a283c133
From: nuny@bid.nes
On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-7, David Dalton wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2019, Rayven Isadore Payne wrote
> (in article):
So much wrong with this. Snips to the crashes follow:
> > If you took the Empire State Building, for instance, and left it the
> > same size it is now, you would definitey need to spin it faster than
> > the speed of light to accomplish detectable gravitational warping.
Bullshit. The mere existence of a mass generates gravitational warping of
spacetime. Spinning a mass does not generate more, it generates instead a
"twist" in spacetime that Robert L. forward named the "protational field" back
when he was trying to
find a way to make a magnetic analog to gravitation. Today we talk about frame
dragging.
> > Anywho... Semi-stationary hypermassive objects are how you "steer"
> > this field. You place a hyperdense mass at the front of the craft, the
> > spinning hyperdense mass at the midpoint of the craft. The
> > semi-stationary mass can be any kind of material, though the higher up
> > in the elemental tables you go, the better. The spinning hypermass can
> > also be made of just about anything, but ideally, it would be made of
> > hydrogen. For efficiency's sake, the spinning hypermass should be
> > suspended in a magnetic field. You could put it on an axle, and it
> > would function, but it would be much more prone to catastrophic
> > failure that way.
Why make it of hydrogen? When you squish it down to a "hypermass" it won't
be hydrogen any more.
> > So here's the ideal: Take approximately 300 billion grams of hydrogen
> > and compress it into spherical area roughly the size of a bowling
> > ball.
That's ~50 million g/cc. We're talking white dwarf matter here, and it won't
be hydrogen any more.
> > While inactive, it can remain at rest in a "cradle" of sorts,
> > but while active, it should be suspended in a magnetic field. At the
> > front of your craft, have about the same mass of uranium compressed
> > into a volume roughly matching the hydrogen, but any shape is fine
> > since it won't be spinning. As massive as they are, both objects will
> > experience detectable gravitational pull toward one another. To
> > determine how far apart to place these objects, view them as a
> > planetary system. If they were orbiting each other, how far apart
> > would they have to be in order to break free of each other's
> > gravitational influence? You want to put the stationary hypermass just
> > within that distance - no closer, no further.
Bullshit. The limit of gravitational attraction is the Hill sphere of the
heavier mass, and it depends on the existence of external fields. For instance
the Earth's Hill sphere extends somewhat beyond the Moon's orbit- place a mass
beyond it and it
will orbit the Sun instead of the Earth. If the Earth were free in space its
Hill sphere would extend most of the way t the nearest star.
> > As the spinning hypermass speeds up, a gravitational field will be
> > generated between the spinning hypermass and the stationary hypermass.
Bullshit. There's already a gravitational field between them.
> > This will propel the craft in the direction of the semi-stationary
> > hypermass, and thus, you can see why it's "semi-stationary" - you want
> > to keep it front and center, but you perturb its position relative to
> > the spinning hypermass in order to alter the direction of the
> > gravitational field. Once the craft is going in the direction you wish
> > it to go, the semi-stationary hypermass should gradually be returned
> > to the front-and-center. Like a steering wheel.
We've gone past bullshit into fantasy here. No point in continuing.
Mark L. Fergerson
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
