If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   The NASA engineer who's discovered how to build a warp drive would totally love to explain how it works, but he can't. Trust him, though, he totally knows how to build one   (slate.com) divider line 143
    More: Unlikely, Trust, NASA, warp speed  
•       •       •

8537 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-26 08:46:28 AM  
Skeptical pag1107 is skeptical.
 
2013-08-26 08:47:08 AM  
Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.
 
2013-08-26 08:47:20 AM  
Does he have a book coming out or something?

/dnrtfa
 
2013-08-26 08:49:31 AM  
Presumably, the only thing missing is dilithium crystals.  Well, that and an ample supply of antimatter.

//dtrtfa
 
2013-08-26 08:50:45 AM  
Does it run on banana peels and empty Miller Lite cans?
 
2013-08-26 08:51:30 AM  

Stone Meadow: Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.


He's still 3d printing his opinion.
 
2013-08-26 08:53:03 AM  
I can't really fault him for wanting to protect his reasearch until its solid.. that being said, if he's going to say that he might be on to something he should probably prepare for people to call him a loon until he proves it.
 
2013-08-26 08:53:31 AM  
Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.
 
2013-08-26 08:54:38 AM  

uttertosh: Stone Meadow: Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.

He's still 3d printing his opinion.


Something something waste of money something something what has NASA contributed something something problems here something something cure cancer.

Was that at least a reliable substitute till the real thing gets here?
 
2013-08-26 08:55:01 AM  

Stone Meadow: Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.


Even an idiot like you should be able to reach the obvious conclusion here.

Let me help you: no one is going anywhere. How you like that!?

Can you please point to the "technology" here? It's as technological as John Titor's time machine, or Bob Lazar's space drive.

Get real, you idiot.
 
2013-08-26 08:55:32 AM  
I work at NASA so I'm really getting a kick out of your replies......

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-26 08:56:47 AM  
Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor; not an astrophysicist!
 
2013-08-26 08:56:49 AM  
Any engineer that claims to violate the second law of thermodynamics should be immediately removed from their position
 
2013-08-26 08:56:56 AM  

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.


True, but the people claiming to have invented a way to do it never said "Oh, sure, it totally works, but I can't reveal anything about it or prove it in any way."  The issue is not necessarily with his claim, it's his refusal to back it up that makes him a loon.  It's the same thing with any snake oil salesman who claims to have a perpetual motion engine that runs on magnets or a motor that runs on water.
 
2013-08-26 08:57:31 AM  
so basically we have the numbers, but not the technology

/obvious we kinda have to get past that little problem there, skippy
//give it time, unless we don't wipe ourselves off our little rock first because of our petty squabbles I say
 
2013-08-26 08:57:34 AM  
Uh. I read the notes.
Looks more like a time travel device.

Yeah, my great-grandad and his peers laughed  George Westinghouse out of the grange hall when he was trying to crown fund air brakes for trains.
 
rpm
2013-08-26 08:58:04 AM  

durbnpoisn: Presumably, the only thing missing is dilithium crystals.  Well, that and an ample supply of antimatter.

//dtrtfa


I remember one potential warp drive that was missing one thing: -1 g of matter for the drive. If you could get that, it would work.
 
2013-08-26 09:00:05 AM  
If (or when) Art Bell returns to radio, I'd like to see this guy as a guest. He'd fit right in, IMHO...
 
2013-08-26 09:00:07 AM  

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.


And? Does that mean anything at all is now possible? What the hell kind of argument is that?

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

True, but the people claiming to have invented a way to do it never said "Oh, sure, it totally works, but I can't reveal anything about it or prove it in any way."  The issue is not necessarily with his claim, it's his refusal to back it up that makes him a loon.  It's the same thing with any snake oil salesman who claims to have a perpetual motion engine that runs on magnets or a motor that runs on water.


Way too complicated.

"I WAS PROMISED STUFF BY SCI-FI AND IT'S LIKE TOTALLY GONNA HAPPEN BECAUSE WHEEEEEE! AND COMPUTERS GOT BETTER!!!!!"

It's amazing how many people think like children.

Lost Thought 00: Any engineer that claims to violate the second law of thermodynamics should be immediately removed from their position


And given a job at the Space Nutter Center for Claiming Anything is Possible Because a Scientist Was Wrong Once.
 
2013-08-26 09:00:44 AM  
I bet if you hit a rock at that speed you'll need to replace the whole windshield.
 
2013-08-26 09:00:48 AM  
It came to him in a dream, and he forgot it in another dream.
 
2013-08-26 09:00:51 AM  
It's obvious that "working for NASA" is his cover story.  He actually works for the Stargate program!

/ In case you didn't get it, it was a joke and reference to the various Stargate series.
 
2013-08-26 09:01:22 AM  

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.


Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.
 
2013-08-26 09:02:12 AM  

vudukungfu: Looks more like a time travel device.


Any FTL device is also a time travel device, and vice versa.
 
2013-08-26 09:03:15 AM  
I suppose it's possible if he can generate the 1.21 jigawatts necessary for time warp speed. But how would he generate that kind of power?
 
2013-08-26 09:03:25 AM  
However, the information that's publicly available about White's work would make Mr. Spock's klaxon sound.

Giggity. And it's no where near pon farr.

Is there pon farr porn? porn pon farr? pon porn farr? Well, employment will be getting no work out of me today.
 
2013-08-26 09:04:06 AM  

MayoSlather: But how would he generate that kind of power?


A bolt of lightning. But, unfortunately, you never know when or where they are going to strike.
 
2013-08-26 09:05:20 AM  
A warp drive is only useful as long as it doesn't kill the drivers.
 
2013-08-26 09:05:34 AM  

t3knomanser: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.


Too complicated.

"I'M STUPID AND DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WORK!!!! ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE STAR TREK!!!! WWWWAAAAAARGHGHGHHG!!!!!"

What is it with you Luddites this morning?

I've got my bugout bag ready for when warp drive totally becomes real. Will it be Boeing or Airbus that makes the first warp-capable space liner? Will they use GE or Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney warp turbines? Oh I'm so excited!!!!

But they'll still find a way to send your luggage to Alpha Centauri.
 
2013-08-26 09:07:19 AM  

minoridiot: I bet if you hit a rock at that speed you'll need to replace the whole windshield.


Well that's what you get for using a windshield when you should have had a rockshield.
 
2013-08-26 09:09:51 AM  
Guys, I've only got a few decades left for you to figure out this FTL stuff so I can set myself up as the ruler of an interstellar empire. Get to it.
 
2013-08-26 09:10:26 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Stone Meadow: Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.

Even an idiot like you should be able to reach the obvious conclusion here.

Let me help you: no one is going anywhere. How you like that!?

Can you please point to the "technology" here? It's as technological as John Titor's time machine, or Bob Lazar's space drive.

Get real, you idiot.


My machine at least WORKED! Don't lump me in with that guy!
 
2013-08-26 09:14:14 AM  
So basically this guy is claiming to have theorhetically figured out how a warp drive might work but has nothing tangible yet to show us?  Until he can prove his claims I don't see any reason to have any opinion other than "hrm, interesting.", which is the same opinion I had before and after reading this article.  What are you guys arguing about?
 
2013-08-26 09:14:24 AM  

ArkPanda: It came to him in a dream, and he forgot it in another dream.


Not enough Farnsworth references in this thread, too many life extension nutter posts
 
2013-08-26 09:14:52 AM  

t3knomanser: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.


I'm going to sound really silly asking this...  But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.
That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.
Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?
 
2013-08-26 09:14:59 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: "I'M STUPID AND DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WORK!!!! ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE STAR TREK!!!! WWWWAAAAAARGHGHGHHG!!!!!"


Did you even read what teknomancer wrote?  Because it was a very reasonable statement.
 
2013-08-26 09:16:54 AM  
I'm not half as interested in the warp drive as I am in the Quantum Thruster, also being developed by the NASA advanced propulsion group, and much farther along. They're going to have hardware to test on the space station in a year or so, using the q-thruster as an RCS station-keeping thruster that has no fuel component, no mass to throw out; just electrical power.  If it proves out, versions where multiple Q-thrusters are stacked to accelerate probes and manned craft to the edges of the solar system will open up the frontier for space colinization.  The fact it's name is similar to our favorite Amish fixie cyclist is just a delicious bonus.
 
2013-08-26 09:17:55 AM  
Fire up the Dean Drive!
 
2013-08-26 09:19:25 AM  
forget fast engines.

just pinch space like on the surface of a balloon you  can be anywhere in space in no time flat
 
2013-08-26 09:19:56 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Stone Meadow: Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.

Even an idiot like you should be able to reach the obvious conclusion here.

Let me help you: no one is going anywhere. How you like that!?

Can you please point to the "technology" here? It's as technological as John Titor's time machine, or Bob Lazar's space drive.

Get real, you idiot.


Goddamn you are vicious. We may call you a loon and troll, but you call people idiots and morons. Here, time to level it up some:
YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE. I HOPE YOU NEED A 3D PRINTED HEART ONE DAY, YA SH*T ASS.
 
2013-08-26 09:20:41 AM  

durbnpoisn: t3knomanser: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.

I'm going to sound really silly asking this...  But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.
That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.
Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?


Nothing was traveling through space faster than light, space was expanding faster than light.
 
2013-08-26 09:21:01 AM  

Any Pie Left: Quantum Thruster


Sweet sci-fi porn name.
 
2013-08-26 09:25:25 AM  

durbnpoisn: Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.


This is called "inflation". Essentially, space simply got bigger. The distance between points increased even while nothing was actually moving. Yes, it's weird. Space doesn't have to obey any sorts of speed limits, so space itself can expand and even move at speeds faster than light itself. An interesting side effect of this happens in a region near a black hole called the "ergosphere". If a black hole is spinning rapidly, its gravity is so strong that it can literally start spacetime spinning around it. That spacetime can spin faster than the speed of light. This means that an object in the ergosphere cannot ever stand still relative to an object outside of the ergosphere, because it would have to go faster than the speed of light to do so.
 
2013-08-26 09:27:33 AM  

t3knomanser: Any FTL device is also a time travel device, and vice versa.


Yeah, well post that before my original post, then.
 
2013-08-26 09:28:47 AM  
t3knomanser: Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

Because we haven't built one yet and it has been shown they can only work to send back in time to the first date they existed, or after.
 
2013-08-26 09:29:18 AM  
Can't we just give up on FTL and go with designing really good stasis pods and 90% of lightspeed travel?
 
2013-08-26 09:31:43 AM  

durbnpoisn: I'm going to sound really silly asking this...  But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.
That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.
Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?


Ok let me try this one.  If I understand correctly the expansion of the universe itself is not held to the speed of light.  Objects within the universe are limited to the speed of light but the actual fabric of space-time is not.
 
2013-08-26 09:33:31 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Quantum Apostrophe: "I'M STUPID AND DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WORK!!!! ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE STAR TREK!!!! WWWWAAAAAARGHGHGHHG!!!!!"

Did you even read what teknomancer wrote?  Because it was a very reasonable statement.


He's too busy insulting people and frothing at the mouth to bother with trivialities.  I just figured he missed breakfast.
 
2013-08-26 09:36:10 AM  

durbnpoisn: t3knomanser: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.

I'm going to sound really silly asking this...  But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.
That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.
Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?


Essentially, the best explanation I saw was that the energies involved were simply so massive that they basically ignored and shredded whatever extant physical laws existed at the time and once the universe cooled a tiny bit the new mangled ones we have now settled in.

This is the same theory that says we likely actually weren't the first attempt at a stable universe and likely won't be the last.

/ It also acknowledges that we have a real hard time knowing what "stable" is as we really don't have a reference point to compare against.
// We could be a short "Whoops, well that version of the laws of gravity was borked" universe.
/// Or the one where biological forms inexplicably became dominant over beings evolved from naturally occurring cogs and gears.
//// Till all are one.
 
2013-08-26 09:37:11 AM  
durbnpoisn:

I'm going to sound really silly asking this...  But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.
That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.
Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?


He's expanding on Miguel Alcubierre's postulate that because "the expansion and contraction of space does not have a speed limit" it may be possible to make a chunk or "bubble" of space-time that can be propelled at faster than light.  Then it would be a matter of hitching a ride *inside* that bubble.

On the non-skeptic side of things, it's worth noting that NASA is (or has been) OK with him pursuing this research in a public sort of way (PDF).    In the skeptical camp, this business of having made a device but being overly cagey about it sets off the same alarms as the "free energy" or over-unity cranks.  It'll be interesting to see if NASA continue to give him a platform of respectability to stand on or if they start to distance the organization from his claims.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report