Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Scientists Are Starting to Take Warp Drives Seriously, Especially One Specific Concept

  1. Top | #31
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,175
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,388
    Rep Power
    54
    Me too. Put it on accumulated measured and codified observation.

  2. Top | #32
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,318
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,607
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post

    Don't confuse growth of our knowledge base with the extinction of what is thought of as "impossible".
    You realise that you're kind of making my point here?

    The areas of physics where there's rapid progress today are areas like biophysics - modelling the interaction of proteins etc. at the atomic level, and fluid dynamics. Those are areas where improved computers help understand complex, often chaotic, interactions by modelling them bottom-up.

    When it comes to elementary physics, the two major breakthroughs of the decade, with only three months to go, were the observation of the Higgs boson in 2012 and gravitational ways in 2016. The Higgs boson was first theorized in 1964, gravitational waves are a consequence of general relativity formulated all the way back in 1916 (though their possibility was alluded to even earlier by Poincaré in 1905). So we're effectively catching up with ideas formulated 50-100 years ago.

    prior to 1940, Einstein said that it was IMPOSSIBLE to harness the power of nuclear energy...
    Do you have an actual quote for that? As far as I can tell, this appears to be an urban legend, and I'm not finding anything either. Maybe you meant to say he thought it was *not feasible*. Do you understand the difference between not feasible and IMPOSSIBLE?

    However, all the way back in 1920 when Arthur Eddington first speculated that the stars might be powered by nuclear fusion, he said

    If, indeed, the sub-atomic energy in the stars is being freely used to maintain their great furnaces it seems to bring a little nearer fulfillment our dream of controlling this latent power for the well-being of the human race - or it's suicide.
    https://books.google.at/books?id=-7Q...ington&f=false (among other places)

    So basically, we've known for over a century that it is possible in principle, if their was any debate, it was about whether it is feasible to control the process. The same knowledge that allows us to harness nuclear fission (and understand fusion) is what tells us that in order to harness one Jupiter mass equivalent of energy, we need at least one Jupiter mass of fuel (assuming the mutual annihilation of equal quantities of matter and antimatter as the source and a 100% efficient engine). And that's the smaller problem: The bigger one is conservation of energy, implying if it takes that much energy to create the space-time bubble, that's exactly how much energy will be released back into "normal space" when it collapses.
    Last edited by Jokodo; 10-04-2019 at 11:10 AM.

  3. Top | #33
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    We have trouble with the simple ISSS. There have been a series of problems. Right now a 5000 crew starship is fantasy. It all comes down to energy and the laws of thermodynamics that includes recycling air and water.

    And the problem of zero g. The ISS has shown even with exercise programs there is long term degradation of the body.

    And the cost. It would be a huge expenditure. It is one of the reasons I reject the idea we are visited by ET. A spacefaring fleet like ST would be very expensive. A lot of resources.

    For long term space travel you need artificial gravity. Spinning a 5k person habitat is problematic as speed increases. Reaction forces.

    A crewman says to a Klingon captain 'Should I target their engines sir?'. 'The captain replies 'No! Target their thermal radiators!'.

  4. Top | #34
    Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    9,795
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    17,842
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    We have trouble with the simple ISSS. There have been a series of problems. Right now a 5000 crew starship is fantasy.
    Nobody says it is not a fantasy. But it is not a fantasy because of heat management.
    It all comes down to energy and the laws of thermodynamics that includes recycling air and water.

    And the problem of zero g. The ISS has shown even with exercise programs there is long term degradation of the body.
    It is not the same level problem as warp-drive.
    And the cost. It would be a huge expenditure. It is one of the reasons I reject the idea we are visited by ET. A spacefaring fleet like ST would be very expensive. A lot of resources.

    For long term space travel you need artificial gravity. Spinning a 5k person habitat is problematic as speed increases. Reaction forces.
    Not reaction forces, stresses.

    A crewman says to a Klingon captain 'Should I target their engines sir?'. 'The captain replies 'No! Target their thermal radiators!'.
    There is a bigger problem of finding Klingons. As for targeting radiators it would be stupid considering that they will take take close to 100% of the surface of the ship.

  5. Top | #35
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    Forces, like trying to turn a trying bicycle wheel and keeping it straight up.

    There are categories of forces on structures.

    Compression means just like that. Opposing forces applied across a rod. Tension is opposing forces pulling a rod apart. Shear is a lateral force.

    Or stress and strain. Stress is the applied force and strain is the result. Stress and strain are related to deformation, like a plate deflecting in the middle due to a center load. A strain gauge on a beam measures deformation from applied stress. It is all semantics. There is an applied force to a structure and a response to the force. For a bridge it is called statics. For a rotating object it is called dynamics.

    In continuum mechanics, stress is a physical quantity that expresses the internal forces that neighbouring particles of a continuous material exert on each other, while strain is the measure of the deformation of the material which is not a physical quantity
    There is force in Newtons and pressure or Pascals in Newtons/m^2.

    Turning a large spinning structure at high forward velocity is like turning a bicycle wheel. Babylon 5.

    Another limiting factor is human dynamics or human factors. No one knows how humans will react on a long Mars flight and a duration on Mars. The ISS has procedures and drugs to deal with a crew member meltdown. I'd have to check I believe there was an incident.

    NASA is reported to be using the isolated winter crew at Macmurdo base in the Antarctic as a study.

  6. Top | #36
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    Too many links to post. Search on 'international space station crew mental breakdown mental health'

    Apparently there have been issues not largely reported.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...space-missions

  7. Top | #37
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,561
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    You realise that you're kind of making my point here?

    The areas of physics where there's rapid progress today are areas like biophysics - modelling the interaction of proteins etc. at the atomic level, and fluid dynamics. Those are areas where improved computers help understand complex, often chaotic, interactions by modelling them bottom-up.

    When it comes to elementary physics, the two major breakthroughs of the decade, with only three months to go, were the observation of the Higgs boson in 2012 and gravitational ways in 2016. The Higgs boson was first theorized in 1964, gravitational waves are a consequence of general relativity formulated all the way back in 1916 (though their possibility was alluded to even earlier by Poincaré in 1905). So we're effectively catching up with ideas formulated 50-100 years ago.



    Do you have an actual quote for that? As far as I can tell, this appears to be an urban legend, and I'm not finding anything either. Maybe you meant to say he thought it was *not feasible*. Do you understand the difference between not feasible and IMPOSSIBLE?

    However, all the way back in 1920 when Arthur Eddington first speculated that the stars might be powered by nuclear fusion, he said

    If, indeed, the sub-atomic energy in the stars is being freely used to maintain their great furnaces it seems to bring a little nearer fulfillment our dream of controlling this latent power for the well-being of the human race - or it's suicide.
    https://books.google.at/books?id=-7Q...ington&f=false (among other places)

    So basically, we've known for over a century that it is possible in principle, if their was any debate, it was about whether it is feasible to control the process. The same knowledge that allows us to harness nuclear fission (and understand fusion) is what tells us that in order to harness one Jupiter mass equivalent of energy, we need at least one Jupiter mass of fuel (assuming the mutual annihilation of equal quantities of matter and antimatter as the source and a 100% efficient engine). And that's the smaller problem: The bigger one is conservation of energy, implying if it takes that much energy to create the space-time bubble, that's exactly how much energy will be released back into "normal space" when it collapses.
    Einstein, lacking the foresight that telescopes with immensely more power than imagined in his day would in the future exist.. AND ALSO that such telescopes would be launched into space to bypass the limits of fine resolution through our atmosphere, said that it was impossible to directly observe certain phenomena (such as a star transitioning across another star from our perspective to observe gravitational lensing):
    LENS-LIKE ACTION OF A STAR BY THE DEVIATION OF LIGHT IN THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
    Science 04 Dec 1936:
    Vol. 84, Issue 2188, pp. 506-507
    DOI: 10.1126/science.84.2188.506
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/84/2188/506

    You see it WAS impossible to get that level of resolution though our atmosphere. It still is impossible. No one "broke the laws of optics" to solve the "elementary" problem.. They bypassed the problem by leaving the atmosphere.

  8. Top | #38
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,318
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,607
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    You realise that you're kind of making my point here?

    The areas of physics where there's rapid progress today are areas like biophysics - modelling the interaction of proteins etc. at the atomic level, and fluid dynamics. Those are areas where improved computers help understand complex, often chaotic, interactions by modelling them bottom-up.

    When it comes to elementary physics, the two major breakthroughs of the decade, with only three months to go, were the observation of the Higgs boson in 2012 and gravitational ways in 2016. The Higgs boson was first theorized in 1964, gravitational waves are a consequence of general relativity formulated all the way back in 1916 (though their possibility was alluded to even earlier by Poincaré in 1905). So we're effectively catching up with ideas formulated 50-100 years ago.



    Do you have an actual quote for that? As far as I can tell, this appears to be an urban legend, and I'm not finding anything either. Maybe you meant to say he thought it was *not feasible*. Do you understand the difference between not feasible and IMPOSSIBLE?

    However, all the way back in 1920 when Arthur Eddington first speculated that the stars might be powered by nuclear fusion, he said

    If, indeed, the sub-atomic energy in the stars is being freely used to maintain their great furnaces it seems to bring a little nearer fulfillment our dream of controlling this latent power for the well-being of the human race - or it's suicide.
    https://books.google.at/books?id=-7Q...ington&f=false (among other places)

    So basically, we've known for over a century that it is possible in principle, if their was any debate, it was about whether it is feasible to control the process. The same knowledge that allows us to harness nuclear fission (and understand fusion) is what tells us that in order to harness one Jupiter mass equivalent of energy, we need at least one Jupiter mass of fuel (assuming the mutual annihilation of equal quantities of matter and antimatter as the source and a 100% efficient engine). And that's the smaller problem: The bigger one is conservation of energy, implying if it takes that much energy to create the space-time bubble, that's exactly how much energy will be released back into "normal space" when it collapses.
    Einstein, lacking the foresight that telescopes with immensely more power than imagined in his day would in the future exist.. AND ALSO that such telescopes would be launched into space to bypass the limits of fine resolution through our atmosphere, said that it was impossible to directly observe certain phenomena (such as a star transitioning across another star from our perspective to observe gravitational lensing):
    LENS-LIKE ACTION OF A STAR BY THE DEVIATION OF LIGHT IN THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
    Science 04 Dec 1936:
    Vol. 84, Issue 2188, pp. 506-507
    DOI: 10.1126/science.84.2188.506
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/84/2188/506

    You see it WAS impossible to get that level of resolution though our atmosphere. It still is impossible. No one "broke the laws of optics" to solve the "elementary" problem.. They bypassed the problem by leaving the atmosphere.
    That's not at all what your link says, but whatever.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •