Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: KnossosS on July 31, 2003, 10:34:26 am
-
i am a student of aeroSPACE engg. at IndianInstitute of Technology. i've been doing projects with france and nasa for 3 years now.... and they have let me on a couple of secrets....
one of them is about subspace, nasa calls it the 'worm warp' sequence. such a thing has been proved to be theoretically possible but hard to implement practically..
they have experimentally managed to transport small particles from on point to another very far away and in nanoseconds.
by far away i mean, distance over time is greater than the speed of light... i was shown their testing labs for these and they said that after i finish my remaining three years, i can join this warp project if i wanted to.... (right now my project is engine and propulsion for manned flight ot mars and pluto)...
i should have told u guys this when i joined the forum...
anyways look me up for some physics regarding things u want to put in your missions, campaigns....
if u guys love freespace, u must see the civilian, combat, space, space combat simulators here in nasa, u will freaqqqqq like ****!!
the simulators are huge some of them in terabytes and cannot be used on home PCs as it is impractical and also the 3d requirements cannot be met by any 3d card (not even ATI/nVidia)
their antialaising is pucca, a sphere looks like a real sphere, u need to magnify a miilion times to see steps in the drawing of the sphere)
this is just an intro about me....
(also, guys at nasa too like freespace, one of them bid it for 2499USD at eBay)
-
24.99USD maybe :rolleyes:
-
worm warp...Hmmmm...
How is it possible to send something faster than the speed of light? Einstiens theory of Reletivity clear states that when an object gets closer to the speed of light, the heavier the objects gets.
If you could explain how NASA has been able to produce a transporter-like/"worm warp" system. I'll tell you what I think about the future of Fusion Engines :)
Oh...and Welcome of HLP!
Cor
-
Quantum Entanglement.
Or a variation of it.
IIRC they found a neat little was of shooting tiny amounts of particles across a room while fucking with QE.
-
dunno why people want to place the speed of light as a restriction on everything :rolleyes:
IMO its just a guideline to explain everything in the universe that goes as the same speed or slower, since if anything DID go faster, we wouldn't know about since our senses (and any which go slower than the speed of light) would not percieve it. :nervous:
-
Yup.
To find something that goes faster than the speed of light we'd have to observe some natural phenomenon which interacted with the FTL stuff so we could see how it worked and duplicate the natural effect and use it to our advantage.
-
I've heared of these experiments, read them i scientific american, so they couldn't be all that secret.
-
Hey, Knossos, just curious, was my Hydrogen propulsion theory totally off-the-wall? :D
-
Originally posted by KnossosS
if u guys love freespace, u must see the civilian, combat, space, space combat simulators here in nasa, u will freaqqqqq like ****!!
the simulators are huge some of them in terabytes and cannot be used on home PCs as it is impractical and also the 3d requirements cannot be met by any 3d card (not even ATI/nVidia)
their antialaising is pucca, a sphere looks like a real sphere, u need to magnify a miilion times to see steps in the drawing of the sphere)
this is just an intro about me....
(also, guys at nasa too like freespace, one of them bid it for 2499USD at eBay)
ive been in one :D (it was a millitary traning simulator)
-
The speed of light is only valid whilst the current laws of physics apply. The thing that NASA are discovering right now is that it is possible to create a situation where the laws of physics don't apply ( worm warp space). As for hydrogen propulsion, that was the 'way to the stars' about 20 years ago, using enormous Ramjets ( 2 km odd in size) attached to the front of a ship (Dubbed the Daedelus) that would fuel hydrogen reactors in the engines.
Another favourite theory of mine assumes that light has mass, it's called Photonic Acceleration, and it involves releasing a stream of photons at normal speed and then stuttering out FTL photons, which would 'push' the ship forward. Carl Sagan of the Mars project asked the one question nobody had thought of....
'Who's going to scrape the crew off the back wall when this happens?' LOL
Flipside :)
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Hey, Knossos, just curious, was my Hydrogen propulsion theory totally off-the-wall? :D
you mean mr. bussard's theory from 50 years ago? yes.
-
No, his used a fusion reactor. mine used hydrogen :P
-
.....You moron.
-
a bit pissed today, aren't we?
big surprise...:rolleyes:
-
Don't you roll your eyes at me young man.....Or I'll scoop them out with a rusty spoon.
Without being told, I'm guessing your idea involved either using the hydrogen to fuel a fusion reactor, in which case, it's just Bussards idea. Or your idea was just to set fire to it ala rocket-fuel, in which case you'd also need oxygen which is a little scarce in the vaccum of space.
Also: Light does have fucking mass! If it bends near a black-hole, it has mass. Fuck space being warped and all that other non-sense. Light has mass.
-
rolls eyes at An0n just for fun.
you're as scary as any little geek hidden behind his screen, kid ( mwahaha, I love doing that :p ).
-
Well...if light does have mass, why doesn't NASA come up with a way to get something to hitch a ride on a light beam? Use it as a "launch catapult" for various things.
-
an0n, it used hydrogen AS the fuel, not to fuel a reactor. And, it would not combust using oxygen, it would combust using the collision between hydrogen + another molecule (which was what the thread was about, finding that molecule)
So, maybe you do need to be told :p
Bah, but I don't want to argue with you, it's like trying to make a rock do the tango.
-
Originally posted by Venom
rolls eyes at An0n just for fun.
you're as scary as any little geek hidden behind his screen, kid ( mwahaha, I love doing that :p ).
You're french.
And UT, the only way that would be useful is if you could collect non-diatomic hydrogen and make it combine into H2.
Although maybe you could make it react with dark-matter somehow. That'd be pretty useful.
And Cor: They've tested laser-launching systems for craft before, but they ain't stable enough.
And if light doesn't have mass, why does it exhibit force on objects? Ala solar-sails. *whistles suspiciously*
Any radiative energy has mass. I don't care what it is. If it flies around and hits ****, it has mass.
-
Originally posted by an0n
You're french.
ain't I lucky? when I go to a foreign country, I needn't do anything and I get all the chicks I want, w/o any kind of effort :p
-
Dude. I'm English.
The Foreigner-Effect™ even cancels out the repulsion caused by my hideous deformity and toxic personality.
****, it's so powerful, it even works on English chicks I meet abroad.
I got laid in France for no reason. I called a group of English girls a 'bunch of German bastards' and they were like "Hi, my name's Kathy."
-
Ok. Let's be serious now...
I don't care where you're from, you're still a repulsive Terran, with an ego larger than a horses... well, we'd better leave that unsaid. :p
-
Originally posted by Corhellion
Well...if light does have mass, why doesn't NASA come up with a way to get something to hitch a ride on a light beam? Use it as a "launch catapult" for various things.
it's called a solar sail. anyone who knows anything about theoretical space travel has heard of them. and light only has a very small amount of mass, so they aren't very practical.
-
Originally posted by Carl
it's called a solar sail. anyone who knows anything about theoretical space travel has heard of them. and light only has a very small amount of mass, so they aren't very practical.
Yeah I was reading that NASA has staked some money into a project with solar sails to see if it works and a couple of physicists are saying its not going to work very well. I forget what it was exactly just that they didn't think it would work.
KnossosS, its cool to hear about NASA and others seriously exploring the possibility of FTL travel. Even if the research is meaningless to practical travel for a long while to come, the possibility of it is amazing. Once we have a technology like that under our belts, exploring the universe is a very real possibility. With probes and maybe even with people.
-
Woo things on this tread go way beyond my level of knowledge (99% of it does :P) but from what i know from my phisicks class Einsteins Theory of relativity has to be wrong or at least some bit of it because you can not create an infinite mass not even a blackwhole has infinite mass..therefore gooing past the speed of light its just a matter of bending the laws of gravity and other laws like that there...I think.!
And about hiyching a ride on a stream of light you have to ask yourself this what the hell happens with the pilots when they accelarate from practicly 30.000 km/h to 300.000 km/sec...!(it has to be messy :eek: :eek2: )
-
OK, time to toss into this fracas here...
And if light doesn't have mass, why does it exhibit force on objects? Ala solar-sails. *whistles suspiciously*
I hope you didn't mean solar sails, because to my knowledge, solar sails use the solar wind, which is not light. However, if you meant light sails... I HAVE heard of those:p
Light is strange, and has lots of elements, and mass is one of them. But, that's a moot point, I guess, since it's so far been rather hard to harness that.
And about hiyching a ride on a stream of light you have to ask yourself this what the hell happens with the pilots when they accelarate from practicly 30.000 km/h to 300.000 km/sec...!(it has to be messy :eek: :eek2: )
Well, it depends on how long it takes for you to GET to 300,000 km/s. If you went there in a matter of seconds, then I would admit, the results would be rather... squishy, and flat. Definately flat. But, fortunately, the light intensity required for that kind of acceleration is just a litte beyond us:p
And besides, because mass increases the closer to the speed of light it gets, there is a limit to how fast any beam of light could accelerate you. You couldn't get anywhere near the speed of light that way.
It's a mess:D
Anyway, that NASA stuff is cool. I would love to see DOOM 3, HL², or even a tricked-out FS2 engine on those simulators:eek: ;)
-
Alpha, why are you going around bumping old threads?
-
Ack! I was suckered!! I wondered how it came from nowhere and grew so fast though...
Oh well... I let it die now...
-
Well I dont know what to say except that I for one believe Einbstein's Theory of Relativity has to be wrong,it has to have a "glitch" somewhere because you can not create something with almost infinite mass its just imposible....not even a black whole has that kind of mass!
Plus I dont like the ideea of someone saiing that we cant go faster than..that...the speed of light...:doubt: !
It has to be a way we just javent found it yet..:p !
-
Alpha, stop bumping old topics! Get that thru your head! Let the damn thing die.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Alpha, stop bumping old topics! Get that thru your head! Let the damn thing die.
This why the 'closed' button is invented.
-
OW!!!!
People, for heaven's sake (*or hell in other cases), please take a damn physics book before starting to talk all kinds of rubbish.
Most of the problems you're talking about aren't solved by science as it is.
The matter of light for example - light does have mass, since gravity affects it, but you can't speak of a photon's mass in the manner you'd do with something.
By the way I have to deflate the whole of you:
Einstein theory is a 100% correct.
The problem is that just because it's correct doesn't mean you've applied it correctly.
Subspace or wormwholes actually circumvent the limitation of time - basicly any object passing through them is taking a shortcut.
Now I don't know the details since I hadn't asked KnossoS, but I do now that quantum physics don't work in a manner you'd believe, and that mainly 'casue you've grown accustomed to the manner in which the world operates on the scale and time-frame you're living inside.
The most simple quantum physics experiment I can think of is the two slot experiment where they had two slits in a wall that could act as light sources.
Then they lowered the light force enough to assure that only 1 photon could pass though at any given moment.
The problem was that they still got the interference you see whent both sources are active.
So in effect the single photon was at 2 places at 1 time!
-
MUST... NOT... CORRECT... OLD... POSTS...
Ah well.
Light doesn't have mass. It DOES have momentum, though. This is because matter and energy are the same thing, in different forms (E = MC^2, etc).
The reason gravity bends light is that it follows the 'contours' of space. Gravity bends space, and light follows the bend in space.
If light had mass, the presence of a photon would also bend space, because it would create a gravity well (albeit a small one).
-
die thread, DIE!
-
Descenterace, I'm not going to start an arguement here.
It is quite a matter of how you look at it, actualy my physics teacher said that light does have math, and he's not that much of an idiot if he manges to solve the best high ranking competition's problems.
No, please I'm not saying that just because he said so or I say so, it does.
What I try to emphasise is, that it's not that simple...