| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
The "how you will accelerate without g forces" is two questions. The analogy tries to explain the "without g forces" part. What g forces do you feel as you fall from great height towards say Jupiter? Imagine no air, just vacuum. Great acceleration towards the planet, but you feel zero sensation of acceleration. Gravity is a distortion of space-time. Of course falling toward Jupiter in a vacuum would have you feeling zero G. Your terminal velocity also has a theoretical maximum at less than the speed of light. Clearly this isn't what is being discussed. If you can't accept what was said in the article, perhaps their graphic example will help.  Notice that the ship is inside of a bubble of space that is not distorted like the space around it. Why did they draw it this way? I think it's because that is how they see it working. There are plenty of graphics that show essentially the same thing on this theory.     Notice that all of these show the ship in a bubble of undisturbed space. To use the car analogy, your dog would be able to stick his head out the window and not have his ears flapping in the wind. | ||
| Sifo |
Pwnzor.  | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Please explain to me how you are going to accelerate with no G-force. That's a real trick. I suspect the answer would also explain how warp drive would allow a craft to go faster than the speed of light. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
NASA: Here’s the premise behind the Alcubierre "warp drive": Although Special Relativity forbids objects to move faster than light within spacetime, it is unknown how fast spacetime itself can move. To use an analogy, imagine you are on one of those moving sidewalks that can be found in some airports. The Alcubierre warp drive is like one of those moving sidewalks. Although there may be a limit to how fast one can walk across the floor (analogous to the light speed limit), what about if you are on a moving section of floor that moves faster than you can walk (analogous to a moving section of spacetime)? In the case of the Alcubierre warp drive, this moving section of spacetime is created by expanding spacetime behind the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk emerges from underneath the floor), and by contracting spacetime in front of the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk goes back into the floor). The idea of expanding spacetime is not new. Using the "Inflationary Universe" perspective, for example, it is thought that spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light during the early moments of the Big Bang. So if spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive? These theories are too new to have either been discounted or proven viable. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
In 300 years from now people of average intelligence will laugh at these theories just like we do of a generation past that believed there was life on Mars. This is a croc of. The only way to achieve speed beyong light speed, or even speed half as fast, energy is needed. They say so in this theory also. That energy is going to come from using the elements present in the universe. It's that simple. Simple enough to realise fusion energy is where it's at as fusion energy is what created the universe and the speeds objects move within it. Isn't this ultimately what CERN is all about. Firing a microscopic particle down a tube in a race against light? Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
Here's the short version with a few screen grabs.   And the source video. Sitting still inside the bubble, wish zero G-force, and no acceleration. In 300 years from now people of average intelligence will laugh at these theories just like we do of a generation past that believed there was life on Mars. Possibly. Probably. People of average intelligence, and much better have scoffed at lots of things that we are now finding to be amazing reality nowadays though. I do have real doubts about warping space in this manner with a reasonable amount of energy though. This might be like wormhole theories where, yes it could be done, but you would never get the bulk of what's needed to fit into such a small wormhole. If it takes a building sized power plant to create a 5mm warp bubble, there isn't much point to it as a practical matter. Still, accomplishing that would be far beyond what was considered feasible a very short time ago. My grandparents couldn't have imagined that some of what we live with in every day life would become reality. They marbled at room sized computers that required their own climate control systems. Now better computers fit easily into your pocket, and can make phone calls to boot! I think I'll just back away from making predictions about the realities of warp drive. | ||
| Aesquire |
I can't address the flaws in a theoretical engine. All I can do is look at other concepts, ( some include the Alcubierre ideas ) and take guesses. First, any engine that uses unobtainium, is pretty far out. People tell me "dark matter" must exist, and postulate it's properties. They tell me "dark matter" HAS to exist because they've counted everything else and there's not enough.  Seems really egotistical to me. I'm not saying it can't exist, or that it might not be neat to have, But.... seriously? Astronomers discovered planets by their gravity effects on other planets, and the particle physics dudes look for and sometimes find particles that "make sense to make the math come out right". Perhaps "strange matter" and "dark matter" really exist, and someday we'll be able to order it on the internet. Until then, I'm skeptical. However, if we can make a "bubble" we then have to figure out how to make it move. Rocket is right, it's going to take energy to make the bubble move. It might take surprisingly little, if we are clever enough. Consider Soaring. Surfing waves in space or riding rising air currents, could be possible with minimum energy input. Like sliding a warm hockey puck across dry ice. Or it could require the energy output of a Sun to go useful speeds. There is a story where at great expense, and hard work, they test the first Hyperdrive in a space ship, and discover to their dismay that the speed of light ( the "this universe speed limit" ) is slower in hyper space.  In Alan Dean Foster's "Flinx" Series, and in David Weber's "Fury" novel, the space drive uses gravity "projectors" to create a gravity well in front of the ship. The ship falls into the well, which having no material existence is always in front of the ship. There are tidal effects, but the basics are the ship "falls" into a retreating gravity well with the occupants not feeling the acceleration. Which can be pretty high. At some certain speed the ship falls into it's own retreating black hole, and goes FTL. Would this work? I see no reason why not. It does require that we be able to generate gravity as a point or plane or in a limited volume, outside the gravity generator. I also know no reason that can't work. But recall, the paradigms from one kind of thing don't always apply to another. In Jules Verne's day, Aerial Combat was thought to be like sea combat. Great battleships held aloft by airscrews would maneuver ponderously to bring their broadsides to bear. Fleets would "cross the T" in 3 dimensions to bring maximum firepower to the enemy while denying him full use of his guns. Never happened that way. The 3 dimensional antics of a Sopwith Camel weren't even considered. Modern F-22's still use the Sopwith Camel paradigm, with the addition of missiles. And the escape from a mach 5 missile is the same as the Camel's escape from bullets from a Fokker, turn and "generate a miss" at the last moment. Space Combat, Battlestar Galactica aside, will almost certainly not involve dogfights, OR "crossing the T" Nor is it likely to be like Submarine Combat, but be dependent on factors we now only guess at. How many G's can you stand for how long? Range on a missile before it can no longer change course enough to catch an evading enemy. ( once it goes ballistic, you just slide over a little ) How much energy will your Lasers/Grasers/Particle beams deliver, at what range? If you're far enough away, you can dodge lasers. Maybe. Delta-v? A famous scientist PROVED mathematically, that cannon made more sense than missiles for space combat. The mass of a cannon & it's ammo was less than the same number of missiles. Made perfect sense. Until you realized that in the time the cannon ball went from Breach to Muzzle, the enemy ship may have covered a thousand miles. | ||
| Blake |
Tom, "Analogy" Electrical circuitry is analogous to systems of fluid flow, where amperage (electrical current) is analogous to flow, and voltage is analogous to pressure. But water can't flow at the speed of light! And electrons don't freeze and become immobile at low temperature! Thusly stand your objections to the analogies offered. The analogies concern only the specific parameters stated. Everything else is wide open. >>> Sorry, I see wind and G-force as very different things. They are, but certain aspects of their behavior as discussed are analogous, just like certain aspects of electricity and water are analogous. >>> Please explain to me how you are going to accelerate with no G-force. That's a real trick. Go jump off the roof and get back to me on that. The converse is also true. Sitting there reading this right now you feel the force of 1g of upwards acceleration, yet no motion or change in velocity is causing you to feel 1g of upwards acceleration. Yet if you were to jump into a well, you would accelerate downwards at 1g, but you would feel no such propelling force acting upon you. Why? | ||
| Sifo |
Analogies are great for getting ideas across. They aren't so great with discussing scientific principles. You keep coming back to gravity. I'll ask again, how fast can you go with gravity? That right there should tip you off that this isn't about gravity. I've posted numerous sources stating explicitly that we are talking about creating a bubble where the vehicle stays stationary in that bubble. That's why there is no G-force imposed by acceleration. Because there is not acceleration. Not because, as you keep suggesting, that you are accelerating toward a gravity hole. | ||
| 86129squids |
   Time for a high-gravity beer. | ||
| 86129squids |
Just now appreciated the irony of my last post. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't think you're grasping the gravity of the situation! | ||
| 86129squids |
The more high-gravity beer one imbibes, the greater force gravity exerts on your body.  | ||
| Sifo |
I do recall a few times drinking enough high gravity beer that I've found myself unable to pick myself up off the floor. | ||
| 86129squids |
Delerium Tremens or Delerium Nocturne are deee-lish, but more than 2 of either will create gravity conditions of Venus, maybe Uranus. | ||
| Sifo |
I have heard that Uranus really takes a pounding.  http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/we-now-know- why.php | ||
| Griffmeister |
Do you make high-gravity beer with heavy water?  | ||
| Blake |
Tom, The spacecraft is isolated in its space-time bubble from the gravitational effects of the warp field. Just like you are isolated inside an aircraft from the effects of aerodynamic drag. All the forces are acting outside your local frame of reference, thus you don't feel them. Your local frame of reference is contained and isolated from the outside environment and the applicable physics happening there. Analogies are incredibly valuable in science and engineering. We use them all the time. When it comes to radar cross section, the B2 is like a small bird. You asked how it would be possible to accelerate without feeling any g forces. I gave you an example. I don't have any more. Gravity just IS a distortion in space-time. | ||
| Blake |
>>> I'll ask again, how fast can you go with gravity? In a space-time bubble isolated from the external reference frame, propelled by a warp field, the answer is faster than light. | ||
| Sifo |
In a space-time bubble isolated from the external reference frame, propelled by a warp field, the answer is faster than light. That "propelled by a warp field" bit is way different than falling into a gravity hole. The bubble is being pushed forward on a wave of expanding space. Space is being expanded with negative energy. That may of course prove problematic to this theory, as I understand that negative energy isn't yet proven. At any rate, it's not falling into a gravity hole. The spacecraft is isolated in its space-time bubble from the gravitational effects of the warp field. I'm pretty sure you will find that once you create a bubble around the craft that isolates it from gravitational effects that it will not fall into a gravity hole. Again though, this isn't what this theory talks about. Why you choose to ignore multiple references being provided about not accelerating is beyond me. | ||
| Blake |
It isolates that which is contained inside, not itself; like how an aircraft isolates whatever it contains, but not itself (the container) from external aerodynamics. That's the essence of the analogy. It's an incredibly simple concept, and an analogy that seems perfectly clear. No the theoretical spacecraft's localized warped space-time is not identical to the gravitational field of a planet. And electricity isn't water, but certain aspects of their behavior and effect are the same. You asked how anything could accelerate absent sensation of g forces. "Please explain to me how you are going to accelerate with no G-force. That's a real trick." The answer was provided, gravity, ie the distortion of, ie the warpage of, space-time. You disagree? You never answered my question... I'll restate: How is it that the converse is also true. Sitting there reading this right now you feel the force of 1g of upwards acceleration, yet no motion or change in velocity is causing you to feel that 1g of upwards acceleration; you are not accelerating (increasing magnitude of velocity) upwards as the g force sensation would seem to indicate. How can that be? | ||
| Blake |
"Of course falling toward Jupiter in a vacuum would have you feeling zero G." Some "trick", huh?  "Your terminal velocity also has a theoretical maximum at less than the speed of light. Clearly this isn't what is being discussed. " Really? Some more imagination may be in order... Imagine that you are contained within in a localized space-time bubble. When you travel contained within a jetliner, how do you escape the violent local effects of the massive localized aerodynamic flux (compressed in back, expanded in front) created by the engines? In the diagrams you've posted, substitute the outline of the bubble with that of an airliner fuselage, and the warped space-time with pressure distortion. Well, invert the warp field, since exactly opposite to space-time, compressed air pushes instead of pulls. Valid analogy or not? So even the illustrations you posted are partly analogous to the aerodynamic propulsion of an aircraft. I totally dig this stuff. Roddenberry fiction becomes reality? Too cool! | ||
| Blake |
"If you can't accept what was said in the article, perhaps their graphic example will help. " With what in the article are you imagining I disagree? | ||
| Blake |
Maybe it will be helpful to find some illustrations depicting the distortion of space-time around things like planets, stars, and black holes. Or just read what Patrick posted above about the FTL concept. | ||
| Blake |
I keep retreading and finding misunderstandings... "Notice that all of these show the ship in a bubble of undisturbed space. To use the car analogy, your dog would be able to stick his head out the window and not have his ears flapping in the wind." The analogy is not of the spacecraft hull, but rather of the space-time bubble boundary to the body of an aircraft. One contains locally non-warped space-time, the other contains locally undisturbed air. | ||
| Blake |
"Why you choose to ignore multiple references being provided about not accelerating is beyond me." I'm not. I've tried to explain how it is possible and how it is analogous to not feeling the effects of the aerodynamic environment beyond the confines of an aircraft. (Message edited by Blake on December 13, 2013) | ||
| Sifo |
Well Blake, my comments about acceleration and G-forces were within the context of the discussion. Of course you can be pulled into a gravity hole at zero G. That isn't what's being discussed though. If you could somehow create a bubble that isolates you from gravity, as you postulated, I think you would find that it wouldn't be drawn into a gravity hole. You claim the contents of the bubble wouldn't be, but the bubble itself would be. I'm not following that at all. The bubble has no mass (does it?). You claim the contents of the bubble are isolated from gravity, so that shouldn't be factored into any gravitational attraction. Of course, none of this to my knowledge has even been theorized at this point. Given that, I have no idea where you come to the conclusion that your gravity bubble can fall into a gravity hole faster than light. With what in the article are you imagining I disagree? The first one for starters. The analogy is not of the spacecraft hull, but rather of the space-time bubble boundary to the body of an aircraft. One contains locally non-warped space-time, the other contains locally undisturbed air. Kind of a poor analogy. One has a vehicle that protects the occupants. The other has a vehicle that has to be protected from it's environment. Pretty different situations. "Why you choose to ignore multiple references being provided about not accelerating is beyond me." I'm not. I've tried to explain how it is possible and how it is analogous to not feeling the effects of the aerodynamic environment beyond the confines of an aircraft. While you may be attempting to talk about a vehicle protecting it's contents from wind, that's a far cry from what is being discussed. On that point, you are ignoring multiple references that describe a bubble in which the vehicle is stationary. That's where this whole discussion between us began. You questioned me about it, and I provided the reference in the article. You said it was incorrect, and I provided more references, both graphic and verbal. I guess all of these sources must have it wrong.  | ||
| Aesquire |
I don't understand how they plan to create the "bubble" myself. Negative energy? As I stated above, that stuff may be real, or handwavium. The idea, however, is not new. If you bend space/create gravity/have the gods breath upon it so it moves...... you can accelerate without feeling the full effects of the acceleration. In the case of the "gravity well" drives, a gravity well is created ahead of the ship, and you fall into it. This requires you to manipulate a force we poorly understand, and can only detect by it's action on material objects. I'm hopeful that we will someday be able to do so. It was not that long ago we didn't think we could "create" lightning, but only observe it. Then they figured out that the spark from static electricity was the same thing on a smaller scale, and over a few centuries we have enough understanding that we can argue with one another........using electron flows. Given a device to create gravity, if you were to make a point source ( or in a small area ) that pulled upon you, you would get "tidal forces" the parts of you closest would be pulled more than the parts further away. ( that's true as you sit there, right now. It takes sensitive instruments to detect the difference, but your head is pulled less than your feet.. ) For sake of clarity, let us say that the craft is built like a classic hot air balloon, where you stand with your head towards the "gravity well" ( balloon ) in your capsule ( basket ) We'll put the gravity machine in the position of the burners, and assume it doesn't "leak" energy at you, but makes the pull happen where the balloon would be. ( all in all a crappy analogy, but a familiar object ) So even in a "gravity well" craft falling through space, you'd feel a force acting upon you. The more powerful your gravity generators, the faster the ship would accelerate, and the more "tidal" force you'd feel. Since you'd be effectively in free fall, you'd feel the force as trying to pull your feet away from your head. That effect, and the methods you use to counter act it, are your limitations on that kind of drive. Throttle up enough and you come apart. More and the craft comes apart. This much is well understood. How this works with "warping" spacetime is, perhaps another thing. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
They tell me "dark matter" HAS to exist because they've counted everything else and there's not enough Not completely. In simple terms it is said dark matter exists because light is warped as it travels through space and gravity has been ruled out as the force bending the light. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
How's this for a mind f***...Theory of Everything....black holes....holograms....converge in the theory that our existence is merely a holographic projection of a two-dimensional reality on the inside of a black hole. |
