Given that they use something called “impulse engines” (a reference to a reaction engine) – sounds appropriate. Travel 3 G’s or more and it will do damage to the body after prolonged periods of time.Simply because our bodies are made to withstand 1 G (Earth gravity force), and not higher levels.So I was thinking, a true reactionless drive would not have a reaction force (it’s not throwing anything out the back to accelerate), which should mean that crewmembers won’t experience ANY G force even at high accelerations.So by that theory, you wouldn’t even need inertial dampeners like they use on star trek, since the reactionary force simply isn’t there.Am I right or wrong?And while I know it’s impossible, this is science fiction, so I am free to indulge the impossible here. However, I observe that your perception of what happened is exactly that – a perception. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It may as well be not more power but simply physics that we do not know yet. “More power” seems like a very primitive way to try and force this idea. For example the acceleration of a spacecraft slingshot around a planet. Related Discussions:Life ForceMac did a bad, bad thing…hard drive problemsTension and centripetal forcesConfusion over derivation of angular momentumhard drive questionAlcubierre drive practicality and the problems of itPressure on a lateral side of a tankMagnetic motor for airplaneHow do I speed up my system?problem with not able to make pagaragraphs Schall thought they were reporting one thing when it turns out that Buschman and Miller were reporting a different value. And they also have a “warp core” that has unknown physics behind it.

But we do not know whether “more power” is what is needed to go FTL. For example the “G force” of a seat thrusting against your back.I’m using it in the sense of acceleration due to gravity. It seems clear that Schall made the mistake.Anyway, I don’t care about the debate between these guys, I’m just surprised that Science would bother to publish the original comment by Schall when it was clearly in error.

Originally Posted by billvon “Acceleration.” You keep using that word. Something you aren’t sure about? scienceanswers.co.uk Just how much acceleration due to gravity can a human withstand? No limit. “Acceleration.” You keep using that word. This is just a search engine.

Hyperspace tunnles are great since they avoid a lot of the issues with space and relativity. Even greater acceleration, yet it feels no different than orbit. Your interpretation of who is correct and who is wrong is a judgement made by you on the basis of the facts, but coloured by your experience and personal biases.

Related Discussions:Scientist behaving badlyBan and suspension alternative; Exile to subfora!I have gone forth and randomally distributed my seed.what makes the electrons move in conductor? (em induction)Reported Post – Harold14370PhD or MD?the scientist and the spiderImmortalityShould I be worried?Gravity upside down That certainly provides suffcient jsutification for the journal to publish the riposte in the first place.Welcome to the forum by the way. Reactionless drives, which is how Star Trek ships fly despite their claim to use reaction thrust (which would be quite noticeable if properly depicted), I would argue require something much more powerful essay writing help online
than fusion.And thus the warp drive was born. Is it the fall that hurts you, or the sudden stop at the bottom? The acceleration hurts you. (Seeing a 100G acceleration due to impact is no different, physiologically, than seeing a 100G acceleration due to a rocket under the elevator.) Try dropping your elevator into Jupiter. The G’s come from acceleration, not speed.

Therefore, your interpreation may be faulty. Originally Posted by BrandtLebow However, I have read many Technical Comments in Science and I have never read one in which the authors’ response starts with “these guys misread our paper”. Related Discussions:Why do People Laugh at Creationists? (Posted with Consent)HelpThoughts ?The universe that existed before the Big Bang?Big Bang and Accelerating Expansion TheoryRed Crab takes on African Giant land snail!I’m new here!Homework problemsNeed help on an easy problemchance or intelligent design?

Just not the Star Wars route where you start making up stuff like the force. But now I love reactionless drives, as they are an ALL IN ONE type of technology. Well actually, we already have one.The Alcubierre drive is essentially a reactionless one, since it bend contracts space time and expands it out the back.No G force effects happen whatsoever.You can use it sublight speeds just like you can at FTL speeds, so there is no reason for an Impulse drive. Originally Posted by lorbo So I was thinking, a true reactionless drive would not have a reaction force (it’s not throwing anything out the back to accelerate), which should mean that crewmembers won’t experience ANY G force even at high accelerations.

Is it the fall that hurts you, or the sudden stop at the bottom? Try dropping your elevator into Jupiter. For example the “G force” of a seat thrusting against your back.I’m using it in the sense of acceleration due to gravity. They have so many applications and make space travel a real breeze.

In this case the occupants don’t feel any forces relative to their craft… they may float a pencil in the air and it won’t move much though the entire exercise… though it’s being greatly accelerated.If your sci-fi drive can create gravity, you can comfortably accelerate at any rate. Just my opinion and it is of course colored by my biases. For example the acceleration of a spacecraft slingshot around a planet.

However, I have read many Technical Comments in Science and I have never read one in which the authors’ response starts with “these guys misread our paper”. The exact words of the first line were: “We believe that Schall et al misread our paper.” And it seems that is exactly what happened. However in general it’s not necessary at least for interplanetary travel – if you can accelerate at ~1G (quite comfortable) you can get places very quickly:4 hours to the moon2 days to Mars9 days to Saturn16 days to Pluto For example the acceleration of a spacecraft slingshot around a planet. Main problems.

Clever. It is a joke. Originally Posted by Pong I’m using it in the sense of acceleration due to gravity. So Star Trek goofed when they put in the inertial dampeners, just like I thought! LOL.When you try to mix current physics understanding with the impossible, inconsistencies become inevitiable I suppose.A lot of Trek ships appear to use reactionless drives, yet they use outdated fustion reactors to power them.For science fiction, you may as well go ALL out.Science Fantasy so be it.

Every time you lick a 9V battery to test its charge, relativity dies a little inside. Actually, scientists have figured out that if even if they made a functioning Alcubierre drive, it couldn’t fly at light speed, let alone FTL.Doing that creates hawking radiation at the center of the ship, hot and deadly stuff which kills.Going at sublight speeds creates no such problem.Which means it’s still better than using rockets.So for a science fiction angle:Use Alcubierre drive for sublight travel and hyperspace tunnels for FTL. Originally Posted by pyoko “Outdated” fusion reactors? You realise fusion is still basically a thing of the future, right? We are still stuck with fission.

I’d never thought of that before. My question is: Why did Science even bother publishing Schall et al’s comment. Perfect for sub-light travel.

In this case the occupants don’t feel any forces relative to their craft… they may float a pencil in the air and it won’t move much though the entire exercise… though it’s being greatly accelerated.If your sci-fi drive can create gravity, you can comfortably accelerate at any rate. Say you’re in free fall, accelerating due to gravity. I think you mean the difference between the craft and the human occupant. As everyone who has ever researched it knows, G force prevents humans from traveling as fast as they could go in space.

Let’s keep that elevator in mind for this sci-fi speculation. I think you mean the difference between the craft and the human occupant. And they also have a “warp core” that has unknown physics behind it. Originally Posted by pyoko Well, if it’s an unknown science that is making the acceleration unfelt to the ship, then sure.By the way, humans can travel as fast as they want in space. G force comes from acceleration, not from the rocket. (Note that you can feel it in an elevator, even though there’s no rocket or reaction drive.) You’d still feel the G’s as you accelerated.

In this case the occupants don’t feel any forces relative to their craft… they may float a pencil in the air and it won’t move much though the entire exercise… though it’s being greatly accelerated.If your sci-fi drive can create gravity, you can comfortably accelerate at any rate. That’s what hyperspace tunnels are for. [QUOTE=lorbo;515224] Originally Posted by pyoko So Star Trek goofed when they put in the inertial dampeners, just like I thought!. Just gravity drives.Which brings us to the question, how do they react to planets?Say you wanna launch one off a planet? Will that cause any adverse effects?Every action has a reaction, and I suppose that if the gravity drive is shooting out repulsive gravity like a rocket, it might move a planet off course, which would be catastrophic.So gravity drives would be treated like Nuclear reactors, and ordinary people would not own any, due to the danger. The warp drive can do it all.

The G’s come from acceleration, not speed. Thanks.Agreed. Originally Posted by Pong What’s the problem with G force really? Well, lots of it will kill you, a little less will cripple you, a little less will cause you pain and injury. Originally Posted by billvon G force comes from acceleration, not from the rocket. (Note that you can feel it in an elevator, even though there’s no rocket or reaction drive.) You’d still feel the G’s as you accelerated.

This may be a classic example of the old-fashioned, backward-looking scientist being scared by new approaches. Originally Posted by pyoko For all we know a 9V battery might be able to power such a device. Oh well, I guess Science makes mistakes sometimes. What’s the problem with G force really?

Say you’re in free fall, accelerating due to gravity. Just how much acceleration due to gravity can a human withstand? No limit.The sci-fi drive should generate gravity, or a practical facsimile of it, through the entire spacecraft including its contents. I do not think it means what you think it means. If you can do that and counteract the acceleration caused by the rocket, that would work.

Even greater acceleration, yet it feels no different than orbit. Well, if it’s an unknown science that is making the acceleration unfelt to the ship, then sure.By the way, humans can travel as fast as they want in space. Was that the actual wording, or are you paraphrasing?

I mean I’ve read plenty of reactions in journals where reading between the lines the writers have been way more severe than that http://www.bucks.edu/student/. I do not think it means what you think it means. FTL? Forget it. There is no one to whom I can ask a question.

Originally Posted by Pong Originally Posted by billvon “Acceleration.” You keep using that word. If you are saying they were very direct then at least that is more honest than some of the snide stuff that gets passed off as objective criticism. Or if I wanted to be cynical, they may enjoy a good fight. For all we know a 9V battery might be able to power such a device. “Outdated” fusion reactors? You realise fusion is still basically a thing of the future, right?

We are still stuck with fission. So gravity drives are the only thing you need for a science fiction FTL drive.You don’t want or need rockets. I haven’t read the paper, or the comments generated by it.

The sci-fi drive should generate gravity, or a practical facsimile of it, through the entire spacecraft including its contents.