Spartacus Posted July 29, 2015 Member ID: 1387 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 30 Topic Count: 52 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2540 Content Per Day: 0.50 Reputation: 2485 Achievement Points: 19552 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/02/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: February 4 Birthday: 06/05/1968 Device: Windows Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) New British Designed Propulsion System Invented for space travel claims it really will work... NASA is Baffled, so you Know It Works Then!!!! http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-spaceship-engine-like-star-6155199 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11769030/Impossible-rocket-drive-works-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html If true it would revolutionize space travel. Speeds say could reach Pluto in 18 months... Edited July 29, 2015 by Spartacus hxtr and Blackbart 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
eidolonFIRE Posted July 29, 2015 Member ID: 2759 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 17 Topic Count: 199 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3496 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 3021 Achievement Points: 26464 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 08/22/11 Status: Offline Last Seen: June 16, 2017 Birthday: 07/27/1990 Share Posted July 29, 2015 They still don't know what causes the "thrust that they measured" The "thrust that they measured" is so small it could easily be dismissed as instrument error. (even for high precision instruments) If that engine works, it will be violating what we know about the laws of physics.... soooo yea.... Which is more likely? Everything we know is wrong, or one experiment is not done properly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted July 29, 2015 Member ID: 1387 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 30 Topic Count: 52 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2540 Content Per Day: 0.50 Reputation: 2485 Achievement Points: 19552 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/02/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: February 4 Birthday: 06/05/1968 Device: Windows Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 They still don't know what causes the "thrust that they measured" The "thrust that they measured" is so small it could easily be dismissed as instrument error. (even for high precision instruments) If that engine works, it will be violating what we know about the laws of physics.... soooo yea.... Which is more likely? Everything we know is wrong, or one experiment is not done properly? What is more likely, It working or NASA admitting they are wrong? After all NASA's job now is Muslim Outreach in the Middle East... https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/02/nasa-focus-muslim-outreach/ hxtr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
eidolonFIRE Posted July 29, 2015 Member ID: 2759 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 17 Topic Count: 199 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3496 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 3021 Achievement Points: 26464 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 08/22/11 Status: Offline Last Seen: June 16, 2017 Birthday: 07/27/1990 Share Posted July 29, 2015 What is more likely, It working or NASA admitting they are wrong? hehehe... well, when you put it THAT way... (it's not just nasa though... basically the entire scientific world has been pretty skeptical... it's just like when those people thought they had made neutrinos go faster than light. It would have broken the laws of physics and it turned out to be faulty equipment.) hxtr and Spartacus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hxtr Posted July 29, 2015 Member ID: 220 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 147 Topic Count: 595 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 16950 Content Per Day: 3.17 Reputation: 13538 Achievement Points: 129713 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 120 Joined: 09/04/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: October 26, 2023 Birthday: 04/05/1970 Device: Windows Share Posted July 29, 2015 hehehe... well, when you put it THAT way... (it's not just nasa though... basically the entire scientific world has been pretty skeptical... it's just like when those people thought they had made neutrinos go faster than light. It would have broken the laws of physics and it turned out to be faulty equipment.) They think they i know everything about physics.. but we live in the Matrix. Anything is possible. eidolonFIRE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eidolonFIRE Posted July 29, 2015 Member ID: 2759 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 17 Topic Count: 199 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3496 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 3021 Achievement Points: 26464 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 08/22/11 Status: Offline Last Seen: June 16, 2017 Birthday: 07/27/1990 Share Posted July 29, 2015 They think they i know everything about physics.. but we live in the Matrix. Anything is possible. ever heard of Planck's length? It's the only evidence we have that we live in a simulation. hxtr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hxtr Posted July 29, 2015 Member ID: 220 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 147 Topic Count: 595 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 16950 Content Per Day: 3.17 Reputation: 13538 Achievement Points: 129713 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 120 Joined: 09/04/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: October 26, 2023 Birthday: 04/05/1970 Device: Windows Share Posted July 29, 2015 ever heard of Planck's length? It's the only evidence we have that we live in a simulation. Yes I have... I forgotten most I learned about it though as I didn't study study it.. but in my research they talked about that. Tell me what you understand. I love this shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hxtr Posted July 29, 2015 Member ID: 220 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 147 Topic Count: 595 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 16950 Content Per Day: 3.17 Reputation: 13538 Achievement Points: 129713 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 120 Joined: 09/04/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: October 26, 2023 Birthday: 04/05/1970 Device: Windows Share Posted July 29, 2015 The Smallest Possible Length Posted By: Joe Garlandon: April 03, 2014In: Physics Print Email The definition of the Planck length. Source: Wikipedia. Quite often at FQTQ, we like to talk about immense cosmic structures, such as nebulae and galaxies. And as I’m sure you know, there is a realm of physics that deals with the unimaginably small, like the atomic and subatomic; however, beyond the atomic and subatomic, another realm exists that is far below even those levels of existence. At this level, there is a number that goes so far beyond the conventional understanding of ‘small’ that it’s truly hard to fathom. This number is actually a length – the Planck Length. It is 20 powers of 10 smaller than the diameter of a hydrogen nucleus, and it is suspected to be the level at which the ‘foam’ of space-time is built. If you want to have a visual aid in understanding just how small this is, take a look at The Scale of the Universe. PLANCK BASE UNITS: The number in question is 1.616 × 10ˉ³⁵ m, and it belongs to a series of numbers known as the Planck base units. It can be calculated using an equation involving 3 fundamental constants: Planck’s constant, 6.6261 × 10ˉ³⁴ kg/s; the speed of light in a vacuum, 2.9979 × 10⁸ m/s; and the gravitational constant, 6.6738 × 10ˉ¹¹ (kgˉ¹·sˉ¹). Max Planck first came up with this remarkable number after studying black body radiation and quantum mechanics, and he also came up with base values for time, mass, epoch, scale, and temperature.You may have heard that this is the smallest possible length… BUT HOW CAN THIS BE? When you hear this, you may stop and think, “Surely, if I have a length, then I half it, and I repeat this over and over, I will be able to get to something smaller.” However, this is an occasion where physics doesn’t allow something that mathematics does. For example, think about moving faster than the speed of light. On paper you could apply a force to a mass and accelerate it up and past the speed of light, but we know that in nature that just is not physically possible because the mass of the object (and thus, the energy needed to speed it up) goes towards infinity—both keep growing without any limit. So what we can do on paper, we can’t do in reality. Max Planck: image credit famousscientist.net So, how does a tiny number such as this tie into physics? If two particles were separated by the Planck length, or anything less, then it is impossible to actually tell their positions apart. Moreover, any effects of quantum gravity at this scale (if there are any) are entirely unknown as space itself is not properly defined. In a sense, you could say that, even if we were to develop methods of measurements that took us down to these scales, we would never be able to measure anything smaller despite any sort of improvements to our equipment or methods. And as you probably know, the Universe was born in the Big Bang and expansion began from that infinitely dense point. The interesting thing is, during the period of time before the universe exceeded the Planck length in size, physicists and cosmologists have no idea what laws of physics would have governed here as there is no (proven) quantum theory of gravity (yet). However, the Planck number has proved useful in a number of different equations that have helped us to calculate and probe some of the deepest mysteries of the Universe. For Example: The Planck length is a crucial component in the equation written down by Bekenstein and Hawking to calculate the entropy of a black hole. String theorists also think that it is the size of the vibrating ‘strings’ that make up all the elementary particles in the standard model. Regardless of whether or not string theory is true, one thing that is certain: In the search for a unifying theory of everything, understanding the Planck length and the physics involved will be key. Spartacus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eidolonFIRE Posted July 30, 2015 Member ID: 2759 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 17 Topic Count: 199 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3496 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 3021 Achievement Points: 26464 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 08/22/11 Status: Offline Last Seen: June 16, 2017 Birthday: 07/27/1990 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It's simply the smallest measurement of distance that matters. If you wanted to simulate the universe in a digital simulation, you would have to simulate it down to this precision and no further. Spartacus and hxtr 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hxtr Posted July 30, 2015 Member ID: 220 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 147 Topic Count: 595 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 16950 Content Per Day: 3.17 Reputation: 13538 Achievement Points: 129713 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 120 Joined: 09/04/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: October 26, 2023 Birthday: 04/05/1970 Device: Windows Share Posted July 30, 2015 At least with our laws of Physics. Things get much smaller.. infinity. Spartacus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eidolonFIRE Posted July 30, 2015 Member ID: 2759 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 17 Topic Count: 199 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3496 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 3021 Achievement Points: 26464 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 08/22/11 Status: Offline Last Seen: June 16, 2017 Birthday: 07/27/1990 Share Posted July 30, 2015 At least with our laws of Physics. Things get much smaller.. infinity. Do they though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted July 30, 2015 Member ID: 1387 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 30 Topic Count: 52 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2540 Content Per Day: 0.50 Reputation: 2485 Achievement Points: 19552 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/02/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: February 4 Birthday: 06/05/1968 Device: Windows Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Some Cool Stuff!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
Recommended Posts