Space Ship Propulsion methods (was Rant on!)

Gordan Bobic <gordan@> wrote on 15 January 1998 08:28
Leaving aside the disbelief needed to read a SF novel and wearing my
Physicists head for a moment I would say that a lot of people are 100%
certain that FTL is not possible. Same goes for things like hyperspace and
bending space.

Hyperspace seems to rely on the idea that our 4-D Universe lies embedded in
a higher 5-D space. Hyperspace is then travel along the 5th Dimension, which
is compressed normally. As was pointed out in another list I read, there is
no reason for The Universe to have more than 4 Dimensions. This negates
hyperspatial travel.

Bending space is of course a trivial matter, you just need a lot of matter
to bend space. Something the size of a Galaxy or Quasar produces a
reasonable effect on nearby space, gravitational lensing and all that. There
are certain engineering problems in a space ship carrying a Galaxy or Quasar
(even if in a compact form) around with it in order to bend space.

Dave "never let reality get in the way of a good idea though" Barlow

Bring me my Broadsword | http://www.sartar.demon.co.uk
and clear understanding | BBb Bass player extraordinaire

Previously, Dave Barlow wrote....
I was always lead to think that hyperspace involved opening rifts in the
fabric of space/time, either into another dimension and then another one
back again or into our own but at a different point (ala the crumpled ball
of string theory Sam Beckett likes so much).

The easiest (although a little slow) method probably would be to just have a
series of wormhole passageways linking bits of space?

Chris

---

chris@ #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.instituteofcorrection.org.uk/

"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")

Chris Turner <chris@> wrote on 15 January 1998 12:46
This is the way I visualise the thing as well, hence the idea of our space
embedded in a higher dimensional space, bad choice of language by me. There
is a serious researcher who has suggested something along these lines. The
idea is that there was one Big Bang but many inflationary events. This
allows you to have a Universe made of interconnected bubbles. We simply live
in one such bubble. This was highly theoretical and not generally accepted
as valid amongst the Cosmology community. A nice idea but little bearing on
reality. This is not to say he is wrong though.
a
Dr. Kip S. Thorne is actively working on precisely this idea. There was a
Horizon documentary last year about it. Also read "Black Holes and Time
Warps, Einsteins outrageous legacy" by Thorne, to get more details. I am
half way through chapter one and ny head hurts already.

Dave "reality is stranger than fiction" Barlow

On Thursday, January 15, 1998 12:47 PM, Chris Turner
[SMTP:chris@] wrote:
read,
in
another
No. There is a difference between a parallel dimension and a parallel
universe. This diference is often overlooked or misunderstood. A
diferent dimension is a different dimension which we cannot normally
percieve in our universe. It is a part of OUR universe, and it is,
for example the 5th dimension. Dimensions are just about bending
time-space - not traveling to parallel universes.

OTOH, a parallel universe is a completely different universe. An
alternate reality if you wish. There is a theory that in every
infinitely small unit of time, an infinite number of parallel
universes is created, because every particle can interact with any
other particle in different ways. For example, a universe very close
to ours may only differ right now in the position of only one
electron. But, in billions of years of interaction, this can cause a
chain of other interactions/events which will make this alternate
universe progressively more different.
Yes, but this is effectively what a hyperdrive/warp drive is - it
creates an artivicial wormhole, or at least something very much to
the same effect.

Gordan

On Thursday, January 15, 1998 12:21 PM, Dave Barlow
[SMTP:thed@] wrote:
1998
anyway...
Hmm... Consider - how do you bend 4-space in 4-space? You would need
another dimension (direction?) to bend in into... Maybe...

Gordan

WARNING.
This message is quite long, and very weird. If you read, and understand it, you
will gain unique insights into the way my mind perceives the universe.
This is not necessarilly a good thing.
There's no reason for it to have any more than 3. I assume you're referring to
"Time" as a 4th dimension, which is a highly dubious concept. Equally though,
there's no reason for it not to have any number it feels like. I see it as
equally likely to have six, as anything else. We just don't know.

The Star Wars Hyperspace seems to exist sort of in the same space as normal,
er, space. Note Han Solo's comment about Flying through hyperspace not being
like dusting crops. One mistake and you could bounce too close to a supernova
or something. So you have to be careful, and plan out your route in advance.

Of course, Hyperspace could easilly have obstacles in it anyway.
If we go with the "Travelling along another axis" theory then there's a danger
of your ship intersecting with other 3D objects further along that axis, before
you drop back into your own 3D space.

To people watching in those other 3D spaces, you would just blink into
existence, and blink out again, real fast. Of course, if your axes didn't
correspond correctly, they might just get a glimpse of a cross-section of you,
wizzing across the scenery.
I'd be worried about hitting things.
Just as well Space is Really Big.

It's also going to be really hard to throw yourself into that other dimension.
Think about it for a second.
Imagine you're a 2D object trying to throw yourself into a 3D space.
You have nothing to push against. You can't do it.
You need an external force exerted from that 3rd axis to get you going.
So nothing we can do in these three dimensions is going to get us up along that
elusive fourth axis. We have to wait for a passing, er, thing. A hyperspatial
wind, perhaps.
This has bugged me for years, in a lot of different series.

For combat at really high speeds (Like warp) you have to assume that the ships
are SO far apart, that their relative angular velocities are quite small, so
you CAN track the thing in a fairly normal viewfinder, although you rely
entirely on sophisticated technology to actually hit the thing, given how damn
far away it is, and relatively small.

And for things like the Falcon/Tie fighter duel outside the death star, you can
assume that this was at RELATIVELY slow speeds, as they were busy working out
the coordinates for hyperspace, and stuff.

Must go home and read GURPS-SPACE, which is full of this sort of analysis.

Starting from scratch, you COULD say that lasers, etc. tend to spread out with
distance, so that by the time your laser hits the enemy ship, you've got a beam
the size of Pluto to try and swat it with. That would help, when it's
travelling a few thousand miles/second (but not much).
Grr.
Don't like this.
One half of your point would have the PERCEPTION of being younger, but it
plainly wouldn't actually BE in a different time.

I'm afraid I'm not a believer in time travel. It only works (to my mind) if you
perceive as the present as a 3D plane traversing a 4D object. This throws the
concept of free will, etc. right out the window, and I don't like it.

Call me arrogant, but I like to think of myself as an independent being, not as
an extrusion of that 4D object called the Universe. Personally I think we've
got lots of physical dimensions, but Time's not one of them.

BTW.
Almost none of the above opinions have any basis in scientific fact.
I just like them.


Dominic.

"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try
the one I've never tried before." [Mae West]

Dominic Thomas said:
They are though. You can send a really precise atomic clock with the
astronaut and leave one on earth, and without either of them
malfunctioning, they will tell you they've got the right time even
though they're different. Time is relative....
EXCEPT in the example I've given, where it CAN'T be a plane because
the astronaut is now the same age as his son because time travelled
slower whilst he was moving fast. 2 people have got to the same time
and place but taken different distances, speeds, and different
ammounts of time getting there.

Essentially, the way I understand it, the ship was travelling at near
light speed through SPACE, which makes it travel less fast through
TIME.
Time is nature's way of stopping everything from happenning at once.

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control.

This proves that "things" slow down when they're moving really fast.
ie. The isotope degrades at a slower rate when travelling at near light speed.
The neurons (or whatever) travelling across the brain of the astronaut move
slower, so he perceives time as moving more slowly than his son does back on
earth.

"Time Travel" in the sense I don't believe to be possible, involves someone
vanishing from the present, and reappearing in a different time.

If you sent your astronaut with one end of an enormous length of string,
then when he came back, you could gather all the string together, and it
wouldn't have any gaps in it. The end back on earth might have degraded a bit
more, but that's because the ends that were travelling faster, slowed down on
an atomic level.

Dominic.

My thinking is usually pretty good; unfortunately I tend to do it after my talking,
by which time I've generally destroyed all basis for further conversation.

[Hyperspace is 5 dimension snipped]

I have fairly major problems with the shortcut through 5th dimensions
theories myself. The major one being that by definition dimensions
are orthogonal. These things always work better with a diagram so
here goes. Lets say, Antony the Ant is a one dimensional creature.
He wants to get from point A to Point B.


A----------B

The distance is 10 dashes. He will have to travel at least 10 dashes
in order to get there. He can make it more by traveling backwards
and forwards, but he'll have difficulty doing it in less.

Bertha the Bee is a two dimensional creature. She also wants to get
from A to B. Lets say Bertha uses a two dimensional route.

C-----------D
| |
| |
| |
A-----------B

She goes ACDB. You'll notice that she is still has to travel 10
dashes in the AB dimension. She can't avoid it. Whats more she's
managed to travel further by using her extra dimensional abilities.

Admitidly Antony won't have seen her making the trip, but she will
still have traveled the distance.

The principle can be extended as far as you want.

For those that need it spelt out. Assuming Newtonian Physics holds,
moving into a 5th dimension, won't help you much. You'd need
to move into a universe with different universal constants. Ie
where the length CD is different to the lenght AB. Such a universe
in all likelyhood would be very bad for your health.
Well assuming Newtonian Physics holds, you could throw something down
the axis, and thus propel yourself up. Assuming that there was
something there to push against. And assuming that what ever your
pushing against doesn`t object.

Later,

---

Adam Hattrell, Support, Cimio Ltd. adam@

Yes!
A man who's paying attention.

Therefore one can only speed up travel by using an extra dimension if:

a) Light can travel faster in that other universe, and so can you. There could
be things in this 3D universe of ours that slow us down, which we're just not
aware of.

or

b) Space is curved, so that by travelling in that extra dimension, you can take
a short-cut.

Compare this with the 2D creature walking 10 dashes along the paper, and the 3D
creature who notices that the paper is curved, and buggers off across the gap.

Either, or both of these could be possible.
No. You can't throw in a direction if you can't move in it.
Hold a coin flat on the table with your finger.
Place another coin next to it.
Try and use the coin you are pressing onto the table to flick the other one in
the air.

As someone else has pointed out, there is a very major difference between
another dimension, and another universe. My last paragraph
is a little confusing and could probably do with a new paragraph between
the 2nd and 3rd lines.
Nope, you'd have to use another universe. The dimensions are out.
Bear in mind, that if a universal constant like the speed of light was
different in that universe, you would be unlikely to be capable of
surviving it. But in theory yes.
To reiterate, no shortcuts. TANSTAAFL.
Unfortunately if the paper is curved, then the creature, isn't existing
in 2D. He's just stupid.
Your basically saying here, that if you can't move in 3 dimensions, then
it's impossible to move in 3 dimensions. Whilst your perfectly correct
it is a little circular.

If you posit that there is another dimension, then it would be
possible to move in it.

Later,

---

Adam Hattrell, Support, Cimio Ltd. adam@

On Thursday, January 15, 1998 3:37 PM, Dominic Thomas
[SMTP:dthomas@] wrote:
we're
paper,
I suppose saying that this can be done is not going to make me very
popular... ;)

Gordan

Adam Hattrell said:
Ah, only in euclidian gemoetry.
Yes, but when an airline pilot tells you the distance from london to
sydney, you have to remember that he's used to flying around our
atmosphere following the natural curvature of the earth. Our
atmosphere is (approximately) 2 dimensional but curved. If he was able
to fly straight through the centre of the earth at the same speed, he
could get there approxmately 36% faster.

If you extended this "approximately 2 dimensional" model up a
dimension or 2, the distance between A and B might be 10 dashes if
you're used to taking the normal route, but if you take a different route it might be more or might be less.

If you print it out on a piece of paper and fold the paper along a
line 5 dashes from A, you can put A and B right next to each other,
separated by only the width of your paper. Anthony the 1-dimensional
ant can then get from A to B in one step. Unfortunate;y he needed our
help to fold his universe for him.
It doesn't. Einstein has already proved that, and Hawking and friends
have moreorless proved that even einstein's model is a bit
innacurate. Newtonian physics is a nice approximation for schoolkids,
but the errors are serious enough that many space probes would have
flown straight past the planets we got them to if we had used
newtonian rather than, er, einsteinium physics.
somewhat like anthony ant stepping briefly across our 3-dimensional
usiverse when we generously folded his universe for him.
(again)
You don't need anything to push against either. rockets push against a
vacuum and still move... but you WOULD have to be able to orientate
yourself in such a way that you could push in the right direction in
the first place, which would involve rotating into the right axis
first.

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
War hath no fury like a non-combatant. -- Charles Edward Montague

Yeah, but his stepping from A to B would require him to step *out* of
the plane of the paper - something he can't do because he is, after all,
1-dimensional..
Er, nit-pick. Rockets don't push *against* vacuum. The rocket's motion
is actually a reaction to the propellant flying away from it at high
speed - conservation of momentum and stuff.

Late,

Steve :-)
_
__
(oO)
/||\

In article <7163823F2EDACF1188610000C0F06ACFF928CD@>, Dismukes S <S.Dismukes@> wrote:
[...]
Real nit pick: rockets actually push against their own exhausts. So yes,
rockets *do* have something to push against. And it isn't vacuum.

Shall we bring our rollerskates down to the carpark and I'll show you how it
works?



Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

Would you care to give an example of a system that uses non orthoganal
dimensions. And why you'd want to use it?
[Airline pilots distance to sydney snipped]
Sadly your aproximately 2 dimensional model is 3 dimensional. Extending
it leads to yet more confuscion.
Antony is still limited to the one dimensional existance. As such he'll
just wander down the same path.

Thats just nitpicking ofcourse. What you've missed is that when you
moved the paper, you moved Antony through the necessary distance (10
dashes). He still covered that distance.
Once again not true. A commmon misconception. Einstein and co proved
that there are extra limitations that Newton didn't know about. Nothing
they discovered allows you to break his rules. They just added extra
stuff like "Thou shall go no faster than the speed of light in a vacuum".
Wrong again. Newton was good enough for the moon landing and for
voyager. Einstein had naff all to do with satelites.
Well kind of. That last sentence you've quoted was plain wrong. In
my defense I'll point out that it was used to build up to the second
sentence you didn't quote, which was a poor attempt at humour.

Later,

---

Adam Hattrell, Support, Cimio Ltd. adam@

On Thursday, January 15, 1998 2:46 PM, Dominic Thomas
[SMTP:dthomas@] wrote:
read,
see
as
space.
up
No, no, no! Try pushing the edges of the paper on the table toward
each other - it bends into the third dimension! This may indicate
that by bending 3-space you are actually bending it into another
dimension(s)! :)
hit
that
you've
No. If you have a properly focused laser, it will remain very narrow,
powerful and lethal for a very long way. There is no atmosphere or
anything else to stop it or defocus it in space!
corridor...
There is no free will. If everything is based on the interaction of
subatomic, fundamental particles, then their behaviour can be
modelled, and their interactions can be predicted. Therefore,
everything in the universe can be predicted before it happens.
Howeverm you would need another universe of the same size, offset
into the future to simulate it. But, this universe, if in the same
"univers as in parallel universe" would disturb the universe so you
can't do it (I hope you understand this... ;)

But still, even though you cannot efficiently model the universe for
purposes of predicting it's behaviour, it can be said that the
behaviour is NOT random, so therefore there is no free will. :)

This means that in the moment of the big bang it was all already
decided. I was supposed to be sitting here in front of the computer,
writting this very message in thos exact words for the past 20-odd
billion years. :)
fact.
Gordan

I'm no expert, but I thing Uncertainty Principle, and
possibly Chaos Theory, would disagree with you there. :-)

James H

On Friday, January 16, 1998 6:32 PM, Hanley F
[SMTP:F.Hanley@] wrote:
same
20-odd
That is fair enough, but as far as the ncertainty principle goes...
It says that you cannot determine at a single point in time the
particle's position, and it's energy. However, even though we cannot
measure it, it does have both! This means that we cannot predict what
will happen. But that still doesn't mean that it is not already
decided!

Gordan

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Gordan Bobic wrote:
No! We can't measure it because the act of measuring it changes it.
Without being measured, each particle exists in every state it possibly
can simultaneously, and only when it is observed does the probability
waveform collapse into a single event.

This throws a randomness into the whole equation. There is no way to
predict which particular waveform will manifest itself. However, the laws
of probability are still operative. This means we can predict things that
happen on a larger scale better than we can predict things on a very small
scale. (See Schrodinger's cat for more explanation.)

This whole hypothesis has been proven by sending single photons through a
diffraction grating. Although only one particle crosses the grating at
any one time, the picture built up over time is the same as that seen when
many photons travel through it simultaneously. This means that each photon
is in fact interfering with itself, showing that all the positions it can
occupy are being 'virtually' (if you will) occupied before it can be
observed (by hitting a light sensitive screen for example.)

This is why sub atomic particles are said to have the properties of both
waves and particles.

This also means that absolutely (and I mean absolutely) anything has the
ability to happen in this universe. If a series of extremely improbable
quantum events occur, you could find yourself turned inside out for no
reason, or find that you've moved 3 feet to the left. Or the woman/man of
your dreams could spontaneously appear next to you. Or a new and hitherto
unthought of type of particle could manifest itself in your ham sandwich.

The fact is that events in this universe are, and have been proven to be,
completely random. So you're wrong.

If you want more details, see a physicist. I'm sure I've mashed this
explanation up enough.

*---------------------------------------------*
| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

Maybe "for all practical purposes", or when taken en masse for statisical
analysis. But when it comes down to it, I rather think each particle is only in
one state at one time. We just don't know what it is.

Thats common sense, and however convenient it is for physicists to juggle with
figures based on the theory that it's multi-stated, they're still just using
that as an imperfect model on the real world.

Ah, well, that's your problem, see :-). How the hell is anyone going
to understand Uncertainty Principle if they rely on common sense! It
isn't common sense for a tennis ball to fly through 6 foot of concrete
either, but in the sub-atomic parallel, it is perfectly possible! :-o.

On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Hanley F wrote:
I concur. Common sense is a myth - everyone has a different perspective,
so something that is a fundamental belief to one person (so affecting
their 'common sense') can be complete nonsense to another person. See
religion vs. religion, religion vs. science, science vs. science, etc.

I mistakenly thought that I'd quite lucidly stated that the laws of
physics were the laws of quantum physics taken en masse to provide a
rough idea of what's going on. Quantum theory seems, and has been proven,
to be real. The fundamental laws gouverning what's going on. They don't
seem to be the rough model.

You just can't accept that something can't be solid. You have difficulty
(and it's nothing to be ashamed of) conceptualising a universe where a
particle doesn't have a definite position. You want the microscopic
universe to rely on the same laws as the macroscopic universe, and you're
desperately mangling concepts and ideas to keep this belief. I suggest you
either read up on the subject, or ignore it totally.

On another note, how about this for a whacked out idea explaining
supernatural events:

I've stated that absolutely anything is possible according to quantum
theory, it just being a matter of probability. We also know that the
probability waveforms of any event do not collapse until observed. One
branch of physics also states that every particle is in fact linked to
every other particle in the universe. (Don't ask me to explain it, the
physicist who told me about it didn't quite understand it himself.)

So, who is to say that by observing some event with a strong belief, we
don't control the probability outcome? So often, seemingly impossible
events occur because someone has 'faith' or strong belief. This could
easily explain curses, fakyrs, and even UFOs.

It could also explain why so many people with completely different ideas
about how life works can still exist and prosper in the same universe. To
a certain extent, life works in the way you believe it does...

Unfortunately, this turns success in life into a battle of wills, and I've
never had particularly good willpower...

Oh, and the linking of all particles at a fundamental level could go some
way towards explaining group consciousness.

We know that our brains can learn how to do things without our conscious
mind being able to explain the learning process. We could have picked up
on these quirks of the universe on a subconscious level... We wouldn't
have to know how they worked, like we don't have to know how a car works
to drive it... So when our brains did something using these effects, and
nice things happened as a result, we learned to hone these skills... Or at
least, some of us did...

Any thoughts?

Ben.


*---------------------------------------------*
| URL: http://www.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk/~benjamin/ |
| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

Well, I 'd be willing to l give it the benefit of the doubt.
But then, I have a habit of going for such theories, just ask me about
ghost one day for an example. (don't bother asking over the e-mail).

James Hanley, Ghost Buster.

In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980119150812.9967A-100000@>, Pringlespanion <benjamin@> wrote:
It's back to the "particle in the interferometer" problem. The particle is
the only one in the interferometer, but it still knows about both the slits,
and can therefore build up an interference pattern.

A similar problem happens if you close one of the slits when the particle is
in midflight. The particles in the other slit know straight away, and
behave accordingly.


Theories include:

* the particle is so big that it passes through both slits - so every
particle must be as big as the whole Universe (see the Bloater FTL Drive in
some of Harry Harrison's books)

* the particle knows about events outside it's space-time cone (more of this
later) and so is in some way "clairvoyant".

* there is a sort of "ghost field" that tells particles what to do. It
"passes through us, it shapes us and guides us, it binds the Galaxy
together". (Did I remember that right?)
It would also explain why precognition is unreliable. A computer capable of
understanding all this information (say extrapolated from electron noise in
that fairy-cake) would need enough memory to store all the information about
the Universe - and so would have to be bigger than the Universe it is
located in ... including itself. Any simpler systems would only be able to
get a fraction of the information - and so would not be reliable.
Get trained, then.
Or random movement in subatomic particles (which are not really random at
all - it is just a description of the whole Universe, and we don't have big
enough brains to understand.)
It's a lovely idea. A really cute and fluffy idea, guaranteed to give a
warm, comforting glow on those dark, atheist nights. It gives the newage
types (pronunciation guide - replace 'N' with 'S') a chance to claim that
they are scientists, too: and waffle on about subatomic physics in a knowing
way as an explanation for why their special crystal (only $4.99) bears
enough power to Save the World for the Dolphins.

Or do you mean "does anyone here believe it?" I certainly am willing to
entertain it after a few drinks, as older IFIS members may recall. But then
you should see the riff-raff we entertain after a few drinks...



Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

Dominic Thomas <dthomas@> wrote on 15 January 1998 14:46
in
which
is
to
though,
I'm sorry Dom but there is a very good reason the Universe is 4 Dimensional
with time as a dimension. Dimension in this case refers to the number of
data points you need to express when an event takes place. The whole
breakthrough of Special/General Relativity was the realisation that space
and time where closely inter-related as spacetime. It is generally thought
that Time is seperate to space and immutable, but once you assume they are
part of the same thing you get profound side effects. If you where to travel
at some speed, with me stationary, and we done some basic measurements, like
measured how long a second was or how long a meter rod was we would not be
able to agree on an answer. Your second would be longer than mine and your
rod shorter than mine if I done the measurement, and my second longer and my
rod shorter if you done the measurement. This is because space and time are
inter-related as expressed by a set of equations called the Lorentz
Transforms (plus the Einstein and the Stress-Energy Tensors). In order for
this to work you first of all have to assume that the only things that are
fixed in the Universe are the Speed of Light and the Laws of Physics
anyhting else is Relative. The rest follows. note this is a one chapter
description of a field on which whole books have been written about. Tons
and tons of web based resources about this as well.

By the way, this has been expermentally verified now.

There has been some work that shows the universe has 6,9,11.5 or 245
dimensions but most have collapsed. These ideas mostly come out strange
theoretical considerations about what happened in the Big Bang and are at
best pure guess work.

I have a mail lying around that explains this in a lot more detail than I
care to get into.

Dave "Relativity makes the world go round" Barlow

another method of interstellar travel I quite liked, whether it is possible I leave to you physicists. I am only an itty bitty historian.
The ship in the book moved through time only while
remaining motionless in space. Galactic movement provided
the space travel element.
...............................................................................
clyth@
In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter
how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted...
D. Adams Life, The Universe and Everything

----------
From: Dave Barlow
Sent: 15 January 1998 15:53
To: IFIS CHAT
Subject: Re: Space Ship Propulsion, battles, Time Travel

Dominic Thomas <dthomas@> wrote on 15 January 1998 14:46
in
which
is
to
though,
I'm sorry Dom but there is a very good reason the Universe is 4 Dimensional
with time as a dimension. Dimension in this case refers to the number of
data points you need to express when an event takes place. The whole
breakthrough of Special/General Relativity was the realisation that space
and time where closely inter-related as spacetime. It is generally thought
that Time is seperate to space and immutable, but once you assume they are
part of the same thing you get profound side effects. If you where to travel
at some speed, with me stationary, and we done some basic measurements, like
measured how long a second was or how long a meter rod was we would not be
able to agree on an answer. Your second would be longer than mine and your
rod shorter than mine if I done the measurement, and my second longer and my
rod shorter if you done the measurement. This is because space and time are
inter-related as expressed by a set of equations called the Lorentz
Transforms (plus the Einstein and the Stress-Energy Tensors). In order for
this to work you first of all have to assume that the only things that are
fixed in the Universe are the Speed of Light and the Laws of Physics
anyhting else is Relative. The rest follows. note this is a one chapter
description of a field on which whole books have been written about. Tons
and tons of web based resources about this as well.

By the way, this has been expermentally verified now.

There has been some work that shows the universe has 6,9,11.5 or 245
dimensions but most have collapsed. These ideas mostly come out strange
theoretical considerations about what happened in the Big Bang and are at
best pure guess work.

I have a mail lying around that explains this in a lot more detail than I
care to get into.

Dave "Relativity makes the world go round" Barlow

On Thursday, January 15, 1998 4:36 PM, Lyth Chris
[SMTP:Chris.C.Lyth@] wrote:
Umm... So instead of moving yourself, you want to move the rest of
the universe... An interesting idea...

Gordan

----------
From: Gordan Bobic
Sent: 15 January 1998 17:35
To: Lyth Chris; 'IFIS CHAT'; 'Dave Barlow'
Subject: RE: Space Ship Propulsion, battles, Time Travel

On Thursday, January 15, 1998 4:36 PM, Lyth Chris
[SMTP:Chris.C.Lyth@] wrote:
Umm... So instead of moving yourself, you want to move the rest of
the universe... An interesting idea...

Gordan


No. The stars etc. are moving all the time. If you stand still and maintain exactly the same position relative to the universe, then all the stuffmoving throygh the universe will hit you in the face.

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Lyth Chris wrote:
OK, so assuming you travel backwards or forwards in time, that only gives
you one dimention of movement... Besides, you're stuck in another time. If
you then go back to your own time, the universe snaps back to the same
configuration it was, and you're back in the same place. Although I
suppose that's not too much of a problem. I mean, unless you go back in
time far enough for all the planets to be unformed, or forward far enough
for the universe to suffer its inevitable entropy death, there'll still be
something there interesting enough to work with...

.
| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

On Thursday, January 15, 1998 5:41 PM, Lyth Chris
[SMTP:Chris.C.Lyth@] wrote:
Not quite. Only a very small amount of stuff will hit you. And if you
are in the center, nothing will ever hit you because the universe is
expanding outwards...

Gordan

One minor nit-pick. There is no center to the Universe. The general idea is
that the Big Bang created space which, is expanding, it did not create
matter that expanded into space. This leads to utterly daft idea that the
Big Bang happened everywhere.

Dave Barlow

that the Big Bang created space which, is expanding, it did not create
If nowhere existed before the big bang happened, then surely, the big bang happened everywhere, seeing as everywhere was such a small place
...............................................................................
clyth@
In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter
how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted...
D. Adams Life, The Universe and Everything

----------
From: Dave Barlow
Sent: 16 January 1998 08:50
To: IFIS CHAT
Subject: Re: Space Ship Propulsion, battles, Time Travel
One minor nit-pick. There is no center to the Universe. The general idea is
that the Big Bang created space which, is expanding, it did not create
matter that expanded into space. This leads to utterly daft idea that the
Big Bang happened everywhere.

Dave Barlow

Nit-pick alert! the phrase "If nowhere existed before the big bang" is
wrong.
to say "before" implies time, which was created with the Big Bang. Thus
we cannot speculate on such things as "nowhere". However, I do consider
such nit picking to be petty. So, in answer to your point, your
virtually right. the minor hitch is that (as it was explained to me) the
Universe was always infinitely large from the Big Bang onwards. So, it
was created infinitely large and expanding, and is still infinitely
large and expanding.

Dave Barlow wrote:
That is fair enough, but still, the universe is expanding all around you
and AWAY from you, thus meaning that your surrounding is further towards
the edges than you are. Hence, all this will accomplish is moving
further away from something, rather than toward something...

Gordan

Yea, but the center is everywhere.

James.

In article <7163823F2EDACF1188610000C0F06ACF0106DBF1@>, Hanley F <F.Hanley@> wrote:
Imagine more of our wonderful two-dimensional beings, now living on the
surface of a balloon. Add a continuous stream of gas into the balloon, and
it gets bigger. Both beings notice that everything on the "surface" of the
balloon is leaving them, and can even measure the ratio of the distances to
speeds of this effect (which, since it is caused by the expansion of their
bubble, they might call the Bubble Constant, or something.) Neither
of them are at the centre of the expansion, but both appear to be - because
they cannot perceive that they are living in a curved, two-dimensional
space.

It will also be noted that for them the "future" and "past" are equivalent
to the third dimension - one outwards and one inwards - and that neither of
them actually exist. Massive objects on the surface of our balloon will be
held back by inertia (if the expansion rate is changing, which it will be)
and you are back to your "stretched sheet" model of gravitation, except that
you have included the funny time effects of gravitation, too.

What you haven't done is included predestination. You have limited
time-travel to localised bulges and dents in the balloon: so you can travel
in time, but you have to take the whole Universe with you.

I will offer an alternative thought elsewhere...



Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

I genuinely hope that they're wrong.
Mainly, because of this whole fixed-future vs. free-will thing.
Thankfully, the human race has a long and glorious history of getting things
wrong.
I thought we'd said that light could travel SLOWER than 'e', just not faster.
So in glass, etc. it's moving slower.
I'm just saying that IF there is something out there in our 'vacuum' that
we haven't detected yet, that's slowing light down, then perhaps one could
travel faster by moving to a place without that something.
Improbable I admit, but possible.
TANSTAAFL ???
Yet we have other posts which say that to creatures existing in a circle, it
appears no different to a straight line, except that you arrive back where you
started eventually.
Or, to agree with you - we're stupid.
We haven't noticed that space curves in that extra dimension.
I was saying that until the 3 dimensional creature receives external input
from the other dimension, then they have no way of perceiving it, or travelling
in it. So even if we're absolutely positive that there is a 4th physical
dimension, we can't do anything about it until something arrives with a
component force in that direction.

(Keep an eye out for objects flashing into and out of existance real quick.
Next time you see one, grab hold of it, and see where you end up.
Once you're a 4-dimensional creature, the world is your oyster.
You can go anywhere, see anything. No wall can keep you out, you just walk
around it.)
Damn. I should have stayed longer in the pub last night.
I'd have liked to see this.
Maybe your table's got bumps in it.
That's only because the paper is actually a 3D object, and the forces aren't
exactly in the plane. If the paper was EXACTLY flat, and you pushed it EXACTLY
along the table, it would just stop. You'd actually be trying to compress the
paper along its length.
Or, moving up a dimension - take two walls and ram them into each other. They
don't suddenly warp out into a fourth dimension.

Dominic.

"I don't mean to sound cold, cruel and vicious,
but I am, so that's the way it comes out." [Bill Hicks]

Dominic Thomas <dthomas@> wrote on 16 january 1998 13:14
thought
are
things
In this case the experimental evidence is in favour of Relativity. Things
like time dilation and mass increase with speed as well as mass to energy
conversion (all predicted by Special Relativity) are measured every day in
particle accelerators. The concept of spacetime curvature due to a mass
`bending' space, which we feel as gravity, is routinely measured by high
energy Astrophysicists looking at binary pulsar orbits, accretion disks that
match the predictions for black holes and so on and so on.

One of the main things about relativity is that it is designed to enforce
free will. You are not allowed to have an effect preceding the event or any
other form of time travel. Problems with the theory have been found but this
only points out the fact that we don't know everyhting and more complex
effects are yet to be found. The really wierd thing is that the current
ideas of how the Universe (inflationary universe) was formed relying on FTL
being possible. The Universe expands by a factor of > 10^50 in about 10^-30
seconds (that's fast). Just to confuse people this is allowed by Relativity
as Relativity says information can not travel faster than light (in vacuo),
as opposed to nothing can exceed c. So you can go FTL if no information is
passed.

The theory behind inflation is based on another idea that has been
experimentally proven as well. So it looks like it may be possible to travel
at FTL but you would need as much energy as there is in the Universe and you
create a new Universe while you are at it. So that about wraps it up for
ships travelling at FTL.

But we don't now the whole story, as you rightly point out.

In fact using time dialtion as an effect gives you a limited form of time
travel. If we built a ship and took off at 1g continuous acceleration to the
other side of the galaxy we would get there in about 100-200 years (ship
time) but a few million years would have elapsed outside the ship. (making
numbers up off my head but it illustrates the idea). Travelling to nearby
stars becomes feasible but only if we can build ships that can accelerate
continuously, that takes a lot of fuel.

The rest of this post Dominic replied to was written by some one so I'll let
them reply.

Dave "phew" Barlow

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Dominic Thomas wrote:
Why can't the future be both fixed and unfixed? Imagine you stepped
outside our dimention vision, and saw 4D space. You would see (if you
could comprehend it) many still, strangely stretched carrot shaped objects
(Things have a tendency within time to start off small and grow larger, or
at least more diffuse - just look at the universe itself...) OK, from here
we seem to have a fixed future, and things would seem to be destined. I
agree that's nasty, so let's look at it another way. Imagine a computer
drawing a picture line by line. Each line of the picture is put through an
algorithm (and some random elements thrown in for good measure) where the
next line depends on what occurs in the present line. Now, look at it in
1D, with the previous line being erased every time a new one is drawn. You
see a constantly changing pattern, evolving, shifting (OK, not very
interesting, being one line and all) and you can't predict it. Each new
line is a step forward, a free choice, a mystery.

Now, look at the whole picture. Now you go up a dimention, your
perspective changes. You see a picture, unchanging. It may be a very nice
picture, but there's no room for freedom, change...

It's all a matter of perspective. I think I have free will, and I can't
prove otherwise. That keeps me happy. And even if time travel is proved
possible, I have my faith in my free will to keep me going. Hell, it's my
choice, isn't it?

(I have to pause now to stroke my goatie, rearrange my dreads and smoke a
another joint, maaaaan.)
Well said. And who, as a race, are more self centred and stupid than
humans? Potentially any other creature on the planet, I believe... Apart
from hive creatures maybe.
I've heard theories that our universe is like that. Now THAT scares the
hell out of me.
Yeah, we know that light bends space already. We know that whatever angle
you view light at, and whatever velocity you are travelling in whatever
direction, it's measurable speed remains constant. The universe simply
bends around it to compensate. And what with gravity being demonstrated
in all the popular science programs as having the same qualities as a
heavy weight on a suspended rubber sheet, I'm left thinking that the space
I inhabit is extremely malleable. I'm just glad there seems to be some
really strong force holding it together... Heh heh heh.
But take enough matter, smash it together, and hey presto, you have a
black hole. And I've heard of scientists (Oh, those scientists do a lot,
don't they?) hypothesising that a black hole actually creates another
universe within itself. Well, what would you do with a near infinite
amount of mass? But where does it go, I hear you ask? It warps out into
other dimentions. Hah.

Actually, I rather like this idea. It gives a kind of evolutionary bent to
the universe. Just as successful creatures breed and multiply, and just as
successful thoughts, ideas, philosophies and religions breed and multiply,
so does the universe. People sscratch their heads over why the universe is
so perfectly set up... Fractional, and I mean miniscule, changes in
velocities, universal constants, etc. at the creation of the universe
would have led to the universe being very short lived indeed. I like the
idea that it is 'just right' because it is part of a chain of evolution.
If you imagine a multiverse where anything can happen, this seems all too
likely.

It does really bring home to me the idea that we are very, very, very
small. Just a few bunches of chemicals trying to keep themselves going for
as long as possible on a rock in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe
that could well be part of something infinite that we have no
comprehension of... Nor ever will be able to...

It's then that I start empathising with amoeba. Dangerous thinking...

Hope I haven't bored you with hours of meaningless ramble.

What am I saying? What's the list here for?

I was going to quote a relevent passage from one of the Hitch Hiker's
Guide books, but it temporarily eludes me.

Lucky you.

Ben.

--------------------------\
| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

Previously, Pringlespanion wrote:
(Snip!)
That would be the bit about the Total Perspective Vortex. An image of
the universe extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake, with an invisible
dot on an invisible dot marked "You are here". Talk about making you
feel small.

Later,

Steve :-)
_

"I! Finally! Figured! How! To! Punctuate! Kirk's! Sentences!"

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Dismukes S wrote:
I thought of that, it was too obvious. I'm gonna be niggled by that
thought until next I read the series, I guess.


| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Nick Waterman wrote:
Oh, there are other ways to get around it. Like, time travel is possible,
but cannot interfere with causality, so time travellers are invisible,
soundless and massless... I hate this idea. A universe with such a
tolerant nature towards being twisted around like a 60's hipster surely
wouldn't mind a little time trouble... It would just be an extension of
the same thing, after all.

Oh, and the infamous Sam with the String... He could only travel during
his own lifetime, So the information can never go backwards.

Or can it - What if he were to inform other people of his invention?
People older that him, or people he meets when he goes far back? Could
start off a nasty little chain of events there.

What the hell am I talking about?
Sorry about the wrong address, Nick. I haven't slept in 2 days, and my
mind is turning to mush.

I mean, just look at what I've been writing.

Ben.

G'night folks. You can all breathe a sigh of relief now.


| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

On Friday, January 16, 1998 1:14 PM, Dominic Thomas
[SMTP:dthomas@] wrote:
generally
light
one
Yes, but even so, how much would you gain? 10%? 20%? 100%? We are
still looking at more than two years to get to the NEAREST
neighbouring star system...
back
This is all fine, but perhaps we are "just stupid" and cannot
percieve the other dimensions...
or
real
I didn't demonstrate this, but generally, if you try ramming a coin
with another coin hard enough, it will bounce off. You will now say
that this is in practice - it does not happen if the table and the
coins are "perfect". But, space is not perfect either - it is curved
(or it can be). This means that this may provide the imperfection
required to "punch" us off the 3-dimensional plane... Just a little
food for thought...
toward
See above...

Gordan

Dave Barlow said:
I thought some jolly clever chap had managed to prove that there had
to be an odd number, and it had to be greater than 4, and for some
reason 7, 13, or 21 was most likely, with 9 also being possible?

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
Mediocrity thrives on standardization.