lucek wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:BTW, lucek, I stand by my statement that maths isn't necessarily good physics, because physics, like all science, requires evidence (something that mathematicians aren't interested in unless they're trying to be good physicists).

Congrats Dave. Mathematical models aren't science without evidence. So how does that fit into the scientific method?

I'll give you a hint Dave. It doesn't. You're talking out your ass.

The math makes predictions which can be checked in experiments, IE it is one of the most important parts of a hypothesis.

Late reply (due to not browsing the forum for some weeks).
You are confused. Even the "most important part" of a hypothesis is nonsense unless it is suported by evidence, of which there is none in the case of Alcubierre's prediction of little universes, travelling at FTL speeds.
EDIT: The maths does not make predictions on its own, Lucek, it depends on the physics. It's a bit like a logical conclusion depending on the premises as well as the logic.

____
On another tack, I recently saw a TV program, "The Seven Ages of Starlight", which was about astronomy, and included a brief clip of an old "Tomorrow's World" (TW) program mentioning a wild prediction from science journalist, Adrian Berry, author of "Iron Sun" (1977). In the book, Berry claimed that Black holes could be used to achieve FTL travel. I had not heard of this claim until I saw the clip from the TW program (on the Eden channel) the other day, but I note that "The 7 Ages..." program hinted that the idea was "science fiction", even though the TW presenters of the day apparently took it seriously. The basis of Berry's claim was the so-called "Pioneer anomaly", which was unresolved at the time, leaving a gap for crackpots to fill. Tomorrow's World did a piece on it, mentioning that Berry predicted the posibility of instantaneous travel across space using black holes. However, it has to be said that Berry is more a journalist and science writer than a scientist. Obviously, it was hot news in the mass media of the day, but I cannot find any support for it in the peer-reviewed science press. It does, however, seem to explain some of the whackier claims made in the physics forum, concerning FTL travel.

DavidMcC wrote:

lucek wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:BTW, lucek, I stand by my statement that maths isn't necessarily good physics, because physics, like all science, requires evidence (something that mathematicians aren't interested in unless they're trying to be good physicists).

Congrats Dave. Mathematical models aren't science without evidence. So how does that fit into the scientific method?

I'll give you a hint Dave. It doesn't. You're talking out your ass.

The math makes predictions which can be checked in experiments, IE it is one of the most important parts of a hypothesis.

Late reply (due to not browsing the forum for some weeks).
You are confused. Even the "most important part" of a hypothesis is nonsense unless it is suported by evidence, of which there is none in the case of Alcubierre's prediction of little universes, travelling at FTL speeds.
EDIT: The maths does not make predictions on its own, Lucek, it depends on the physics. It's a bit like a logical conclusion depending on the premises as well as the logic.

Even the most important part of a hypothesis is nonsense unless it is supported by evidence, of whic there is none in the case of your assertion that any form of FTL is impossible.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

lucek wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:BTW, lucek, I stand by my statement that maths isn't necessarily good physics, because physics, like all science, requires evidence (something that mathematicians aren't interested in unless they're trying to be good physicists).

Congrats Dave. Mathematical models aren't science without evidence. So how does that fit into the scientific method?

I'll give you a hint Dave. It doesn't. You're talking out your ass.

The math makes predictions which can be checked in experiments, IE it is one of the most important parts of a hypothesis.

Late reply (due to not browsing the forum for some weeks).
You are confused. Even the "most important part" of a hypothesis is nonsense unless it is suported by evidence, of which there is none in the case of Alcubierre's prediction of little universes, travelling at FTL speeds.
EDIT: The maths does not make predictions on its own, Lucek, it depends on the physics. It's a bit like a logical conclusion depending on the premises as well as the logic.

Even the most important part of a hypothesis is nonsense unless it is supported by evidence, of whic there is none in the case of your assertion that any form of FTL is impossible.

So, you think that FTL wins by default?!

EDIT: That may have been OK in Newton's day, but not since Einsteinian relativity.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

lucek wrote:
Congrats Dave. Mathematical models aren't science without evidence. So how does that fit into the scientific method?

I'll give you a hint Dave. It doesn't. You're talking out your ass.

The math makes predictions which can be checked in experiments, IE it is one of the most important parts of a hypothesis.

Late reply (due to not browsing the forum for some weeks).
You are confused. Even the "most important part" of a hypothesis is nonsense unless it is suported by evidence, of which there is none in the case of Alcubierre's prediction of little universes, travelling at FTL speeds.
EDIT: The maths does not make predictions on its own, Lucek, it depends on the physics. It's a bit like a logical conclusion depending on the premises as well as the logic.

Even the most important part of a hypothesis is nonsense unless it is supported by evidence, of whic there is none in the case of your assertion that any form of FTL is impossible.

So, you think that FTL wins by default?!

You think that statement can be found in the post you quoted?

Failure to adress the point being made has been noted.

This is (predictably) degeneating again into a word game (surprise, surprise!). What "point being made" did I not address?
\

DavidMcC wrote:This is (predictably) degeneating again into a word game (surprise, surprise!). What "point being made" did I not address?
\

That you've failed to demonstrate any form of FTL is impossible.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:This is (predictably) degeneating again into a word game (surprise, surprise!). What "point being made" did I not address?
\

That you've failed to demonstrate any form of FTL is impossible.

I have, a long time ago, by reference to the Lorentz factor in relativity. (The use of black holes - natural or otherwise - to circumvent this problem is a fantasy put forward by the writer, Adrian Berry, in his book, "The Iron Sun", as I have already posted.)

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:This is (predictably) degeneating again into a word game (surprise, surprise!). What "point being made" did I not address?
\

That you've failed to demonstrate any form of FTL is impossible.

I have, a long time ago, by reference to the Lorentz factor in relativity. (The use of black holes - natural or otherwise - to circumvent this problem is a fantasy put forward by the writer, Adrian Berry, in his book, "The Iron Sun", as I have already posted.)

Nope, you haven't. You've asserted that this makes all forms of FTL impossible.
You have not actually demonstrated this to be the case.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:This is (predictably) degeneating again into a word game (surprise, surprise!). What "point being made" did I not address?
\

That you've failed to demonstrate any form of FTL is impossible.

I have, a long time ago, by reference to the Lorentz factor in relativity. (The use of black holes - natural or otherwise - to circumvent this problem is a fantasy put forward by the writer, Adrian Berry, in his book, "The Iron Sun", as I have already posted.)

Nope, you haven't. You've asserted that this makes all forms of FTL impossible.
You have not actually demonstrated this to be the case.

Here you go again with your "forms" of FTL. Please define a "form" of FTL that you think is physically possible.

Dave do you have a point anymore? Another month and you've not changed anything. Why did you bother resurrecting this zombie thread? Are you hoping that this time we'll have forgotten everything from the past 56 pages.

DavidMcC wrote:
Here you go again with your "forms" of FTL. Please define a "form" of FTL that you think is physically possible.

Why do you even ask David? It isn't like you are going to listen to anyone outside of your own private echo chamber.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Here you go again with your "forms" of FTL. Please define a "form" of FTL that you think is physically possible.

Why do you even ask David? It isn't like you are going to listen to anyone outside of your own private echo chamber.

I listen to people who seem to know what they are talking about. There are a few of them on this site.

EDIT: Those who know something about what the world physics community thinks, as opposed to the strange little clique who have gathered on this site.

I'm thoroughly ignorant in these matters, but surely if there is not even a theoretical basis for FTL yet, we should perhaps be concentrating on developing things like fusion (I want to see an interplanetary cruiser with a tokamak!), and semi-permanent "habitats" of an appreciable size that would also provide protection from radiation etc. Things that would be necessary for very long term spaceflight anyway.

If the long term goal were to become independent of one planet, say.

MarkS wrote:I'm thoroughly ignorant in these matters, but surely if there is not even a theoretical basis for FTL yet, we should perhaps be concentrating on developing things like fusion (I want to see an interplanetary cruiser with a tokamak!), and semi-permanent "habitats" of an appreciable size that would also provide protection from radiation etc. Things that would be necessary for very long term spaceflight anyway.

If the long term goal were to become independent of one planet, say.

Indeed, and that is the real aim of the Icarus Interstellar project at NASA's JPL labs. Unfortunately, one or two members of the project (such as Harold White) dragged their FTL fantasies into it, and triggered this thread of mine.

MarkS wrote:I'm thoroughly ignorant in these matters, but surely if there is not even a theoretical basis for FTL yet, we should perhaps be concentrating on developing things like fusion (I want to see an interplanetary cruiser with a tokamak!), and semi-permanent "habitats" of an appreciable size that would also provide protection from radiation etc. Things that would be necessary for very long term spaceflight anyway.

If the long term goal were to become independent of one planet, say.

There is theoretical basis for relative FTL velocities between frames (which is the type being explored in the article of the OP) and there is plenty of funding to explore that as well as fusion.

Frame dragging is a consequence of General Relativity and doesn't violate any physical laws:

Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer. It is now the best known frame-dragging effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment. Qualitatively, frame-dragging can be viewed as the gravitational analog of electromagnetic induction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-drag ... ng_effects

But as usual, this will go ignored by David.

MarkS wrote:I'm thoroughly ignorant in these matters, but surely if there is not even a theoretical basis for FTL yet, we should perhaps be concentrating on developing things like fusion (I want to see an interplanetary cruiser with a tokamak!), and semi-permanent "habitats" of an appreciable size that would also provide protection from radiation etc. Things that would be necessary for very long term spaceflight anyway.

If the long term goal were to become independent of one planet, say.

The thing about funding things that look the most promising and not the inverse is you waste money on the shore bet that you are barking up the wrong tree while the long-shot not gonna work results in some interesting note weather or not it's applicable to the initial line of research.

If only 1 case in 100,000 turns out this way who is to say how long it would take to find what info was missed.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

MarkS wrote:I'm thoroughly ignorant in these matters, but surely if there is not even a theoretical basis for FTL yet, we should perhaps be concentrating on developing things like fusion (I want to see an interplanetary cruiser with a tokamak!), and semi-permanent "habitats" of an appreciable size that would also provide protection from radiation etc. Things that would be necessary for very long term spaceflight anyway.

If the long term goal were to become independent of one planet, say.

There is theoretical basis for relative FTL velocities between frames (which is the type being explored in the article of the OP) and there is plenty of funding to explore that as well as fusion.

Frame dragging is a consequence of General Relativity and doesn't violate any physical laws:

Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer. It is now the best known frame-dragging effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment. Qualitatively, frame-dragging can be viewed as the gravitational analog of electromagnetic induction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-drag ... ng_effects

But as usual, this will go ignored by David.

Ok. How would this be applied in practice? I guess what I'm saying is it appears that FTL if possible is much much farther away than these other things. It seems science-fictiony enough to aim to be independent of earth in case an unexpected planet killer turns up out of nowhere, not to mention needing an extremely efficient energy source we can cart around with us and not getting a terminal case of sunburn if we stay out of the magnetosphere too long.

I'm playing devils advocate to an extent - but is there really that much funding available?

lucek wrote:

MarkS wrote:I'm thoroughly ignorant in these matters, but surely if there is not even a theoretical basis for FTL yet, we should perhaps be concentrating on developing things like fusion (I want to see an interplanetary cruiser with a tokamak!), and semi-permanent "habitats" of an appreciable size that would also provide protection from radiation etc. Things that would be necessary for very long term spaceflight anyway.

If the long term goal were to become independent of one planet, say.

The thing about funding things that look the most promising and not the inverse is you waste money on the shore bet that you are barking up the wrong tree while the long-shot not gonna work results in some interesting note weather or not it's applicable to the initial line of research.

If only 1 case in 100,000 turns out this way who is to say how long it would take to find what info was missed.

I get what you are saying - but taken to it's extreme you would end up only funding the really whacko ideas!

MarkS wrote:
Ok. How would this be applied in practice? I guess what I'm saying is it appears that FTL if possible is much much farther away than these other things.

Well, for one, it wouldn't likely be applied in practice ever since the energies that are required likely would be literally astronomical. The goal of the experiment is to test one of the implications of General Relativity. Just in the same way the Gravity Probe B experiment did with frame dragging which probably received much much more funding than White's experiment will need since his doesn't require being launched into orbit.

Secondly, this isn't a case of we can only fund one program or the other. Government funding is distributed.