‘Impossible’ Device Could Propel Flying Cars, Stealth Missiles

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

with a computer at the wheel you could have high-speed merging and instead of stopping at an intersection, the spacing of the vehicles would allow the opposing flows to sort of pass though each other without stopping.

Talk about terrifying. You'd have old people dropping dead of heart attacks by the dozens. Not that I don't think it could be done, but 2 perpendiculr directions of traffic ripping through each other at high speeds (even 30 or 40 mph) would be absolutely terrifying. Let's try it out at 6 flags before we move it into reality.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill

Groups of cars that are going to a common destination could link up to form trains - zero spacing - and then break apart when they get to their final destinations.

There are railroad utility trucks that can operate on trracks or roads - they have two sets of wheels. Why can't we build ordinary automobiles like this? We could install train track in every major street and freeway.Simply drive to your nearest track and let your cars onboard computer take control until you reach your destination. It would combine the best of private automobiles with PRT.

Now that would be cool as hell, and quite feasible with today's technology. You would really only need some tracks in the road, a second set of wheels, some simple couplers, a bit of wifi to synchronize the engines and brakes, and the guy in front gets to set the speed. You could couple and decouple at red lights. You could even say that you have to decouple from one direction and recouple with the next to make turns, eliminating the hassle of switches.

The biggest advantage to this idea is that it is backwards compatible. You could split roads and have some lanes open for older vehicles and some for new vehicles only in areas where the usage justifies it, or you could share lanes with non-coupled cars without too much danger (there would certainly be inconvenience in that scanrio, but the point is that it's an option). You could also start with the most major roads, and retrofit lanes at whatever pace funding will allow, eliminating the need for a massive up-front investment because it doesn't have to go everywhere right away.

The biggest problem with many new sci-fi ideas like computerized cars/roads is that they are not backwards compatible. I don't care how great your computerized car/road work at high speeds, even one person in a non-computerized car throws off the whole equation. Just because your car can go 200 mph safely on autopilot does not mean that the jackass in the 98 F-150 isn't going to cut you off. You would have to completely segregate lanes of traffic to allow for that, and good luck getting taxpayers to ever agree to that. People whine about using tax dollars for HOV lanes and you think they're going to spring for billions if not trillions of dollars for whole new infrastructure that will only be usable by the rich (at least initially)?

Of course, flying cars wouldn't have to be backwards compatible, but I think others have covered those problems just fine, several of which would realistically be insurmountable: cost, noise, danger, cost.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Trantor

thats a big fat lie.


besides, special relativity has already been confirmed in a million of ways. If ONE prediction fails, its not the whole theory who should fall down.

It's not a lie. How dare you make accusations against my honesty. Special Relativity has not been "confirmed" in anyway, but it has been "supported" in several ways. Gravity Probe B detected what is interpreted as "frame dragging" but not at anywhere near the level of accuracy as it was supposed to detect it at. Even worse, it may not be any more accurate than any of the several other Frame Dragging detections which have already been conducted by other space probes.

The accuracy and methods of detection of frame dragging by Gravity Probe B can be explained by background interference. It is not in anyway, conclusive data in favor of Special Relativity.

Plus consider, if Special Relativity were 100% accurate, it would not clash of Quantum Physics at the event horizon of a quantum singularity. I'm not saying that Special Relativity is incorrect or that frame dragging doesn't exist or that this space drive won't work. I am pointing out that it is based on physics done by Einstein which may yet be incomplete or inaccurate. This means it may not work at all, or it may not work as efficiently as calculations are predicting. If gravity is a particle based graviton field instead of a simple relativity-like space-time distortion, then this space drive will not work at all.

The possible existence of the Higgs Boson and the research at the new particle accelerators coming online now in in the next decade, will help focus and clarify physics in this realm of the cosmos. the differences between what you believe and what my current opinion is, does not constitute ground for accusations of lies. Here is one of my many sources.

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

It's not a lie. How dare you make accusations against my honesty.

well, ok, sorry.

I used too strong words.

But you are still wrong! Specially because you sad the probe tests came back ALL NEGATIVE. Isnt that a lie? Not that you are doing it on purpose, but probably from misundestanding or poor choice of words.

after all,

tests came back ALL NEGATIVE

is a lie when you confront it with

14 April 2007: Announcement of best results obtained to date. Francis Everitt gave a plenary talk at the meeting of the American Physical Society announcing initial results:[23] "The data from the GP-B gyroscopes clearly confirm Einstein's predicted geodetic effect to a precision of better than 1 percent. However, the frame-dragging effect is 170 times smaller than the geodetic effect, and Stanford scientists are still extracting its signature from the spacecraft data." — Gravity Probe B website

I am pointing out that it is based on physics done by Einstein which may yet be incomplete or inaccurate.

well, its OBVIOUSLY incomplete, since scientists are still searching for a UNIFIED theory for relativity and quantum.

[SnyderBock]

Well, I was kind of just joking, I didn't really take your comments that hard or personally ;-) Just having some fun with it.

But actually, I was countering it with this:

A preliminary analysis of data from the Gravity Probe B satellite has confirmed that the Earth's mass distorts the fabric of space and time as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Although this "geodetic effect" has already been proven with greater accuracy through other measurements, the Gravity Probe team claim that their successful analysis paves the way for using data from the satellite to make a very accurate measurement of a second, much subtler consequence of general relativity called "frame-dragging". However, some physicists are questioning this claim and asking if the final results will be worth the probe’s $700 million price tag.

I am one of the many skeptics who think the results are in fact background interference which is being selectively isolated for data results which favor the predicted results. And it is fact, that the results were upwards of 1000 times less detailed than they were supposed to be. Part of this was mechanical failure. It does not matter the cause, the results being expected were not there.

I know it seems rather Newtonian of me, but I currently support a graviton-field theory based concept of gravity. In order to change my mind, I need far more conclusive evidence than what Gravity Probe B provided. If it had functioned properly, who knows. It did not and the evidence it produced is no stronger than anything which already existed prior to it. $700 million experiment that should have been the first conclusive, indisputable proof of relativity based frame dragging (or undeniable evidence that relativity is in fact wrong) and instead--in my interpretation--it provided neither.

I don't care if the graviton-field dirrection I currently lean is wrong. I will always attempt to lean towards the truth. Currently, my lean is more of a balance; I will quickly lean towards scientific fact. But I will always view it with skepticism and seek complete comprehension and experimentation to reinforce new concepts.

P.S.
If you admit relativity is incomplete, then you admit that to some level, it may have to be changed--in order to one day complete it. So what if a graviton-field theory could emerge which demonstrates all or nearly all the identical properties of relativity, yet instead of space-time fabric (fundamentally) it is a field of gravitons (and/ore any other particles/energy which might be associated with it). In this scenario, scientific experimentation and support for relativity, might also agree with this graviton-field theory. Of course, this should mean there should be some correlation between kinetic energy, graviton field strength and also a correlation between graviton-field strength and rate of passage of time. So essentially, as an object travels faster, it's kinetic energy would be stored as a graviton field, which would grow in intensity exponentially at speeds approach c. And thus the intense/dense graviton-field would result in some quantum slowing of sub-atomic particle oscillations, resulting in slowing of all subatomic motion and interactions which would essentially make it appear time is passing more slowly from the perspective of an outside observer. That's the basis of my attempt at unification thus far.

[SnyderBock]

Sometimes I think I know what I'm talking about, but most the time I don't.