Starship Asterisk*

harry wrote:Hello All

I have read
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=575

THat is total rubbish.

It may indeed be pure speculation; but so is recycling universe! it is also more in line with [how fast can we go!] I'm more apt to believe in the BBT or that the universe at least started all at once. Seems as everything has started 13.6 billion years ago. So for now I'm with the BBT or at least a simultaneous start up of the universe.
Orin

Hello All

Smile, think what you like.

But! in the mean investigate the cycles and evolution of galaxies and their formation.


No skin off my butt, so to speak.

Hi Harry

Remind me what you're theory is again

I'll take a guess that you either mean:
1. that the Universe goes through multiple big bangs and big crunches and we are currently in the latest one of these - this would be impossible to distinguish from a BB Universe for obvious reasons although the observation that lambda is beginning to dominate over the matter means that we can't have a big crunch anymore so perhaps we would be in the last of these cycles.

or

2. the Universe is entirely static in a Fred Hoyle style and the galaxies "recycle" some how and new galaxies can come into existence between the current ones. This is very unlikely for all of the reasons above but I should add that when we look deep into the high redshift universe (hubble deep field, GOODS etc) we see less and less "normal" elliptical and spiral galaxies and more and more weird merging and interacting irregular galaxies implying that todays galaxies are an evolution from these irregulars. This fits in well with the BB theory that the universe has been evolving to its present state since the BB. In your theory one would expect to see the same ratio of irregulars to normals per redshift interval.

Hello All

Hello Cosmo

2. the Universe is entirely static in a Fred Hoyle style and the galaxies "recycle" some how and new galaxies can come into existence between the current ones. This is very unlikely for all of the reasons above but I should add that when we look deep into the high redshift universe (hubble deep field, GOODS etc) we see less and less "normal" elliptical and spiral galaxies and more and more weird merging and interacting irregular galaxies implying that todays galaxies are an evolution from these irregulars. This fits in well with the BB theory that the universe has been evolving to its present state since the BB. In your theory one would expect to see the same ratio of irregulars to normals per redshift interval.

I'm not here to tell you or explain to you if you are right or wrong. Maybe you are right.

But in my opinion your above statement is wrong.

I was just reading another recent link

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=40351

A team of US and European astronomers analyzing two of the deepest views of the cosmos made with the Hubble Space Telescope have uncovered a gold mine of galaxies, more than 500 that existed less than a billion years after the Big Bang. This sample represents the most comprehensive compilation of galaxies in the early universe, researchers said. The discovery is scientifically invaluable for understanding the origin of galaxies, considering that just a decade ago early galaxy formation was largely uncharted territory. Astronomers had not seen even one galaxy that existed when the universe was a billion years old, so finding 500 in a Hubble survey is a significant leap forward for cosmologists.

This is a prime example of BBT people trying to prop up the theory by assuming it to be correct and than add statements to confirm it. This is raping science.

How can can 500 galaxies form in a few hundred million years. Just by saying so does not make it right.

Existing galaxies far far away are quite similar to near galaxies and you will find strange ones within.

As for what my theory is.

Look at observations and see the existing workings of the universe. Working this out will form the model of the known universe. Too many errors have been made from too many models.

I think the universe is endless and recyclic.

orin stepanek wrote:http://www.usd.edu/phys/courses/phys300 ... e/dave.htm

Not that I believe it; but it is intriguing; and who knows; with technology improving all the time?
Orin

You could be surprized, but this is already patented

ckam wrote:

orin stepanek wrote:http://www.usd.edu/phys/courses/phys300 ... e/dave.htm

Not that I believe it; but it is intriguing; and who knows; with technology improving all the time?
Orin

You could be surprized, but this is already patented

I'm intrigued! I tried clicking on the images link and got shut down. Some of the stuff must be pretty well guarded. I don't suppose they got a prototype? Who's brave enough to be the first to try it?
Orin

Orin, i click on the image too. And to see it, you need sumthing call active X and once in it there are no image but just an open page for an image. So u didnt miss anything. As to have a prototype built, i suppose the energy needed for it to work (If its possible) is not available with the current technology (I might be wrong!). As for the one who go first in it, i think a monkey would be brave enough to do so. (Till it learn sign language and it has been ask if it want to go.)

Doum wrote:Orin, i click on the image too. And to see it, you need sumthing call active X and once in it there are no image but just an open page for an image. So u didnt miss anything. As to have a prototype built, i suppose the energy needed for it to work (If its possible) is not available with the current technology (I might be wrong!). As for the one who go first in it, i think a monkey would be brave enough to do so. (Till it learn sign language and it has been ask if it want to go.)

Thanks Doum! I"m glad I didn't miss anything, I was hoping for some pictures. I was wondering how you might get a patent without a working prototype! Maybe each individual part works separately? Anybody out there got any answers?
Orin

I found a picture! http://www.flickr.com/photos/83496054@N00/62292156/
It doesn't look like it was built; so we don't know if it will work!
Orin

For information.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... cepts.html

This is a good place to see what is the best the human can hope to do on maximum speed for traveling deep into space. Some might get close to the light speed (Bussard ramjet.). Some can reach 10% the light speed (Daedalus project.).

The fastest We could ever go is ; less than the speed of light.
It will depend on our technology. Which is improving all the time, and sure took a leap forward in the last 50 years, in practicality and especially theory.

Lately I have come to a new vision, or understanding of the universe etc.
As Enrico Fermi was quoted in response to his thoughts about extraterrestrials, "So, where are they?"
They aren't here because there is so much 'stuff' out there that if one is to go at a speed fast enough to get anywhere far away in a reasonable time frame, one would have a catastrophic collision quite soon. From dead stellar cores ejected by galactic gravities, to Oort clouds, to asteroid belts, to comets, and even just the intra-galactic molecular chains of nova particulate ejecta; there is so much 'stuff' out there that at 1/2 light speed or greater, a craft would not have enough lead-time warning, nor enough energy, to swerve around the objects in its path; and it would suffer a deadly collision within 10 years of traveling at such a high speed. And that is why "They" aren't here !!
I think We will discover this when we try to go 'out there'.

Our solar system has been swept clean by the planets and organized quite a bit, so it is 'cleaner' than beyond our solar system. The high failure rate of Mars probes, to me, points to a lot of small debris around Mars from disturbances to the asteroid belt.

The Oort cloud around our solar system, like the ozone layer in our upper atmosphere; are natural shields and protect us.

Part II - How fast can Anything go. ? Harry posted, on another page, a quote from a website that debates gravity is an effect that is faster than lightspeed by a factor of 20, at least. That argument aside, this entire matter of "the speed of light" was reframed for me by John Dobson; when he said that "The speed of light isn't a speed of anything, it is the ratio of Space to Time."
That is why all observers see events at speed-of-light reference frames, regardless of individual vectors. We experience the ratio of space to time this way.

This is a very different viewpoint from classical or modern physics and the mainstream educated will not grasp the concept quickly, and will likely argue irrationally against it, for it strikes them they have wasted their entire learning career, and that hurts too much to admit.

Like the Big Bang Theory, BBT, it agrees with Catholic Theology and they support it against all odds in the educational community. That is why it has such rabid resistance to valid challenges for the last 40 years.

But enough of my 'soapboxing' !

How fast we can go is mostly dependent on long range sensors, and maneuvering ability of the craft, as well as hull strength against small debris collisions.

Now if like E.E.Smith, we can develop inertia-less drive, and can stop of a virtual particle !! , then we can have collision avoidance and travel at light speed.

Inertia, according to Dobson, is one of the fundamental aspects of this Universe, and we can not turn it off and on at will.

All things that have Inertia, are subject to Time.

Gravity is not an inertia subject. It is a force that is independent of inertia. It effects things that have inertia, but gravity by itself is beyond the boundaries of Inertia's influence. Gravity as a force is inertialess in its own nature. (Confused would have trouble discussing this, as his educational baggage would make itself all to upfront)
This is a long subject and I am using words in a new definition way here. A special language if you will, where
Gravity
Inertia/Momentum
Energy
are the 3 qualities this Universe has.
They are distinct and different from each other.
The Inertia/Momentum component is where Time enters this Universe.
And all things that have Inertia/Momentum must obey the rules of Time.

Gravity and Energy are not subject to Time directly.
That is why Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is Infinite, and not subject to Time's influence.
And likewise Gravity is not subject to Time either, that is why its effect is faster than the speed of light, because Gravity is not subjected to the constraints of Time.

Time enters this universe thru the Inertia/Momentum component.
And all things with Inertia/Momentum involve Time as they interact in this Universe.

Now these 3 components swirl and interact and mix to some extent, but in their own right each is a separate entity and not composed of the elements of each other. The 3 combine to form all the effects we see and experience. This is a long subject and I'm only begining to understand it.

To go a little further, "Matter is a special state that Energy has the ability to assume." and in this state, Energy has an inertia/momentum component, and so Energy combines with Inertia/Momentum to form Matter, in a swirl of a way. Whereas Energy by itself is inertialess. Light would be an example of inertialess energy, whereas an electron would be an example of energy that has inertia.

If warp drive becomes a reality; I'm sure there will be a way to avoid objects between here and there because technology would demand that. There is nothing that man can't do. Eventually We will colonise the stars. If there are no ET's; we will have it all to ourselves.
Orin

orin stepanek wrote:If warp drive becomes a reality; I'm sure there will be a way to avoid objects between here and there because technology would demand that. There is nothing that man can't do. Eventually We will colonise the stars. If there are no ET's; we will have it all to ourselves.
Orin

Or, if there are ETs, we can guess that the only reason they did not colonize us yet is because our planet suck and there are lots of goodness out there we cant even imagine.

The casimir effect seem to hold promise for vast amount of energy production wich in turn might provide the energy needed for the alcubierre warp drive???? So many if.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... simir.html

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... drive.html

But how cool it will be if it work.

Doum wrote:The casimir effect seem to hold promise for vast amount of energy production wich in turn might provide the energy needed for the alcubierre warp drive???? So many if.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... simir.html

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... drive.html

But how cool it will be if it work.

Technology is achieving so much so fast that I would not be surprised if something came to be developed like this within a generation or two.
Orin

Hello All

If matter goes at the speed of light. The atomic structure may change to another form of matter and in so doing would break up the space ship and all in it.

Lucky we have rats to test this.

Do not use monkeys because I saw the movie.

harry wrote:Hello All

If matter goes at the speed of light. The atomic structure may change to another form of matter and in so doing would break up the space ship and all in it.

Lucky we have rats to test this.

Do not use monkeys because I saw the movie.

Harry: the idea behind a warp bubble is that the speed inside the bubble would not be moving. The bubble would be riding the space warp like a surfer rides the surf. So if that would be possible the time inside the space ship would be normal.
Orin

Hello Orin


ooooooppppppps the warp bubble.

Ok,,,,,,,,,

Will the inside of a warp bubble be influenced by electromagnetic and gravity?

If not, how will you push the bubble?

Time does not change only relative time, relative to communication and distance.

The warp bubble is pushed along be the simultaneous expansion (behind) and contraction (ahead) style warping of space in the direction you wish to travel.

harry wrote:how will you push the bubble?

BMAONE wrote:The warp bubble is pushed along be the simultaneous expansion (behind) and contraction (ahead) style warping of space in the direction you wish to travel.

And if you now wonder how would one warp the space, ask Harry Potter.

Hello ckam

"are you talking to me"

ckam wrote:not really

how does this fit in?
Orin

orin stepanek wrote:how does this fit in?

Come on, you have to see it. Harry Potter - robe and wizard hat. No? Okay then, it's probably bash.org pays me for advertising.

ckam wrote:

orin stepanek wrote:how does this fit in?

Come on, you have to see it. Harry Potter - robe and wizard hat. No? Okay then, it's probably bash.org pays me for advertising.

OK! I didn't see Harry Potter. I was questioning what Bloodninja and Britany had to do with it. I guess I'm not with it! So mayber it'll take a little magic t o make it work!
8) Orin