Alcubierre Warp: A Modification allowing Time-space Displacement possibility

[fourfathom]

I like to remember that "possible", "plausible" and "practical" are different areas in a very large spectrum...

Anyway, I'm just here because I enjoy the absurd.  It's sort of like how did the cocoanuts get to the British Isles?  Sparrows??? (Monty Python reference for the three people in the world who don't already know)

[Xena E]

. 

But I really suspect what they used is another device that is common in the outdoor world today.  A string saw.  In their case a long abrasive embedded cord being pulled back and forth by teams of workers.

My German Opa was a stonemason. The equivalent of a string saw that he used had a soft iron or copper wire "blade", a slot was started at the beginning of the cut and the wire used to draw abrasive, carborundum was often used, back and forth in the grove.

Cutting limestone, for example, was surprisingly accurate and rapid. For small work a frame saw was used and operated by one person. Larger blocks just needed progressively longer "blades" and ideally longer cutting strokes, often operated by two sawyers.

[TimFox]

Two-handled sawing of timber was common during the lumberjack era (before chain saws) with steel blades.
The same frame works with wire and abrasive.
For good sawing, the wire or metal blade needs to stay straight, while the abrasive wears away the stone being cut.
The Egyptian pyramids were not built by slave labor, but by peasants available during the inundation season.
Payroll records survive:  there would have been no shortage of available labor while the Nile covered the fields.

[SteveThackery]

Have you ever seen a UAP, Steve?

Just once, and it was extremely brief. It was some time in the late '80s or very early' 90s, and I remember on the TV one evening it reported that there was some kind of aerial event due to happen at a particular time, and that it should be visible across the UK.  I can't remember what this event was - perhaps the re-entry of a large satellite, or something? I, and many other people dutifully stood outside, gawping at the sky, but saw nothing.

It turned out the next day that the TV had reported the wrong time - it was out by one hour. Presumably some kind of confusion between Greenwich Mean Time and British Summer Time? Anyway, it was all a bit embarrassing.

Except I didn’t actually see "nothing". There was some light, high-ish altitude cloud cover, with gaps between the clouds with the black sky visible between the gaps. As I was gazing skyward I saw a triangular shape emerge from behind a cloud almost directly overhead, travelling at great speed. The sighting was very brief - probably only two seconds - before it disappeared behind another cloud. It was plainly visible, as if the underside was illuminated, or possibly reflecting light - it wasn't possible to know. I would say it was an equilateral triangle, flying point first, and travelling almost exactly south to north.

Now, I was very familiar with the aircraft that we all see flying at the usual 30,000ft or so, and this was very different. Obviously I had no reference points to judge it's altitude, but its speed was many times faster than I had ever seen an aircraft move before - it looked extraordinarily fast.

So that's it: a flying triangle of indeterminate size and altitude, apparently moving at exceptional speed, visible against the black sky for a mere two seconds.

There must be very few UAP reports less impressive! I take no position on what it was. However, this occurred when I lived in Felixstowe, East Anglia (UK), and there are American airbases in that part of England. Having said that, the military aircraft I have seen in that area were all flying much lower, presumably because they are only a few minutes away from takeoff or landing.

[Electrodynamic]

In my lifetime of some 60 years I have only seen two weird events. The first I explained prior and the second was a triangle shaped craft like SteveThackery described.

I was working on some electronic projects late one night and went outside for a break around midnight. Then I noticed some weird dull Indian red lights moving off in the distance. It kept moving towards me and flew right over my house. It had three red marker lights in a triangle and I could tell it was triangle shaped craft by the stars disappearing around the form as it moved. It caught my eye because we always see red, green marker lights and a white strobe but not on this aircraft. I say aircraft because it was a jet aircraft, probably military, and the noise from the jet engines was obvious.

This does not fall within the realm of an unidentified flying object imo because it can be identified by the fact is has a conventional jet engine. While the craft I described prior made no sound, had no marker lights of any kind and moved through a distance of about 100km in one second making a sweeping 90 degree turn vertical in the process.

It was a turning point for me because at this point I realized whatever I thought was understood was no longer relevant. Not a big deal, 80% of people believe an omniscient being created the whole universe from nothing in a matter of days so my supposed misunderstanding is quite minor in comparison. Just a craft doing something I cannot explain, nothing more nothing less.

[Chet]

In my lifetime of some 60 years I have only seen two weird events. The first I explained prior and the second was a triangle shaped craft like SteveThackery described.

I was working on some electronic projects late one night and went outside for a break around midnight. Then I noticed some weird dull Indian red lights moving off in the distance. It kept moving towards me and flew right over my house. It had three red marker lights in a triangle and I could tell it was triangle shaped craft by the stars disappearing around the form as it moved. It caught my eye because we always see red, green marker lights and a white strobe but not on this aircraft. I say aircraft because it was a jet aircraft, probably military, and the noise from the jet engines was obvious.

This does not fall within the realm of an unidentified flying object imo because it can be identified by the fact is has a conventional jet engine. While the craft I described prior made no sound, had no marker lights of any kind and moved through a distance of about 100km in one second making a sweeping 90 degree turn vertical in the process.

It was a turning point for me because at this point I realized whatever I thought was understood was no longer relevant. Not a big deal, 80% of people believe an omniscient being created the whole universe from nothing in a matter of days so my supposed misunderstanding is quite minor in comparison. Just a craft doing something I cannot explain, nothing more nothing less.

If we understood the similarities and the differences between "spaceship Earth" and UFO's, we'd understand a lot.

It helps to assume that an intelligent being created this universe with efficiency uppermost along with all other considerations. That said, why make a planet solid when you can save on the expense of moving it around in orbit about a star if it were hollow like the stem of mint saves on mass by possessing internal structural support surrounding its hollow core.

But structure doesn't have to merely be geometrical (like the frame of a house or a spacecraft). Structure can also be forces resulting from their byproduct of function similar to our expertise of paving roads to make our use of the wheel more efficient.

We also don’t give ourselves enough credit for being the penultimate pinnacle of evolutionary development. Not even the angels in heaven are as gifted as we are despite our proximity to God blinds us (more often than not) to our proximity. We are merely one step away from God realization since we live in a world of duality while God is unity and the angels are more complicated than our dualistic selves and, thus, are without any internal nor interactive conflicts since any higher prime-numbered logic from our own (greater than the prime number of two) is never even-numbered. So, they have no trouble with their faith while ours is constantly undermined by the oppositional consequences of duality.

[paul cotter]

Chet, I don't discount spiritual matters but as none of this stuff can be proven or disproven it has no place in a science forum. Science and belief are totally incompatible.

[Chet]

Chet, I don't discount spiritual matters but as none of this stuff can be proven or disproven it has no place in a science forum. Science and belief are totally incompatible.

Gee, I guess I must have failed to make my point which is not surprising since that last paragraph was a bit vague what its intentions were.

Just that, we are all gods in the making. Everything God can do, shrunk down to a size and duration which humans can appreciate, is doable without exception.

I don't think God has to worry about whether He violates Conservation of whatever needs conserving since making a universe from scratch has no predecessor to scratch against and count as a cost. So, what's to violate? There has to be a preexisting energy to conserve or else conservation is not relevant.

I know that's not a scientific opinion. But I'm not a worm limited to a job description.

So what if my consumer side of me bleeds over to my rational side of me. This would appear to be non-objective, and not rational, etc., and maybe bordering on expecting or too much.

But I have to have goals even if their performance spans beyond the scope of one short life.

I did not become this way. I was born this way.

I think another poster already said this, or suggested it. Maybe it was you?

[paul cotter]

Again Chet, these are your beliefs and while I am neither knocking them nor endorsing them they are NOT relevent to a science forum. You would do better to take these ideas to a religion/philosophy forum. I have my beliefs too but they have no place here.

[Xena E]

[...] NOT relevent to a science forum [...]

Quite so, however it is a textbook favourite trolling device to use religion and politics as a catalyst for controversy, so don't be surprised at Chets new approach.

[Electrodynamic]

The more likely scenario is that nothing was ever created or destroyed and the total mass-energy was always conserved.

Mass is always conserved and energy is always conserved with the only exception we know of being transmutation (fission/fusion) and particle accelerators.

It's interesting to note every star like our Sun is a fusion engine. Heavy objects tend to orbit but lighter masses like hydrogen gas gravitate to stars and become it's food. All life and energy we know of is a result of stars like our Sun. Ergo, the universe runs on renewable solar energy.

[Electrodynamic]

I would also point out the number of people like myself who hold to the principal of total mass-energy conservation is very small.

Most think the universe was created. Many believe in a big bang which is just another flavor of creation because the whole universe would have to be super compressed in the first place which is deemed impossible. Yet another flavor of creation is the finite or spherical universe which seems equally flawed because it ends without explaining how it began.

Ergo, if we actually believe in total mass-energy conservation then the only option left is that the universe as we know it always was and will always be. Based on what we know the more likely scenario is that our part of the universe could be expanding but this does not mean all areas are expanding.

It's important to understand the concept of a beginning and end was invented by people. We have a demonstrable bias in this direction. While the science we know and the universe at large suggest this is a false premise.

[TimFox]

You claim that the extreme compression prior to the Big Bang is “impossible”.
That claim seems difficult to prove.

[Electrodynamic]

You claim that the extreme compression prior to the Big Bang is “impossible”.
That claim seems difficult to prove.

I think it's easy to prove and I can use the same reasoning as everyone else... thermodynamics.

If energy must always move from high to low then an expanded universe could never contract without violating the conservation of energy and the laws of entropy. It cannot work for the same reasons you claim a free energy device cannot work. A perpetually expanding and contracting finite universe would qualify as perpetual motion machine. In effect, the big bang people are claiming what they have already deemed is impossible.

It's not on me to disprove the wild claim that the universe is perpetually expanding-contracting in violation of the law of conservation of energy and entropy. The onus is always on the person making the extraordinary claim.

[TimFox]

Consider the end-state of a normal star. After exhausting its fusionable fuel, it is a reasonably isolated system from its surroundings.
As has been shown by astrophysicists, including S Chandrasekhar, the star collapses (reduced radius) due to gravity.  If the total mass is less than Chandrasekhar’s Limit (approximately 1.44 x solar mass) the collapse will be ended by “electron degeneracy” (q.v.) and the star ends as a “white dwarf” of finite size where the electric pressure balances gravitational attraction.
Heavier stars collapse further, since the degeneracy pressure is not strong enough to resist gravitational attraction and the result is a smaller, yet finite, “neutron star”, where the density approaches that of a neutron.  The material of such stars (“neutronium”) is exotic by Earthly standards, but reasonably understood by theorists.
For even heavier stars, the gravitational collapse results in a black hole surrounded by an event horizon that keeps prying eyes from understanding what’s inside.
Such extreme compression can happen so long as the released energy can dissipate into the void.

Similarly, General Relativity predicts that there is a limit for the total mass of the universe above which the gravitational attraction will eventually stop the currently-observed expansion and result in a contraction, long after my lifetime.  This is one reason to look for “dark matter” (gravitationally active matter that is otherwise not observable), since estimated values for the total mass suggest that the actual mass may suffice.  Back in my University days, there seemed to be a philosophical bias hoping that the mass sufficed, since an ever-expanding universe seemed less elegant than a “closed” one.

[Chet]

Consider the end-state of a normal star. After exhausting its fusionable fuel, it is a reasonably isolated system from its surroundings.
As has been shown by astrophysicists, including S Chandrasekhar, the star collapses (reduced radius) due to gravity.  If the total mass is less than Chandrasekhar’s Limit (approximately 1.44 x solar mass) the collapse will be ended by “electron degeneracy” (q.v.) and the star ends as a “white dwarf” of finite size where the electric pressure balances gravitational attraction.
Heavier stars collapse further, since the degeneracy pressure is not strong enough to resist gravitational attraction and the result is a smaller, yet finite, “neutron star”, where the density approaches that of a neutron.  The material of such stars (“neutronium”) is exotic by Earthly standards, but reasonably understood by theorists.
For even heavier stars, the gravitational collapse results in a black hole surrounded by an event horizon that keeps prying eyes from understanding what’s inside.
Such extreme compression can happen so long as the released energy can dissipate into the void.

Similarly, General Relativity predicts that there is a limit for the total mass of the universe above which the gravitational attraction will eventually stop the currently-observed expansion and result in a contraction, long after my lifetime.  This is one reason to look for “dark matter” (gravitationally active matter that is otherwise not observable), since estimated values for the total mass suggest that the actual mass may suffice.  Back in my University days, there seemed to be a philosophical bias hoping that the mass sufficed, since an ever-expanding universe seemed less elegant than a “closed” one.

You inspire me.

[Electrodynamic]

TimFox

Similarly, General Relativity predicts that there is a limit for the total mass of the universe above which the gravitational attraction will eventually stop the currently-observed expansion and result in a contraction, long after my lifetime.  This is one reason to look for “dark matter” (gravitationally active matter that is otherwise not observable), since estimated values for the total mass suggest that the actual mass may suffice.  Back in my University days, there seemed to be a philosophical bias hoping that the mass sufficed, since an ever-expanding universe seemed less elegant than a “closed” one.

The theory of general relativity has it's own set of problems like any other theory imo. I mean, if they knew it always applied and was the actual cause of things then they would have called it a law but they didn't. Personally, I prefer a different theory where inertia is variable because it is a property of matter unlike time and space which are constant. The result would look the same but seems more plausible rather than de-legitimizing our system of measurement. I mean, if seconds can expand and contract what good are they?.

Similar to the prostitution of currency by crypto which has whatever value the people who have the most to gain can pretend it does. It's weird how the people who invented it always pull out just before it crashes. I mean, if it actually had the value they suggested then why pull out leaving everyone else to holding the empty bag?. However most people will believe almost anything with a little push.

Call me crazy but anyone who actually thinks time is variable needs psychiatric help imo. I get it, they have fascinations of immortality or going back in time and shagging their grandmother like Austin powers. However the reality of it is absurd as I see it and Einstein had similar objections in his later years. Weird how that works, after all the fame and fortune wore off and he had little to lose he had objections.

[TimFox]

TimFox

Similarly, General Relativity predicts that there is a limit for the total mass of the universe above which the gravitational attraction will eventually stop the currently-observed expansion and result in a contraction, long after my lifetime.  This is one reason to look for “dark matter” (gravitationally active matter that is otherwise not observable), since estimated values for the total mass suggest that the actual mass may suffice.  Back in my University days, there seemed to be a philosophical bias hoping that the mass sufficed, since an ever-expanding universe seemed less elegant than a “closed” one.

The theory of general relativity has it's own set of problems like any other theory imo. I mean, if they knew it always applied and was the actual cause of things then they would have called it a law but they didn't. Personally, I prefer a different theory where inertia is variable because it is a property of matter unlike time and space which are constant. The result would look the same but seems more plausible rather than de-legitimizing our system of measurement. I mean, if seconds can expand and contract what good are they?.

Similar to the prostitution of currency by crypto which has whatever value the people who have the most to gain can pretend it does. It's weird how the people who invented it always pull out just before it crashes. I mean, if it actually had the value they suggested then why pull out leaving everyone else to holding the empty bag?. However most people will believe almost anything with a little push.

Call me crazy but anyone who actually thinks time is variable needs psychiatric help imo. I get it, they have fascinations of immortality or going back in time and shagging their grandmother like Austin powers. However the reality of it is absurd as I see it and Einstein had similar objections in his later years. Weird how that works, after all the fame and fortune wore off and he had little to lose he had objections.

Are you saying that time dilation is a symptom of mental disease?
Are the professors and students doing the standard experimental demonstration with muon decay deluded?
(There are quite a few citations on this site of such experimental observation of time dilation with cosmic muons.  I see no need to repeat them, having cited them at least once myself here.)
Do you know the meaning of "law" and "theory" in natural philosophy (as opposed to the popular press)?

[Xena E]

Candidly. I have no interest in the subject of time/space displacement apart from a willingness to consider scientific theories generally, and judge them on avaliable evidence.

Are you saying that time dilation is a symptom of mental disease?
Are the professors and students doing the standard experimental demonstration with muon decay deluded?

Yes that seems to be the assertion:

[...] anyone who actually thinks time is variable needs psychiatric help imo. [...]

[...]Call me crazy[...]

The evidence supports it:

[...] they have fascinations of immortality or going back in time and shagging their grandmother, like Austin powers[...]

Translation:-

"If you believe this theory, you are an incestuous lunatic."

Analysis:-
(Paraphrased)...
Possibly too little understanding of the subject matter and too much stimulation of an overactive, undisciplined imagination drawing a false analogy with an unpleasant example of pulp culture for shock value...

...and true to form straw man arguments from the OP.

Stated just like a typical Tesla fan boy, who probably keeps pigeons as sex slaves....

See what I did there?

[Electrodynamic]

TimFox

Are you saying that time dilation is a symptom of mental disease?
Are the professors and students doing the standard experimental demonstration with muon decay deluded?
(There are quite a few citations on this site of such experimental observation of time dilation with cosmic muons.  I see no need to repeat them, having cited them at least once myself here.)
Do you know the meaning of "law" and "theory" in natural philosophy (as opposed to the popular press)?

I just find it weird that many people are suggesting nothing should be questioned when the premise of science is that everything must be questioned with no exceptions.

The down wind faster than the wind thread was a good example. It was easy to see everyone rushed in calling it a hoax and then when the actual inventor showed up to explain it everyone went quiet. Which begs the question, if the greater majority including the supposed experts like physics professors can get something this simple wrong what else have they missed?. I mean, when people claim to understand how the universe works but not a propeller driven by some wheels moving down wind I find it questionable.

Are the professors and students doing the standard experimental demonstration with muon decay deluded?
(There are quite a few citations on this site of such experimental observation of time dilation with cosmic muons.  I see no need to repeat them, having cited them at least once myself here.)

It's debatable imo. The problem I see is that we have no idea what the particles (Proton, Pion, Muon) are only how they interact with other stuff. The usual tests like deflection in a magnetic field, ionization and penetration. Similar to fields and we can do many different tests to determine how they normally interact but at the end of the day we have no idea what they are in reality.

In effect were saying, one thing enters a region, has an interaction and other thing(s) appear to leave. You do see the problem with this don't you?.

For example, radioactive decay was once thought to be constant and we could use it as a consistent measure of time. Now there is evidence to suggest the decay time can be variable depending on other interactions. If the interactions were unknown to us then time would appear to change even though it didn't. Were talking about a half life which could be off by million of years.

So yes, I question everything in every way possible. If you want to ignore all the discrepancies and pretend all is well that's on you.

[TimFox]

Theories can be disproven by experimental evidence that contradicts predictions of the theory.
For example, the elegant demonstration of non-conservation of parity in the decay of ⁶⁰Co by Wu in 1956 (q.v.).
Prof. J. Cronin in a lecture during my student days remembered “Fermi said that parity was good, and who was I to question it?” from his student days, but Lee and Yang posed the question about weak interactions and suggested experiments to test it, including the one performed by Dr Wu.
Theories are not disproven by considering them icky despite experimental evidence, nor by irrelevant questions equivalent to “why is there air?”

[TimFox]

With respect to constant decay rates in radioactive decay:
Yes, in extreme conditions where electrons are close enough to the nucleus to change the fields within the nucleus, there are minor effects.
See:  https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html

The variations of ¹⁴C dating are due to changes in the rate of production of the unstable nucleus over eons of time (affecting the amount of radiocarbon now decaying), and archaeologists have worked out correction factors by correlating against tree-ring data ("dendrochronology"), despite creationists trying to discredit archaeological dating.
See:  https://ncse.ngo/answers-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

Added in edit:  here is a detailed description of an undergraduate physics laboratory teaching experiment to measure time dilation with high-speed muons (that I cited elsewhere): 
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-13-14-experimental-physics-i-ii-junior-lab-fall-2016-spring-2017/dba397e119acfe92807caeb1509c401e_MIT8_13-14F16-S17exp14.pdf

[Electrodynamic]

TimFox

With respect to constant decay rates in radioactive decay:
Yes, in extreme conditions where electrons are close enough to the nucleus to change the fields within the nucleus, there are minor effects.
See:  https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html

I read that link as well as many others and found it unconvincing.

The problem I see is there there are many others who are just as or more qualified who disagree. Which begs the question which supposed expert with decades of experience in any given field should we agree with?. It's not a matter of us vs them, not quacks vs experts when even the supposed best of the best cannot agree.

[TimFox]

TimFox

With respect to constant decay rates in radioactive decay:
Yes, in extreme conditions where electrons are close enough to the nucleus to change the fields within the nucleus, there are minor effects.
See:  https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html

I read that link as well as many others and found it unconvincing.

The problem I see is there there are many others who are just as or more qualified who disagree. Which begs the question which supposed expert with decades of experience in any given field should we agree with?. It's not a matter of us vs them, not quacks vs experts when even the supposed best of the best cannot agree.

Are you familiar with how a spontaneous nuclear decay, with emission of "decay" particles, happens?

[Electrodynamic]

TimFox

With respect to constant decay rates in radioactive decay:
Yes, in extreme conditions where electrons are close enough to the nucleus to change the fields within the nucleus, there are minor effects.
See:  https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html

I read that link as well as many others and found it unconvincing.

The problem I see is there there are many others who are just as or more qualified who disagree. Which begs the question which supposed expert with decades of experience in any given field should we agree with?. It's not a matter of us vs them, not quacks vs experts when even the supposed best of the best cannot agree.

Are you familiar with how a spontaneous nuclear decay, with emission of "decay" particles, happens?

To be honest I have no interest in it. More concerned with energy applications considering were seeing record temperatures, record drought and now record energy prices. Granted it could be fun sitting around all day wondering what a particle is doing. Unfortunately most people have bigger problems to worry about.