Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

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

  1. Top | #21
    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

    "Scientists also estimate that the total energy requirement would be equivalent to the mass of Jupiter"

    Hm
    In 1960, it took a medium sized building to hold the equipment needed to store 1 GB of data. A mere 50 years later, the same amount of data can be stored on something the size of your thumbnail.

    Mass of Jupiter? That's nothing (some day)!
    False analogy.

    For starters, energy doesn't get annihilated. So if it takes a Jupiter mass to create the bubble, a Jupiter mass equivalent if pure energy is released again when it collapses. You better not be anywhere close to their destination when that happens. If it is released along the entire route (mapped to normal space), you better not be anywhere near the source either. That's be easily the biggest cigar shaped supernova the galaxy has seen so far.

    That's while still ignoring that half a Jupiter in normal matter plus half a Jupiter in antimatter is the minimum amount of fuel you need to make it work - not "at current technological levels", but in principle.

  2. Top | #22
    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 steve_bank View Post
    One other question.

    In this warp drive theory what happens to photons at the boundary or interface? Is it a bubble of sorts or a trasition to some other dimension?

    If so what will happens to EM thermal radiation? Is it prated or reflected or absorbed and re radiated?
    It doesn't really matter when you find yourself in the centre of a supernova as soon as you're at the target and the bubble collapses...

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    Energy that is used to do any work at the atomic or Newtonian scale eventually shows up as heat.

    If at another star you manage to accelerate to a high percentage of C in normal space and try to quickly decelerate near our solar system it would result in a huge cataclysmic transfer of kinetic energy to heat.

    In any theory the first question to ask is where does the energy go? What is the energy balance or continuity equation. That tells you how feasible something may be.

  4. Top | #24
    Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    9,797
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    17,844
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by barbos View Post
    I can multiply by 0.5 and it would still work. But 0.5 is way too low. one can easily get 95%.


    plenty of materials have melting point over 3000K.


    They are designed to work in air, having fins in space would be pointless.


    I have shown it's easier than YOU think. In fact you seemed to be saying that it was IMPOSSIBLE in the vacuum.


    Yes, 80,000 m^2 is more than enough to provide adequate cooling for 6000 people.
    You miss the points as usual.
    That's rich, coming from someone who just learned about black body radiation.
    I am sure Space X is looking for expert cooling engineers. Send them a resume. They are looking towards Mars and beyond.
    Look, I provided a calculation which shows that as far living inside spaceship cooling is not a problem, deal with it. There are much bigger problems than cooling.

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,566
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    "Scientists also estimate that the total energy requirement would be equivalent to the mass of Jupiter"

    Hm
    In 1960, it took a medium sized building to hold the equipment needed to store 1 GB of data. A mere 50 years later, the same amount of data can be stored on something the size of your thumbnail.

    Mass of Jupiter? That's nothing (some day)!
    False analogy.

    For starters, energy doesn't get annihilated. So if it takes a Jupiter mass to create the bubble, a Jupiter mass equivalent if pure energy is released again when it collapses. You better not be anywhere close to their destination when that happens. If it is released along the entire route (mapped to normal space), you better not be anywhere near the source either. That's be easily the biggest cigar shaped supernova the galaxy has seen so far.

    That's while still ignoring that half a Jupiter in normal matter plus half a Jupiter in antimatter is the minimum amount of fuel you need to make it work - not "at current technological levels", but in principle.
    That's what they said about exceeding the speed of sound... that aircraft would be "annihilated" by the transonic forces... in principle, etc...
    prior to that, the idea of heavier than air flight was impossible...
    prior to that, In the 1800's, it was thought that it was impossible (physically impossible, not just technologically unknown), to come to know the chemical composition of stars. I bet they thought that travel to the star and scooping up material to look at in a jewelers loop would be necessary to analyze composition...

    The idea that meteorites "fell from space" was ludicrous. They were called "lightening rocks" and the idea that rocks were flying around space was "impossible".

    prior to 1940, Einstein said that it was IMPOSSIBLE to harness the power of nuclear energy...

    my god, man...

    The age of fire lasted 100 millenia.. the age of agriculture a milllenia.. the industrial age - a couple of centuries... the information age - just a few decades so far. The next age will last a few years... and then exponential growth of knowledge and abilities will be simply unimaginable (as evidenced by what we think is "impossible" today).

  6. Top | #26
    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

    False analogy.

    For starters, energy doesn't get annihilated. So if it takes a Jupiter mass to create the bubble, a Jupiter mass equivalent if pure energy is released again when it collapses. You better not be anywhere close to their destination when that happens. If it is released along the entire route (mapped to normal space), you better not be anywhere near the source either. That's be easily the biggest cigar shaped supernova the galaxy has seen so far.

    That's while still ignoring that half a Jupiter in normal matter plus half a Jupiter in antimatter is the minimum amount of fuel you need to make it work - not "at current technological levels", but in principle.
    That's what they said about exceeding the speed of sound... that aircraft would be "annihilated" by the transonic forces... in principle, etc...
    prior to that, the idea of heavier than air flight was impossible...
    prior to that, In the 1800's, it was thought that it was impossible (physically impossible, not just technologically unknown), to come to know the chemical composition of stars. I bet they thought that travel to the star and scooping up material to look at in a jewelers loop would be necessary to analyze composition...

    The idea that meteorites "fell from space" was ludicrous. They were called "lightening rocks" and the idea that rocks were flying around space was "impossible".

    prior to 1940, Einstein said that it was IMPOSSIBLE to harness the power of nuclear energy...

    my god, man...

    The age of fire lasted 100 millenia.. the age of agriculture a milllenia.. the industrial age - a couple of centuries... the information age - just a few decades so far. The next age will last a few years... and then exponential growth of knowledge and abilities will be simply unimaginable (as evidenced by what we think is "impossible" today).
    So your most recent example for something that allegedly used to be impossible is ... 80 years?

    So much for your exponential growth.

  7. Top | #27
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,566
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    False analogy.

    For starters, energy doesn't get annihilated. So if it takes a Jupiter mass to create the bubble, a Jupiter mass equivalent if pure energy is released again when it collapses. You better not be anywhere close to their destination when that happens. If it is released along the entire route (mapped to normal space), you better not be anywhere near the source either. That's be easily the biggest cigar shaped supernova the galaxy has seen so far.

    That's while still ignoring that half a Jupiter in normal matter plus half a Jupiter in antimatter is the minimum amount of fuel you need to make it work - not "at current technological levels", but in principle.
    That's what they said about exceeding the speed of sound... that aircraft would be "annihilated" by the transonic forces... in principle, etc...
    prior to that, the idea of heavier than air flight was impossible...
    prior to that, In the 1800's, it was thought that it was impossible (physically impossible, not just technologically unknown), to come to know the chemical composition of stars. I bet they thought that travel to the star and scooping up material to look at in a jewelers loop would be necessary to analyze composition...

    The idea that meteorites "fell from space" was ludicrous. They were called "lightening rocks" and the idea that rocks were flying around space was "impossible".

    prior to 1940, Einstein said that it was IMPOSSIBLE to harness the power of nuclear energy...

    my god, man...

    The age of fire lasted 100 millenia.. the age of agriculture a milllenia.. the industrial age - a couple of centuries... the information age - just a few decades so far. The next age will last a few years... and then exponential growth of knowledge and abilities will be simply unimaginable (as evidenced by what we think is "impossible" today).
    So your most recent example for something that allegedly used to be impossible is ... 80 years?

    So much for your exponential growth.
    Don't confuse growth of our knowledge base with the extinction of what is thought of as "impossible". I believe that the frequency of hubris of "that's impossible" is inversely proportional to the growth of knowledge. So, ya, it makes sense that the educated people are less likely to fall into the "impossible" trap... and we should expect to see those ignorant statements less frequently.

  8. Top | #28
    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

    So your most recent example for something that allegedly used to be impossible is ... 80 years?

    So much for your exponential growth.
    Don't confuse growth of our knowledge base with the extinction of what is thought of as "impossible". I believe that the frequency of hubris of "that's impossible" is inversely proportional to the growth of knowledge. So, ya, it makes sense that the educated people are less likely to fall into the "impossible" trap... and we should expect to see those ignorant statements less frequently.
    Funny that. What's ignorant is believing you can simply progress away the first law of thermodynamics and e=mc2. Do you have any idea how long the law of conversation of energy (a.k.a. LoT 1) has stood the test of time? Do you understand why it is relevant here? Energy doesn't disappear. If it takes a supernova worth of energy to create a space time anomaly through which the spaceship could travel, a supernova worth of energy will be released when the anomaly collapses. Better not be anyhwere near then...

    I'm lying: there has been one modification to the law of conservation of energy: the realization that matter and energy are ultimately equivalent. Unfortunately, for you, that doesn't help us here either: it puts a hard upper limit for how much energy can be stored in a given amount of fuel.

    It would be really cool if interstellar travel were possible even easy. It doesn't appear to be the case though, and the fact they aren't here yet is itself strong evidence that it isn't going to get much easier.
    Last edited by Jokodo; 10-03-2019 at 08:13 PM.

  9. Top | #29
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,566
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    So your most recent example for something that allegedly used to be impossible is ... 80 years?

    So much for your exponential growth.
    Don't confuse growth of our knowledge base with the extinction of what is thought of as "impossible". I believe that the frequency of hubris of "that's impossible" is inversely proportional to the growth of knowledge. So, ya, it makes sense that the educated people are less likely to fall into the "impossible" trap... and we should expect to see those ignorant statements less frequently.
    Funny that. What's ignorant is believing you can simply progress away the first law of thermodynamics and e=mc2. Do you have any idea how long the law of conversation of energy (a.k.a. LoT 1) has stood the test of time? Do you understand why it is relevant here? Energy doesn't disappear. If it takes a supernova worth of energy to create a space time anomaly through which the spaceship could travel, a supernova worth of energy will be released when the anomaly collapses. Better not be anyhwere near then...

    I'm lying: there has been one modification to the law of conservation of energy: the realization that matter and energy are ultimately equivalent. Unfortunately, for you, that doesn't help us here either: it puts a hard upper limit for how much energy can be stored in a given amount of fuel.

    It would be really cool if interstellar travel were possible even easy. It doesn't appear to be the case though, and the fact they aren't here yet is itself strong evidence that it isn't going to get much easier.
    You mean physical limits like the laws of thermodynamics that says it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a silicon chip any smaller than.... oh wait... Mores Law has yet to fail...

    Let's use the "It's impossible to ever know what a star is made out of" claim of 1800.
    Did we somehow break or otherwise violate the laws of physics to get past that "impossibility"? Of course not. We just broke the assumption that the heat of the star was the limiting factor in reaching out and scooping up material... we learned how to measure at a distance, getting around a barrier that was once thought to be in the way by avoiding it altogether.
    If it takes a supernova worth of energy to create a space time anomaly through which the spaceship could travel, a supernova worth of energy will be released when the anomaly collapses.
    As I alluded to earlier.. Einstein... EINSTEIN, for fuck's sake, also fell into that little trap there... We HAVE tapped nuclear power and somehow managed to keep the whole thing from going "nova".

    A lot of problem solving is about finding another way... not brute forcing yourself through the most obvious direct path (scooping up star material from its surface with your hands, or bashing stones directly together, or whatever)

  10. Top | #30
    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

    Funny that. What's ignorant is believing you can simply progress away the first law of thermodynamics and e=mc2. Do you have any idea how long the law of conversation of energy (a.k.a. LoT 1) has stood the test of time? Do you understand why it is relevant here? Energy doesn't disappear. If it takes a supernova worth of energy to create a space time anomaly through which the spaceship could travel, a supernova worth of energy will be released when the anomaly collapses. Better not be anyhwere near then...

    I'm lying: there has been one modification to the law of conservation of energy: the realization that matter and energy are ultimately equivalent. Unfortunately, for you, that doesn't help us here either: it puts a hard upper limit for how much energy can be stored in a given amount of fuel.

    It would be really cool if interstellar travel were possible even easy. It doesn't appear to be the case though, and the fact they aren't here yet is itself strong evidence that it isn't going to get much easier.
    You mean physical limits like the laws of thermodynamics that says it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a silicon chip any smaller than.... oh wait... Mores Law has yet to fail...

    Let's use the "It's impossible to ever know what a star is made out of" claim of 1800.
    Did we somehow break or otherwise violate the laws of physics to get past that "impossibility"? Of course not. We just broke the assumption that the heat of the star was the limiting factor in reaching out and scooping up material... we learned how to measure at a distance, getting around a barrier that was once thought to be in the way by avoiding it altogether.
    If it takes a supernova worth of energy to create a space time anomaly through which the spaceship could travel, a supernova worth of energy will be released when the anomaly collapses.
    As I alluded to earlier.. Einstein... EINSTEIN, for fuck's sake, also fell into that little trap there... We HAVE tapped nuclear power and somehow managed to keep the whole thing from going "nova".

    A lot of problem solving is about finding another way... not brute forcing yourself through the most obvious direct path (scooping up star material from its surface with your hands, or bashing stones directly together, or whatever)
    Moore's law has fallen 15 years ago, lot has stood strong for what? 150, 500, 1500?

    I know where I put my money.

    https://images.app.goo.gl/uunpkxxDrqHiouYD8

Posting Permissions

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