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  
•       •       •

8528 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 8:41 AM (47 weeks 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 01:05:09 PM
And frankly i am disappointed that the fark nerds are just realizing that this isnt really a new theory.

Star Trek was based on actual theoretical principles....which is why it was/is so cool.

Shortest distance between two points is a straight line. If you could bend space itself into a curve, and draw a line UNDER it to your destination, you have just exceeded the speed of light from a relativistic point of view...without actually travelling faster than light.
 
2013-08-26 01:06:00 PM

Kit Fister: 1. Relativity applies in normal "3D" space. From what I understood of the experiment and the premise, this isn't a drive that's operating in normal 3D space. It's bending spacetime itself (which even Einstein theorized was possible).


Relativity applies to 4D spacetime. This is an important distinction, because that's why FTL == time travel (and why time dilation happens). Second, this drive is an implication  of relativity- it depends on relativity to work. The thing that makes the drive implausible is that it also requires negative energy to work. We don't even know what that means.

As a side note, one of the other problems with this particular sort of drive is that once you get started, you can't stop. Which brings us to...

The more you eat the more you fart: ...they are folding space, thereby making the two points closer.


No. This is based on the Alcubierre drive. This wraps the ship in a bubble of spacetime. The bubble can move faster than light, and the stuff inside the bubble gets dragged along for the ride. There's no local relativity violation, as the ship's reference frame is contained entirely within the bubble, and any external reference frame can't see past the bubble. But the instant the bubble "pops", the ship has performed a translation which exceeds the speed of light.

What you're describing is a wormhole, which isn't actually FTL travel (but still has many of the same problems). By connecting two points in spacetime by warping space itself, you can take a "shortcut" in a higher dimension. Unfortunately, the only way you can generate that kind of warp in spacetime is by building a black hole, which poses serious challenge to practicality.
 
2013-08-26 01:06:38 PM

BafflerMeal: Kit Fister: However, the idea behind science is that anything is possible until proven otherwise.

I would step in and argue just for a sec, that science is really about proving what is and can be shown to be.  Otherwise the logical extension of your argument is that flying unicorns are possible until one can prove a negative.


I would add ithat it does not rule out the possiblilty that said unicorns do not exist, however they have not been observed, nor do they exist under current models. They could, if there is something that we didn't know about in our current model of the universe, or in the definition of "flying unicorn"
 
2013-08-26 01:09:15 PM

BafflerMeal: I would step in and argue just for a sec, that science is really about proving what is and can be shown to be. Otherwise the logical extension of your argument is that flying unicorns are possible until one can prove a negative.


Right, and what exactly makes them impossible?  No such animal exists, or has existed, here on Earth, true. The chances of such a mutation or creature on this planet are very low. However, seriously, until you can absolutely rule it out, then it remains possible, however unlikely.  Your argument essentially reduces science to a level of only confirming the natural world, and doesn't seem to offer any ability to extend our understanding of the natural world to that which we cannot yet witness because we can't measure it. After all, Einstein had no way to directly prove his theories about general relativity when he came up with them, he only had the math and predictions, which we could later test when our ability to observe and measure was improved.

I would argue that science has to be a framework by which we categorize the what is from the what's possible, and likewise give ourselves the ability to figure out where we lack knowledge between the "Should be possible" and the "is possible".

Further, i would be willing to bet you that though a flying unicorn does not yet exist in nature, with the right combination of genetics and circumstances, one could be produced.
 
2013-08-26 01:17:15 PM

Parthenogenetic: Kit Fister: However, the idea behind science is that anything is possible until proven otherwise.

No.  That is definitely not science.

Science involves observation and measurement of natural phenomena, formulation of hypotheses to explain them, and experimentation to falsify or verify hypotheses.

What you are describing is more akin to Creation science.  You can't prove it's false, therefore it's true!

And anyway, Quantum Apostrophe's shtick is based upon the practical limits of technology (applied science) rather than science itself.

Every home could be powered by its own fission reactor right now.  But we don't actually do it, because it is impractical.  You could have a CNC lathe in your garage right now and turn out whatever the hell you want on it, but you don't, because it's cheaper, more efficient, and better to buy parts manufactured by professionals in a shop set up to do that kind of work.

It used to be impractical to have a home photovoltaic array.  The technology has improved, and now it makes economic sense for many people to do it.


Really? I would argue otherwise. Yes, I agree with you, however there have been several theories which were predicted by math or some other quirk and later proved to be true without a directly observable phenomenon, to my knowledge.

So, perhaps we should posit that science is the mechanism by which we interpret nature and explain what we observe. this, of course, then suggests that science is limited to the range of our ability to observe, which brings us back to my poorly worded premise: the lack of observability does not negate the existence, merely defines a lack of our current abilities to observe, and thus science should not be used as a hard limitation to the possibility of existence, only as a soft limitation based on the range of liklihood to exist.

For now, we don't have a way to make this drive. We don't have a way to observe the interior of a wormhole or black hole, we have no way to create same, and so on, thus making such travel extremely unlikely. Not impossible, we just haven't found a mechanism and technology that gets us there yet.

I think it's going to take a lot of work and a great deal more understanding of gravity, spacetime, and the way the universe works in general for us to figure that out, and specifically rule something out.
 
2013-08-26 01:19:44 PM

Kit Fister: After all, Einstein had no way to directly prove his theories about general relativity when he came up with them, he only had the math and predictions, which we could later test when our ability to observe and measure was improved.


The difficulty in proving relativity had nothing to do with "our ability to observe and measure", and everything to do with waiting for a convenient eclipse, and getting the observation team into the right place in time to witness it. One of the most important reasons why relativity was rapidly accepted was because we instantly had a clear and well understood way to test its predictions, and we only needed to wait for the proper conditions to observe it.

There were many  more predictions of relativity which required advances in experimental procedures, but people were testing the theoryfrom nearly the  instant it was published.

Kit Fister: Further, i would be willing to bet you that though a flying unicorn does not yet exist in nature, with the right combination of genetics and circumstances, one could be produced.


No, it couldn't. First off, the definition of a unicorn is that it is a magical creature. Since magic isn't real, you could not produce a unicorn. You could produce a horned horse with wings, but that wouldn't be a unicorn. A horned horse with wings would not be able to fly, because the horse body-shape is not suited to flying. You could alter the body shape, change the bone structure, and do a variety of different things to make such a large creature capable of flight (well, gliding, anyway), but by the time you're done, it won't look anything like a horse. You could create a technological solution to make flying, horned, horses, but they would still not be  unicorns,any more than Irish midgets are leprechauns.
 
2013-08-26 01:22:00 PM

Kit Fister: : the lack of observability does not negate the existence


If something has no observable effects, for all practical purposes, it does not exist. Most of our theoretical constructs exist to  explain observed effects.

Observation: the particles in the standard model have mass.
Hypothesis: This mass is generated by the Higgs Field, and the field is mediated by a Boson.
Test: the LHC

That's science. Observe. Hypothesize. Test. Rinse. Repeat.

The number of things which  could be true is infinite. The number of things which are true is much more constrained.
 
2013-08-26 01:22:37 PM

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.


So unlike the CoolChips guys that had Boeing test their stuff, and claim they need $15M to perfect it (they get low yield--it works, but it's like... 1% of the surface works, the rest is mismanufactured), and Boeing says yeah it works?

Because Virgin Galactic hasn't taken the drive for a spin and gone, "Yeah, it works, can't wait to use this for our 6 hour express trips to MarsCol 1."
 
2013-08-26 01:24:23 PM

Egoy3k: 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.


Which is the same kind of principle with the warp drive: space can be warped so that an object can be somewhere else in less time than it would take for light to travel the same distance through space.
 
2013-08-26 01:33:34 PM
Quantum Apostrophe:

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

"I AM AFRAID TO DIE BUT SOMEONE TOLD ME I WON'T HAVE TO BECASE WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO STOP THE NATURAL AGING PROCESS BECAUSE ATOMS AND STUFF!  YAY!!!"
 
2013-08-26 01:40:19 PM
I understand why he can't explain it. If he did, he would have to kill us all. That would be a monumental and very time consuming task. He just doesn't have the time for that nonsense.
 
2013-08-26 01:42:52 PM
RubberBabyBuggyBumpers


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

Citation please.

Do you also believe the "bumble bees can't fly" and "Columbus proved the Earth was round " myths?

/ we had seen birds even before the Wright brothers. Heavier than air flight was well known.
 
2013-08-26 01:46:05 PM

OnlyM3: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers


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

Do you also believe the "bumble bees can't fly" and "Columbus proved the Earth was round " myths?

/ we had seen birds even before the Wright brothers. Heavier than air flight was well known.


Yup. The biggest mistake for the longest time was in thinking that flight was based on wings flapping, not wing shape.
 
2013-08-26 01:59:36 PM
No possible. I just tried building one over the weekend, and if I can't build one, no one can.
 
2013-08-26 02:03:47 PM

Unsung_Hero: Wow.  I've been away for a few years... you'd have thought Quantum_Apostrophe would have gotten bored of finding non-life-extension-nutter threads to shiat on in fear that his personal pet imaginary technology would lose money to someone else's.


I have him marked in Urine Yellow for what he does to threads.
 
2013-08-26 02:05:34 PM

OnlyM3: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers


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

Do you also believe the "bumble bees can't fly" and "Columbus proved the Earth was round " myths?

/ we had seen birds even before the Wright brothers. Heavier than air flight was well known.


Nobody thought we could make an artificial power source light enough to lift itself.

Basically, we thought we lacked the intelligence to duplicate nature.

At the time, we were damn close to right.
 
2013-08-26 02:08:12 PM

Kit Fister: So, perhaps we should posit that science is the mechanism by which we interpret nature and explain what we observe. this, of course, then suggests that science is limited to the range of our ability to observe, which brings us back to my poorly worded premise: the lack of observability does not negate the existence, merely defines a lack of our current abilities to observe, and thus science should not be used as a hard limitation to the possibility of existence, only as a soft limitation based on the range of liklihood to exist.


Fair enough.  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
 
2013-08-26 02:11:59 PM

Unsung_Hero: OnlyM3: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers


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

Do you also believe the "bumble bees can't fly" and "Columbus proved the Earth was round " myths?

/ we had seen birds even before the Wright brothers. Heavier than air flight was well known.

Nobody thought we could make an artificial power source light enough to lift itself.

Basically, we thought we lacked the intelligence to duplicate nature.

At the time, we were damn close to right.



What time was that?  What year are you using for reference?
 
2013-08-26 02:23:27 PM
Pretty sure if he actually did come up with the technology, he would have been beset upon by several government agencies, some of which may "not officially exist," and given a stiff warning that cluing in anyone on how it works would be akin to treason and likely to cause a life shortening event. FTL travel would put the US at such a massively distinct advantage that it would make cold fusion seem like a tinker toy.

That said, I remain skeptical. That's a lot of physics to be worked out and peer review that needs to be performed.
 
2013-08-26 02:31:35 PM

t3knomanser: Kit Fister: : the lack of observability does not negate the existence

If something has no observable effects, for all practical purposes, it does not exist. Most of our theoretical constructs exist to  explain observed effects.

Observation: the particles in the standard model have mass.
Hypothesis: This mass is generated by the Higgs Field, and the field is mediated by a Boson.
Test: the LHC

That's science. Observe. Hypothesize. Test. Rinse. Repeat.

The number of things which  could be true is infinite. The number of things which are true is much more constrained.


Right, but again, that premise is necessarily limited by our ability to observe, whether directly or indirectly.  Human perception is necessarily limited, and our technology is based on our ability to develop new ways of enhancing our ability to observe. Therefore, again, it's foolish to use science as a hard stop on whether or not something is *possible* or not, only a soft stop based on probability and our ability to observe it.  The neat thing that I have found in reading a lot of science articles is that as my understanding grows, my perception of what I observe and therefore conceive of as possible changes. And likewise, as we grow more able to observe and study phenomena, we are better able to model and revise our understanding of what's happening.   I still wonder why atoms require 8 electrons in the outer valence and not 10 or 20 or 99 or sqrt of -1, and wonder why time dilates with speed rather than simply staying the same independent of frame of reference, and so on. But, I'm sure that as I get more sophisticated, I'll get a better understanding of it.
 
2013-08-26 02:35:21 PM

scubamage: Pretty sure if he actually did come up with the technology, he would have been beset upon by several government agencies, some of which may "not officially exist," and given a stiff warning that cluing in anyone on how it works would be akin to treason and likely to cause a life shortening event. FTL travel would put the US at such a massively distinct advantage that it would make cold fusion seem like a tinker toy.

That said, I remain skeptical. That's a lot of physics to be worked out and peer review that needs to be performed.


I seriously doubt the US government would see it that way.  Frankly, I don't even see it that way, and I'm a strong supporter of further space exploration.

FTL capable of reaching nearby star systems in reasonable time frames does very little for any government on earth, however a system that would work "in system" (IE: inter planetary drive) would be a serious boon, for some industrial conglomerate or another.  Again, not a strategic asset really.  There remain a number of very serious problems with any sort of colonization effort, and from a government point of view, it's actually cheaper to fight wars on earth than it is to bring assets in from space.  (at least until someone does it, and that changes everything, but no one has even so much as tried yet)
 
2013-08-26 02:37:58 PM

scubamage: Pretty sure if he actually did come up with the technology, he would have been beset upon by several government agencies, some of which may "not officially exist," and given a stiff warning that cluing in anyone on how it works would be akin to treason and likely to cause a life shortening event. FTL travel would put the US at such a massively distinct advantage that it would make cold fusion seem like a tinker toy.

That said, I remain skeptical. That's a lot of physics to be worked out and peer review that needs to be performed.


Fusion is another topic i find fascinating. I would think that for us to create sustained fusion that created more energy than it consumed, it would have to be done on a large enough threshold that the combined mass/density would create a strong enough gravitational pull to overcome the forces repelling atoms without requiring lasers or magnetic fields to forcibly push the atoms together until fusion occurs, or at least some way to efficiently jump-start a fusion reaction in such a way that it could then generate some factor greater than it's initial input energy and thus be self sustaining and still produce power to do work.
 
2013-08-26 02:47:04 PM

Kahabut: scubamage: Pretty sure if he actually did come up with the technology, he would have been beset upon by several government agencies, some of which may "not officially exist," and given a stiff warning that cluing in anyone on how it works would be akin to treason and likely to cause a life shortening event. FTL travel would put the US at such a massively distinct advantage that it would make cold fusion seem like a tinker toy.

That said, I remain skeptical. That's a lot of physics to be worked out and peer review that needs to be performed.

I seriously doubt the US government would see it that way.  Frankly, I don't even see it that way, and I'm a strong supporter of further space exploration.

FTL capable of reaching nearby star systems in reasonable time frames does very little for any government on earth, however a system that would work "in system" (IE: inter planetary drive) would be a serious boon, for some industrial conglomerate or another.  Again, not a strategic asset really.  There remain a number of very serious problems with any sort of colonization effort, and from a government point of view, it's actually cheaper to fight wars on earth than it is to bring assets in from space.  (at least until someone does it, and that changes everything, but no one has even so much as tried yet)


You have to remember, this is the government that held a recipe for invisible ink as top secret for nearly 70 years. Just because it isn't really strategic, doesn't mean they don't want the veil of secrecy.
 
2013-08-26 02:58:45 PM
He also has proof that 9/11 was an inside job, done with the assistance of aliens that are held prisoner at Area 51.
 
2013-08-26 03:07:23 PM
and no one will ever need more thank 640k RAM.
 
2013-08-26 03:08:30 PM
scubamage: Pretty sure if he actually did come up with the technology, he would have been beset upon by several government agencies, some of which may "not officially exist," and given a stiff warning that cluing in anyone on how it works would be akin to treason and likely to cause a life shortening event. FTL travel would put the US at such a massively distinct advantage that it would make cold fusion seem like a tinker toy.

OTOH, it could be just a massive troll job against the Chinese, sort of like St Ronnie pulled against the Ruskies back in the 80's with the "Star Wars" program.

Step 1: Announce fundamental breakthrough and propose massive spending binge to develop FTL drive "within 20 years".

Step 2: Get Chinese to spend themselves into bankruptcy in a massive "Snipe Hunt".

Step 3: Profit.
 
2013-08-26 03:33:38 PM

Priapetic: He's only done this once before

/Must bring your own weapons, safety not guaranteed.


Hey, don't laugh, that guy made it!  Why he picked that time period to go back to, who knows.

i257.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-26 03:45:08 PM

scubamage: You have to remember, this is the government that held a recipe for invisible ink as top secret for nearly 70 years. Just because it isn't really strategic, doesn't mean they don't want the veil of secrecy.


You make a good point.
 
2013-08-26 04:14:19 PM

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


I travel faster than the speed of light all the time, just like I do the speed of sound.
 
2013-08-26 04:44:00 PM

Fark Griswald: 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.


Kinda sounds like a proof of warp-bubble tech, doesn't it?
 
2013-08-26 05:00:03 PM

BafflerMeal: Kit Fister: However, the idea behind science is that anything is possible until proven otherwise.

I would step in and argue just for a sec, that science is really about proving what is and can be shown to be.  Otherwise the logical extension of your argument is that flying unicorns are possible until one can prove a negative.


Somewhere, deep in Monsanto's GMO R&D division, a team of researchers rub their hands while crazy laughter fills the air.
 
2013-08-26 06:12:39 PM
This sounds just like Joseph Smith with those golden tablets to me.  I wonder if this scientist guy can an least keep his "facts" consistent.
 
2013-08-26 06:35:14 PM
   from this NASA PDF file: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011 0 24705.pdf

How does a Q-thruster work? A Q-thruster uses the same principles and equations of motion that a conventional plasma thruster would use, namely Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), to predict propellant behavior. The virtual plasma is exposed to a crossed E and B-field which induces a plasma drift of the entire plasma in the ExB direction which is orthogonal to the applied fields. The difference arises in the fact that a Q-thruster uses quantum vacuum fluctuations as the fuel source eliminating the need to carry propellant. This suggests much higher specific impulses are available for QVPT systems limited only by their power supply's energy storage densities. Historical test results have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW, and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds. Figure 4 shows a test article and the thrust trace from a 500g load cell [8].
Figure 4: 2005 test article construction and results
The near term focus of the laboratory work is focused on gathering performance data to support development of a Q-thruster engineering prototype targeting Reaction Control System (RCS) applications with force range of 0.1-1 N with corresponding input power range of 0.3-3 kW. Up first will be testing of a refurbished test article to duplicate historical performance on the high fidelity torsion pendulum (1-4 mN at 10-40 W). The team is maintaining a dialogue with the ISS national labs office for an on orbit DTO.
How would Q-thrusters revolutionize human exploration of the outer planets? Making minimal extrapolation of performance, assessments show that delivery of a 50 mT payload to Jovian orbit can be accomplished in 35 days with a 2 MW power source [specific force of thruster (N/kW) is based on potential measured thrust performance in lab, propulsion mass (Q-thrusters) would be additional 20 mT (10 kg/kW), and associate power system would be 20 mT (10 kg/kW)]. Q-thruster performance allows the use of nuclear reactor technology that would not require MHD conversion or other more complicated schemes to accomplish single digit specific mass performance usually required for standard electric propulsion systems to the outer solar system. In 70 days, the same system could reach the orbit of Saturn. Figure 5 illustrates the performance capabilities of this advanced propulsion concept for transforming outer solar system exploration (delta-v's come from [9]).
Using 4000 micro-Newton for 10W effective power input, graphic uses Dr. McNutt's outer planet human mission delta-v's to establish approximations for trip time.
Power and propulsion specific mass are static at 10 kg/kW.
Full analysis should be done to improve fidelity of results, but this provides early insight into capability.
Neptune trajectory
Figure 5: Q-thruster performance for outer solar system exploration
 
2013-08-26 07:28:57 PM

washington-babylon: Fark Griswald: 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.

Kinda sounds like a proof of warp-bubble tech, doesn't it?


hmmm, well, perhaps everything in our observable universe that exists with mass and adheres to the rules of our 4D reality are merely objects that occupy a particular wavelength/waveform in the universe, and the medium in which this wavelength travels is itself bound by completely separate rules, such that it is affected by the modulation of the waveform of our reality as well as others, while we cannot observe beyond our own waveform?

/reaching into the shiny chasm for that one
 
2013-08-26 09:09:31 PM
I could have sworn the first warp drive isn't due to be invented by Mr Cochrane until April, 2063. Isn't that correct?

/No, I'm not looking it up to make sure. Not  thatmuch of a nerd!
 
2013-08-26 10:02:02 PM

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


Doesn't even take a rock. Before the shuttle Challenger was lost, on a previous mission it hit a 1mm fleck of paint in orbit that cracked the windshield.

Hit a rock at warp and you'll need new underwear, but only for a short while.
 
2013-08-26 10:10:31 PM
img42.imageshack.us

"And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon."
 
2013-08-26 10:14:14 PM
"Aye, my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon."

/oops!
//so much for having that commited to memory.
 
2013-08-27 01:31:43 AM

Kahabut: scubamage: Pretty sure if he actually did come up with the technology, he would have been beset upon by several government agencies, some of which may "not officially exist," and given a stiff warning that cluing in anyone on how it works would be akin to treason and likely to cause a life shortening event. FTL travel would put the US at such a massively distinct advantage that it would make cold fusion seem like a tinker toy.

That said, I remain skeptical. That's a lot of physics to be worked out and peer review that needs to be performed.

I seriously doubt the US government would see it that way.  Frankly, I don't even see it that way, and I'm a strong supporter of further space exploration.

FTL capable of reaching nearby star systems in reasonable time frames does very little for any government on earth, however a system that would work "in system" (IE: inter planetary drive) would be a serious boon, for some industrial conglomerate or another.  Again, not a strategic asset really.  There remain a number of very serious problems with any sort of colonization effort, and from a government point of view, it's actually cheaper to fight wars on earth than it is to bring assets in from space.  (at least until someone does it, and that changes everything, but no one has even so much as tried yet)


If for absolutely no other reason, they would want to keep weapons designs secret. Any FTL drive is a weapon of mass destruction. Any FTL drive good enough to bother building is a planet-busting superweapon.
 
2013-08-27 02:58:51 AM
Yeah. I'll tell you the exotic particle that has negative mass. It's called spacetime. Other particles push against it (mass) and it goes towards them. Negative inertia. Gravity.

Woooooo! nananananana time cube, time cube. Although in this case, I'm right, and what I said is true. :D
 
2013-08-27 07:03:57 AM
Unsung_Hero
2013-08-26 02:05:34 PM


OnlyM3: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers


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

Do you also believe the "bumble bees can't fly" and "Columbus proved the Earth was round " myths?

/ we had seen birds even before the Wright brothers. Heavier than air flight was well known.

Nobody thought we could make an artificial power source light enough to lift itself.

Basically, we thought we lacked the intelligence to duplicate nature.

At the time, we were damn close to right.

Those aren't citations, those are further quoting of a myth.

Years, direct quotes from real scientist are citations. What you're doing is just saying "uhh huhh". Google's free. Show us why you believe this myth you're attempting to support.
 
2013-08-27 04:17:12 PM
came for futurama quote... disappoint, so leave my own...

Cubert Farnsworth: I understand how the engines work now. It came to me in a dream. The engines don't move the ship at all. The ship stays where it is, and the engines move the universe around it.
Bender: That's a complete load!
Cubert Farnsworth: Nothing's a complete load! Not if you can imagine it. That's what being a scientist is all about.
 
2013-08-27 06:00:09 PM

JMan245: came for futurama quote... disappoint, so leave my own...


Ctrl-F for "engines move" would have narrowed this down for you.
 
Displayed 43 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 »






Report