1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/introducing-the-paracast/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!
    Dismiss Notice

anti gravity propulsion, why so interesting?

Discussion in 'General Freewheeling Chit-Chat' started by the_great_attractor, Apr 29, 2017.



  1. the_great_attractor

    the_great_attractor Skilled Investigator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    sweden
    Can any one explain in a simple way why many people think that some sort of anti gravity propulsion is the answer to ufo-propulsion and how we would benefit from it?

    I am at a really low level of the topic so plese keep it simple..

    My thoughts, could a "anti gravitymotor" generate more "anti gravity" than the gravity that exist on its location?
    If not, wouldent the craft with the anti gravitymotor just levitate?
    Or at best just fall in the opposite direction of earths gravitypull?
    And in space with almost zero g it would be useless?

    At best it would be a great compliment to an other propulsion for taking stuff in orbit, or what?
     
  2. Goggs Mackay

    Goggs Mackay Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    3,928
    Likes Received:
    3,307
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Aberdeen, Scotland.
    I think I understand where you're coming from.

    If some mechanism could counter gravity's downward pull, enough to equate to the craft's weight, then it would not cause the craft to rise or go horizontally etc, an additional net force would have provide actual propulsion.
    Of course, not having gravity would for allow a rocket motor to provide more lift and escaping the atmosphere would be much easier.
    Where I'm a bit lost is when considering this mechanism/field/force that nullifies gravity for an object. If the strength/power of the anti-gravity was able to be increased or decreased to above or below the point required just to cancel the object's weight, does that then mean that with an increase, an acceleration would result? And how much 'more' than the power for equilibrium, is possible? Is the level of repulsion unlimited, is there a limit?

    Another point to consider is whether creating an antigravity force would in any way reduce an objects inertia? An object could free float in interstellar space, away from any close strong gravity field and not being pulled in any direction. That object still has inertia which resists a change in motion. It may be the case that anti-gravity might involve a metaphorical bubble round a craft, and inside this bubble, nothing is affected by an external gravity pull, and nothing inside the bubble has inertia. If many UFO reports/footage are to be believed, something allows UFOs to pretty much attain huge velocity instantly, without suffering structural damage. In our physics this would expend an insane amount of energy. What energy source and power mechanism so powerful could fit in small craft? If UFOs can 'switch off ' their inertial mass then it would easier explain these accelerations etc.

    To have something that nullifies/opposes gravity, what would happen as the object gets far away from the gravity source? Does it need a strong gravity force to work on in the first place? If so, does the antigrav force diminish as the object leaves Earth's gravity?

    I have always tended to think there must be two parts to UFO propulsion; something that allows a craft to 'float' in mid air indefinitely, and some other propulsion force, kicks in when needed to actually traverse an atmosphere or interstellar space.

    Ive no idea if any of these ideas are already ruled out by what science currently knows. I'm possibly crucifying some science I used to know but no harm in trying!
    There many heads at the forum whose mastery of any science is far better than my own and I welcome criticism warmly if it provides answers i dont already have or better still, replaces my wrong ones altogether. And I'd be flabbergasted if I actually managed to hit on only correct answers, as the whole academic community combined has failed to hit on antigravity effectively enough to make it a reality so i doubt ill have better ideas than they!
     
  3. Usual Suspect

    Usual Suspect USI Calgary

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    5,336
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    I think the best interpretation isn't simply a gravity nullifier but a gravity projector; something capable of projecting a gravitational effect some distance from the generator itself in a given direction. This solves virtually all the issues. How it would be done is another matter. Hypothetically energy = mass so energy could hypothetically be used to create mass, and if it was massive enough and short lived, it would briefly draw the craft in its direction and then dissipate. Rinse and repeat and you get movement. Maybe the dissipation could even be recirculated through the system somehow to increase efficiency.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2017
  4. the_great_attractor

    the_great_attractor Skilled Investigator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    sweden
    Goggs you were right on the money of what i mean.
    And the text above is also a interesting part..
    But hard to get my head around that sudden shift in direction or speed would not affect the craft or crew.


    Now we have come a long way, this could work for propulsion.
    But the amount of mass/energy to create that kind of force must be absolutly staggering!
    If a craft is travelling in a given direction at high speed and say we want to "ufo-like"(?) turn in an other direction would a gravity pull from a star be enough to make it turn that fast??

    Thank you both for your reply!
     
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  5. Goggs Mackay

    Goggs Mackay Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    3,928
    Likes Received:
    3,307
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Aberdeen, Scotland.
    It's the inertia of any mass, including our own body and it's this resistance to a change in motion that causes the problem. If a craft accelerates at staggering g's, the sluggishness of our body mass to accommodate this new velocity, is what would squish us into mulch into our seats. Same as when you corner a car very fast. Our body is 'happy' going straight forward and it takes a sideways force of the car 'pushing' us round to the new course.

    The point I was making in my post about the bubble in which nothing has inertia, is my attempt to try and explain these accelerations. If we had no inertia, we could change velocity at whim and not 'lag' behind. Whether inertia is something that can be switched off (in actuality or effectively) I think may indeed be the case, at least as far as many documented UFOs are concerned. While a strong metal structure can undoubtedly withstand far greater g's than our puny selves, it's still hard to even picture UFOs not having some kind of inertia cancelling, because even ridged structures can only take so much g's before buckling under the strain.

    Humans absolutely could travel at large light speed fractions, it's just that at the moment, we would have to reach those speeds over a long period, keeping the magnitude of acceleration to a comfortable limit.
     
  6. Usual Suspect

    Usual Suspect USI Calgary

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    5,336
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    A gravity projector type system would automatically compensate for inertia because for every change in speed in direction there would be a uniform counter-force acting on all materials all the way down to the atomic level. Inertia is presently compensated for by restraints ( seat belts, harnesses and special suits ) but they only act on a limited number of the molecules involved, and the pressure is caused by all the other molecules not being restrained inside the body or craft that push up against them. However a gravity type drive system would essentially be like putting a little seat belt field around every molecule and atom and act on them simultaneously, so in an ideal system there would be no sensation of inertial change at all, nothing would get torn apart, and nobody would get flung around the inside of the craft.

    On energy requirements, there is a fair bit of room for speculation there. The lighter the craft the easier it is to move around, so super lightweight materials would be advantageous. Coincidentally or otherwise, it is this type of material that has been reported in the most high profile cases ( e.g. Roswell ). Another factor is that gravitational influence diminishes in accordance with the inverse-square law, meaning that the closer the field is to the craft the less hard it has to work. So if the system only had to project the field a few millimeters from the ship, a lot less energy would be needed, and since the idea is to produce a field rather than a solid stable piece of matter, the energy requirements could hypothetically be much less again. Plus if there's an energy reuptake system then the whole thing might be a lot more efficient.

    I realize this all sounds very sci-fi, and I'm non-apologetic about that. I don't claim to be doing science here and therefore this cannot be legitimately classed as pseudoscience either. But sci-fi sometimes becomes sci-fact. A few centuries ago a vehicle like the Tesla wouldn't even have been imagined, let alone that the mysterious magnetic fields that drive the wheels have built-in energy reuptake systems. Finally, I've seen a UFO pulling those fantastic maneuvers. So have a lot of other people. Therefore
    somehow it is possible. Maybe we're completely off-track with the gravity projector theory, but so-far, it seems like the best explanation to me, assuming that is, that we are in-fact dealing with craft made of materials and high-technology, which I personally believe is the case with UFOs. Other phenomena not made of materials and technology do not really count as UFOs, but that's a whole other discussion.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  7. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    200
    This exact concept has been the central burning quest of my life ever since I watched a pair of brightly radiant ufo’s execute zig-zag hairpin maneuvers in perfect formation against a cloudless daytime summer sky, as I stood amazed alongside five of the other kids in my neighborhood when I was seven years old.

    So I’ve either read every published academic paper on this subject, or close to it. I started a new thread about this subject before I realized that it was a duplicate of this one.

    You guys are going to like the answers to these questions. Because even though we can’t yet build a gravitational field propulsion system, the general theory of relativity tells us a great deal about the physics of this propulsion concept, and it’s very exciting stuff.

    Most of your questions were answered in an academic physics paper by theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994. It’s very easy to read – you don’t need to understand the tensor calculus mathematics in the paper because he discusses what they mean in pretty clear and simple terms:

    “The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity,” Alcubierre, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 1994
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0009013.pdf

    But here’s a list of the unique performance characteristics of a gravitational field propulsion system. Once you see these, you’ll understand why most people have concluded that ufo’s are employing this kind of field propulsion mechanism:

    1.) Silent hovering with no emissions.

    2.) The capability of essentially instantaneous changes in velocity. This can mean changes from stationary hovering to extremely high speed, or extreme changes in direction at extremely high speed.

    3.) Zero inertial reaction forces within the field. A pilot within a gravitational field propulsion device would feel like they’re standing motionless, even under extreme accelerations. Looking through a window in the craft, the pilot could see the world zig-zag outside of the craft at high speed as the craft maneuvered erratically, as if watching a movie screen of the world erratically moving about.

    4.) There’s no upper limit to velocity. A craft that exploits a polarized gravitational field for propulsion can travel much faster than the speed of light. In theory, the crew aboard the craft could travel to Alpha Centauri and be back in time for lunch.

    5.) No special relativistic effects: the craft remains on a “locally flat” region of spacetime, and is propelled by the gravitational field distortion ahead of the craft and behind the craft, so the craft doesn’t move *through* spacetime. So special relativity doesn’t apply. There’s no time dilation, no length contraction, and no relativistic mass increase.

    6.) No energy is expended for propulsion. Once the propulsion system is charged, the only cost in energy to produce accelerations, is the inherent systemic inefficiency of the technology that utilizes the energy.

    7.) This final point hasn’t been mentioned in the academic literature yet (I first heard about it in the 1950s-era books by the self-proclaimed contactee Daniel Fry), but it’s readily apparent once you understand this concept: the field is transparent to other gravitational fields. So while the propulsion field has no effect upon the passengers (inertia remains the same within the field – things still have their usual mass), any external gravitational field is felt within the craft. So the passengers in a craft maneuvering over the surface of the Earth would still feel the Earth’s gravity until they rose in altitude so high that the gravitational acceleration is no longer noticeable at that height.

    A gravitational field propulsion system doesn’t rely upon the ambient gravitational field at all – it’s a totally independent system. The magnitude of available acceleration is limited only by the technology used to control the energy that produces the field. This is because there’s no known upper limit to the degree/rate at which spacetime can be distorted. The concept was inspired by the inflationary era of the early cosmos, at which time spacetime expanded by many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. During cosmic inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of over 10^60 times in the span of roughly 10^-30 second*. The expansion of spacetime isn’t technically something that’s measured as a velocity, because velocity is what we measure *through* spacetime, so it’s tricky and misleading to call it a speed, but I’ve seen estimates of 10^20 times the speed of light and higher – in theory there’s no known upper limit to the rate that spacetime can expand and contract.
    * How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation? (Advanced) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

    No, you just need to change the shape of the field – for hovering, the orientation of the gravitational dipole field would be antiparallel to the Earth’s gravitational field, and to move you just tip that axis in the direction that you want to go.

    As long as the craft itself is within the region of flat spacetime at the center of the field, the structure would feel no stress at all, even under very high accelerations, as Usual Suspect described. Think of it this way – the craft itself and everything within it, is in “free-fall.” In general relativity this is called “following a geodesic,” where no inertial forces exist.

    Energy is a very interesting issue. General relativity describes precisely the degree to which any given density and magnitude of mass-energy-pressure-stress curves spacetime – but it doesn’t tell us how mass-energy couples to spacetime. If we understood the coupling mechanism, then we might be able to amplify the effect, or even change its polarity, by some vast factor. Theoretical physicists working on models of quantum gravity hope to illuminate this question: it’s the key to everything pertaining to an attainable gravitational field propulsion system.

    But if we believe that any ufo has ever crashed upon the Earth, then we know that there’s a way to produce intense gravitational field propulsion effects without astronomical magnitudes of energy, because a craft that’s harnessing the mass-energy equivalent of, say, a house…would sterilize the Earth if that energy were suddenly released in a field containment accident (the explosion would yield several times times the energy of the Chixulub impact that wiped out the dinosaurs). So it would appear that there’s a way to achieve these effects with a comparably modest magnitude of energy: we just haven’t figured out how to do it yet.

    You’ve clearly read about the warp field bubble described by Alcubierre, so you’re definitely ahead of the pack, Goggs. Hopefully I’ve cleared up your other questions, and you can find out more from the Alcubierre paper above. And NASA is currently testing a tiny warp field experimental device at the Johnson Space Center – the team leader Harold “Sonny” White has written some good papers on the subject. His paper “Warp Field Mechanics 101” is quite interesting and easy to read (it has some pics of their device as well, at the end). He gets a couple of points wrong, but his work on writing a canonical reformulation of the Einstein field equations (published in his earlier papers) is marvelous. Here’s the link to his unpublished paper that I mentioned:

    “Warp Field Mechanics 101,” White, 2011
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf

    You’re right that Alcubierre’s warp field needs to surround the craft to avert steep gravitational field gradients (commonly known as “gravitational tidal forces”) intersecting the craft that could otherwise tear it to shreds. But dissipation can be averted by using resonant evanescent field – basically any kind of field can be created in a form called a “harmonic oscillator,” which behaves like a pendulum, oscillating between states of potential and kinetic energy. And just like a pendulum, it contains its energy, minus whatever friction losses occur at the pivot point. All real systems have some level of loss, but it can be very tiny, like we see in electrical superconductors.

    Now you see why this is such an exciting concept =) I wish more people knew about the intricacies of this principle – it’s deeply inspiring stuff. If I do an interview on the show we’ll get into it in more detail. You’re right about the mass-energy requirements specified with our current level of understanding of this concept: White optimized the field configuration of the warp bubble and got it down from Alcubierre’s requirement of the mass-energy equivalent of the planet Jupiter, down to the mass-energy equivalent of a Volkswagen bug automobile. But that’s obviously still way too high for modern human technology. We need a better understanding of the coupling mechanism between mass-energy and spacetime. That might change the game significantly, and bring this kind of technology within reach.

    You’ve touched on a fascinating and controversial concept here. Viewpoints differ greatly on this subject…which comes down to the origin of inertia. There’s no consensus about that yet. But in my estimation, the theory published by Dennis Sciama in 1953 is by far the best one (in fact this paper was his PhD thesis under Paul Dirac, the genius who predicted antimatter). He presented a paper that attributes inertial mass to the gravitoelectric interaction between an object and all of the other matter in the universe – thereby giving Mach’s principle a formal and quantitative expression. And it matches the data remarkably well. Here’s his paper if you care to check it out:

    “On the Origin of Inertia,” Sciama, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1953
    1953MNRAS.113...34S Page 34

    If he’s right (and frankly at this point I’m pretty much convinced of it), then you've raised an intriguing new thought: what if we could amplify the gravitational interaction of a craft with all of the matter along a given vector in space? In that case, we wouldn’t need to generate a new gravitational field at all – we could just focus the existing field along a given axis, like a taut rubber band, and be pulled in that direction. We don’t know how to do something like that yet, or even if it’s possible, but it’s neat to realize that if Sciama is correct then all of the field energy we need is already all around us, and if we could shape it to our purposes then we could use it to reach the stars.

    You’ve got some good thoughts this subject; I was hoping that some others here had put their thinking caps on regarding how these things propel themselves.

    One of the convenient things about a gravitational field propulsion system, is that gravitational fields accelerate all masses equally. So you don’t have to worry about mass restrictions: it’s the magnitude of the field gradient that counts – a light craft will “fall” at the same rate as a heavy one. So I suspect that the lightweight materials we’ve heard about, are simply a reflection of the technological efficiency/mastery of the civilization that created it. If you can make an incredibly resilient and radiation-proof hull plus structural beams using a tiny amount of lightweight matter, and cost is not an obstacle, then that’s what you’re going to do, y’know?

    I like the cut of your jib, Sir. When I posted about this topic the other day, the backlash was unbelievable – in our pathetic culture it’s more fashionable to be the ignorant jerk who proclaims that anything which hasn't been done yet, can’t be done. The same kind of visionless people guffawed at the Wright brothers too, until they actually flew at Kitty Hawk in 1903. Those of us who have witnessed these craft performing extraordinary maneuvers in the sky, know that it can be done. And that’s the first step to achieving anything – knowing that it’s possible.

    And today, we already have a solid theoretical basis to evaluate this concept and its capabilities, which are fully consistent with the general theory of relativity. We’re in the position of Leonardo da Vinci, who published “Codex on the Flight of Birds” around 1506, which explained the aerodynamic flight of birds and proposed the first designs for flying machines based on his analysis.

    We may not be able to build a ufo yet, but now we know that it’s possible. And so far, we humans have achieved everything that we’ve proven to be theoretically possible, and usually sooner than later.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  8. Usual Suspect

    Usual Suspect USI Calgary

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    5,336
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    I don't think it's quite that simple because while what you say is true with respect to linear acceleration from a standstill, changing direction involves countering inertia, and the more massive an object is, the more inertia it will have at a given speed than something less massive, thereby requiring a greater gravitational force to influence its trajectory than that of a lighter object. There's a distinct relationship between momentum, velocity, mass, and gravity. So for example if the Moon was twice as massive as it is, it could not maintain a stable orbit at it's present distance and speed. It also takes more gravity to accelerate something more quickly, e.g. things don't fall as fast on the Moon as they do here.
     
    marduk likes this.
  9. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Gravitational effects still exhibit ballistic trajectory.

    An object falling into a gravity well does not instantly accelerate. Near the surface of the earth it accelerates at 9.8m^2. It starts at zero, then in one second it's going about 10m/s, the second at 20m/s, and so on. It does not go from zero to 1000kph due to gravity. So why would we expect gravitational drives to have instantaneous acceleration?

    The only way you can have instantaneous acceleration is if the thing you're accelerating has zero rest mass. In other words, it doesn't really exist as an object - it's like a photon.

    Interestingly, even photons succumb to inertia even though they have no resting mass -- but they have kinetic energy, so they still have inertia due to 'kinetic mass'. So I guess if you want zero inertia, you need zero rest mass and zero kinetic energy.

    Gravitation is not inertia. Objects in multiple gravitational fields still have inertia.

    This is simply incorrect. Matter entering a black hole does not ever exceed the speed of light.

    If local spacetime was flat, there would be no acceleration due to gravity.
    Bending spacetime does many things, but one of them is not bypassing relativity.

    There's only two ways to warp space: mass/energy. Pick one, but either one is really just energy. Moving energy still consumes energy. Thermodynamics, and all that.

    The moon pulls on us, just like the earth does, the sun does, and alpha centari and everything else in the universe does. We just notice one more than the others.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
    Usual Suspect likes this.
  10. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    200
    This is a common misconception, so let's clarify what we're talking about here.

    First let's get this part out of the way: if the Moon were twice as massive at it is now, it could orbit at the same distance, but the Earth-Moon barycenter would move slightly closer to the Moon, so the Moon would orbit the Earth once every 27.158 days rather than once every 27.322 days, by Kepler's third law. The tides would also be higher. But this example doesn't tell us anything about a gravitational field propulsion system.

    Let's focus on Alcubierre's warp field propulsion concept because it makes everything very clear. In his concept, the warp field is like a soap bubble, where the bubble is the gravitational field propelling the craft. In opposing sides of the bubble, there's a maximum region of positive gravitation on the one side, and a region of maximum negative gravitation on the other side.

    The region within the bubble is moved around by the compression and expansion of spacetime occurring within the gravitational bubble, but technically, the craft within the bubble is completely stationary with respect to its own spacetime inside the bubble. So the craft within that region has no momentum, experiences no inertial acceleration forces, in fact none of the usual phenomena associated with classical mechanics or special relativity, no matter how the field moves the craft or how rapidly it changes direction.

    You can put anything you want inside the bubble, and it will move the same way, because that region isn't moving through spacetime at all. Rather, the bubble is altering the spacetime around the contents of the bubble. It's a weird and in some ways a counterintuitive principle, which takes a little getting used to. But it's all explained in Alcubierre's 1994 paper, with all of the formal mathematical arguments to support it within the context of general relativity. Check it out, it's a fascinating read. And in the ~23 years since it was published, nobody has argued about the validity of the mathematics or the principles; the objections to it are purely technical, like "how could we control that magnitude of energy density," and "how can we harness that much negative energy - and is it even physically possible to do so?" Some people online still think that negative mass-energy doesn't exist, but the Casimir effect proves that it does, and the "dark energy" effect proves that negative gravitation is a real physical phenomenon. So the burning question now is "can we harness these effects to the extent required to produce a practical gravitational field propulsion system?" Nobody knows yet.
     
    Usual Suspect likes this.
  11. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    No.
    https://www.quora.com/Classical-Mec...n-suddenly-became-twice-the-mass-of-the-Earth

    I believe the bolded part is incorrect.

    The only way to make the drive not require more energy than the universe contains (along with exotic matter that might not even exist) is to make it a torus. The toroidal field would provide theoretical linear inertialess acceleration. It would not provide inertialess acceleration in any arbitrary direction.

    At any rate, the drive depends on a magical substance that we're just making up. So trying to apply logic to magic is little more than mental masturbation.

    Sigh.
     
    Usual Suspect likes this.
  12. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    200
    The acceleration of a gravitational propulsion system can be virtually instantaneous because the field acts on the spacetime itself, not on the mass. Technically, the mass remains stationary with respect to its local spacetime – it never gains any momentum or kinetic energy. That’s why there are no inertial reaction forces. The rate of acceleration depends only on the gradient of the propulsion field, and there’s no known upper limit to the gradient of a gravitational field. So a craft employing this principle could leap from a standstill to thousands of miles per hour in the blink of an eye, and the craft would experience no inertial reaction forces because it's still stationary with respect to its local spacetime environment.

    You’re confusing “inertial reaction forces” with “inertial mass.” The craft within the field experiences no inertial reaction forces because the craft isn’t actually accelerated – the spacetime around it is simply undergoing deformation.

    And I already clearly stated that bodies within the field maintain their ordinary inertial mass. Go look.

    You are simply wrong. Try reading the paper so you might actually know what you’re talking about. Literally the first line of the abstract states:

    “It is shown how, within the framework of general relativity and without the introduction of wormholes, it is possible to modify a spacetime in a way that allows a spaceship to travel with an arbitrarily large speed.” - Alcubierre

    Wrong again – on both counts. Like I said, the region in the center of the field where the craft resides is flat, so the craft experiences no acceleration forces. The regions of gravitational field distortion ahead of the craft and behind the craft compress and expand the spacetime around it, which changes the position of the flat region inside the field. Are you even trying to understand this?

    The general theory of relativity provides this field propulsion principle that circumvents the principles of special relativity.

    This shouldn’t come as any kind of surprise: distant galaxies are borne away from us via the Hubble expansion of spacetime, they're not accelerating through spacetime – they’re being carried along with it. This is essentially the same thing. And the most distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light (although it’s not technically accurate to state it this way, because the Hubble expansion isn't technically equivalent to a velocity), which is why we can’t see them – they’re outside of our light cone due to the expansion of spacetime between us and them.

    You’re all mixed up. Lemme ask you this: does the Earth expend energy when it accelerates a meteorite?

    Once the field is established, it requires no additional energy to produce accelerations (other than energy losses inherent in the system itself – resistance and so forth). Technically the craft never gains any kinetic energy: it remains motionless within the region of spacetime that it rests in. Only the spacetime itself is distorted. So once the distortion exists, it doesn’t cost any additional energy to maintain it. This is obviously in stark contrast to the rocket principle, where every acceleration requires an expenditure of energy.

    I said it’s “no longer noticeable at that height,” referring specifically to rising into space from the surface of the Earth. I didn’t say that there’s no gravity at all at a great height above the Earth. Nice try though, I think this is the first thing that you said that was correct, and almost relevant too.

    Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? That’s what would happen if the Moon suddenly became twice as massive as the Earth, not twice its own mass.

    And I stipulated that it would have to orbit a little bit faster to maintain it’s nearly circular orbit around the new Earth-Moon barycenter. Jesus, this is like arguing with a child desperate to prove that he’s smarter than all of the adults in the room.

    What a shocker. And you’re wrong, again. I posted the link to the paper. Use it – that’s what it’s there for.

    Lol. Woooo. People far more intelligent than you have already done the calculations, and you’re wrong. Again.

    Dr. Harold “Sonny” White, the Team Lead for NASA’s Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory at the Johnson Space Center, utilized his canonical reformulation of the Alcubierre metric equation to write a computer program that allowed him to test various gravitational field propulsion configurations for the purpose of minimizing the energy requirements to attain an apparent superluminal velocity of 10 times the speed of light (the use of the word “apparent” goes to the point that the craft doesn’t actually move through its local region of spacetime, but as we’ve discussed, the spacetime distortion displaces the craft without accelerating its mass in the flat region of spacetime inside the field).

    He found that he could get the energy requirement down to the mass-energy equivalent of the Voyager spacecraft, ~825kg. Which is roughly equivalent to the mass of a Volkswagen Beetle automobile, 800–840kg. The results of his optimization program are on page 6 of his PowerPoint presentation titled “Warp Field Physics,” which can be found here:
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf

    You’re talking about Robert L. Forward’s gravitational dipole generator, which I told you about in another thread, and which has nothing to do with this topic other than being generally related to engineering gravitational field effects.

    It’s like you think that everything there is to know about physics was covered in your high school sophomore physics class.

    Negative energy plays a central role in quantum field theory (see: virtual particles), and every credible physicist on the planet knows that it’s been proven to exist since University of Washington physicist Steve Lamoreaux measured the Casimir effect for the first time in 1997. Then in 1998 astronomers proved that negative gravitational acceleration - the key component of gravitational field propulsion concepts – was real when they discovered a gravitational repulsion between the galaxy clusters. So you’re only about 20 years behind the times.

    Here’s a small sample of statements in the published academic literature regarding the experimental detection of negative energy in the laboratory:

    “We thus have experimental evidence from the bending of light, that space-time is curved, and confirmation from the Casimir effect, that we can warp it in the negative direction.”
    "Space and Time Warps,” Hawking, Nd Public Lectures. Cambridge University, 2006

    “Such a wormhole would tend to collapse with time, unless it were held up by the repulsive gravity of a negative-energy density. Classically, energy densities are always positive, but quantum field theory allows the energy density to be negative locally. An example is the Casimir effect.”
    “Chronology protection conjecture,” Hawking, Physical Review D, 1992
    http://thelifeofpsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Hawking-1992.pdf

    “In Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Casimir effect arises in space-times with non-trivial topology. The vacuum polarization resulting from the Casimir effect can drive the inflation process.”
    “New Developments in the Casimir Effect,” Bordag, Mohideen, and Mostepanenko, Physics Reports, 2001
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0106045.pdf

    “Nonetheless, we have also found that it is possible for the net energy density in the region between the plates to be negative, depending upon the plate separation and the plasma frequency of the material involved.”
    -and-
    “Contrary to the view expressed by Lamoreaux [11], the appearance of negative energy density in a quantum field theory is very natural. One can easily find quantum states of the free quantized electromagnetic field in empty space which have local negative energy densities. A squeezed vacuum state is an example [28, 29].”
    "The Energy Density in the Casimir Effect,” Sopova and Ford, Physical Review D, 2002
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0204125.pdf

    “Does this theorem mean that superluminal travel is impossible? No, because the weak energy condition is not obeyed by systems of quantum fields. The best example is the Casimir effect, and in fact, the Casimir effect does provide an example which satisfies condition 1.”
    “Superluminal travel requires negative energies,” Olum, Physical Review Letters, 1998
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9805003.pdf
    My thoughts exactly.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  13. Usual Suspect

    Usual Suspect USI Calgary

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    5,336
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    I think a lot of the confusion on this topic revolves around the concept of spacetime geometry, which is mathematical description of the way things seem to behave, and should not be construed as conclusive evidence of the way things actually are. In other words there's no evidence that space is actually curved. There's only evidence that things with mass behave in a way that can be modeled using that sort of math. So we need to be careful about how we interpret this analogy. Assuming that things like warp bubbles can remove an object's inertial properties is only relevant from the perspective of the object inside the bubble because it's in a self-contained frame of reference.

    However if that object slammed into Jupiter at .5 light speed, I believe every scientist you ask will tell you that the size of the impact will have a lot to do with the dissipation of the enormous inertial energy it had due to its velocity relative to normal space. In other words, it always has inertia even if it's effects are compensated for inside the bubble, and the higher it's mass and/or velocity, the more energy it would take to compensate. Mind you, I'm no astrophysicist, so perhaps my interpretation isn't as accurate as it could be.

    Why I keep liking all the posts here because they represent some really intense thought. We don't know how alien technology works, but maybe by brainstorming around and hashing out theories in a constructive way, something might shake out :).
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  14. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    200
    From your lips to God’s ears, brother. I think it’s useful to discuss ideas within context of the theories they’re expressed in, generally. But it’s hard not to feel silly doing that, when we have to adopt one nomenclature for discussions about gravitation, and a totally different nomenclature when we’re talking about quantum field theory and the standard model. And frankly I’ve always found the language of general relativity to be overly poetic and sort of pretentious. I prefer the nuts and bolts language of engineering - direct, practical, and precise. People like Michio Kaku are refreshing because they’re not afraid to approach physics creatively, but when I hear people talk about black holes being “wormholes through spacetime,” I want to slap somebody. That’s taking it a bit too far. Black holes aren’t actually holes, smh.

    Fortunately, we may be on the threshold of the post-general-relativity era. A brilliant physicist at Caltech named Carver Mead went back to Einstein’s early 1911-12 papers on gravitation, and using what we’ve learned in the intervening century, he was able to see where Einstein was going with it before he veered off on the weird tangent that gave us general relativity. He finished that early work and arrived at an entirely new formulation of the theory of gravity. He hasn’t published a full treatment of the theory yet, but he’s done several complete calculations using it, and in every case his predictions are within the observational error of a wide range of phenomenon that we now take as proof in support of general relativity. But his theory predicts a different polarization for gravitational waves, which we’ll be able to test with the new LIGO facilities coming online, when the next gravitational wave detection happens. He calls his new theory G4v, for “four-vector-potential gravitation,” and it’s expressed in the same language as quantum field theory. No more “curved spacetime,” just vector potential fields in good ole Minkowski spacetime. I was stunned when he showed that he could predict all of the same effects as GR within a flat spacetime - I was taught that was impossible. He gave a wonderful one-hour talk about it which is surprisingly easy to follow, if you’re into theoretical physics:



    It is, in a sense, almost like the region within Alcubierre’s warp field bubble is in its own little universe. It’s certainly a self-contained frame of reference as you say. But within that bubble the laws of physics are totally unchanged. Objects still have the same inertial mass and everything. But while you’re executing bizarre maneuvers and looking out at the universe around you, you’d see the universe zig-zagging all over the place. That would be weird experience. And more fun than a trip to Burning Man, haha.

    This is a really fascinating question. I’ve been scouring the literature to find any kind of treatment of this scenario, but I can’t find anything – a little talk about smaller particles entering the field, but even that was purely qualitative and highly speculative.

    It has occurred to me that if the warp field suddenly collapses, the craft would immediately stop because it never acquired any kinetic energy to begin with. And since travel within the warp field always feels motionless anyway, suddenly stopping wouldn’t incur any inertial reaction forces: the universe would just stop zipping past you. So the craft never acquires any relativistic mass, but the field itself might be dangerous in a collision – I have no idea what the wavefunction of a superluminal gravitational field would be like; I don’t think anybody does yet.

    But there’s an interesting aspect to it: the positive gravitational field out front possesses positive energy density, and the negative gravitational field behind the craft possesses an equal and opposite negative energy density, summing to zero. So the field itself can grow exponentially without creating any net energy whatsoever. It makes me think that if you collided with a planet at 10,000 times the speed of light, the positive energy released upon impact would be enormous, the craft would come to a sudden standstill the instant the field collapsed, and the negative energy would nearly instantaneously absorb the positive energy explosion. But I’m not sure. It looks like everybody’s too focused on the “serious science” at this point, and trying to figure out how to get a warp field acceleration of .00001m/s^2, to worry about what would happen when the thing goes “splat!” against some thoughtlessly placed planet. =D

    I agree – sometimes I spend too much time living my own little warped bubble, poring over all this stuff in conceptual isolation because all of the professional physics boards have banned discussion about anything not already empirically proven and published in the college textbooks. After awhile working on our own, your thoughts tend to get stuck in circles. Kicking the can around can jog loose all kinds of new ideas - just today the_great_attractor got me thinking about Sciama’s gravitational model of inertia in a new way. And I enjoy talking with people who have a genuine interest in this kind of thing. It’s intriguing to see that a truly confounding sighting can sometimes light a weird little light in a person’s mind – sometimes I wonder if that’s the whole point of all this.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  15. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Are you saying the Alcubierre drive is a gravity drive?
    Because I don't think that's what it is. It's a space/time tensor field effect.
    Objects entering gravitational fields still have inertia.

    Again, you're referring to the AWD and not a gravity drive now, correct?

    Because I don't think the AWD is a gravity drive.

    If you're talking about the AWD, say you're talking about the AWD. It's not antigravity, and not a gravity drive.

    I am trying to understand it, without imbuing it with any mystical qualities.

    AWD does not put a gravity field ahead or behind the craft.

    It expands spacetime behind the craft, and contracts it ahead of the craft. Using magic.

    This is not what gravity does. Gravity bends spacetime, it does not compress it or expand it.

    And there I'm with you. Again, using exotic matter or negative energy states that may or may not exist.

    Here's the problem.

    The expansion seems happen between galaxies, not within them. It appears to only happen where spacetime is flat.


    Of course it does, in the form of momentum. You don't get energy for nothing.

    Gravity assist - Wikipedia

    I disagree.

    The Physics and Mathematics of Warp Drive

    The effect is the same.

    And at this point I give up.

    You might want to talk to an actual physicist or two about this stuff. I have. I don't claim to be one, though, so poke all the holes you want.

    Waive your hands in the air, confuse the effect discussed in the AWD with gravity, and use magical substances all you want to make the problems go away.

    It will make a good movie. But it won't make a spaceship.

    Because the logic here is like saying 2+2=5 for some values of 2.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  16. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Interestingly, and I'll be honest, I'm speculating here, if the AWD worked and you did ram a planet with it, I think the shear from the warp bubble would likely cause more issues than momentum.

    Because I don't think the object in the bubble would have momentum. The contracting spacetime in front would suddenly expand back to normal, and the expanding spacetime in the back would collapse back to normal.

    I'm guessing that would be bad for anybody outside of it.
     
  17. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
  18. the_great_attractor

    the_great_attractor Skilled Investigator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    sweden
    Some one here are in need of a really big hug..
    Humility is something i like in a discussion.
    Thank you all for the interesting Input!
     
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  19. Usual Suspect

    Usual Suspect USI Calgary

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    5,336
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    Well, I've got my story and I'm sticking to it ... lol. I don't think warp bubbles are physically possible. As they stand now there is no evidence for them other than as geometric patterns resulting from mathematical analogies to hypothetical real world behavior. What the bubble concept really is, isn't so much a "bubble" as a description of properties that can be illustrated in that way to help make sense of them. I think the graphic EQ analogy for audio is a good comparison. With a graphic EQ, sound is portrayed as a graphical representation using a series of bars corresponding to frequency amplitude, and hypothetically we could create a variety of such readouts in different shapes and sizes including circles. In fact that's a major consideration in audio player visualizations, but changing the way something is visualized doesn't do anything to the actual thing itself. A graphical EQ is simply a picture, not sound. And a warp bubble is simply a picture, not the actual things it represents.

    So we need to keep in mind that it's the properties not the picture that matter, and within the frame of reference of the craft, the properties of inertia and momentum may be neutralized, but that doesn't mean that there would be no momentum relative to objects beyond the craft. SImply turning of the mechanism that neutralizes all the properties within the craft wouldn't necessarily do much at all to nearby objects. However I suppose a variety of scenarios might be imagined depending on how the system works. If it were to suddenly malfunction, hypothetically there could be a huge unintentional energy release that as you suggest would be bad for anything nearby.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  20. matthew1977

    matthew1977 Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    142
    Location:
    US
    David Pares a Professor from Nebraska has created warp bubbles on smaller scale working models.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
     
    Usual Suspect likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page