| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2004 03:16:34 AM |
| Object: |
We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast
www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm
.
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
21 Jun 2004 08:18:39 AM |
|
|
<matricola555@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:b7eea6dc.0406210016.53b52a31@posting.google.com...
www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast
www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm
But you can't call it that, even if you get it to work. Paramount will sue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
21 Jun 2004 09:41:06 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
But you can't call it that, even if you get it to work. Paramount will
sue.
I would wonder about this. Did they trademark the term 'warp drive'? I am
sure I have heard it used in other stories without any apparent legal
problems. Was there not a 'warp drive' postulated that involved the
generation of a gravity well in front of the ship, for a 'carrot and
stick' approach?
Of course, this question might well be a little premature since we would
have to be convinced that anyone was anywhere near breaking the light
barrier - and I am sure the first announcement of something so momentous
would not appear on Usenet...
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jaxtraw" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
21 Jun 2004 11:16:32 AM |
|
|
"Midjis" < @ . > wrote in message
news:Xns950F9FAA8BADLibriumLibertasEst@217.32.252.50...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
But you can't call it that, even if you get it to work. Paramount will
sue.
I would wonder about this. Did they trademark the term 'warp drive'? I
am
sure I have heard it used in other stories without any apparent legal
problems. Was there not a 'warp drive' postulated that involved the
generation of a gravity well in front of the ship, for a 'carrot and
stick' approach?
It's an interesting question of whether science-fiction can trademark the
future, especially if the trademarked term were a natural description of the
device. As far as "Warp Drive" goes, it's a contraction of "Time Warp Drive"
(in the pilot, they talk of "time warp factor 4" or whatever), but it's come
to mean a drive which warps space or spacetime. I think there were sci-fi
creators using the term "time warp" well before Star Trek, tho I must admit
I have no references to prove this :)
More relevant to reality perhaps might be the term "space elevator". It's a
term which is both fundamentally descriptive of function (as opposed to say,
"liftomatic" :) but it's also kind of snappy and I wouldn't be that
surprised if somebody wanted to grab the rights to it- "Ride to the edge of
space with SPACE ELEVATOR- the first and still the best!" kind of thing :)
Back to Trek, that series' terminology has uniquely gained a foothold in the
english language- Warp Drive, Transporter Beam, Phaser, Tractor Beam, Photon
Torpedo and so on. Maybe the terms (except Phaser and Photon Torpedo) are
too generic to be trademarked. I hope that's the case. If there ever is a
relativistic FTL drive, it really deserves to be called a Warp Drive :)
Ian
--
____________________
A quality online comic strip for the discerning reader.
With shagging in it.
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Tilque" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
23 Jun 2004 03:12:19 PM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
But you can't call it that, even if you get it to work.
Paramount will sue.
I would wonder about this. Did they trademark the term 'warp
drive'? I am sure I have heard it used in other stories
without any apparent legal problems. Was there not a 'warp
drive' postulated that involved the generation of a gravity
well in front of the ship, for a 'carrot and stick' approach?
The earliest cite for 'warp drive' at the OED Science Fiction
Citations page (
http://www.jessesword.com/SF/sf_citations.shtml ) is 1951.
There's also a cite from 1958. So Star Trek didn't originate the
term. Furthermore, the phrase 'warp drive' has been trademarked
14 times, 3 of them still live (do your own search at the Patent
and Trademark Office http://www.uspto.gov/ ). I haven't checked
all of them, but none of the live ones are by Paramount. I'd say
Paramount would have a hard time enforcing such a trademark.
--
Dan Tilque
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vonroach" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
22 Jun 2004 08:26:29 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:41:06 +0000 (UTC), Midjis < @ . > wrote:
Of course, this question might well be a little premature since we would
have to be convinced that anyone was anywhere near breaking the light
barrier - and I am sure the first announcement of something so momentous
would not appear on Usenet...
Midjis
A tad more than `breaking a barrier', I would say. More like escaping
reality into some personal fantasy realm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Lurndal" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
25 Jun 2004 01:50:24 PM |
|
|
vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net> writes:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:41:06 +0000 (UTC), Midjis < @ . > wrote:
Of course, this question might well be a little premature since we would
have to be convinced that anyone was anywhere near breaking the light
barrier - and I am sure the first announcement of something so momentous
would not appear on Usenet...
Midjis
A tad more than `breaking a barrier', I would say. More like escaping
reality into some personal fantasy realm.
What makes you think a "warp" drive would accelerate one to a velocity
that exceeds that of light? A true "warp" drive will "warp" spacetime such
that your desired source and destination points are colocated.
scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
22 Jun 2004 11:02:25 AM |
|
|
vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote:
A tad more than `breaking a barrier', I would say. More like escaping
reality into some personal fantasy realm.
Given current understanding of physics, exceeding the speed of light is
thought to be impossible. This may well be the case. However, I see no
reason to discard the possibility entirely as future discoveries may change
our understanding of the universe. Of course, they may not. We simply do
not know.
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
22 Jun 2004 12:22:17 PM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
Given current understanding of physics, exceeding the speed of light is
thought to be impossible. This may well be the case. However, I see no
reason to discard the possibility entirely as future discoveries may change
our understanding of the universe. Of course, they may not. We simply do
not know.
Especially since we would have to throw e=mc^2 out the window first... Unless
you plan on exploding the whole universe and feeding it into the gas tank.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
23 Jun 2004 12:02:25 AM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote:
Especially since we would have to throw e=mc^2 out the window first...
Unless you plan on exploding the whole universe and feeding it into
the gas tank.
As I said, I am not a physicist, so I am not planning on exploding anything
or throwing anything out of the window.
I am simply aware that from time to time people discover things that make
us stop and reassess what we thought we knew - even those things that
seemed like unassailable fact beforehand.
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
23 Jun 2004 05:03:11 AM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
As I said, I am not a physicist, so I am not planning on exploding anything
or throwing anything out of the window.
I am simply aware that from time to time people discover things that make
us stop and reassess what we thought we knew - even those things that
seemed like unassailable fact beforehand.
And from time to time trolls and cranks post crap in here which isn't related to
physics any more than tomatoes are related to potatoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
23 Jun 2004 09:11:52 AM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote:
I am simply aware that from time to time people discover things that
make us stop and reassess what we thought we knew - even those things
that seemed like unassailable fact beforehand.
And from time to time trolls and cranks post crap in here which isn't
related to physics any more than tomatoes are related to potatoes.
Please yourself. If you prefer to believe that we know all we will ever
know and that nothing will ever change then that is up to you. Personally,
all I would claim about FTL travel is that I do not know enough to know
whether it is possible or not. If you do, then more power to you.
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
23 Jun 2004 12:33:16 PM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
Please yourself. If you prefer to believe that we know all we will ever
know and that nothing will ever change then that is up to you. Personally,
all I would claim about FTL travel is that I do not know enough to know
whether it is possible or not. If you do, then more power to you.
I didn't say that.. but you don't know any more than we do.. just because I have
never seen worms shooting birds with machine guns doesn't mean I can't tell
***** when I smell it. Someone may solve the FTL impossibility in the
future, it just won't be whoever is harping on this warp drive thingie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
23 Jun 2004 03:41:38 PM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote:
Someone may solve the FTL impossibility in the
future, it just won't be whoever is harping on this warp drive thingie.
Agreed.
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
23 Jun 2004 06:19:13 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:03:11 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
Midjis wrote:
As I said, I am not a physicist, so I am not planning on exploding anything
or throwing anything out of the window.
I am simply aware that from time to time people discover things that make
us stop and reassess what we thought we knew - even those things that
seemed like unassailable fact beforehand.
And from time to time trolls and cranks post crap in here which isn't related to
physics any more than tomatoes are related to potatoes.
Sounds like a cue for a song:
"You say neutrinos and I say neutrinos
You say Zee-bosons and I say Zed-bosons
Let's call the hole thing off..."
Hymie, I think we got a hit!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
22 Jun 2004 07:44:49 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics MorituriMax <newage@sendarico.net> wrote:
Midjis wrote:
Given current understanding of physics, exceeding the speed of light is
thought to be impossible. This may well be the case. However, I see no
reason to discard the possibility entirely as future discoveries may change
our understanding of the universe. Of course, they may not. We simply do
not know.
Especially since we would have to throw e=mc^2 out the window first... Unless
you plan on exploding the whole universe and feeding it into the gas tank.
Assuming something wierd doesn't happen with large masses (say over a gram)
at over .99c.
We have good theoretical predictions of what should happen, and solid
experimental background on smaller masses, it just hasn't been tested
yet.
Hell, nobodies even tested if antimatter falls down or up yet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Trynor" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
22 Jun 2004 02:13:50 PM |
|
|
vonroach wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:41:06 +0000 (UTC), Midjis < @ . > wrote:
Of course, this question might well be a little premature since we would
have to be convinced that anyone was anywhere near breaking the light
barrier - and I am sure the first announcement of something so momentous
would not appear on Usenet...
Midjis
A tad more than `breaking a barrier', I would say. More like escaping
reality into some personal fantasy realm.
Dale Trynor wrote:
I just recently did a post examining if any sort of FTL might be possible
and its the best argument anywhere on why it might in fact be actually
possible. Here it is re-posted.
Dale Trynor wrote:
Is any form of faster than light possible, it may depend on what you mean.
One of the best gedanken's to get one started on examining this question
involves
the idea of actually not traveling very fast at all but instead slow down
time
for everyone else while keeping our own time unchanged. This would be a bit
impossible to do in practice as it would require everything in the entire
universes voluntarily putting themselves into orbit around black holes sense
it
appears to be about the only way one can actually slow down time without
necessarily involving travel as for our gedanken to work we would need for
objects to stay where they were originally.
Now notice how objects such as our astronaut or ourselves not being effected
by
the same sort of time dilation is now free to make journeys to other solar
systems etc. in very little of their time, alto it wont do us as the
travelers
much good, it will still ends up giving our time slowed observers the same
advantages as if they did have a faster than light, highway. Note that for
our
time slowed observers the age of the probes they send out to other colony's
would
tend to age at a rather rapid rate it would be of rather minor consequence
for a
machine. In this gedanken the spaces between the time slowed black holes will
in
some ways resemble wormholes.
Now ask what would happen if instead of slowing down time everywhere else we
instead speed up time within a bubble and or a wormhole instead, how
different
would this be and why ?. Note how this type of faster than light will not
cause
causality problems as for the example gedanken above will not allow for time
travel either as we do not time travel relative to any black holes despite
the
differences in time.
Later thoughts on this have let to some new questions such as I believe that
if
one were to have a bubble of fast time ( I haven't referred to this as a
warp
bubble because of the way it doesn't actually need to move at all but yet can
travel faster than light relative to us ), is that physical distances might
also
change making the problems associated with fast time less sever assuming its
correct.
Extra stuff that wasn't in the original post where I briefly said that I had
ideas to propose in the way of experiment but never said what they were and I
am still leaving a lot of information out so that I can keep this short..
The proposed experiments to actually prove this involves falling gravitating
bodies and showing that the space between them will briefly display an area
of accelerated time and would become wormhole like for any observers in a
free fall orbit near that area where the coalescing is occurring. It can also
involve examining how black holes coalesce and or if not why, as a means of
support or refutation of the theory.
If practical warp drive becomes possible I have a guess that if negative
energy might display a reverse of the centrifugal force, meaning that the
more you spin a ball of it the more forcefully it would clump together
without any limit, could prove essential.
Dale
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laura" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
21 Jun 2004 12:40:11 PM |
|
|
<matricola555@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:b7eea6dc.0406210016.53b52a31@posting.google.com...
www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast
www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm
This isn't a warp drive. If you insist on using Star Trek terminology, maybe
it's an impulse drive :-)
The warp drive hypothesis calls for space itself to be compressed in front
of the vessel, thus physically shortening the distance that must be traveled
to get to the destination. Not all of the distance at once, though - just a
tiny bit of it, and once the vessel has passed through that, another tiny
bit, and so on. It could be described as creating a "wave" in space, and
then surfing that wave. It is purely hypothetical. We have no practical idea
of how to provide the enormous amounts of energy required to do something
like this, and even if we did, we'd have to find a way of warping space with
it.
The beauty of the idea is that the vessel itself wouldn't have to move
faster than the speed of light; the deformation in space could do that
instead, and the vessel would simply stay within this wave in space. Such a
wave could possibly break the lightspeed barrier, since it is neither matter
nor electromagnetic radiation. Whether it really could, however, remains to
be seen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "asps" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
21 Jun 2004 03:42:44 PM |
|
|
"Laura" <laura@nospam.me> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:cb76ib$g0r$3@news.cybercity.dk...
<matricola555@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:b7eea6dc.0406210016.53b52a31@posting.google.com...
www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast
www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm
This isn't a warp drive. If you insist on using Star Trek terminology,
maybe
it's an impulse drive :-)
[first excuse my english]
The warp drive hypothesis calls for space itself to be compressed in front
of the vessel,
"space compression" has no physical meaning ... we can say only that our pnn
thruster "swim" in the e.m. field
thus physically shortening the distance that must be traveled
to get to the destination. Not all of the distance at once, though - just
a
tiny bit of it, and once the vessel has passed through that, another tiny
bit, and so on. It could be described as creating a "wave" in space, and
then surfing that wave. It is purely hypothetical. We have no practical
idea
of how to provide the enormous amounts of energy required to do something
like this, and even if we did, we'd have to find a way of warping space
with
it.
no enormous amount of energy are required becouse pnn thruster doesn't
vilolate momentum and energy conservation ...
when it increase its kinetic energy it decrease its magnetic potential
energy ........ so its e.m. mass decrease as soon as pnn velocity increase
........
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-asps.htm
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep7/ep7-asps.htm
The beauty of the idea is that the vessel itself wouldn't have to move
faster than the speed of light;
i don't know what a pnn system might do ..... we make experiments about 450
MHz and 50 Watt ..... we strongly suspect that velocity incerase in a no
linear manner as frequency and energy increase
the deformation in space could do that
instead, and the vessel would simply stay within this wave in space.
Such a
wave could possibly break the lightspeed barrier, since it is neither
matter
nor electromagnetic radiation.
as the e.m. mass of a pnn system decrease as soon as pnn velocity increase
we have good perspectives for FTL travels
Whether it really could, however, remains to
be seen.
we need to increase energy and frequency of TdS1 thruster to see if FTL
travels might be possible ....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laura" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
22 Jun 2004 01:26:45 AM |
|
|
"asps" <asps.ra1@flashnet.it> wrote in message
news:cb7haf$t7m$1@news.flashnet.it...
"Laura" <laura@nospam.me> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:cb76ib$g0r$3@news.cybercity.dk...
<matricola555@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:b7eea6dc.0406210016.53b52a31@posting.google.com...
www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast
www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm
This isn't a warp drive. If you insist on using Star Trek terminology,
maybe
it's an impulse drive :-)
[first excuse my english]
The warp drive hypothesis calls for space itself to be compressed in
front
of the vessel,
"space compression" has no physical meaning ...
Of course it does. It may not be part of the device you're working on, but
that doesn't render it meaningless :-)
we can say only that our pnn
thruster "swim" in the e.m. field
Yes. All I'm saying is that to call it "warp drive" is fundamentally
incorrect. What you potentially have there should be called something else.
"Warp" means "bend" or "deform". Your device doesn't bend or deform
anything.
thus physically shortening the distance that must be traveled
to get to the destination. Not all of the distance at once, though -
just
a
tiny bit of it, and once the vessel has passed through that, another
tiny
bit, and so on. It could be described as creating a "wave" in space, and
then surfing that wave. It is purely hypothetical. We have no practical
idea
of how to provide the enormous amounts of energy required to do
something
like this, and even if we did, we'd have to find a way of warping space
with
it.
no enormous amount of energy are required becouse pnn thruster doesn't
vilolate momentum and energy conservation ...
I wasn't describing the energy requirements of your pnn thruster. I was
describing the hypothetical warp drive - a means of propulsion that works by
deforming local space so as to shorten the distance to be traveled, allowing
the craft to cover greater distance in a shorter time, possibly faster than
the speed of light. It could be described as a "bubble" of deformed space;
within that bubble, the craft flies at slower than light speeds, but the
bubble itself is hurtling along at faster than light speeds. Thus, the craft
doesn't have to accelerate to that speed, and the crew won't have to be
subjected to either a very very long wait or to lethal G-forces.
Of course, to achieve this effect, extreme gravitic effects would have to be
somehow generated, and that would require monstrous amounts of energy input
to a generator we don't even have a design for yet. Warp drive is very much
a hypothetical thing :-)
when it increase its kinetic energy it decrease its magnetic potential
energy ........ so its e.m. mass decrease as soon as pnn velocity increase
.......
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-asps.htm
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep7/ep7-asps.htm
I'm sorry, but I don't speak italian.
You really should think about an english version of your site - especially
if you want responses from people on the sci newsgroups.
The beauty of the idea is that the vessel itself wouldn't have to move
faster than the speed of light;
i don't know what a pnn system might do ..... we make experiments about
450
MHz and 50 Watt ..... we strongly suspect that velocity incerase in a no
linear manner as frequency and energy increase
Does the math say it will?
Or do you just suspect it?
the deformation in space could do that
instead, and the vessel would simply stay within this wave in space.
Such a
wave could possibly break the lightspeed barrier, since it is neither
matter
nor electromagnetic radiation.
as the e.m. mass of a pnn system decrease as soon as pnn velocity
increase
we have good perspectives for FTL travels
Will normal matter even survive faster than light travel?
Whether it really could, however, remains to
be seen.
we need to increase energy and frequency of TdS1 thruster to see if FTL
travels might be possible ....
How long would your device have to accelerate to see if it can or not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "asps" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
22 Jun 2004 09:54:14 AM |
|
|
"Laura" <laura@nospam.me> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:cb8jf6$1uu0$3@news.cybercity.dk...
"asps" <asps.ra1@flashnet.it> wrote in message
news:cb7haf$t7m$1@news.flashnet.it...
"Laura" <laura@nospam.me> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:cb76ib$g0r$3@news.cybercity.dk...
<matricola555@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:b7eea6dc.0406210016.53b52a31@posting.google.com...
www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast
www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm
This isn't a warp drive. If you insist on using Star Trek terminology,
maybe
it's an impulse drive :-)
[first excuse my english]
The warp drive hypothesis calls for space itself to be compressed in
front
of the vessel,
"space compression" has no physical meaning ...
Of course it does. It may not be part of the device you're working on, but
that doesn't render it meaningless :-)
may be
we can say only that our pnn
thruster "swim" in the e.m. field
Yes. All I'm saying is that to call it "warp drive" is fundamentally
incorrect. What you potentially have there should be called something
else.
"Warp" means "bend" or "deform". Your device doesn't bend or deform
anything.
by an euristic meaning it might be said that the pnn e.m. mass is warped
into itself ..... but i don't like to fly upper .... i like to fly much
more lower
thus physically shortening the distance that must be traveled
to get to the destination. Not all of the distance at once, though -
just
a
tiny bit of it, and once the vessel has passed through that, another
tiny
bit, and so on. It could be described as creating a "wave" in space,
and
then surfing that wave. It is purely hypothetical. We have no
practical
idea
of how to provide the enormous amounts of energy required to do
something
like this, and even if we did, we'd have to find a way of warping
space
with
it.
no enormous amount of energy are required becouse pnn thruster doesn't
vilolate momentum and energy conservation ...
I wasn't describing the energy requirements of your pnn thruster. I was
describing the hypothetical warp drive - a means of propulsion that works
by
deforming local space so as to shorten the distance to be traveled,
allowing
the craft to cover greater distance in a shorter time, possibly faster
than
the speed of light. It could be described as a "bubble" of deformed space;
within that bubble, the craft flies at slower than light speeds, but the
bubble itself is hurtling along at faster than light speeds. Thus, the
craft
doesn't have to accelerate to that speed, and the crew won't have to be
subjected to either a very very long wait or to lethal G-forces.
Of course, to achieve this effect, extreme gravitic effects would have to
be
somehow generated, and that would require monstrous amounts of energy
input
to a generator we don't even have a design for yet. Warp drive is very
much
a hypothetical thing :-)
the only way , on my opinion for FTL perspetives is to work on mass
reduction as velocity increse .....in every sense it must go round the
relativity theory ... i want to be clear : not to contest relativity but to
go round it .....
when it increase its kinetic energy it decrease its magnetic potential
energy ........ so its e.m. mass decrease as soon as pnn velocity
increase
.......
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-asps.htm
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep7/ep7-asps.htm
I'm sorry, but I don't speak italian.
the same is for me for english ........
You really should think about an english version of your site - especially
if you want responses from people on the sci newsgroups.
it take for me much time....
The beauty of the idea is that the vessel itself wouldn't have to move
faster than the speed of light;
i don't know what a pnn system might do ..... we make experiments about
450
MHz and 50 Watt ..... we strongly suspect that velocity incerase in a
no
linear manner as frequency and energy increase
Does the math say it will?
the thrust in first approximation goes as i^2 (i=current) besides
simultaneously mass decrease as velocity increase ...but but i haven't in
great care mathematical prediction ..... becouse math .... said me before
SC2.12 that pnn is impossible :) .........
Or do you just suspect it?
is better to say that i suspect it for the fact that i and asps members
like to fly at 10 inch from the ground....
the deformation in space could do that
instead, and the vessel would simply stay within this wave in space.
Such a
wave could possibly break the lightspeed barrier, since it is neither
matter
nor electromagnetic radiation.
as the e.m. mass of a pnn system decrease as soon as pnn velocity
increase
we have good perspectives for FTL travels
Will normal matter even survive faster than light travel?
i don't know
Whether it really could, however, remains to
be seen.
we need to increase energy and frequency of TdS1 thruster to see if FTL
travels might be possible ....
How long would your device have to accelerate to see if it can or not?
we have problems with thermal control......
we need to receive a budget for other experiments such as a power and
frequency increase .... but all industries that we contact try to take or
better "to warp" the pnn know-how without giving us nothing
www.asps.it/enti.htm
...........
so from such bad experiences we have a procedure to test the correctness of
who say to help "asps pnn"
www.asps.it/propnn.htm ...but..but...it is in italian
Regards
E.Laureti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
22 Jun 2004 11:12:50 AM |
|
|
"asps" <asps.ra1@flashnet.it> wrote:
the only way , on my opinion for FTL perspetives is to work on mass
reduction as velocity increse .....
I cannot speak to you in mathematical terms - I am not a physicist, but
an interested amateur, so I may be speaking out of turn, or asking
questions I could not understand the answers to.
But I wonder, how do you propose to reduce the mass of an object without
changing its composition or the quantity of material? And even then, how
would you reduce it enough? In *That TV Series*, they have 'inertial
dampers' to counter the effects of acceleration, and it might be that
these devices, or their complementary structural integrity field, serve
to prevent relativistic mass increases. But we do not have the benefit
of either, nor, as far as know, do we have any idea how to make anything
similar. It is also worth noting that ships in Star Trek do not defeat
relativity in this universe, but oscillate between this universe and a
subspace domain in which the rules of relativity are different, staying
in neither domain for more than Planck time. Yet we have no 'subspace'
to work with - let alone any way to access it at will.
Gods, I do know some useless garbage about Star Trek, no? Shame I never
managed to learn any actual science... But the technology of the series
and the ideas behind it have always fascinated me.
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
.
|
|
|
| User: "asps" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
24 Jun 2004 01:41:25 AM |
|
|
"Midjis" < @ . > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Xns9510AF38BE3E9LibriumLibertasEst@217.32.252.50...
"asps" <asps.ra1@flashnet.it> wrote:
the only way , on my opinion for FTL perspetives is to work on mass
reduction as velocity increse .....
I cannot speak to you in mathematical terms - I am not a physicist, but
an interested amateur, so I may be speaking out of turn, or asking
questions I could not understand the answers to.
But I wonder, how do you propose to reduce the mass of an object without
changing its composition or the quantity of material? And even then, how
would you reduce it enough?
i must say that i am speaking about mass reduction for a pnn system only by
a theoretical point of view .... and it will happen in analogous manner (for
mass property) in which mass increase for a relativistic system
In *That TV Series*, they have 'inertial
dampers' to counter the effects of acceleration, and it might be that
these devices, or their complementary structural integrity field, serve
to prevent relativistic mass increases. But we do not have the benefit
of either, nor, as far as know, do we have any idea how to make anything
similar. It is also worth noting that ships in Star Trek do not defeat
relativity in this universe, but oscillate between this universe and a
subspace domain in which the rules of relativity are different, staying
in neither domain for more than Planck time. Yet we have no 'subspace'
to work with - let alone any way to access it at will.
the pnn system decrease its "potential magnetic energy " in the e.m. field
as increase its kinetic energy......this might be the 'subspace' to work
with
Gods, I do know some useless garbage about Star Trek, no? Shame I never
managed to learn any actual science... But the technology of the series
and the ideas behind it have always fascinated me.
Sincerely when i try to understand a little bit of "Star Trek technology"
when i try to go in deep of its "scientific ideas" i feel a complete
nonsense about what i need to do with operative actions
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
E.Laureti
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Alsup" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
21 Jun 2004 08:32:47 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<b7eea6dc.0406210016.53b52a31@posting.google.com>...
www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast
www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm
Call back when you can demonstrate accelerating something to
a speed faster than light.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Norris" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
23 Jun 2004 12:48:49 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<b7eea6dc.0406210016.53b52a31@posting.google.com>...
www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast
www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm
Its just a jump to the left...
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" |
23 Jun 2004 03:43:30 PM |
|
|
(John Norris) wrote:
we are doing TdS1 thruster more fast
www.asps.it/dinpnn.htm
Its just a jump to the left...
OOh yes - do let's... :)
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
