@Nimrod

The drive has been proven to work in a vaccum...which means it will work in space. Cuts trip to Mars into weeks vs. months.

And yes - it's basically a radiation pressure drive. Have fun swallowing that pill.


Here's another way to generate a lot of radiation pressure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion

All this "drive" does is focus the radiation in a cone to produce directional thrust.

On a smaller scale, smaller controlled nuclear radiation emissions are on the table:
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/radioactive-stirling-engine-exploration/

We already know how to shape such things...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_reflector

Last edited by Lou on 01-May-2015 at 06:52 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 01-May-2015 at 06:44 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 01-May-2015 at 06:31 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 01-May-2015 at 06:27 PM.

@Lou

dude. again, millinewtons. gonna need a whole lot mire to make a difference on a trip to mars.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Lou
Quote:

And yes - it's basically a radiation pressure drive. Have fun swallowing that pill.

I know it is a radiation pressure drive, just as I know that its output is in milliNewtons, not TeraNewtons. And unlike you I can tell the difference between the relevant orders of magnitude


Quote:

Here's another way to generate a lot of radiation pressure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion

Orion drives, how "novel"

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou
NASA's Warp Drive is still Poppycock.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/nasa-warp-drive-yeah-still-poppycock/

Noted here the movement produced was so incredibly small it could easily fall into the margin of instrument error.

The reason this made it to the internet is no one would take the published result of their experiment. In part because there's some BS in there. "..pushing against quantum vacuum virtual plasma". The problem is there is no experiments showing a 'QVVP' exists. So we have an iota of movement within margin or error based on using an unproven source of power.

How you scale this up to 1/3 the time travel to Mars, is more than a bit of a head scratcher.

@BrianK

CONSPIRACY WARNING, THEY ARE BEING SUPPRESSED

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

You're right! As we know science is an evil enterprise which surpresses inclusion of non-scientific ideas. Next thing you know science will try to tell us the world is older than 4K years.

Will the LHC test String Theory?

Definitely Maybe. https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/will-the-lhc-be-able-to-test-string-theory-869e6be00e1f

@Lou

Thought you'd like this - Pushing force of light directly observed for the first time.
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-pressure.html

This direct observation helped to resolve a 100 year old discussion in science if light is a pushing or pulling force. What this experiment tells us is that you and I discussing how light pushes was in the right direction. Personally, I think the indirect observations indicated light as a pushing force and the direct observation just 'seals the deal'.

Where we've differed in this discussion is to the amount of force light has. It's not near limitless as your statements and 'scientific' links want us to believe. What this direction observation shows is Light's pressure is very small and the interplay is even smaller than I attributed as I neglected the object absorbing some of the force. If you want you can consider my estimations and your grossly over estimations are indeed both inaccurate.

As mentioned in the article this force is usable in very small applications - smashing atoms together, or nanotechnology. What this direct observation tells us as well as those larger effects you claimed are even less likely to exist.

Wow - I can't believe this thread is on part 4!

I don't know about Nibiru, but I have enjoyed watching the ThunderboltsProjects documentaries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY

There is some compelling narrative about early astronomical observations worldwide and the theory that we had a much more interesting skyline thousands of years ago.

I'm not of the opinion that so many modern people have that past civilizations were just mindless unscientific religious yokels incapable of accurate observation. They did what they could with the time at hand and the tools available.

Also, the plasma universe stuff is kind of interesting too (sorta goes hand in hand):
http://plasmauniverse.info/

Also, its not a bunch of "crackpot pseudo-scientists", well, unless you consider the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society a bunch of crackpot pseudo-scientists :)

Last edited by TheBilgeRat on 05-Jun-2015 at 06:53 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Thought you'd like this - Pushing force of light directly observed for the first time. http://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-pressure.html This direct observation helped to resolve a 100 year old discussion in science if light is a pushing or pulling force. What this experiment tells us is that you and I discussing how light pushes was in the right direction. Personally, I think the indirect observations indicated light as a pushing force and the direct observation just 'seals the deal'. Where we've differed in this discussion is to the amount of force light has. It's not near limitless as your statements and 'scientific' links want us to believe. What this direction observation shows is Light's pressure is very small and the interplay is even smaller than I attributed as I neglected the object absorbing some of the force. If you want you can consider my estimations and your grossly over estimations are indeed both inaccurate. As mentioned in the article this force is usable in very small applications - smashing atoms together, or nanotechnology. What this direct observation tells us as well as those larger effects you claimed are even less likely to exist.

So what you are saying is time continues to prove me right...
Gravity is a terribly weak force. It's you that over-estimates it's effect, not me.

...and as time continues to prove me right:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150604104145.htm

Animals are sensitive to magnetic fields...

Who would have thunk it?

Remember when I told you I've seen a couple of ufos when living 15 miles away in Massachusetts?

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/06/the-cursed-forest-of-massachusetts/

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: ...and as time continues to prove me right: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150604104145.htm Animals are sensitive to magnetic fields... Who would have thunk it?

Apparently someone back in 1972.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoception

Quote:

Remember when I told you I've seen a couple of ufos when living 15 miles away in Massachusetts?

I believe you - that to you the flying object you saw was not known.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Jun-2015 at 06:58 PM.

http://news.yahoo.com/planetary-societys-solar-sail-test-success-space-182605978.html

Radiation pressure continues to win.

What if you could design a disc-like craft that could absorb radiation or reflect it from different (and adjustable/programmable) sections of exterior? Now you could control the direction of travel more easily than an ancient 'sailing' method...hmmm...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150618104144.htm

Magnetic fields determine shapes of galaxies...
...say it isn't so! I mean - who would have thunk it?

@Lou

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/planetary-societys-solar-sail-test-success-space-182605978.html Radiation pressure continues to win.

What happened here is scientists predicted the em forces available from the sun. They scaled and sized a craft to make use of those effects. The ship traveled at a rate predicted. The result is a confirmation that our current knowledge of the sun was secure enough to produce the desired effects. So yes, the current understanding of RP worked! Great confirmation.

Unfortunately, what you've been trying to tell us is space has RP that is even greater and will produce certain effects that are even greater than what the sun does. Unfortunately, this evidence didn't show your view to be true. Why? If that was the case then the rate of speed of the solar sail would have been greatly out of alignment with predictions. Since it was in alignment it's better evidence against your view that it is for.



Quote:

What if you could design a disc-like craft that could absorb radiation or reflect it from different (and adjustable/programmable) sections of exterior? Now you could control the direction of travel more easily than an ancient 'sailing' method...hmmm...

In my view one that is totally doable. The difficulty comes in that the origination and distance of the energy isn't controllable. And as you move the ship optimal speed is always dependent on your relationship to the star(s).




So, let's do an exercise on how to get to the nearest galaxy using a solar sail.
* The amount of energy from the sun is very weak (~10 newtons per square mile by us). We'd still need rockets to land and take off from earth. (Shuttle is round 1.5 million Newtons). We'd put a solar sail on a normal rocket and launch it into space.
* As we fly away from the sun the energy from the sun drops. (inverse square law). As such we can't rely on ~10 newtons per sq. mile. In order to compensate one thing we'd do is make a huge frickin' sail. And sails are more weight so we'd want to be light. -- Thus, we'd probably make it the size of Texas and so small that no current material exists to make it.
* Also, since the sun power decreases we'd probably want some booster. Maybe some space laser satellites to collect and concentrate the sun. That'd help our cause. We'd still need the size as Texas sail because that target is harder to hit the further out it is.
* Once close to the other galaxy we'd want some sort of rocket again for controllability. And especially if we want to come home.


It's an interesting exercise. Not possible today. But, some great engineering problems to work on there.

Now if we could get that imaginary rp from space, you claim to exist, working that'd be awesome. Unfortunately, at the moment those engineering problems are even bigger because ya got nothing demonstrating it's existence.

@BrianK

he's just randomly linking to things that he hasn't even read again. Like he admitted to doing before.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@TheBilgeRat

Quote:

Wow - I can't believe this thread is on part 4!

Neither can I, especially as Niburu never turned up !


Quote:

There is some compelling narrative about early astronomical observations worldwide and the theory that we had a much more interesting skyline thousands of years ago.

Of course, there was FAR less light pollution to contend with then. Incredibly these days there are people that have never seen the milky way due to orange pall obliterating the sky

@olegil

I need a like button!

Quote:

BillE wrote: Of course, there was FAR less light pollution to contend with then. Incredibly these days there are people that have never seen the milky way due to orange pall obliterating the sky

Oh sure - very true. I lament that even from my small town I rarely get a good view of the sky just from its light pollution.

I was referring to the suggestion that at one time the orbital patterns of venus, mars and saturn were much different, and recently enough to be recorded as such all over the world in many different cultures. The people discussing it make some compelling arguments for it, although they have to suppose some additional behaviors (electric universe theory, parts of which are reasonable, and parts of which get looney toons) to account for the observations.

I guess its sort of like nibiru - the idea of a planet on a crazy elliptical orbit that achieves perihelion in some large time T and may mess with our own orbit(s) isn't unreasonable. I think, however, when you start adding in ancient aliens, and self powered planets, and all the other nonsense you tend to cloud the honest possibility with, well, crap.

Its like the other day - I was watching some "amazing underwater things we've found" show that talks about submerged cities/religious sites/manmade things. This is reasonable - we've known for a while that the water level has been lower in the past and that some older antiquities sites are underwater. The most annoying thing about it was that instead of rationally discussing the sites, they spent 40% of the show bringing in that crazy hair dude and blabbering on about aliens. I mean, come on! Can't it just stand on its own that exploring underwater manmade stuff is cool without bringing in Bermuda Triangle crap and poorly rendered CGI aliens and flying saucers?