NASA Engineer Designs a Near Light Speed Engine But Does It Work?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- Good telescope that I've used to learn the basics: amzn.to/35r1jAk
Get a Wonderful Person shirt: teespring.com/stores/whatdamath
Alternatively, PayPal donations can be sent here: paypal.me/whatdamath
Hello and welcome! My name is Anton and in this video, we will talk about a new NASA report that proposes an unusual engine design that could travel near the speed of light.
NASA report: ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20...
Support this channel on Patreon to help me make this a full time job:
/ whatdamath
Space Engine is available for free here: spaceengine.org
Enjoy and please subscribe.
Twitter: / whatdamath
Facebook: / whatdamath
Twitch: / whatdamath
Bitcoins to spare? Donate them here to help this channel grow!
1GFiTKxWyEjAjZv4vsNtWTUmL53HgXBuvu
The hardware used to record these videos:
CPU: amzn.to/2LZFQCJ
Video Card: amzn.to/2M1W26C
Motherboard: amzn.to/2JYGiQQ
RAM: amzn.to/2Mwy2t4
PSU: amzn.to/2LZcrIH
Case: amzn.to/2MwJZz4
Microphone: amzn.to/2t5jTv0
Mixer: amzn.to/2JOL0oF
Recording and Editing: amzn.to/2LX6uvU
Thank you to all Patreon supporters of this channel
Specifically, great thanks to the following members:
Morrison Waud
Vlad Manshin
Mark Teranishi
TheHuntress
Daniel Rosvall
Lilith Dawn
Ralph Spataro
Albert B. Cannon
Greg Lambros
adam lee
Henry Spadoni
Jer
Nick Dolgy
Luminger
Konrad Kummli
UnexpectedBooks.com
Gabriel Seiffert
George Williams
J Carter
Mary Kristof
Oleg Hurmak
Shinne
Jakub Glos
Lauren Smith
Michael Tiganila
Lyndon Riley
Johann Goergen
Jake Salo
LS Greger
Dave Blair
Michael Mitsuda
Russell Sears
Vinod sethi
Robert Wyssbrod
RandalM
Gordon Cooper
Tracy Burgess
Assaf Dar Sagol
Jayjay Volz
Liam Moss
Timothy Welter MD
Kai Raphahn
Sander Stols
Anataine Deva
Sergio Ruelas
Bodo Graßmann
Douglas Burns
gary steelman
Jan Šoulák
Michael Koebel
Olegas Budnik
Shelley Passage
Steven Aiello
xyndicate
Honey Suzanne Lyons
Dale Andrew Darling
James Myers
Niji
Peter Hamrak
Matthew Lazear
Anton Newman
Anton Reed
Charles Nadeau
Daniel Charles Smith
Daniel G.
Dave A
Doug Baker
Doug MacDonald
Eugene Sandulenko
GrittyFlix
Max McNally
Minovsky Man
Mr Fluffington
Paul Koploy
Sal Carrera
Victor Julian Castillo
Becky
Steven
Jacob Spencer
brian plummer
Lee Densmore
Sir David Coyne
Veronika A. Czebe
Steve Wotton
Adam Smith
Alberto Diaz Saldana
Chaos Gamer
Daniel Coleman
Jana Persson
Kearny Li
Rafael Aguila
Rock Howard
Tedd Speck
rfc1135
Vincent L. Cleaver
Claye Griffith
David Lewis
JohnTaylorWalker
Kyle eagle
Michael J Fluharty
Tarik Qassem
Scary ASMR
Arp Lee
Barnard Rabenold
Lisa Stadlbauer
Lisette Ramos-Voigt
Márton Fülöp
Reynir Guðmundsson
Rs Wlms
tom g.
Greyson Flippo
Hampton Tunis
Ivan Gallagher
Jordaen Davids
Lynn Johnson
Rob Law
Thierry Ray Jehlen Gasnier
Troy Schmidt
William Warren
Arikkat Unnikrishnan
Uwe Böhnke
Carla
Deanna Korell-Hall
Dipen Bhattacharya
Josh Shultz
Samuel Mathison
Bryan Linsley
Chris Bingley
David Bennett
David Wortz
Douglas Wilkinson
Lionel Sleeper
Markus Bidi
Matthew C Weiss
Michael McCloskey
Mr. Numi Who-
Orlando J Carter
Peter Sedmák
Randall J Silva
Vladyslav Kurmaz
Walter van der Kamp
Brittany House
david jungerman
Doug Beeferman
JL Solidum
Luis M Gaytan Tovar
Men I Trust
Sol Bergeron Beauchemin
Hernán Coronel
Mr MOD
Branden Loizides
Chris the Mad Sciencer
Christopher Borra
Dave
Hein Spijker
Ingmar Rauschert
James McClarty
karlos preddie
Kitara Burke
Lance Fielden
Laura Coutu
Luis Lengsfeld
Lumi Pakkanen
MARK ANDERSON
Michael R Mendoza
Miek Thompson
N30D@nt3
Robert Clyde
Steven Uttley
Susanne Bauer
Suzanne Brummitt
Yvan Lengwiler
Å ukasz Adamski
Todd Gregory-Gibbs
Adam Burnett
Christian Rane
gene valle
Hidden Hinges
Jan-Chris
Jelle Baris
john requa
Joseph Conard
kristian svensson
Qauthar Saleh
Tuukka Arola
Allen DuBeau
Bob Goswick
Daniel Schakel
Derek Bamber
Gerald Williams
Gideon Falta
Gregory T Hart
Jennifer Pumphrey
Marcel Barros
Michael Luce
Peyton Vaughn
Quasar
Sandy Flowers
Svein Trondsen
Bonnie Veldey
Christian Jochum
Daniel Morris
Dreameroutthere
Jeff Blakemore
Maciej Świerczewski
Mahesh Gopalan
Marilyn Aldridge
Paul Maybury
Richard Reich
RiddleJacks
Sean Spartan
Tim Jones
Paul dunn
Robert the Green
JoachimB
Alec Estrada
Devonte Foy
Gawen Thompson
Jessica Anderson
Ketan More
Nina and Ivan
PartyMartyy & Dem OTF Bois
Patrick Denny
PAUL G STEWART
Sander Hollebrand
Suzanne Miezis
ZarconDeeGrissom
Galen Thurber
Indy Car
Joseph Wheeler
Julia Ruggiero
Norm Zemke
Phlllp A Falson
Rafael Espericueta
Brian Jorgensen
Darktorn
David Campos
Irene Ka
Jefware
Laura Sanborn
maycon kruger
Mike Laffoon
Patrik Franzén
Stephen Bowland
Vyacheslav Ermakov
Check Patreon to join! 
Наука
I wanted to clarify that there could totally be an error somewhere in this design and we are just not seeing it. But because I've always had an engineer mentality, not so much an academic mentality, I I really think building this and testing it would be worth it, even if there's an error in it. We might discover other stuff in the process.
Anton Petrov love the videos!!! Thanks as always wonderful person
I really appreciated your closing comment reacting to negativity and "scoffing". There is so much arrogance in academia, and in the field, too, that what we know becomes a hive mind of what is possible. Breakthroughs, by definition, defy what was accepted as "possible", so we should be encouraging creativity backed up by rigorous methods! Thank you for your humility in considering a "crazy idea". Best wishes.
Hydraulic actuation of a piston is the way to go with this engine. 👍
Mimic the universe, find an ellipse this piston can move in efficiently. Accelerate in one direction, decelerate in the other just like gravity. It may be possible.
Hi, what about linear motors? We know powerful public synchronous and asynchronous linear motors from several metro railways. Could we use asynchronous (induction) motors for pushing plasma out of a nozzle? Induction motors should work with any kind of electric conductors, including plasma.
I so desperately want to live to see warp drives become reality
@Barney hi there WTF is "ethereal" life? Like in the Ghostbusters?
@@NeveranticStory I think the person meant eternal, might be an autocorrect issue.
Sheltar Haarmen yes. Like in the ghostbusters. Apart from when the ghosts get busted.
@Barney hi there lol
DavenH, Cancer cells have infinite duplication within their telomeres, and telomeres are which dictate our life span; hence the Hayflick Limit. Soo...
"I decided to do something really crazy and actually read the paper instead of criticizing it first."
Only 7 likes man how underrated
@@hatman23433 I can live with it. Thanks :)
Any chanve you have a copy of it please? I would like to read it
@@senseilewis3707 Check the description of the video. It's a NASA report.
.....
There once was a lady named Bright
Who travelled much faster than light
She left one day in a relative way
And returned the previous night!
Love it!
True poetry.
Stellarship: accelerates to the speed of light
Astronaut: we did it!
Cosmonaut: but how do you slow down
Astronaut: oh
thats where you store hydrogen fuel for the slowdown process
...the same way you sped up....but backwards....duh
just turn around and accelerate -_-
@@IamINERT huge brain
Flip n’ burn
so, we're going to go to the stars using a shake weight?
Hahaha this!!
NASA: "How can we produce energy aboard a spacecraft out in space?"
Also NASA: "How can we make sure that astronauts get enough exercise while out in space?"
Hamsters: "Duhhh?"
Yep
Or like Thor’s hammer
It's too slow... It takes, like, 10 years or so for light of the closest star to the earth to reach us
The aliens are like: “this is ancient technology”.
Lol
Bassotronics lol, yeah right. They're probably like, Awwww, how cute! They just learned how to light travel!
Devi I wanna clap those alien cheeks.
Flintstone technology lol
@@punctuationman334 *claps your buttcheeks*
I see few issues here:
Lorentz transformation defined for inertial frames (non accelerating)
Conservation of momentum.
When accelerating the inner mass, the same negative momentum will go to the chamber. This will be exactly the same on the front and back side of the chamber.
Yeah, I'm curious about this aspect of it, it just feels like there might be a problem in how the reaction force is applied.
I get the idea, slow the matter down to reduce its mass, move it to the front of the ship, and speed it up again to increase its mass, to the back of the ship. But... wouldnt the energy spent in slowing the mass down just cancel everything out?
It's a hard question I'm not really qualified to figure out. Maybe it's doable given the exponential rate at which an object's mass increases with speed, but I don't really have the math skills required to account for everything in a system like this. Are you able to?
Also, it seems like the only advantage is that it's a propellantless propulsion system, meaning you can use the same small mass as your driver to no end. This could save a lot of weight, and eventually work out to a better system over a long enough acceleration... But as he pointed out, you need to get the energy from somewhere, and you're still consuming nuclear fuel to do it, at a nasty rate... So it's not even really propellantless in that sense. Then its only advantage over a nuclear rocket is that you're not spewing radioactive death everywhere.
was looking for this type of comment
@@hatman4818 The fundamental flaw here is that if you try to increase the mass of a bead of stuff by adding energy to it, that energy had to come from somewhere. Say it comes from batteries: then you had to push the spacecraft back a tiny bit to move that energy to the bead to begin with, and that exactly cancels however much momentum was gained as the more massive bead is accelerated.
Even if you can't track down the exact error, you can easily see that there must be an error somewhere because this design (and any propellantless propulsion design using known laws of physics, really) violates conservation of momentum.
I've always wondered about the Lorenz transformations in an accelerating frame, but just because we don't learn about it in BSc Physics classes, doesn't mean that nobody has ever worked it out. Presumably it links up with General Relativity at some point.
The engine is a sort of pyramid scheme for energy and momentum. At each iteration more momentum is transferred to the front side of the chamber than the back side. It only looks impossible.
As for conservation of momentum, since we are dealing with macroscopic systems the net momentum of the system has to be zero at all times. No, I can't see it either.
@@hatman4818 The other advantage would be that a lot of energy leaves the ship with the exhaust. A reactionless drive would be about twice as efficient as a rocket.
When a scientist comes up with an idea people listen when a engineer comes up with an idea people get excited!!!
Except for that if the thing is expensive or is climate change than its nonexistent for the most of our dumb fellow humans...
@@gcubegaming2756 Hundreds of millions of people starving across the world due to inefficient allocation of resources.
You: "he he let's make ship go fast".
@@VexChoccyMilk Hey man, I'm not saying poverty isn't an issue but this is some cool stuff. It's okay to dream. If we get a Dyson sphere up and running, poverty is gonna go through the window.
@@centerloper The working class will still have to pay for the resources used to make the Dyson sphere through tax lol
What makes you think anything will be the same after we start building a Dyson sphere.
For all the bright minds out there.
Never get hurt or discourage when someones calling your ideas stupid coz all ideas are stupid until it is not.
Some ideas stay stupid though
If it's stupid but it works. It isnt stupid.
SilentGas everyone has aids until they don’t according to your logic
ollie cassidy not entirely true
Fail a 1000 times.... Succeed 1nce ....winning
86% and 90% aren't the same at all whein it comes to aproching the speed of light
It is also not that big of a difference, only about 40%. Which in the grand sceme of things is fine...
@@DomenG33K did you mean 4%?
10% of light speed would be revolutionary
@@dredgenyor8286 i meant 40%
@@DomenG33K What are you trying to say? It is a 4 percent difference.
Anton, you are an intellectual and a gentleman!
God bless, God keep you and your family.
You have the ability to simplify difficult concepts.
Greetings from South Africa.
Elizabeth J
The authors idea is literally a Minecraft flying machine
Yeah
Yeah boi
Playing Minecraft really does pay off guys
Kinda not... it would be if it were pulling the back of the box but it isnt...
omg yes Lmao
Anton: "It would be more efficient to throw the mass out the window." My prediction is that the first vessel to reach another star system will be the USS Anton Petrov which will be powered by his invention, the Throw It Out The Window Drive System.
But ever throw out has an equally opposite throw out
NASA:
Wanted really good out the window Chuckers.
"This is the USS YEET reporting"
Won't it be The South Korea Throw it Out the Window Drive? I think Anton lives there.
Sounds like something right out of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy books.
Good discipline with the not always looking at inferiority Anton. Keep up the good work! I have learned more from being open to other peoples ideas, even if they might be flawed. Love your videos. Happy Holidays!
I love that you delve deeper into the science while keeping it accessible. Thank you
So instead of thinking outside of the box, he's thinking inside of the box.
🤣
But is the cat dead or not?
@@hhale only if you check. 😉
@that guy with the stye mind blown*
a box of doughnut
a nuclear powered doughnut too
How is this not a Simpson's episode?
"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing"
Arthur C. Clarke
Considering Mr. Clarke's knack for predicting the future I wouldn't bet against it
That's why people need to stop f-ing laughing.
@@davecrupel2817 Space elevator is probably actually practical now on the moon... .
There's a chance we could begin to build the first space elevator by 2050 if a certain Japanese company has its way.
@Tobi Wobi that's not gonna hold up in court lol
Always enjoy your videos AND your positive attitude. Thank you!
We all knew it was only a matter of time. Everything starts off with a idea
For this to work, the scientist would also need to create a working ‘shield’ for the spacecraft. If a tiny speck of dust hits the spacecraft at a significant percentage of the speed of light, it would be like a bomb going off.
agreed, I actually thought that the biggest problem will be some sort of shielding... if proven fessable.
Yep, there are so many problems we must consider and overcome before we can travel anywhere near that fast we cant just build the engine and hope for the best
Ice, lots of ice.When a particle hits, it would create a cloud of water vapour which would still protect and, assuming the ship is accelerating in the cold of interstellar space at least some which would be scooped up and reattach to the ice shield. Arthur C Clarke I think.
There is already a material called aerogel that was tested with this in mind
Josh Nicol actually we can space x kinda did that to test their limits...
"A rotating motion would solve all these problems..."
Me: Checks shape of UFO's...
@Monster Tooth Flying discs?
@@emanueldelacruz1101 That's only one depiction of a UFO, and an ooooold one. Plenty of cooks have yammered on about seeing flying triangles.
@@unevenelephant469 Actually the majority of reported UFOs are triangles. This is likely because normal planes are triangles and they are just mistaking them. There are also those who record birds in inferred and claim them to be "floating orbs moving in formation with intelligence" just like how birds always fly in a V or checkmark formation.
Also the first UFO report wasn't even either shape, it was actually supposedly cigar shaped which is the most realistic way you would design a ship for interstellar travel. The more area the ship covers the more likely it is to hit things in interstellar travel damaging it so thinner longer designs are superiors to wider designs.
i think you mean a flying saucer my friend
Innteresting idea acctualy
Thanks Anton ... For keeping us up to date !!!
It is commendable to have a fair attitude towards the ideas in the paper which hold merit instead of being a scoffer. Another great video Anton.
Perfect is the enemy of good. before we launched rockets, we threw rocks. We learned from that. Every new knowledge is potentially priceless. Never stop learning.
You stole this from sam hyde, who stole this from someone else
@Tasunke hahaha
Actually its Prefect is the enemy of good enough.
Yes but throwing rocks is the same technology as rockets, Newton's third rule. Us dumb apes will destroy ourselves long before we are technologically advanced. We nuked two cities within a blink of an eye of learning how to split the atom.
Indeed
The scientific community: He got his math wrong.
Anton Petrov: I'm deeply saddened that the scientific community was so mean to this guy. Also, he got his math wrong.
As an avid follower of this channel that is not super discouraging since Anton releases a weekly vid or two about how the scientific community was Wrong.
@@wolfereignowns1154 the modern scientific community is built like a religion. It's a damn shame that they are so unwilling to hear new ideas. Just look at how they treated Graham Hancock before he was proven to be right.
@@Rasmos what was hancock proven right about?
In fact, I do not think that scientific community works as a religion at all. It is normal that strange or innovative models must be discussed, and that sometimes controversies arize, it is part of the normal process.
For this kind of strange propulsion, the counter argument can be explained like that:
The inventor of this propulsion system explains it in the physical model called "special relativity" (by doing that he assumes that this model really works). Then he tries to prove, using the conclusions and theorems of "special relativity" that his device can really produce a net thrust.
What the "scientific community" say: There is a logical mistake in your calculations. If we use the special relativity model correctly (we agree on the model itself) we obtain a net thrust of exactly 0. (This is logical since the conservation of momentum is a theorem in this model).
You see there is really nothing "religious" in it, everybody would be really happy if someone come with really new technologies.
@@ManuelRacle communities of like minded thinkers are almost always affected by illusory superiority... it goes with the territory. It's kind of a relative of the Dunning-Kruger effect... just because someone agrees with you on something does not mean you are correct or that someone that disagrees with you and your colleges is wrong or somehow dumber than you are.
You are a good man Anton, thanks for your insights, love learning!
Kudos for breaking this one down and giving proper credit. No one, including scientists, should be mocking any contributions of creative imagination and the courage to think outside standard models. It's literally the reason we've gotten this far.
In other words, there’s no such thing as a free launch.
Careful, you'll offend Bernie bros.
@@captainvoluntaryistthestat3207 idiot
@@MikaelMurstam no u
@@MikaelMurstam
👆See what I mean? Always be careful with these walking landmines.
No early launch for Konzu?
The automatic subtitles at the start say: “Hello wall of a person,” and I can’t say it’s wrong.
The aliens watching us be like: sweet
“We were born to late to explore the world, and to early to explore the stars.”
these people ignore that we were probably born at just the right time to colonize the solar system
that's been quoted to death, try being more original.
@@MisterPikol „to be or not to be that is the question“ - Jar jar binks
Trust me. You don't wanna be born when we were still exploring the world.
Sadge
Never commented before but just had to finally say you are my favorite RUclipsr. I love space and all things science. I tune in almost everyday for your content. Thanks for producing such great videos on a regular basis, taking time to teach and offering your perspective. Your channel is a true gem, keep it up. 🌎✨☀️🌙
Why would you beat boxes and then put it on television? Why would you abuse our cardboard companions when they do so much for us?
@@MechanicalMooCow The boxes are those old CRT sets and he makes TVs that are far better.
Esh
@@GammaOnex calm down
So in a nut shell, this sounds like the equivalent situation of sitting in an office chair and scooting across the room without touching the floor.
@WaliWorldX WITH MACHINES!
Office chair experience a friction to a floor. This is exactly that vibration motors use.
@@sc0or I don't understand what you mean ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Beautiful analogy!
Principle is nonsense. Mass increase is relative. Observer inside this space ship does not detect any mass increase for ship and anything inside of it.
If ship moves in relative to an observer, the observer sees that moving mass being heavier in forward direction than backwards. This does not create any trust, because kicks in both ends of the ship are equal.
Great video Anton!
I’m going to have to keep watching them. 🖖
Wow this is my old SSRP (Solid State Reactionless Propulsion) patent from 1998 that I showed to JPL. They had no interest at the stage.
Huh?
People who scoff at theoretical technology aren’t the ones who eventually invent it
Well said
People who make simple phrases that seem clever ... well, you see where I'm going.
People
Everyone thought the Wright brothers were nut jobs, and if you told those people we would send men to the moon in the same century they would have laughed.
Exactly. Imagine explaining to somebody in the 1920s that someday everyone would probably have a hand held device which could communicate and access a worldwide network of information. They’d think you’d lost your mind, and yet here we are
This sounds like a video game exploit, like one of those old “Troll Physics” cartoons about getting infinite energy, like it sounds reasonable if you don’t know any better but there’s some detail missing that keeps it from working in reality.
Wall clipping, meet quantum tunneling. Same thing.
Kjhpioi
@Tobi Wobi Yeah, the comment was wrong, sorry for bothering you, have a good day.
@Tobi Wobi Hey I hope I didn't break your day, but when I said you were ignorant, I wasn't referring to the "stupid definition", I was actually referring that you ignored the point of my comment. I'm genuinely confused why you said that my (now deleted informational comment) wasn't enough of a reply, so I don't make the same mistake twice in the future. Thanks, and sorry again for the trouble.
We should have got the game guide.
Excellent video - thanks Anton!
I really enjoy your content. I only discovered your channel recently, I've got plenty of content to be catching up with.
"How much Energy do you need to reach the Speed Of Light?" The answer is Yes!
All of it
Isn't that just like a Vorlon.
@@bilcal DISOBEDIENT! ::zaps::
Chuck Norris
42
so here we are, traveling at the speed of light, and we don't see the object until after we have smashed into it.
There was a fast runner named Dwight
Who could run much faster than light.
He set off one day
In a relative way
And returned the previous night.
in fantasy land they go as fast as they want...in reality we are still driving around in 150year old technology...u figure it out....
@@unarammer2003 The government just wants to put all of its money into making war machine not to further the development of technology and mankind.
After he traveled the speed of light
@General Luise Martinbanger That big 'war machine' has produced a lot of technological advances but don't forget, it needs war to justify itself. Pulling out of the war in Syria, for instance, has arms manufacturers all upset. President Eisenhower warned the US back in the 1950's to guard against the "Military-Industrial Complex". He feared it becoming too strong a force in politics, that they would always come up with a reason to maintain a war someplace. Making guns, ships, tanks and planes is big business.
@@nate4745 the Israeli war machine will never stop until their temple is built and their Antichrist rules...
In the mid 90's, I emailed NASA with a sort of "perpetual motion" engine using magnets and electromagnets within an inductor(I've been constantly updating my design through the years). Using this motor to generate a magnetic field around a space vessel and then using satellites to beam polarized RF at the ship to push and pull objects through space. I never heard anything back. Just recently, I saw a company had developed a similar electric motor design with a super high efficiency. Either someone at NASA perfected my design or someone I was stationed with in the NAVY stole it. =-( One of these days, I'll have the opportunity to show them how to make it REALLY work. =-) Excellent video Anton.
Sorry it's been stolen/copied. Sounds interesting, but I feel it's strange you never heard back. If it was a good, practical idea they most likely would have tried to get you on board with them, as perpetual motion is very big. Perhaps your idea was great, and someone else came up with something similar because they had the same sort of idea?
@@urbanllama4208 Who knows. Maybe they took my idea and developed it in a different direction. As long as we advance, that's ultimately all I care about. Making life better for the human race.
Awesome video Anton!!
I guess reverse engineering extraterrestrial crafts is really starting to pay off.
@@Pink-Kiwi thank you, I don't know where my mind was.
@@jamespeden9472 everyone forgets words every once in a while
@@Pink-Kiwi but, I got stories about it! lol
"Back engineering" lol. No Wonder you believe in aliens...
@@appsenence9244 lol! No wonder you don't!
I invented a perpetual motionless machine but it’s kind of boring to watch.
I know it’s a joke, but wouldn’t you need to apply a force equal and opposite to all sources of force in the universe for this to work? Pretty impressive
And even then the things applying the force need to be motionless too. Sounds pretty equally impossible, but I’m not about to do the math on it for something as useless as this
I called mine Mankind's Ignorance though technically I didn't make it and proud of it
Lisa,in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
@@antvomit forgive my ignorance, but isn't everything perpetually motionless with respect to its own frame of reference?
I completely believe that you were working on this idea. Years ago I was working on the idea of the Alcubierre drive back at the same time that it was first being worked on. I simply didn’t have enough physics skills to fully work it out. I think that ideas want to come into the work. When sufficient knowledge gets into enough minds, they all start thing along similar tracks until someone makes it work. If you look at scientific history you see that just before each breakthrough there are many people working on it.
Thank you for being a wonderful person Anton.
If the speed of light is the "speed limit of the universe" and superluminal speeds aren't attainable, I think we just need to figure out how to teleport, even at the speed of light it just takes too long to get anywhere.
Only long compared to human life. We should figure out how to put ourselves into stasis for 1000 years and we are good to go.
Marian Paździoch or figure out how to rejuvenate ourselves
Wormholes?
You understand the speed of teleportation would be the speed of light...the particle stream would be limited to that speed.
Geckotan depends how you do it a D jump would be instantaneous because it is essentially the opening of a portal between one place and the other.
This is merely one more step in a long process that will eventually get us there.
Science is just a series of failures in a long line of steps to get to a bigger goal that you didn't even know you were trying to answer in the first place.
But eventually will cascade into multiple discoveries.
An repeat.
We don't know of course if we will get there. That has to be found out. Sometimes the answer to a scientific question is err no. Like cold fusion in beaker on a desktop. Whatever type of tech, near light speed travel comes down to a lot of energy and space has to be rich enough in high ordered enough of sufficient workable energy. Space may be like a car with a 500 km range but with filling stations 1,000 km apart. All the materials needed to build a big enough tank and the fuel needed may be distributed over a radius of 700 km. Or take a room with a low methane concentration. An ignition will not result in an explosion. Not until a certain concentration of methane in the room is present, if you think of the room as the Milkyway.
Personally I'd be betting on slower longer term travel over thousands of years living off Ort Cloud material and heavier elements from asteroids or using asteroids as the vehicles of slower travel. Of course the slower the travel, the more likely that time exceeds the species window of existence at home and the less likely the propagation of that civilisation. There may be a few propagating civilisations in the galaxy but moving very slowly and eventually expiring anyway like flowers in the spring.
@@coweatsman cold fusion is possible/real/proven, just not in any practical or useful sense. If science goes into anything with the idea that it's not possible then it won't be, so science always needs to approach an idea with the knowledge it probably won't work yet the open mind that maybe just maybe it might. There have been many discoveries that have shown long held beliefs were completely wrong and many in our generation still fall into the same trap that previous generations have fallen into, the idea that we know pretty much everything when really we have barely scratched the surface of how our universe works or what technology is possible. Just think back to the days of steam trains, a lot of scientists thought they had all the answers back then, yet now we know how little they knew, give it a hundred years and they will think the same of us now.
The military admitted to UFOs! That technology is already here. Whether it's alien tech or top secret human tech... it exists here already.... I mean think about it.
@@Jake12220 Yes on the steam engine example but remember, nothing with steam power was against the laws of physics.
Mans time from Galileo trying to fly was ~300 yrs till flight actually happened and again, nothing with flying violated the laws of physics.
Einsteins work was mentioned in the video and this work was about 100 yrs ago. Other than some advances in using quantum mechanics (not really understanding it), again from Einsteins work days, we have not progressed very far, other than the Higgins field, in this last century. Einsteins' works on black holes and gravitational waves have been proven but only very recently.
Using the time gaps just listed on problems solved to date, give it a few hundred, maybe 500 yrs before you get very excited on a human body moving anywhere close to the speed of light. Please remember, light speed is slow when moving across our universe that is ever expanding as we type.
@@isoufo Yes and that story generated how much $ for the economy? It ain't alien till it is alien.
This is something I always wanted to see! Working within boundries of sience propulsion system without exhaust. Then the only requirement for travel is having a lot of energy. The biggest problem with reaching the stars was always the fuel. So you were forced to coast most of the time. But now you can accelerate half of the way and decelerate other half and even have gravity onboard in doing so! This is huge!
you're such a cool dude. thanx for making these videos
So relativity still works, and we hit the wall of energy again
Yep, that energy thing is a Bitch 😤
I hope to see fusion in my lifetime so that the stars can finally be opened up to us.
@@JerryMac1125 Energy is so gay
@@ekszentrik well, if less people are against nuclear power then yes maybe
@@oakwhelie I don't think that's why we don't have fusion reactors lol
"We will never get out of our solar system without warp drive". - William Shatner in 1955
1967
1988
1956
69
How tf is that supposed to be a quote
Another great video Anton!
Amazing peace of work bro!
Even if we do figure out a way to travel at lightspeed, what are we gonna do about running into stuff in space because the smallest spec of dust could be catastrophic if you run into it at lightspeed
barnacle boy time for the Ol Star Trek space magic shields I guess
Impacting objects at mere percents of ightspeed would be catastrophic, grains of sand become like bombs.
Not a problem if you use field propulsion, which we've had since the 1950's.
You do a great job of distilling something like the Helix engine into something normal people can understand.
I forgot to tell you thanks, i love your excellent programme.
Anton great work ... You know everything starts with an idea or a vision or a dream .... this is where it begins possibilities are endless look back to where we came from ... such a short time span Goals are funny things we set these , achieve then move on to the next
Aliens: imagine using light speed to travel
lol that’s slower than a rock
Col. Sanders: Light speed too slow?
Dark Helmet: Yes, we need to go to Ludicrous Speed!!!!
Col. Sanders: but sir, we’ve never gone that fast before! 😰
@@sloggnznorgin6285 ludicrous speed go!
My brains are going into my feet!
U r already doing it you are thinking
Thomas Raymond 😂
"Can we power the engines with DMT?" - Joe Rogan.
Ancient civilizations used DMT to power their higher consciousness drives, which they used to power interstellar travel. - Graham Hancock
He wouldn’t want to waste it
With DMT, your mind is the space ship.
That's crazy... Pull up that video of the dog killing a king Cobra.
Jamie, Jamie... did you pull up that dog v cobra video yet? This DMT is wearing off.
I have tremendous respect for the people pushing boundaries...especially into engineering. One is the theory, another is getting the stuff done.
i love this guy i love how at the end he put in how he hated that the community bashed him because the community is like that it actually stunts growth and also makes less people wanna get involved in such a toxic environment its sad the lack of professionalism in the work place i see it at my own work the lack of respect for others is disgusting a lot of these people probably haven't even published their own ideas that they made up for such a thing so as far as im concerned this dudes done more than them to help better the field at least he brought awareness and maybe just made some little kid somewhere interred in the whole thing that could one day create the ship we desire with that said thanks anton for another awesome video!
its cool that you look at things with an open mind i think advancements would move along much faster if everyone had that same approach 🤘
I was gonna write the exact same thing, but since you already have, I'll just second this notion.
Only free people can have open minds
Soon when we have interstellar travel we will have stories of people being stranded on ships drifting in space surviving for 30-120 days
Edit ( reference to numberless stories of stranded at sea people surviving 30-120 days)
Astra lost in space series
Bear grylls in space
Brave wilderness but for random space animals
@@taz4895 that's it
You found it :)
The idea of going one-way to Mars is terrifying. What if something gives out, what if the supply craft encounters an accident, what if a windstorm wipes out electricity? Too many things to go wrong, and too far away.
Wish they would hurry up, I am 60, I would live to see an
Implementation!😂
i am 36, not in our life time :(
Well if one of our typical U.S. defense contractors gets it?? NO!! But if Space X gets it?? MAYBE!! LOL! I'm 50 so not that far behind you!!
You guys do not worry you can go heaven and everything you want become reality in there. This space things are not real.
The real one is Jesus and heavens
And because of your wonderful approach to new things, you have gathered almost a million wonderful people.
Hello wonderful Anton this is person :)
Lino Silva he sounded sadder than normal or was it just me
@@moondog6004 I hear what you mean
ha. ha.
Never say that something is "impossible", it is the biggest mistake that many scientist had made throughout the ages.
EDIT: To people in comments below: Sorry, I think my original comment was misleading due to bad wording which I hopefully corrected with this edit. What I originally meant is nothing is impossible, just as you pointed out. And it is a big mistake to say that something is impossible, because in some years it will most likely will be invented and made possible, just like so many things before it (for example heavier than air flying machines, which were branded impossible in a balloon-aeronautic era)
Leo3ABP gaming not really because we just test it later
Nothing is impossible, Just because we can't do it yet doesn't mean it's impossible. Anything can be done, even if "we" can't do it yet
It is probably impossible to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Thats probably the 1 thing that can never be done.
There are three stages to technological development.
One: It's totally impossible we could never
Two: it's possible but it's way too expensive way too hard to ever make it worth doing.
Three: I thought it was a great idea all along.
I understood what you ment.
Once we can produce nuclear fusion power, we can probably use this design.
Good for you for having an open mind!
Remember when the US military had that incident with a "tictac shaped" object that shown no sign of propulsion even in the infrared spectrum where the expulsion of heat should be visible. And it still was able to accelerate to insane speeds and outmaneuver the fighter jets sent to check it out. It definitely happened and I always tried to speculate on what kind of propulsion something like that had, and once I heard about this it made me wonder if something like this is it.
Gravitation propulsion. I'm sorry you are going down this rabbit hole
That's an interesting thought...
Exceptional claims require exceptional proof.
@@matta5498 Video evidence from the Pentagon not exceptional enough?
@@Dankalank It's not good evidence if you can barely see what the object is..I'm 95% certain it was a Chinese experimental craft. The technology they are developing over there is scarily impressive!
Well said Anton; it is sad that many so-called "objective" scientist are so arrogant and condescending. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, but it needs to be provided with a focus of professionalism, not arrogance .
I've found that arseholes crop up in all demographics, and are usually in a hurry to prove they are one.
The problem I see very often is that any negative response (such as "it won't work", followed by a detailed explanation of what is wrong with the proposal) is often treated as 'arrogance' as well, because so many laypeople think it's impossible to rule anything out without testing it first. But it is possible, and the reason why this scheme won't work has been completely understood for over a century.
Anton: master of astrology, and even greater master of clickbait tittles
Thank you for making this video- I've heard and seen this concept and even this paper, but no other RUclipsr seems to be willing to talk about it. Either it's "obviously doable" or "obviously wrong" but you are the only one who I've seen say why either way. This design didn't seem to mesh well with Newtons law of inertia/momentum, but I don't know enough about relativity to really know how this idea would or wouldn't work. You made it a lot easier to understand, thank you.
“Hello wonderful person” quite original. Thumbs up Anton !
Bottom Line...
"Math Errors may Exist!"
SeemsGood!
The errors seem to say this is easier than first thought.
Another method is triangle waves. Accelerate mass for forward movement faster than returning mass to original position. This is well used today in auto-focus motors in many brands of camera lenses.
Relativity for Dummies:
The amount of energy required to double the mass of a 1 kilo object through relativistic effects = the energy produced by total conversion of 1 kilo of mass.
Duh.
Rather, isn’t he saying that the energy to double the mass is *greater* than that to create the mass?
@@jasonisbored6679 no.because currently we aren't capable of converting full mass into energy.when we use uranium only small percentage of its mass converted into energy
@@Kamal-ju6qx that doesn’t seem to be completely relevant to my comment, but it has been five months so I will rewatch it now.
@@Kamal-ju6qx your comment is not quite answering the question I asked, but it’s a very valid point. Anton was saying that it was ~basically like pure mass-energy conversion~ which is totally not true, even if nuclear power is efficient. *However* we aren’t talking about how you get the energy, but instead what happens when you get it. I still don’t have a satisfactory answer to that one but I hadn’t thought about it in a long time
Anton, I feel like your gaze is penetrating my soul.
Its mesmerising
Ha you said gays...
I love this channel. I wish I could understand what you’re saying more than my current comprehension rate of .01% but I love it still.
At least you can give yourself credit for not falling into the dunning kruger effect. That means you probably know more than the people who go out of their way to comment on how smart and knowledgeable they are.
And when someone determines that the energy required is 1000 times less, when operated in torodial resonance, the laughing stops and work can continue...
Instead, Nasa realized this was a huge blunder and removed the article from their website. Oopsie. Back to actual work I guess.
lol I hit that like button as soon as you said: "Hello wonderful person!" 🤣
When in game pedestrians find a game breaking glitch
I wonder if a ship would need two different types of engines. The alcubierre engine is like a wave pushing the spacecraft, kind of using high horse power to get up to speed, then the engine proposed here could build on that momentum to carry the ship at a faster velocity, similar to a spinning bullet or a hyper velocity missile.
Hello wonderful person!!! Epic intro.
Anton, I agree with you on this. The force of the mass striking an edge of a box could propel it. Changing the mass inside the "shaking box" when it strikes heavier on one side would be vastly inefficient. I think something like a striker electromagnet, like from an old doorbell, would be better. It could strike only one side of the box, which could propel the box slightly in that direction. But like in the "shaking box" example, forward movement of the shaft, or the initial thrusting of the striker shaft would be negated by the back-pressure of thrusting the electromagnetic shaft from a still position. This could be overcome with your suggestion to rotate the shaft as in "imagine your finger rotating in circles." Such rotation would provide a centrifugal force toward the outer sides of vehicle. This would redirect the back-pressure of thrusting the shaft from the opposite direction of the strike to the sides of the vehicle instead. This should give us an overall positive motion forward in the direction of the strike. Repeating the strike like a vibrator dozens or if possible hundreds of times per second should result in a fairly impressive and constant growing rate of speed. But why limit it to the speed of light in a drag-free environment like space? It seems to me the only limiting factor would be time, as in how much time it would take to build up momentum for the vehicle to reach a particular speed. If time were endless then there would be no limit to the speed it could reach. The rate of speed growth is constant, so it wouldn't stop increasing speed at some arbitrary number like the speed of light. Albeit the corrosive nature of the few atoms that are floating in space would be like a sand blaster to the vehicle's exterior at incredible speeds - which would be a limiting factor just as our own atom-rich atmosphere would burn it completely away at such speeds. What do you think? In a perfect vacuum there would be no limit to it's speed.
Sounds like we won’t see it in our lifetime. There is a lot to be said about an open mind. Keep up the good work
You will if you turn into a vampire!
Maybe in our time because science progress is moving so fast these days, but though we most likely won't we can always hope for major breakthrough and if they are on to something here then more ppl will work on it and therefore increase the chances.
Lol just trying to give us some hope 👍
20 years i guess
the open mind is the only way to figure it out don't let the rules stop you from a opened mind or keep you from thinking out side the box be free to explore
I'll wait until NASA figures out how to do what they did 50 years ago ( man on the moon ) before I hold my breath.
Anyone worth their salt throughout history was scoffed and laughed at at some point in time.
Very true. Especially for the honorable members of the Flat Earth Society.
Does that mean that anyone being scoffed and laughed at is worth their salt? Because i tell you, if it is, i'm crying at how fucking stupid these comments are.
@Doppe1ganger It just means that being laughed at doesn't necessitate being wrong.
trust me, this sublight drive will never, ever, ever, ever, be a reality.
@@Doppe1ganger No it just means that if you bring something to attention that most people can't comprehend then they laugh at you but every now and then the odd outstanding human despite being laughed at pushes ahead and moves humanity forward despite the sheep bleating at them.
Lol'ing because I'm an automotive person and my first thought was, "well you need something that goes at or near the speed of light, and a TORQUE CONVERTER!" Then Anton you show the object rotating at near the speed of light, being used to convert to energy/movement.
I love this guy he is smart informative but humble
We love you Anton, Thankyou for posting
I hope we here more about this in the future
It's NASA, we literally won't.
I imagine it sounds like a brick in a washing machine.
My sentiments exactly!
thanks Anton You are right, ignore the negative people. they're the ones always surprised and left behind by new innovations. it's sort of threatens their very core. Thank you for your features I have enjoyed immensely and have learnt a lot.
Yup, I was going to ask where that ship came from and why you were using it to represent the theoretical ship. And humans CAN overcome these boundaries so they absolutely have to try, and in the mean time, no idea should be "scoffed at" and scientists absolutely should never sink to "flaming" others for suggesting ideas.
"hello all of the person"
"All of the persons foot say's hello back"
@@wlee6685 karate master
@microch1p agreed
That the only thing you got from the video?
@@alexxans1154 nya Mao
First thing that come to mind is that the speed of light through space is an absolute limit on velocity (unless you bend space). The faster the weight spins, the slower the max ship velocity.
For example the weight is accelerated to 0.8 times the speed of light. You intend to increase the mass of the weight as it moves forward by spinning it.
If the weight is spinning tangent to the direction of travel, the maximum speed of the spacecraft plus the weights forward velocity would be the vector result,
0.8 squared + forward velocity squared = 1 squared (speed of light)
forward velocity = 0.6 times the speed of light which is the ships speed plus the forward speed of the rotating weight.
The other options is to spin the weight in the radial direction in line with the direction of travel. When the weight is travelling forward at 0.8 times the speed of light, the ship could only be travelling at 0.2 times the speed of light. When the weight is travelling backwards, then the ship could be travelling up to the speed of light.
While this doesn't rule it out as a propulsion force, the faster the weight spins, or the faster the weight is propelled toward the front of the ship, the slower the ship's maximum speed.
More complicated is how you transfer the momentum from the weight to the ship. Relativistic mass (a term Einstein regrets using) refer to a momentum multiplier as an object gets closer to the speed of light, more than momentum = mass x velocity. Regardless of the speed the weight is travelling, the weight's mass never changes, just its momentum energy. As we approach the speed of light the problem isn't overcoming the change in mass, but being able to supply the momentum energy needed to incrementally increase the speed of the object.
Momentum is a vector - in the direction the weight is travelling.
If the weight is spinning at the tangent to the direction of travel, the momentum is to the tangent of the direction of travel - simply slamming it into a wall or otherwise stopping it doesn't accelerate the ship forward any more than if the weight wasn't spinning, but might tend to cause the ship to spin in the opposite direction on contact.
The weight would need to spin in the direction of travel which is the worse of the 2 options for the speed of light limitation.
Drives work by converting energy into motion. A typical rocket converts chemical energy into thrust. This engine converts a power source into momentum energy into thrust.
Controlling a nuclear reaction and directing the explosion out the rear of the ship would be a much more efficient use of energy - each time you convert energy from 1 form to another tends to decrease efficiency.
While this may not work as a near light speed drive, it does have potential as an engine producing thrust without a chemical reaction like a rocket, but as you also pointed out, it isn't an efficient use of energy, and efficiency would appear to be less than you calculated.
the reason you can't go faster then light isn't because there's something that will stop you from gaining speed it's because relative speeds don't just add up like this "0.8 squared + forward velocity squared = 1 squared (speed of light)", you can have 0.99 light speed + 0.99 light speed ~= 0.99 light speed
The problem with this engine is that the theory of relativity doesn't violate the conservation of relativistic momentum, which this engine does. To increase the mass of the weight by increasing it's kinetic energy you will have to move the same mass from your energy storage. Because energy isn't equivalent to mass only when it suits you allowing magical transportation of mass.
I like how you go into it not criticizing it but instead seeing if it would work hats CNN off to you. Love your videos from Florida