Cloaked spaceship around Mercury and a new Earth

[JeremyH]

I understand where you are going, but I still think you are giving too much credit to how well energy can be imparted to an object.

Here's an example. The machine that I am sitting next to (linear particle accelerator) takes a beam of electrons and accelerates them (using a klystron...some old RF guys will know what those are) so that they blast into a target (Tungsten). We are trying to create light/radiation from these particles (remember, E=mc^2). We do create some radiation, however MOST (~99.5%) of the energy we create is in the form of heat. This process is VERY similar to a light bulb (old style incandescent bulbs create light through thermionic emission....basically, the electrons get bunched up, rub against one another and emit a LOT of heat and some light).

We send our VERY high energy photons (and sometimes we remove the Tungsten and just hit or patients with electrons) and not a single one of them has ever felt that they have been pushed by these particles/waves.

 

[rock hard]

I understand where you are going, but I still think you are giving too much credit to how well energy can be imparted to an object.

Here's an example. The machine that I am sitting next to (linear particle accelerator) takes a beam of electrons and accelerates them (using a klystron...some old RF guys will know what those are) so that they blast into a target (Tungsten). We are trying to create light/radiation from these particles (remember, E=mc^2). We do create some radiation, however MOST (~99.5%) of the energy we create is in the form of heat. This process is VERY similar to a light bulb (old style incandescent bulbs create light through thermionic emission....basically, the electrons get bunched up, rub against one another and emit a LOT of heat and some light).

We send our VERY high energy photons (and sometimes we remove the Tungsten and just hit or patients with electrons) and not a single one of them has ever felt that they have been pushed by these particles/waves.

well thats to be expecteed, there in enrgy is motion, but at that point your bound my restraints. The objects weight compared the weight of what is moving iis hitting it.

How much do thise photons weight? if the dont weigh much, they cant move much,especially if what your trying to move can absorb any impact/enertia.
The human body can absorb alot.

For something like that, I would use an obejt lless likely to asorb the energy I'm pushing it with. Like glass, or maybe air itself.

 

[JeremyH]

How much do thise photons weight?

Nothing. They are massless...they are only energy converted from mass (for example, electrons). Again, E=mc^2

For something like that, I would use an obejt lless likely to asorb the energy I'm pushing t with. Like gas, or maybe air itself.

The problem with that is as you increase the mass of the particle, the less likely it will be to reach a top speed close to the speed of light. Gas molecules are significantly heaver than even electrons...

 

[rock hard]

Nothing. They are massless...they are only energy converted from mass (for example, electrons). Again, E=mc^2


The problem with that is as you increase the mass of the particle, the less likely it will be to reach a top speed close to the speed of light. Gas molecules are significantly heaver than even electrons...

I'm sorry, I didint mean to increas the mass of your particals.

I meant, if I was to try to "move" an object with them. It would not be an object that can easily absorb thier impact, like the human flesh can.

If would use a thin sheet of a solid object like glass, something that will not absorb energy as well as flesh, so no wood, rubber ect.



But what I mean is eventually we will be able to use energy to trasport energy.

If we can break water down into gases, and transport that energy (gas), by energy(light)to a pin point loaction. Then reunite the gases h20, we have then transported water by energy to a specific location.

 

[JeremyH]

But what I mean is eventually we will be able to use energy to trasport energy.

If we can break water down into gases, and transport that energy (gas), by energy(light)to a pin point loaction. Then reunite the gases h20, we have then transported water by energy to a specific location.

Now that sounds like a good project to me!"thumbsup"

 

[rock hard]

Now that sounds like a good project to me!"thumbsup"

easy transpot of water througout space is the main key to economic space travel. Another key is harnessing water for all its usefullness.

Full, Food, ect.

 

[Frank3]

yes, good way to look at it, but it doesnt have to be light, light is all we know that travels at that speed, but light is mearly energy. There may be many forms of energy that travel at. pr faster than the speed of light, we just cant see it to discover it.

Light is a form of energy man has currently at his disposal, which we can manipulate to some degree already, for example we can bend light.

If light is energy, and we can bend light.

we can direct energy around corners, or around planets

All one needs to bend light is gravity
The universe already does this , which means we need to learn to manipulate gravity , we already use it to change the direction of masses we send to space .

Or maybe in another dimension , gravity is stronger , and if we could shift some part of the mass trying to in to a dimension with higher gravity , we could propel it that way .
But it looks like accelerating that neutrino takes allot of energy , I hope it leads us to reverse engineer that process to get energy out of the movement of neutrinos .

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Time for some multi quote madness! :twisted:

Think of a piplene, only of energy, concentrated and direct fro point to point.

Fiber optics? Takes light (energy) and directs it through a conduit.

The energy can be consentrated, focused, pin pointed locating, allowing better resullts and usefullnenss for sending objects.

That's not making more energy, that's consolidating the available energy and making more efficient use of it.

Also, you know that we only see light as a reflection. You'll notice with those "invisible" lasers, that you will see it reflecting off dust particles or other objects in the path of the laser. Same principle with a light bulb.....you dont see the light traveling through the air, just it being reflected off surfaces.

We also only see the wavelength of light reflected off of the surface of the object, not the objects color. ;-)

So the comcentrated energy is "more" since its concentrtaed.

Nope. Take two stacks of $100 bills. One of those stacks will stay bound together (concentrated) and the other you will unbind and throw up in the air, scattering them around. Which particular grouping has more bills?

How much do thise photons weight? if the dont weigh much, they cant move much,especially if what your trying to move can absorb any impact/enertia.
The human body can absorb alot.

For something like that, I would use an obejt lless likely to asorb the energy I'm pushing it with. Like glass, or maybe air itself.

Its not necessarily about their weight, but about their size. Everything that we know of that has mass is still comprised of mostly empty space. Tiny subatomic particles pass through us and everything around us every day, not because they are fast or light, but because they can fit through the gaps in our own atomic structure.

Nothing is completely solid, even though it may seem that way to us.

I meant, if I was to try to "move" an object with them. It would not be an object that can easily absorb thier impact, like the human flesh can.

If would use a thin sheet of a solid object like glass, something that will not absorb energy as well as flesh, so no wood, rubber ect.

You don't have to absorb it, just reflect it. The problem with that is by the time you concentrate enough energy like light to have enough mass to move something, its mass will be so great that it would vaporize anything it comes into contact with.

If we can break water down into gases, and transport that energy (gas), by energy(light)to a pin point loaction. Then reunite the gases h20, we have then transported water by energy to a specific location.

That's some pretty cool thinking right there. Though the most efficient way to transport something is to pressurize and condense it...and any time you condense or pressurize a gas it turns into a liquid.

 

[JeremyH]

We also only see the wavelength of light reflected off of the surface of the object, not the objects color. ;-)

Yeah, is that not what I said?

Its not necessarily about their weight, but about their size. Everything that we know of that has mass is still comprised of mostly empty space. Tiny subatomic particles pass through us and everything around us every day, not because they are fast or light, but because they can fit through the gaps in our own atomic structure.

Actually, at the quantum level, it is all about mass and charge. Those neutrinos that pass through the earth and humans all day long do so because they have very little mass and no electric charge. The charged particles in our bodies neither attract nor repel them. The only way to detect a neutrino is when it has a direct impact with another particle. Same theory with neutrons, only they have significantly more mass.

This is the reason why I was saying earlier that I have doubts about that CERN experiment using neutrinos earlier..."thumbsup"

 

[JeremyH]

I hope it leads us to reverse engineer that process to get energy out of the movement of neutrinos .

We can already do that. In fact, your lightbulb does that all day long...only, with electrons."thumbsup"

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Yeah, is that not what I said?

Possibly. I was trying to add something to what you said. Guess it didn't come out the way I wanted it too. :ror:

Actually, at the quantum level, it is all about mass and charge. Those neutrinos that pass through the earth and humans all day long do so because they have very little mass and no electric charge. The charged particles in our bodies neither attract nor repel them. The only way to detect a neutrino is when it has a direct impact with another particle. Same theory with neutrons, only they have significantly more mass.

This is the reason why I was saying earlier that I have doubts about that CERN experiment using neutrinos earlier..."thumbsup"

Yeah, well, they're still really small and we're still full of holes.

 

[JeremyH]

Yeah, well, they're still really small and we're still full of holes.

That is VERY true."thumbsup"

 

[SVEN]

"We can travel at the speed of light if we can figure out how to stop and how to not hit anything along the way."

Not hitting anything would be tough....

1cm object hitting an aluminum slab at 6.8 km per sec (about 15,000 mph):

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/hvi_impact_sample_xlrg.jpg

Article:
ESA - Space Debris - Space debris: assessing the risk

And what we have just around Earth:

The Problem

 

[rock hard]

Time for some multi quote madness! :twisted:




Fiber optics? Takes light (energy) and directs it through a conduit.

Good start, but the focused energy source may one day act as the "optics" with no need of actually using wire,pipe,ect



That's not making more energy, that's consolidating the available energy and making more efficient use of it.

Thats exacty what I mean, but the point in which its consolidated to, receives more energy.



We also only see the wavelength of light reflected off of the surface of the object, not the objects color. ;-)



Nope. Take two stacks of $100 bills. One of those stacks will stay bound together (concentrated) and the other you will unbind and throw up in the air, scattering them around. Which particular grouping has more bills?

Not the same, the stack of bills emits no energy, consolidated energy does in fact give more energy to a specific point if manipulated correctly.

Its taking anergy and focusing it, is there more energy from the source...no
but the energy can be directed to a specific point and then "that"point gets more energy.

The magnified glass is simple enough to understand, there is no more energy from the sun, buts its focus places more energy onto a specific point.



Its not necessarily about their weight, but about their size. Everything that we know of that has mass is still comprised of mostly empty space. Tiny subatomic particles pass through us and everything around us every day, not because they are fast or light, but because they can fit through the gaps in our own atomic structure.

Nothing is completely solid, even though it may seem that way to us.

Its weight and motion combined, against opposing weight.
if I gently toss a 80lb bag of sack of concrete at you, you will catch it.

If I throw it at you, your may catch it, but your gonna move back.

same thing, but with a 1lb bag of concrete.....your not gonna be moved by its weight, or impact speed.

now take the 1lb bag and throw it at you from a potato gun...the added speed, motion is enough to make you move.

Its all weight and motion



You don't have to absorb it, just reflect it. The problem with that is by the time you concentrate enough energy like light to have enough mass to move something, its mass will be so great that it would vaporize anything it comes into contact with.

I'm not using the energy to move heavy mass, simple gas will suffice



That's some pretty cool thinking right there. Though the most efficient way to transport something is to pressurize and condense it...and any time you condense or pressurize a gas it turns into a liquid.

not condensed, vaporized, that when its its lightest.

the lighter it is, the easier to accomplish this type of transport...
if there is energy emitted from a source in room A, and the energy is being manipulated to a concentrated beam, and pointed to room B
can we possibly get gasses such as oxygen to travel with the energy, from room A to room B.

I think that is with out a doubt a real possibility to accomplish.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Not the same, the stack of bills emits no energy, consolidated energy does in fact give more energy to a specific point if manipulated correctly.

Its taking anergy and focusing it, is there more energy from the source...no
but the energy can be directed to a specific point and then "that"point gets more energy.

The magnified glass is simple enough to understand, there is no more energy from the sun, buts its focus places more energy onto a specific point.

It was an analogy, not a direct comparison, and for our purposes here it does just fine.

You have a certain amount of matter that is either randomly distributed or concentrated. If you swap "energy" for "weight" then you'll find that while both collections of bills have the same weight, the stack that is bound will have that weight more closely focused than the stack that is spread out.

not condensed, vaporized, that when its its lightest.

the lighter it is, the easier to accomplish this type of transport...
if there is energy emitted from a source in room A, and the energy is being manipulated to a concentrated beam, and pointed to room B
can we possibly get gasses such as oxygen to travel with the energy, from room A to room B.

I think that is with out a doubt a real possibility to accomplish.

Lets say you want to fill a 10,000 gallon pool that is 3 miles from the nearest water source. Would you transport the water as water, or would you break it down into its basic elements and transport it as oxygen and hydrogen?

Obviously you'll need 10,000 gallons of water, but how much of the gasses would you need? Uncompressed, of course.

 

[JeremyH]

Obviously you'll need 10,000 gallons of water, but how much of the gasses would you need? Uncompressed, of course.

2/3 Hydrogen, 1/3 oxygen

:ror:

 

[GRIMGREG]

Just steer through a nebula and you can scoop up all the gasses you might need."thumbsup"

 

[opek]

We also only see the wavelength of light reflected off of the surface of the object, not the objects color. ;-)

Color exists like God does, only in our minds. :ror: But seriously, there are no wavelengths of light that correspond to specific colors. Our mind creates that information. There is no way to know that my blue isn't your green, and so on. "thumbsup"

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

2/3 Hydrogen, 1/3 oxygen

:ror:

:ror:

I'm looking for specifics.

Color exists like God does, only in our minds. :ror: But seriously, there are no wavelengths of light that correspond to specific colors. Our mind creates that information. There is no way to know that my blue isn't your green, and so on. "thumbsup"

Yup. "thumbsup"

 

[JeremyH]

:ror:

I'm looking for specifics.

You can easily find the weight of each atom in that molecule and the density of water....the specifics should be easy to calculate after that. "thumbsup"