Apparently we can feasibly get warp drives

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama

Apparently we can feasibly get warp drives

Post by Robthebob »

Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Yes, this has already been discussed in another thread but it does indeed deserve its own thread. As news comes in from Eagleworks we ought to have a special thread for such discussion.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

The posted article is dated Sept. 17. Has there been any news in the in 3 months since then?
Aero

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

The Space Show piece is from January 4th:

http://archive.thespaceshow.com/shows/1 ... -01-04.mp3
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

I will be very interested if the experiment generates reproducible positive results.

Unless there is something beyond General Relativity, unrestricted FTL travel relative a mix of rest frames introduces potential for closed timelike loops. To quote a certain starfleet captain, "Temporal paradoxes give me a headache."

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Moi aussi.

Just out of curiosity, if there is someone here who can throw light on a small subject I'd appreciate it. I'm pretty sure Paul March can answer this question so perhaps he'll answer.

IIUC, one of the salient distinctions between Jim's M-E theory and Sonny's QVF model in how they generate warp is that M-E theory posits to warp space-time using negative mass, whereas Sonny's model proposes to warp space-time by using negative energy. What I'd like to know is, do we apply Einstein's mass-energy equivalence here? In other words, does energy warp space at its mass equivalent? If so, it seem on the face of it using negative mass ought to be far more efficient than using negative energy for you certainly get more bang for your buck using mass.

Is this so?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

My understanding is that energy warps space/time like its mass equivalent. If memory serves correctly, GR holds this to include the energy of self gravitation, which factors in black hole dynamics.

zDarby
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:09 am

energy deformations

Post by zDarby »

GIThruster:
What I got from the article was that, though they're using energy to warp space time in the usual GR sense, the energy solution is dynamic and the mass solution is static. Thus you can use dynamic tricks to make a smaller space-time warping do more work. Tricks like making the film of the warp bubble wider, making fluctuations within the bubble to "soften up" space-time and, in general, more completely control the geometry and inner workings of the bubble.

But that's just my interpretation. This wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

That sounds right to me too, Darby. I would add too that the ZPF'ers are using "pressure" not just energy, but I don't understand how that falls out of GR. Eric, Sonny and Jack Sarfatti are all proposing this.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Nydoc
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:45 am

Post by Nydoc »

GIThruster wrote:That sounds right to me too, Darby. I would add too that the ZPF'ers are using "pressure" not just energy, but I don't understand how that falls out of GR. Eric, Sonny and Jack Sarfatti are all proposing this.
Dr. Richard Obousy did ten webisodes in 2009. They are here. In episode six, he says that dark energy exerts a negative pressure on space-time (the pressure that causes our universe's expansion to accelerate). I believe this is what they mean by pressure.

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: energy deformations

Post by AcesHigh »

zDarby wrote:GIThruster:
What I got from the article was that, though they're using energy to warp space time in the usual GR sense, the energy solution is dynamic and the mass solution is static.
i may be saying complete nonsense here, but isnt ME theory exactly proposing that you can fluctuate mass? Wouldnt then the mass solution also be dynamic (maybe not as dynamic as the energy solution however)

and yes, it seems that White´s solution relies on the dynamism of the energy solution, for fluctuating the intensity of the field would "soften" space time, and together with an increase in the width of the field (from the planck lenghts previously discussed for Alcubierre, which resulted in the need for the equivalent mass of a Jupiter or an entire universe for other calculations) was the reason White´s calculations reduced the mass equivalent to about 1 metric ton.

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

GIThruster wrote:Moi aussi.

Just out of curiosity, if there is someone here who can throw light on a small subject I'd appreciate it. I'm pretty sure Paul March can answer this question so perhaps he'll answer.

IIUC, one of the salient distinctions between Jim's M-E theory and Sonny's QVF model in how they generate warp is that M-E theory posits to warp space-time using negative mass, whereas Sonny's model proposes to warp space-time by using negative energy. What I'd like to know is, do we apply Einstein's mass-energy equivalence here? In other words, does energy warp space at its mass equivalent? If so, it seem on the face of it using negative mass ought to be far more efficient than using negative energy for you certainly get more bang for your buck using mass.

Is this so?
the big problem here is that there is mounting evidence that the universe is smooth, not foamy, as I posted on the other thread.

of course, a single experiment is not a final word on the subject, but I would love Paul commenting on it, what he sees as flaws in this experiment, etc

http://www.space.com/19202-einstein-spa ... mooth.html

Nydoc
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:45 am

Post by Nydoc »

AcesHigh wrote:the big problem here is that there is mounting evidence that the universe is smooth, not foamy, as I posted on the other thread
I might be wrong on this, but I think quantum foam and quantum fluctuation are two different things.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Nydoc wrote:I might be wrong on this, but I think quantum foam and quantum fluctuation are two different things.
Emm. . .pretty sure in this case they're not. Wheeler proposed a definition for Quantum Foam that yes, addresses a different topic, but this experiment was looking at the primary ZPF conjecture, that is really a large step past the Dirac Sea. ZPF and QVF conjectures posit a foaminess to space-time where fantastic quantities of particles are generated from the vacuum and annihilate each other. In HPR theory, these particles are the cause of inertia. This is why ZPF theory is mutually exclusive with M-E theory: they pose contrary explanations for where inertia comes from.

However beyond this, ZPF and QVF theory are proposing that the vacuum is full of energy that can be used, in the form of these particles that make up the "Quantum Foam". Most physicists think ZPF theory is wrong because it generates absurd predictions, because it is internally inconsistent with its own principles and has been shown on many occasions to be wrong. Despite we have known since Michelson/Morley there is no "aether" ZPF and QVF are saying that in fact there is.

This is BTW, why it is such a big deal that advanced propulsion has been dominated by the ZPFers ever since BPP. There is almost no possibility that ZPF theory or QVF theory could possibly be correct. These theories are PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE that almost no mainstream physicists pay attention to because it is so obviously wrong. It is pathological science because in all the years of objections, it's proponents never answer the objections. They merely continue on fundraising and such and ignore challenges to their models. You can imagine, as a philosopher of science this all drives me nuts.

This experiment is saying that if all the universe is full of this foam that is constantly bubbling up particles, and if these particles can be interacted with (and if not the consequences are just as the mainstream has always said, this is all just a mathematical accounting trick) then there must be circumstances where they'd be interacted with. If the foam isn't interacted with when particles pass these fantastical distances, then what are we to make of the Foam? Well, we're to make of it just what most physicists have--that the vacuum is EMPTY, not full of foam.

BTW, it is a relatively simple thing to demonstrate quantum foam. Bernie Haisch was granted a patent for a ZPF invention 5 years ago and funds funneled to him to test HPR.

http://www.calphysics.org/Patent.html

So far, no luck.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

ok, lets suppose other experiments create sufficient evidence the universe is smooth and not foamy, disproving QVF.

would Dr Sonny White ideas still be feasible. Ok, he wants to generate his warp field bubble by using negative energy through QVF. That wouldnt be possible. But would his calculations (on how to "easily" create a warp bubble of higher thicknes AND energy fluctuation to "soften" the space-time) still be usable in a smooth universe, using instead of negative energy, mass fluctuations from ME Theory?

Post Reply