http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

The hypothetical device, which has been outlined in principle but is based on a controversial theory about the fabric of the universe, could potentially allow a spacecraft to travel to Mars in three hours and journey to a star 11 light years away in just 80 days, according to a report in today's New Scientist magazine.

The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft.

Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.

Sounds interesting, but it also sounds absurd. What do the sciforums people think?

it would require a lot of power..... and its source is still in question.

-MT

For those wishing a more technical discussion of the topic than can be gleaned from a brief article in the second best newspaper in Scotland, go here.
http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/aiaa20024094.pdf

and journey to a star 11 light years away in just 80 days

Around the galaxy in 80 days... could make a good sequel!

Not worth a new thread, so posting here following news:
A spacecraft has sent a laser signal to Earth from 24 million km (15 million miles) away in interplanetary space. The Messenger probe exchanged laser signals with a US ground station partway through its journey to the planet Mercury.

Billy T comments:
Sub nano second pulses very practical and will permit very high data rates, but still of course do nothing to overcome the transit delay. Also should open (I think) new experiments related to accurate continuous measures of acceleration (local gravity + SOLAR presure field, etc.) fields.

Just to be a little thread relivant: I don't think any thing new here. - Just a different way (magnetically) to "warp space" make near "worm hole" etc. As someone observed, requires a hell of a lot of energy. Would be interesting to compare to using that same energy to accelerat protons, neutralize them with electrons, as neutral particle thrust beam "rocket." I don't know enough GR to make intelligent guess, but in ignorance, I would put my money on the neutral particle beam as the winner.

Around the galaxy in 80 days... could make a good sequel!
The galaxy is only 11 light years wide......? :bugeye:

Sounds like the government has finally discoverd how the alien crafts work......

12 times faster the solar sails....
Wow... we are moving along...

I wonder how they calculated the numbers... travel to mars in 3 hours...
So what would be the speed?

Well, let's see...
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/planets/mars.htm

distance to mars: 36 million miles to 250 million miles
trip lenght: 3 hours
speed: ?

v= 36 million / 3 hours
v= 12 million miles per hour

Huuumm... that would break the speed limit.....

Relationship to light....
speed of light: 670,616,629.4 miles per hour

670,616,629.4 / 12million
55.88 times faster then the speed of light!!!! :eek:

But what is the speed in light years per hour....? :confused:

it would require a lot of power..... and its source is still in question.

-MT
From the source...
"The US air force has expressed an interest in the idea and scientists working for the American Department of Energy - which has a device known as the Z Machine that could generate the kind of magnetic fields required to drive the engine - say they may carry out a test if the theory withstands further scrutiny. "
Which bring back the alien theory.... :rolleyes:
It also fits well with what I had said.... :rolleyes:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51297

This is taking forever. I think I will freeze myself and wake up 50 years from now and see if I can travel to another solar system.... :D

55.88 times faster then the speed of light!!!!

no, bad math. 670,616,629/12,000,000, thats ~ 670/12, that means the speed of light is 55 times faster than 12E^6 mi/h

I would say it's about time. Rocket propulsion is so 50 years ago.

no, bad math. 670,616,629/12,000,000, thats ~ 670/12, that means the speed of light is 55 times faster than 12E^6 mi/h
Oh! That's what happen when you spend 2 minutes doing all the calculations... :D
The math wasn't bad at all, cato. It was my interpretation that wasn't accurate. The accurate interpretation is that the speed of the craft is 1/55 of the speed of light. In other words, if the craft would go 55 times faster, it would travel at the speed of light.

On another note, what about the other estimate? 11 light years in 80 days? What's up with that!? A craft would need to go way faster then the speed of light to achieve that velocity. 80 days is about 22% of a year. The craft would need to travel 11 light years in 0.22 years. That's 858 times faster then light. Which means that the craft would have to travel at 858 light years per year, or 2.35 light years per day, or 0.4 light years per hour! :eek:

Wait... I need someone to verify that, cause I'm confused.... :D

What about my other question?

I want to know more of this z machine... and how they plan to use it in space....
and what is its output to power input.... what is the field intensity??
and on what basis do they think it can warp space?

and is there one schred of evidense for the devise creating a gravity field?

let along one that has the power of a black hole?

because that is the kind of power level we would need to zip around the galaxy like star trek..

and we havent even learned to use anti-matter... not usefully anyway.

-MT

The galaxy is only 11 light years wide......? :bugeye:

No, but the 80 days quote was irresistable.

For those wishing a more technical discussion of the topic than can be gleaned from a brief article in the second best newspaper in Scotland, go here.
http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/aiaa20024094.pdf
2nd best? well, now its been taken over by Johnson press, we'll see if anything changes. You think the first ebst is the Herald? Well it has its own flaws, but in some ways is better. How about the P and J?
And the latest New Scientist, unsurprisngly has something about it, in fact the Hootsmon probably re-wrote stuff from it, I have noticed their distressing tendency to do that.

No, but the 80 days quote was irresistable. :p
How about "Around Orion Arm in 80 days"....:D

This stuff goes really well with plasma theory and my own hypothesis......

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html
"This will require a huge rotating ring placed above a superconducting coil to create an intense magnetic field. With a large enough current in the coil, and a large enough magnetic field, Dröscher claims the electromagnetic force can reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free. Dröscher and Häuser say that to completely counter Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft a magnetic field of around 25 tesla would be needed. While that's 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field, pulsed magnets briefly reach field strengths up to 80 tesla. And Dröscher and Häuser go further. With a faster-spinning ring and an even stronger magnetic field, gravitophotons would interact with conventional gravity to produce a repulsive anti-gravity force, they suggest.

Dröscher is hazy about the details, but he suggests that a spacecraft fitted with a coil and ring could be propelled into a multidimensional hyperspace. Here the constants of nature could be different, and even the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. If this happens, it would be possible to reach Mars in less than 3 hours and a star 11 light years away in only 80 days, Dröscher and Häuser say."

Sounds like star trek.... :D

The interesting thing is that this seems to make other things possible. Like extremely fast computers and teleportation.....

It also reminds me of cold fusion. That seems very similar to the magnetic rings that keep the plasma in the fusion chamber from eating away the walls.....

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html
"This will require a huge rotating ring placed above a superconducting coil to create an intense magnetic field. With a large enough current in the coil, and a large enough magnetic field, Dröscher claims the electromagnetic force can reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free. Dröscher and Häuser say that to completely counter Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft a magnetic field of around 25 tesla would be needed. While that's 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field, pulsed magnets briefly reach field strengths up to 80 tesla. And Dröscher and Häuser go further. With a faster-spinning ring and an even stronger magnetic field, gravitophotons would interact with conventional gravity to produce a repulsive anti-gravity force, they suggest.

Dröscher is hazy about the details, but he suggests that a spacecraft fitted with a coil and ring could be propelled into a multidimensional hyperspace. Here the constants of nature could be different, and even the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. If this happens, it would be possible to reach Mars in less than 3 hours and a star 11 light years away in only 80 days, Dröscher and Häuser say."

Sounds like star trek.... :D

The interesting thing is that this seems to make other things possible. Like extremely fast computers and teleportation.....

It also reminds me of cold fusion. That seems very similar to the magnetic rings that keep the plasma in the fusion chamber from eating away the walls.....



Sounds cool, Star Wars here we come! :cool:

It also reminds me of cold fusion. That seems very similar to the magnetic rings that keep the plasma in the fusion chamber from eating away the walls.....

Er, I think if you have plasma that's hot fusion :D

I wonder how many calories you'd burn up if you jogged it?

Original paper (http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf)

Wikipedia links.
Heim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim)
His theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory)

The guy claimed to have done what Einstein failed to do and unified GR and QM.
When he first published he failed to predict several important empirical results.

Now. His theory has been adjusted by his supporters..and the first thing they ask for (even before peer review) is an experiment to prove their theory.
As far as I can tell (without any theory to go on whatsoever) the experiment could work.

If someone has created a Theory of everything...that rocks..it changes everything. And the first thing they want is to prove it in a spectacular manner..that`s good.

But I`m not gonna believe a word until I get some bloody theory. For all I know this is well thought out bullshit. It covers everything on my wish list. FTL, antigrav, unification of physics....So I`m expecting it all to be a joke/critique of the scientific method.

Er, I think if you have plasma that's hot fusion :D
Nope. It IS called "cold fusion"..... :eek:

if there was one shred of evidense that an intense magnetic field could effect our earths gravity field.. it would be world wide news.....

a way to effect gravity has been found..... yeh.

but thus far... it hasnt happened... so im still waiting.

-MT

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

pardon?

Hmm. Can't remember having done this in physics.

Original paper (http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf)

Wikipedia links.
Heim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim)
His theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory)

Official site (http://www.heim-theory.com/)?
Stuff on his mass formulae (http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/Introduction_to_Heim_s_Mass-Fo/introduction_to_heim_s_mass-fo.html) which supposedly predict elementary masses, something that few other theories claim to do. Not that I can tell what they're saying there...
Wikipedia talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heim_theory#POV_dispute_warning) has some discussion on the validity of the theory and its supporters.

If it is getting the attention of scientific magazines, then it is likely at least logical.

So let's just wait for the experiments and see.....? :confused:

It's a 5 year wait, though...! :(

One really good test of the theory is to read it all a few times and then work it out by yourself.

Anyone around here capable?

The problem is that when new Scientist contacted some physicists, tehy couldnt make much sense of what Heim was trying to say. However, that doesnt mean he was wrong, but does point out a communications problem that will have to be overcome. So were all going to have to wait a while before we see where this goes.

The only way thats going to happen is when we control the orbital weather, that way we can induce a huge natural vacuum to blow us to mars in 3 hours.

Oh... and remember Leibniz Theory of the Monadology. It is incredibly similar to Quantum Theory. Or the older ancient "aether theories" which agree with plasma theory.... :eek:

My question is how do they know the speed of light is faster in another dimension? For all they know, the speed of light could be crawling compared to our dimension, so when they try to get back, they'll be moving in slow motion and our world will have aged thousands of years before they finally get back! :eek: :m:

from the article:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html
Here the constants of nature could be different, and even the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. If this happens...

so yeah i agree what if it doesn't.

the entire ID seems to simple today's space shuttle can reach speeds of 5 miles/s and it would need around 150000 years to reach alpha centauri. if we 50 years later could cover travel 858 times FTL we could reach andromeda in less then 3000 year.
And it's only normal that in a other 50 years we would travel again a few 100 times fasther.

So within a 100 years wo would be capable to visit evrey star/planet in this galaxy and some of the closests others.
And this somehow seems to easy

Look at graphs of technological advances. Do you see any exponential trend?
That may give you a clue.... ;)

Yaba Daba! :m:

Exponential in computer technology. We are still using gas powered cars, rockets are still the only way we get into space. So how do we suddenly jump from over 50 years of traditional rockets, to traveling to Mars in another dimension that may or may not have a faster speed of light within 3 hours? Pot, perhaps? :m:

Worth a try!

Well the Heim theory group is publishing it`s derivation of it's Theory of Everything in May.
It's anti-grav stuff in July....whatever happens it's gonna be bloody entertaining.

yust wondering but spinning disks that can go to other stars. Reminds me a bid of stargate it's yust fun for entertainment.

BTW does anybody knows how much money they got from AIAA

No money. And since they are publishing a theory paper before an empirical paper...no chance to improve funding. Financial motive is improbable. (unless they have found a way to make money off hits to a website with no adverts)
Speculation is pointless with so little to go on. Wait and see.

Exponential in computer technology. We are still using gas powered cars, rockets are still the only way we get into space. So how do we suddenly jump from over 50 years of traditional rockets, to traveling to Mars in another dimension that may or may not have a faster speed of light within 3 hours? Pot, perhaps? :m:
What are you talked about. The physics that we are discussing here was developed more then 40 years ago!!! :eek:
The only reason why we didn't discover till now is because science has been to fixated on big bang theory....

Developed?! :eek:

I think you mean "theorized". There is no proof of any of this actually working. Once again, pot rules all. :m:

Now excuse me while I fire off this rocket...for no reason...the police may be notified...I'm going to jail. :mad:

Brake a leg...

Or whatever they say...

I thank you, sir. :m:

As I pointed out on another thread, we've been chewing the fat on Heim in
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=4385&st=150#entry60259
good-oh

I find this inter-dimensional theory dubious, but it should still be researched.

Until I am sure that I won't slip into another dimension like a beetrap, I'll trust nuclear propulsion and solar M2P2.

Wouldn't it take a LONG time to safely accelerate a human body to multiple c?

eh? :confused:
Roman, in this hyperdrive thing or whatever, the speed of light in the other dimensions is bigger. Therefore, c is now bigger and you won't need to accelerate a human body to multiple c. Besides, it is only the spaceship that is accelerating...

The human is inside the spaceship, is it not?

Yes, he is, but his speed is 0. Well, if he is sitting down.
Remember inertia....

What the hell are you talking about TruthSeeker? Going from 0 velocity to a higher velocity requires acceleration.

Even acclerating to a tenth of the speed of light would be... pretty fast.

ahh, but what about a non-accelerating acceleration! this new theory lets people get blasted at thousands of gees into orbit without them even feeling it.

how suspiciously convinient, truthseeker

what kind of powerplant would need to power this thing anyway? is it one of those unlimited energy or negative energy drives?

What the hell are you talking about TruthSeeker? Going from 0 velocity to a higher velocity requires acceleration.

Even acclerating to a tenth of the speed of light would be... pretty fast.
Yes, but that is just the spaceship accelerating, not you.

ahh, but what about a non-accelerating acceleration! this new theory lets people get blasted at thousands of gees into orbit without them even feeling it.

how suspiciously convinient, truthseeker
They do feel it. Did I say they don't? When you go to a plane, you feel the acceleration, correct? But once the plane is in a given speed, then you don't feel the acceleration anymore. This would be the same. The trick is to accelerate at a steady and reasonable pace. Don't accelerate to 10 light years per hour in 5 minutes! That's insane! You would need to spend a couple of hours accelerating in a rate that the human body can take. The same process goes to decelerating.

what kind of powerplant would need to power this thing anyway? is it one of those unlimited energy or negative energy drives?
Probably fusion... But keep in mind that there is no friction in space, so you can just "throw" the spaceship and it will keep going forever, basically.

Yeah great...travel to Mars in 3 minutes...and how would the spacecraft stop huh?...here I modified the sentence to make is true...travel to Mars in 3 minutes and crash at a speed of meteorite on Mars surface....

...and how would the spacecraft stop huh?
The same way it was started :D

Yes, but that is just the spaceship accelerating, not you.

Yes, but you are accelerating with the ship. A far as physics is concerned, what makes the passenger any diffrent from the ship?

What is wrong with you accelarating with the ship?

Then the statement but that is just the spaceship accelerating, not you. becomes meaningless.

Either you and the ship are accelerating, in which case you feel the effects of the acceleration.

Or, the ship is accelerating and you are not, in which case you are left behind as the ship disappears into space at an increasing speed.


By the way, your grasp of the Heim theory places you right up there with most physicists: you haven't the faintest idea. The principlal difference is that they are aware they don't.

Then the statement but that is just the spaceship accelerating, not you. becomes meaningless.

Either you and the ship are accelerating, in which case you feel the effects of the acceleration.

Or, the ship is accelerating and you are not, in which case you are left behind as the ship disappears into space at an increasing speed.
Well, as I said before, it makes sense to accelerate in small chuncks, so that the effects of acceleration are minimized.

Hehehe.... this reminds me of a scene from the movie Spaceballs.... :D

By the way, your grasp of the Heim theory places you right up there with most physicists: you haven't the faintest idea. The principlal difference is that they are aware they don't.
What is "Heim theory"? :confused:

Yaba Daba! :m:

Well, as I said before, it makes sense to accelerate in small chuncks, so that the effects of acceleration are minimized.
Point 1: That has zero relevance to your previous statements that were simply contradictory to point of being mutually exclusive.
Point 2:It does not make sense to accelerate in small chunks. It makes sense to accelerate constantly, so that effect is smooth and not jerky.
Point 3:Off-topic, but you have an uncanny ability to get at least half of what you post hopelessly wrong. At the risk of being offensive, would this be due to a lack of education, a lack of intellect, a trolling technique, or some other factor?
this reminds me of a scene from the movie Spaceballs.... :DMy apologies. I didn't realise you had a science education.
What is "Heim theory"? :confused:
You are serious aren't you? It is what this thread is about you turkey. If you are going to participate, at least pay other posters the compliment of treating it seriously, or expect all the derision that is rightfully yours to be heaped upon you.

Point 1: That has zero relevance to your previous statements that were simply contradictory to point of being mutually exclusive.
Point 2:It does not make sense to accelerate in small chunks. It makes sense to accelerate constantly, so that effect is smooth and not jerky.
Point 3:Off-topic, but you have an uncanny ability to get at least half of what you post hopelessly wrong. At the risk of being offensive, would this be due to a lack of education, a lack of intellect, a trolling technique, or some other factor?
Probably lack of your understanding of logic... :rolleyes:

No, you totally didn't understand me. I said that the acceleration should be slow and rising at a constant speed. I never said it should be "jerky". I said it to be rising like an exponential function.

My apologies. I didn't realise you had a science education.
Have you ever watched Spaceballs...?

You are serious aren't you? It is what this thread is about you turkey. If you are going to participate, at least pay other posters the compliment of treating it seriously, or expect all the derision that is rightfully yours to be heaped upon you.
:D
Hey! I'm forgetful, you know! I haven't been to this thread for a long time...! :D

Geeeez! You are so serious! It is boring to talk with you! :p

Truthseeker - here is some free advice. Learn to communicate. When you grow up you may find it is a useful skill.

Final point: you said it was better to accelerate in chunks. That is very definitely not the same as acceleration rising as an exponential function. You see what I mean about clear communication: you lack it.
What acceleration were you planning on rising to?

Well aside from the claim to travel to Mars in 3 days by using technology we have not developed a concept of...realistically we can travel to Mars in a year or so in a PLASTIC spaceship...yupp...plastic or polyethylene spaceship will help the astronauts survive the radiation conditions on their ride to the red planet.

Truthseeker - here is some free advice. Learn to communicate. When you grow up you may find it is a useful skill.

Final point: you said it was better to accelerate in chunks. That is very definitely not the same as acceleration rising as an exponential function. You see what I mean about clear communication: you lack it.
What acceleration were you planning on rising to?
By small chunks I meant little by little. Accelerate a little bit, then a little bit more, and so on. ;)

Well, I agree I'm not the best communicator. But, hey! I challenge that position! :D

How would I ever improve if I didn't try? ;)

Well aside from the claim to travel to Mars in 3 days by using technology we have not developed a concept of...realistically we can travel to Mars in a year or so in a PLASTIC spaceship...yupp...plastic or polyethylene spaceship will help the astronauts survive the radiation conditions on their ride to the red planet.
Solar sails can do it in 3 months...

Another thing that people should remember is that there is no friction in space. So my question is, if there is no friction, can the acceleration be felt?

I mean.. when an airplane accelerates, we feel the acceleration because there is air causing friction. Th air creates a force that is contrary to the direction of the airplane. That creates pressure and we feel that pressure when the airplane shakes. But once the plane is up and in a constant speed, the air resistance decreases thus decreasing the pressure.

Acceleration in space would be felt as something very like gravity. If you accelerate at a third of a gee for ten seconds, you will feel a gravity-like force for ten seconds.
If you accelerated ten times as much you would feel a full Earth gravity for the period of the acceleration.

Accelerate even more you would feel a force greater than Earth gravity pushing you down into your seat.

On top of this sensation of weight the rocket would no doubt vibrate in a noticable way because of the massive energies concerned.

This would not necessarily apply to a ship which warps space, because that might drag its inertial frame of reference with it. But there is no feasible method of creating a warp drive yet; Jochem Hauser's idea comes nowhere near describing a working prototype.

Another thing that people should remember is that there is no friction in space. So my question is, if there is no friction, can the acceleration be felt?

I mean.. when an airplane accelerates, we feel the acceleration because there is air causing friction. Th air creates a force that is contrary to the direction of the airplane. That creates pressure and we feel that pressure when the airplane shakes. But once the plane is up and in a constant speed, the air resistance decreases thus decreasing the pressure.This will sound harsh, but I mean to help. Post a little less and read some in a physics book.

I don't care about physics books. I'm posting because I'm interested in discussing. I say what seems to be most logical, that's all.

So, what do you think is wrong in my logic?

That the spaceship was accelerating but the contents weren't

Where did I say that?

This is what I said:
They do feel it. Did I say they don't? When you go to a plane, you feel the acceleration, correct? But once the plane is in a given speed, then you don't feel the acceleration anymore. This would be the same. The trick is to accelerate at a steady and reasonable pace. Don't accelerate to 10 light years per hour in 5 minutes! That's insane! You would need to spend a couple of hours accelerating in a rate that the human body can take. The same process goes to decelerating.
"10 light years per hour in 5 minutes"... :D
I'm so cool! :D

No really... they feel the effects of acceleration, not speed. This is the difference I'm trying to point out. ;)

eh? :confused:
Roman, in this hyperdrive thing or whatever, the speed of light in the other dimensions is bigger. Therefore, c is now bigger and you won't need to accelerate a human body to multiple c. Besides, it is only the spaceship that is accelerating...

I believe that's where you said it.

Hamster, there I was talking about hyperdrive. I was talking about wrapping the space. Just as eburacum45 said:
This would not necessarily apply to a ship which warps space, because that might drag its inertial frame of reference with it. But there is no feasible method of creating a warp drive yet; Jochem Hauser's idea comes nowhere near describing a working prototype.

Ah, I see. All clear now. I apologise

TruthSeeker, I think this is where your logic is flawed:

I mean.. when an airplane accelerates, we feel the acceleration because there is air causing friction.

The air causes us to feel relatively minor forces (or major ones if you're unlucky enough to go through significant turbulence), but the main force that pushes you back in your seat is not caused by air. You'd feel it just the same if you accelerated in a vacuum at a similar rate.

Ah, I see. All clear now. I apologise
Yes! Bown to me! I'm your master! :p

"bown"... LOL! :D

The air causes us to feel relatively minor forces (or major ones if you're unlucky enough to go through significant turbulence), but the main force that pushes you back in your seat is not caused by air. You'd feel it just the same if you accelerated in a vacuum at a similar rate.
There is inertia as well as friction. The difference is that in space there is no friction to cause turbulance.

But in Star Trek Voyager they usually have some form of turbulance, like "subspace turbulance".

Hat to break it to you, but Star Trek isn't generally considered a valid reference for physics outside of www.conspiracymysterypsuedosciencealienuilluminati .angelfire.geocities.freewebs.com

Actually, that is possible if you are going through an interestellar cloud... ;)

True, but I gathered we were talking about deep space travel.

Yes. But I just had to comment on it... ;)

I know Truthseeker, I know. That's why we love you! ;)

Awwwwww......
I feel realized.... :)

I feel this warm fuzzy feeling in my stomach...
Oh wait. Nope. It's just gas... :D

Thats interesting, though I dont know how credible their sources are, and if it had any real potential I dont think it would be heard of from a "scotsman" online article. Though it said it was in the theoretical stages, and that other scientists were scepticle it would be very cool to see. This could be very interesting to see progress into an actual project.

And why would the "Scotsman" be an unusual source for an article of significance? Are you suggesting that quality newspapers are not alert to interesting development in the sciences?

Is the "Scotsman" a quality newspaper?

Are you implying that Scotish people are dumb!? :mad:
Cause my family is part Scotish now, you know? :eek:



:p

Is the "Scotsman" a quality newspaper?
Very decidedly. Founded in 1817 it is the largest selling broadsheet in Scotland. You may find this capsule history of interest.
http://www.rampantscotland.com/features/bldev_scotsman.htm

Amongst British dailys I would rank it along side The Times, The Independent, The Guardian, The Herald, and (were it not for the typography) The Telegraph.

Then I aplogise for my ignorance.