View Single Post
Old September 18 2008, 05:30 PM   #23
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

Okay, I have to complain about the way you're using the word "gravitometric." That word means "pertaining to the measurement of gravity." What you're talking about is the actual gravitation itself, not the measurement thereof, so the correct word is "gravitational" or possibly "gravitic.
"

important semantic factoid which we should adopt for the remainder of the thread.



Otherwise, you're on the right track; there would be immense tidal stresses around the mouth of a wormhole, unless it were truly enormous. So some form of gravitationally shielded flat-space bubble would be necessary. However, as I said, this isn't a form of warp drive, but a form of wormhole transit or jump drive.
Perhaps I should be blunt. I find the idea of a warp drive without a wormhole to be merely a science fiction fantasy construct and cannot find
it to have merit. Thus for my own purposes, I have somewhat redefined "warp" as what you are now calling transit or jump drive. This may again be a failure of my own mind and I am not above the possibility I have erred.
However, to my knowledge, and after discussing it with people who are much more practically knowledgable than I am, It is my opinion that the only way to travel faster than light is to leave the universe via what for lack of a better word I am calling a wormhole. If you have a case to make
for a propulsion system of the more standard basic warp concept, I certainly would invite you to make your case. My feeling is that this thread should be a collaborative effort to solve the problem, and I invite any and all approaches towards that end.
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote