It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A ship with a warp drive wouldn't be moving at a substantial speed, relative the space immediately surrounding it. I don't think there would be any significant time dilation effects, such as the 'twin paradox'. This is where an Earth-bound person ages more rapidly than one traveling at a large fraction of the speed of light.
0bserver1
The thing about testing this for real I guess is that if you are the test pilot and you have to take it for a spin for one hour at light speed , you will notice that a year have past when you step out of that vehicle...
So don't do it when they say you have to test this for a week or month, because your loved one could be you grandparent...
EarthCitizen07
SIGH! I wonder what the american government has been doing out in the nevada desert the last 60 odd years......
Never A straight Answer is working on light particles.
0bserver1
The thing about testing this for real I guess is that if you are the test pilot and you have to take it for a spin for one hour at light speed , you will notice that a year have past when you step out of that vehicle...
So don't do it when they say you have to test this for a week or month, because your loved one could be you grandparent...
Ross 54
A ship with a warp drive wouldn't be moving at a substantial speed, relative the space immediately surrounding it. I don't think there would be any significant time dilation effects, such as the 'twin paradox'. This is where an Earth-bound person ages more rapidly than one traveling at a large fraction of the speed of light.
0bserver1
The thing about testing this for real I guess is that if you are the test pilot and you have to take it for a spin for one hour at light speed , you will notice that a year have past when you step out of that vehicle...
So don't do it when they say you have to test this for a week or month, because your loved one could be you grandparent...
JadeStar
thruthseek3r
JadeStar
thruthseek3r
NASA is not a military agency. If it was they'd be getting a crapload more money and would not have to shut down science programs left and right due to budget cuts (which never seem to affect the black budget by the way).
Well, from my knowledge, NASA, has it's origin from NACA
From the NACA wikipedia page here is a quote:
The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
I could be wrong, but from this, I see NASA as being from military origins indirectly of course, but this is part of its history doesn't it?
Thruthseek3r
You would be wrong. NACA was a civilian organization, the FAA came out of it too. No one would argue that the FAA is a military organization.
The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NACA was pronounced as individual letters, rather than as an acronym.edit on 30-10-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)
What about this quote from Wikipedia :
NACA began as an emergency measure during World War I to promote industry/academic/government coordination on war-related projects. It was modeled on similar national agencies found in Europe. Such agencies were the French “L’Etablissement Central de l’Aérostation Militaire” in Meudon (now Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales), the German “Aerodynamical Laboratory of the University of Göttingen” and the Russian “Aerodynamic Institute of Koutchino”. However, the most influential agency upon which the NACA was based was the British “Advisory Committee for Aeronautics”.
"L’Etablissement Central de l’Aérostation Militaire" translate in english to "The establishment of the Central Military Aerostation". So in it's origin N.A.C.A. has some military inspiration as quoted earlier, does not mean it is all military owned, this would be another topic for discussion which is outside the realm of this thread.
Overall it seems a bit military to me, but what is going on behind the curtain that NASA does not show to the general public, this is the big question.
Thruthseek3r
You went to a French wikipedia page for the history of an American agency? That's grasping. Not to mention wikipedia itself is weak support. You don't have to go to Wikipedia for this stuff anyway, it's a fact that NACA was a civilian agency, so is NASA and so is the FAA. So is the Post Office for that matter. All at some point had a relationship with the military but that does not make them military agencies.
Your microwave oven was "inspired by military radar" so by your logic it is a military device.
NACA began as an emergency measure during World War I to promote industry/academic/government coordination on war-related projects. It was modeled on similar national agencies found in Europe. Such agencies were the French “L’Etablissement Central de l’Aérostation Militaire” in Meudon (now Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales), the German “Aerodynamical Laboratory of the University of Göttingen” and the Russian “Aerodynamic Institute of Koutchino”. However, the most influential agency upon which the NACA was based was the British “Advisory Committee for Aeronautics”.
On January 14, 1958, Dryden published "A National Research Program for Space Technology," which stated:[9] “ It is of great urgency and importance to our country both from consideration of our prestige as a nation as well as military necessity that this challenge (Sputnik) be met by an energetic program of research and development for the conquest of space.... It is accordingly proposed that the scientific research be the responsibility of a national civilian agency working in close cooperation with the applied research and development groups required for weapon systems development by the military. The pattern to be followed is that already developed by the NACA and the military services.... The NACA is capable, by rapid extension and expansion of its effort, of providing leadership in space technology.
JadeStar
2. If these were scaled up there would be no time dilation involved since the traveller would not be travelling at relativistic speeds, the space around them would be. Big difference.
At low velocities, less than a fairly large fraction of the speed of light, relativistic time dilation effects are so small as to be unimportant, in most instances. GPS satellites are an exception to this. They must maintain an extremely accurate time base to give accurate positional information. Relativistic corrections are applied to their signals
tanka418
JadeStar
2. If these were scaled up there would be no time dilation involved since the traveller would not be travelling at relativistic speeds, the space around them would be. Big difference.
Speculation!
Firstly; Just how is any movement at all, not relativistic? And, time dilation depends on two main factors; velocity and mass.
Problem is: if I exist I have mass, if I move, I have relativistic velocity. This is true even IF I am in a "warp bubble". Movement of warp bubble constitutes movement of its contents.
Or perhaps that "warp bubble" somehow makes you not exist?
edit on 1-11-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)
Ross 54
Since a space warp can apparently isolate an object within it from the rest of the universe, It does not seem that its mass would be subject to gravity or inertia. Movement of the warp field does not appear to require movement of an object within it, anymore that a radio transmitter tower must move to send radio waves extending out from itself.
tanka418
JadeStar
2. If these were scaled up there would be no time dilation involved since the traveller would not be travelling at relativistic speeds, the space around them would be. Big difference.
Speculation!
Firstly; Just how is any movement at all, not relativistic? And, time dilation depends on two main factors; velocity and mass.
Problem is: if I exist I have mass, if I move, I have relativistic velocity. This is true even IF I am in a "warp bubble". Movement of warp bubble constitutes movement of its contents.
Or perhaps that "warp bubble" somehow makes you not exist?
edit on 1-11-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)
JadeStar
The answer is that the space and -time- around you would also be warped. See what I mean? You have to think of your frame of reference being suspended outside of 4 dimensions (3 space + 1 time) rather than just the 3 dimensions of space.
Space/Time are the same thing remember. Relativity.
tanka418
JadeStar
The answer is that the space and -time- around you would also be warped. See what I mean? You have to think of your frame of reference being suspended outside of 4 dimensions (3 space + 1 time) rather than just the 3 dimensions of space.
Space/Time are the same thing remember. Relativity.
Space and time most assuredly are not the same thing. Space is the only real infinite, and time is a side effect of movement within space.
If space appeared long before time could exist, how could it have been 'long before', which is itself a description of a passage of time? If time could only become when there was measurable movement, it can also be said that this movement requires time within which to occur. This seems to imply that time and space came into being together. Since they seem wholly contingent on one another, describing them as one thing, spacetime, seems quite reasonable.
tanka418
reply to post by JadeStar
Yes I know about the Gravity probes...
So the European space agency deals in "psudo-science"? You'll have to provide sources!
I'm not too surprised that many Physicists don't know Heim. But, I find many of todays scientists to be nearly as illogical as everybody else. For instance, it seems to be generally thought, even by Terrestrial science, that ET is millions of years more advanced, and that ET can travel here from anywhere. Neither is true.
Most ETs encountered here on Earth are barely more advanced that Earth, and don't travel more than a handful of light years to get here. Zeta Reticuli, at 39 ly is one of the most distant. They only discovered Earth about 600 years ago, and, at that time, atmospheric operations seem to have been carried out by fuel burning craft.
About space and time being the same...please exercise a wee bit of logic. In the grand scheme of things; space appeared long before time could exist. Time could only become when there was measurable movement.
Ross 54
If space appeared long before time could exist, how could it have been 'long before', which is itself a description of a passage of time? If time could only become when there was measurable movement, it can also be said that this movement requires time within which to occur. This seems to imply that time and space came into being together. Since they seem wholly contingent on one another, describing them as one thing, spacetime, seems quite reasonable.
The idea that extraterrestrial races are typically much older and more advanced than we are also appears quite reasonable. Our Sun seems to be a relative latecomer. The average age of stars in our galaxy appears to be about one billion years older than ours.
Actually it seems that stars over the age of around 6 billion have no life. At least there are no mythical ETs from stars that old. Zeta Reticuli is only about 3 billion years (or extremely old...depending). I would say that Sol, Earth has been held back. There have been near extinction event throughout Earth's history.
Another issue is that astronomers seem to have difficulty determining the actual age of many stars.
Having said that, it is quite possible that we might first meet, or be visited by ET races much nearer our own age. We would very probably have more in common with and be more interesting to a race a few hundred or a few thousand years ahead of us, than something a billion years our senior.
Given the long history of increasing human mobility and territorial expansion, I would be very hesitant to place a limit on how far and how fast a sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial race could travel.
Yes, absolutely; significantly greater probability that ET is from near by. In fact, the further the civilization the less probable 'current' contact becomes. Consider this: Around 8000 years ago there was a colonization attempt here on Earth. This occurred in three prime areas; Egypt, Sumer, and India. According to ancient reports they flew in chemical powered craft. The interesting thing with these guys is that all indications say they're from Sirius / Orion. A star that's too young and a constellation that is, for the most part, composed of stars that are too far away.
The next major encounter was around 600 years ago. Reports of air combat from Europe, and other evidence indicates that these two factions both flew, again, in chemical power craft. To day they fly in craft with only slightly improved technology; I say it only slightly improved because, scientifically, everything ET does Terrestrial science can explain or simulate with new(er) or novel science and technologies.
It is my opinion that current terrestrial science / technology is capable of creating a starship, now, with primarily "off-the-shelf" technologies, capable of exploring space within say 15 - 20 light years.
I think, for now, we might want to place distance limits on things. I'm not so convinced that Earth is "late" in any of this, though I do believe that Earth has been tampered with in regards scientific and technological, and perhaps social progress and evolution. Terrestrial technology has been held back, deliberately, nearly 2000 years, much of it is documented in history.