| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Morpheal" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2008 10:52:30 PM |
| Object: |
Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspace
engine would necessarily produce apparent FTL. It is my contention
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required for hyperspace travel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
The basic hyperspace engine would consist of a "backreaction" field
generator which generates significantly larger "backreaction"
component as its product. That is then filtered to separate out the
"backreaction" component.
The hyperspace vessel itself would be a vessel with "backreaction"
field generators and filters located near the exterior of its shell.
The shell would also need to be surrounded by shielding, most probably
a contrary field internal to the "backreaction" field with remains
external to that shield. This is necessary due to the dangerous and
highly destructive effects of concentrated "backreaction" fields upon
the matter and intelligent systems (living or non living) that
comprise the vessel and its contents. If the shielding of the vessel
is sufficiently successful intelligence within the vessel, artificial
or human, would be safeguarded and would experience what is within the
shield in a normative frame of reference. Events within the shield
would occur in positive time, in a normative manner, as you are
normally experiencing it.
The vessel, as a whole, however, would be conveyed into hyperspace,
along the negative t axis. It would arrive at a position in 5D space-
time, in the past, along a virtual trajectory at a virtual
acceleration, which while in hyperspace movement would remain
unmeasurable, invisible, to observers outside the vessel, for instance
at the point of launch from our normative 4D frame of reference.
What is even more interesting is that the hyperspace vessel does not
have to move at a high velocity, ie. a real acceleration as real FTL,
ie. in the manner of a sublight particle accelerated at a velocity
greater than C. Hyperspace flight would be apparent FTL from a 4D
observer reference, not real FTL. The velocity of the hyperspace
vessel is only mathematically infinite, because it is non determinable
from that frame of reference.
It is a one way trip along the time line. A hyperspace vessel cannot
return along the time line, to a point in the future by means of the
hyperspace "backreaction" engine.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 26, 2008
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 04:24:23 PM |
|
|
Morpheal wrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspace
engine would necessarily produce apparent FTL. It is my contention
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required for hyperspace travel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
We cannot udnerstand you - your thumb is firmly wedged in your *****.
The basic hyperspace engine would consist of a "backreaction" field
generator which generates significantly larger "backreaction"
component as its product. That is then filtered to separate out the
"backreaction" component.
[snip crap]
You are an ignorant idiot.
Google
"Alcubierre drive" 5930 hits
It is a one way trip along the time line. A hyperspace vessel cannot
return along the time line, to a point in the future by means of the
hyperspace "backreaction" engine.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 26, 2008
Listen up, stooopid - all you need is a drive that goes back in time
as it goes forward in space. You can then travel to anywhere
instantly doing only 1 mph relative. A backpack will do it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
28 Jan 2008 08:53:28 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 5:24 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Morpheal wrote:
Listen up, stooopid - all you need is a drive that goes back in time
as it goes forward in space. You can then travel to anywhere
instantly doing only 1 mph relative. A backpack will do it.
That is not quite as ignorant as many tend to be.
I do not know if there is a way to measure the velocity of
"backreaction".
We refer to it as infinite. That is because it can appear relatively
instantaneous.
That is a bit faster, relatively, than 1MPH. However, note, it is NOT
necessarily real FTL.
There is a difference.
The barrier to a hyperspace engine, or "stardrive", sometimes called a
"warp drive" (foolishly), was the apparent necessity to accelerate
something (the ship) to a speed faster than C. Not at all practical
and in fact not really
effective. We see particles squashed in laboratories disappear,
reappear across the room, in what measures
relatively as zero elapsed time. We argue that it took them time to
travel so it must be negative time. Well, there
is no proof of negative time in that instance either. We really cannot
measure something that exceeds the relative
speed of all the measuring instruments. So we come to a wierd
conclusion (assuming something about t based on
beliefs about what happens when something is speeded up above C).
That isn't interdimensional travel. That's just a fast bit of stuff
thrown across the room faster then anything that we now have is able
to measure.
I am also not sure if anyone has measured the speed of "backreaction".
Not likely. It does appear, from an observer viewpoint, that it is
instantaneous relative to the observer's position in space-time, but
that does not confirm
a velocity in relation to C or a velocity in relation to the
observer.That is because it is confirmed to carry
quanta of information across the interdimensional threshold from 4D
(positive t) to 5D (negative t) and
is observable as the effects back into 4D (positive t) as causalities
in 4D cause-effect chains.
All that aside. Those of us who know, know that 5D space-time exists.
We know that "backreaction"
exists. Let me use a simplest analogy....
Long before the invention of the jet engine, it was possible to know
that a gust of air can be propelled strongly enough to move something
around, even if it might have been something trivial and small. It was
known that such gusts of "wind" emulating natural gusts of wind, could
be caused by mechanical devices. A simple fan can demonstrate that. It
is a significant leap, but a very logical one, from observation of
natural wind, to mechanical fan, to jet propulsion engine. It was the
taking of a simple effect and harnessing its power in an amplified and
purified form.
That is what is really most important.
The engine for crossing the interdimensional barrier between 4D and 5D
movement in space-time is much the same as that invention of a jet
engine. We have a natural effect, instances of its lesser artificial,
mostly accidental or coincidental creation by technologies meant to do
something else, and eventually that power filtered, amplified, and
utilized to propel a hyperspace ship across the interdimensional
barrier that "backreaction" naturally crosses all the time.
I don't see any fundamental proplems with this. It is simply a
question of developing the engineering and, in the manner of much of
engineering science, forgetting about the scientists who are stuck
with explaining what is engineered, after it has been invented ! So
the human species might get to the actual stars, not simply to their
ghost image from their distant past, long before science works out the
details as to how and why it all happened as it did.
Unfortunately it is MUCH bigger than a backpack. I just bought a
backpack to put my graphlex camera into. Now that is time travel of a
different sort. Few people use them nowadays. One of those old 1950s
style bellows large format press cameras, but wonderful for taking out
into the woods or wherever. Unfortunately, the backpack doesn't work
as a hyperspace engine, despite its ability to carry some of the
technological past within it.
Cheers.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 28th, 2008
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
28 Jan 2008 11:23:31 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan, 02:53, Morpheal <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:24 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Morpheal wrote:
Listen up, stooopid - all you need is a drive that goes back in time
as it goes forward in space. =A0You can then travel to anywhere
instantly doing only 1 mph relative. =A0A backpack will do it.
That is not quite as ignorant as many tend to be.
I do not know if there is a way to measure the velocity of
"backreaction".
We refer to it as infinite. That is because it can appear relatively
instantaneous.
That is a bit faster, relatively, than 1MPH. However, note, it is NOT
necessarily real FTL.
There is a difference.
The barrier to a hyperspace engine, or "stardrive", sometimes called a
"warp drive" (foolishly), was the apparent necessity to accelerate
something (the ship) to a speed faster than C. Not at all practical
and in fact not really
effective. We see particles squashed in laboratories disappear,
reappear across the room, in what measures
relatively as zero elapsed time. We argue that it took them time to
travel so it must be negative time. Well, there
is no proof of negative time in that instance either. We really cannot
measure something that exceeds the relative
speed of all the measuring instruments. So we come to a wierd
conclusion (assuming something about t based on
beliefs about what happens when something is speeded up above C).
That isn't interdimensional travel. That's just a fast bit of stuff
thrown across the room faster then anything that we now have =A0is able
to measure.
I am also not sure if anyone has measured the speed of "backreaction".
Not likely. It does appear, from an observer viewpoint, that it is
instantaneous relative to the observer's position in space-time, but
that does not confirm
a velocity in relation to C or a velocity in relation to the
observer.That is because it is confirmed to carry
quanta of information across the interdimensional threshold from 4D
(positive t) to 5D (negative t) and
is observable as the effects back into 4D (positive t) as causalities
in 4D cause-effect chains.
All that aside. Those of us who know, know that 5D space-time exists.
We know that "backreaction"
exists. Let me use a simplest analogy....
Long before the invention of the jet engine, it was possible to know
that a gust of air can be propelled strongly enough to move something
around, even if it might have been something trivial and small. It was
known that such gusts of "wind" emulating natural gusts of wind, could
be caused by mechanical devices. A simple fan can demonstrate that. It
is a significant leap, but a very logical one, from observation of
natural wind, to mechanical fan, to jet propulsion engine. It was the
taking of a simple effect and harnessing its power in an amplified and
purified form.
That is what is really most important.
The engine for crossing the interdimensional barrier between 4D and 5D
movement in space-time is much the same as that invention of a jet
engine. We have a natural effect, instances of its lesser artificial,
mostly accidental or coincidental creation by technologies meant to do
something else, and eventually that power filtered, amplified, and
utilized to propel a hyperspace ship across the interdimensional
barrier that "backreaction" naturally crosses all the time.
I don't see any fundamental proplems with this. It is simply a
question of developing the engineering and, in the manner of much of
engineering science, forgetting about the scientists who are stuck
with explaining what is engineered, after it has been invented ! =A0So
the human species might get to the actual stars, not simply to their
ghost image from their distant past, long before science works out the
details as to how and why it all happened as it did.
Unfortunately it is MUCH bigger than a backpack. I just bought a
backpack to put my graphlex camera into. Now that is time travel of a
different sort. Few people use them nowadays. One of those old 1950s
style bellows large format press cameras, but wonderful for taking out
into the woods or wherever. Unfortunately, the backpack doesn't work
as a hyperspace engine, despite its ability to carry some of the
technological past within it.
Cheers.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 28th, 2008
Yes, I understand it all now, your talking about the film "Back to the
Future". Wow Dude, that is one amasing film. I will go and look it
up.
Ahahahaha, Thanks dude...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
29 Jan 2008 09:22:15 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 12:23 am, wrote:
On 29 Jan, 02:53, Morpheal <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:24 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Morpheal wrote:
Listen up, stooopid - all you need is a drive that goes back in time
as it goes forward in space. You can then travel to anywhere
instantly doing only 1 mph relative. A backpack will do it.
That is not quite as ignorant as many tend to be.
I do not know if there is a way to measure the velocity of
"backreaction".
We refer to it as infinite. That is because it can appear relatively
instantaneous.
That is a bit faster, relatively, than 1MPH. However, note, it is NOT
necessarily real FTL.
There is a difference.
The barrier to ahyperspaceengine, or "stardrive", sometimes called a
"warp drive" (foolishly), was the apparent necessity to accelerate
something (the ship) to a speed faster than C. Not at all practical
and in fact not really
effective. We see particles squashed in laboratories disappear,
reappear across the room, in what measures
relatively as zero elapsed time. We argue that it took them time to
travel so it must be negative time. Well, there
is no proof of negative time in that instance either. We really cannot
measure something that exceeds the relative
speed of all the measuring instruments. So we come to a wierd
conclusion (assuming something about t based on
beliefs about what happens when something is speeded up above C).
That isn't interdimensional travel. That's just a fast bit of stuff
thrown across the room faster then anything that we now have is able
to measure.
I am also not sure if anyone has measured the speed of "backreaction".
Not likely. It does appear, from an observer viewpoint, that it is
instantaneous relative to the observer's position in space-time, but
that does not confirm
a velocity in relation to C or a velocity in relation to the
observer.That is because it is confirmed to carry
quanta of information across the interdimensional threshold from 4D
(positive t) to 5D (negative t) and
is observable as the effects back into 4D (positive t) as causalities
in 4D cause-effect chains.
All that aside. Those of us who know, know that 5D space-time exists.
We know that "backreaction"
exists. Let me use a simplest analogy....
Long before the invention of the jetengine, it was possible to know
that a gust of air can be propelled strongly enough to move something
around, even if it might have been something trivial and small. It was
known that such gusts of "wind" emulating natural gusts of wind, could
be caused by mechanical devices. A simple fan can demonstrate that. It
is a significant leap, but a very logical one, from observation of
natural wind, to mechanical fan, to jet propulsionengine. It was the
taking of a simple effect and harnessing its power in an amplified and
purified form.
That is what is really most important.
Theenginefor crossing the interdimensional barrier between 4D and 5D
movement in space-time is much the same as that invention of a jet
engine. We have a natural effect, instances of its lesser artificial,
mostly accidental or coincidental creation by technologies meant to do
something else, and eventually that power filtered, amplified, and
utilized to propel ahyperspaceship across the interdimensional
barrier that "backreaction" naturally crosses all the time.
I don't see any fundamental proplems with this. It is simply a
question of developing the engineering and, in the manner of much of
engineering science, forgetting about the scientists who are stuck
with explaining what is engineered, after it has been invented ! So
the human species might get to the actual stars, not simply to their
ghost image from their distant past, long before science works out the
details as to how and why it all happened as it did.
Unfortunately it is MUCH bigger than a backpack. I just bought a
backpack to put my graphlex camera into. Now that is time travel of a
different sort. Few people use them nowadays. One of those old 1950s
style bellows large format press cameras, but wonderful for taking out
into the woods or wherever. Unfortunately, the backpack doesn't work
as ahyperspaceengine, despite its ability to carry some of the
technological past within it.
Cheers.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 28th, 2008
Yes, I understand it all now, your talking about the film "Back to the
Future". Wow Dude, that is one amasing film. I will go and look it
up.
Ahahahaha, Thanks dude...
Well, you can't do that, so the film is quite funny. You cannot go
back to the future from the past. You can return to the dimension,
across the threshold, but you cannot return to the future from the
past. The future has gone ahead, and left you behind, under a massive
"burden of quantum histories" of which you, the time-space traveller
are now a part. (See my one page paper sent to Jack Sarfatti on
"Burden of Quantum Histories". I forget what year. A decade ago, at
least.
Why changes to history are severely limited even though time travel is
believed to be possible. There are no indications, whatsoever, in
Nature or anything technological that I know of, that would in any way
imply any possibility of travelling to the future, from the past, at a
rate faster than the normal flow of cause-effect events in the
universe as we know it.
Interesting though, that the probability of interdimensional
visitations, from non human intelligent beings, is somewhat larger
than I once thought. I always thought it was possible, but I am
increasingly convinced that it is more than likely that such
intrusions have occurred.
We might predict a Cerenkov type of radiation at the point of crossing
into 4D space-time, from 5D hyperspace-time travel. The vessel would
produce excitation at the point of re-entry and very shortly
thereafter. UFO's that produce that type of effect, and are not
identifiable as Earth originated technology, are the best candidates
for being actual alien intrusions, using interdimensional conveyance.
(Hard for most untrained observers to differentiate from other forms
of glow, such as airship skin glow due to air resistance, etc.
However, there are instances of now you don't see it, then you see a
variable intensity of faint to moderate glow, then you either don't
see it or it is seen more clearly. Those become more interesting
instances of UFO sighting due to their possible interdimensionality.)
Cheers.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton. Canada
January 29th, 2008
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
31 Jan 2008 01:33:18 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 3:22=A0am, Morpheal <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:23 am, wrote:
On 29 Jan, 02:53, Morpheal <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:24 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Morpheal wrote:
Listen up, stooopid - all you need is a drive that goes back in time=
as it goes forward in space. =A0You can then travel to anywhere
instantly doing only 1 mph relative. =A0A backpack will do it.
That is not quite as ignorant as many tend to be.
I do not know if there is a way to measure the velocity of
"backreaction".
We refer to it as infinite. That is because it can appear relatively
instantaneous.
That is a bit faster, relatively, than 1MPH. However, note, it is NOT
necessarily real FTL.
There is a difference.
The barrier to ahyperspaceengine, or "stardrive", sometimes called a
"warp drive" (foolishly), was the apparent necessity to accelerate
something (the ship) to a speed faster than C. Not at all practical
and in fact not really
effective. We see particles squashed in laboratories disappear,
reappear across the room, in what measures
relatively as zero elapsed time. We argue that it took them time to
travel so it must be negative time. Well, there
is no proof of negative time in that instance either. We really cannot=
measure something that exceeds the relative
speed of all the measuring instruments. So we come to a wierd
conclusion (assuming something about t based on
beliefs about what happens when something is speeded up above C).
That isn't interdimensional travel. That's just a fast bit of stuff
thrown across the room faster then anything that we now have =A0is abl=
e
to measure.
I am also not sure if anyone has measured the speed of "backreaction".=
Not likely. It does appear, from an observer viewpoint, that it is
instantaneous relative to the observer's position in space-time, but
that does not confirm
a velocity in relation to C or a velocity in relation to the
observer.That is because it is confirmed to carry
quanta of information across the interdimensional threshold from 4D
(positive t) to 5D (negative t) and
is observable as the effects back into 4D (positive t) as causalities
in 4D cause-effect chains.
All that aside. Those of us who know, know that 5D space-time exists.
We know that "backreaction"
exists. Let me use a simplest analogy....
Long before the invention of the jetengine, it was possible to know
that a gust of air can be propelled strongly enough to move something
around, even if it might have been something trivial and small. It was=
known that such gusts of "wind" emulating natural gusts of wind, could=
be caused by mechanical devices. A simple fan can demonstrate that. It=
is a significant leap, but a very logical one, from observation of
natural wind, to mechanical fan, to jet propulsionengine. It was the
taking of a simple effect and harnessing its power in an amplified and=
purified form.
That is what is really most important.
Theenginefor crossing the interdimensional barrier between 4D and 5D
movement in space-time is much the same as that invention of a jet
engine. We have a natural effect, instances of its lesser artificial,
mostly accidental or coincidental creation by technologies meant to do=
something else, and eventually that power filtered, amplified, and
utilized to propel ahyperspaceship across the interdimensional
barrier that "backreaction" naturally crosses all the time.
I don't see any fundamental proplems with this. It is simply a
question of developing the engineering and, in the manner of much of
engineering science, forgetting about the scientists who are stuck
with explaining what is engineered, after it has been invented ! =A0So=
the human species might get to the actual stars, not simply to their
ghost image from their distant past, long before science works out the=
details as to how and why it all happened as it did.
Unfortunately it is MUCH bigger than a backpack. I just bought a
backpack to put my graphlex camera into. Now that is time travel of a
different sort. Few people use them nowadays. One of those old 1950s
style bellows large format press cameras, but wonderful for taking out=
into the woods or wherever. Unfortunately, the backpack doesn't work
as ahyperspaceengine, despite its ability to carry some of the
technological past within it.
Cheers.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 28th, 2008
Yes, I understand it all now, your talking about the film "Back to the
Future". Wow Dude, that is one amasing film. I will go and look it
up.
Ahahahaha, Thanks dude...
Well, you can't do that, so the film is quite funny. You cannot go
back to the future from the past. You can return to the dimension,
across the threshold, but you cannot return to the future from the
past. The future has gone ahead, and left you behind, under a massive
"burden of quantum histories" of which you, the time-space traveller
are now a part. (See my one page paper sent to Jack Sarfatti on
"Burden of Quantum Histories". I forget what year. A decade ago, at
least.
Why changes to history are severely limited even though time travel is
believed to be possible. There are no indications, whatsoever, in
Nature or anything technological that I know of, that would in any way
imply any possibility of travelling to the future, from the past, at a
rate faster than the normal flow of cause-effect events in the
universe as we know it.
Interesting though, that the probability of interdimensional
visitations, from non human intelligent beings, is somewhat larger
than I once thought. I always thought it was possible, but I am
increasingly convinced that it is more than likely that such
intrusions have occurred.
We might predict a Cerenkov type of radiation at the point of crossing
into 4D space-time, from 5D hyperspace-time travel. The vessel =A0would
produce excitation at the point of re-entry and very shortly
thereafter. =A0UFO's that produce that type of effect, and are not
identifiable as Earth originated technology, are the best candidates
for being actual alien intrusions, using interdimensional conveyance.
(Hard for most untrained observers to differentiate from other forms
of glow, such as airship skin glow due to air resistance, etc.
However, there are instances of now you don't see it, then you see a
variable intensity of faint to moderate glow, then you either don't
see it or it is seen more clearly. Those become more interesting
instances of UFO sighting due to their possible interdimensionality.)
Cheers.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton. Canada
January 29th, 2008- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I rest my case, nothing further to add.
Ahahahaha bye dude.
All the best.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 06:21:14 PM |
|
|
dude merely confuses a phase-diagram
with a card-cheater's flipbook of "travelling
in time," backwards, forwards, diagonally, what ever;
tries to sell it for nothing on the web & gets his price,
plus an integral of two-centses!
"Alcubierre drive" 5930 hits
It is a one way trip along the time line. A hyperspace vessel cannot
Listen up, stooopid - all you need is a drive that goes back in time
as it goes forward in space. =A0You can then travel to anywhere
instantly doing only 1 mph relative. =A0A backpack will do it.
thus:
the voluntary market in CO2 credits began in the USA
on Feb.12, 2005, and is tens of billions in hedge-trading
per annum; the enforcer for the energy cartel's statistical
doctrine of Peak Oil ... along with Persian Gulf War Two?
See? Al Gore's carbon credit arbitrage is working! Get back to us
when Hell freezes over.
thus:
Uncle All has forgotten more N-words,
than you or I ever knewed, dood!...
"travel in time" is simply an oxymoron;
one *endures* any travels. since faster-than-light travel
produces time-travel, it's just as stupid. blame it all
on Minkowski's mislabeled phase-diagrams, or
on the British Psychological Research Society's
A.A.Skwared's Flatland Society 4D crappola ...
or on Schoedinger's poor, undead cat --
did you peek at her rotting corpsicle?
You mean, it worked? Kewl! How many state lotteries has Mallett won?
thus:
if redshift is due to the inergalactic medium
-- nevermind the term, aether --
then perhaps quasars simply have got an awful lot
of gas immediately outside of their lightsources.
However, reasonableness argues against the presence of supermassive
black holes in incipient galaxies, much less monsters containing 500
million solar masses: first you have to form dark gas giants, then
thus:
I so agree. most of the effects of cellphones
-- knowing of no structures in the body that could
act as antennae for RF --
are sociological, as in "being tethered
to the boss at all times with a GPS,
as any phone already is."
p.s., Same jerks who give you a dirty look when you look at them
believing that they are speaking to you.
thus:
you probably believe that "capitalism" is the same
as British liberal "free trade" a la Smith'n'Marx. anyway,
the supranational corporations have largely moved all
of industry out of here, a huge part of our rapidly-
declining CO2-bootprint ... "Daddy,
why is every thing made in China,
like my boots?"
in spite of the Cheeny Administration,
the USA is still the only truly republican system (NB:
I recently learned from a Castroite, that
Cuba uses a parliamentary system,
which is easily "no-confidenced" by the CEO,
as in Blair's Cool Brittania:
the PM is not the head of state, though !-)
Failure to do so will force the imposition of trade sanctions and oil
export embargo's on the KKKorrupt AmeriKKKan state.
thus:
possibly, the salesman's dollar/time problem has
yet to be asked in a fungible manner -- a-hem. now,
since the four-color mapping theorem has
historically been approached as the (dual) graphing,
owing to the old ink-minimization solution,
maybe that's what it really is related-to;
eh?
however i dont want to start a debate about perpetuum mobile since it's of=
f-topic.
thus:
of course, Strangelove was a composite, but
you have to get into the real spirit of the matter
-- starts with an S, has two syllables --
to settle upon Szilard. now, since I actually
only saw tiny fragments of Sagan's "Weaponeers"
series on PBS, long ago, this is really based
on an article-or-three from the Larouchiacs;
just don't assume that it's wrong, any more
than Sagan's idolizing take is not even wrong!
as for Teller, it is probably so in the minds
of the artistes who made the movie, just as
MacArthur is universally trashed re Korea,
in spite of the facts and, probably, because
he would never have allowed the nuking
of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, if he had been asked....
more things that only Larouchies seem
to have even heard about.
On Szilard? I think not. Szilard was
passionately against the idea of atomic weapons
from day one, and he cajoled Einstein
Dr. Strangelove is an amalgam
of individuals like Edward Teller,
Herman Kahn and maybe a few others -
all closely connected to RAND.
thus:
Androcles may be a lard-***** cyberjerk, but
the digest in Wired leaves so many simple questions out,
in reply to the assumedly-required infinities
of this finite Universe ideal,
you have to wonder. that is, even if
you believe in "black holes of the Standard Model."
Tipler puts everything into the heretofore visible part
of Universe, like Einstein, Bucky et al, and
the assumption that the redshift is Dopplerian,
a la the belief in a Big Bang cosmogeny. as well,
he assumes that the problem of decoherence
in quantum computing can ever be overcome; I mean,
lots of technical schemes & specs have been designed
for such QC, but has decoherence really ever been
fundamentally addressed (other than a big, fat,
"it's just impossible to do this"), or sooner?
Frank J. Tipler, "From 2100 to the End of Time," Wired.
http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-from-2100-to-the-end-of-time....
964.http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf
DeWitt, among others. But because
these physicists were looking
for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e.,
derivatives no higher than second order),
they abandoned this qualitatively unique
quantum gravity theory since in order for it
to be consistent, it requires an arbitrarily
higher number of terms. Further,
they didn't realize that
this proper theory of quantum gravity is
thus:
origami is the n'est-plus ultra
of numbertheory, using the Pierpont primes....
you only have to know how to make paper,
or pay for it.
thus:
so, it may be simple to see that
the productivity of Fermat was not only due
to his establishing numbertheorie as a science,
but to some fundamental method. I'm sure,
Wiles's collegiate advisors, at least, would
have made this deduction, by the time
that he started on his "secret basement lab,"
in the mid-seventies, since the historiography would
have been available to them. to be really cynical,
let's say, they were the ones
to promote "le derniere theorem" misdirection. or,
was it *derriere* ??
thus:
the operating system of chess,
is the systematization of all
of the possible games that can end in a draw, or
just those that have been recorded
in games between grandmasters?...
plus, games where the first player
gets one or n extra moves, such that
he'll almost always win?...
fine, at least, it seems somewhat testable; now,
put it into a shakespearean play (that is
to say, English!)
personally, I'd guess that
any "2D" analysis is doomed to failure,
not including time as a dimension -- bogus,
undeadminkowsispeak!
thus:
anyway, it seemed that the OP did not quite
"get" _Laws of Form_, itself, before diving
into the alleged 4CT proof. well,
in the very beginning, there's a reference
to an endnote that clearly shows the relation
to first-order boolean logic and,
since that is really the same as arithmetic,
you should be able to configure it.
thus:
erratum: the Swedish Bank Prize
for Economics is not a Nobel Prize, as
you might discern from the roster
of freaks of british liberal free trade and
Chicago U. alumni, like Milton Friedman,
author of Schulz's and Sir Henry
of Kiss.*****.'s Chile experiment. so,
some bankers really are Jewish!
as for Al's Nobel,
he should really have gotten it for acting,
like a shill for Occidental Petroleum,
which made his (and Al, Sr.'s) carreer.... oh, wait;
he'd already gotten that!
No they aren't. They are selected
by the Swedish Academy of Science, and the
Norwegian Parliament. The claim that these are 60% Jewish
thus:
I looked, again, at monsieur H's "effect" page, and
was rather nonplussed by the jabber
about zero-point energy, casamir effect etc. any way,
"effects happen," whether or not H. can explain them,
which he seems unable to do, or was that you?...
what ever experimental results he has,
they hardly disprove the effect
of a 757-model missile; do they?
thus:
can you give a precis of those pages, like,
in words?... as for the idea of a missile,
whether or not carrying a 3d movie, isn't that
what a 757 diving at 500mph, full of fuel, is?... I mean,
movies are *extra*, nowadays....
why is any more energy needed for an uncontrolled demo,
since it would take much less
for a correspodingly controlled job
a la Prez Trickier *****?
My current working-hypothesis is that a missile,
carrying a hologramme crashed into the tower.
I am now sure that *no* 767 jumbo crashed into any tower.
thus:
not sure about the whole chronology, but
Nahin said that the n=3D3 proof was never found,
as typical a la Fermat, but, then, blandly assumes that
it was a different proof from the *mirabile dictu* one
from the margin -- that's silly; eh?... now,
F. put the whole "infinite decent" proof
for n=3D4 in the blank endpapers of his _Bachet's
Diophantus_, then presumably issued the challenge
for n=3D3. a long time, later,
Sophie Germaine proved the conjecture
for all prime exponents of the form, 2p - 1,
where p is also prime, pretty much ending (or,
at least, bookending) any case-by-case proofs
for further n.
without being paid-off by Oscar and Noby, c) ... so,
what was the reason for them?
--***** Cheeny, National Treasure:
Run, Trickier ***** -- Run for Indy superVeep!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
02 Feb 2008 10:25:40 AM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 7:21 pm, Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
<Qnc...@netscape.net> wrote:
dude merely confuses a phase-diagram
with a card-cheater's flipbook of "travelling
in time," backwards, forwards, diagonally, what ever;
tries to sell it for nothing on the web & gets his price,
plus an integral of two-centses!
.........snip..............
without being paid-off by Oscar and Noby, c) ... so,
what was the reason for them?
--***** Cheeny, National Treasure:
Run, Trickier ***** -- Run for Indy superVeep!
Well, you like mathematics, so you do have to keep in mind
first that the equation to calculate relative acceleration and
velocity in hyperspace travel
would necessarily have to show the relation between travel along the
negative t axis
related to the universe moving at C.
So, in effect you are not actually standing still watching the whole
universe go by at approximately C.
You actually travel faster than that. There is a relation between -t
and C and the acceleration or velocity in 5D space-time, that needs to
be defined.
(Of course the use of infinity to indicate non calculable acceleration
and velocity in relation to C simply fails
to define the actual value relative to the frame of reference that is
applicable to the hyperspace vessel while
it is on its journey.)
I am not a mathematician, by any stretch of the imagination. So you
guyes, who are mathematicians, do the math.
That's it.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
February 2, 2008
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
29 Jan 2008 06:17:01 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 7:21 pm, Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
<Qnc...@netscape.net> wrote:
dude merely confuses a phase-diagram
with a card-cheater's flipbook of "travelling
in time," backwards, forwards, diagonally, what ever;
tries to sell it for nothing on the web & gets his price,
plus an integral of two-centses!
Unfortunately for you there are those of us who _know_ that what Jack
Sarfatti termed "backreaction" exists.
Also check out University of Waterloo, Cosmology group, headed by a
Canadian astrophysicist, on 5D space-time.
(I don't have the details at hand, but I am sure that you can find it.
The concept was offered up, in discussion, to any who could do the
mathematiics, and they strived towards that goal of using mathematical
language to describe that.) I could say something more, but I hate
being redundant about it.
Now, there is another catch to the whole thing. I was thinking about
it today and I was trying to come to grips with the troubling problem
of what that type of interdimensional travel would involve. It is that
speed of light, acceleration, and velocity problem that gets us into
trouble. So I stopped. There I had it.
There is another possibility as to what can be done when crossing the
interdimensional threshold from 4D to 5D.
Don't accelerate.
Find a way to stand perfectly still relative to the frame of reference
that you were in when you were in 4D space-time.
Now the universe is going past you at around 300,000 Km per second.
18,000,000 Km per minute.
1,080,000,000 Km per hour.
24,080,000,000 Km per day.
At that velocity how many days do you really need to travel. I mean
how long do you have to stand still ?
That is not what takes you back along the negative t axis. That is
also happening.
That is only RELATIVE to your original 4D frame of reference in the
Einsteinian world you came from.
No, you are not travelling faster than light.
We don't know, for certain, if that can be done, upon crossing the
interdimensional threshold.
However, it is a possibility that it can be done.
The nearest star is about 4.83 light years from Earth.
Standing still, you get there faster.
That is before you have to deal with the problems involving negative
t.
Cheers.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 29th, 2008
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
26 Jan 2008 11:33:12 PM |
|
|
Morpheal wrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspace
engine would necessarily produce apparent FTL. It is my contention
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required for hyperspace travel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
What is hyperspace?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 02:36:57 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 12:33 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Morphealwrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspace
engine would necessarily produce apparent FTL. It is my contention
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required for hyperspace travel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
What is hyperspace?
The use of the term is the same as the normative usage. The jump into
hyperspace is the transition from travel in 4D space-time, to
interdimensional travel in 5D space-time. The frame of reference
changes so it isn't "space" but rather "hyperspace". The normative
usage suffices. We really don't need another term for it.
The problem that was perplexing me for a long time, was the assumption
that so many want to push as the right viewpoint, that
interdimensional travel requires that it be faster than the speed of
light (some velocity greater than C). The hyperspace jump was always
believed, by many physicists and sci fi writers, to be something that
happens when the speed of light is exceeded. That assumption needs to
be put aside as essentially false.
It is purely a false assumption that something that jumps into
hyperspace must move at real FTL velocities to do so.
The apparent FTL velocity is merely an optical illusion. The
interdimensional ship disappears when it makes the jump, ie. turns on
its "backreaction" field generators.
Say goodbye to the FTL Star Trek style warp engines. That was a really
warped concept. Not possible and not practical.
However, interdimensional ships, jumping into what is sometimes
referred to as "hyperspace", are possible and will be built in the not
too distant future.
Keep in mind that I said that there is only one dimensional threshold
to be crossed. That is from 4D travel to 5D travel within 5D space-
time. This introduces the universe of the negative t axis added into
the Einsteinian 4 dimensional universe. (Call it the true aether, if
you want to. Wink.)
The multiplicity of what have been theorized as being "reflection
spaces" then results from branching causalities, producing "many
worlds, which is irreducible dimension 6.
Dimension 7 is probability. The dimension that allows for free will,
by the ideal coin toss effect resulting from a cause who's effect is
not predictable as being either the "heads" or the "tails" response
from what is affected. There is a real uncertainty at work then,
rather than an apparent uncertainty. Apparent uncertainties result
from hidden causes, or causes that defy accurate prediction
(calculation) due to their complexity. Real uncertainty is when there
is no determinism for at least two possible effects from one cause -
effect relationship. Very necessary to the way things are, and
necessary for the evolution of intelligence. It couldn't happen any
other way. But it has to begin at the fundamental structure of matter,
ie. at the "quantum level" of the fundamental building blocks of
everything.
7 irreducible dimensions is all there is. Not one more and not one
less. Every other instance is derivative or reducible to those 7.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 27th, 2008
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 08:55:50 PM |
|
|
Morpheal wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:33 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Morphealwrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspace
engine would necessarily produce apparent FTL. It is my contention
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required for hyperspace travel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
What is hyperspace?
The use of the term is the same as the normative usage. The jump into
hyperspace is the transition from travel in 4D space-time, to
interdimensional travel in 5D space-time. The frame of reference
changes so it isn't "space" but rather "hyperspace". The normative
usage suffices. We really don't need another term for it.
Science fiction stuff? There exists no evidence for more then
three spatial dimensions. Cite otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Cartwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 09:56:27 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science fiction stuff? There exists no evidence for more then
three spatial dimensions. Cite otherwise.
The Illusion of Gravity. John Maldacena; Scientific American, vol. 293
no. 5 (November 2005).
String theory AdS/CFT correspondence involving a five-dimensional
anti-deSitter space was used to predict a lower viscosity for
quark-gluon plasma than conventional QCD. Subsequently, such a low
viscosity was observed at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.
Not that it stops at five dimensions.
String theory requires at least nine spatial dimensions. The dualities
of the five major branches of supersymmetric string theories imply a
tenth in so-called M-theory. Non-supersymmetric string theory requires
another 15.
The weirdest thing is that in yet another sense, the holographic AdS/CFT
correspondence suggests that the universe with all of these dimensions
might ultimately be the phase space of some dynamic occurring on some
two-dimensional surface.
Extra dimensions or one fewer, take your pick. :)
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Cartwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 09:47:30 PM |
|
|
Morpheal wrote:
The use of the term is the same as the normative usage. The jump into
hyperspace is the transition from travel in 4D space-time, to
interdimensional travel in 5D space-time.
How fun. Your innards exposed to hard vacuum through and through, since
you're paper-thin in that extra spatial direction.
Or is it an extra temporal direction? Then you can have your own instant
heat-death as thermodynamics either grinds to an instant halt or goes
completely haywire.
[snip]
7 irreducible dimensions is all there is. Not one more and not one
less. Every other instance is derivative or reducible to those 7.
You're missing four. And fortunately our innards are stuck in this 3+1
brane like flies in amber and won't explode out into any of the other 7.
(Eh -- an extra timelike dimension might not be so lethal if it's
*curled up* and has a sufficiently tiny duration, Planck-size. In fact,
it might just cause a little quantum uncertainty and Bell Inequality
violation without any real harm being done...)
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
29 Jan 2008 09:04:11 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 10:47 pm, Phil Cartwright <pca...@nospam.phony.com> wrote:
Morpheal wrote:
The use of the term is the same as the normative usage. The jump into
hyperspaceis the transition from travel in 4D space-time, to
interdimensional travel in 5D space-time.
How fun. Your innards exposed to hard vacuum through and through, since
you're paper-thin in that extra spatial direction.
Or is it an extra temporal direction? Then you can have your own instant
heat-death as thermodynamics either grinds to an instant halt or goes
completely haywire.
[snip]
7 irreducible dimensions is all there is. Not one more and not one
less. Every other instance is derivative or reducible to those 7.
You're missing four. And fortunately our innards are stuck in this 3+1
brane like flies in amber and won't explode out into any of the other 7.
(Eh -- an extra timelike dimension might not be so lethal if it's
*curled up* and has a sufficiently tiny duration, Planck-size. In fact,
it might just cause a little quantum uncertainty and Bell Inequality
violation without any real harm being done...)
It is quite a bit worse than that.
As with many things, a little "backreaction" is natural and provides
for much of the genuinely anomalous in
all things. Some more "backreaction" causes disruption of biological
clocks and other such things, and can make a mess with what I would
refer to as being "the natural timecode" in the brains of living
things. As I noted in the mid 1990s, in conjunction with discussions
that involved Jack Sarfatti on sci.physics a certain threshold level
of "backreaction" can cause a rewind and replay type of phenomenon
where the same mistake that was made before is likely to be repeated
exactly the same way again. Not so good. While a very trained and
careful higher intelligence can avoid the trap others can easily fall
into it.
That is relatively little "backreaction". More "backreaction",
filtered and amplified, and you get larger and larger transfer of
information across the interdimensional threshold. Matter, as we
experience it, is inherently information. If you have a powerful
enough mode of conveyance you can convey any pattern of information.
The time-space ship, our "hyperspace" ship is information. A strong
enough "backreaction" can convey it across the interdimensional
threshold.
It's not so very strange to find things such as that in Nature.
You take the nuclear reaction of isotopes.
That is a long way from building a nuclear bomb.
However, the basis of the bomb exists in nature.
You purify. You find a way to amplify the effect. You find a way to
control the effect. Kaboom.
From something miniscule, peculiar or exceptional, and relatively rare
you get nuclear power.
"Backreaction" is also that type of thing.
It explains a lot of anomalies in Nature. Events that happen
naturally, due to small amounts of "backreaction" comprising the
structure and function of everything, including ourselves. That little
miniscule bit, leads us to more severe anomalies where anomalous
effects are more concentrated. That takes us to the potential
practical utilization of the same effect as a means for something much
more significant - its technical use as a hyperspace engine.
Cheers.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 29th, 2008
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 05:01:32 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:33:12 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <sIUmj.3459$yE1.1886@attbi_s21>:
Morpheal wrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspace
engine would necessarily produce apparent FTL. It is my contention
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required for hyperspace travel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
What is hyperspace?
Mostly [the space] between the ears.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 05:18:03 AM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 5:01 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:33:12 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <sIUmj.3459$yE1.1886@attbi_s21>:
Morpheal wrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspace
engine would necessarily produce apparent FTL. It is my contention
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required for hyperspace travel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
What is hyperspace?
Mostly [the space] between the ears.
It's a lot of hype.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 05:36:53 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jan, 11:18, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:01 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:33:12 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <sIUmj.3459$yE1.1886@attbi_s21>:
Morpheal wrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspac=
e
engine would necessarily produce apparent FTL. =A0It is my contention=
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required for hyperspace travel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
=A0 What is hyperspace?
Mostly [the space] between the ears.
It's a lot of hype.
IMHO
If we assume our universe is a subset of a larger universe. Our
universe appearing as a black hole in the other universe. Hyperspace
is the outer space where gravitons are expelled. To fall outside our
space-time continuim we must generate power densities approaching the
power output of a black hole or quantium singularity. It will require
energy output of at least 500 million solar masses. When we collapse
spacetime into a singularity, it will become a black hole and will be
able to leave this space-time and orbit our universe inside
hyperspace. The calculations involved are two black hole intereacting
with each other. This has been observer laterly with one black hole
cutting the disc around the other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
28 Jan 2008 08:27:48 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 6:36 am, wrote:
On 27 Jan, 11:18, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:01 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:33:12 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <sIUmj.3459$yE1.1886@attbi_s21>:
Morpheal wrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, thehyperspace
enginewould necessarily produce apparent FTL. It is my contention
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required forhyperspacetravel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
What ishyperspace?
Mostly [the space] between the ears.
It's a lot of hype.
IMHO
If we assume our universe is a subset of a larger universe. Our
universe appearing as a black hole in the other universe.Hyperspace
is the outer space where gravitons are expelled. To fall outside our
space-time continuim we must generate power densities approaching the
power output of a black hole or quantium singularity. It will require
energy output of at least 500 million solar masses. When we collapse
spacetime into a singularity, it will become a black hole and will be
able to leave this space-time and orbit our universe insidehyperspace. The calculations involved are two black hole intereacting
with each other. This has been observer laterly with one black hole
cutting the disc around the other.
No.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 02:39:31 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 6:18 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:01 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:33:12 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <sIUmj.3459$yE1.1886@attbi_s21>:
Morphealwrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspace
engine would necessarily produce apparent FTL. It is my contention
that real FTL acceleration is _not_ required for hyperspace travel.
This removes the most significant barrier.
What is hyperspace?
Mostly [the space] between the ears.
It's a lot of hype.
There is only one door and one key, to get free of this dangerously
imperiled and time limited rock in the far reaches of the universe. It
becomes imperative for an intelligent species to strive to find that
door and to open it.
That is the purpose of humanity.
It is my hope that they will not fail.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 27th, 2008
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
26 Jan 2008 11:24:39 PM |
|
|
On Jan 26, 11:52 pm, Morpheal <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Following what I said concerning real and apparent FTL, the hyperspace
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,snip...............
It is a one way trip along the time line. A hyperspace vessel cannot
return along the time line, to a point in the future by means of the
hyperspace "backreaction" engine.
For anyone who didn't catch it, I was saying that a clock that is
inside the shield of the hyperspace vessel would continue to function
in the normal manner. Anything happening inside would continue to be
measurable in the normal manner relative to the frame of reference of
the observer inside the hyperspace vessel.
The behaviour of the ship itself, from an outside observer's frame of
reference would likely be something similar to this.
The vessel is seen in some stationary position, at rest. It's
conventional means of propulsion are initiated and it begins to
accelerate to some reasonable velocity in relation to the external
observer. Nothing unusual is happening. It appears to be any ordinary
air ship, or space ship, even if of a different design. The
conventional engine is then turned off and what appears to be a moment
later the ship is gone. It is no longer visible to the external
observer. It has simply disappeared. (From then on the invisible wake
of the ship's hyperspace field, which was turned on the moment it
disappeared from view and continued its journey in hyperspace, would
have some strange effects at some significant distances from where the
ship appeared to disappear suddenly and completely. The effects would
be exactly the same as when a stronger than normal "backreaction"
occurs in nature or is anomalously produced by some other means. The
design of the hyperspace engine derives from that type of evidence of
"backreaction" effects from other sources.)
It is probable that the final destination of the hyperspace ship is
decided by the vectoring that results from conventional propulsion,
plus the variations in the strength of the hyperspace field generated
around the vessel. A stronger field on one side, compared to the other
sides, would likely assist in determining where the ship is headed in
hyperspace. (No need to find a wormhole pre-existing between two
points in space-time and slide down it. That's not how we are
travelling.)
Navigation might eventually be possible by means of a quantum computer
modeling 5D spacetime in some manner similar to a 5D holograph. This
is imaginable, even if it is far beyond our immediate capabilities
even with the most advanced computing hardware. Eventually it might be
possible to map hyperspace and to actually plot a course, using field
strengths to steer it, to get to a specific planned destination.
Clearly the first hyperspace ships would be pure accidents as to where
they chanced to end up. That new frontier would be as uncharted as the
ancient seas and continents before exploration, charting and map
making made them more predictably navigable.
The main point to remember is that speed is not of the essence. Light
can have its racetrack. The hyperspace ship does not have to run on
that road and break that speed limit. Humans are a little bit fixated
and obsessed with breaking speed records, going faster and faster,
using more powerful explosions, rocket motors, gravitational slingshot
effects, and anything else that causes a louder boom or a faster
acceleration. The captain of that hyperspace vessel can laugh at all
of that archaic foolishness and set sail on the hyperspace sea,
learning to chart its more challenging "waters of the deep". The
captain might easily be an artificial intelligence, more suited to
long distance hyperspace travel, and a little less needful of as
thorough a shielding from the "backreaction" effects of an intense
hyperspace field. We can adust for abnormalities of the clock as long
as the fields are not too intense.
Then again, that captain has a remarkable weapon, if need be. The
hyperspace field can also act as a disrupter, disrupting the structure
and function of non living and living things, should they pose any
threat. Focus the field on the threat and it won't be very threatening
any more ! Nice to have an engine that is also a very powerful
weapon if you are out in the big bad universe. Judging by the more
interesting UFO sightings, that cannot be explained by recourse to any
known Earth technologies, where alien looking ships appear, move at
relatively normative velocities, then disappear suddenly (most likely
into hyperspace), it is a big bad universe. They are out there. They
have been out there since human time began, and they don't seem all
that friendly.
The most important thing is that we cease to be chained to this rock,
and our first hyperspace ship, The Prometheus, breaks free of the
chains of 4D relativity, and disappears from the view of its skeptic
observers, who remain wading in the sheep ***** that made them skeptics
in the first place.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 26, 2008
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
27 Jan 2008 09:58:33 PM |
|
|
Morpheal <morpheal@yahoo.com> wrote in news:09df7d9e-32cb-4e91-9839-
fd8b70dc0d3a@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
The most important thing is that we cease to be chained to this rock,
and our first hyperspace ship, The Prometheus, breaks free of the
chains of 4D relativity, and disappears from the view of its skeptic
observers, who remain wading in the sheep ***** that made them skeptics
in the first place.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 26, 2008
So, how do I build your 'Reverse Field' generator?
I have built many EM field generators, so, if you provide a schematic, I
can probably build it.
I am all for getting the human race 'out of the cradle'. As best I figure
it, we have maybe 50 years or so as a 'window of opportunity' before we use
up so much of the fossil solar energy that we were gifted with, that we
will be unable to crawl out.
If we don't crawl out, our decedents will curse our stupidity as they till
their subsistence farms until the next dinosaur killer comes along.
So, tell us something useful that will get us moving to the stars.
Don't hang a plastic carrot from a stick in front of us. It must be real.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
28 Jan 2008 01:15:29 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jan, 03:58, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
Morpheal <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:09df7d9e-32cb-4e91-9839-
fd8b70dc0...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
The most important thing is that we cease to be chained to this rock,
and our first hyperspace ship, The Prometheus, breaks free of the
chains of 4D relativity, and disappears from the view of its skeptic
observers, who remain wading in the sheep ***** that made them skeptics
in the first place.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 26, 2008
So, how do I build your 'Reverse Field' generator?
I have built many EM field generators, so, if you provide a schematic, I
can probably build it.
I am all for getting the human race 'out of the cradle'. As best I figure
it, we have maybe 50 years or so as a 'window of opportunity' before we us=
e
up so much of the fossil solar energy that we were gifted with, that we
will be unable to crawl out.
If we don't crawl out, our decedents will curse our stupidity as they till=
their subsistence farms until the next dinosaur killer comes along.
So, tell us something useful that will get us moving to the stars.
Don't hang a plastic carrot from a stick in front of us. It must be real.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an=
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu =A0 remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Bz is right Morphreal, don't be shy now. Please don't spear our
feelings, we can take it. But if you cannot put it in plain english,
then try some serious maths or even a picture or two.
We need something to go on here....? and no funny staff mind you.
There some pretty smart people here and they know how deploy some very
colourful language.
F.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Design for a Hyperspace Engine |
29 Jan 2008 09:04:50 PM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 2:15 am, wrote:
On 28 Jan, 03:58, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
Morpheal <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:09df7d9e-32cb-4e91-9839-
fd8b70dc0...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
The most important thing is that we cease to be chained to this rock,
and our firsthyperspaceship, The Prometheus, breaks free of the
chains of 4D relativity, and disappears from the view of its skeptic
observers, who remain wading in the sheep ***** that made them skeptics
in the first place.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 26, 2008
So, how do I build your 'Reverse Field' generator?
I have built many EM field generators, so, if you provide a schematic, I
can probably build it.
I am all for getting the human race 'out of the cradle'. As best I figure
it, we have maybe 50 years or so as a 'window of opportunity' before we use
up so much of the fossil solar energy that we were gifted with, that we
will be unable to crawl out.
If we don't crawl out, our decedents will curse our stupidity as they till
their subsistence farms until the next dinosaur killer comes along.
So, tell us something useful that will get us moving to the stars.
Don't hang a plastic carrot from a stick in front of us. It must be real.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Bz is right Morphreal, don't be shy now. Please don't spear our
feelings, we can take it. But if you cannot put it in plain english,
then try some serious maths or even a picture or two.
We need something to go on here....? and no funny staff mind you.
There some pretty smart people here and they know how deploy some very
colourful language.
F.
See my previous response on that, written today, January 29th.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
