A Test for Exotic Propulsion?

Centauri-Dreams ^ | 10/12/09 | Paul Gilster

[El Sordo]

Aw, man.

I had hoped for something else...

[Brett66]

Fascinating stuff, I’m probably incorrectly visualizing this, but I could see maybe a torus with a donut-shaped mass going at a significant percentage of the speed of light moving around the torus. The donut would have a slice cut out of it so a spacecraft could be moved into the path of it without colliding. Sort of a stargate for instantaneous acceleration.

[SIDENET]

I thought it said “erotic”, too.

[j_guru]

I was just talking about this very issue with my hillbilly mechanic... although he thought he could test his theory with a potato launcher and a can of hair spray. very cool..

[LearnsFromMistakes]

In other words, a mass moving faster than roughly 57.7 percent of the speed of light will repel other masses that are placed within what we could call an ‘antigravity beam’ in front or in back of it.

Great. Just this morning I told my wife it was 57.4 percent the speed of light. Now I gotta order some flowers and apologize.

[dangerdoc]

bump

[allmost]

then we still have the problem of arranging our payload in relation to the driver mass. In other words, taking advantage of these effects would itself require breakthroughs in space propulsion that would render the advantage of using the effect minimal.

Creating the required force in a balanced way would require a wide area of accelerated massive particles meticulously aimed. If that can be achieved the secondary effect of propulsion itself almost becomes a moot point.

[allmost]

Ping.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks allmost. It's the first time in ages we've had three pingworthy topics all at once. :')

---

· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·

---

[Quix]

THANKS.

Am reminded of all those chronic naysayers who claim it’s impossible to travel that fast or faster.

. . . as though THEY designed the whole multiverse . . .

and have KNOWN everything since before their conception in mummy’s womb.

[yazoo]

“who claim it’s impossible to travel that fast or faster.”

Here is the difference between us naysayers and you true believers. If a physicist can prove with repeatable testing that objects can go faster than light, then I will accept it as a proven fact. If, however, their testing proves nothing can exceed the speed of light you will continue to believe in visits from aliens, even though the thousands of years of travel it would take to reach earth would convince any normal person to accept it is beyond the realm of possibility.

That is the difference, I believe ultimately in science, and you believe in whatever confirms what you want so badly to believe in.

[PapaBear3625]

Pure dreck.

[Quix]

WRONG

yet again.

1. Your worship at the altar of a virtually certain TYPE II ERROR mentality is still astonishing.

2. Much in the science text books is wrong . . . deliberately.

3. I came at this without any preconceived notions. It was merely an interesting curiosity. I was neutral—as neutral as anyone could be, on all the key variables. . . . from a science fiction interest. You seem to have an incapacity or unwillingness to BELIEVE THE TRUTH about that. Obviously, your skills as a psychologist you are not—not your role, not your profession, IIRC, are not top flight.

4. I have merely followed the information for these 47+ years—wherever it has led. I’m still merely following the information. You seem to be the one with the axe to grind about it all.

5. Thankfully, I had a close relative work around the craft.

6. And, I’ve interviewed a surprising number of world renowned experts in the field quite a number of hours worth.

7. And, I’ve read many 10,000’s of pages of documentation.

8. Some of my close friends have had profound experiences in the field.

9. And, I seem to be a several 100 percent more fair minded than you seem capable of or willing to risk.

10. The fellow who headed Lockeed Skunk Works was CERTAINLY NO slouch, as a scientist. He didn’t have any doubts about the capacity to travel faster than light. I find his career and expertise in the field enormously greater than yours.

[Quix]

So . . . in what type of data storage modules plugged into what parts of your brain do you store all this exhaustive and complete knowledge of the multiverse?

Is Grandpa Bear impressed yet?

[PapaBear3625]

Above a certain critical velocity, Felber believes, any mass will gravitationally repel other masses, an effect that is twice as strong in the forward direction of motion, but also works in the backward direction.

"Above a certain critical velocity" RELATIVE TO WHAT?

From the viewpoint of the Earth, stars at the edge of the observable universe are moving away from us at close to the speed of light. From the viewpoint of somebody on one of those stars, WE are moving away from THEM at close to the speed of light. Do we observe the repulsion phenomenon here on Earth, keeping in mind that Earth can be considered to be moving at close to the speed of light in any direction relative to some observer somewhere?

The essence of Relativity was the realization that there is no absolute frame of reference, there is only motion relative to some particular observer.

[Quix]

I think I understand that passably well.

. . .

I also understand that Einstein didn’t have everything all figured out.

Or, that if he did, a lot has been witheld from putlic knowledge.

[Captain Beyond]

When I go to http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=9758 I get a blank brown page. Is there something I need to enable to view it? Thanks

[Hank Kerchief]

“Can we calculate the gravitational field of a mass moving close to the speed of light?”

Relative to what? There is something very much missing in this whole discussion. Velocity (speed is not the same thing) must be measure relative to something. If two objects both traveling in the same direction, at half the “speed” of light (relative to another object), relative to each other, their velocity is zero.

The relativistic effects are just that, relative. Have my doubts about the “negative” gravity affect, but even it were true, the mass producing that effect would have to be moving at half the velocity of light relative to whatever was effected by it. Don’t see how it would be around long enough to produce much of a result.

Hank

[LibWhacker]

It works for me. I'm not sure what's wrong... Try http://www.centauri-dreams.org. It'll be the second article from the top.