There is only a consideration before the start; If we consider all true the physic we know; in this case we pose some limits but if we open our mind to things that may be not in agree with this physic we can discover a new universe and new truths

Something you can find about Ferlini experiment. The material you can find is for the most in italian language as this: http://it.scribd.com/doc/40746330/teletrasporto-paranormale

but with a good translater and a lot of patience you can get a lot of informations and some good idea for other improvements

Hi Fernando, i am glad to see you here too. I am very interested in yours work; i think it is possible and very important.

Thanks

Éder

I added a question with regard to the Loup-Rocha-Paper (see https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_you_integrate_spherically_your_H_kr_has_a_step_at_r0_in_the_center1)

the answer of which may be related to the present question ("If it is mathematically possible ...").

Dear Marshal,

I am a co author of the paper

in your article you write:

"While I cannot reveal the way in which this specific STDTS electromagnetic field is synthesized for trade secret issues, this much is clear – solutions for locally adjusted space-times resulting in motion of any kind do not require negative energy or exotic matter. "

Well, I cannot judge your proposal at all if you don't say what is the method. But if you want me to talk about some suggestions, contact me for some personal ideas at my personal email: [email protected] . If you want to chat with me, just open a gmail account and send me an email from there.

You will be free to tell anyone about them.. If you like them, I will copy paste them here so that more people can see them.

I had a thought which may, or may not have any bearing on this subject. Please feel free to ignore me if I am to far afield. Since we know that carbon which has been "doped" becomes magnetic, and since we know that it can be combined with silicon to form a variety of materials which have shown promise as semi-conductors and even a minor possibility as a super-conductor. Would it not make sense to dope carbon nano-tubes of the correct shape, and then combine those nano-tubes with silicon to make magnetic super-conductors for the purposes of creating some of the components of a "warp" drive? I know that the math of superconductors leads many to believe that they hold a very high level of usefulness in many fields and it seems to me that a superconductor that had a very high magnetic moment would be perfect to use in creating, or directing the EM field required to adjust the moment of space-time as suggested above.

Feel free to comment either way about the idea.

Dear Fernando:

1. Miquel Alcubierre, the first physicist to propose warp drive, and who's model Harold White is trying to develop, said in this Popular Science article http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/warp-factor?page=3 in the 4th paragraph that “Even if I’m in a spaceship in the middle and I have the negative energy, there’s no way I can put it where I need it, It’s a nice idea. I like it because I wrote it myself. But it has a series of limitations that I’ve seen through the years, and I don’t see how to fix them.”

Richard Obousy discovered, when he interviewed Jose Natario, that his model is dead as well.

2. In this interview, http://interstellarjourney.com/blog/warp-drive-blog/chat-with-jose-natario/ , in the 13th paragraph, Jose Natario (your hero) told Obousy, in response to his question, "Warp drive… theoretical curiosity or deep future technology?"that "Because of the two problems I mentioned, I think it will remain a theoretical curiosity."

What were the two problems? Natario said this in the 11th paragraph:

"The question of the horizons. The problem is the following: in all currently known warp drive models part of the warp bubble wall (i.e. the place where the negative energy fields are located) is causally disconnected from the interior. This means that it is impossible for someone inside the warp bubble to send a signal to (hence to control) these regions of the wall. Intuitively, you cannot set up a bubble which is moving faster than light from inside the bubble, because your signals, which travel at most at the speed of light, cannot reach the front part of the bubble wall. (Some people call this the “you need one to make one problem”). A related problem is that whenever the bubble starts travelling faster than light an infinite blue shift region (the analogue of a sonic boom) forms behind it."

The fact is that both Alcubierre and Natario have abandoned their warp drive models. The fact that you couldn't see the obvious problems, and continue to scribble your math, only shows that you're out of your depth.

Vannevar Bush, a great scientist and engineer who was the director of the WW II era National Defense Research Committee, said this about math -

“If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability”.

That is what you have done and in doing so you have failed to recognize obvious flaws that eventually Alcubierre and Natario have recognized. The most hilarious thing is that you act as if you have discovered a solution when you yourself said that any such solution for the Natario drive would have to wait for a theory of quantum gravity - http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/7120/20130527/scientists-refine-warp-drive-concept-using-space-time-distortion.htm (the last paragraph).

Try holding your breath 'til that happens, why don't you?

The bottom line is that you lack the scientific reasoning to be able to see what practical aspects are demanded of warp drive configurations. Reading your papers made that obvious. Moreover, Natario, made his statement abandoning his idea in 2010, so you're a little behind the curve as far as the latest news is concerned. As far as what White is trying to, I won't add my voice to those who have already stated that they don't think it will work, I'll only point out that he requires a floating floor to do his research which means he doesn't expect to see any results beyond the scale of the ESA gravitomagnetism experiments run by Martin Tajmar in 2006, which were so small that they were later questioned about their accuracy. You see, I don't care what other people try to do because what I have is real, it's in development and I'm making my investors happy. You see, unless you can figure out how to make money with the technology, no one will fund it. And no one will fund it if you're stupid enough to reveal how to do the research in total so anyone can steal it. I'm smart enough to know these things, which is why I'm not looking for any money now - I'm already funded. NASA is barely funding White. What about you, Loupy? Who's funding your wonderful warp drive research? You got that answer for quantum gravity figured out yet?

In short, you've shown that you're irrational, lack basic reading comprehension (like your total inability of seeing who sponsored the conference, after I posted a link to it), and consider that posting in all caps, name calling and acting like a idiot, is your way of having an academic debate. Not once have you made a cogent argument - instead you've tried to insult my heritage, my nationality and my intellect like a drunken sailor on leave. That explains the stupid grin and the glass of wine in your profile pic - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fernando_Loup. Seeing as how you claimed to have done a search for me and found nothing, I would assume that you were blind drunk at the time, at that.

Have fun posting your rants. It's funny that no other physicists have come to your aid. I'm sure you have scared them away. Too bad you're probably too drunk to know how much damage you're doing to yourself. Then again, you obviously deserve it...

Fernando,

Perhaps you can help me to understand some of the math from one of your papers.

Before I begin my question I should point out that I can not produce a Theta symbol from this keyboard and so just use (Theta). Also in the math notations I am using ^ to indicate powers. Just want to make myself as clear as I can.

Now, in your paper entitled "The Natario Warp Drive using Lorentz Boosts according

to the Harold White Spacetime Metric Potential (Theta)"

Previous to equation (10) you state that n(rs) either equaled 0 for the inside of the warp bubble,

1/2 for the outside of the warp bubble and

in between 0 and 1/2 for the space between the center and the edge of the bubble.

and you have stated that the value of (Theta)=0 and cos(Theta)=1

Therefore doesn't that mean that equation (17)

1-(X^rs)^2-(X^(Theta))^2=e^(Theta)(t,v) is then read as 1- (x^0)^2-(x^0)^2

If so then this gives the generic case 1-0-0 or a simple 1

Is this correct or am I missing something?

Then in the case of equation 18 then 1-(x^rs)^2 is again 1-(x^0)^2which also then equals

1-0 or simply put 1

how can the generic case and the equatorial plane motion both be equivalent?

I know that if we are using .5 which is the stated value at the edge of the bubble

equation then equation 17 reads 1-(.5)^2-(x^(Theta))^2 or simplifies to 1-2.5-0

which equals -1.5

and equation 18 reads 1-(X^rs)^2 which again equals -1.5

Am I doing something wrong by using the previously stated values?

I feel I am missing some important part of this please explain.

Thank you

I can only offer you a hypothesis:

I'm not convinced that we understand enough about physics to achiveve this yet, if any of these proposed methods are possible. We may need to better understand the nature of dark matter and dark energy and it's accosicated particles, make better superconducting materials, how do we shield against radiation?, how to generate the power required?, how to manufacture the materials required? etc.

Often science moves in great leaps when we are required to do so. (e.g. wartime, race to space & the moon, etc) I suspect we are more likely to develop the so-called "warp drive", or something that enables long distance space travel, once we have optically seen an extrasolar planet, complete with continents, oceans and a hospitable atmosphere. Mankind will then have the drive to go there, and the science of how to do so, will follow.

I see that the account of Fernando Loup has been deleted. I'm not sure how this happened as I have been away at a number conferences as of late, including the 100 Year Starship Symposium in Houston. However, I find it interesting that during all this time, he failed to answer Robert Gould's mathematical question after he put so much emphasis on math. I see that all of the crazy things that he said about me have also been deleted, while his remaining comments have him only identified as "Deleted". Oh well...

Perhaps he fell into a wormhole.

I am actually rather frustrated as I really wanted an answer on the math.

As you said, however, Mr Barnes, Oh Well...

Marshall, you said "What were the two problems? Natario said this in the 11th paragraph:

"The question of the horizons. The problem is the following: in all currently known warp drive models part of the warp bubble wall (i.e. the place where the negative energy fields are located) is causally disconnected from the interior. This means that it is impossible for someone inside the warp bubble to send a signal to (hence to control) these regions of the wall. Intuitively, you cannot set up a bubble which is moving faster than light from inside the bubble, because your signals, which travel at most at the speed of light, cannot reach the front part of the bubble wall. (Some people call this the “you need one to make one problem”). A related problem is that whenever the bubble starts travelling faster than light an infinite blue shift region (the analogue of a sonic boom) forms behind it."

It could be something like this??

It could be something like this??

Hi Eder:

The two problems were that the energy requirements were too high and the bubble problem, if I remember correctly. I cited them in my paper presentation that I gave at the 100 Year Starship Symposium. As for your photo of the jet goes, no and I'll explain why as I covered this at the Symposium as well. The bubble issue was a complete falure on the part of Miguel Alcubierre because providing a way for the spacecraft to generate and control the bubble is THE 1st THING YOU DO ! (I'm not yelling at you BTW, just for emphasis...) In other words Miguel never had a model for warp drive, he only had ideas for creating a warp field. No one, who doesn't have that problem solved, can say they have a model for warp drive because there is no real drive mechanism at all. I'm the first in the world to point this out. Conversely, the first thing I did for my warp project was to figure out how to create a field (not a bubble) around the front end of the test vehicle because I knew if I couldn't do that, then it didn't matter if I had a space contracting field or not, I couldn't test it out on a car and that would've been the end of that.

Here is the press release , along with photo and video clip of me at the 100 Year Starship Symposium. The press release includes a discussion on the issue of the fact that the reason why my approach works is because it is not based on general relativity but Einstein's unfinished unified field theory.

http://www.prlog.org/12214291-marshall-barnes-rocks-100-year-starship-symposium.html .

The issue of basing these ideas on general relativity was the key feature of my presentation because, although you can find solutions in those equations that will allow for warp drive and time travel, the requirements are too extreme to be practical. When you consider that the unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity (also known as distant or tele parallelism) came after general relativity, it is obvious that Einstein was attempting to get a some of the things provide for in general relativity but in a more efficient and productive way. He just didn't complete the theory, however that doesn't mean that some of its components are engineer able. I wish I could say that that was the way I approached it but I didn't. I wasn't even thinking about the UFT I was strictly pursuing a different path without considering that it might be connected. I only piece that together after I was successful and began to see if there was anything at all in conventional physics that could explain how I was accomplishing my progress. A rocket scientist that I know suggested the UFT about the same time that I was beginning to think the same thing. The rest, as they say, is history...

It's also funny that Fernando kept on and on about Natario and White and didn't know that Natario had given up on warp drive in 2010 and White would end up telling me himself at the 100 Year Starship Symposium that he is no where near having a working technology yet. "No where near" were his own words. BTW, I defended him in my presentation, against Miguel Alcubierre who has been dissing White publicly as of late. So after all the crap that Fernando had given me, I end up being more in involved with the field and some of the main players than he was!

Eder:

I another thing that I pointed out at the Symposium is that my model does not involve a "bubble" but a sheath field. That means that it is not this huge thing but more like a close, adhering cloud that is similar to the plasma sheath models that have already been worked with here on Earth. I had been studying those ideas for years before I began my own project, and I do not believe that the same physical artifacts and side effects described by Alcubierre based warp drive physics will apply to the concept I'm working with. I will be working with specialists in GR as things progress, so I'll know if anything does seem to develop along those lines...