inspite of the many articles on the subject to date out there by well known authors from the field of physics. The worst issue is almost ever idea depends upon exotic energy or matter to construct. Outside of Casimir effects there is so little actually proved or disproved on this subject to date. At the present its the one solid bottleneck to further research.

 

Given the mind of man I suspect one day some solution will be found. But I also suspect that solution will come by combining different ideas and physical effects together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The physical basis behind the whole cosmological constant debate is the zero-point vacuum fluctuations. This all centers around the expectation value for the stress energy tensor of the vacuum itself. The equations of such are:

 

Tab(vac)=cosmological constant/(8PiG)Gab.

 

The central argument that Natario used against warp drive wherein he derived his point about infinite blue shifted photons is poorly based upon one assumption throughout: that being that the stress energy tensor remains the same across the entire warp field. His actual keeping of the value of C in all cases as 1 proves this out. Yet, by everything we know about inflation itself from physics, the stress energy tensor is not the same across the whole field. The only region of a warp field that maintains a equality to external to the warp field is the region of the craft itself. The forward section of a warp field is basically a gravity well. The stress energy tensor would be far higher here than in a normal vacuum state. As such, C hould be slower there. In the rear region, and this gets interesting the stress energy tensor is lower. This was one of the early on arguments used against warp drive in the first place because it demanded a local energy condition that violates certain quantum inequalities. As such, C in this region would be higher. This makes the Cauchy surfaces in question not equal. But Natario treats them as equal in his whole argument he presents. If one alters the value of C for each region involved there is no actual infinite blue shift at all. The problem with warp drive has nothing to do with infinite blue shifts at all. It has to do with construction of the field itself. Below C one could in theory construct such a field. But to make the field work at superluminal velocities one would have to be able to construct the field FTL.

 

Now David Waite, an early on researcher on warp drive, mentions very well that the field itself provides a boost to a critical portion of the forward field one would need to control the field. But full construction requires one to construct the whole field, at least if the field is going to be on constantly. The aspect we’ve considered is that one could run the field pulsed to begin with. Actually running it as short pulses goes a long way to solving the quantum inequality problem itself. But, at the current time no one knows how to generate the needed type of field, especially the exotic energy portion. Whoever solves that one not only opens the door to a usable sublight field propulsion drive. They also open the door to superluminal type drives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point about the only promising experiments going on that even relate to such FTL construction or shifting of center of mass come from those looking into the Woodward effect and Fernando's hyperspace idea and as far as exotic states goes into either PV based ideas such as Todd Desota has proposed or some of the research on Casimir effects and research on Bose-Einstein condensates. Outside of that we have the more exotic research of guys like Jack Sarfatti. Personally, I have problems with his fully Bohm based modeling not to metion the ESP/UFO connection when it comes to solid science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem we face here is both political and theoretical based. At the present without any solid hard experimental evidence ideas like BPP under NASA are dead in the water. Most of the major Institutes have tended to stay away from this whole issue as much as possible. Part of that is the entrenched dogma about C to begin with and the rest centers around the media over hype on anything published on the subject as they have done before on subjects like time travel. A lot of early on researchers on this idea simply refuse to get into it anymore simply out of fear about their own job security.

 

Simply put, without funds we get stuck talking theory out and theory alone will not solve anything. Where the push needs to be is on experiments that might prove or disprove the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Also, the article on Cern titled "Problems with warp drive examined" was just accepted for publication in an upcoming edition of the Euro-Asian Journal of Applied Science. So that one is now a published article on the subject of warp drive. Its generally not the dead subject some out there tend to think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(José Natário. Assistant Professor, Algebra and Analysis Unit) . He's

a professor of math, not of physics in the first place. He like

Fernando Loup is known for his math works. There is also a key reason he

got the findings he did in his article. It goes back to his

reluctance to accept any variance from casulity and someone into math trying

to explain a GR based warp drive along conventional lines. GR has long

allowed within its format expanded versions of casulity and even

time travel. If you run a search under his name one discovers that

his math treatment of the whole warp drive idea was based upon

casulity keeping. He utilized a GR format heavy of standard SR.

Under such a treatment C always maintains a value of one

throughout. As such, when he considers the overall field's movement

and C is kept at that value one does get an infinite blue shift.

 

However,if one actually using GR, considers the field as a

region of spacetime with a variable C being expressed(simular to

inflation fields) then in no case does the field generate infinite

blue shifts. Without going into long math here for the moment if C

overall had a value of 2 and the field is moving at 1 the actual

blue shifts are little different than those found in normal

spacetime when an object approaches say .5C. Now, if Natario had

perhaps resorted to quantum theory like that used by Hawking against

time machines there are infinite energy build ups that could spell

trouble with warp drive. Yet, even here, as shown by guys like Kip

Thorne, there are solutions around these problems.

 

The above argument stems from something we rather discovered early

on. A Warp field acts like it has a variable C across its path.

Natario considers the whole region all the same, yet, specifies that

the field itself as a whole is moving FTL. When he derived those

infinite shifts he based that FTL motion against a standard C

spacetime and never considered how all the different parts of the

field added together to get the warp effect. But a lot of this is

perspective based. For the craft itself in a space normal region

objects in front do appear blue shifted while objects to the rear

would be very far red shifted right out of sight. But they appear

this way because of what is happening via gravity and a gravity lensing effect.

Objects in front of the craft are being compressed in towards the craft. Objects to

the rear are being expanded away from the craft. The actual travel

time difference is achieved via something akin to a wormhole where

the distance ahead is shrunk and the distance behind is expanded.

The overall velocity of the field is actually only superluminal from

the perspective of the craft and an external observer. It does this

via expansion(inflation) and contraction( a gravity well).

 

Todd Desota in our own group mentioned something once before about what would happen if one stretched the craft out toward a destination point. Basically the

distance would shrink between the craft and where it was heading.

What you'd get is a shorter path to where one is going. A path that

could be traveled from a remote observers perspective in far shorter

time. Now the craft's actual velocity might be little higher in

such a case from what we have now if such an effect could be

engineered. But to those on earth it might appear such a craft

crossed in say 1 second.

 

There really is no true energy shift for the field at all even if

there is a visual one. Chris Van Den Broeck actually hit on this when he spoke in our group about our original shield article. Photons always travel at the

speed of light in an inflationary region and in a gravity well. It's

there energy signature, not their velocity that changes and there

are two things which can induce this:

 

1.) Kenetic energy changes.

 

2.) Gravitational lensing.

 

The warp field is actually more a case akin to the second, not the first.

There is no real kinetic energy change across a warp field. The

rear region acts like an inflation field. Inflation as a process

adds nothing locally to the kinetic energy of particles. The actual

particles do not move in such a field. It's the distance between

two points that expands. The frontal region is a gravity well.

Incoming there is a kinetic energy gain. But internal wise time is

also slowing down in such a region(See Hawking for treatments and

discussions about gravity wells as a future travel time machine in the Universe in a Nutshell).

 

What you get is the warp field is moving spacetime itself. The

craft has never once actually moved. As such, while observational

wise one gets these different shifts, the actually incoming photons

have no more real energy than they do normally because nothing has really been moved. That goes for the craft and the frontal region. Using Alcubierre's original exotic

energy idea for the rear region there would be a real shift there

since the region would have less energy. More modernized ideas

involving harnessing inflation tend to get away from that.

 

External to the craft and it's field spacetime has not actually

undergone any physical change. The distance between here and Tau

Ceti, for example, is still some averaged out 12 light years. But

for the craft the distance is now say 1 light year. By travel time

the craft makes it there faster than it should in normal space. But

it did so via a shortcut path while never actually changing its

original velocity. What changed was distances or more exactly the

measuring rods. If the measuring rods are what has changed then in

essence Natario's whole argument falls apart because he always

maintains the measuring rods the same.

 

Natario was into math, not GR. He never actually had a grasp of

what a warp field was all about. As such his picture is wrong to

begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...