- Feb 25, 2016
- 11,539
- 2,726
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
True, if the profit is high enough then life suddenly becomes expendable.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
True, if the profit is high enough then life suddenly becomes expendable.Unless the companies backing those first few end up getting a payoff from the exploitation of resources that makes the gold shipped back to Europe from the New World look like pocket change, which is very possible.
Simpler in what specific way?I hope you read the first article I gave.
Because the situation you are describing would be unlikely in reality. There's a lot of misconceptions flying around FTL theories from outdated/misleading/incomplete info. Newer theories suggests the matter is much much simpler.
Warp drive in the Star Trek sense simply will not happen. It was and is a clumsy way to ignore relativity and travel faster than light speed.
There may be other ways. Those ways may be limited to specific places or may be general. We simply won't be able to even make decent guesses until we actually go into space in a serious way and try. I can guarantee some early trials will be fatal.
There are always individuals with suicidal tendencies who are willing to blindly go where nobody has gone before.
BTW
I have a feeling that the baby steps which we are fearfully willing to take in personal space exploration will keep us in our solar system for maybe the next thousand years or beyond. Especially if the first brave souls wind up getting spaghettified, or unceremoniously disintegrated in the initial process.
Spaghettification - Wikipedia
Spaghettification only occurs when you're near a point source of a very strong gravity field like a black hole.
If the ship takes advantage of "frame-dragging" to cruise at FTL speed, the dangerous tidal forces would only manifest outside the ship where space-time is "separating in layers" as a sea vessel produces a visible wake when traveling through the water. It would pose no danger to the ship itself....if the ship is sensibly designed with extremely minimalist shapes.
Inside the ship where everything is traveling at the same speed, the forces would be nil as would be predicted by General Relativity.
About Frame dragging:
General Relativistic Frame Dragging
Please explain how this makes FTL travel possible. Thanks!
Simpler in what specific way?
So as the ship increases in speed it increases in mass and when it reaches a certain mass it allows for faster than light velocity because of the great gravitational force that it produces. That is what the diagram is saying-correct?It's strange at first but apparently, recent discoveries in astronomy may suggest the speed of light isn't the same in all places in the Universe.
I hope this would help, I also included Relativistic mass to enhance the effect simply by first accelerating to near the speed of light:
View attachment 189658
So as the ship increases in speed it increases in mass and when it reaches a certain mass it allows for faster than light velocity because of the great gravitational force that it produces. That is what the diagram is saying-correct?
So the problem of warping seems to be easily solved by simply reaching a necessary speed. What percentage of light speed is needed for that hypothetical warping top occur and what propulsion energy is involved? I have continually read about the energy needed to reach certain velocities as being too high to be feasible. Correct?Yes because a moving object with strong gravitation can pull or drag its local space-time with it according to Frame-Dragging.
Remember the absolute speed limit of light only exists in the local space-time....If the local space time is moving fast enough, then the light within it traveling in the same direction would appear moving faster than light if seen by an observer outside of the moving space time.
It's not simply an illusion since the light or the ship traveling within it will reach its destination sooner than light traveling in stationary space-time.
The heavier the ship the better or....it could also be done by a massive fleet of ships flying in very tight formation most definitely piloted by AI.
So the problem of warping seems to be easily solved by simply reaching a necessary speed. What percentage of light speed is needed for that hypothetical warping top occur and what propulsion energy is involved? I have continually read about the energy needed to reach certain velocities as being too high to be feasible. Correct?Yes because a moving object with strong gravitation can pull or drag its local space-time with it according to Frame-Dragging.
Remember the absolute speed limit of light only exists in the local space-time....If the local space time is moving fast enough, then the light within it traveling in the same direction would appear moving faster than light if seen by an observer outside of the moving space time.
It's not simply an illusion since the light or the ship traveling within it will reach its destination sooner than light traveling in stationary space-time.
The heavier the ship the better or....it could also be done by a massive fleet of ships flying in very tight formation most definitely piloted by AI.
So the problem of warping seems to be easily solved by simply reaching a necessary speed. What percentage of light speed is needed for that hypothetical warping top occur and what propulsion energy is involved? I have continually read about the energy needed to reach certain velocities as being too high to be feasible. Correct?
BTW
How this got to be a double post is beyond me since I only clicked once.
If you are working with negative entropy, it is possible to achieve very high energy exchange rates using very little amount of fuel energy. It solves the problem of fulfilling the energy requirements of FTL speeds.
The % speed of light required for significant Frame Dragging depends on the mass/density of the ship. I haven't done the precise calculations yet but examples in nature clearly favor heavier/more massive objects. A heavier/more dense ship means you'll reach sufficient gravitational strength at a smaller fraction of the speed of light....Consequently, a heavier ship will also accelerate faster at FTL speeds using less energy-per-unit mass.
You don't necessarily have to build one massive ship. You can have a very large number of smaller ships flying in extremely close formation and it would produce the same effect.
This is all cutting edge science required. Negative entropy is only recently seriously considered in mainstream science. The concept also rules out any Newtonian-type propulsion system which is the main concern of the advanced propulsion system I'm working on.
Of course, if we are able to invent something that can generate strong artificial gravity without involving mass and speed, then we won't be needing a very large ship. The size wouldn't matter in such scenario.
So how does the decrease in entropy, or a tendency towards disorganization increase the speed of a ship? Where exactly is this entropy located relative to that speed? What exactly is undergoing lack of disorganization? The fuel? Isn't entropy or disorganization an inevitable part of the ship's propulsion system? Thanks for the explanation.
What is negative entropy?
Stationary relative to what?...the speed of light isn't the same in all places in the Universe at least from a stationary observer...
Stationary relative to what?
Good point since everything is indeed in motion.
Yes, I understand that motions are relative to other reference points. Yet there is nothing in the universe that can be described as truly stationary in the absolute sense of the word is there? Those reference points are themselves in motion. So of course we use the term stationary not in the literal sense but in a hypothetical sort of way as you just explained. The galaxy Andromeda seems to be approaching us as we remain stationary but from the vantage point of Andromeda we are approaching it as it remains stationary.It is meant to simplify solving problems related to velocities and relativity
Frame of reference - Wikipedia
Special relativity - Wikipedia
The Andromeda Galaxy is approaching the Milky Way at about 110 kilometres per second (68 mi/s).[95] It has been measured approaching relative to our Sun at around 300 kilometres per second (190 mi/s)[1] as the Sun orbits around the center of our galaxy at a speed of approximately 225 kilometres per second (140 mi/s). This makes the Andromeda Galaxy one of about 100 observable blueshifted galaxies.[96] Andromeda Galaxy's tangential or side-ways velocity with respect to the Milky Way is relatively much smaller than the approaching velocity and therefore it is expected to directly collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years.
Andromeda Galaxy - Wikipedia
Yes, I understand that motions are relative to other reference points. Yet there is nothing in the universe that can be described as truly stationary in the absolute sense of the word is there? Those reference points are themselves in motion. So of course we use the term stationary not in the literal sense but in a hypothetical sort of way as you just explained. The galaxy Andromeda seems to be approaching us as we remain stationary but from the vantage point of Andromeda we are approaching it as it remains stationary.
Which brings up the question concerning the warping of space and it's carrying a ship via expansion from behind and contraction from ahead. True, space itself isn't restricted by the 186,000 miles per second barrier and can thus expand at far greater velocities. So I find the description of this mode of travel as being traveling without moving non-applicable. Obviously there is movement involved and the movement is of space itself. After all, we don't call riding an ocean wave as travelling without moving-do we? The wave itself is obviously in motion and its carrying us along doesn't mean that we are stationary in relation to our surroundings. We are definitely in motion. Correct?Yup.
Simply speaking, "stationary" means you are not in motion against a specified frame of reference. That frame of reference could be your house or the street corner.
In reality, it's impossible to find an absolute zero motion reference.
Fortunately, Special or General or Maxwell Relativity can work off any frame of reference and have clearly defined boundaries on being stationary or moving against a specified frame of reference which makes things a little bit simpler.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?