New Space Drive Works, and Could Get Us to Mars in a Few Weeks!

9 years ago

Interesting, a slashed budget prompts NASA to get their thinking caps on and embrace new ideas? Or, as Claude keeps harking on about, they are finally going to introduce some of the technology gleened from the study of downed UFO's?

A perpetual engine, Oh surely not. Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation. He will like that. Although he has been working on his own version, Quantum Vacuum Flatulance

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9938090].message }}

HeySal

9 years ago

That's good news, Shane. I'm sure you'll have plenty of pics to share with us when you get back.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9938130].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

9 years ago

Um . . . "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" ...is there such a thing?

This impossible engine is supposed to work by bouncing microwaves off the walls of a metal container, without the microwaves ever escaping the container. Isn't that like trying to make your car go by sitting in it and pushing on the windshield?

Sorry Shane, but...

NASA's Impossible Space Engine Is Total BS | RealClearScience
Did NASA Validate an "Impossible" Space Drive? In a Word, No. - Out There
No, NASA has not verified an impossible space drive | Astronotes

Sometimes, the best times to be skeptical is when we want the unlikely to be true.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9938235].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Um . . . "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" ...is there such a thing?

This impossible engine is supposed to work by bouncing microwaves off the walls of a metal container, without the microwaves ever escaping the container. Isn't that like trying to make your car go by sitting in it and pushing on the windshield?

Sorry Shane, but...

NASA's Impossible Space Engine Is Total BS | RealClearScience
Did NASA Validate an "Impossible" Space Drive? In a Word, No. - Out There
No, NASA has not verified an impossible space drive | Astronotes

Sometimes, the best times to be skeptical is when we want the unlikely to be true.

Real Clear Science, sounds more like real clear skeptics?

Unless all these sources are dodgy, l doubt it!!!

Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive (Wired UK)

A study conducted last year by NASA scientists has become the latest, and by far the highest profile, piece of evidence in favor of a seemingly impossible space thruster design that's been evoking worldwide skepticism for some time now. Apparently annoyed by the persistent boosters of several similar but distinct designs, the space agency finally agreed to test an American-made variant called the Cannae Drive. "Alright!" they said. "We'll test your stupid drive that won't work." Except it did work.

NASA tests ‘impossible’ no-fuel quantum space engine – and it actually works | ExtremeTech

And this shows how it works!

How Possible Is That “Impossible Space Drive”? « Nerdist

Of course if something that seems dodgy, comes into the limelight, the skeptical scientists, will trash it! After all it is knocking one of their long cherished laws.

And the Wright Brothers were knocked in a similar fashion by top mathematicians, and eventuaully proved them wrong!

I am staying with this being legit.

This is similar to magnetic electricity generation! Most scientists knock it since it knocks the law of conservation by spinning forever, but it doesn't! It spins for about 400 years, if the parts stood up to the wear and tear!

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Interesting, a slashed budget prompts NASA to get their thinking caps on and embrace new ideas? Or, as Claude keeps harking on about, they are finally going to introduce some of the technology gleened from the study of downed UFO's?

A perpetual engine, Oh surely not. Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation. He will like that. Although he has been working on his own version, Quantum Vacuum Flatulance

Hmmm, well this doesn't work forever, it still needs electricity to produce sufficient microwaves!

But it can get to our nearest star, (4+ light years away) in 30 years,...so much for the few lifetimes to get there theory!

Originally Posted by HeySal

That's good news, Shane. I'm sure you'll have plenty of pics to share with us when you get back.

ME? No, l thought that you would be the first to go there, and bring back some rocks, and of course any artifacts!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9938613].message }}

whateverpedia

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Real Clear Science, sounds more like real clear skeptics?

All scientists are skeptics by nature. Science itself is a skeptical field. Skepticism is what has propelled science throughout the ages.

Every new scientific theory is treated with skepticism by fellow scientists. They repeat the experiments desperately trying to prove each new theory wrong. When these experiments fail to achieve that objective, it becomes a new fact. That is what "peer reviewed" science actually means, and why skepticism is the very cornerstone of science.

Furthermore, let's say that this new technology is actually feasible. At the moment though it doesn't "work". Until it has actually propelled a craft, it's still in theoretical mode. When it is actually fitted to a vessel and flies through the air, can orbit the earth, fly into space and back, then and only then can it be said to "work".

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9938643].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

All scientists are skeptics by nature. Science itself is a skeptical field. Skepticism is what has propelled science throughout the ages.

Every new scientific theory is treated with skepticism by fellow scientists. They repeat the experiments desperately trying to prove each new theory wrong. When these experiments fail to achieve that objective, it becomes a new fact. That is what "peer reviewed" science actually means, and why skepticism is the very cornerstone of science.

Furthermore, let's say that this new technology is actually feasible. At the moment though it doesn't "work". Until it has actually propelled a craft, it's still in theoretical mode. When it is actually fitted to a vessel and flies through the air, can orbit the earth, fly into space and back, then and only then can it be said to "work".

I take issue with some of the above. That is that you have to have a craft up in space being propelled by this or any engine. You can test and prove that sufficient thrust and consistent performance is taking place by having one mounted horizontally in a test area, just like they have done in the past. The rest is just logistics.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939251].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Shane

All we have here is a few You-Tube vids and some rebuttal articles that Dennis has posted.

Until NASA goes on TV and in the press and officially announces, yes, we have made one, it works and we are going to build a full size one to power spacecraft, we have nothing.

Mars in a few weeks is an interesting topic though, that would mean great speed and also a slight time passing difference between us and the astronauts, I wonder what that would be.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939281].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Shane

All we have here is a few You-Tube vids and some rebuttal articles that Dennis has posted.

Until NASA goes on TV and in the press and officially announces, yes, we have made one, it works and we are going to build a full size one to power spacecraft, we have nothing.

Mars in a few weeks is an interesting topic though, that would mean great speed and also a slight time passing difference between us and the astronauts, I wonder what that would be.

You might need to see the difference on an atomic clock. Even at 90% the speed of light, you are only moving at 50% faster than the normal rate through time. You have to be going above 98-99% the speed of light, to see vast differences in time dilation. The energy required to get to that speed multiplies exponentially as you approach 99%.

Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939554].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Um . . . "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" ...is there such a thing?

This impossible engine is supposed to work by bouncing microwaves off the walls of a metal container, without the microwaves ever escaping the container. Isn't that like trying to make your car go by sitting in it and pushing on the windshield?

Sorry Shane, but...

NASA's Impossible Space Engine Is Total BS | RealClearScience
Did NASA Validate an "Impossible" Space Drive? In a Word, No. - Out There
No, NASA has not verified an impossible space drive | Astronotes

Sometimes, the best times to be skeptical is when we want the unlikely to be true.

Dennis; You saved me the work.

My first reaction to any new "idea", is to assume that's I'm not the first one to hear about it, and search for authority site that have already debunked it. That saves time.

And these are not ideas that would be suppressed by the evil hoards at NASA. If an idea like this really worked, you couldn't pay enough to keep it quiet. The inventor would quickly become the wealthiest man in the country....maybe the world. Any company that bought the idea, would quickly become the wealthiest company on the planet.

And Whateverpedia already touched on it. Scientists are skeptical by nature. They doubt any claims they hear. But the even more important aspect of it, is that they also doubt their own claims. One way to define Science is the continual effort to test, until bad ideas are proven wrong, and good ideas are proven right. It's the only way for science to progress.

And you have to do the tests, and critical thinking, even if the idea is your own.

I wish this engine was real, and was actually constructed, and actually worked. but you can't base your thinking on wishes...well, most of us can't.

I'm still waiting for the Biodome to be built, to test Mars habitats, for the one way trips to Mars....they were supposed to be done last year. At least they had nice videos.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9938928].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Dennis; You saved me the work.

My first reaction to any new "idea", is to assume that's I'm not the first one to hear about it, and search for authority site that have already debunked it. That saves time.

And these are not ideas that would be suppressed by the evil hoards at NASA. If an idea like this really worked, you couldn't pay enough to keep it quiet. The inventor would quickly become the wealthiest man in the country....maybe the world. Any company that bought the idea, would quickly become the wealthiest company on the planet.

And Whateverpedia already touched on it. Scientists are skeptical by nature. They doubt any claims they hear. But the even more important aspect of it, is that they also doubt their own claims. One way to define Science is the continual effort to test, until bad ideas are proven wrong, and good ideas are proven right. It's the only way for science to progress.

And you have to do the tests, and critical thinking, even if the idea is your own.

I wish this engine was real, and was actually constructed, and actually worked. but you can't base your thinking on wishes...well, most of us can't.

I'm still waiting for the Biodome to be built, to test Mars habitats, for the one way trips to Mars....they were supposed to be done last year. At least they had nice videos.

Well, extensive lab tests, and speculating on the math, to make it feasible, is promising, but as you have said, it needs to be scaled and tested in space.

But technically it should work!

But the other point is, if a heavier than air machine was considered by the prominent French mathematician and physicist, (during the Wright Bothers invention) he would have relied upon established laws about weight to power ratios of fixed wings, or not bothered testing!

Assuming that something can't work, holds back progress. And most assuming that it won't work because of this or that law, and this prominent person says it can't also holds back progress.

Testing and research regardless of law or opinion, propels humanity forward!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939007].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Well, extensive lab tests, and speculating on the math, to make it feasible, is promising, but as you have said, it needs to be scaled and tested in space.

But technically it should work!

No. Technically it shouldn't work. And it doesn't.

Shane; Laws Of Physics are not just guides......they are immutable. The have always worked, everywhere, for all time. They have never been broken. Not once. And, the number of inventions and ideas, that are in conflict with these physical laws, that have worked...is precisely zero. Most people would consider that as evidence.

And to say.....

Originally Posted by tagiscom

And most assuming that it won't work because of this or that law, and this prominent person says it can't also holds back progress.

...is, to be as polite as I can be...Silly.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939072].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

No. Technically it shouldn't work. And it doesn't.

Shane; Laws Of Physics are not just guides......they are immutable. The have always worked, everywhere, for all time. They have never been broken.

To say that , "

Ok, tech, it doesn't work eventhough NASA says that it does, oooookkkkkkk!

Have a nice day!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939090].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Ok, tech, it doesn't work eventhough NASA says that it does, oooookkkkkkk!

But, now you are using an authority as evidence, even though you just told me that.....

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Assuming that something can't work, holds back progress. And most assuming that it won't work because of this or that law, and this prominent person says it can't also holds back progress.

And, I thought NASA was the root of all evil. I thought they were the ones that were keeping us all in the dark. And they are the authority you are relying on?

What is your real agenda? Who do you work for? We have ways of making you talk.

Of course, you ignore any thought that NASA didn't really say this worked. You also ignore the links that Dennis contributed.

I'm just teasing now, and that isn't really nice. Enjoy your day.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939119].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

But, now you are using an authority as evidence, even though you just told me that.....

And, I thought NASA was the root of all evil. I thought they were the ones that were keeping us all in the dark. And they are the authority you are relying on?

What is your real agenda? Who do you work for? We have ways of making you talk.

Of course, you ignore any thought that NASA didn't really say this worked. You also ignore the links that Dennis contributed.

I'm just teasing now, and that isn't really nice. Enjoy your day.

Yes, l know NASA has been a bone of contention, but if they claim that it works, then we really need to listen.

They either tested it to shut up everyone, or knew that it wasn't going to go away so decided to test it to shut up everyone?

And l didn't ignore the posts Dennis put up, the first was a scientist blowing off some hot air, and the second didn't actually say that it didnt' work, just that according to the laws of physics that it shouldn't!

I don't mean to be the wet blanket at your party, but if you read those articles you'd have read about several problems with their test conditions.

As I recall, the model that was tested and another model that was intentionally constructed NOT to work both achieved the same results. That speaks volumes.

And they also tested it indirectly to see if something else was causing the effect, but nothing external was found. I did read that, but it didn't say the experiment was a failure!

Fringe, ok, but l doubt that NASA would publicly admit that this worked, if the data was iffy!

January 13, 1905
Page 40

[Article verbatim and in full]

The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance

A Parisian automobile paper recently published a letter from the Wright brothers to Capt. Ferber of the French army, in which statements are made that certainly need some public substantiation from the Wright brothers. In the letter in question it is alleged that on September 26, the Wright motor-driven aeroplane covered a distance of 17.961 kilometers in 18 minutes and 9 seconds, and that its further progress was stopped by lack of gasoline. On September 29 a distance of 19.57 kilometers was covered in 19 minutes and 55 seconds, the gasoline supply again having been exhausted. On September 30 the machine traveled 16 kilometers in 17 minutes and 15 seconds; this time a hot bearing prevented further remarkable progress. Then came some eye-opening records. Here they are:

October 3: 24.535 kilometers in 25 minutes and 5 seconds. (Cause of Stoppage, hot bearing.)
October 4: 33.456 kilometers in 33 minutes and 17 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, hot bearing.)
October 5: 38.956 kilometers in 33 minutes and 3 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, exhaustion of gasoline supply.)

It seems that these alleged experiments were made at Dayton, Ohio, a fairly large town, and that the newspapers of the United States, alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice. When it is considered that Langley never even successfully launched his man-carrying machine, that Langley's experimental model never flew more than a mile, and that Wright's mysterious aeroplane covered a reputed distance of 38 kilometers at the rate of one kilometer a minute, we have the right to exact further information before we place reliance on these French reports. Unfortunately, the Wright brothers are hardly disposed to publish any substantiation or to make public experiments, for reasons best known to themselves.[emphasis added] If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face--even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so-- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago? Why particularly, as it is further alleged, should the Wrights desire to sell their invention to the French government for a "million" francs. Surely their own is the first to which they would be likely to apply.
We certainly want more light on the subject.

"Every scientist and intelligent person for thousands of years had known that heavier than air flight was possible since it was an observable, inescapable fact."

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that 'heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible', only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later."

If you want to believe that this is a fake then that is your choice!

Seems to be strong correlations between this and heavier than air experiments!

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939198].message }}

Claude Whitacre 9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Yes, l know NASA has been a bone of contention, but if they claim that it works, then we really need to listen.

If they claimed it didn't work, would you listen to that?

We already know the answer to that question.
- Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939211].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

If you want to believe that this is a fake then that is your choice!

I didn't say it was fake, I'm saying I'm not convinced - that's an important distinction.

I actually hope you're right, it would revolutionize a lot of industries . . . I'm just not convinced anything has been proven yet. As I said, bouncing microwaves around in a container sounds like trying to move your car by pushing on the windshield from the inside.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939351].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

I didn't say it was fake, I'm saying I'm not convinced - that's an important distinction.

I actually hope you're right, it would revolutionize a lot of industries . . . I'm just not convinced anything has been proven yet. As I said, bouncing microwaves around in a container sounds like trying to move your car by pushing on the windshield from the inside.

I have actually got one in my home, you can get from stone cold to cooked in 5 minutes.

Thanks

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939431].message }}

HeySal 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

No. Technically it shouldn't work. And it doesn't.

That's a little strong. Neither you or I can say that. We have to believe what the scientists are saying because we're not physicists.

If NASA says they can make it work, we just have to wait and see. It wouldn't be the first time scienitsts did something while everyone was interrupting them with naysay while they did it.

Shane - save me some research I don't have time for right now. Is this the same thing they were working on that is propulsed by electro-magnetism or is this a whole new rig they're working on? I was under the impression that they were getting close to that being a reality, but don't know exactly how fast they were talking about it going. All I know about it is that it was fuel convenient.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939287].message }}
- Formal Shorts 9 years ago
  
  NASA announced results of tests from one of their experimental labs. The didn't say how they got their results, nor why they got their results. They just said they got these results, and had one speculative throwaway line as to the why.
  
  It's fascinating, but it's a million miles away from a break-through. The problem being, they have no idea what they are observing.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Top Quality Content - Don't Miss Out!
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939374].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

It's early, am I reading this right?

If that's real it's off the charts, the EmDrive Wikipedia page says:

He proposed that very high Q superconducting resonant cavities could produce static specific thrusts of about 30 kN/kW, which is 3 tonnes of thrust per kilowatt of input power − "enough to lift a large car".

Which translates to a measly 1,000 watts of power to lift twice the average weight of a car. In comparison, a small microwave oven in a kitchen can easily use 1,000 watts.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9938662].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

9 years ago

Shane,

I don't mean to be the wet blanket at your party, but if you read those articles you'd have read about several problems with their test conditions.

As I recall, the most damning problem was that the model that was supposed to get the results and another model that was intentionally constructed NOT to work both achieved the same results. That speaks volumes.

Thanks

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939143].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Sure, fly Mars in a few weeks, still takes me bloody 12 hours to get to America! How about putting that on the planes I fly on so I don't have to wait!

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939521].message }}

Kay King 9 years ago

The site listed on the first image - cannae.com - has not updated it's comments since last August.

It lists these engines as "prototypes" that are being tested.

I agree with Lee, though, - let's speed travel up here on earth first.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
that's why there are so many of us.
...jane goodall
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939534].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Now look people, it's obvious that something like this could work, perhaps not so fast. I'm talking about a steam engine in space. You could build your own. A crew compartment at the front, Huge tanks full of water behind that, a small plutonium plant like on the Mars Rover and or arrays of solar panels for electricity. You cant generally get plutonium plants down at the Home Depot, so solar panels will probably have to do.

At the back we have an array of modified microwave ovens. You feed water into them and turn the power on and the water boil's to create steam, let steam out in a confined space, on Earth it drives turbines. In space it propels the ship along because any opposing force will do that, a rocket pushes against itself.

It's brilliant and it definitely will work. You may get very slow speeds and long travel times so you would have to build the front end like a holiday camp and have it rotating to produce gravity.

Now you may think I'm Loco for suggesting this but I'm a Train-ed Novice.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939556].message }}

whateverpedia 9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Now you may think I'm Loco for suggesting this but I'm a Train-ed Novice.

It's good to see that all those years you spent at Casey Jones University weren't wasted.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
So that blind people can hate them as well.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9939972].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Now look people, it's obvious that something like this could work, perhaps not so fast. I'm talking about a steam engine in space. You could build your own. A crew compartment at the front, Huge tanks full of water behind that, a small plutonium plant like on the Mars Rover and or arrays of solar panels for electricity. You cant generally get plutonium plants down at the Home Depot, so solar panels will probably have to do.

At the back we have an array of modified microwave ovens. You feed water into them and turn the power on and the water boil's to create steam, let steam out in a confined space, on Earth it drives turbines. In space it propels the ship along because any opposing force will do that, a rocket pushes against itself.

It's brilliant and it definitely will work. You may get very slow speeds and long travel times so you would have to build the front end like a holiday camp and have it rotating to produce gravity.

Now you may think I'm Loco for suggesting this but I'm a Train-ed Novice.

You have been watching Hee Haw, for too long, l suggest Captain Kangaroo, (at least you will learn something)?

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

If they claimed it didn't work, would you listen to that?

We already know the answer to that question.

Of course, and l was surprised that they said that it worked in the lab, but with so many experiments around the world, they can't bury this one!

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Shane

All we have here is a few You-Tube vids and some rebuttal articles that Dennis has posted.

Until NASA goes on TV and in the press and officially announces, yes, we have made one, it works and we are going to build a full size one to power spacecraft, we have nothing.

Mars in a few weeks is an interesting topic though, that would mean great speed and also a slight time passing difference between us and the astronauts, I wonder what that would be.

Ammm, the Apollo astronauts who came back from the moon, where one second behind the rest of the world, so effectively they travelled one second through time!

This drive can get to, (l think it was Alpha Centauri, 4. something light years away) within 30 years, so....

So 30 how many 4, would mean this can get a craft up to 7.5% light speed!

The Apollo module sped up and slowed down, but for comparison it was doing 24,000 mph, (well round it off to 25).

So roughly 7.5% light speed is roughly 27,000 km a second.

Phew, l am making a dogs breakfast of this one.

Ok, a light year at 300,000 km's a second, will slow time down to a year per day, (well 99.99% light speed).

So almost 10% of that, taking into account acceleration, etc, beats me, probably a few weeks, getting there!

So they would come back from Mars, and see the Earth a month or two into the future! So they leave in Jan, and come back a month later, to find it is March!

Originally Posted by HeySal

That's a little strong. Neither you or I can say that. We have to believe what the scientists are saying because we're not physicists.

If NASA says they can make it work, we just have to wait and see. It wouldn't be the first time scienitsts did something while everyone was interrupting them with naysay while they did it.

Well that is Claude, brash statements, etc!

Shane - save me some research I don't have time for right now. Is this the same thing they were working on that is propulsed by electro-magnetism or is this a whole new rig they're working on? I was under the impression that they were getting close to that being a reality, but don't know exactly how fast they were talking about it going. All I know about it is that it was fuel convenient.

No, this isn't the Warp Drive one, that could get to Alpha Centauri in 2 weeks, not 30 years.

But for our solar system it opens up manned space travel!

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

I didn't say it was fake, I'm saying I'm not convinced - that's an important distinction.

I actually hope you're right, it would revolutionize a lot of industries . . . I'm just not convinced anything has been proven yet. As I said, bouncing microwaves around in a container sounds like trying to move your car by pushing on the windshield from the inside.

Ok, fair enough, but eventhough it sounds iffy, (NASA certainly thought it was a scam) if it is proven in the lab, then l tend to believe it can be commercialized.

As for the microwave in a box, probably similar to some guys having a punchup in a habitable box in space? Some movement would occur when one guy got thrown against a wall, especially if it is the same wall over and over!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9940185].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

As for the microwave in a box, probably similar to some guys having a punchup in a habitable box in space? Some movement would occur when one guy got thrown against a wall, especially if it is the same wall over and over!

A more apt comparison would be every time guy "A" throws guy "B" against the wall, guy "B" throws guy "A" against the opposite wall. Those microwaves aren't just hitting the same wall over and over, they bounce.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9940306].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

A more apt comparison would be every time guy "A" throws guy "B" against the wall, guy "B" throws guy "A" against the opposite wall. Those microwaves aren't just hitting the same wall over and over, they bounce.

True, but if guy A, gets thrown against wall B, and then wall C, while guy D, gets thrown against wall B, and wall A, then unless guy A, and guy D get thrown against wall A, it ain't moving!

Phew, l need some chocolate!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9940513].message }}

New Space Drive Works, and Could Get Us to Mars in a Few Weeks!

Trending Topics

Newbie

How did you turn it all around?

A healthy fascination for Hollywood...

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?