Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: How would you invent FTL travel?
  • Subject: How would you invent FTL travel?
Subject: How would you invent FTL travel?

I don't care. I really don't.

Tachyon Latching.

Take an incredibly massive object, but with naturally diamagnetic properties (meaning it is in a way anti-gravitational because of the way its magnetic field works) and super cool it to cause it to contract, then slow the speed of its electrons (the real "mass effect") to make it more massive than it naturally is. The more massive an object is, the more it slows things down that pass through it.
Then, wait until a tachyon (a currently uncomfirmed type of particle that is constantly moving at FTL speed by its own nature) flies through this system. Then, because a tachyon is moving so fast and has so much mass, it will carry the ship along without any real change in its speed, as the tachyon will be slowed but it has to much momentum to actual slow down so it carries the ship.
To slow down the object can simply be heated, electrons returned to normal to decrease it mass and let go of the tachyon.

Note: The matter must be diamagnetic so its mass doesn't swallow everything like a nuetron star or even worse a black hole.

Note 2: The object must also be unable to be penetrated by light, as if light were to pass through it might latch onto that and you'd always be stuck going luminal speed.

Note 3: For this to work, time dilation cannot exist, which thankfully it has yet to be proven with an actual definitive source. If time dilation doesn't exist, no staying young by staying on a starship and this means tachyons won't be going backwards through time, which they would be if time dilation exists.

This isn't the best as I don't pay too much attention to physics as most physics are based off of Einstein's theories, which I'm skeptical as a few are plainly not thought out
(Such as needing infinite time or energy to reach light speed, except that would mean light moves at infinite speed, which it doesn't which means it simply an undetermined amount of speed or energy as opposed to infinite).

My way of doing FTL.

[Edited on 01.03.2011 10:13 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2011 9:55 AM PDT


Posted by: Venator82
Note 3: For this to work, time dilation cannot exist, which thankfully it has yet to be proven with an actual definitive source. If time dilation doesn't exist, no staying young by staying on a starship and this means tachyons won't be going backwards through time, which they would be if time dilation exists.

Time dilation has been experimentally confirmed even at what would often be considered "non-relativistic" speeds (ie speeds that your car can drive at) and gravitational effects.

It's even easier to confirm if you don't use obscene-precision ideas. Particle decay rates have long been observed to change as predicted by relativity depending on velocity.

This isn't the best as I don't pay too much attention to physics as most physics are based off of Einstein's theories, which I'm skeptical as a few are plainly not thought out
(Such as needing infinite time or energy to reach light speed, except that would mean light moves at infinite speed, which it doesn't which means it simply an undetermined amount of speed or energy as opposed to infinite).

It makes perfect sense if you pay attention long enough to understand it.

The reason you think that infinite energy means infinite speed is because you're looking at relativity through Newtonian assumptions. You're trying to force the generalized relativistic rules (KE=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - mc^2) to coexist with the more specific low-relative-velocity approximation they replaced (KE=mv^2). These two are, naturally, incompatible by nature; the former is a generalized form of the latter to account for relative speed differences, and thus ceases to be equal to the latter in any situation where v is nonzero.

[Edited on 01.03.2011 11:34 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2011 11:31 AM PDT

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof.” – Psalms 46:1-3

0/E=MC2

O_O

  • 01.03.2011 11:39 AM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: Tupolev
1) Gravity can explain all these apparent effects of time dilation, and in fact can be supported by Gravitational Time Dilation.
2) You assume Time is not an absolute constant, which it very well might be.

I may be completely wrong, but at least I don't back down when you put pretty little symbols that mean nothing to someone who has no respect for them, and I am one of these people who could care less about little scribbles on paper or these random visible motes of light.
But you may be wrong or I may be put to shame in a hundred years as a loser and a lunatic by my grandkids, but right now we are a species still living exclusivly on our homeworld. What in God's name makes anyone think that we know everything about our universe at this point in time, or that we know anything about our universe? You are using theories, ideas is all they are. I have my own, and with my run in with you so many times, I don't think I care any more what you say in ignorance.
This is an idea thread, so open your mind to possibility. If you want to act as though you know science, show it by looking at all the different theories not just what you like.

  • 01.03.2011 2:48 PM PDT

use negitve g's. less gravity=longer relitive time.
the only problem with this is how to get that many negitive g's and providing a g-suit strong enough to protect you.

don't insult my theory i'm only 12 years old.

  • 01.03.2011 3:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: xNJPx
  • user homepage:

Two words...

Big slingshot...

  • 01.03.2011 4:08 PM PDT


Posted by: Venator82
Whoa, okay, I wasn't trying to insult anyone.

I was just trying to point out to you that, perhaps, many of the issues that you have with SR seem to come from incomplete knowledge of the subject.

Maybe I should break down the main point more intuitively, so you can perhaps see that I wasn't simply spewing symbols:

-First, you noted that SR predicts that, under regular acceleration, an object would require infinite energy to get to c.
-You then applied a formula from physics that you remembered contradicts this: KE=.5*m*v^2. Solve for v, and you get: v=sqrt(2E/m). According to this Newtonian formula, infinite KE implies infinite speed. Therefore, this contradicts SR, since c!=infinite speed.
-What I came in to say is that it's fundamentally incorrect to apply KE=.5*m*v^2 when discussing SR, because that KE formula is Newtonian and is only a low-velocity approximation for KE according to SR. I then noted that SR has a similar but generalized formula with the form:
KE=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)-mc^2
-I perhaps should have explained this next step better. If you solve the SR KE formula for v, you get:
v=c*sqrt(1-(mc^2/(E+mc^2))^2)
-Using this new formula, as E goes to infinite, the square root function goes to 1, and v goes to c.
-Therefore, contradictory to your claim, SR is indeed internally consistant with respect to energy requirements to attain certain velocities.


Sorry if I offended you.

  • 01.03.2011 4:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

If you think nobody cares about you, miss some car payments.
Hard work never hurt anyone, but why take the chance.
The first sign of maturity is that the volume knob also turns to the left.

New Gamertag and profile: SHENANIGANS4780

Since it seems that the account didn't transfer, that's my new account everyone.

hmmm...its been a while. Looked through all the other posts, I like the path this is taking, keep it up!

  • 01.18.2011 4:11 PM PDT

BI-MU ka-blam!-aku
FURASSHUBAKKU ni yatsu no kage
CHAR CHAR CHAR CHAR CHAR CHAR

(Lame amateur way): use a particle-diffuser on a large scale to quantumize the atoms of a particular vessel seeking FTL travel. An external device would then magnetically charge the atoms and fling them to the destination. The particle-diffuser would then fuse the quantumized particles back into a imprinted copy stored on RAM, thus restoring original form, mass, and volume.
Blargh!

Or use the 00 Qan[t] Gundam's GN Drive to quantumize everywhere blarghing!

[Edited on 01.18.2011 5:38 PM PST]

  • 01.18.2011 5:37 PM PDT

I like turtles

There is a special orbital station near Earth and at all the colonies, that is basically an enormous MAC cannon that shoots ships out of it.

  • 01.18.2011 6:44 PM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Im still working on 11-D space as my solution. Also my equations for constant STL acceleration is complete. At an acceleration of 1G, with Time Dilation, itll take 100,000 years from a spectators view for a ship to circle the Milky Way, while on the ship itself, the crew will only experience 26 years of aging. :). Forward time travel is fairly solvable.

~B2

  • 01.18.2011 6:53 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

If you think nobody cares about you, miss some car payments.
Hard work never hurt anyone, but why take the chance.
The first sign of maturity is that the volume knob also turns to the left.

New Gamertag and profile: SHENANIGANS4780

Since it seems that the account didn't transfer, that's my new account everyone.

now how will we engineer such a feat? Assuming it's possible to do so of course.

and what unit does 'G' stand for?

  • 01.19.2011 12:56 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: falconslayer93
now how will we engineer such a feat? Assuming it's possible to do so of course.


Well, it should be possible, although not in Einstein's view of the universe because he's taken axioms that he really shouldn't have, including the existence of spacetime, when it should just be space.
(If space and time aren't fused into spacetime, you don't need c to be anything lower than infinite, because doing something in space won't directly and instantly affect time, and therefore time can't and won't be reversed due to such acceleration and causality is still in effect with FTL possible.)

and what unit does 'G' stand for?

It stands for gravity.


[Edited on 01.19.2011 1:26 PM PST]

  • 01.19.2011 1:25 PM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: falconslayer93
now how will we engineer such a feat? Assuming it's possible to do so of course.

and what unit does 'G' stand for?


If you are on about my thing on constant Acceleration, G stands for Gravity, and 1G is the acceleration of gravity on Earth, at 9.82 m/s. To engineer a feat like this would be extreme. Sure the ships are here now, but the fuel is key. If Fusion is achieved, That in a ship, when turned on in space after an initial launch could produce tremendous energy if we consider adding a huge water tank to the ship, that would be enough to accelerate at 1G for up to maybe 6 years, unless we consider building an immense tank in space the size of a small island, and ship the water to space into the tank and such. If consumed all at once, Nuclear fusion has a yield of 10%of c (the speed of light) if all energy is forced at once and not pushed over time.

Anti-matter is also a plausible idea. This year we discovered electrical storms and lightning actually produced positrons that shoot into space. These billions and trillions of positrons ejected could be captured and stored in a magnetic chamber indefinitely. And since lightning is so common, positron ejection could be vastly common as well. Assuming positron-electron annihilations produce extreme energy, that would easily power a ship for 25 years, or perhaps even 20,000 years (depending on positron count).

Radar systems would be necessary, as if the ship collided with something at c, well.....BOOM!. So there would need to be constant signals being transmitted to show solar masses and such getting closer within the radius of 2.5 light years, so the ship would likely wait 5 years on earth for constant transmissions to start us off before they accelerate.

Another factor is moving engines. To reach the destination, constant deceleration at (G) would be required halfway. The ships engines could either be on both ends of the ship, or the ships engines could switch positions. This is an engineering feat in itself. I'd recommend the fuel to be in the center of the ships.

Time factors are a human issue as well, A trip to Sirius at 1G is 7 years, at 10G, 2.2 years. On Earth however, thats 13 years to planetary observers. Time Dilation will make you cry if you have family to hold on to, because imagine leaving home when your wife is 30, you come back at the age of 50 and she died 20 years ago. Even better, Your Grand kids are grandparents as well. Pretty effing trippy. Space travellers would need to become their own self-sufficient colonies.

Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: falconslayer93
now how will we engineer such a feat? Assuming it's possible to do so of course.


Well, it should be possible, although not in Einstein's view of the universe because he's taken axioms that he really shouldn't have, including the existence of spacetime, when it should just be space.
(If space and time aren't fused into spacetime, you don't need c to be anything lower than infinite, because doing something in space won't directly and instantly affect time, and therefore time can't and won't be reversed due to such acceleration and causality is still in effect with FTL possible.)

and what unit does 'G' stand for?

It stands for gravity.


I think he meant me bub :P. The reason Tupolevs equations look complex is because Symbols here are far and few between. even for me its an ass to Explain something like Quantum Tunnelling without spending 3000 characters on the Equations itself. Your views on Einstein being incorrect are however absurd and unjustified, spacetime is the fabric of the universe whether you like it or not, and light speed is a constant 3 x 10^8 ms-1 (rounded up).

Anymore things needed, Ill gladly share.
~B2

[Edited on 01.19.2011 2:27 PM PST]

  • 01.19.2011 2:20 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: Bungie2
Your views on Einstein being incorrect are however absurd and unjustified, spacetime is the fabric of the universe whether you like it or not, and light speed is a constant 3 x 10^8 ms-1 (rounded up).

Anymore things needed, Ill gladly share.
~B2


Space is what we call the third dimension, and time is what is called the fourth dimension, however time is present in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, all dimensions or they would not exist in a way we can percieve, which we know they can. But if time were a dimension, then every other dimension would instantly be bumped up to 4th dimension, which they are not.
This means time is not a dimension, but more along the lines of a force, and if we fuse space and time into spacetime then they would both have to be equals (meaning dimensions) or one would overpower the other to simply exist on its own with the other as a law that governs it (meaning space would overpower time or time overpower space).
Seeing as time exists in multpile dimensions, it is not as unique nor as strict as a dimension itself, therefore we live in space, not spacetime. It's like saying we live in spacegravity or spaceinvariance; they are laws that govern an object, not the same thing as the object.

Physics is a logic game, not a math game; you can bend math to prove whatever you want it, and it can say anything even to the pooint of contradcitng other statments; people just don't like to do that because it makes them look bad.
Because logic is the way the game is played, that is why Einstein won over every one else of his time, not by math as many say.
You also make it sound like I don't respect Einstein and are another looney who thinks of Einstein as dumb. I respect Einstein very much and think he was absolutley brilliant; but things always get outdated, no matter what, no matter how no matter by whom.

P.S. I know he meant you, but you didn't answer, and I was strolling through, so I felt like answering myself.

P.P.S. If you're also basing your view on my view of physics eralier on in this thread, a few my views then are outdated too.

[Edited on 01.19.2011 3:05 PM PST]

  • 01.19.2011 3:01 PM PDT

Posted by: Venator82
Space is what we call the third dimension, and time is what is called the fourth dimension, however time is present in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, all dimensions or they would not exist in a way we can percieve, which we know they can. But if time were a dimension, then every other dimension would instantly be bumped up to 4th dimension, which they are not.
This means time is not a dimension,

There seems to be general confusion as to what dimensions actually are, which is an issue that everyone has trouble with when thinking about higher dimensions, myself included. Sometimes we need to go back to basics. I'll try to keep the formulas themselves simple, though I'm going to have to jump up to 4-dimensional mathematics in order to generalize all the way past the spatial dimensions and to time.

You've concluded that time, being a separate dimension, should not have effects in the 3 spatial dimensions. You're effectively claiming that things in the 3 spacial dimensions should not change with respect to time. To point out why this is wrong, let's consider how the lower dimensions affect each other.

Imagine that you have a simple two-dimensional graph with a y and an x axis, for two of the spatial dimensions. Now imagine that there is an object drawn on the graph, let's say it's a parabola given by y=x^2. Now, let's say you have a piece of paper with a long, thin slit in the middle, and let's say you lay this slit along the x-axis of the graph, such that the slit's current height is at y=0. Right now, you can see the part of the parabola that touches at x=0.
Now, move the slit up on the y axis to y=1. What does the parabola object look like now? Through the slit, you can now see a point at x=-1 and another at x=1.
If you move the slit up to y=4, you will be able to see that there is a piece of the parabola at x=-2 and x=2.

So, for a viewer that can only see the x-value of something (a viewer who is looking through the slit), objects in their view change as values along the y-dimension change.

Let's go yet another step and assume that the parabola was, this entire time, a 2-dimensional slice of a circular paraboloid existing in an X, a Y, and a Z dimension, and given by the formula y=x^2+z^2. Suppose that the 2-dimensional graph from before was nothing but a cutaway of this function given for when z=0 and thus on the 2-d graph y=x^2+0^2=x^2.
Suppose that we look at the 2-dimensional slice for when z=1. Now, our 2-dimensional graph looks like y=x^2+1, which means changes in the z-dimension are having effects in the 2-dimensional plane. These effects will also manifest themselves at the 1-dimensional slit level; our through-the-slit observer will now be shocked to find that, at y=1, there is only one point of the parabola, and it exists at x=0!
So, as the z-value changes, the situation in the x-y plane and thus also the lowly x line change with it.

Now suppose we assume that this circular paraboloid is moving in the y-direction at a speed of 1 y-unit per time-unit. Thus, we can write our generalized formula for the paraboloid as y=x^2+z^2+t. Now suppose that we look at this from the perspective of a viewer who fully perceives 3 dimensions.
At t=0, this viewer will see the simple paraboloid y=x^2+z^2. But at t=1, he will see y=x^2+z^2+1.
This effect propogates lower, as well. If we look at this from the 2-d x-y plane perspective, the graph at t=0 is y=x^2, but at t=2 it's y=x^2+2.
And again, at the lowly x-slit perspective, things change as time changes the parabola being viewed by the slit.




So, time really does behave a lot like the spatial dimensions do; changes in y affect what a viewer who sees only the x-values sees, changes in z affect what a viewer who sees an x-y plane sees, changes in t affect what a viewer who sees an x-y-z volume sees, and all of these changes propogate down to the levels below them.

Hopefully this makes sense.

tl;dr: The changes cause by time in the spatial dimensions are very similar to the changes cause by higher spatial dimensions to lower ones. Viewing the changes of objects in a spatial dimension with respect to time is not much different from viewing changes in a cross section as it moves forward through a spatial object.

[Edited on 01.19.2011 4:37 PM PST]

  • 01.19.2011 3:59 PM PDT

and then i said take out that punkass jackel

something like masseffect

  • 01.19.2011 4:32 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: Tupolev

It does make sense if time is a dimension. I know the method you used, and I actually did my research using it.
I seem wrong to you, but to me, you seem wrong.

Let's agree to disagree.

  • 01.19.2011 5:06 PM PDT


Posted by: Venator82
It does make sense if time is a dimension. I know the method you used, and I actually did my research using it.

Interesting, what was your research, and why does it render treating time as a dimension invalid if it makes sense when time is treated as a dimension?

Let's agree to disagree.
Sure, assuming we're discussing matters relating to opinion.

[Edited on 01.19.2011 5:18 PM PST]

  • 01.19.2011 5:16 PM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: Tupolev

Posted by: Venator82
It does make sense if time is a dimension. I know the method you used, and I actually did my research using it.

Interesting, what was your research, and why does it render treating time as a dimension invalid if it makes sense when time is treated as a dimension?

Let's agree to disagree.
Sure, assuming we're discussing matters relating to opinion.


Tupolev has the better point. Even to my friend at CERN, who I showed this all to for a bit of fun considering its not time for his shift yet, said that you were being very inaccurate Venator. The research though, do elaborate, im curious.

~B2

EDIT: Should mention, sorry for the late reply, Ive been gone calibrating the new home theatre system downstairs. :|

[Edited on 01.19.2011 7:14 PM PST]

  • 01.19.2011 7:11 PM PDT

Very, very carefully.

  • 01.19.2011 8:19 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.

Posted by: Bungie2
The research though, do elaborate, im curious.


I'm sorry, research was the wrong word; logic problems is better. But I did show you my problems and solutions in simple form. I'm a logic person, not a math person, meaning I look for common sense where there is none to be seen, unlike a math person who looks for ways to make something they didn't create, and make that make sense to the common person who can't understand it. If my theories don't make the slightest sense to you, they never will. If it did, Message me and I can try and make it make more sense; without math, which is a cowards way of making sense of something because math can say anything you want.

P.S. Just because you have a friend at CERN doesn't mean he's right nor does it mean you are. I had an uncle who was the Royal Guard. Does that make me royalty? Hell no, not even the slightest closer than anybody else I live around.

P.P.S. You make it sound like the way I do things differently than great minds like Einstein, but you do realize Einstein was a philosopher who did his theories like me, and did very, very little of his math; he asked friends to do the math for him. Did you know that?

[Edited on 01.19.2011 8:51 PM PST]

  • 01.19.2011 8:46 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

Posted by: Shishka
Everything will be gone long before me. When the first living thing was born, I was here, waiting. When the last living thing dies, my job is finished. I'll put the chairs on the tables, turn out the lights and lock the universe behind me when I leave.

Well, when we create sentient AI's that are smarter than Humans, maybe they can help us solve it ;)

On a more serious note, I'm guessing Quantum physics and the String Theory will help us develop FTL travel.

  • 01.19.2011 8:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Venator82
Posted by: Bungie2
The research though, do elaborate, im curious.


I'm sorry, research was the wrong word; logic problems is better. But I did show you my problems and solutions in simple form. I'm a logic person, not a math person, meaning I look for common sense where there is none to be seen, unlike a math person who looks for ways to make something they didn't create, and make that make sense to the common person who can't understand it. If my theories don't make the slightest sense to you, they never will. If it did, Message me and I can try and make it make more sense; without math, which is a cowards way of making sense of something because math can say anything you want.

P.S. Just because you have a friend at CERN doesn't mean he's right nor does it mean you are. I had an uncle who was the Royal Guard. Does that make me royalty? Hell no, not even the slightest closer than anybody else I live around.

P.P.S. You make it sound like the way I do things differently than great minds like Einstein, but you do realize Einstein was a philosopher who did his theories like me, and did very, very little of his math; he asked friends to do the math for him. Did you know that?

If you try to use common sense with things like FTL travel and higher than 3 dimensional objects you are getting nowhere. I personally also use logic but only when my mathematics skills aren't good enough (My theory on this thread is a good example and I am happy to see that Bungie 2 took it forward. Thank you B2) The fact is that when you are trying to explain quantum mechanics with common sense you simply can't.

In my theory I tried to explain what it would be like to be in a 11 dimensional space but I couldn't because I wouldn't even know where to start as spacial dimensions are x, y, z but what comes after x?

You may invent a good theory with common sense but you will need mathematics to prove it. Otherwise it will be nothing.

I am always glad that someone corrects my mistakes with well thought out reasoning. You should be too.

  • 01.19.2011 9:17 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: tsassi2
I am always glad that someone corrects my mistakes with well thought out reasoning. You should be too.


But they're aren't correcting me; they're throwing me off like I'm another bug to squish.
Thank you for the advice, but when somebody actually looks at it and the logic and finds ways to make it better, then I will accept it.
Not if they stick their noses up at it like trash on the street and treat Einstein like Jesus Christ in comparison.

  • 01.19.2011 9:25 PM PDT