Thread: Time travel anyone

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

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.

Perhaps you would care to expand on that, as it makes no sense whatso ever.

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

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.

Originally Posted by iamwil

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

Originally Posted by Emet

link

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.

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

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?

Faster than the Speed of Light? A New Theory Says, "Yes" -A Galaxy Classic

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...

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...

Originally Posted by Emet

Google the author...

Second article:



A bit more credible...

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?

Originally Posted by iamwil

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

Secrets of bee flight revealed - life - 28 November 2005 - New Scientist

Originally Posted by A Life Aloft

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

Originally Posted by Emet

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:

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...

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/20...002-211908.pdf

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 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.

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

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

Why,

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

Pulse Jet Engine

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.

If you would like a good laugh.........

Check this out....... John Titor - Time Traveler

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

Originally Posted by A Life Aloft

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.

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

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.

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

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.

Originally Posted by A Life Aloft

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.

Originally Posted by iamwil

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

Originally Posted by iamwil

<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.

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