Orion Starship - Orion Starship

Euler · 2005-01-31 18:22:18

Unless someone demonstrates a method for creating such exotic matter, or at least a clear theoretical path that has no physical law roadblocks, then it is not a valid point of contention to FTL travel.

The other thing that has to happen is that someone will have to figure out a way that things can go FTL in a relativistic universe without going back in time. Either that or they will have to resolve all of the paradoxes that happen when something does go back in time.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-31 18:32:13

"but they don't know either"

Spoken like a true fanatic... Right now, the laws of physics forbid travel beyond the speed of light through any means, and until there is at least some evidence that the known laws of physics are wrong or this magic matter is possible, then the current prevailing theory must be assumed to be correct. Again, that is how science works, and unless you have a scientific basis for FTL drive, then it is still a fairy tale.

There is no fundimental impossible barrier to overcome in order to build an Orion drive, or faster nuclear rockets. However, there is a fundimental limit to how fast you can go with them because the amount of energy available per-pound of nuclear fuel is limited. There is no way around this limitation, if you extract and use bascially all of it, there is no more left to harness to make your rocket faster.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-31 19:36:17

Martin_Tristar,

For the most part I agree with what GCNRevenger has to say about the matter and that you have no credibility with what your putting your trust in. But, having said that, I go with science based on a Jonathan Kepler type science instead of Issic Newton based science. Modern science is based on Newton and Classical Science is based on Kepler as it foundation. On a Newton/Relativity based science, you can't go faster than the speed of light. But, in a Kepler based Science there is no such speed limit, but we also don't have any idea of how to break the speed limit either. Even in a crash program, I doubt that we will even be able to figure out how to break that speed limit even in a fifty year time frame or even be able to develop a theory of how to break that speed limit. So we have no bases in which to make a serious discussion on that matter.

Larry,

Euler · 2005-01-31 21:30:48

Newtonian physics is classical physics. Modern physics is based on people like Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-01-31 22:03:32

Euler, Martian Republic, and GCNRevenger,

Thank you for answering my statement, I did stay that we don't have a build drive system for FTL but we have alot of theories and some primarily research into FTL Systems, I was saying that it was proven that hyperspace exists, through Einstien, Hawkins, Kepler and other, but not tested against like GCN wants.

This technology will be new innovative technologies not yet developed for the next level of research. The funding is required.

The majority of funding should be used to develop the infrastructure for long term human settlement of our solar system and the returning of resources for continuing growth in space.

The development of Orion, NERVA, Nuclear-Plasma and other nuclear drive systems ( sub-light speed ) will ensure continued current growth in short distance travel until we have long distance travel drive system research completed.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-01 06:46:47

Martian Republic, you are talking about systems of physical laws as if they were religions that you could choose to have faith or not have faith in. It does not work that way either... because primitive physics from Kepler and Newton's day do not explain or are contradicted (Relativity) by observation, then these systems are not acceptable scientificially. Classical mechanics is wrong, Newton and Kepler and the lot of them, it just happen to be only wrong a little and close enough for most everyday low-energy stuff.

"...I was saying that it was proven that hyperspace exists, through Einstien, Hawkins, Kepler and other, but not tested against like GCN wants.

This technology will be new innovative technologies not yet developed for the next level of research. The funding is required."

If the exsistence or "Hyperspace" is not actually tested, then it is not proven. Unless you have evidence, evidence that is measurable, observeable, and repeatable then Hyperspace is still just a cute theory. This is how the scientific method works... theory, experiment, evidence... theory by itself without any evidence at all is pretty meaningless.

And note the call for funding... typical of crackpot physics professors trying to find money so they can play with their pet theories.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-01 07:37:51

Ian,

I am sorry to say that the discussion has got onto a different discussion that I misused the "H" word in a statement, and has gone for three pages of waffle and I know you wanted a discussion about the orion project and the various types of nuclear drive systems, including the variations of the orion project.

I hope know we can get back to the issue of the orion project and stop the waffling about the "H" word.

John Creighton · 2005-02-01 08:30:13

The other thing that has to happen is that someone will have to figure out a way that things can go FTL in a relativistic universe without going back in time. Either that or they will have to resolve all of the paradoxes that happen when something does go back in time.

The general relativity theories that create warp bubbles though the use of exotic matter do not suffer the same paradoxes as special relativity.

Miguel Alcubierre
Class. Quantum Grav. 11 (1994), L73-L77.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is shown how, within the framework of general relativity and without the introduction of wormholes, it is possible to modify a spacetime in a way that allows a spaceship to travel with an arbitrarily large speed. By a purely local expansion of spacetime behind the spaceship and an opposite contraction in front of it, motion faster than the speed of light as seen by observers outside the disturbed region is possible. The resulting distortion is reminiscent of the ``warp drive'' of science fiction. However, just as it happens with wormholes, exotic matter will be needed in order to generate a distortion of spacetime like the one discussed here.

from: http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/relati … .html]here

Here is a PDV of http://www.members.shaw.ca/mike.anderto … pdf]Miguel Alcubierre paper

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-01 08:40:00

The general relativity theories that create warp bubbles though the use of exotic matter do not suffer the same paradoxes as special relativity.

Yes, you'd be travelling at super-luminal speeds "globally" but since you'd essentially be riding a wave of distorted space-time in a bubble of sorts you'd be travelling at sub-light speeds "locally" so relativistic effects need not necessarily apply.

All in theory of course, no one has any real idea how to do it.

Martian Republic · 2005-02-01 08:48:32

Newtonian physics is classical physics. Modern physics is based on people like Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc.

Euler,

Newtonian physics is not classical physics, but is a subversion of Keplers third law that was basically stolen by Newton for his flowed physical module.

Kepliarian Physic is based on the Platonic Solids, Classical Music based on 256C toning of music. When you refer to the homonic balance is science, it has a root word harmony as in music. You work with divine proportions that we see in nature to explain what we see in nature like the six pointed snow flake, 120 degrees between several soap bubble that you see stuck together. It the maximum minimum principle which is minimum surface to maximum volume whether it in a circle, ball or in a Platonic Solid. It seeing anomalies in the physical Universe and asking the question. What kind of Universe can generate this kind of anomaly, because I'm looking at the shadow of the real Universe so what does the real Universe look like. Kepler recognized that he seeing shadows from the real Universe so when he saw Mars go in retrograde or backward in it orbit he didn't start making ridiculous module to explain what he saw. He asked caused that illogical anomaly that I saw. It was by applying this type of thinking that we get the busted planet model from Kepler. That busted planet model was rooted in the Platonic Solids and Classical Music toned in 256 C. By the way he was right, that were the asteroid belt is between Mars and Jupiter. This is the bases of Classical Science that touched off the Renaissance in the 15th Century after almost a century in a dark age. The renaissance man or scientist was a master of several sciences and not just one, because he had a common base to work off of. That why they knew art, music, economic, the physical laws of the universe in a way that few people know this universe today. Those good German Scientist came from this base in world war II and that is why they were such hot property after world war II, because they could do things that American Scientist could not do. American Scientist were taught Newtonian Science. This is the primary reason that those German Scientist could run circle around those American scientist and why many of the scientist that were with NASA in the early day were German scientist.

Newton laws is a subversion of Kepler third law of motion and Newton discovered nothing, but was subversion of real scientific work being done by somebody else. But, Newtonian physics is based on assumption, theorems, Postulates as in let start here to see what going on. You start out with assumption that something is so, but you never probe your base assumption or know why your using that as your base assumption. You don't really know the physical universe the way that you would know the physical universe with a kepler system.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2005-02-01 09:05:10

Martian Republic, you are talking about systems of physical laws as if they were religions that you could choose to have faith or not have faith in. It does not work that way either... because primitive physics from Kepler and Newton's day do not explain or are contradicted (Relativity) by observation, then these systems are not acceptable scientificially. Classical mechanics is wrong, Newton and Kepler and the lot of them, it just happen to be only wrong a little and close enough for most everyday low-energy stuff.
"...I was saying that it was proven that hyperspace exists, through Einstien, Hawkins, Kepler and other, but not tested against like GCN wants.

Unfortunately, much of what we think we know goes back to, I know it true, because that what they taught me in school. But, what they taught us in school was not real science of how the universe really works, but some formula that will give you an answer, but you never know why it works.

Let me give you an example:

I would like you to double a cube exactly as an experiment to demonstrate my claim that you were not taught real science, but a derivative of real science. This is just one illustration to show you what I'm talking about.

Like, can you double the size square?

The reason that I ask the question is, that most college professor can’t double the size of a square even those that are in the Mathematics Department can’t do it.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2005-02-01 09:13:45

Starttext from Clipboard Row 0 in Step: 36

The reason that I ask the question is, that most college professor can’t double the size of a square even those that are in the Mathematics Department can’t do it.
Larry,

What a dumb statement. Of course then can if you define the problem correctly. Do you mean double the area, or the length of the sides? Is the new shape constrained to being a square or do you have a rectangle. Also what does this have to do with learning real science. As far as Newton stealing his laws from kepler. That is stupid. Newtonian physics stems from a much smaller set of axioms and applies to a much greater subset of nature. Kepler could not quantify force or gravity. Kepler had no laws for hyperbolic or parabolic orbits and he could not predict the period of a body around another planet given an initial postion and velocity.

Martian Republic · 2005-02-01 10:02:23

The reason that I ask the question is, that most college professor can’t double the size of a square even those that are in the Mathematics Department can’t do it.
Larry,
What a dumb statement. Of course then can if you define the problem correctly. Do you mean double the area, or the length of the sides? Is the new shape constrained to being a square or do you have a rectangle. Also what does this have to do with learning real science. As far as Newton stealing his laws from kepler. That is stupid. Newtonian physics stems from a much smaller set of axioms and applies to a much greater subset of nature. Kepler could not quantify force or gravity. Kepler had no laws for hyperbolic or parabolic orbits and he could not predict the period of a body around another planet given an initial postion and velocity.

I'm talking about the area of a square and not just doubling the sides of a square and I want it to have the same dimensions only having twice the area of the smaller square. I don't want a rough approximation of doubling the area of that square either.

If you think it silly, try to do it and then come back and report your results when you make that attempt.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2005-02-01 11:25:11

d1^2=a1
d2^2=2a1
d2=sqrt(2d1^2)=sqrt(2)*d1

A highschool student could do it. Do you want a geometric construction now instead of one based on calculators or radicals?

Euler · 2005-02-01 12:25:32

d1^2=a1
d2^2=2a1
d2=sqrt(2d1^2)=sqrt(2)*d1
A highschool student could do it. Do you want a geometric construction now instead of one based on calculators or radicals?

The geometric construction is equally trivial.

MR, why do you think that we should limit ourselves to the mathematics and science used by the anchient greeks? Much more powerful and usefull mathematical tecniques have been developed since then. It makes no sense to only use outdated ideas and methods when we now have something that is clearly better.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-01-31 18:22:18

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#77 2005-01-31 18:32:13

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#78 2005-01-31 19:36:17

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#79 2005-01-31 21:30:48

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#80 2005-01-31 22:03:32

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#81 2005-02-01 06:46:47

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#82 2005-02-01 07:37:51

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#83 2005-02-01 08:30:13

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#84 2005-02-01 08:40:00

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#85 2005-02-01 08:48:32

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#86 2005-02-01 09:05:10

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#87 2005-02-01 09:13:45

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#88 2005-02-01 10:02:23

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#89 2005-02-01 11:25:11

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

#90 2005-02-01 12:25:32

Re: Orion Starship - Orion Starship

Board footer