NASA May Have Invented Warp Drive (A.K.A. : Perfect engine for a 1000yo human?)

[username18333]

"Clear and present danger" concept may not even be part of the first billionth of second of a thought inside an alien mind.

An interstellar body might consider that criterion in the defence of a less capable civilization against a more capable one.

[Spendulus]

... Then it does not matter and we should simply do what we do, until we get hit by an artificial gamma ray burst shot from a death star far, far away....

It must merely be demonstrated, to the interstellar community, that our isolation of negative matter does not occur "in such circumstances and [is] of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that [it] will bring about the substantive evils that [an interstellar governmental body] has a right to prevent" (U.S. Supreme Court).

You first need to demonstrate the existence of "negative matter", which is impossible.

[username18333]

You first need to demonstrate the existence of "negative matter", which is impossible.

“Thrust measurements of the EmDrive defy classical physics’ expectations that such a closed [microwave] cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum,” Nasa's José Rodal, Jeremiah Mullikin and Noel Munson wrote in a Nasa Spaceflight blog.

Nasa researchers posted on the Nasa Spaceflight forum that when lasers were fired into the EmDrive's resonance chamber, some of the laser beams had travelled faster than the speed of light, which would mean the EmDrive could have produced a warp bubble.

Code:

[( 𝐩 = 𝑚𝐯 )  ⇒  ( 𝐩 ÷ 𝑚 = 𝐯 )]  ⇒  [[( 𝐯ₙ = 𝐩 ÷ 𝑚ₙ ) ∧ ( 𝑚ₙ₊₁ < 𝑚ₙ )]  ⇒  ( 𝐯ₙ₊₁ = 𝐩 ÷ 𝑚ₙ₊₁ > 𝐩 ÷ 𝑚ₙ = 𝐯ₙ )  ⇒  ( 𝐯ₙ < 𝐯ₙ₊₁ )]

negative matter is freed inside “the EmDrive’s resonance chamber” (Russon): the velocity of “some of the laser beams” (Russon) was negatively decreased (i.e., increased).

Presently, we discuss a legal matter; therefore, the "preponderance of the [circumstantial] evidence" (TheFreeDictionary) quoted above should be sufficient to decide in my favor.

[Spendulus]

You first need to demonstrate the existence of "negative matter", which is impossible.

“Thrust measurements of the EmDrive defy classical physics’ expectations that such a closed [microwave] cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum,” Nasa's José Rodal, Jeremiah Mullikin and Noel Munson wrote in a Nasa Spaceflight blog.

Nasa researchers posted on the Nasa Spaceflight forum that when lasers were fired into the EmDrive's resonance chamber, some of the laser beams had travelled faster than the speed of light, which would mean the EmDrive could have produced a warp bubble.

Code:

[( 𝐩 = 𝑚𝐯 )  ⇒  ( 𝐩 ÷ 𝑚 = 𝐯 )]  ⇒  [[( 𝐯ₙ = 𝐩 ÷ 𝑚ₙ ) ∧ ( 𝑚ₙ₊₁ < 𝑚ₙ )]  ⇒  ( 𝐯ₙ₊₁ = 𝐩 ÷ 𝑚ₙ₊₁ > 𝐩 ÷ 𝑚ₙ = 𝐯ₙ )  ⇒  ( 𝐯ₙ < 𝐯ₙ₊₁ )]

negative matter is freed inside “the EmDrive’s resonance chamber” (Russon): the velocity of “some of the laser beams” (Russon) was negatively decreased (i.e., increased).

Presently, we discuss a legal matter; therefore, the "preponderance of the [circumstantial] evidence" (TheFreeDictionary) quoted above should be sufficient to decide in my favor.

I do not think so, unless the presumption was that only the existence of negative matter would explain the observed phenomena.  But that is not the case, is it?

Russon is just a reporter, she doesn't even seem to understand physics.   

[Wilikon]

"Clear and present danger" concept may not even be part of the first billionth of second of a thought inside an alien mind.

An interstellar body might consider that criterion in the defence of a less capable civilization against a more capable one.

That would be true if a life, then becoming a 3 million year old civilization was forged from a defensive mechanism within a predatory environment. That scenario is the one life followed on this planet. That story is coded in our DNA. First Nature tried to wipe us all (just after creating us) many times over, so we don't trust Nature. Then we evolved not to trust each other as we became a tasty meal to each other. The interstellar body you are describing could very well be the one from our own making, based on our history, from the first mono cellular creature to us a 1000 years from now.

The game theory the cosmos is playing would predict the existence of a life born on a planet never hit once by killer asteroids like our planet. Maybe their planet had many small volcanoes but no super volcanoes. Maybe their planet is a moon, etc, etc. All those parameters would create a civilization that may not have a predisposition for conflict, war, doubt or the automatic suspicion of others. Maybe there consciousness is distributed across a coral like formation, or a forest.

If we are opening our mind to truly believe in any shape and form of life+consciousness we need to stop projecting our human nature across the universe as a divine substratum...

[Spendulus]

"Clear and present danger" concept may not even be part of the first billionth of second of a thought inside an alien mind.

An interstellar body might consider that criterion in the defence of a less capable civilization against a more capable one.

That would be true if a life, then becoming a 3 million year old civilization was forged from a defensive mechanism within a predatory environment. That scenario is the one life followed on this planet. That story is coded in our DNA. First Nature tried to wipe us all (just after creating us) many times over, so we don't trust Nature. Then we evolved not to trust each other as we became a tasty meal to each other. The interstellar body you are describing could very well be the one from our own making, based on our history, from the first mono cellular creature to us a 1000 years from now.

The game theory the cosmos is playing would predict the existence of a life born on a planet never hit once by killer asteroids like our planet. Maybe their planet had many small volcanoes but no super volcanoes. Maybe their planet is a moon, etc, etc. All those parameters would create a civilization that may not have a predisposition for conflict, war, doubt or the automatic suspicion of others. Maybe there consciousness is distributed across a coral like formation, or a forest.

If we are opening our mind to truly believe in any shape and form of life+consciousness we need to stop projecting our human nature across the universe as a divine substratum...

+1

Consciousness is NOT necessarily predicated on carbon, although carbon has huge advantages for creating creatures.   Creature is not requisite for consciousness.

Given the obvious implications of that, I see two general alternatives - the universe is rich in consciousness, but it exists in "bubbles", around areas such as planets with the necessary element fractions to create it.  In other words, it exists locally.    Generally speaking this implies the speed of light is a limit on propagation of consciousness.  In turn this means that the universe must be bigger than the areas which contain life or consciousness.   Note a barren rock in vacuum with diverse minerals might be much more interesting as a home for consciousness than a lush forest.

[BADecker]

"Clear and present danger" concept may not even be part of the first billionth of second of a thought inside an alien mind.

An interstellar body might consider that criterion in the defence of a less capable civilization against a more capable one.

That would be true if a life, then becoming a 3 million year old civilization was forged from a defensive mechanism within a predatory environment. That scenario is the one life followed on this planet. That story is coded in our DNA. First Nature tried to wipe us all (just after creating us) many times over, so we don't trust Nature. Then we evolved not to trust each other as we became a tasty meal to each other. The interstellar body you are describing could very well be the one from our own making, based on our history, from the first mono cellular creature to us a 1000 years from now.

The game theory the cosmos is playing would predict the existence of a life born on a planet never hit once by killer asteroids like our planet. Maybe their planet had many small volcanoes but no super volcanoes. Maybe their planet is a moon, etc, etc. All those parameters would create a civilization that may not have a predisposition for conflict, war, doubt or the automatic suspicion of others. Maybe there consciousness is distributed across a coral like formation, or a forest.

If we are opening our mind to truly believe in any shape and form of life+consciousness we need to stop projecting our human nature across the universe as a divine substratum...

+1

Consciousness is NOT necessarily predicated on carbon, although carbon has huge advantages for creating creatures.   Creature is not requisite for consciousness.

Given the obvious implications of that, I see two general alternatives - the universe is rich in consciousness, but it exists in "bubbles", around areas such as planets with the necessary element fractions to create it.  In other words, it exists locally.    Generally speaking this implies the speed of light is a limit on propagation of consciousness.  In turn this means that the universe must be bigger than the areas which contain life or consciousness.   Note a barren rock in vacuum with diverse minerals might be much more interesting as a home for consciousness than a lush forest.

A better alternative is that each individual lives with God. His consciousness is the part of him that pulls the levers in this body to direct it in its thinking and activities.

The bodies and lives of people with regard to this earthly material life is simply that of highly complex machinery in which their consciousness rides at times, just like you might get into a car and drive it.

[Wilikon]

"Clear and present danger" concept may not even be part of the first billionth of second of a thought inside an alien mind.

An interstellar body might consider that criterion in the defence of a less capable civilization against a more capable one.

That would be true if a life, then becoming a 3 million year old civilization was forged from a defensive mechanism within a predatory environment. That scenario is the one life followed on this planet. That story is coded in our DNA. First Nature tried to wipe us all (just after creating us) many times over, so we don't trust Nature. Then we evolved not to trust each other as we became a tasty meal to each other. The interstellar body you are describing could very well be the one from our own making, based on our history, from the first mono cellular creature to us a 1000 years from now.

The game theory the cosmos is playing would predict the existence of a life born on a planet never hit once by killer asteroids like our planet. Maybe their planet had many small volcanoes but no super volcanoes. Maybe their planet is a moon, etc, etc. All those parameters would create a civilization that may not have a predisposition for conflict, war, doubt or the automatic suspicion of others. Maybe there consciousness is distributed across a coral like formation, or a forest.

If we are opening our mind to truly believe in any shape and form of life+consciousness we need to stop projecting our human nature across the universe as a divine substratum...

+1

Consciousness is NOT necessarily predicated on carbon, although carbon has huge advantages for creating creatures.   Creature is not requisite for consciousness.

Given the obvious implications of that, I see two general alternatives - the universe is rich in consciousness, but it exists in "bubbles", around areas such as planets with the necessary element fractions to create it.  In other words, it exists locally.    Generally speaking this implies the speed of light is a limit on propagation of consciousness.  In turn this means that the universe must be bigger than the areas which contain life or consciousness.   Note a barren rock in vacuum with diverse minerals might be much more interesting as a home for consciousness than a lush forest.

A better alternative is that each individual lives with God. His consciousness is the part of him that pulls the levers in this body to direct it in its thinking and activities.

The bodies and lives of people with regard to this earthly material life is simply that of highly complex machinery in which their consciousness rides at times, just like you might get into a car and drive it.

I wonder if consciousness is locked by the limit of the speed of light... Could the speed of thought be its limitation instead? In one way it would be millions of times slower than the speed of light. On the other end you could project your consciousness anywhere in the universe at any time, if you can "visualize" it, meaning knowing "where" you want to be, the next "moment".

I believe consciousness needs a shape for it to communicate with other shaped consciousness simply because my mind cannot compute how consciousness can be without an anchor made with stuff like atoms. But this is my own limitation with my shaped consciousness... A consciousness without a shape can be facing me right now but I won't have the natural tools to recognize it as such...

What are we talking about again?

Oh yeah... Warp drive...

 

[username18333]

That would be true if a life, then becoming a 3 million year old civilization was forged from a defensive mechanism within a predatory environment.

It could also come to be the case if the civilization observed the barbarism of those that did.

[username18333]

I do not think so, unless the presumption was that only the existence of negative matter would explain the observed phenomena.  But that is not the case, is it?

Presently, we discuss a legal matter; therefore, the "preponderance of the [circumstantial] evidence" (TheFreeDictionary) quoted above should be sufficient to decide in my favor.

My "preponderance of the evidence" (TheFreeDictionary) exceeds that of yourself.

[Spendulus]

I do not think so, unless the presumption was that only the existence of negative matter would explain the observed phenomena.  But that is not the case, is it?

Presently, we discuss a legal matter; therefore, the "preponderance of the [circumstantial] evidence" (TheFreeDictionary) quoted above should be sufficient to decide in my favor.

My "preponderance of the evidence" (TheFreeDictionary) exceeds that of yourself.

You don't have any preponderance of the evidence, given that no evidence of negative matter exists.

Regardless, science is not decided by opinion or "a preponderance."  So do you have ANYTHING?  ANYTHING AT ALL?

[username18333]

Regardless, science is not decided by opinion or "a preponderance."  So do you have ANYTHING?  ANYTHING AT ALL?

Presently, we discuss a legal matter; therefore, the "preponderance of the [circumstantial] evidence" (TheFreeDictionary) quoted above should be sufficient to decide in my favor.

Have you not understood this to be a matter of law (here, interstellar politics) replete with the "burden of proof" thereof?

[Spendulus]

Regardless, science is not decided by opinion or "a preponderance."  So do you have ANYTHING?  ANYTHING AT ALL?

Presently, we discuss a legal matter; therefore, the "preponderance of the [circumstantial] evidence" (TheFreeDictionary) quoted above should be sufficient to decide in my favor.

What do you not understand about the burden of proof in this matter of law?

Neither is this law nor have you presented any proof.

[username18333]

Neither is this law nor have you presented any proof.

I contend that what we have discussed - the scope of the powers of an interstellar, governmental body - is, indeed, a matter of law.

[Spendulus]

Neither is this law nor have you presented any proof.

I contend that what we have discussed - the scope of the powers of an interstellar, governmental body - is, indeed, a matter of law.

I have a talking cockroach that says otherwise.

[username18333]

I have a talking cockroach that says otherwise.

Yours is an appeal to false authority.

[Spendulus]

I have a talking cockroach that says otherwise.

Yours is an appeal to false authority.

The preponderance of cockroaches disagrees with you.

[username18333]

The preponderance of cockroaches disagrees with you.

Sir, should you yourself be an extraterrestrial, your reference to "cockroaches" could be deemed brazen and offensive.

[Spendulus]

The preponderance of cockroaches disagrees with you.

Sir, should you yourself be an extraterrestrial, your reference to "cockroaches" could be deemed brazen and offensive.

We are them.

[username18333]

We are them.

Care to elaborate?