View Single Post
Old September 18 2008, 11:02 AM   #19
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics


#2: The existence of "extrauniversal" realms is similarly accepted as part of seemingly consistent theories. However, from this does not follow that movement from "in" to "out" or vice versa should or would be possible, or does it?
Correct. We have no reason to believe that we can ever access the"extraverse".


#3: Gravitometric bubble does not sound like a property of our universe, so ending up in one would already call for the departure you postulate. While a number of the later axioms are relatively "easy" and typically only list fantastic possibilities, this one already seems to present a gigantic chasm for the required leap of faith.
Absolutely true. Which is why most scientists say wormhole travel is
impossible because you'd just be ripped to quanta.

#5: I see no particular reason for this claim, since the whole idea is to operate the ship in a realm where gravitic interactions are different from those familiar to us. And in the very next step you in any case postulate that gravitic interactions can be affected by factors as such unrelated to gravity.
I'm not attached to it, it just seems that it would be like that to me.


#6: Energy coming into phase with gravity is just gobbledigook. One would need to specify how the desired type of energy can interact with gravity.
At this point we don't know of any means to do that.
Other than negative energy, which itself is theoretical and possibly even more impossible to obtain than unobtainium,
theres no theory which allows us to us energy to effect gravity in such a way short of using as much energy as
would be created if one converted say the mass of jupiter to energy.

#8: Interpreting the geometry of the interior of the wormhole as conventional 3D space within which travel through spatial dimensions takes place is a rather dubious move. But okay, this is what axioms should be about: the defining of terms for later use.
I don't think I am doing that, but i can see how you could get the impression i was. Remember the language is 3 dimensional, thats not my fault.


#10: This just piques my curiosity: why talk about "warps" when the idea is not to discuss the Star Trek FTL drive anyway?
i confess its always been a pet peeve of mine, which made no sense at all. What does a "warp" mean or would it really mean? I always found the canon explanation to be silly, and, so did they, which is why they kept changing it.


#11: Okay, so this is just a list of means that might create a wormhole, according to various theories, and not actually a direct endorsement of those particular theories?
Correct. I'm not offering this as a "how to", its an exploration of what I think to be theoretical fundamentals
if we are going to have serious discussions about the theory. More than anything its an attempt to build a conceptual lexicon. Nothing more.


#12: Sounds like so much gobbledigook, applying potentially unrelated layman principles to phenomena not properly described.
I don't have them memorized by number, so I hope that in the future we can be more specific. I'm not pretending that
any of these make absolute sense, I'm just making the best sense I think can be made on the topic.
At the end of the day, warp is still impossible as far as we know. So its all gobledygook , or its all conjecture, depending on how interested you are in the topic.
Lets just buckle down and ask for better descriptions, or for delayman-ization of same.

I'm trying to start a conversation here, not pretend to be the ultimate authority on everything in the universe.
I can understand how people would get the latter idea, but a shift in perspective is in order. I just want to have a frank, informed, cogent and adult conversation on the topic. I have no attachments and no pretensions.
I hope Warp drive can some day be achieved. I design generation sleeper ships for the purpose of exploring the Galaxy because I have looked into it pretty deeply and as far as I can tell, its impossible. That shouldn't stop us from traying tho.


#14: How do we leave the universe? So far, there's no indication that this would ever have happened to anybody or anything, only that our current thought constructs don't all categorically deny the possibility. One step to me sounds at least as difficult as the other - and we actually think we know how space rolls in the "natural" case, around mass, while we have no "natural case" to go by as regards the other issue.
In theory, we leave the universe by proceeding in a direction away from it other than the standard 3 dimensions.
You are right, we don't have any reason to think that this is possible. At the same time, as far as the science goes,
if it is possible, then there is the window of a smidgen of a chance for our warp drive.


#15: I see no evidence of the connection between hidden dimensions and the ability to control movement in or entry into a wormhole.
Neither do i which i think is why i state that navigating would be harder than exiting the universe.

#16: Okay, the universe might be like that, and we might make use of it one day.
I'd make that point for most all of this. its all one big fat MAYBE???


#17: Doesn't seem that anything in current science would predict this sort of an ability. It would require some very specific properties of the universe...
Since i don't know off the top of my head what you are referring to, I'll just restate the obvious. As far as science now knows warp is impossible. Yet, there are some things in science which give us pause to hope, and I think that they are worth exploring.

Why graviton energy?
because its sheering in two different directions at FTL speeds.
Can't turn into much of anything else.

Between prometheuspan and think, my brain has been hurting a lot lately.
would you accept a half hearted apology?
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!

Last edited by prometheuspan; September 18 2008 at 11:25 AM.
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote