PDA

View Full Version : Time travel anyone



Cranky Old Man
07-09-2010, 12:05 PM
Here is a very interesting article about the possibilities of actually doing time travel.

Any thoughts or opinions on this?


In a very cosmopolitan way, Iím typing this article in a coffee shop in Liverpool Street Station, London. My thoughts are with the intricate nature of the Universe and the tiny steps we have made so far to conquer space travel. As a society, our technology still needs to develop significantly to truly master it, but will we ever take the next step and travel through time?


Time travel is the stuff of science fiction but interestingly, there is nothing in our current laws of physics that says time travel is impossible. Even such lowly things as the cup in front of me have mastered time travel to a degree. Sitting there on the table, seemingly doing nothing yet it is actually moving through time, relentlessly, at a rate of one day per day.

OK, so this isnít real time travel since everything on Earth is moving through time at this rate. The big question is can we change this rate of travel, or even reverse it and move backward in time? After all, Dr Who can do it.

Quickly back to basics then: What is time? Time is just another component of something we call "space-time" in much the same way that a head or a tail are two sides of the same coin; space and time are both parts of the fabric of space-time. Since the two are related, maybe the secret to time travel is in manipulating space itself or perhaps our interaction with it.

Warp drive propulsion may be a sci-fi favorite for the USS Enterprise to speed around the cosmos, but can the technology ever become a reality?

One very simple way to move forward in time at a different rate is to travel really REALLY fast through space. It turns out that the faster you go, the slower time seems to move for you with respect to everyone else. This concept is known as "time dilation."

For example: If I run around this coffee shop at speeds close to the speed of light, by the time I sit down again, I will have aged less than those around me. In effect, I will have traveled into their future.

This has been shown by experimentation where an atomic clock was left on the surface of the Earth and another was taken up in a high speed aircraft. By the time the two clocks were back together again, the one in the aircraft had aged less than the other.


What about traveling back in time then? That's the exciting bit after all. One of the most tantalizing possibilities again makes use of the effects of time dilation.

We have seen that the faster you go, the slower time seems to pass with respect to the outside world. If your speed finally reaches the speed of light (300,000 kilometers per second) then time actually stands still, exceed the speed of light and its thought that time will start to flow backward.

There you have it, the key to travel backward in time. If only it were that simple.

Unfortunately there is a fly in the ointment, an effect of Relativity is that the faster you go, the heavier you become and as you reach the speed of light, you become infinitely heavy! To accelerate something that is infinitely heavy requires an infinite amount of energy. Therein lies the problem.

There isnít an infinite amount of energy in the Universe and if there was, it's a little selfish of you to use it all in your fanciful flight backward in time!


There may however be an alternative. Einsteinís theoryís of relativity only precludes travel at the speed of light, he never said anything about travel faster than light. Of course it will still take an incredible amount of energy, but crucially not an infinite amount.

Now it turns out that a little technique called quantum tunneling is used by electrons orbiting around atoms to instantly move from point A to point B without passing through the space in between.

If we could utilize a similar process and "quantum tunnel" through the barrier of the speed of light, we might just be able to travel faster than light, but never actually have to travel at the speed of light to get there.

All that remains is to fly around at this speed as time for the rest of the Universe rolls backward, decelerate at the appropriate moment and hey presto, youíve popped out in July 1973 and time for one of the greatest moments in history, my birth.

While this all seems a little far fetched, it's actually only technology stopping us from doing it. Much the same could be said for space travel at the turn of the century, it seemed unattainable to travel to the Moon but once the technology had evolved it became possible.

It's all just a matter of time before we master not just space travel in a big way but also to conquer one of the final challenges left to mankind, the ability to travel through time and I for one, think that one day, it will happen.

A Life Aloft
07-09-2010, 12:22 PM
Are there any time travel MLMs yet? I think that's going to be YTB's next venture. They haven't sold much travel in the present, so perhaps this is an option for them.

Earl Lee Tobed
07-09-2010, 12:26 PM
Ive got a second hand TARDIS for sale. Only used once,open to highest bidder!

Welcome to the forum( Old cranky Man).---Im a bit cranky too.

A Life Aloft
07-09-2010, 12:36 PM
I met a few people that I wouldn't mind sticking in one of those. lol Does it come with a money back guarantee? Do I have to pay the shipping or does it just deliver itself?

Cranky Old Man
07-09-2010, 12:43 PM
Any and or all of the above. Credit cards only please. :Fiddler:

Cranky Old Man
07-09-2010, 12:44 PM
Ive got a second hand TARDIS for sale. Only used once,open to highest bidder!

Welcome to the forum( Old cranky Man).---Im a bit cranky too.

And possibly a bit of a fake to?

Cranky Old Man
07-09-2010, 12:46 PM
Time travel is the stuff of science fiction but interestingly, there is nothing in our current laws of physics that says time travel is impossible. Any body care to quote on this.

Emet
07-09-2010, 12:59 PM
Time travel is the stuff of science fiction but interestingly, there is nothing in our current laws of physics that says time travel is impossible. Any body care to quote on this.

Here's an article by Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics:
Stephen Hawking's Universe - Unsolved Mysteries (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/bioUnskaku1-1.html)

Earl Lee Tobed
07-09-2010, 01:05 PM
And possibly a bit of a fake to?

Not proven m'lud.

Wizzard7
07-09-2010, 01:10 PM
I used to work with a guy who once told me that he worked so many hours, he met himself leaving as he came into work that day....

Cranky Old Man
07-09-2010, 01:21 PM
Here's an article by Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics:
Stephen Hawking's Universe - Unsolved Mysteries (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/bioUnskaku1-1.html)

Excellent. Yet they once said that man would never fly. They also said that man would not get to the moon to. What we may scoff at today, may in all reality become a reality tomorrow. The future has yet to be told. ( so far )

A Life Aloft
07-09-2010, 01:43 PM
Time travel is the stuff of science fiction but interestingly, there is nothing in our current laws of physics that says time travel is impossible. Any body care to quote on this.Let's not bother with actual science and facts then.

You Can't Travel Back in Time, Scientists Say | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/technology/070307_time_travel.html)

Remember what Hawkening said, "travelling to the past may is impossible, travelling into future is possible, but with a price – you can’t ever go back to ‘your time’, in addition, you’re not really travelling into the future in the classical sense, but you rather create a difference between the speed of your time in relation to the outside time speed." The he contradicted himself a few months later. I think he's starting to lose it, sadly.

If you traveled at the speed of light, you're not going into the future. Time is man's attempt at making spacial advancements in life measurable. If you traveled at the speed of light, it would take you 3 days to reach one point (using Earth time) that would have normally taken about 3 years. You only used 3 days. Which means the people on Earth only went through 3 days. Regardless of how fast you go, time stays consistent as far as measurement. Just because you only took 3 days to travel 300 years worth of travel doesn't mean 300 years actually went by. Example, a dress I love is normally $400.00. But, I get it on sale for half the cost. I got it for $200.00, not the $400.00 it was worth. Another example, I'm driving my sister to school and it normally takes us 40 minutes to get there. I increase my speed and cut the amount of time it took by 10 minutes. The rest of the galaxy is still at the same point in time as me, regardless of how fast or slow I was going. I think the LG disease went to Prof. Hawking's brain. And you cannot travel back in time because that space and "time" we used up dies as we move forward. Brilliant man, just out of it.

When he presented his latest ideas about what travel in the future might resemble, he reportedly admitted that he had kept quiet on the subject for fear of being labeled a heretic by the scientific community. He probably should have thought longer. Theory is one thing, proof and actualization quite another. Where is the evidence? Any evidence at all.

Stephen Hawking Explains How to Build a Real Time Machine
News by Mark Berman Opposing Views
(May 05, 2010) in Society / Technology

Physicist Stephen Hawking is widely considered the smartest person in the world. You may think someone with his brain wouldn't waste his time dealing with something as illogical as time travel. Well, not only does he spend time on it, he thinks time travel is actually possible.

In an article in London's Daily Mail, Hawking, describing himself as a "physicist, cosmologist and something of a dreamer," admits the scientific community might scoff at his ideas:

Time travel was once considered scientific heresy. I used to avoid talking about it for fear of being labelled a crank. But these days I'm not so cautious.
Hawking writes that in science fiction movies, some crazy time machine speeds through a tunnel through the fourth dimension, thus traveling back or forward in time. Far-fetched, yes, writes Hawking, but not out of the realm of possibility.
Physicists have been thinking about tunnels in time too, but we come at it from a different angle. We wonder if portals to the past or the future could ever be possible within the laws of nature. As it turns out, we think they are. What's more, we've even given them a name: wormholes. The truth is that wormholes are all around us, only they're too small to see.

But there in lies the problem -- the size of these wormholes:
Unfortunately, these real-life time tunnels are just a billion-trillion-trillionths of a centimetre across. Way too small for a human to pass through - but here's where the notion of wormhole time machines is leading. Some scientists think it may be possible to capture a wormhole and enlarge it many trillions of times to make it big enough for a human or even a spaceship to enter.

So that is the challenge -- making the wormhole bigger. Even then, you'd need a really, really fast vehicle.

There's a cosmic speed limit, 186,000 miles per second, also known as the speed of light. Nothing can exceed that speed. It's one of the best established principles in science. Believe it or not, travelling at near the speed of light transports you to the future.

To put that into perspective, the fastest manned vehicle in history was Apollo 10, which reached 25,000 mph. A time traveling vehicle would have to go 2,000 times faster than that.

So perhaps we can't build our own time machine. Hawking's point is that it is theoretically possible. And what would Hawking do if he could go back in time?:
If I had a time machine I'd visit Marilyn Monroe in her prime or drop in on Galileo as he turned his telescope to the heavens.
Spoken like a true genius.

Some of the comments are quite interesting:

Opposing Views: Stephen Hawking Explains How to Build a Real Time Machine (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/stephen-hawking-explains-how-to-build-a-real-time-machine)

Earl Lee Tobed
07-09-2010, 03:39 PM
It was also thought,when the automobile was first invented,that travelling in excess of 30mph without a windshield would turn your face inside out!

It worked for me!

Cranky Old Man
07-09-2010, 04:58 PM
Not proven m'lud.

Well why not settle it once and for all. Prove it with your credientials. Where is your parish. Name your Bishop. You know all of the good stuff. If I am wrong then I will apologize. If I am right you drop the father bit. And trust me I will check out any and all information you offer. If you do not show proof them we can safely assume that you are a fraud. So if you have nothinhg to hide, prove yourself.

A Life Aloft
07-09-2010, 06:01 PM
It's the internet. People are not required to "out" themselves with their true names, professions, any personal info, where they live, or credentials at all, especially to some stranger. How ridiculous is that? In fact, to do so would be very foolish indeed. It's unwise and unsafe to do so. Anyone with a half a brain gets that and understands the many reasons why. It's better to be as anon as possible, actually. No one needs to "prove" anything about themselves of a personal nature to strangers either. Who cares? No one has the right to someone else's personal information either, nor to demnd that of anyone.

They have an ignore feature on this forum if you need it.

I couldn't care less if someone wants to call themselves Tarzan King of the Monkey People, as long as they are being honest in what they are trying to present in their posts in regards to issues/topics. And it's no one's business to stick their nose into anyone's personal life either. Again, it's the internet. It also helps to have a sense of humor. Also, many people can and do come on forums and blogs all the time and present themselves to be honest, decent and nice when in fact, they are far from those attributes, have plenty to hide, have real issues, have plenty to be ashamed of, are not at all what they seem to be at all and none of them are calling themselves Father that I have seen or am talking about. I've seen this many times, sadly and been shocked and pretty dismayed over what I have discovered about those people down the road.

Father is a great guy. If you don't care for him or anyone else, you can simply use the ignore feature. There's really been enough drama on here already. He was friendly to you and welcomed you to the forum and made a joke and this is how he gets repaid? Nice.

Cranky Old Man
07-09-2010, 06:07 PM
It's the internet. People are not required to "out" themselves with their true names, professions, any personal info, where they live, or credentials at all, especially to some stranger. How ridiculous is that? In fact, to do so would be very foolish indeed. It's unwise and unsafe to do so. Anyone with a half a brain gets that and understands the many reasons why. It's better to be as anon as possible, actually.

They have an ignore feature on this forum if you need it.

I couldn't care less if someone wants to call themselves Tarzan, as long as they are being honest in what they are trying to present in their posts in regards to issues/topics. And it's no one's business to stick their nose into anyone's personal life either. Again, it's the internet. It also helps to have a sense of humor. Also, many people can and do come on forums and blogs all the time and present themselves to be honest, decent and nice when in fact, they are far from those attributes, have plenty to hide, have real issues, have plenty to be ashamed of, are not at all what they seem to be at all and none of them are calling themselves Father. I've seen it many times, sadly and been shocked and pretty dismayed over what I have discovered about them down the road.

Father is a great guy. If you don't care for him or anyone else, you can simply use the ignore feature. There's really been enough drama on here already. He was friendly to you and welcomed you to the forum and made a joke and this is how he gets repaid? Nice.

My apologies to the forum. But if he is going to represent himself as a man of the cloth, I feel I have a right to ask for proof. If this is out of line then please let me know.

A Life Aloft
07-09-2010, 06:36 PM
Again, you don't have the right to anyone's personal information or proof of anything. You are strangers to eachother. IT'S THE INTERNET! Let's see you put up your home address, your Social Security number, your Driver's License number, your home phone number, etc. Let's call your old boss at your job and ask him about you. Let's check out your wife while we are at it. What is it that you don't seem to understand?

I have made the mistake myself of trying to be "internet buddies" and it's only worked out for me a few times. In the end, I was very disappointed when people presented themselves to be what they are not and that had nothing to do with their profession either. Not in one case. Nor did it have anything to do with their screen name either. I've probably said way too much of a personal nature in trying to be truly honest, open, communicate, be sincere, and believe me, it was a big mistake. It's a mistake because you don't really know the recipients of that information or what they will do with it. Now I stick to who I actually do know and who actually knows me. (I hope)

You have no right to demand any personal information from a stranger either. You may feel you have that right, but you don't. Get real. This is not a private forum, it is very public. It is up to each individual what they choose to reveal about themselves of a personal nature. Period. To post too much personal information or in depth personal information on the internet to starngers who you do not know, is beyond stupid frankly and asking for nothing but trouble.

And, considering the behavior of many "men of the cloth" from several religions/denominations, many of them and their behaviors are nothing to be admired and respected in the first damn place. Let it go.

If you cannot enjoy Father's posts or him as an internet persona, put him on ignore. Solves your problem.

Emet
07-09-2010, 06:57 PM
Screen names are just that: screen names. Sometimes they are 3 act plays; sometimes they are recurring themes or jokes; sometimes they are known only to the individual, and the significance may elude others.
Is Doc B a doctor?
Does GlimDropper have one eye? (I had to google that)
Is SBM a mother? Is she a she?
Is littleroundman little, round, or a man?
Does Whip use one?
Does Wizzard know things?
Is ALA a pilot?

It's just a screen name and persona. (thanks, ALA)
:RpS_wink:

Respectfully submitted,
Emet and Associates, LLC
Offering opinions all over the place

A Life Aloft
07-09-2010, 07:27 PM
ROTFL!! Great job Emet.

It's best just to take the poster at a certain, limited face value, look at the integrity of their serious posts, what they reveal and realize in the end, they are a still a complete stranger to you and you to them. No one owes anything to any stranger on the net. People need to accept that. I don't trust anyone on the net any longer, that I don't "know".

I know that my personal experience in three professional forums (which were the only three forums that I had ever participated in for years and where I still participate in the most) are radically different and totally opposite than what I have seen and experienced out there on the big old net in my fairly recent experience of four other forums. (two of which I no longer participate in, by choice) I have and still am learning that lesson the hard way. Rather naive on my part, but also true. Until my expansion out to other forums, my computer was only a means to those other professional forums, for research, information that I needed, for some fun, for business/professional purposes, as a learning tool, to purchase certain items, a means to store photos, for email and staying in touch, etc. It's been a disaster otherwise in many ways. lol But not in all ways and there has been some benefit.

While there are many wonderous things and great people on the internet, there is also a lot of garbage, crap, a holes and much worse. It's certainly very prudent to limit that access to all kids and teenagers and monitor their limited access. It's not safe at all and is never what it appears to be. Neither are many people, sadly. Still learning that lesson as well.

Theophilus
07-09-2010, 10:27 PM
First off Father let me say thanks for exposing Ray st Clair. You work in exposing this scam will save people money and heartache. People will see your work about this scam, and they will be "saved".

Now about time travel.

I have heard theories about all possibilities existing at the same time.

If this was true, you could travel back in time, maybe (LOL).

Though if you changed something, and just by being there you have changed the future.

It would be impossible to return to the same exact time-line from where you came from.

So lets say someone came from the future, and started to tell what was going to happen in the future.

Well if it was actually true that someone had traveled from the future to this time-line.

We have no way of knowing what possibility that person came from. That person could be completely honest with his predictions, though those predictions may never happen in our possibility.

Well I'm in over my head, someone call KAZZA.

Earl Lee Tobed
07-10-2010, 03:47 AM
I would just like to thank everybody for their support in my abscence.It shows that we are a genuine community on this forum.
Old Cranky Man,you are very welcome on this forum,of that Im sure,but please,lighten up a little. I post on this forum principally to expose scammers,I have a few more lined up waiting in the wings,also I enjoy a little humour now and then,mostly now!

littleroundman
07-10-2010, 04:54 AM
I always find it interesting when people use the "mankind used to think XXXXXX was impossible before it was invented, so therefore YYYYYYY must be possible" argument to advance their current cause.

Without a corresponding reference to all the things "THOUGHT" impossible which have proven to actually "BE" impossible the use of such an argument is invalid.

"What the mind of man can conceive and believe, It can achieve" is nothing more than humankinds' arrogance captured in words.

walksthedogs
07-10-2010, 06:55 AM
Screen names are just that: screen names. Sometimes they are 3 act plays; sometimes they are recurring themes or jokes; sometimes they are known only to the individual, and the significance may elude others.
Is Doc B a doctor?
Does GlimDropper have one eye? (I had to google that)
Is SBM a mother? Is she a she?
Is littleroundman little, round, or a man?
Does Whip use one?
Does Wizzard know things?
Is ALA a pilot?

It's just a screen name and persona. (thanks, ALA)
:RpS_wink:

Respectfully submitted,
Emet and Associates, LLC
Offering opinions all over the place

Exactly! It's just a screen name. Sheesh!

Cranky Old Man
07-10-2010, 08:11 AM
I would just like to thank everybody for their support in my abscence.It shows that we are a genuine community on this forum.
Old Cranky Man,you are very welcome on this forum,of that Im sure,but please,lighten up a little. I post on this forum principally to expose scammers,I have a few more lined up waiting in the wings,also I enjoy a little humour now and then,mostly now!

You and the others here are entirely correct. I was out of line and I do sincerly apologize. I am afraid I was getting to be like those I did not like.

Cranky Old Man
07-10-2010, 08:25 AM
With all of the new things that are constantly being invented, the pulse engine is going to take us faster and farther. I read that it could get us to mars in 30 to 45 days instead of 6 to 9 months. NASA - Search Results (http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=pulse+engine)

So with this in mind and at the rate that technology seems to be advancing, do not discount travel at the speed of light. Or even faster. Remember, everything that you have ever seen on Star Trek is coming true. Man will not be satisfied until all of these things are accomplished. Maybe not today or tomorrow. But it will happen. Just look at how far we have come in the last 100 years.

iamwil
07-12-2010, 10:23 AM
So with this in mind and at the rate that technology seems to be advancing, do not discount travel at the speed of light. Or even faster. Yes things will change dramatically when we use light as the 'road' and then accelerate from there.

Cranky Old Man
07-12-2010, 03:38 PM
Perhaps you would care to expand on that, as it makes no sense whatso ever.

iamwil
07-13-2010, 08:56 AM
Perhaps you would care to expand on that, as it makes no sense whatso ever. A horse or a car use a motor to propel itself in a direction by pushing against the earth a 'road'. An airplane uses the air in front to push to the rear moving forward. A motor boat pushes against the water.

Now a sailboat uses the water as an edge but uses the wind to push it forward...

If we could use light to push our craft... or use light as the road we push against.

Either one would allow us to exceed the speed of light.

Emet
07-13-2010, 09:16 AM
Either one would allow us to exceed the speed of light.


Can anything travel faster than the speed of light? "No," is what Albert Einstein would likely say if he was alive today -- and he would be the man to ask, because scientists have been taking his word for it ever since the early 20th century.

According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, published in 1905, nothing can exceed the speed of light. That speed, explained Einstein, is a fundamental constant of nature: It appears the same to all observers anywhere in space.

One hundred years of testing have only reinforced what Einstein wrote, said Donald Schneider, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State. "There is no experiment that has contradicted special relativity. We have accelerated sub-atomic particles to well over 99 per cent of the speed of light, but not equal to or exceeding the speed of light.

link (http://www.physorg.com/news12084.html)

Cranky Old Man
07-13-2010, 10:26 AM
link (http://www.physorg.com/news12084.html)

But Man in his quest for knowlede may well one day discover how to do that. Just because if has not been done yet does not mean that it will never be done does it. A hundred years ago laser guided missles were unheard of and now they are common place here. no one knows just what the future holds or what new things may well be discovered.

iamwil
07-13-2010, 10:37 AM
But Man in his quest for knowlede may well one day discover how to do that. Just because if has not been done yet does not mean that it will never be done does it. A hundred years ago laser guided missles were unheard of and now they are common place here. no one knows just what the future holds or what new things may well be discovered.When it came to flight or this or that or anything as long as we are thinking with todays paradigm we can't imagine what tomorrow can bring.

Faster than the Speed of Light? (http://ldolphin.org/gspeed.html)

Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes" -A Galaxy Classic (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/09/faster-than-the.html)

Emet
07-13-2010, 10:50 AM
iamwil:

First article:


If Van Flandern and Setterfield are correct, space travel may indeed be just around the corner! A fringe benefit is that we may at last have clues to help us begin to understand the well-documented behavior of countless UFOs whose velocity and acceleration behavior has thus far defied explanation by conventional physics.


Google the author... :RpS_rolleyes:

Second article:


Magueijo -who received his doctorate from Cambridge, has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently a professor at Imperial College, London- says: not so. His VSL theory presupposes a speed of light that can be energy or time-space dependent.

In his fist book, Faster than the Speed of Light, Magueijo leads laymen readers into the abstract realm of theoretical physics, based on several well known, as well as obscure, thinkers. The VSL model was first proposed by John Moffat, a Canadian scientist, in 1992. Magueijo carefully builds the foundations for a discussion of Big Bang cosmology, and then segues into the second half of the book, which is devoted to VSL theory.

Like most radical, potentially seminal thinkers, Magueijo shakes the foundations of the physics community, while irritating off many of his fellow scientists. VSL purposes to solve the problems at which all cosmologists are forever scratching: those inscrutable conceptual puzzles that surround the Big Bang. Currently many of these problems have no widely accepted solutions.

Could Einstein be wrong and Magueijo right? Is he a gadfly or a true, seminal genius? Time will tell.


A bit more credible... :RpS_wink:

iamwil
07-13-2010, 12:25 PM
Google the author... :RpS_rolleyes:

Second article:



A bit more credible... :RpS_wink:Yeah, I'm just saying...yesterday's science is the foundation for tomorrows ideas but doesn't build them. It takes the person who sees beyond yesterday's science to create today's science that allow tomorrows impossibilities...

Just a question...is it true or some urban legend that scientists say bees can't fly?

A Life Aloft
07-13-2010, 12:41 PM
Just a question...is it true or some urban legend that scientists say bees can't fly?Google is your friend:



Scientists Finally Figure Out How Bees Fly | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/animals/060110_bee_fight.html)

Secrets of bee flight revealed - life - 28 November 2005 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8382-secrets-of-bee-flight-revealed.html)

Emet
07-13-2010, 01:00 PM
Google is your friend:


And sometimes forums are too. I came across those links on Pink Truth, of all places. Mary Kay Ash had made some statement about bumblebees that all of her beelievers had memorized...

Ahh, here it is, I just googled it:


Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn't know it so it goes on flying anyway.
Mary Kay Ash

http://www.aftermath-mc.com/smilies/bee.gif

iamwil
07-13-2010, 01:55 PM
And sometimes forums are too. I came across those links on Pink Truth, of all places. Mary Kay Ash had made some statement about bumblebees that all of her beelievers had memorized...

Ahh, here it is, I just googled it:



http://www.aftermath-mc.com/smilies/bee.gif She may have said that prior to 2005 eh? I know I heard it many times years ago... Even recall some TV special on it...

Cranky Old Man
07-13-2010, 08:10 PM
As of this moment the new pulse engine that has been denied for many years now is ready for fligtht. Some estimate that we can get from here to mars in 30 to 45 days, instead of the 6 to 9 months without it. Both my wife and myself have seen the filghts over Wyoming here. You can see the difference because the escort jets on either side had a regular contrail and the plane in the middle had small puffs coming out.

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2002/TM-2002-211908.pdf

A Life Aloft
07-13-2010, 09:39 PM
That paper is from 2002 and it is simply a proposal for the possible application(s) of a pulse (ram) engine. Who exactly is flying a jet over your area with an active jet pulse (ram) engine and where have you gotten that information? How do you know it's a pulse engine to begin with? Where does your information come from exactly? Frst you state it is ready for flight, then you say you have seen flights. I would like to see something to back up such a claim.

Puffs of vapor are rather miniature backfires a jet engine. Vapor trails are mostly water vapor, they are dispersed by upper level winds and turbulence. Depending on various condition, and the type of engine any number of types of conrails can be seen. Shock diamonds, ("puff,") are not engine pulses. They are a sort of standing wave effect. There are even "donut on a rope" type contrails. Those type formations are caused by high velocity exhaust streams out of a nozzle. As the exhaust stream cools off/slows down, it begins to form its own vortices that will curl in in on each other. Due to various dynamics/irregularities in the atmosphere and the exhaust stream vortices themselves, a few will become large enough to make the donut formations that we see down on the ground. Every time someone on the ground sees an unusual vapor trail, the conspiracy sites start up with all kinds of crazy speculations.

The last pulse engine appilcation from NASA I heard of were supposed to be for drones only the engine was a just an enhanced combustion pulse engine for applications of Mach 0 to Mach 3 (back in the 90's). The program ever went where NASA proposed, but there are some drone pulse driven aircraft being used as Traget Drones only, for the last few years.

As of last year Wright Patterson had conducted some runway tests on a small version of a pulse detonation engine, (and it was no "secret") but they have not yet flown a PDE craft with such an engine, nor built one. Even the Blackstar program was shelved many years ago, due to costs.

Pulse engines are not new and I haven't seen them "denied" anywhere. It was used for the Argus V1 in WW2, for example. Heck, the Taiwanese military have successfully had a flight trial their supersonic missiles, powered by a pulse jet claer back in 2000. The Russians, even earlier. The British used them back in the 60's on the Bloodhound SAM and the Thor Bloodhound as another example.

Pulse jet engines, many of them jhome made have been used on radio controlled aircraft for a long time now. There are designs and details all over the internet as to how to construct a small pulse engine on the net for model planes.

Even at Mach 5 (if that were to be attained) this is far slower than a normal "rocket". Can it go to outer space like the shuttle? No, it depends on the vehicle's supersonic shock wave to work. Once high enough, the air density will decrease and the shock wave disappears.

Cranky Old Man
07-14-2010, 06:06 AM
I am trying to find the article from the discovery channel. Also with all due respect, please do not tell me what I saw. You were not there and I was. The pulse engine along with a lot of other things were developed at groom lake in Nevada as was the SR71 black bird and kept secret.

A Life Aloft
07-14-2010, 11:03 AM
I am trying to find the article from the discovery channel. Also with all due respect, please do not tell me what I saw. You were not there and I was. The pulse engine along with a lot of other things were developed at groom lake in Nevada as was the SR71 black bird and kept secret.People look up into the sky and see all kinds of things that they cannot explain or that they think is something that it is not. The issue is that they really don't know what it is they are seeing. So they come up with all sorts of unvalidated, crazy theories. This is why you see all sorts of claims all over the net that are nothing but hokum. You have not answered any of my questions either about how do you know it was even a pulse engine in the first place? And what's the big deal about a pulse engine to begin with? They have been around for many decades. Are you an expert in contrails as well? You actually think you could tell by looking at an aircraft flying overhead if it had a pulse engine? lol

You said you and your wife have seen it fly more than once yet you never took a photo? What kind of plane was it? Again, when you make these types of claims, it is expected that you can prove them and back them up.

The Discovery channel is not a reliable source for many things, in all truth and reality. They have a lot of conspiracy crap shows on things like Big Foot, ghosts, UFOs, the end of the world, what if this and that and more. The ridiculous dramatizations that they manufacture are laughable. They seem to have traded real science for entertainment value more often than not these days. The fake reality series on there were and are bad enough. Watch their "Science Mystery" shows and you'll feel like you are going on the kind of trip you would normally expect to have while listening to a Jimi Hendrix soundtrack. I watched one on Auras and Chis and laughed my ass off. Hell, they even trotted out Kirlian photography. Yeppers, that's real sience for you. There are more shows on the Discovery Channel now about the paranormal than anywhere else on cable. It sells and makes money. The Discovery channel sold out years ago. My brother watched one show that had a guardian angel warning Marilyn Monroe about the assassination of Kennedy. ROTFL! The Learning channel is now just as bad. Pseudoscience is not science at all.


Conspiracy sites are rampant about b.s. about Groom Lake as well. Again, where is the proof? If you want some real fun, post exactly what you are saying here, over on the JREF forum and see what happens. It would be very interesting. Again pulse engines have been around and used for decades, yet none have been used on an aircraft that is not a small model. You ignored the actual facts that I posted about pulse engines and contrails. All of them. Why is that? Oh yeah, it doesn't fit your agenda. You also ignored that a normal pulse or ram engine would not work in outer space and why.

Believe whatever you care to, but when you make such claims and statements, don't expect people to sit by and blindly agree with them. Well, unless you are on one of the hundreds of whacky forums out there on the net. lol

littleroundman
07-14-2010, 11:24 AM
Why,

you can even learn online how to build your very own pulse jet:

Pulse Jet Engine (http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/)

A Life Aloft
07-14-2010, 11:38 AM
LMAO, I said exactly that in my post yesterday, above. There are tons of videos on You Tube of model builders who have built them. Yet, it all some deep dark government cover up. lol All a pulse engine is, is a very simple of jet engine in which combustion occurrs in pulses. There are valve types and valveless types. The engines are impossible thus far, to integrate into commercial manned aircraft designs because of noise, and vibration, though pulsejets excel on the smaller-scale unmanned vehicles. (drones) The vibrations on the airframe of any large scale aircraft are very destructive for obvious reasons.

Theophilus
07-14-2010, 12:38 PM
If you would like a good laugh.........

Check this out....... John Titor - Time Traveler (http://johntitor.com)

Well now back to my life that I cannot seem to time travel out of, oh-well.

Cranky Old Man
07-15-2010, 08:52 AM
That paper is from 2002 and it is simply a proposal for the possible application(s) of a pulse (ram) engine. Who exactly is flying a jet over your area with an active jet pulse (ram) engine and where have you gotten that information? How do you know it's a pulse engine to begin with? Where does your information come from exactly? Frst you state it is ready for flight, then you say you have seen flights. I would like to see something to back up such a claim.

Puffs of vapor are rather miniature backfires a jet engine. Vapor trails are mostly water vapor, they are dispersed by upper level winds and turbulence. Depending on various condition, and the type of engine any number of types of conrails can be seen. Shock diamonds, ("puff,") are not engine pulses. They are a sort of standing wave effect. There are even "donut on a rope" type contrails. Those type formations are caused by high velocity exhaust streams out of a nozzle. As the exhaust stream cools off/slows down, it begins to form its own vortices that will curl in in on each other. Due to various dynamics/irregularities in the atmosphere and the exhaust stream vortices themselves, a few will become large enough to make the donut formations that we see down on the ground. Every time someone on the ground sees an unusual vapor trail, the conspiracy sites start up with all kinds of crazy speculations.

The last pulse engine appilcation from NASA I heard of were supposed to be for drones only the engine was a just an enhanced combustion pulse engine for applications of Mach 0 to Mach 3 (back in the 90's). The program ever went where NASA proposed, but there are some drone pulse driven aircraft being used as Traget Drones only, for the last few years.

As of last year Wright Patterson had conducted some runway tests on a small version of a pulse detonation engine, (and it was no "secret") but they have not yet flown a PDE craft with such an engine, nor built one. Even the Blackstar program was shelved many years ago, due to costs.

Pulse engines are not new and I haven't seen them "denied" anywhere. It was used for the Argus V1 in WW2, for example. Heck, the Taiwanese military have successfully had a flight trial their supersonic missiles, powered by a pulse jet claer back in 2000. The Russians, even earlier. The British used them back in the 60's on the Bloodhound SAM and the Thor Bloodhound as another example.

Pulse jet engines, many of them jhome made have been used on radio controlled aircraft for a long time now. There are designs and details all over the internet as to how to construct a small pulse engine on the net for model planes.

Even at Mach 5 (if that were to be attained) this is far slower than a normal "rocket". Can it go to outer space like the shuttle? No, it depends on the vehicle's supersonic shock wave to work. Once high enough, the air density will decrease and the shock wave disappears.

I would like to thank you for your enlightning post ALA Or should I say PIOTB. And now I can plainly see how and where any future posts here by me would be treated. Once again I do thank you and now if you will excuse me I have much better things to spend my time on than this forum.

A Life Aloft
07-15-2010, 09:18 AM
I would like to thank you for your enlightning post ALA Or should I say PIOTB. And now I can plainly see how and where any future posts here by me would be treated. Once again I do thank you and now if you will excuse me I have much better things to spend my time on than this forum. Cranky Old Man, or should I say Old Timer......when you post something as fact and you have nothing....zip, zilch, nada........ to prove your outrageous claim except opinion and unfounded conjecture, and you cannot answer even one question regarding your statement, expect to get responses posting the truth and the facts. If you cannot defend your statements in any way whatsoever, and you are not even interested in hearing any facts whatsoever from anyone on the subject, let alone perhaps learning anything, and then you want to pick up your toys and run home, that's your option. Perhaps you can find a nice conspiracy site where everything you post will be readily agreed upon by others who also believe in nonsense. Whatever you do, never let actual science and facts get in your way..........so much for an intelligent dialogue.

iamwil
07-15-2010, 09:23 AM
And I thought you guys were friends...

But beyond that if we close our eyes to future possibilities we solve nothing...

As to the pulse tearing apart the aircraft... I seem to remember what shotguns without the recoil features did to my shoulder...

It seems like this is could be a problem that someone will solve or has solved.

Emet
07-15-2010, 09:26 AM
I would like to thank you for your enlightning post ALA Or should I say PIOTB. And now I can plainly see how and where any future posts here by me would be treated. Once again I do thank you and now if you will excuse me I have much better things to spend my time on than this forum.

When you post unsubstantiated claims, links to articles you perhaps don't fully understand, you shouldn't expect it to go unchallenged.


I am trying to find the article from the discovery channel. Also with all due respect, please do not tell me what I saw. You were not there and I was. The pulse engine along with a lot of other things were developed at groom lake in Nevada as was the SR71 black bird and kept secret.


People look up into the sky and see all kinds of things that they cannot explain or that they think is something that it is not.

I find it interesting that you never substantiated your claim. And ALA is right--over at the JREF forums, someone posted something about contrails (the whole discussion neither interested me, nor was easily understandable to me, as I know very little about contrails)--and folks there were able to offer rational explanations for what the OP observed, and the erroneous conclusions he drew.

BTW, I am also known as SPARTACUS. :RpS_wink:

A Life Aloft
07-15-2010, 09:50 AM
And I thought you guys were friends...

But beyond that if we close our eyes to future possibilities we solve nothing...

As to the pulse tearing apart the aircraft... I seem to remember what shotguns without the recoil features did to my shoulder...

It seems like this is could be a problem that someone will solve or has solved.That's the problem, that issue has not been solved and don't expect it to be anytime soon. The vibrations are horrific. Not to mention the sound/noise isslues, plus the modulations are very difficult to control. There are strict sound restrictions on all modern aircraft engines by law and different laws at each major airport regarding sound issues. That is why at many airports, commercial flights are limited to certain times during the 24 hour day and how much "noise" that an aircraft emits is limited by governmental restrictions.

So far, pulse engines have been used on some test helicopters. The typical commercial airliner (Pax and cargo) uses high bypass turbofans. The military aircraft that need to go supersonic, already use low bypass (bypass less than one) turbofans or turbojets and just use the afterburner when they need to accelerate and punch through the transonic regime real quick. Going very fast is a ramjet speciality. Good for missiles. Not coming to a passenger and or cargo jet near you, I'm afraid.

Does an internal combustion engine produce a lot of power? What is the application? You can build a ramjet capable of more thrust than a GE-90-115B for example, but it will not fly by itself. You would have to consider the packaging of the airframe, payload, range and other mission requirements. You can only make the whole thing so big since at higher Mach drag is more of an issue.

Afterburners make sense for aircrafts that will spend only small time of their flight in supersonic regime. Ramjets are more suitable for missiles and such, which will spend most of their time in supersonic regime. Efficiency is not the only criteria though. You also have to consider range.

Further, No pulse jets were ever used on piloted aircrafts, bar some experiments with guided V1 in Germany. A few Messerschmit Me328 prototypes were built and test flown. These had two Argus pulse jets, one on each side of the rear fuselage.

Pulse engines are very popular on RC models. And they are used on small, unmanned surveillance drones by the military. Ramjets are a much more advanced technology , but they cannot work at low speeds and need a different engine to accelerate aircraft to minimum functioning speed. The SR 71 Blackbird engines were "partial ramjets" which worked as normal jet engines in the lower speed range. When you need a short time increase in thrust it doesn't get much simpler than adding an afterburner to a jet or turbofan engine. The afterburner is essentially a large pipe equipped with flameholders and fuel injectors. For the most of the time it's just dead weight, so it's made as light as possible. Flame holders and fuel injectors must be properly cooled to keep the heat signature low. The afterburner provides a thrust boost by around 50%.

Practical pulse jets are usually not that efficient, not to mention that the noise and vibration would limit their use in most applications. Again, the vibrations would destroy the airframe.

An afterburning jet engine is very light (thrust to weight ratio around 8), that's a reason why the fuel consumption is so high in relation to the weight of the engine. The above numbers are also with the engine stationary at sea level.

The specific fuel consumption and efficiency of the engine is also not of the greatest concern, if that was the case, we would be flying around in planes that look more like the Concorde than your average Boeing or Airbus.

The discussion, as far as I am concerned, had nothing to do with "being friends". lol It had to do with truth, science, history and fact from my end. Apparently that does not sit well with people who want to believe bullcrap, post it on a forum and expect everyone else to except bullcrap as the truth. When people flee from the truth, there is usually a good reason for that. lmao

Emet
07-15-2010, 10:06 AM
<snip>
But beyond that if we close our eyes to future possibilities we solve nothing...

Scientists do not do that. They "dream" and "imagine possibilities" every day. Then they go about "solving" the issues according to their area of expertise, using the scientific method.


It seems like this is could be a problem that someone will solve or has solved. (my bolding)
The operative word is "seems".

Remember this?


Magueijo -who received his doctorate from Cambridge, has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently a professor at Imperial College, London- says: not so. His VSL theory presupposes a speed of light that can be energy or time-space dependent.

In his fist (sic) book, Faster than the Speed of Light, Magueijo leads laymen readers into the abstract realm of theoretical physics, based on several well known, as well as obscure, thinkers. The VSL model was first proposed by John Moffat, a Canadian scientist, in 1992. Magueijo carefully builds the foundations for a discussion of Big Bang cosmology, and then segues into the second half of the book, which is devoted to VSL theory.

Like most radical, potentially seminal thinkers, Magueijo shakes the foundations of the physics community, while irritating off many of his fellow scientists. VSL purposes to solve the problems at which all cosmologists are forever scratching: those inscrutable conceptual puzzles that surround the Big Bang. Currently many of these problems have no widely accepted solutions.

Could Einstein be wrong and Magueijo right? Is he a gadfly or a true, seminal genius? Time will tell.

Cranky Old Man
07-15-2010, 12:28 PM
For the record I stand corrected. It was not the pulse engine I was referring to but rather the ion engine.

Ion engine could one day power 39-day trips to Mars - space - 22 July 2009 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17476-ion-engine-could-one-day-power-39day-trips-to-mars.html)