AngelLestat

But Kerbol does not have the same diameter than Sun. All scales in KSP are reduced a 1/10 I guess. But if we forget about scales (that was only to avoid game-engine and gameplay drawback) then you will notice that kerbin attemps to be an analogous system to earth conditions. So, there in fact KSP reduce power production in solar panels due to distance. Ok. About the saturation, yeah, I also thought in that, I dint mention to not scare any developer to implement square rule in case it wasn´t implement yet. Yeah I mistake, I had to said that a 1 m2 panel would receive 1300 w/m2 of radiation. But I use the word produce.. *And for the sake of realism.. I did.. In my post I also mention to incorporate a power reduction due to atmosphere. And each planet with a different parameter due to atmosphere composition.. For example, Eve receive more radiation, but it has a thicker atmosphere and maybe the atmosphere has components that block even more the kerbol light. So to a formule of power reduction due to atmosphere height, we need to multiply that value for a constant between 0 and 1 that will depend on the atmosphere components. Great, so you did a mod formule about power? If some day you complete this with more realism than the actual KSP way to calculate.. please post it and share -------------------------------------------------------------- To have a real radiation lv due to distance, it would help to incorporate some day in the future Solar Sails, or Beamed Sail. For example, in Beamed Sail you need a laser feed it with a lot of power. This power can be collected if we have graphene composites materials acting like solar panel. The material resist more than 2500 Kelvin degrees, and it does not saturate like normal panels. So this allow us to put this panels at a distance very close to Kerbol (0,03 Au or maybe less), with a efficiency of 70% or 80% like the ones that are already estimated plus a brayton cycle, we could practically produce the power need it to such adventure. Sun radiance at 0,03 Au it will be 150000 w/m2.

Something that I never had the time to look up in the game is: Solar panels produce less energy depeding on how far are from Kerbol (the sun)? According to the inverse square rule? I am agree that things needs to be balance.. For example.. 1 m2 of solar panel in kerbin orbit it will be nice if produce the same as a solar panels in earth orbit. This would be 1300 w/m2. Half distance from kerbin to kerbol, would be 5400 w/2, and twice distance from kerbin to kerbol would be 340 w/m2. Also it would be nice if we had power atenuation due to atmosphere. We just need to put some constant value for each planet, and then calculate due height and that constant how much power we receive. In this case, we would have different scenaries where solar panels are usefull or not. Also it will be nice to have some issues with nuclear. Lets said that the crew needs to be far from the reactor to avoid death by radiation.

Read about psicology, I recomend John Watson. Then read about social mechanics, or something similar to improve your subterfuge skills. Then studie all social behavior and try to follow each feeling or action until its roots (genetic). After some years thinking in these topics and with some talent, you would understand how funny your posture results to me. You achieve something making a list of academic studies? You hope to get some friends point saying the same emptly things that he said? He already bought you when he said that you have a better understanding in physsics? Said that I am ignorant in this topic it does not make my question less important. And their remains unanswered. The fact that there is not a single paper in internet that answer my questions and the fact that all sciencits that I read (even the most fascinated with this idea) non even one said that this theory is solid. (like our friends K2 here sustaint) Some dont try to defend him with its claims. I am know very well what kind of claims he did. But even if we dont reach a consensus, we can be sure that time will tell. And I dont know you.. but I am not muchs doubts how this would result. Is a nice question, from my several times mentioned (by my friends here) "ignorant" point of view. i would said that this has no effect. Becouse the bubble would travel by an already distorted gravity field. For example. If your warp drive ship travel close to a black hole, in that point its trajectory would curve by the effect of the black hole. So your are distorting the fabric of the space time that is already distorted. So you dont escape from the potential energy. Sorry for the awkward questions, I'm just very interested in this!

They are not stupid questions, are just questions that you can not answer, so you invent silly excuses or insults just to avoid them. In your imagination.... you said that we have a theory of everything since 60th, but non scientist in the whole world would claim the same stupid thing. WHAT?? we know """"NOTHING"""" about negative energy, but you said that it has the same properties than positive energy like you were reading only the "word negative" and to you is just a matter of "signs".. OMG.. AGAIN, YOU ARE THE ONLY GUY IN THE WORLD WHO MAKE THIS CRAZY CLAIMS. It does not disturb you the fact that you are ALONE in your claims, that you can not post a single source agree with you?? You have brain damage? I am not the one making claims!! YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIMS! So is your job prove the things that you are saying.. If you said that unicorns exist, is your job present some evidence or a demostration to prove that. Is not my job try to find a demostration that said unicorns cant exist.. Becoz nobody can find such demostration. Are you really a science person?? Again, empty answers. This will be the same from now until your last responce. The perfect way to avoid them? yes.. said that the other guy is just ignorant and change the curse of the discussion. "we do" is not enought; you need to present some evidence you know?? If you dont wanna spend time typing I guess you can find many sources that support your claim. I will ask again: "we actually do not have any proven theory to merge GR with QM." Look, I will post again my answer so you know what are you answering. I SAID: "A M-theory would also explain all of it about all doubts that scientist had about causality effect, themordynamics violations, possible paradoxes and the true shape of the universe. And maybe a not probabilistic descriptions of particle physsics." Here Brian Greene said the same thing that I do.. Maybe when its finish. Becouse he understand like I understand, that the thoery is not even close to be finish. http://worldsciencefestival.com/blog/ask_brian_greene_quantum_mechanics_and_string_theory You keep talking about yang mills aproximations. But I remember you that this has not point until you tell me how thin needs to be the bubble in its densest part. Ok, then it will be easier for you to just point me the theory of everything. Where is it? come on!, you cant hide in your yang mllls aproximation all day.. In case you are right, I dint know that, But I was searching in internet and I could not find nothing to support your vision. (I dint search much, not much free time here) Maybe you can explain me. The hard of science is to interpret math equations with its relevance with the reality. But sometimes, what it may look like we are using infinite dimentions in some equation, maybe is just an algebraic tool that we need to look closer to interpret it correctly. Ehh? SR it does not said nothing about that light travels in a straight line.. In fact, it does not touch the subject becouse is out of the frame reference of the theory. And SR is based in Minkowski space, that it does not mean that there is not more dimentions. All depends in what frame of reference the theory is working. So you are saying that quantum loop gravity is already prove it? Or there is some sigma 2 or 4 that the theory is correct? Stop avoid answering, if you dont know.. Just said.. I DONT KNOW. Nobody will burn you for that. Yeah, this only prove that 99,9% of sciencist over the whole world, thinks like me. But maybe you know something that every else does not. Lol, you really dint understand the joke or sacarms of my last responce? I thought that how you know so much you would understand what I was saying. But I guess I need to explain it. You said that we may never see a Quantum Turing machine. If you know what are the theorical or phylosofical points against this, you will know that are almost the same theorical or phylosofical points against why a warp drive cant exist. And I was agree. I can not prove that a Quantum Turing machine may exist. But its hilarious that you use this arguments when at the same time you defend your warp drive with blindness. Is not fun? XD Tell me about physsics. Make some calculations, be my guess, If I can not understand them, I know people who can. But dont make me waste time of those people. Just prove the things that you said that you can prove.You know what things we are talking about. Or just post some source that proves the things that I am asking since the begining of this discussion. Or what? More excuses? yeah, duuh! becouse space is expanding, But this does not mean that light speed can be overseed. Becouse light travels over this net of space time fabric. But all the space that is emerging between 2 distant points so their "seems to have superior relative velocities" it does not violates any causality effect or any other effect. The problems arrives if you have information traveling "over this net" faster than light. The problems of your question is "according to what". You need to take the same space time fabric, becouse that is what limits the light speed. Is the whole universe structure. And that is what I am saying when I said that the limit of the universe is the light speed. If you overseed it you out of here. At least that is my opinion until I found stronger evidence who point in a different path. Like some QFT aproximations said, that the bubble would be unstable at velocities close to C. I refuse? I am open to information. And I stand in the fact that light speed can not be overseed. Well I will explain you again, this time slow so you understand.There is not knowledge from the strong point of the word, we can be more sure or less sure about something. But we can never be 100% sure or 0% sure. So when you receive certain information (lets said Quantum Loop Gravity) you attach to that information a knowledge level (lets call it that way so you are happy, I call it a level of trust), so now we can said that we have some idea with certain lv of trust or knowledge. But this can change, more information can arrive that would change that. How can be knowledge if is wrong? We can not even be sure with 100% of trust that some day in the future we discover that the laws of theormodynamics may be different of what we now thoght. I am making the correct questions, you are just evade them in the same way that Harold White does. Yes I know that is not uniform, but we already talk about this. I am asking you how thin is the volume where this big energy densities needs to be confine. To see if my main argument it has some point or not. I AM ASKING THIS FROM THE STARTING OF THIS DISCUSSION AND YOU ALWAYS DODGE IT! What happens with this bubble when is traveling close to the speed of light? I know, inside the bubble is all ok (from general relativity point of view), but what happens in the edges? This is not mean that the negative energy field in the edges are traveling faster than the speed of light? And all the fields are aply to this local symmetry that you mention, but this local symmetry is the one that fix the light speed. So how can other kinds of fields travel faster? I dont know if I using the right words, I am just tired. But you know what I am asking. So you will answer the question or invent some other excuse? more arguments with not sustaint base. You dont have any prove to nothing. Actual science? You are the one who start talking about star treek. I know that, for that reason Q-thurster can have in fact some practical use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Resuming... You are in a bubble that blinds you to see the flaws of the warp drive idea. This is becouse you really want to believe it to be true with full passion. Somebody teach you the way to make some calculations using the standard physsics tools and now you believe that you have the key to understand the whole universe. How naive is that? So to your passion problems, we need to add your proud and delusions of grandeur. I make you some questions over and over, beacouse I read almost all Harold White papers, and I could not find any detail. I also know that in some interviews where he was, they asked the same questions, and he did not answer any of them. So here is a prediction. I hope you have a healthy live and live many many happy years. But in your whole live, you will see how this warp drive idea is disprove it, you will witness others FTL ideas arrive, but you would can not see any FTL idea being prove it. Then you would be wonder how such ignorant common guy like me, knew this. Of course, your proud would handle this.. -just luck.

Sorry again for the delay. I read a lot of insults this time, dont be bad. If I put you in some hard spots with some of my questions, dont blame me... But if we have a theory of everything since 60th like you said, how is possible that we dont know nothing about how the big bang began? Ok agree. but what we know about negative energy properties? So you need to generate all the energy again for each travel, in this case, at least from the point of view of my objections it would not violate the thermodynamics laws. Ok. But you well know that this is not the last word about thermodynamics. A lot other questions arise of how to create the bubble, how to maintain the bubble, it is said that make this with negative energy is similar to try to sustain a worm hole. That it will be highly unstable and it would violate some energy conditions. Why I need to choose the MWI interpretation instead any other? Or you need this to remove certain paradoxes that would arise from your FTL fantasy? You have a tendency to forget that we actually do not have any proven theory to merge GR with QM. So we can not said nothing for sure about the frames of reference where both theories needs to be had into account. A M-theory would also explain all of it about all doubts that scientist had about causality effect, themordynamics violations, possible paradoxes and the true shape of the universe. And maybe a not probabilistic descriptions of particle physsics. I am still trying to find why has no sense. I was reading this page hoping see your point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe I guess what you want to said, that the global properties does not matter in the surf-motion of your warp drive ship, my point is that even if your ship use the local geometry, all particles involve may use the global geometry. Perfect, now you need to prove why this example is relevant with the things that you are talking about. Well maybe I am stupid, becouse I could not understand your point defending the fact that we actually had a theory of everything. I guess I know what you want to said.. We have Einsteinian GR to explain all the macroscopic things, and then Quamtum Mechanic to explain all microscopic things. And with different approachs and math tools, we dont need any merging theory to prove warp drive. That is what you want to said? Ok. but I am not sure if I can find another information source to be 100% agree with this point. Also when I mention some post back the Maldacena Conjecture, you knew that I was talking about AdS QCD correspondence right? The problem that warp drive seems to have one foot over General Relativity and the other foot on Quamtum Mechanic. For start, where all this negative energy is comming? From a quamtum mechanic prediction? There is also the point that general theory of relativity it does not invalidated much of the special theory of relativity, where this would not be possible. Is better explain in this note. Yeah, both theories are very well understood, but this it does not said nothing about quamtum gravity. Is far to be prove it, there are also some critics to quantum gravity that still is not clear when you make the general relativity convertion to quamtum mechanic, in fact you are end it with the same general relativity. I found this note, that summarize our postures very well. Try to read it all. It does not takes any side. Also points that the most useful discussions are those that are completely opposite. That is what I call it a win-win. LOL, do not tell me that you are using the same uncertainty points that are commonly used against any kind of FTL but this time against Quantum Turing machine? Haha, this is hilarious.. So your hard strikes against me are all about vocabularity and english?You know, I will take a lot more to responce each of these post if I need to search how to translate each word instead to just remplace them with something that I know. Yup... maybe you should keep your responces focus in physsics. I know that light speed can not be broken. So to know all the demonstration of einstein theories will not change the fact that light speed can not be broken. Learn all the demostration will help me to understand other implications that the theory must have, but I also can read about all the other implications and still know them without make a single calculation. Of course my knowledge would be discrete and meanwhile I dint adventure out of my discrete frame of topics, I will be fine. In case I do, I always can search for the results that I am looking for. And about what I tell you earlier: "More information is always equal to "less chance to be wrong" Use information instead knowledge is the correct approach. We can never know if the information that we receive is true or not, we can only measure its source and attach a level of trust to that information. So more information you have, it will reduce your chance to be wrong. Is like drop 100 coins to the floor, you can estimate that close to the 50% of the coins will be face it head, If you drop 100000 coins that estimate accuracy increase. You need to go to the page 2, but the whole interview is good enoght. It also propose some critics in page 3. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/warp-factor?page=0%2C2 This is another note: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/08/harold_sonny_white_warp_drive_faster_than_light_secret_physics_debunked.html There are some other critics to its experiment and papers here. http://excursionset.com/blog/2013/7/23/dump-the-warp-core I am not. First, point me the source of White´s papers that show how thin is this bubble, for the 700kg example of negative energy, also I would like to know how big this bubble is and what speed reach. Second, try to find a source where it said that all quamtum effects does not represent any obstable trying to make a negative energy bubble that travel faster than light. THe fact that causality in GR is still not very well detailed or understood, it does not give you the chance to ignore or avoid all implications that possible carry. Ok, I will accept that before start this discussion, my level of skepticism about the warp drive idea, was very high. Now I am pondering possible scenarios where this become true. I change my way to see it, NO. I remain sceptic until new conclusive data come from this. This video encloses very well my previous idea of how this is beneficial for NASA. This does not remove the fact that the Q-Thruster technology might reach some practical implementation and that Harold White reasearch about warp drives may help us to understand more about our universe.

Ok, can you elaborate please? In the big bang we had only high energy density, how we end with all visible matter? I understand that braking is not the correct word.. Help me here, You have a warp drive ship, you open the door, now you are inside the ship (bubble). Then you need to start "move" (is ok that word?) to go some where (that is the point dont you?). What I dont understand. Is how go through from static state, to move state, then to static state again.. If you want to change direction, then you have also a change of state. (Really sorry if I am not using the right words). So my stupid brain, tells me that I need inject some kind of energy into the system to change those states.. If not, it will be like a PM machine? Is this correct, or my concern is just stupid? It really does, but like I tell you, I never hear such claims from nobody else. I never mention comunication, I said: Why to know the state of an entaglement particle said something about the other? If you were read that would save you the time to write the common experiment that is mention over all internet. And from your first sentence seems like you are saying that the observer one is entanglment with the particle 1. Also your last sentence said identical, but when you measuring you are changing the state of both, so if your O1 measure p1 and it see that its state is negative (just for saying) then if O2 measure p2 its state would be positive. But how you explain this using the principle of locality? The fact that we know that is a propertie of quamtum mechanic well understood, it does not mean that we know why it happens or why is like that. I know, I was mention that we can not discard that maybe when you entanglement 2 particles, they become the same particle. A particle can be in many places at the same time. This maybe is a clue about our basic understanding of the real shape of the universe. What if string theory is correct? That there is other dimentions so small that we can not see it, but that particles can move enter in them and go out. What are you? Why I need to take your word for granted when I dont do that for anyone else. If there is concense by the other hand, that is a different story. Inside from our frames of reference were our theories work. Here you are in the edges of our frames of reference, where many theories collide. Where a deeper understanding of our universe is needed. So in the 60s we had the theory of everything? wow, great. So you can explain me how the universe is form, what is out there, we have parallel universes? there is infinite universes? each one has their own properties? how many dimentions are? What is time? We live in a 2d universe and our existence is just an holographic representation? Can I be the first to call all other scientist and tell them that we already discover the theory of everything? So it is in the same status than warp drive then? I am agree, but that is still a theory that was not be verified. So? Ok, I follow you, this is intriguing. I guess you could answer these questions also when the first "solid" quamtum computers arise, not only becouse their superior process power, but like they actually work using quamtum effect, they are perfect to emule them. So in this case you will not need mathematical tools like Feynman or yang-mills. My theory is true, I will tell you more about this, but is "classified". Regardless, if there are only some theories that are true (of course the ones that that you choose) what are your thought about the holographic principle, and their relation with the information. I complement that reading a lot. If I am wrong, I recognize and I learn. What is the issue? For that reason I like so much discuss, is a win win. More information is always equal to "less chance to be wrong". The key details of their experiments and theories are always "classified". So nobody can repeat the process or made their own calculations. Make a research about this. Hear what critics has to said. When I look for information I always try to hear both sides. The one who defend some idea, and the ones that attack them. Then I choose. Becouse to confine energy is such densities at so low scale, demands it. Or maybe I have the wrong idea of the scales from previous works, so send me the paper when it said how thin this burbles needs to be? Except that this would cause all kind of paradoxes. Also violates causality.. When the first vehicle break the sound speed, was not any physsic law prohibiting that. It was not in the 90´s when the warp drive idea gain popullarity?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am still waiting the K2 details about my question over PM. What I dodge? For example, You said now formulas exist.. There is consensus... How I need to responce to this? Really, I just dont find the words. See, you make your own interpretations just to said something.. how we can discuss like this? You invent your own definition of sceptic with your own level that correspond to me?. You said that I made claims about PM. Where I did that? I understand that my english is bad. But I take very care of the words that I choose. I said "seems" like PM. And I am not defending this theory, so the guy that is making the claims is k2. And is ok. My job like critic of Warp Drive is to defy his ideas. When I defend my posture about Beamed Sail Propulsion, I was the one that I need to prove the things that I was saying. And that is how it needs to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, that is pretty much my posture. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am too tired to answer this.. XD It will be for the next post. So he wons the k2 science medal? May I won one? Yes?? please.. please? May I? I read a lot.. I deserve one.. What you said? I guess I need to be agree with you to gain one... Damm it. But there is still time to that. Talking serius, I never accuse him to not contibuting to discussion, another misinterpretation, I acuse him to distort my words. And I encourage him to instead just taking side, to contribute to the discussion answering the thing that you dint do. Or maybe explain them in a way that I understand. In some parts I make jokes, this is not to offend nobody.. is just to try to make this discussion more entertaining.

I dint want to extend in that, but the inventor claims that he was found how the brain makes possible to locate songs using a sound of reference generated by the ears (that some times is audible)that use it to create interference with the outcomming sound, so its device generate this sound reference with some integrated circuit to help the 2 mipcrophones located in a binaural artificial head to record the sound in the same way that we listen. If you hear some holophonic recorders with headphones you will find that the sound is amazing, he work with all biggest musicians, NASA and even the military department was interested in make some kind of helmet for troops. After all those big oportunities he never get nothing concrete. He said that everyone want to steal their discovers, some conspiracies of Sony to protect their dolby stereo patent, etc. He never want to show others how his device real works. But in his patent it does not mention nothing about an interference circuit. It was just a binaural head more realistic that the average. Here is some old interview to him. Hey, we are discussing, not fighting, so if you had some important thing to add or you can answer my questions be my guess, you are welcome into the discussion. But nobody needs a bodyguard here.I am just being skeptic. If we wanna talk about science we need a bit of that. Is the only way to discriminate information. If you dont, you are just another medium repeater. And I dint make ANY CLAIM! that is my posture. I am not make a claim until I am 99,999% sure about the things that I am saying. When I talk about things that I think, I use the word OPINION. So stop misrepresenting my comments. In this case, the guy of "claims" it will be K2. Why I need to explain that? My postute always was "there is no consensus yet", nobody prove it, there are just theories. And I never said that reducing to formulas is not enoght.. PLEASE STOP SAID THINGS THAT I NEVER SAID.But the formules that we have only make predictions about some stuff, not about what we really need to know if is possible or not. YET. ??? Yeah, it doesn´t. Like I said, if you want you can add some usefull words or explanations to this discussion, in other case, just let us to keep this discussion in peace. PD: Edit: I will answer you later K2.

But you dint answer my question, when you have such amount of energy confined in a smal space, you end with matter due to pair production effect. So this will be negative matter? Call it like you want, the same happens with harold white´s work, some places is mentioned q-thruster, others warp drive. Really? you need to mention the basics principles of Alcubierre Drive? This is mock? I guess I was clear enoght. It does not matter what effect produce.. You change your state many times, to make those changes you need to put some energy into the system. How it brakes? You said that is free falling, but you need to stop the free falling. How you do that? Then you need to point to another direction and move again.. Another change of state. How do you move the "matter and negative energy" to produce one effect or the other? Is not that a change of state? It does not need energy imput?? If that is not a PM machine.. Then I could not find any other example of a PMM. In that case, I am the "less wrong", becourse you believe that you understand more. Is not outdated. So you can talk for hours? Explain quamtum entaglement effect, not just the formule that preddicts that. Explain why it happens. Why to know the state of an entaglement particle said something about the other? Becouse is the same particle? becouse they are connected? I look in internet for those problems for years, nobody knows the answer. They just know that happens and it needs to be accepted. (is a propertie of the quamtum world. But all scientist said that they dont know why! To answer this, we need to really know how the universe really is. Its topology, all of it. We need a theory of everything, String Theory, if some day is prove it. In a lower frame we have Quamtum Gravity. So dont tell me that we understand QM. The same happen with gravity. What is their cause? what is their basic particle? The graviton? how it is? You know.. Quamtum effects start to be notorious for a group of molecules. "The equations of Yang–Mills remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei." That is a lot bigger than plank lenght. First, not me, or you, or nobody can said nothing about the universe topology, Because we dont know! There are just theories, hundreds of them. My theory, is that the limit of the universe is the light speed. If you press attention, all round about that. Is the key of all answers. Quamtum gravity already made some calculations about how it will look a black hole from that theory points of view. There is not singularity. if you start to think, all the things close to the event horizon are freeze in time from an external observer. After that point, in a way.. you can said that the time is reversed. Or not reversed, forwards in other plane. From the things inside the black hole, The begining may look like the singularity (big bang) making the whole time and space. And what can produce all that? The speed of light with its cosmic censorship mechanic. Is this the true or just another farie story? The answer is, "we still dont know." I have all that perfecty in mind. the amount of money that NASA gave to White was very small. White is a very weird scietist becouse he never show his data or reasearch to other people. He said that is "classified", he make some talks once in a whilea, last one was in the starship symposium 2013. Like always, he explain the same thing that every knows about warp drives, and then explain that he is trying to test that. And that is it! When they asked specific questions about his experiment, or his theory.. He said that he cant not give more details becouse is classified. You know how weird is that behevior inside a scientific comunity? What is Nasa winning with all this? Publicity. The Nasa name is mentioned in plenty of notes with this topic, so when they ask money to goverment, they had a little more support from the scyfi comunity who represent some voters. Some years ago, I was very interested in new kind of 3d sounds. I did a really big reaseach (I read almost 600 pages of that), also I meet her niece. Some time after I exchange some emails with him. Then I found their patent in europe of his invention, and it was very different from what he claims. In fact he just improve an old method. I found many like him over the years, the same behavior arise, hide some things and talk about the same thing. Etc. That is the conference when I read that many made some particular question about its method, and he dint want to said. If you are trying to test something, or werever, you want that as many people like you can repeat that process to see if their reach the same results. Nobody will remove your credits like inventor. But this is not happening here. The other paper that you send about geodesics, explain the warp drive from the time reference, also calculates some other things, but it does nothing to do with quamtum mechanics or other stuff. I also read a note in century dreams, that describe how a Warp Drive ship will look from one external observer on the docks. First you will see the ship just appear from nothing, then you would see the ship arrive and going in reverse. Then again it disappears, an you see the ship go, also in reverse. I dont know if the universe will be ok with all that.

Sorry by the delay in the responce. Not much free time this weak. Ok, that is a name that I can recognize About the math, I can follow you by parts.. Some questions arrise, but with my lack of time right now.. I will just make you loose your time becouse I am not taking the moment that I need to see this with more attention. This is confusing, becouse Harold mention 700kg of negative energy or matter. In case that is energy, why it use KG? I know that you can measure energy by kg of matter using E=mc2, but in that case... The amount of energy that you have plus the small scale where it needs to be confined. By pair production effect you had matter. In this case.. Negative matter? So in this case then Harold is looking for something more related to the Zero Point Energy, that is different from Warp Drive or alcubierre Drive. I guess he calls it Q-Thruster.. Is this correct? I also remember a note where the interviewer made a question to some influential scientist related to scyfi technology; if they need to put their money in Warp Drive or ZPE, what they would choose.. I guess almost all (or all, not rememeber) choose ZPE. So is the same or is not the same? Maybe you are right. But I knew that I was read in some place where the dominant condition was not mentioned. In this paper is discussed if Cassimir effect in fact violate "or not" those conditions. And it only mention the weak and strong. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0510052.pdf I learn in discrete mathematics, that many laws or properties that seems inclose some other, they always had some examples like exceptions. Is called strong, becouse is the property which covers more, not just becouse the other properties are 100% included. Ok, if is like you describe, that you generate the bubble, then automatic gain a 10x light speed until you jump of the buble.. then... I would understand that is different from a PM machine. But if you said that you can go from stand, to 10k light speed and then brake and accelerate again. IDK.. seems like a PM machine. But you are right.. This topic is too complex for me (and I would said for almost everyone), maybe either White might not even know if what he is trying to do is a PM machine. Is difficult to see becouse there is so many physsics notions that we need to clarify first. Ok, I would need more time to look into this and make a propper responce. But you said like "very sure" that quantum mechanic is ok with global causality meanwhile we still do not understand much about quamtum mechanic. We can predict and understand some quamtum effect. But we are in the same position that Newton was with gravity. He could measure and predict it. But he never understood what it was. The same happen here, we have the entaglement effect, looks almost magic becouse we dont understand the topology or the real cause of what we are witness. "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." And what we know about the true topologic form of the universe? Depending the theory or the approach that you choose, you will have a different shape. Some people found a lot of similitudes between black holes and the universe using the "Maldacena Conjecture". About your Schwarzshild Bubble, is an interesting idea. But still can not imagine that happens. When I find time, I will put an eye into that. I cant give you a good answer right now. If I could, I would make a bet with you to see if in 10 years like you said we would have a full understanding of warp drive. Why Harold White is alone in all this between all the great scientist over the whole world? If his reasearch would look so promises like you point, it would have a lot of other scientist following their steps. That is how science works. What are the results of their experiments? You said that warp drive is the only thing that will worth. I can said that free energy is the only thing will worth. What I gain with that? First we need to prove that it works. Like fusion engines, beamed sail or any other real concepts to said that "it will worth". I see many theories try to attempt to break the light speed, just with particles or using some shortcuts that seems to work. But they always find that the universe is manage to prevented. Is like a safe mechanism. So the only that I can tell, if that in some moment we find a way to break that safe mechanism. It will not be easy. By "not easy", I mean 500, 1000, or 10000 years. Maybe never, Who knows. (this is just my opinion, so is worthless in this discussion) I still need to read all the things that you send me. when that happens, I would be able to going on with this discussion.

I know that you need differential equations, but I dont know if I follow you when you said "hyper-trigonometric solutions" LOL.. What?? XD Here is a paper where is explained how to calculate ISP in relativistic rockets, all the math demostration, no just the final formula. Also wikipedia explain very well how to calculate the differents variables. And like some guy said some post earlier, if you had into account the relativistic effect of the fuel consumption, then you can not use that variable to calculate other relativistic variable. So you just apply the relativistic effect once for each variable that you want to obtain. So I dont understand where these hyper-tri... solutions appears. Energy and matter is related, so is not the same thing? If we dont know nothing about the negative matter, then we dont know nothing about negative energy too. About the Casimir Effect is predicted by the quamtum theory, in my opinion has nothing to do with negative energy like the one that we are talking about. It produce something that we can call like a negative force, but I guess there are just similar words used to describe very different concepts. I am not sure about that, where it said that the violation of strong condition imply the rest? About cassimir effect, we still do not understand very well the effect, so maybe there is something missing in the equation that it would balance it. All about warp drive seems like a perpetual motion machine, so in that case would violates the law of conservation of energy. Causality is about information.. All the things we learn about quamtum experiments and the latest theories, locate the information like true concept, the only thing that matters. But this one, can not travel faster than light. Is like the whole universe was made to prevent this. Inside of the bubble, you carry information. So the causalities effects needs to be had into account. Also, if you had this, you could escape from inside of a black hole.. Or escape from this universe.. Is this correct? I dont know. I dint read the whole Harold paper. So how thin it is then? The fact that any small scale is rule by quamtum mechanics and the fact that you have also a gravity force that in this case is so strong like other forces imply that we need a new science to said without shame what could happen there. How do you exit if that is the case? You open the window and jump out side? XD Where do you read about this? You really can not compare the technical difficulties of other interstellar methods with warp drive. I am agree with some of your thoughts, but I am tired of read each star trek fans talking about warp drive like a breakthrough that is around the corner becouse they read some sensational title in some publication or comment that imply this. When we talk about real concepts of interstellar travel, we are talking about materials, models, designs, energy, know physsics, practical implications, acuracy limits, etc. But when we talk about Warp Drive, what are we talking about? Really... You still need to convince me about the "solid theory".

About the constant acceleration, relativity and propper acceleration. I still dint do any math respect to that.. But yes. I share your words. That seems right. When I was talking about constant acceleration, I was thinking more in (constant energy propulsion) and their relation to propper acceleration. That still elude me. How I said, I still dint do the math. With regard to Warp drive being an "absolutely solid theory", I guess we have different definitions about what is solid. Just to mention that we need a kind of matter that we dont know what it is, or if exist. Maybe is just regular matter of another universe or who knows. Second, it violates all three energy conditions (strong, weak, and dominant), and the well stablish concervation of energy of thermodynamics. Also casaulity and other not so well stablish laws. If that is not enought, also ignores all possible effects due to quamtum mechanics.. After all, to reach that kind of energy reduction, it also make the bubble so thin like the prank scale.. So I guess quamtum mechanics had something to said abour that. Then there is all the other issues like how to stop the ship, becouse we can not send any signal outside of the bubble, then radiation issues, and all practical nightmare of how can you make the whole thing. Therefore I would not call that a solid theory. But well, saying that, I have no trouble that someone want to spend time trying to understand a little more about the theory principles. We never know what amazing things we can discover of such experiments.

Easier? Dont tell me that you really believe that we are close to discover how to make an Alcubierre Drive transport.. Here is Harold´s paper , it seems less seriuos than any farie tale story. I can not prove it.. But this is going nowhere.

Great mod! Love it.. The only thing.. The toroidal radius seems kinda short to provide a noticeable artificial gravity. But that is it.. This mod looks awesome. I will test it.

I dint knew that kind of notation. Seems usefull. So how do you calculate? you just multiply by the lorenzt factor or what do you do? This mean that we can have a proper acceleration? This is what Carl Sagan was talking about when he said that we can reach the center of the galaxy in X time (i dont remember) with a constant acceletarion of 1g?

Why you dont ask where all the military budget is going and for what? Is ok that everyone is concern how they Tax are spending. But really bothers me that everyone just look in how much money goes to science proyects instead look the real problems. Just to said that only 1 year of military budget is higher than these last 50 years of nasa (this include all the space race!). "It costs $1 billion more than NASA's budget just to provide air conditioning for temporary tents and housing in Iraq and Afghanistan" Here is the entire US budget, is harded find NASA budget than wally. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/16/wait-how-big-is-nasas-budget-again/#.UsVMDfQW3wA And this is the whole nasa budget, then you need to keep your eyes in just the US part from the space station.

I just want to point the most important answers in my opinion. Talking about kinetic energy, time dilation or energy require to get the speed of light. I guess all this questions are incomplete if we dont specific how close to C we are talking about.. There is a big difference between 99% and 99,9999999999999999999999999999999% But well in case this crazy Cramer´s idea would be possible some time, then I guess is the best approach to exploit the speed of lights advatange. http://www.analogsf.com/2012_05/altview.shtml

Until SQUAD do not implement a new aerodynamics model.. I dont see the point to this.

"KSSR" can we keep our races and countries out of ksp similarities?? Please.

i see no problems with KAS and robotics in case that squad allow procedural parts in the future to reduce the amount of parts in the menu selection. But Kethane?? What is kethane?? Oxigen? water? kerosene? what?? It makes me remind the tyberium resource from command & conquer. Please, I want real resources. I hope it ends being close to the old resource chart made by NovaSilisko and Harvester. Novasilisko left long time ago. I'm worried that maybe he has been the science guy of the game. Weapons and FTL... seems like these stuff go on the hand. This is a space program!! Who you wanna kill?

Ion engines must be with less thrust and more ISP, but the thing that Squad needs to add is a propper warp time mechanic to these kinds of propulsion.

Yeah, I open a discussion about the same thing here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/51390-Procedural-Parts-(The-best-way-to-improve-the-game-experience-) Many before me also mention similar suggestions. Also with tanks you would we capable of choose "fuel type". All this changes will improve the game performance (loading time and frame rate). Also it will extend the amount of parts with many other benefics. Is the way to escape to the count part problem, when we are in the position that we can not add more parts without decrease the game performance or the amount of time that you are looking at in the menu part selector. Why squad does not make any comments about this.. still eludes me. If squad show some time of attention to this, it will be easy to organize a procedural mod project with many modders involve (guided by squad members) to start remplace the main parts like tanks for procedural, so squad in the mid time can focus in other game problems.

Heh, what a concidence, I found and see the same video 5 min ago Yeah is a really good demo. I would show this to my brother that he was exceptic when I told him that a vessel can rotate or move (no delta V) like it wants with a gyroscope.

Ok you are right. Of course it can be a horizon even without a singularity. I made a mess with the vocabulary. And how I can not deal with this problem from the singularity point of view, becouse once a horizon event is form our theories break. About the neuntron matter example, I start with a 100 solar masses star, in this case, the material is transformed into pure neutron and after that it will compress to form a singularity. Is more, I was totally agree with K2 definition, but I dint see it from that point of view. The universe like some others is a good example.

Very tricky. I am not sure what ZetaX was trying to said, but I guess both think similar. Suddenly.. that is good term to explain ordinary daily events, but not so good for physsics. Is like to said we have a big bang and suddenly we have the universe like we know it. How much time this "suddenly" takes? Lets try to clarify this with some examples. Lets imagine a massive star with 100 times the mass of our sun. in some moment the fussion reacion pressure and its iron core collapse against gravity, so the molecules that are more close to the center starts to squeeze until a new kind of matter with only neutrons is form (I am avoding all details of this process of course), after that even the new neutron structure can not stand the pressure and in the center a subatomic black hole arises from planck scale growing until its corresponding radius depending on the amount of matter that su.ck into. Of course the whole process maybe takes seconds or less. But let me remind you that in one second there is an infinite number of moments that can not be ignored. However in your stand, you guess that a black hole with radius that is aproximate to the star mass appears from nothing? Or maybe a smaller black hole with a particular size appears and then start to grow? What is that particular size? If there was a particular size like that it would appear in some of the many equations already studied. Is clear enought this time? This a good way of disagree without loosing votes , you should consider a career in politics like science adviser. You make it sound so easier.. You stop to picture the practical scene? Well I will take your word that you spend less energy in the feed that you gain from the matter that you are introduccing.

Sorry, I had to resurrect this topic, becouse I am feeling all mighty. Lol, what are you talking about Kege? Derail the topic? I guess my question was very inside of this topic. But well, if you dont wanna talk, I will understand.. snif snif. . . . . . . I am still here... lets said that "it can work", can you give more details how you will balance this? with examples.