Hyperspace?

POSTED BY: Rodwy
UPDATED: Saturday, January 21, 2006 20:46
VIEWED: 9467
PAGE 4 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rodwy:
Well the theory was made back in the 50's and if there were any inconsistencies they would have been filtered out. Plus even though its not based on true quantum mechanics, It is a different theory with ties to quantum mechanics.

A theory that contradicts not only currently accepted Quantum Mechanics but Einstein’s Relativity as well. It's supposed to replace both, though it is partly a retooling of Relativity.
Now the fact is that Heim's theory is very difficult, even incomprehencible, to understand, and that's for physicists as well. Even its perceived strengths could be an example of groupthink, due to the small number of people working on the theory.

The incomprehensible nature of the theory, owing to it not being published in standard scientific language could also be hiding huge flaws.

The fact is that this hyperspace drive hinges on an entirely unproven and incomplete theory, requires us to ignore Relativity, major aspects of which have been proven scientifically, and Quantum Mechanics which does a very good job of describing what is happening at the Sub-Atomic level.

Quote:
The stuff not mentioned in the article comes from my studies I have been studing basic quatuam mechanics and anti-matter and all that advanced stuff for 3 years I think I know the lot of it.

That's a little arrogant don't you think? Three years of amateur research isn't enough to 'know the lot of it'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rplackett:
(And if you have read angels and deamon by dan brown and believed a WORD of it please revaluate your scientific understanding)

Yeah, I laughed at that. Dan Brown's books are very much Sci-Fantasy with their science really, have you read Digital Fortress? My god I don't think he did any research into cryptography or even computers with that one.

Quote:
This leads to the question why is there so littel antimatter out there and the answer is a technical thing called CP violation, which reoughly reanslates to a slight asymmetry between the way matter and antimatter behave - they arent *quite* mirror images, and these small deviations are enough to (over the age of the universe) eat up all the antimatter.

Charge and parity Asymmetry goes some way to explaining why there is less Anti-matter than Matter in the Universe, but it still falls short by several orders of magnitude, so there must be something else going on.

Quote:
Not wishing to pour cold water on the whole enterprise id suggest confined singularites may be a way to go for starship power

Problem with that is how does one confine a singularity, and again how do you get electricity from it?
There are a few Anti-matter systems that look like they could work though, like Anti-matter initiated Microfusion.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

RPLACKETT

Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:50 PM

Quote:

Charge and parity Asymmetry goes some way to explaining why there is less Anti-matter than Matter in the Universe, but it still falls short by several orders of magnitude, so there must be something else going on.

oh absolutly! The curently observed systems containing cp violating actions do not acoutn for it by any stretch of the imagineation - however its suspected that there are far more systems that contain CP assymetry. This is a very current field of research and so thre are no definite answers at the moment.

There are also 'theoretical uncertainties' when you track the system back to the beginning of the univese. It *could* be somthing else going on, or it could be different manifestations of the same system. We dont know yet.

As for confined singularities its obviously EVEN more implausible than burning comet mined antimatter in an unobtianum vessel. It does at least have the advantage of actually giving you energy overall ;].

I certinly take your point about using other variant nuclear reacitions. Muonic fusion is another possible for space ship batteries (you still need to expend a lot of energy at base to make muonic duterium, and far more then you get out in the end) But it would be a reasonably interesting way of storing a funionable fuel that you can prform a (nearly) cold reaction with to get energy out in a reasonably sized reactor that could be got into space reaosnably safely.

After reading about the space plane we allegedly had at CERN (where i have worked on occasion) i decided to not to read any more of dan browns books. The closest i got to a space plane was the CERN branded peugot courier van we had to shift equipment about the site. I think one of the previous director generals drove about in an aged nissan micra.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rodwy:
What is it that no one cares, or you can't figure out the math, or you don't have an opinion, cause I want to know what other people think about this.

Well, I’ve not heard of anything coming down the lines of communication, or even any rumors, for that matter, of this kind of thing going on within the DoD, DoE or NASA. I’m not really in tune with all the advanced propulsion programs, but I would imagine that if they were any where near any kind of resolution on anything, I would have heard something.

I pretty much just dismiss this kind of stuff, when I read about it in the news.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

JAYTEE

Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:19 PM

It's simple. The required energy to power the engine's magnetic field would be provided by a Cold Fusion generator or maybe a Naquada generator the Air Force will borrow from SG-1.
;-)

Jaytee

RPLACKETT

Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:51 PM

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/

Explains about matter anti-matter comets that have collieded with earth, the last one being in the early 1900's. It also has stuff about part of the reaction of a comet getting to close to the sun has to do with antimatter.

I will get more if you want.

im afraid

http://www.crank.net/technology.html

lists matter-antimatter.com as one of their "crankiest" websites so I'm afraid im not going to treat it as a serious scientific source

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rodwy:

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/

This is not the arXiv and as Rplackett has shown, it's a crackpot site. Please only link to the arXiv (or the journals themselves) as it's pretty much the only source(s) people will pay attention to for very good reasons.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rodwy:

Here's another interesting fact.

On April 22, 2002, the announcement was made that comets were discovered to be natural sources of antimatter.

And here's another one. You have not cited your source.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rodwy:

But in the past year I've gotten to study a lot more,

\begin{sarcasm}
Ah, you've studied it seriously for a year. Than you must be an expert.
\end{sarcasm}

Quote:
Originally posted by Rodwy:

I don't use scietific terms cause I really just don't like to as it seems to confuse most people, and I found that explaining it sipmly is a lot easier, for all of us.

Um, I've (we've) been asking for the scientific explination. And I know for a fact that I've explicitly demanded it. You do know the terminology, right?

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

KHYRON

Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rodwy:
The stuff not mentioned in the article comes from my studies I have been studing basic quatuam mechanics and anti-matter and all that advanced stuff for 3 years I think I know the lot of it.

I wasn't going to say anything because the subject matter has "Trek geek" written all over it, but seriously dude, you have to get over yourself. Even "basic" quantum mechanics is quite difficult if you try to do the underlying maths, and many gifted physics students (I'm talking about university students, not high school students) have problems when it comes to understanding these basics in a mathematically rigorous way.

I'm guessing that what you call "advanced stuff" refers to things you saw on TV and read in some popular (pseudo-)science magazines and books. And you knowing "the lot of it" is just hilarious.

Maybe your sort of attitude works in your class and in other forums, but we've got some pretty smart people on this forum (I don't know if you saw the "What do you do in real life?" thread), and people can see past your hype pretty quickly.

BTW, yeah, it's quantum mechanics, not quatuam mechanics. But you knew that already, being a child prodigy and having studied this for 3 years, didn't you?

My advice to you is keep up the interest in the subject, go to university and study it, then do some research in it. After doing all of that, you'll probably realise that even though you know a lot, you still hardly know anything.

And lose the attitude. Confidence is a good thing to have, but you won't gain any respect or friends on here or in real life by being a prick.

A final piece of advice: whether you end up going on to study something at tertiary level or not, CITE YOUR REFERENCES! I can't emphasise this enough. Even if it's a crackpot site such as matter-antimatter (which can easily be dismissed), don't claim little-known facts to further your argument without giving people a way to check up on them.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4