NASA May Have Accidentally Created a Warp Field

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wasaka
a reply to: swanne

As Mr. Spock would say, with one eye brow raised, "Fascinating."

Some one posted a threat the other day asking if
anything would ever happen that changes our
reality in a fundamental way... this could be it.

But I dare not believe.... least I be disappointed.

One day. But first...
...Drones.

and Droids.... and clones.

a reply to: antar

I didn't mean that, I meant NASA potentially inventing a warp drive and then folk start saying it must work because UFO's use them.

a reply to: Forensick

Why are UFOs even being discussed here? The story in the OP has nothing to do with UFOs, and this isn't the Aliens & UFOs or the Fantasy & Science Fiction forum....

a reply to: PandaLord

The title is completely wrong and gives credit to the wrong party.

The EmDrive was invented by a British aerospace engineer Roger J. Shawyer, not NASA who simply took measurements of it.

Penicillen, pacemakers, fireworks, microwaves, viagra, xrays, even chocolate chip cookies were created "accidentally." Why not a warp drive? 

So let me get this straight.. this is basically just like old bessy, the ship in futurama. The ship sits still and moves the universe around it.

originally posted by: ziplock9000
a reply to: PandaLord

The title is completely wrong and gives credit to the wrong party.

The EmDrive was invented by a British aerospace engineer Roger J. Shawyer, not NASA who simply took measurements of it.

nah. there have been several EM drives of this type invented over the last decade. NASA does have it's own indigenous EM drive called a QVPT. it is an EM drive in it's own right. but that was probably derived from Dr Woodward's own preexisting EM drive called a Mach effect thurster.

originally posted by: Martianlanded
Penicillen, pacemakers, fireworks, microwaves, viagra, xrays, even chocolate chip cookies were created "accidentally." Why not a warp drive? 

The word accidentally is derived from the fact that once they developed a theory of operation for the EM drive it was doing some of the same things the micro warp experiment test article was doing. thats the only accidental part of it. So the accidental thing is unintentionally misleading.

a reply to: PandaLord

So I think I'm officially dating a nice woman engineer who works for NASA I'll ask her

Deja vu anyone?

It seems every few months we have this 'Accidentally discovered EM drive', linked to none NASA web pages... it really is getting boring..

Just search 'NASA EM Drive' on forum, even we have junky search engine, you will find what I mean...

I would refrain from all links that are not by given parties or that don't point to scientific paper... it is pointless as most of web pages seem to go back to the same source... with little twist while creating 'urban legend' kind of story...

I'm not saying this isn't of value, but I calculated it's thrust output to be equal to ALMOST .2 horse power. I guess you have to start somewhere, but when I was young, I was told the world would be like the Jetsons when I was about 30. I feel lied to.

originally posted by: Hr2burn
I'm not saying this isn't of value, but I calculated it's thrust output to be equal to ALMOST .2 horse power. I guess you have to start somewhere, but when I was young, I was told the world would be like the Jetsons when I was about 30. I feel lied to.

New under construction prototypes will try to match the Chinese results which are more impressive -if true. and Dr white calculates anything from .4 newtons to 4 newtons. it may seem weak but since it never has to stop accelerating except at C) it can get to the nearest star in 29 years. And that is before you get to the warp part of it. the warp part of it will require technology that does not yet exist to provide the power and the negative energy. right now we cannot produce more than a tiny amount of negative energy/mass that lasts for an infinitesmally brief period of time. i think that may have just changed recently. now i think they can sustain a tiny amount indefinitely due to laser rings combined with the squeezed light technique. perhaps that will be enough for a tiny but significant over long distances warp multiplication factor.

But that warp drive is also an EM drive. and the EM drive is on firmer ground. about TRL 3.5.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: PandaLord
...
Anyone that has witnessed an active UFO defying gravity...

You can not 'witness' an "active UFO" defying gravity.

IOW, it's an effect that could possibly be measured in a lab, but you're not going to see it happening. You might infer it by watching lights dance around in the sky, just like you might imagine that rainbows end in a pot of gold.

I concur, nice pix of Blu;-) a reply to: swanne

originally posted by: Restricted
I don't understand how anti-gravity is different from warp. To me, they appear to be one and the same.

UFO's travel at impossible speeds, defying gravity. Is that not an argument for anti-gravity?

Well, I think anti gravity would be something that is used in an atmosphere, like the ufos you mentioned, and warp field would be used in outer space. That's my best guess!

a reply to: 3n19m470

Gravity is a property of matter which, according to general relativity, causes distortions (warping) of space-time. This implies that the ability to control gravity (which is implied by the term anti-gravity) would lend the ability to control the distortion of space-time. The two are not separable.

a reply to: MCL1150

Hehe, thanks!

a reply to: PandaLord

I had that idea years ago... The theory is simple enough...

a reply to: PandaLord

whaaaaaa... nice catch. thanks for letting us know.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: Forensick

Why are UFOs even being discussed here? The story in the OP has nothing to do with UFOs, and this isn't the Aliens & UFOs or the Fantasy & Science Fiction forum....

Simple answer… a PhD Miguel Alcubierre – PhD Roger J. Shawyer – PhD Harold “Sonny” White (NASA) space-time warp-ring… orientated ‘horizontal’ to the Earth’s surface, could negate Earth’s gravity. Compressing space-time above it, and expanding space-time beneath it – would allow levitation of the ring – without benefit of any use of conventional technologies: aerodynamics, thermal-dynamics, atmospheric or other gas expulsions, etc. It could also hover in the vacuum above the Moon’s surface. This type of levitation/hovering is commonly attributed to UFO’s, because conventional technologies can not explain it.

Phage is correct (as usual):

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 3n19m470

Gravity is a property of matter which, according to general relativity, causes distortions (warping) of space-time. This implies that the ability to control gravity (which is implied by the term anti-gravity) would lend the ability to control the distortion of space-time. The two are not separable.

His explanation is science. And counteracting (natural) space-time warping, is also science. Enclosing the technology that can effect this counteraction in a craft-housing, is mechanical science. If the resulting craft is an ‘unfamiliar’ shape for a craft in the sky (circular-lenticular, for example), which uses ‘unfamiliar’ technology … it is recognized as an unidentified flying object - a UFO. Simple; and science!

So… “Why are UFOs even being discussed here?”… because of potential application of the OP subject's content.