A magnetic flip.... has happened a few times in the history of sol, they take a few years to happen [ start slowly.. accelerates.. then finishes in a big hurry] and you get weird localised abberations happening while the two ends are wobbling off center. Apparently local reversal spots appear like rash spots on your body and the normally distinct north/south boundary lines are intertwined and messed up. Theories about the weather /storms that accompany this vary.. most agree that it will be a WILD time.

Yes Soloman you are very right. Relativity is the best tested and the most accepted theory we have today. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am just saying that there may be more ways that we do not know yet to achieve FTL travel.

If there is a way to travel faster than light, it must come out of the laws of the universe for one simple reason - we are part of the universe, we can't operate outside it.

That may not be all together true. What we know of the Universe is very small and I know how we see the Universe will change, as we grow and so will our Laws.

Yes we are apart of the ( known ) Universe and we have to opreate with in it. I am willing to say, far in the future there may be a way to change the forces of the Universe to achieve the impossable. ( FTL ) I really feel given enough time we will find a way. And mabe even prove Relativity at the same time. I am open to the idea.



Now talking about the magnetic field of the Earth. Would a flip happen quickly like in a year or will it take several years?

Also I think that a magnetic field is key to life anywhere.

Yes Soloman you are very right. Relativity is the best tested and the most accepted theory we have today. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am just saying that there may be more ways that we do not know yet to achieve FTL travel.

If there is a way to travel faster than light, it must come out of the laws of the universe for one simple reason - we are part of the universe, we can't operate outside it.

That may not be all together true. What we know of the Universe is very small and I know how we see the Universe will change, as we grow and so will our Laws.

Yes we are apart of the ( known ) Universe and we have to opreate with in it. I am willing to say, far in the future there may be a way to change the forces of the Universe to achieve the impossable. ( FTL ) I really feel given enough time we will find a way. And mabe even prove Relativity at the same time. I am open to the idea.

Whatever the most fundemental laws of the universe are, we are still subject to them. That there is no way around. So, we can only do that which is possible within the constraints of those laws. And, I should add that if something is actually impossible we, by definition, cannot do it. Somehow, I tend to think that changing the fundamental forces is one of those impossible things.

Now talking about the magnetic field of the Earth. Would a flip happen quickly like in a year or will it take several years?

Also I think that a magnetic field is key to life anywhere.

As best anyone knows, a reversal of the magnetic field would take something like thousands of years.

I don't really see why the magnetic field is so important for life. I mean, it's a pretty weak field to begin with; and it doesn't really play a fundamental role in shielding Earth's surface from harmful radiation.

---

New Scientist magazine, recently ran an article on a device that uses microwaves to generate thrust.. another propellant-less thruster. heres hoping it may eventually generate more than a few ounces of thrust... gist of article article in pdf

I don't really see why the magnetic field is so important for life. I mean, it's a pretty weak field to begin with; and it doesn't really play a fundamental role in shielding Earth's surface from harmful radiation.

I think its main role is in limiting the solar wind skimming the lighter components of the atmosphere off into space. This would have also helped life to get started.

Well there are already common things that travel at the speed of light..they are called photons. We can produce equations that show that at this speed space becomes flat. That is; that the Lorentz contraction shows that objects actually shorten in the direction of motion. If we were riding on a light wave then wouldn't we be able to go anywhere in the universe in no time at all. Converserly, even though light from quasars travels for almost 15 billion years..why aren't we seeing what is happening now rather than 15 billion years ago.

---

Somehow, I tend to think that changing the fundamental forces is one of those impossible things.

I guess that is where we differ Solomon. I do think that one day we will be able to use the forces of the Universe to our advantage. I guess we shall see.

If we were riding on a light wave then wouldn't we be able to go anywhere in the universe in no time at all. Converserly, even though light from quasars travels for almost 15 billion years..why aren't we seeing what is happening now rather than 15 billion years ago.

As the light that reaches us only moves at 186thousand miles a second and space is soooo big it takes a long time for it to get here. Think of your quasars as a big reel of rope and you are standing far away with one end of the rope in your hand. The rope you have in you hand is the light that has made to Earth. And as you pull this rope that is on the reel the rope that leaves the reel has to take time to travel to you. As the reel gets smaller the grows dimmer but never changes speed. I know this is a crude example but this is the way I understand it. Mabe someone here can explan it better.

My next question is that... We think that the Universe is expanding and even expanding faster and faster. Could it ever expand faster than the speed of light?

---

Cyrax_Darkmual@yahoo.com
Cyrax Darkmaul 94th Druid. Mob Killer
life is not measured by the breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath.

I guess that is where we differ Solomon. I do think that one day we will be able to use the forces of the Universe to our advantage. I guess we shall see.

Solomon is right, and we are already using the forces of the Universe to our advantage. However we still have to obey the same laws and limits that everything else in the Universe obeys. If these limits could be broken, something in the Universe would have done it by now. Even black holes play by the rules, so are contrained too.

Forget rope analogies, it doesn't apply. We look further afield and look back in time. As we look even further back in time, we are also looking at a smaller universe as it was then. So, everywhere we look in space points back to the same place, the origin. The energy released at 'creation' is so far redshifted that we see them as microwaves, and because they came from a point source so far away in space time, their shadow is in every direction. This space time geometry thing is extremely difficult for humans to grasp because we have never evolved the ability to perceive more than 3 dimensions+time.

So, this also means that there is no 'outside'. We are actually at the edge of the Universe in the here and now - which is the furthest point from the Big Bang and is all we can know. Anything outside of the event horizon doesn't exist yet for us, even if it exists for someone in their event horizon. (Need two definitions of "exist").

There is no NOW where the quasars are/were. We cannot know. Even if there was a 2nd big bang or big crunch somewhere else in the universe we probably would never know about it because it is outside of the "event horizon". eg. if the sun were to disappear NOW we wouldn't and couldn't know anything about it until about 8 mins later, when it would go suddenly dark and the Earth's orbit would disappear and carry on in a straight line. Say goodbye to all the other planets too. As the "event horizon" (and gravity wave) expands and meets the planets, they would also carry on in a straight line in their respective different directions at their current speeds, and disperse into deep space. Life would get really uncomfortable after a couple of days as terrestrial ecosystems shut down and everything starts to freeze and starve, and with no hope of reaching anywhere else except an invisible moon for company while we pointlessly struggle to survive until the atmosphere starts to liquify. Not a very pleasant end!

c is fundamental to the structure of everything, and has to be a limit. The universe would have fallen apart long long ago or be one where we couldn't exist to worry about it now. So, we have our universe which has given birth to us, and almost definitely countless other lifeforms somewhere, but we have to live with the limits. Unfortunately physics doesn't listen to our fantasies.

My next question is that... We think that the Universe is expanding and even expanding faster and faster. Could it ever expand faster than the speed of light?

At the very beginning of the big bang that is some evidence that indicates that c was broken, maybe because the laws of physics were also being formed at the same time and there wasn't a 'c' !
This period is called inflation, and helps to explain what we observe. It also means that to exceed c you need the energy contained in the whole universe in a small space to be able to do it. It is very unlikely that c could be broken again because of the ever decreasing energy density in the Universe. Perhaps if there was a big crunch then there could be a deflation period before rebirth.

Does anything I've said make any sense to anyone???
Andy.

New Scientist magazine, recently ran an article on a device that uses microwaves to generate thrust.. another propellant-less thruster. heres hoping it may eventually generate more than a few ounces of thrust... gist of article article in pdf

I'm afraid that has already been thoroughly debunked. Basically, the guy said consider light bouncing back and forth in a container shaped kind of like one of those black rubber stoppers you see in chem labs. He correctly noted that the force on the larger end due to radiation pressure is greater than that on the smaller end. However, he forgot that, since the other wall is not perpendicular to the axial line, there would be force equal to the difference between the other two exerted on that side, canceling out any net force on the ends.

In short, unless the laws of physics are very, very wrong, it can't work.

---

I guess that is where we differ Solomon. I do think that one day we will be able to use the forces of the Universe to our advantage. I guess we shall see.

Solomon is right, and we are already using the forces of the Universe to our advantage. However we still have to obey the same laws and limits that everything else in the Universe obeys. If these limits could be broken, something in the Universe would have done it by now. Even black holes play by the rules, so are contrained too.

Yes, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. You said it a bit better, though.

Forget rope analogies, it doesn't apply. We look further afield and look back in time. As we look even further back in time, we are also looking at a smaller universe as it was then. So, everywhere we look in space points back to the same place, the origin. The energy released at 'creation' is so far redshifted that we see them as microwaves, and because they came from a point source so far away in space time, their shadow is in every direction. This space time geometry thing is extremely difficult for humans to grasp because we have never evolved the ability to perceive more than 3 dimensions+time.

I think you may have some misunderstandings about the big bang. Let me see if I can clear them up.

Probably the most prevalent misunderstanding of the big bang is that (heavily popularized) idea that it was simply and explosion of matter into space, much like a bomb or an egg in the microwave. This is an easy thing to picture. Unfortunately it is also completely wrong.

The big bang was, in fact, an explosion of space. At the instant of the big bang every point in space that we now see as separated coincided. Everywhere was the same where. And then it wasn't. And, different "wheres" have been getting farther apart ever since. This is one of those places where general relativity just gets weird. The best I can explain how to think about the expanding universe is that, if you consider two objects which are each remaining at the same point in space (or, if you're going to object about the possibility of coordinate transformation, two objects each remaining stationary with respect to the cosmic microwave background), over time those objects will find that the distance between them increases, even though neither has moved.

The analogy that is commonly used is to think of drawing a bunch of dots on a balloon. As you inflate the balloon, each dot remains in a constant position on the balloon, but the distances between the dots increases. Here, the balloon represents space and the dots represent (usually) galaxies.

A major consequence of the way this theory works is that there is no place where the big bang happened. Or, equivalently, whatever direction you look, if you look far enough you're looking back toward the big bang.

So, this also means that there is no 'outside'. We are actually at the edge of the Universe in the here and now - which is the furthest point from the Big Bang and is all we can know. Anything outside of the event horizon doesn't exist yet for us, even if it exists for someone in their event horizon. (Need two definitions of "exist").

The universe has no edge. Either space continues on infinitely or if you go far enough, you end up back where you started (much like in old video games).

While the universe as a whole has no boundary, there is a sort of horizon. Light has only had a finite time to travel to us and it travels at a finite speed; so, the oldest light we see can only have traveled about 13.7 billion light year. (Caveat: If it traveled 13.7 light year to get here, whatever object emitted it is currently well over 13.7 billion light years away due to expansion.) So, we define this horizon (which, technically, is not a event horizon) as the edge of the observable universe.

There is no NOW where the quasars are/were. We cannot know. Even if there was a 2nd big bang or big crunch somewhere else in the universe we probably would never know about it because it is outside of the "event horizon". eg. if the sun were to disappear NOW we wouldn't and couldn't know anything about it until about 8 mins later, when it would go suddenly dark and the Earth's orbit would disappear and carry on in a straight line. Say goodbye to all the other planets too. As the "event horizon" (and gravity wave) expands and meets the planets, they would also carry on in a straight line in their respective different directions at their current speeds, and disperse into deep space. Life would get really uncomfortable after a couple of days as terrestrial ecosystems shut down and everything starts to freeze and starve, and with no hope of reaching anywhere else except an invisible moon for company while we pointlessly struggle to survive until the atmosphere starts to liquify. Not a very pleasant end!

c is fundamental to the structure of everything, and has to be a limit. The universe would have fallen apart long long ago or be one where we couldn't exist to worry about it now. So, we have our universe which has given birth to us, and almost definitely countless other lifeforms somewhere, but we have to live with the limits. Unfortunately physics doesn't listen to our fantasies.

My next question is that... We think that the Universe is expanding and even expanding faster and faster. Could it ever expand faster than the speed of light?

At the very beginning of the big bang that is some evidence that indicates that c was broken, maybe because the laws of physics were also being formed at the same time and there wasn't a 'c' !
This period is called inflation, and helps to explain what we observe. It also means that to exceed c you need the energy contained in the whole universe in a small space to be able to do it. It is very unlikely that c could be broken again because of the ever decreasing energy density in the Universe. Perhaps if there was a big crunch then there could be a deflation period before rebirth.

Does anything I've said make any sense to anyone???
Andy.

Because the expansion of the universe is space itself expanding, not the expansion of a matter-filled region through space, the rules that apply are different that you might expect. When we say that nothing can travel faster than light, what we mean is that, if you have mass and you try chasing a light ray through space, you will always lose.

However, the rate at which the distance between two objects increase due to the expansion of the universe is not bounded in this way. The reason there is no such bound is that the expansion does not involve objects moving through space, but, rather, space itself changing.

Another way to think about it is to realize that the speed limit comes from the effects of special relativity (which do still apply in a certain way to the motion of objects), while the expansion is a purely general relativistic effect.

---

First I would like to say thank you for all you guys wonderful response. I really like to see what other people think on this subject.

Solomon is right, and we are already using the forces of the Universe to our advantage. However we still have to obey the same laws and limits that everything else in the Universe obeys. If these limits could be broken, something in the Universe would have done it by now. Even black holes play by the rules, so are contrained too.

I never said Solomon was wrong. I really beleve that one day we will discover new forces to the known Universe or use the ones we know about now in a new way to achieve FTL.

If these limits could be broken, something in the Universe would have done it by now.

No one can say that, something in the Universe has not broken it either. We are very feeble in the way we understand our Universe. The things we do know are very sound as far as we can test them. But lets not limit our selves to saying we cant because of a law. We may discover that the Universe will allow more than what we know. We have applied laws to what we can see and what we can put into a equation. Their many more things waiting to be discovered.

Even black holes play by the rules, so are contrained too.

That is hard to say also. I have done alot of reading on this subject. And it seems to be everyone has the same basic idea on what is happing with black holes but at the same time, there are many ideas on what time and space and matter is doing when it comes in contact with one. We may never know this answer. I do hope we keep trying to understand tho.

We look further afield and look back in time. As we look even further back in time, we are also looking at a smaller universe as it was then. So, everywhere we look in space points back to the same place, the origin. The energy released at 'creation' is so far redshifted that we see them as microwaves, and because they came from a point source so far away in space time, their shadow is in every direction. This space time geometry thing is extremely difficult for humans to grasp because we have never evolved the ability to perceive more than 3 dimensions+time.

So, this also means that there is no 'outside'. We are actually at the edge of the Universe in the here and now - which is the furthest point from the Big Bang and is all we can know. Anything outside of the event horizon doesn't exist yet for us, even if it exists for someone in their event horizon. (Need two definitions of "exist").

I really would like to know more on this... Where do you get this information from? I have never read anything on our place in the Universe. Please provide me with more on this. I would love to here other ideas on this.
The way Solomon explained it is how I ever understood it. Mabe some one has a new idea?

c is fundamental to the structure of everything, and has to be a limit. The universe would have fallen apart long long ago or be one where we couldn't exist to worry about it now. So, we have our universe which has given birth to us, and almost definitely countless other lifeforms somewhere, but we have to live with the limits. Unfortunately physics doesn't listen to our fantasies.

Yes I agree. C is fundamental to the structure of the Universe. As I look at how far Man has come in a short while, it is breathtaking. And yes physics has its place, and fantasies has its place. If man never had fantasies we would not be much more than any other life form on this Earth. Our fantasies makes us wounder if it is possable, and our hard work makes it possable.


Is there any other ways to measure the speed of expation of the Universe other than RED shift?

---

Cyrax_Darkmual@yahoo.com
Cyrax Darkmaul 94th Druid. Mob Killer
life is not measured by the breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath.

New Scientist magazine, recently ran an article on a device that uses microwaves to generate thrust.. another propellant-less thruster. heres hoping it may eventually generate more than a few ounces of thrust... gist of article article in pdf

I'm afraid that has already been thoroughly debunked. Basically, the guy said consider light bouncing back and forth in a container shaped kind of like one of those black rubber stoppers you see in chem labs. He correctly noted that the force on the larger end due to radiation pressure is greater than that on the smaller end. However, he forgot that, since the other wall is not perpendicular to the axial line, there would be force equal to the difference between the other two exerted on that side, canceling out any net force on the ends.

In short, unless the laws of physics are very, very wrong, it can't work.

Hello Solomon
A slight twist to this one. He has demonsttrated it developing approx 300 millinewtons thrust. The theory mentions the microwaves and the canister being "relative" to each other and the microwaves resonate within the chamber to achieve a high Q factor... the higher he can get it the better...
heres hoping... may be usefful for space based objects?.. too weak for terrestrial usage yet

New Scientist magazine, recently ran an article on a device that uses microwaves to generate thrust.. another propellant-less thruster. heres hoping it may eventually generate more than a few ounces of thrust... gist of article article in pdf

I'm afraid that has already been thoroughly debunked. Basically, the guy said consider light bouncing back and forth in a container shaped kind of like one of those black rubber stoppers you see in chem labs. He correctly noted that the force on the larger end due to radiation pressure is greater than that on the smaller end. However, he forgot that, since the other wall is not perpendicular to the axial line, there would be force equal to the difference between the other two exerted on that side, canceling out any net force on the ends.

In short, unless the laws of physics are very, very wrong, it can't work.

Hello Solomon
A slight twist to this one. He has demonsttrated it developing approx 300 millinewtons thrust. The theory mentions the microwaves and the canister being "relative" to each other and the microwaves resonate within the chamber to achieve a high Q factor... the higher he can get it the better...
heres hoping... may be usefful for space based objects?.. too weak for terrestrial usage yet

With all due respect, his arguments are a bunch of hand-waving bovine excrement. Relativity only matters when we need to relate measurements in different frames of reference. Here, we do not. The flaw (or, at least, a flaw) in his reasoning is apparent when he only calculates the forces on the end-plates. Once he ignores the other wall, it doesn't matter whether any other statement in his paper is right or wrong, because he is ignoring a non-zero force along the direction of (presumed) motion.

I am personally very suspicious of the stated experimental results, since the theory cannot work without violating the conservation of momentum. (And, just to be clear, a violation of conservation of momentum means that the very laws of physics must depend on your location.)

---

HAHA! I just looked at it but not in too much detail and I have to agree with Solomon.

---

TEAM
LL

HAHA! I just looked at it but not in too much detail and I have to agree with Solomon.

NewScientist have a picture of it moving...

HAHA! I just looked at it but not in too much detail and I have to agree with Solomon.

NewScientist have a picture of it moving...

It could well have been moving. Many things do. But, there is no way it was moving for any reason like the one cited.

---

HAHA! I just looked at it but not in too much detail and I have to agree with Solomon.

NewScientist have a picture of it moving...

It could well have been moving. Many things do. But, there is no way it was moving for any reason like the one cited.

OK
I've mentioned this one before but it was quite a while ago so..
_experiments_

This guys web page has small models demonstrating electro/magnetic propulsive reaction, it works within the atmosphere [air pressure etc] but the effect declines when run in a vacuum... however this may be the case until all particles are removed by a high vacuum... as a low pressure partial vacuum causes corona discharge to happen..................... just thought of something that may alter this.

I am not yet sure if it works in true vacuum. [outer space]

also not sure if it needs the earths magnetic field to work??,...some sort of localised effect when confined within a larger field etc..?

still testing...

what do you folk think.

HAHA! I just looked at it but not in too much detail and I have to agree with Solomon.

NewScientist have a picture of it moving...

It could well have been moving. Many things do. But, there is no way it was moving for any reason like the one cited.

OK
I've mentioned this one before but it was quite a while ago so..
_experiments_

This guys web page has small models demonstrating electro/magnetic propulsive reaction, it works within the atmosphere [air pressure etc] but the effect declines when run in a vacuum... however this may be the case until all particles are removed by a high vacuum... as a low pressure partial vacuum causes corona discharge to happen..................... just thought of something that may alter this.

I am not yet sure if it works in true vacuum. [outer space]

also not sure if it needs the earths magnetic field to work??,...some sort of localised effect when confined within a larger field etc..?

still testing...

what do you folk think.

Enzed....do you have any more links in your favourites menu to do with these
electromagnetic gravitation lifters. Or even stuff that is similar. I am quiet interested in the topic. I would be glad if you would post some more!
The principle displayed in these modles is based on using high voltage charged
capacitive plates of different sizes to (seemingly) levitate very light objects.

---

That's not really amazing but it's neat. They wrap a copper wire around to generate the magnetic field, add the counter weight (aluminum, wood) to bring the center of mass below the coil, and then charge the styrofoam base to create an electric field. The coil creates the magnetic field that pushes on styrofoam static. It would never work in the open like that. The styrofoam base would have to lift too.

---

TEAM
LL

Hello John
Yes I do have some more related stuff, but it will have to be tuesday before I am back in town.

catch you then
cheers

I have a question. What do you guys see as the best Propulsion system?

I really like the Ion drive for several reasons.

I just wounder can you make an Ion drive with alot of thrust? I feel for now we should explorer the techonology more.



Cant wait to see that Solomon says hehehe.

---

Cyrax_Darkmual@yahoo.com
Cyrax Darkmaul 94th Druid. Mob Killer
life is not measured by the breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath.