Is the "warp bubble" possible?


The government reasearch site talks about experiments(acctually in R&D) with warp bubbles, black holes, antigravity, plasma fusion,etc.etc. They are looking for a source of energy that's more powerful than anti-matter for the warp bubble(to begin experiaments), they are building a small generator to create a micro-blackhole, they are building what is called a vector devicve, which can increase or decrease the strengh or gravity(this is a run-off research of the blackhole), and the fusion plasma? oops, that's a private sector. they got it almost built, but need funding to test.E-mail me if you want links.

I don't suppose you will post your links for all of us to see, will you?

If the Gummint are working on anti-grav devices they should really call them Tensor Devices. Vectors are a crude approximation to reality.

AFAIK nothing is more efficient than a matter/anti-matter collision. That is, it is 100% efficient and you just can not get 101% efficiency. Even a supernova, thread tie in, is only about 10% efficient but the sheer mass involved results in a huge energy release.

The fusion of a plasma is also well understood. Just very hard to achieve in practice. JET, the Joint Eurpean Torus, have been trying to get fusion to work for a long time. Getting the right nergy denisties and containment is probelmatical.
thed ...

Any idea as to what's been happening with 'Medusa'?

Haven't seen or heard anything lately.

Thanks anyway, Mr. G ...

But I was thinking more on the order of the last six months or so.

Since the 'Pegasus' project, 'Medusa' seems to have dropped
out of the picture.

Take care.
Last edited:
Medusa project

Can't say I can add more. I've not kept up on developements in Fusion research so much as Cosmology.

Can't help there I'm afraid.
But what happens when the magnetic field moves? is the object inside stationary with regard to the bubble or the outside system?
I think from my understanding of the Theory of Relativity, if you are inside the bubble while the bubble is moving at c, you wouldn't notice a differece - so you'll be living the normal way. But if someone views you from outside of the bubble, then time dilation, mass dialation and length contraction needs to be considered.
I once designed a warp engine using the decay of neutrons as the motive force. It was a pretty simple design. I never did get around to building one. Perhaps in the spring.
Originally posted by Mr. G
How about rest mass relative to the (still theoretical) Higg's field(s) arising from the quantum vacuum?

Presumably, it is not (yet??) possible to know if the universe is rotating, or if the quantum vacuum undulates, to know if such reference frame dragging might contribute to ill determinion of absolute rest mass.

But maybe a purely speculative, moving mass, Higg's field force doppler shift might allow the determination of an object's least complex possible value for rest mass.

Here is an interesting article about the Higgs Boson and the lack of evidence for it which may put the theories regarding the Higgs field and the Standard model in jeopardy.
Forgive my ignorence.

Sorry for this post if it intrupts the flow. I have a vauge understandig of this topic.

Iam in process of following the helpful links

Stop the light.

Time moves faster then light.

If light has mass, then how does it go faster then its self.
Re: Forgive my ignorence.

Originally posted by peter/peter
Stop the light.

Time moves faster then light.

If light has mass, then how does it go faster then its self. [/B]
1 - Light doesn't have mass
2 - Time doesn't "move faster than light." It doesn't really "move" at all.

According to relativity everything moves at the speed of light. Imagine a car driving down a wide path at a fixed speed. If you go straight along the path parallel to the edge, you'll get to the destination at the fastest possible time. If you take a diagonal path, (from corner to corner for example) even though you travel at the same speed, you'll take longer to get there because you had to travel more distance.
If something is not moving, it's travelling at the speed of light, but entirely through time. If something is traveling at the speed of light through space (photons), then it's not travelling through time. Most things take a diagonal path. The faster you move through space, the less you move through time, just like a graph.
Just a thought, but if you fold space in on itself, then "distance" does not have the same meaning. Bring one point in space to another, and you travel from one place to the other through almost no distance. Agreed, my knowledge of quantum physics, etc is weak, but just a thought.
Posted by Peter/Peter

If light has mass, then how does it go faster then its self.


I'm not yelling at you specifically peter/peter, but I like to remind the ignorant out there every now and then.
re: posted by ryans/relativistic mass

A photon does have relativistic mass if I understand it correctly. Relativistic mass increases with it's velocity.
Originally posted by ryans
Posted by Peter/Peter


I'm not yelling at you specifically peter/peter, but I like to remind the ignorant out there every now and then.

Its been a while since i have done physics but i was told that the EM spectrum all had princibles of the mass spectrum and that the mass spectrum all had princibles of the EM spectrum. the theory is wave-particle duality correct me if i'm wrong its been awhile
All silver linings have a cloud

I can see that faster than light travel is going to be possible, by fooling space (I think bending it is the current word of the month ;)) but I have a sneaky suspicion that the person that travels faster than light is going to get restrained by time, so he'll zoom to alpha centuri and back and it'll have taken him a day, but he'll get back and it'll be a 8 years later...

I cant see how to get round that.

Any ideas?