NASA is developing warp drives..

[Bitcoin Oz]

http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/17/nasa-developing-warp-drive/

Im amazed at how many things we now take for granted were imagined by the creators of star trek. 

[1714646798]

1714646798

[FirstAscent]

Read centauri-dreams.org regularly to really understand what's going on. Dig deep into the back articles.

[FirstAscent]

And sure enough, the latest blog entry from centauri-dreams.org discusses the warp drive work: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=24665

And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

EDIT: And I'd like to point out that centauri-dreams.org is the furthest thing in the world from a tinfoil hat site. It's responsible journalism on the subject of space travel. Great blog.

[adamstgBit]

I love star trek!

7 of 9... assimilate me!

 

[FirstAscent]

I love star trek!

Not to put a damper on Star Trek, but consider: You step into the transporter to be beamed down to the planet. Your body is scanned, and you are reconstructed, particle for particle down on the planet's surface. You're now down there, complete, with synaptic connections in your brain exactly as you were ship side, your identity and memories in tact. All is well.

Except the transporter failed to vaporize you ship side. The transporter technician sheepishly approaches you, guiding you off to the side, muttering some technical jargon about particle to energy converters failing, herding you into a rarely used compartment with the auspicious title on the panel next to the door: "Reserve particle to energy converter".

But in all honesty, the Alcubierre drive is far more interesting than a television show.

[FirstAscent]

And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

Interesting paper.

[Bitcoin Oz]

And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

Interesting paper.

My mind is blown.

[Foxpup]

Except the transporter failed to vaporize you ship side. The transporter technician sheepishly approaches you, guiding you off to the side, muttering some technical jargon about particle to energy converters failing, herding you into a rarely used compartment with the auspicious title on the panel next to the door: "Reserve particle to energy converter".

Nonsense. Transporter operators have much higher ethical standards than that. Nobody vaporised the duplicate Riker created by accident when a second transporter beam was activated when the first one became dangerously unstable, then the transporter operator forgot to deactivate the first beam, causing the poor guy to be rematerialised twice. Both Rikers were allowed to go on with their lives, though no record is made of society's reaction to the news that transporter operators can duplicate people just by pressing a button. (Probably because, due to the aforementioned ethical standards, transporter operators would never duplicate people deliberately. Oh, no. That absolutely never happens, right? Right?)

[FLHippy]

http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/17/nasa-developing-warp-drive/

Im amazed at how many things we now take for granted were imagined by the creators of star trek. 

We're actually WAY ahead of the star trek universe when it comes to technology. Communicators? Smart  phones kick their ass. Data storage? Star trek had floppy disk looking things and they had to put two or three in. Better computers are already here.

Now, what I really want is transporter technolgy. the TSA can eat a bag of dicks when I get my own personal transporter.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Except the transporter failed to vaporize you ship side. The transporter technician sheepishly approaches you, guiding you off to the side, muttering some technical jargon about particle to energy converters failing, herding you into a rarely used compartment with the auspicious title on the panel next to the door: "Reserve particle to energy converter".

Nonsense. Transporter operators have much higher ethical standards than that. Nobody vaporised the duplicate Riker created by accident when a second transporter beam was activated when the first one became dangerously unstable, then the transporter operator forgot to deactivate the first beam, causing the poor guy to be rematerialised twice. Both Rikers were allowed to go on with their lives, though no record is made of society's reaction to the news that transporter operators can duplicate people just by pressing a button. (Probably because, due to the aforementioned ethical standards, transporter operators would never duplicate people deliberately. Oh, no. That absolutely never happens, right? Right?)

OMG Ben Bernanke has a money transporter!

[Bitcoin Oz]

http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/17/nasa-developing-warp-drive/

Im amazed at how many things we now take for granted were imagined by the creators of star trek. 

We're actually WAY ahead of the star trek universe when it comes to technology. Communicators? Smart  phones kick their ass. Data storage? Star trek had floppy disk looking things and they had to put two or three in. Better computers are already here.

Now, what I really want is transporter technolgy. the TSA can eat a bag of dicks when I get my own personal transporter.

I cant wait for the replicator to get here. All that land we use for crops can be converted to growing trees 

[FLHippy]

We're actually WAY ahead of the star trek universe when it comes to technology.

I cant wait for the replicator to get here. All that land we use for crops can be converted to growing trees 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110071535.htm

We're getting close

[lumos]

they are actually investigating microscopic wormholes and seeing how they can be amplified to create macroscopic wormholes. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4017

Q. Sonny, I don’t understand how you get macroscopic warps with small amounts of energy. It seems the coupling of mass/energy to spacetime curvature, the factor G/c^4 in the Einstein equations, governs how much mass is necessary to warp spacetime on a given lengthscale. How do the optimization procedures you mention alter this basic scaling? It seems you are saying you have found a way to reduce the effective G/c^4.

A. To echo your observation, yes spacetime is really stiff. The findings suggest that if you oscillate the warp bubble, you can reduce this stiffness, and hence the energy required. I will explain this connection in the upcoming paper.

[myrkul]

And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

Interesting paper.

Son, you realize you're quoting yourself, now? That's less sane than usual.

[FirstAscent]

And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

Interesting paper.

Son, you realize you're quoting yourself, now? That's less sane than usual.

Perfectly sane. Consider, in conversation: one might say, "remember that paper I mentioned? I read it. It was interesting." Clear and concise utilization of forum quoting mechanics. As for you, have you watched one of those films yet?

[myrkul]

And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

Interesting paper.

Son, you realize you're quoting yourself, now? That's less sane than usual.

Perfectly sane. Consider, in conversation: one might say, "remember that paper I mentioned? I read it. It was interesting." Clear and concise utilization of forum quoting mechanics.

The forum also lets you edit previous posts. The same effect could have been achieved by editing your post and adding "Edit: Interesting paper." As a bonus, that doesn't add a post that adds nothing to the discussion, nor does it make you look as though you're responding to yourself.

It is an interesting paper, though.

[FirstAscent]

And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

Interesting paper.

Son, you realize you're quoting yourself, now? That's less sane than usual.

Perfectly sane. Consider, in conversation: one might say, "remember that paper I mentioned? I read it. It was interesting." Clear and concise utilization of forum quoting mechanics.

The forum also lets you edit previous posts. The same effect could have been achieved by editing your post and adding "Edit: Interesting paper." As a bonus, that doesn't add a post that adds nothing to the discussion, nor does it make you look as though you're responding to yourself.

It is an interesting paper, though.

Existing followers of threads do not go back and reread preexisting posts. Just like any conversation or dialog, new information is presented in linear form. My new post was 100 percent the proper way to present new information I had. You are wrong.

Isn't it ironic that all of your contributions to this thread are not relevant at all. At least I have provided some interesting links. But you've forced me to defend my actions also, further cluttering up the thread. I think you're just upset I haven't been posting in the Politics forum, and you feel starved for attention, and thus have resorted to stalking me here. I suggest you go watch a movie. Here's some suggestions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109868.0

[myrkul]

Existing followers of threads do not go back and reread preexisting posts. Just like any conversation or dialog, new information is presented in linear form. My new post was 100 percent the proper way to present new information I had. You are wrong.

Which would be 100% true, if it were actually new info. As it was, you looked like an idiot. As usual. Your inability to let a subject drop is what is cluttering up this thread, along with your habitual double-posting and now, self-quoting. All the second post did is reveal that you had not read the paper before recommending it. Why would someone recommend something they haven't even read? Your credibility as an opinion source has slipped another notch, further ensuring I will not pick up the books or the movies you suggest.

[FirstAscent]

Existing followers of threads do not go back and reread preexisting posts. Just like any conversation or dialog, new information is presented in linear form. My new post was 100 percent the proper way to present new information I had. You are wrong.

Which would be 100% true, if it were actually new info. As it was, you looked like an idiot. As usual. Your inability to let a subject drop is what is cluttering up this thread, along with your habitual double-posting and now, self-quoting. All the second post did is reveal that you had not read the paper before recommending it. Why would someone recommend something they haven't even read? Your credibility as an opinion source has slipped another notch, further ensuring I will not pick up the books or the movies you suggest.

Fucking retard. Go away unless you have something to contribute to this thread.

[myrkul]

Fucking retard.

Yes, but enough about yourself. You were saying something about contributing to the thread?