The Sci. & Tech. Concordance and Discussion Thread

[Seastallion]

i do have one thing that always bugged me about cargo ships, where the hell does the engine section fit? in TLC they have like this massive room that not actually there externally!
u have three parts to a teltak the cargo hold, the toilets and the main piloting/entrance/escape pod bit.

Well, keep in mind that the Tel'tak doesn't have a 'conventional' engine as such, rather it uses much the same 'Anti-Inertial Drive' that the Deathgliders and Ha'tak's use. The 'engine' is actually fitted all around the cargo hold section. The cargo hold, is just a space in the middle.

Here is a CGI work done by a guy called, grzegorz, that I found on another site. It certainly helps explain where things are in the ship.



He did quite well. The engine casing would be fit into the spaces around the rooms on the ship. The hyperdrive itself is probably housed in the cone up top.

[Seastallion]

Need a new discussion topic huh Seastallion?

Well, you seem to be into physics, so ...

• How about taking a stab at the physics of hyperdrives?
• Starship power sources?
• Energy weaponry?

Believe it or not, I already have..!

But, I suppose it could be a good thing to post those ideas in this thread rather than a bunch of seperate ones. Each of those topics deserve their own posts, so I won't put them in this one. Also, those posts will be rather large, because of the amount of writing it will take to explain it all. I'll also add images to help explain as much as I can.

[Wraith Scientist]

Island of stability

Hypothetical, stable, superheavy elements that exist due to odd preperties of the atomic nucleus.

Three hypothetically stable elements:

(atomic number) name - atomic weight

(114) ununquadium - 298
(120) unbinilium - 304
(126) unbihexium - 310

Interesting?

Sounds suspiciously like naquadah to me ...

[Seastallion]

Island of stability

Hypothetical, stable, superheavy elements that exist due to odd preperties of the atomic nucleus.

Three hypothetically stable elements:

(atomic number) name - atomic weight

(114) ununquadium - 298
(120) unbinilium - 304
(126) unbihexium - 310

Interesting?

Sounds suspiciously like naquadah to me ...

Sweet..! I've actually heard of the first one before. The other two are very cool too..! It makes one wonder, what sort of properties do they have? Then there are the 'new' elements based on the new 'super-atoms'. Molecular collections of atoms of the same element, that can be used as building blocks in the same way that 'normal' atoms can be. Those are new, and they are talking about needing to build a whole new Periodic chart to add in the new 'super-atoms', and possibly a new chemistry too.

[Wraith Scientist]

Sweet..! I've actually heard of the first one before. The other two are very cool too..! It makes one wonder, what sort of properties do they have? Then there are the 'new' elements based on the new 'super-atoms'. Molecular collections of atoms of the same element, that can be used as building blocks in the same way that 'normal' atoms can be. Those are new, and they are talking about needing to build a whole new Periodic chart to add in the new 'super-atoms', and possibly a new chemistry too.

Extended periodic table

Here's something weirder:
Strange matter
Quark star

Ah yes, 'superatoms', most interesting ...

[Seastallion]

Extended periodic table

Here's something weirder:
Strange matter
Quark star

Ah yes, 'superatoms', most interesting ...

All true 'S&T' Gaters, have gotta love this stuff..! It is the fringe of our 'known' science that the 'world' of Stargate exists..! The unkown is always the most interesting. That is why people the world over love a good mystery, and we are fascinated by exploits of exploration. Lewis and Clark weren't famous for paddling boats down rivers, and riding horses...

Keep the cool stuff coming..! It could help give us new ideas for how the 'technology' of Stargate might work. I'm always game for that.

[Wraith Scientist]

There's a PDF here about parallel universes and the multiverse. There was a similar article in Scientific American a while back.
Looks interesting ...

A wiki article about the multiverse
A wiki article about quantum immortality

I wonder if it would be possible to somehow travel to an alternate universe (assuming you have massive amounts of power and technology at your disposal). How much energy density would you need to tear open the fabric of space-time?

[Seastallion]

There's a PDF here about parallel universes and the multiverse. There was a similar article in Scientific American a while back.
Looks interesting ...

A wiki article about the multiverse
A wiki article about quantum immortality

I wonder if it would be possible to somehow travel to an alternate universe (assuming you have massive amounts of power and technology at your disposal). How much energy density would you need to tear open the fabric of space-time?

It probably depends on just how 'deep' your trying to go. To a sub-space layer, just 'beneath' normal space, or a completely different space-time dimension? The question of energy requirement, hinges heavily on those considerations. I have a theory that the moon (or even smaller objects) possess enough potential gravimetric energy to open a hyperspace window; the only problem is that gravity in its natural state is diluted over a large area of space. If that potential were to be concentrated at a single point, rather than a huge area, it may be enough to 'tear' through the fabric of space-time, into hyperspace (or sub-space if you prefer that term... ).


You were wondering about my theories on how hyperdrives might work?? Well, you just heard some of it...

[Wraith Scientist]

I have a theory that the moon (or even smaller objects) possess enough potential gravimetric energy to open a hyperspace window; the only problem is that gravity in its natural state is diluted over a large area of space. If that potential were to be concentrated at a single point, rather than a huge area, it may be enough to 'tear' through the fabric of space-time

You mean a black hole?

Yeah, I came to much the same conclusions - ripping open space-time by concentrating lots of energy in a small space. Problem is that you'd probably get a black hole, which then kills you. However, if you pour energy into the black hole fast enough, you might be able to keep the space-time rupture 'open' before it collapses into a short-lived micro black hole (which explodes a few milliseconds later).

We need a theory of everything

BTW, I prefer 'slipspace' (I'm a Halo fan)

[Seastallion]

You mean a black hole?

Yeah, I came to much the same conclusions - ripping open space-time by concentrating lots of energy in a small space. Problem is that you'd probably get a black hole, which then kills you. However, if you pour energy into the black hole fast enough, you might be able to keep the space-time rupture 'open' before it collapses into a short-lived micro black hole (which explodes a few milliseconds later).

We need a theory of everything

BTW, I prefer 'slipspace' (I'm a Halo fan)

Naw, I would think that a black-holes gravimetric energy is just so great, that it goes beyond sub-space and just rips itself right into another dimension altogether. That is why you can't open a hyperspace window near a black-hole. It's too unstable an area to do so, ergo you have to get far enough away to do it safely. A hyperspace window is a 'sort' of singularity and it probably does have similiar characteristics with that of blach-holes, but not so intense, nor so permanent. Instead of being ripped to pieces by the gravity forces, your just pulled into a hyperspace corridor inside of subspace. At the moment you turn off your hyperdrive, the physical matter of your ship pulls you out of subspace, because the ship can not stay in subspace without the gravitational distortions generated by the hyperdrive engines. For one thing, the gravitational distortions are being generated by your ship, NOT the singularity itself. It is just an effect of the manipulated forces your using. In some ways it works opposite of that of a black-hole.

[Wraith Scientist]

Naw, I would think that a black-holes gravimetric energy is just so great, that it goes beyond sub-space and just rips itself right into another dimension altogether. That is why you can't open a hyperspace window near a black-hole. It's too unstable an area to do so, ergo you have to get far enough away to do it safely. A hyperspace window is a 'sort' of singularity and it probably does have similiar characteristics with that of blach-holes, but not so intense, nor so permanent. Instead of being ripped to pieces by the gravity forces, your just pulled into a hyperspace corridor inside of subspace. At the moment you turn off your hyperdrive, the physical matter of your ship pulls you out of subspace, because the ship can not stay in subspace without the gravitational distortions generated by the hyperdrive engines. For one thing, the gravitational distortions are being generated by your ship, NOT the singularity itself. It is just an effect of the manipulated forces your using. In some ways it works opposite of that of a black-hole.

I follow you

You need an energy density that exceeds the 'binding energy' (for want of a better word) of space but which doesn't collapse into a black hole.

It depends on the nature of space at small scales.

Wikipedia Links:
Black hole
Gravity
Quantum foam

So how would your hyperdrive work Seastallion?

I'll see about hypothesising my own ...

[Seastallion]

I follow you

You need an energy density that exceeds the 'binding energy' (for want of a better word) of space but which doesn't collapse into a black hole.

It depends on the nature of space at small scales.

Wikipedia Links:
Black hole
Gravity
Quantum foam

So how would your hyperdrive work Seastallion?

I'll see about hypothesising my own ...

Okay...Will do.

First I'll need to cover a few things.

Gravity, in its natural state covers a large area of space around the object from which it emminates. The strength of the gravity field is determined by the mass of the object, which in turn signifies the energy density stored in the matter itself. That amount of energy stored within the matter determines the size and strength of the gravity field emitted. The potential strength of the sum total of the entire gravity field is never fully realized because the field is distributed over a large area of space. As I said, that is the 'natural' state of this particular force of nature. Gravity fields are generated by the spinning electrons in the atoms of an object. The more electrons within an atom, and the more atoms within an object, the greater the gravitational field emitted. The gravitational field emitted, in turns distorts the fabric of space-time. However, since gravity fields cover large areas, their effect on space-time is kept to a minimum. Black-holes, and other super massive objects are exceptions, because of the extreme mass that they have. That extreme mass, in turn generates extreme gravitational fields, that heavily distort the fabric of space-time. This is why you can't get to close to a black hole; the gravitation tides would tear you apart. Because of the space-time distortions, from an outsiders perspective your death would play out in slow motion, although to you it wouldn't seem to take such a long time.

What I have described so far, is the 'natural' state of gravity and its effects. However, like all Forces of Nature, gravity like electromagnetism can be manipulated. It is only a matter of knowing how. Once you HAVE figured out how, you can use that force (gravity) to do astonishing things. As incredible as the discovery of electricity and magnetism (the manipulation of the force of Electromagnetism) were, the discovery of the ability to manipulate Gravity fields will be even greater. Why? It will allow mankind to climb out of 'the bottom of the (gravity) well' which we call Earth, and travel the stars opening new frontiers of discovery and growth. Here's how.

To travel the stars, we must first make it out into space. We've already achieved that by means of chemical rockets. However, it isn't the only method of doing so. A more 'high-tech' method, would be to learn to construct 'Anti-gravity' devices, that would allow us to simply lift of the Earth without the 'controlled explosion' of a rocket. Here is how you might construct such a device.

An 'Anti-gravity' device doesn't really emit 'anti-gravity' as much as it generates an equal and opposite force field that acts like gravity. To generate such a field, you would construct a super-conductive lattice structure that would cause the electrons within to begin spinning at a much higher rate of speed than they do naturally. The increased spinning of the electrons within the super-conductive lattice (which uses electricity... nothing too fancy there. ) would generate a force field that would lift the device from the ground because the field emitted is greater than the Earth's gravity. The device would continue to lift off the ground, right up into space if left on at the appropriate power level... or until the plug was pulled out of the socket. You would be able to adjust the strength of the force field by manipulating the amount of power that your putting into the super-conductive lattice. You could also use the device as a 'tractor beam' by reversing the flow of electricity into the lattice. It would then pull objects to it, rather than push them away. So... you 'simply' (yeah, right...) place the AntiGrav devices at appropriate places on your ship, and you'd be able to lift off of the planet without a rocket. You could also construct adjustable units that use the same technology at various places around the ship, to act as tractor beams if you wished to pull objects to you, or to push them away. If the object were massive enough, you might even be able to use the 'tractor beams' to push the ship itself out of the way.

Now... once you've lifted up off the surface of the planet, you want to be able to go somewhere worth while. Maybe you know of another planet in another star system. Well, if you want to go there within your lifetime, you'll need to find some means of traveling 'faster-than-light'. OR, find some means to bypass the speed of light. Controlled gravity fields can help you here, as well..! Here's how. This time, your going to need very powerful gravity field generators, with a sufficient power supply to do the job. Remember what I said about the natural state of gravity? Well, here is where you ignore that. Here, you will manipulate a sum total gravitational field equal to that of a small planetoid. Unlike the planetoid, you will take that gravity field, and concentrate it onto a small area of a space. Since the 'normal' effects of gravity is spread out over a large area, it doesn't do much... but in this case the sum total of that entire gravity field is being focused onto one small area, causing a temporary rupture, or tear into the fabric of space-time. This is called a 'Hyperspace Window'; it is a singularity being projected by a G-field generator that acts as a doorway between 'normal' space and sub-space.

Think of it like this. A man lying on a bed of nails, does so without any harm coming to him. Why? His weight is evenly distributed across the bed of nails. Now, his weight is determined by his mass, which in turn generates a slight gravitational field. Barely detectable. Now imagine, that the man's weight is in fact a 'gravity field'. That weight (or gravity field) is distributed over a large area (the bed of nails). If that man were to instead, lie down upon a SINGLE nail (or small area of space), the weight (or G-field) of that man would puncture his skin, creating an opening between the outer layer of his skin and the 'sub'dermal layers of his body. Now if you can take the full potential strength of a small planetoid, and focus it upon a small area of space, you would also create a tear between the layers of space.

When your ship enters the hyperspace window, it continues to generate the G-field. Only upon entering sub-space it creates a corridor in front of the ship, that is called hyperspace. As long as the ship continues to generate the hyperspace corridor (or remains within a corridor generated by another ship), the ship will remain in sub-space. If for any reason the ship stops generating a focused G-field, the ship will immediately revert back to 'normal' space. The trick with navigating hyperspace is to pre-plan your course before you enter hyperspace. The actual direction your ship is pointed, the amount of time spent in hyperspace, and the amount of power being supplied to the hyperdrive engine will determine where you come out of hyperspace. Because you are not traveling in 'normal' space, time dilation is not a factor, so you will come out of hyperspace at the same relative time as you spent in hyperspace. In other words, you can go where ever you want, and not have to worry about coming back to Earth 300 years in the future.

In my next post, I'll go into more detail about how a hyperdrive engine is constructed.

[Wraith Scientist]

Hmmmm ...

Gravity isn't caused by spinning electrons, it is caused by mass. An object with a higher mass has a stronger gravitational field.

Electrons do have a property called 'spin', but that is unrelated to gravity.

For electromagnetism, you can have a + charge or a - charge. Like charges repel one another and opposites attract.

Gravity, on the other hand, always attracts.

Newton's law of gravity says:



Where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects involved, and r is the distance.

You can get a repulsive force if one of the masses is negative.

[Seastallion]

Hmmmm ...

Gravity isn't caused by spinning electrons, it is caused by mass. An object with a higher mass has a stronger gravitational field.

Electrons do have a property called 'spin', but that is unrelated to gravity.

For electromagnetism, you can have a + charge or a - charge. Like charges repel one another and opposites attract.

Gravity, on the other hand, always attracts.

Newton's law of gravity says:



Where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects involved, and r is the distance.

You can get a repulsive force if one of the masses is negative.

I didn't say it WAS gravity, I said it was a force field that 'acted' like gravity. It is based on the actual work of a scientist named 'Ning Li'. Here is a link about it...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/1281736.html

The electron spin is related to the force field projected. The force field, isn't gravity but it IS closely related. I agree, that mass is USUALLY the cause of gravity, but it isn't the only source. If you read the article you'll have an idea of what I mean. Gravity itself, is a field that can be manipulated by different means, and if it is to be used in technology must be able to be generated by means other than great mass. Agreed?

[Wraith Scientist]

I found another article

Hmmm ... No offence Seastallion, but I'm rather suspicious of non-mainstream theories like this

Lots of research has been done on manipulating gravity with magnetism etc. and has come to nothing. I'll believe it when I see it ...

A similar theory is Heim Theory.
A New Scientist article
The paper (pdf) submitted to the AAIA

As tempting as some of these theories are, they border into psudoscience

The only way to 'generate' gravity, that we know of, is by mass
Mass curves space, producing the effect we know as gravity.

This doesn't rule out hyperdrives, or gravity manipulation, but our physical theories are just too primitive at the moment. We still lack unification of gravity with the other three fundamental forces.

[Seastallion]

I found another article

Hmmm ... No offence Seastallion, but I'm rather suspicious of non-mainstream theories like this

Lots of research has been done on manipulating gravity with magnetism etc. and has come to nothing. I'll believe it when I see it ...

A similar theory is Heim Theory.
A New Scientist article
The paper (pdf) submitted to the AAIA

As tempting as some of these theories are, they border into psudoscience

The only way to 'generate' gravity, that we know of, is by mass
Mass curves space, producing the effect we know as gravity.

This doesn't rule out hyperdrives, or gravity manipulation, but our physical theories are just too primitive at the moment. We still lack unification of gravity with the other three fundamental forces.

Yes, I'm aware of Heim Theory as well.

Considering we're talking about something that is outside our current capability, we should be open to other possibilities even if they do seem to be on the 'fringe'. Our science is still in its infancy, and so I suspect that much of the so-called 'fringe' science hovers on the edge of new and great discoveries. Of course, some of it actually IS psuedo-science, but we shouldn't be too quick to judge. As to Dr. Ning Li's work, and Dr. Li herself, she is highly respected and she is definitely NOT considered to be on the fringe, though she IS considered to be 'cutting edge'. Progress has been slow, but then new technologies usually do take a while, especially if they are particularly difficult to develop.

Also, consider something. WHY does mass produce gravity? It is all very well to just say "mass causes gravity"... but that doesn't explain WHY. The first paragraph of my first post about this attempted to explain it, rather than just stating that it was so. Yes, mass produces gravity; but what properties of mass cause gravity to be? If we can figure that out (and some believe we have a clue on to it, such as I tried to explain), then we have a chance to actually manipulate and use it.

In response to the highlighted: What if the curvature of space is the result of gravity, rather than the other way around? What if gravity is generated by mass, because of the high concentration of energy stored in the atoms of that matter? Remember, science is about questioning the status quo as it is about established facts. If evidence could be found to support what I just said rather than the other way around, then in the light of new evidence one becomes the fact, and the other becomes a relic of bygone science forgotten. That gravity is caused by the curvature of space, is itself a theory. Not established fact; so be careful what you claim to be so. Many make that mistake in honest zeal, but they are mistaken none the less. Hell, I've made that mistake often enough too.

[immhotep]

not wanting to jump in and sound extreamely out of place and mind but isnt at the centre of earth for example a massive lump iron and nickle surrounded by highly charged flowing molton iron, rock and other elements; and isnt electromagnets brought about by the same effect; iron being magnetised by electrons passing over it in one direction...making the gravity of our planet for example just one giant magnet?

[Wraith Scientist]

Yes, I'm aware of Heim Theory as well.

Considering we're talking about something that is outside our current capability, we should be open to other possibilities even if they do seem to be on the 'fringe'. Our science is still in its infancy, and so I suspect that much of the so-called 'fringe' science hovers on the edge of new and great discoveries. Of course, some of it actually IS psuedo-science, but we shouldn't be too quick to judge. As to Dr. Ning Li's work, and Dr. Li herself, she is highly respected and she is definitely NOT considered to be on the fringe, though she IS considered to be 'cutting edge'. Progress has been slow, but then new technologies usually do take a while, especially if they are particularly difficult to develop.

I do not doubt that there is much to come for science in the future

I guess I am a skeptic I find it hard to accept theories from obscure origins that challenge current theories with little evidence. General relativity has been tested repetedly and never fails. Quantum theory too, is one of the most sucessful in physics. Institutions like CERN are built on these theories, not 'fringe' theories.

Sorry for being so harsh but that's just my opinion

Also, consider something. WHY does mass produce gravity? It is all very well to just say "mass causes gravity"... but that doesn't explain WHY. The first paragraph of my first post about this attempted to explain it, rather than just stating that it was so. Yes, mass produces gravity; but what properties of mass cause gravity to be? If we can figure that out (and some believe we have a clue on to it, such as I tried to explain), then we have a chance to actually manipulate and use it.

Mass produces the effect we know as gravity because mass curves space. A popular analogy is a ball on a rubber sheet:



General relativity offers an explaination for gravity, however it breaks down under conditions, for example where it overlaps with quantum mechanics.

In response to the highlighted: What if the curvature of space is the result of gravity, rather than the other way around? What if gravity is generated by mass, because of the high concentration of energy stored in the atoms of that matter? Remember, science is about questioning the status quo as it is about established facts. If evidence could be found to support what I just said rather than the other way around, then in the light of new evidence one becomes the fact, and the other becomes a relic of bygone science forgotten. That gravity is caused by the curvature of space, is itself a theory. Not established fact; so be careful what you claim to be so. Many make that mistake in honest zeal, but they are mistaken none the less. Hell, I've made that mistake often enough too.

By 'theory', scientists mean a hypothesis that has been repetedly tested and is able to make accurate predictions about the world. General relativity is not 'just a theory' but has withstood generations of scientific scrutiny.

Indeed, science is about questioning the status quo. Science is a quest for truth. Some scientists may seem rather scathing of some theories, but they are just trying to safeguard what they believe to be true.

I'm all for new insights, but I want to see some evidence first

[Wraith Scientist]

not wanting to jump in and sound extreamely out of place and mind but isnt at the centre of earth for example a massive lump iron and nickle surrounded by highly charged flowing molton iron, rock and other elements; and isnt electromagnets brought about by the same effect; iron being magnetised by electrons passing over it in one direction...making the gravity of our planet for example just one giant magnet?

Our planet does have a magnetic field, yes, but some asteroids, for example, have gravity without having magnetic fields.

[immhotep]

i was just saying that above you said we couldnt influence gravity with magnetic fields but surely earth having a magnetic field means it nfluence of gravity or it pull is greater(because its attracting elements that make up asteroids etc as well as mass), so having a stronger magnetic field field countering the earths magnetic field would weaken gravitys pull...if you had this + a very light thing needing to take off then the rocket needed wouldnt be as great...so combining these could solve the orgional issue of getting things in to space easier, making gravitys pull less would solve that...if im actually right about anything in this post which i doubt