PDA

View Full Version : Hyperspace engine?


Geck-o-Lizard
06-01-06, 15:02
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

Your thoughts?

tlr online
06-01-06, 15:02
Goodness-ruddy-me :yik:

JamesFKirk
06-01-06, 16:32
I won't believe it until I see it. That's a technical and physical nonsense.

BX16v
06-01-06, 16:44
Hmm, Hope they are a bit better at science than Drs. B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, who claimed to have achieved cold fusion in the eighties!

This bit worries me most...

Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster

How do they know the speed of light is faster in another dimension :confused:

Besides, they haven't even proven that the current laws of physics are wrong!

I'd love to hear what Prof Stephen Hawkins thinks about it.lol :D

JamesFKirk
06-01-06, 17:02
I'd love to hear what Prof Stephen Hawkins thinks about it.lol :D My word exactly. What "other" dimension (which is a physical nonsense since dimension means space axis (x,y,z)

interstellardave
06-01-06, 17:14
I'd love to hear what Prof Stephen Hawkins thinks about it.lol :D

And Stephen Hawking's (whom I think you're referring to) understanding of the universe would have been ridiculous nonsense 30 years--heck probably 10 years ago! As science moves forth many geniuses are forced to abandon their beliefs--and that's what it is, belief. Belief that theories are wholly correct--until they are proven not be. The only time real-world progress is made is when someone makes an intuitive leap. Perhaps these people are on to something?

rachkitten
06-01-06, 17:47
it would be cool if they could travel to a different universe though :D

Draco
06-01-06, 18:14
Anyone ever seen Event Horizon?

BX16v
06-01-06, 18:20
Thank's for correcting my spelling :tmb:

And Stephen Hawking's (whom I think you're referring to) understanding of the universe would have been ridiculous nonsense 30 years--heck probably 10 years ago!

I wouldn't use the words rediculous nonsense myself. Especially where he's concerned, as he tends to have the science/maths to back up what he says. That said, he's as entitled to be wrong as any other human ;)

As science moves forth many geniuses are forced to abandon their beliefs--and that's what it is, belief. Belief that theories are wholly correct--until they are proven not be. The only time real-world progress is made is when someone makes an intuitive leap. Perhaps these people are on to something?

I agree with the last part about real-world progress.

Are you familiar with the term pseudoscience? Time will tell if that's what it is eh? :)

interstellardave
06-01-06, 19:34
You misunderstand what I've said... genius is genius and Hawking certainly qualifies. The problem is that all these people have had math to back up their theories--except all of their theories are based on limited facts. As we learn more, certain ideas have to be discarded, even S.H.'s! The thing is that there is always room to progress. People build upon their predecessors work. It doesn't really discredit them--they are as smart as they can be for their time. Einstein was a genius, but look how fast many of his ideas have been overturned!

Catlantean
06-01-06, 20:44
Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension
It's this part that puzzles me the most. Suppose that the rest of the theory is true and that a strong enough magnetic field really will catapult the spaceship into another dimension. The article doesn't say just how large is "large enough", but I figure it must be pretty massive. So massive that it'd really mess up the ship's electronics and crew long before it created some kind of magnetic black hole for the ship to slip through into...by all I know, an afterlife :p

Fishy. And I'll keep saying "fishy" until someone gives me the math that proves me wrong :p

BX16v
07-01-06, 01:00
Some further reading for anyone who's interested in this story...

www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html)