Well Microwaves are Electrons....so? A STREAM has to be established so that the previously ejected Electrons are pushed against by the just ejected or generated Electrons. There is aso ATOMIC PULSE DRIVES which I KNOW WE HAVE!! AboveAlpha
This is in the form of electricity. The difference is in how the flow is directed. Look at your own post. There is no STREAM being ejected (seriously, what's with the caps lock abuse in every single post? It comes off like you're screaming every other word in schizophrenic fashion.). See, it's fully enclosed. Nothing is ejected. The propulsion is due to one end having greater area than the other (uneven centrifugal force). The design I saw used electrons flowing through a superconductor in lieu of directed microwaves. OKAY!!!
As I said, it's uneven centrifugal force. As it makes its way around, it is distributed more in one direction than the other.
Still....what possible way does this generate propulsion? Microwaves spinning around are simply Radio Waves and how does this translate into propulsion? AboveAlpha
Well, it's a very small mass, but it's moving very fast. Tiny mass X huge speed = medium inertia. At least that's the theory, and of course you would want as much of it as you could fit in the enclosure.
Well most of what you said is what I've been saying. Kinda glossing over the takeoff thing, it's not going to dramatically change the Earth-Mars answer in terms of acceleration, but certainly in fuel required. The problem with interstellar travel is also not a problem of people tolerating G-forces though... Speed of light is about 300,000 kilometers per second. Let's say we're going for half that, and convert the units for easier calculation, so that's 150 million meters per second. It'd take 177 days to accelerate to that speed at 1G... But then yes, it would take years to reach stars in our "neighborhood." Is that too long of a trip? Not for exploration purposes, and likely someday we could also make life support systems self-sustaining and have multiple generations en route. But who knows what technology the future will bring. I'm not certain that "bending space time" would work, but I hope so. Probably the best argument against long-range space travel is that we haven't been invaded by a more advanced species yet, though. One can see that, without types of travel we're not aware of, interstellar flight wouldn't benefit the people who are left behind... or at least not for decades or longer afterwards. Colonization by people who would rather leave our solar system behind is another possible scenario. It's more a problem of the kind of energy required to keep that acceleration going, as has previously been mentioned, probably by you.
That is why no serious editorial is touching it. The errors involved in measurements are of the same order as the "observed" propulsion.
I think the concept is that the EM Drive pushes against the Quantum Particles that pop into our Universe before they annihilate and disappear.
Acceleration is not a limiting factor. You can accelerate at 1G and eventually reach any sublight velocity. Interstellar debris will impact with tremendous kinetic energy as you approach the speed of light. For example 2 grains of sand at 40% of light speed will exceed a Hiroshima bomb: 1 grain of sand = 4.4 milligrams = 0.0000044 kilograms = mass 40% light speed = 120,000,000 meters per second = velocity kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity = 31,700,000,000 joules 4,184,000,000 joules = 1 Ton TNT kinetic energy = 7.57 Tons TNT Hiroshima bomb = 15 tons TNT Shields up Scotty!
Most of your "bending/folding space time" and "hyperspace" business look very much like the simple essence of wishful thinking to me, and I sympathize. I truly wish that all that enormous amount of space wasn't there between the stars, but it is, and no amount of wishing will change that. Still, we can dream, I suppose.
Well.....if this thing actually works then it is showing us that just like the Quarks that BLINK IN AND OUT OF UNIVERSAL EXISTENCE AT AND BETWEEN A NUMERICAL MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM.....but the Quarks never exceed or are less than that numerical minimum or maximum within Hadrons.....EVER.....then if this thing works in DEEP SPACE.......IT WOULD BE THE BEST EVIDENCE YET A MULTIVERSAL SYSTEM IS IN PLAY AND IS WHAT GOVERNS QUANTUM MECHANICS!!! AboveAlpha
A bit off, as that equation doesn't hold at significant fractions of lightspeed. The full equation is In the case of v = .4c, we can run the numbers and get k = 0.091 mc^2, slightly more than the k = 0.08 mc^2 your newtonian equation gives. It doesn't change the correct overall point of your post, but I like to nitpick. The most important thing to know about the relativistic equation is that it has no upper bound on kinetic energy. As v approaches c, the kinetic energy approaches infinity. There is no limit to the amount of energy that can be pumped into a particle.
There certainly is. Put enough energy into a particle and you create a black hole. However, in this case, relativistic equations only apply to relativistic observations.
I knew you'd like that! But anyway we don't know if it works or not. I looked it up and it's barely performing above the margin of error.
We could reach mars in a week with current on the shelf technology (nuclear pulse). By that I mean without needing a technological breakthrough. Most of the technological hurdles are doable with current technology. A nuclear pulse engine using fission (fusion would be even faster) could easily propel a large spacecraft to fantastic velocities. The fastest man made craft is arguably the pair of voyager space craft one which (Voyager 1) left our solar system and entered the Heliosphere at a relative velocity (to our sun) of about more than 38,500 mph (more than 62,000 km/h) they used chemical riockets and gravity assist. The nuclear pulse is capable of about 4% light speed. Light speed in mph is 670,616,629 mph!!! Do the math. that means Mars in a few months days at 4% light speed! Here is an excerpt from the web; Thrusts were in the millions of tons, allowing spacecraft larger than 8 × 106 tons to be built with 1958 materials.[3] The reference design was to be constructed of steel using submarine-style construction with a crew of more than 200 and a vehicle takeoff weight of several thousand tons. This low-tech single-stage reference design would reach Mars and back in four weeks from the Earth's surface Even better if the nuclear pulse used fusion 'bombs' ie H bombs instead of atomic bombs only (fission) bombs 8 to 12% light speed is possible. Now that is cooking with gas, er' atoms my friends! ps You asked ; " I believe we can survive 20 Gs, but I don't know for how long. etc... No worries I did the math a few years back and if we accelerate at on 'G' or 32 ft per sec squared it would only take a short time, I think it was a month or so to achieve .77 % light speed (I did not include the mass increase that accompanies relativistic velocities). So a space craft with the capabilities of a first generation nuclear pulse engine (that uses fission power) could produce earth like gravity by accelerating until half way then decelerating producing the same one g gravity. Cool huh? reva
How does that forbid energy being fed into a particle? Your answer helps mamooth because if a black hole was created then even more energy could be fed to the black hole and as we all know via the law of conservation of mass the particle can not be destroyed only 'changed'. reva
Assuming they can build fast spaceships, they would need to first test the G forces on rats, monkeys, or better yet, prisoners.
To get technical, there is a practical upper limit on particle energy of about 3x10^20 eV. Those are the most energetic cosmic rays ever measured, a single proton having the kinetic energy of a hurled baseball. A couple protons of that energy level hit the earth every day. Since the earth hasn't turned into a black hole yet, we know those energy levels are safe, so our particle accelerators are still safe, being their output is well below that energy level. How those protons get accelerated to that speed/energy is an unknown. The wiki talks about some theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray
Why would particles hitting the Earth turn it into a black hole???? Creation of a black hole is not only dependent upon energy/mass, it's dependent upon radius. The Earth has a pretty damn big radius compared to, say, a proton. Cosmic rays are expected to create micro black holes, but the rays are travelling so fast that momentum would be retained by the black hole and exit the Earth quickly....or evaporate almost instantly. Whether the LHC can create black holes is up to debate and experiments, but there are reasons to believe it could do so at much lower energy levels than cosmic rays.
"Einstein, you bastard. You beaned me with that cosmic ray" (Rutherford charges the mound and quantum benches on both sides empty as the crowd goes wild, throwing packs of Lepton Goodies and Quark Treats onto the field)
