What would be energy requirement for a 20ton spacecraft, if this dark energy experiment was successful? Is it something that would need Saturn size lump of uranium, or something more real?
We can’t reasonably estimate the energy requirements at this point – we still don’t even have an inkling of a method to technologically emulate the dark energy effect, or even a sensible description of its physical nature. All we really know is an approximation of the acceleration across vast cosmic distances, which isn’t every helpful, frankly.*
The first idea that cosmologists had, was that the vacuum fluctuations implied by quantum field theory provided this apparently universal and homogeneous energy field that could drive the intergalactic gravitational repulsion effect. But the predicted energy density from QED is around 120 orders of magnitude off – a rather irksome disparity sometimes called the “vacuum catastrophe.” Most theorists still cling to this idea because it’s pretty much the only idea out there. They’re hoping that the vacuum fluctuations in free space are physical and not strictly computational, and that somebody will figure out an explanation and a mechanism for that energy to almost, but not exactly, cancel. That must be extremely difficult or impossible though, because after nearly 20 years nobody’s figured out a suitable equation that makes any sense.
Another idea is that our universe has an intrinsic negative curvature. But really that’s just saying the same thing that the vacuum fluctuation idea says, but in general relativity terms rather than quantum theory terms – there’s no explanation for why the intrinsic curve is there. And in fact, various types of observations all point to a flat universe. Which suggests that the cosmos may actually be infinite.
But get this – Daniel Fry’s books describe the basic contours of another kind of explanation altogether. In this model, the laws of nature are all intimately interrelated by a function that defines a sine wave: factors like time and gravitation and energy can all take on positive or negative values between two points of interest, depending on the relationships of all the other fundamental physical factors to one another, and between the chosen points.
This is a highly appealing notion that implies a grand unified field theory. And thanks to Einstein, we’re already aware of some vital examples of this interdependence. We now know that the rate of time is dependent on relative velocity aka kinetic energy. We know that inertial mass is also a variable that’s proportional to kinetic energy, defined by the Lorentz transform (which is just the equation of a circle, and a circle in motion defines a sine wave). And we also know that the relationship between time and space changes in the presence of mass, according to Einstein’s gravitational field equation. And we now know that gravitoelectric induction can produce both a positive and a negative gravitational pole using ordinary matter accelerated along a toroidal coil – which is yet another successful scientific prediction found within Daniel Fry’s books (Fry predicted this effect in his 1960 book
Atoms Galaxies, and Understanding, but this effect wasn’t described in the scientific literature until Robert Forward published a paper about it in 1962 while he was working at Hughes Research Laboratories, a top military research company).
* It’s worth noting that Dr. Harold White at NASA’s Eagleworks advanced propulsion research group has optimized the shape of the Alcubierre warp field, such that the negative energy requirement is now down to the mass of a VW bug automobile – which is still a huge magnitude of energy (and of a negative type that’s only theoretically available at all). But that’s down from the Jupiter-scale mass equivalent that many authors had calculated previously, and future theoretical work may find even more plausible energy requirements.
Not quite.
All he did was to say that empty space had a repulsive force.
No that’s not what he said. He said that a gravitational repulsion existed at intergalactic scales; he didn’t explain it as empty space having a repulsive force. The description in his books states that gravity possesses two poles, a positive and a negative, and that factors like energy and distance determine whether the interaction is positive or negative. In Fry’s model, the gravitational interaction is positive in the short range, and negative at cosmological scales. Phenomenologically, that’s much more interesting and intuitive because the source of the effect is the matter itself, not empty space.
The conventional interpretation of dark energy, on the other hand, would have us believe that some undetected form of energy pervading all of space uniformly, endows it with an antigravitational quality – that’s a radical, unprecedented, and frankly unconvincing concept.
But unfortunately, the observational data is insufficiently precise to determine whether this long-range gravitational repulsion is a truly isotropic property of space, or if it varies to some extent (which would favor the kind of mechanism that Daniel Fry described). The Dark Energy Survey is looking for anisotropies in the dark energy effect right now.
That's exactly what the cosmological constant is. He just ramped it up.
Even if your interpretation were correct, and I’ve just explained why it isn’t, “just ramping it up” would still constitute a valid and unique scientific prediction. For example, QED predicts a stronger magnetization of the electron – which you could also describe as “just ramping it up,” if you were seeking the most trivializing manner of expression imaginable. And since it’s been observationally confirmed, that’s considered a valid prediction of QED – direct evidence that QED is the right physical model. If the magnetization of the electron hadn’t proven to possess a slightly stronger magnetization, then QED would have been disproven. That’s why predictions matter.
That's not very hard to do. I think you're vastly overstating what he claimed, and how accurate it really was. And very much how easy it is to make random claims, some of which will happen to be true.
This is why it’s pointless to debate with you marduk: even when you’re given unassailable facts that prove an interesting point, you either can’t understand their significance, or you simply choose not to, and tediously cling to the same tiresome and baseless conclusion that you started with. There’s no point in debating with someone who’s apparently incapable of changing their mind in light of a solid logical argument supported by real and unambiguous sourced data.
I do you the courtesy of avoiding these pointless exercises in futility by abstaining from your threads. I wish you’d extend me the same courtesy.
OK, marduk, you jumped into your own mouth, so to say. Only few people in each century make correct predictions on that magnitude. Most of them are Nobel prize winners.
Daniel Fry made 3 or 4.
Why don't you have a go? Make a scientific prediction. You said it's not vary hard.
Yep. Unlike every other contactee, Daniel Fry’s scientific claims have grown >more< mainstream as time has passed. In addition to the prediction of intergalactic acceleration, he also described specific features of gravitational propulsion that weren’t elucidated in the physics literature until Alcubierre first formally described the characteristics of gravitational field propulsion nearly forty years later. And he also described electromagnetically induced transparency decades before it was discovered.
And these features of his writings are not an anomalous subset among a multitude of other predictions that were subsequently shown to be false. He accurately described many known physical principles, and made only perhaps 3-5 statements that qualify as predictions. As time has passed, those predictions that can be validated, have been.
It would be foolish and unscientific to dismiss that fact simply because the context of his story seems so incredible, because those are two different subjects. Have Daniel Fry’s scientific predictions been uncannily prescient and accurate? Yes they have. Did Daniel Fry acquire those predictions from an alien intelligence? We have no idea – there’s insufficient evidence in either direction to arrive at a defensible conclusion. Perhaps Fry was privy to scientific advancements made within top secret military research projects and his story is a smokescreen that he devised to release the information he had learned. But it’s very hard to imagine that the military knew about the dark energy effect in the early 1950s, and I’ve never even heard of a secret military astronomy program.
Like I said, this is a highly anomalous case, by virtue of its correct scientific predictions. I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation of it.
