Superluminal space travel

[jatslo]

<font>Dragon04 "<font color="orange">I would think in that case, we don't wish to get anywhere near c with our spacecraft.</font><br /><br />I would like to think that experiments in that regard are critical to propulsion evolution. This means that the release of energy in fusion or fission induced particle acceleration can, and will be utilized as future propulsion apparatuses. However, there are thermal dynamic containment issues that we must first overcome. The “G” forces would become a delimiting factor eventually as well, so some type of anti-gravity apparatus would also be required.<br /><br />If I were not allowed to speculate in this regard, then boredom will take the steam from my motivation.</font><br /><br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

<font face="verdana">5000¢ª Fahrenheit Directed Plasma Burst Accelerator = Fission/Fusion Particle Accelerator; Super-Medium/Super-conductor Combo Assembly Apparatus.<br /><br />1) Constant Energy for Life of Fuel<br /><br />2) Revolving Engines to Simplify The Cleaning of Rods<br /><br />3) New Medium (Dissipate Heat, and Prevent Meltdown), and Refract Energy as Propulsion.</font>

 

[jatslo]

<font face="verdana">Dilithium Crystal like matter is what is needed to replace exisitng liquid medium.<br /><br />Dilithium is a precious crystal used in tactical warp drives. It is semi-permeable to both deuterium and anti-deuterium, and provides a natural chamber for a controlled matter-antimatter reaction, focusing the energy so it can be harnessed and used for power.<br /><br />However, I think I know where to find something a little closer to home. The following looks like something that meets my criteria:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Both the structure and electrical conduction of solid hydrogen have been intensively studied since the 1930s, when the existence of its metallic state was first proposed. Experiments conducted in the early 1990s squeezed the element to pressures of 250 GPa but failed to detect this state. More recent investigations at higher pressures have proved inconclusive, partly because the pressure cell starts to interfere with the measurements ( REF#1894198119 ). <br /><br />Now the French team has succeeded in compressing hydrogen to 320 GPa, at a temperature of 100 kelvin. They filled a specially designed diamond pressure cell with hydrogen, and measured its absorption of light across the spectrum as they increased the pressure. This technique – based on Raman spectroscopy – produced an absorption pattern that revealed the vibrational and rotational energy levels of the hydrogen molecules, providing information about the structure of the solid element ( REF#1894198119 ). <br /><br />At 290 GPa, LeToullec and colleagues discovered that the hydrogen sample turned white, then yellow, orange and red, before becoming opaque at 320 GPa. They also established that its structure remains stable above a pressure of 160 GPa ( REF#1894198119 ). <</safety_wrapper></font></font>

 

[devildogdad]

It is not the mass that will increase, but the amount of energy that is stored by the object as it reaches the speed of light takes on more mass like properties. Another funny thing happens as you near C in reference to frames. To a person observing you you would seem to disappear, but in your frame of reference you would seem to stretch to near infinity. <br /><br />Another way to look at it is a 2500lb car that hits a brick wall at 50mph has the same impact force of a steel ball weighing 8000 lbs hitting the same wall at 10mph. By traveling at 50mph the car did not gain any mass, but it did gain mass energy. <br />

 

[devildogdad]

Correct me if I am wrong but I take it this Jatslo is the village id**

 

[jatslo]

<font face="verdana"><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Correct me if I am wrong but I take it this Jatslo is the village id**<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>What does that mean? How else do you expect to achieve break atom speeds? I will tell you how: You need a fission reaction and medium to refract directed burst at very high temperatures.<br /><br />The evidence said, “<font color="yellow"> The law of refraction relates the angle of incidence (angle between the incident ray and the normal) to the angle of refraction (angle between the refracted ray and the normal). This law, credited to Willebrord Snell, states that the ratio of the sine of the angle of incidence, i, to the sine of the angle of refraction, r, is equal to the ratio of the speed of light in the original medium, vi , to the speed of light in the refracting medium, vr , or sin i /sin r = vi / vr . Snell's law is often stated in terms of the indexes of refraction of the two media rather than the speeds of light in the media. The index of refraction, n, of a transparent medium is a direct measure of its optical density and is equal to the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum, c, to the speed of light in the medium: n = c/v ( REF#127952197297541 ).</font>#8221;<br /><br />The evidence said, “<font color="yellow">Indexes of refraction are always equal to or greater than 1; for air, n =1.00029; for water, n =1.33. Using indexes of refraction, Snell's law takes the form sin i /sin r = nr &#8201;/ ni , or ni sin i = nr sin r. If the original medium is denser than the refracting medium ( ni greater than nr ), sin r will be greater than sin i. Thus, there will be some acute angle less than 90° for the incident ray corresponding to an angle of refraction of 90°. This angle of incidence is known as the critical angle. For angles of incidence greater than the critical angle, refraction cannot take</font></font>

 

[jatslo]

<font face="verdana">You are not going to get the next star sitting on your kissers; get to work you slackers!</font>

 

[mcbethcg]

Yes, Jatslo is the villiage id*ot.

 

[jatslo]

That is not very nice.

 

[superluminal]

Hi jatslo<br />nice to meet you.<br /><br />The thing is, I see your enthusiasm for the truth about nature. <br />I too share that. I once asked some of the same questions you are asking now.<br />I use to make blatant ignorant statements just because I thought I knew things others didn't.<br />Then one day, I asked someone here what are the properties of the fabric of space itself? <br />Some wise soul here simply stated, You'd be surprised.<br /><br />I thought it was arrogance at the time.<br /> I now realize it was not. <br /> It was a wise souls way of informing me that there are no short cuts to knowledge, You have to do the research. <br />Then read and comprehend the results by standing on the shoulders of the giants that already have walked the kilometers and added to the process with their own life goals and research.<br />Try what I do. <br /> Get a good physics book from your local library for free and read, comprehend and relish the wisdom.<br />You'll soon want to read more. <br />Believe me, it is absolutely fascinating.<br /><br />But it requires patients, determination and extreme dedication when one (myself included) tries to understand all there is to know about particle physics and light speed and the actual fabric of space itself.<br /><br />Brian Greene's book called, Fabric of the Cosmos helped me tremendously.<br />I use to think I knew things others didn't.<br />Now I realize, my logic was flawed.<br /><br />Though my name is Superluminal, I realize that Einstein was right about matter not being able to exceed c.<br />Einstein also realized that if there were such Superluminal particles waves or tachyons, IE, up quarks and down quarks that travel faster than light <br /> Just as important as the fact that Einstein realized that matter can not achieve c velocity, <br /> He also rightly realized the true fact that those elusive mysterious tachyons (if they existed) could not possibly ever slow down to light speed. Nor could they be detected as of current technology.<</safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The thing is, I see your enthusiasm for the truth about nature. I too share that. I once asked some of the same questions you are asking now. I use to make blatant ignorant statements just because I thought I knew things others didn't. Then one day, I asked someone here what are the properties of the fabric of space itself? Some wise soul here simply stated, You'd be surprised.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I am enthusiastic for the truth about nature, and we apparently have something in common. You once asked some of the same questions that I am asking now, but what specific questions are you referring to? My blatant ignorant statements are provocative, and I try very hard not to be ignorant, because I might not be right; however, I am not convinced that I am wrong either. I can see it as plain as day, and nothing that I have seen nor heard has changed my perceptions, and I have been posting in here for months. One day you asked someone here what the properties of the fabric of space itself are, and some wise soul states, "You'd be surprised". If it is not too much trouble, can you pass that wisdom down to me; in this point in space-time? <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> I thought it was arrogance at the time. I now realize it was not. It was a wise souls way of informing me that there are no short cuts to knowledge, You have to do the research. Then read and comprehend the results by standing on the shoulders of the giants that already have walked the kilometers and added to the process with their own life goals and research. Try what I do. Get a good physics book from your local library for free and read, comprehend and relish the wisdom. You'll soon want to read more. Believe me, it is absolutely fascinating.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>You thought it was arrogance at the time, and I am thinking arrogant, ignorant pestilences. You now realize it was not, but I realize that it is: listen, I am

 

[jatslo]

<b>FUSION/TRANSMUTATIONS:</b> <br /><br />Okay, this important: lithium (liquid medium) as opposed to water that is utilized in traditional fission reactors is interesting for numerous reasons. Charged particles exceeding the speed of light -(c) within the medium will create a release a cone shaped boom of energy that is characterized by the velocity -(v) ratio of the two subjects (energy and matter). Now, liquid lithium is at what temperature? I am looking for sublimate energy or matter to utilize as propulsion, but I need a new zero resistive super-medium that can conduct extreme heat, pressure, and matter.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="black">The neutrons then "transmute" any element they collide with, often into an unstable or radioactive product. However this is put to good use in the proposed commercial designs, where the core is wrapped in a "mantle" of molten Lithium. The neutrons from the D-T reaction in the core are absorbed by the lithium which causes it to heat up (energy is extracted this way).</font><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Yes, I realize lithium is metallic; however, if we could convert metallic lithium to lithium gas and then convert that lithium gas into liquid lithium, we could then utilize liquid lithium as a medium other than water, or is the liquid lithium flammable? If I could come up with a new medium, other than water, that would be a great accomplishment in terms of space requirements. Lithium burns white hot and transmutes; what is happening is the lithium is converting to gas and the gas is burning, so how do I convert the metal to gas without burning the gas? At what temperature does the metal convert to gas?

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Charged particles exceeding the speed of light -(c)</font><br /><br />Yes, charged particles can exceed 186,000 miles per hour. This is a fact! Light will take the path of least resistance, therefore, I doubt that 186,000 miles per hour is the max speed, and because this is true, all of your distant measurements in the universe are incalculable.

 

[h9c2]

You really ought to start working in The International System of Units. It makes things easier. You'll find that your speed of light is underestimated by about a factor 3600.

 

[rodrunner79]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yes, charged particles can exceed 186,000 miles per hour. This is a fact! Light will take the path of least resistance, therefore, I doubt that 186,000 miles per hour is the max speed, and because this is true, all of your distant measurements in the universe are incalculable. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />c = 186,000 mps not mph (miles per hour)<br />186,000 x 60² = C in mph<br />3600 x 186,000 = 669,600,000 mph<br /><br />Now, I'm really starting to believe other people when they say that you know nothing of the fundamentals of physics and mathematics.

 

[jatslo]

That was a typo, duh; I wasn't awake yet. I have the key to my new house, and I am moving furniture too. What are you doing right now, because I need help moving my furniture. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[vidar]

‘Please hold you horsepowers’, - and you did.<br /><br />I have been absence for a while and the discussion seems to have been sky-rocketing for a period. I I could not keep the speed of discussion you were doing.<br /><br />Please, can someone keep me up to date, in simple overall conclusions? <br />As far as I remember, there were some proposals in using clean and effective energy instead of the today’s chemical propulsion. Most suggestions were turned down. Still I believe there is a solution in electromagnetic propulsion. <br /><br />Are there some good suggestions so far?<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">c = 186,000 mps not mph (miles per hour) <br />186,000 x 60² = C in mph <br />3600 x 186,000 = 669,600,000 mph</font><br /><br />warning to all: don't confuse the "m" for meters <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[vidar]

I think it would be interesting to investigate the theoretical possibility to reach half the speed of light. I know there are lots of practical and theoretical obstacles. However, it would be interesting to discuss it in a simple way. <br /><br />Taken that: <br />1 kg of matter/antimatter can provide 10^17 joule of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter <br />It takes 10^17 joule to get 1 kg mass to reach c, by using simple calculation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy <br /><br />The gamma factor from the Lorentz transformation is not a considerable problem for the vessel’s speed (v) until it passes half the light speed (0,50 c), because the gamma requires only 10 percent extra energy. It is a considerable problem when the vessel reaches 90 percent the light speed (0,90 c), because the gamma doubles the energy required. The relation between the vessel’s speed and the gamma factor (g) is: <br /><br />0.10 c = /> 1.01 g <br />0.20 c = /> 1.02 g <br />0.30 c = /> 1.05 g <br />0.40 c = /> 1.09 g <br />0.50 c = /> 1.15 g <br />0.60 c = /> 1.25 g <br />0.70 c = /> 1.40 g <br />0.80 c = /> 1.67 g <br />0.90 c = /> 2.29 g <br /><br />0.91 c = /> 2.41 g <br />0.92 c = /> 2.55 g <br />0.93 c = /> 2.72 g <br />0.94 c = /> 2.93 g <br />0.95 c = /> 3.20 g <br />0.96 c = /> 3.57 g <br />0.97 c = /> 4.11 g <br />0.98 c = /> 5.03 g <br />0.99 c = /> 7.09 g <br /><br />Therefore, Lorentz-transformation, as in the theory of relativity, should not be considered an obstacle for a goal at half the light-speed. It should be considered irrelevant. <br />… or what?