The Sci. & Tech. Concordance and Discussion Thread

[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

[Seastallion]

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.

Sometimes it isn't so much a matter of evidence, as it is opportunity to be tested in the first place. If you come up with a theory, but no one believes you and won't give you the support you need to test it (particulary when said testing might be an expensive undertaking), it is difficult indeed to come up with the necessary evidence to prove said theory. Also it may not even have anything to do with money either. It is an uncomfortable truth, but science is ruled by popularity within acadamia as much as it is actual evidence. You mentioned Heim Theory. Heim Theory claims to be able to make specific predictions, but no one has tried to test them yet. Or if they did, they didn't have the means to do so. Why? Because the Theory isn't currently popular, and thus left obscure. Most people are currently looking towards String Theory, even though after all these years, it has brought NO practical benefits. So why do people continue studying it? Because it is popular. Burkhard Heim was once upon a time very popular, and his theories were considered cutting edge. He was even being considered as a candidate for the nobel prize. Many of the worlds most reknowned scientist believed in his work, and traded correspondence with him about it. However, because of personal reasons (partly due to his severe injuries), Heim shunned the spotlight. As a result his popularity within acadamia fell into obscurity, and his 'cutting edge' became 'the fringe'. That is often the 'fine line' between the two; popularity. Like it or not, that is one of science's biggest flaws in the practical world. Research is determined by the popularity of a theory, not the 'evidence'. Evidence helps, but it is NOT the determining factor for whether a theory gets researched.

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

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.

Actually what I was talking about DOES deal with Quantum Mechanics. I was talking about effects predicted by General Relativity, but at a subatomic level, rather than the macroscopic level. I understand very well, about space-time curvature, but it works only when talking about massive objects, it says nothing about the properties of mass that makes space-time curve in the first place. It just says that it does. It doesn't explain the mechanics behind it; that was what I was trying to do.

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

Well, like I said, sometimes there just isn't any evidence to be had. I, on the other hand, am open to new possibilities even if the theory hasn't been tested. Lack of evidence, is not lack of truth. Sometimes it's just a lack of support, to actually test the theory so that evidence could be gained. Remember what I said about String Theory? It has yet to show forth any evidence to support it, yet it is often spoken of as fact. Why? Because it is popular. One can't begin to make a new discovery until he his open to new possibilities, EVEN if they seem to fly in the face of accepted wisdom. If the new theory were given a chance, and actually given the support to be tested, it is possible that evidence could indeed be found.

Don't get me wrong. I am well aware that their are real crackpots out there, but I don't think we should just label every unpopular or unknown theory as 'crackpot' and move on. All possibilities should be thoroughly tested as possible, and if it proves to be wrong or currently unprovable, then it should be put on the 'back-burner' until such time as potential new technologies could attempt to test it again. If it is found to be just completely wrong, then it could be disposed of. However, even completely wrong theories rarely die, they just go into hiding.

[Seastallion]

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?

I understand what your saying, but it is in fact two different things. What your talking about is true, but it isn't the same as gravity. In the Earth's case, what it DOES do, is generate the EM field around the Earth, protecting it from solar radiation, and other harmful things from space. Wraith Scientist is indeed correct, about other massive objects having gravity despite not having EM fields. As to whether or not the EM field would attract more matter to the planet (thus adding to the overall mass), the EM field simply isn't strong enough to attract most matter that will respond to an EM field in the first place. Gravity is a property inherent to all matter, with the more massive an object being, the more gravity it projects. Mass isn't necessarily determined by relative size, it is determined by the number of electrons, protons, and nuetrons within an atom. It could be a relatively light atom such as Hydrogen, or a very heavy atom such as Plutonium. Plutonium projects far greater gravity fields per volume, than Hydrogen. Why? It possess far more sub-atomic material in its makeup than Hydrogen.

According to the Theories of Dr. Ning Li, however the spinning electrons within atoms can indeed generate fields that act very much like gravity when a device is constructed into a special lattice that causes the electrons to all spin the same way. The accumalative effect of the electrons spinning all in the same direction at faster than normal rates (because of a super-conductor), is to generate a field that pushes or pulls against all matter regardless of responsiveness to EM fields. It is believed that the electrons in all matter might do the same thing, except that because they are all spinning in different directions, the focused field projection effect gets cancelled out. However, if all matter does indeed project the field (just unfocused) it might very well account for gravity. Not the electrons themselves (from which we get electricity) but the accumalitive effect of their spin. The more mass you have, the more electrons you have, and the accumalitive effect of all their spinning may generate the gravity field, that in turn warps the fabric of space-time. Rather than the other way around, where the warping of space-time is what causes gravity, without any explanation of HOW mass has that effect.

It has long been believed in many circles that gravity was in fact just another effect of Electromagnetism. Maybe it is, maybe not. At the moment it is all just theory. There isn't any specific proofs of the mechanics. Just the evidence of the predicted effects. Knowledge of the mechanics at work is what is needed to manipulate it into technologies, not just the theories.

[immhotep]

right, so that explains somestuff. Am i right in saying that some people think gravity is an altered form or effect of EM due to these electrons spining? and that these electrons and the EM would be present in the centre of our planet...meaning the basis that the centre of the earth could cause both our gravity and our EM field.

[Wraith Scientist]

right, so that explains somestuff. Am i right in saying that some people think gravity is an altered form or effect of EM due to these electrons spining? and that these electrons and the EM would be present in the centre of our planet...meaning the basis that the centre of the earth could cause both our gravity and our EM field.

Key words = "some people"

This is what me and Seastallion are discussing

Unfortunately, gravity and the other three forces are irreconcilable at the moment. Despite the best efforts of theoretical physicists relativity remains apart from quantum theory.

Scientists are persuing string and M theory because to them it offers the best shot at a 'theory of everything' that would unite the physical forces. It also fits certain aesthetic criteria.

String theory
M theory
M theory (simplified)

Currently, the best theoretical tools we have are relativity (gravity) and quantum mechanics (strong, weak and electromagnetic forces)

General relativity
Quantum mechanics
Quantum mechanics (simplified)

[Seastallion]

Key words = "some people"

This is what me and Seastallion are discussing

Unfortunately, gravity and the other three forces are irreconcilable at the moment. Despite the best efforts of theoretical physicists relativity remains apart from quantum theory.

Scientists are persuing string and M theory because to them it offers the best shot at a 'theory of everything' that would unite the physical forces. It also fits certain aesthetic criteria.

String theory
M theory
M theory (simplified)

Currently, the best theoretical tools we have are relativity (gravity) and quantum mechanics (strong, weak and electromagnetic forces)

General relativity
Quantum mechanics
Quantum mechanics (simplified)

I agree that the 4 known forces of nature are seperate things, but they are ALL related to atomic structure. And atomic structure is in turn based on sub-atomic particles, that are themselves not truly 'particles' but specific vibrational frequency patterns. As I see it, many of the different theories all have truth in them, but they have yet to be unified. No one has yet came up with a GUF theory, that can combine General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I suppose that is what I'm trying to do, even if my own attempts are rather feeble. Even so, they ARE based actual scientific theories that have yet to be disproven.

As I said before, what IF (and I think Immhotep is following to a point on this), gravity is a result of the actions of electrons, even if not caused directly by electrons per se? If that is the case, then if we can properly maniuplate those electrons, we can generate and alter gravitational fields. I think that is the basic point of Dr. Ning Li's work.