NASA, Elon Musk Reveal New Light Speed Engine That Defies Physics
There is so much to see and learn in space, but exploration faces a huge problem; distance! The nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri, is 24,984 billion miles away. With current technology, that would take us 6,300 years to reach. If we really want to explore space as true pioneers, we need a better means of traveling.
Even Mars, which Elon Musk wants to colonize, will require nothing less than five months of space travel! And that is if you take advantage of the best time to leave the Earth!
However, long distances will no longer be an issue with the newest innovation that Musk and NASA have just revealed; the new light speed engine! If this is true, a new era of space exploration has begun.
What is the light speed engine, how fast is it, and what impact will it have on space travel? Check out the video below and learn about the new engine that defies physics.
via YouTube
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
Engage! How very star trek.
It will be NASA, not the govt? I thought NASA was financed by the govt, so what’s the difference?
Of course, in order to reach the speed stated, It will require massive acceleration in short order no human can withstand, unless It will be a gradient increase (much slowness). Moon in under two seconds then? I guess not.
Perhaps an atomic accelerator device that moves all biological matter down to the minute level so even atoms are not ripped apart? Deflector to prevent collisions with space debris of even small size at such speed is a must, which is aptly demonstrated by the immense power of ‘twisters’, and the soft objects they can punch into solid objects such as trees. Better get ‘the back room boys on it’, STAT!
If true, this makes a mockery of science. Not holding my breath though.
Reply
VOWG
| #
The human body would be a red smear on the wall of anything that could move at light speed. Physics and the human body, you know.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
‘Figures given for travel times are ludicrous, involving light speed travel, (which is impossible for anything with mass), and no allowance for acceleration and deceleration times.
The only way to negate the effects of inertia, (which is the real enemy), is to modify spacetime ahead of the vehicle. slow down time, and “fall” forwards. This effectively creates a gravitational field in front of the ship and so no acceleration forces are experienced by the occupants. There IS a proposal to do this but also to increase the time rate behind the ship, but the is impossible. It is possible to slow time, but not possible to speed it up beyond its natural maximum rate, ( barring time dilations from gravitational fields.
I suspect this is how so called UFOs, or UAPs maneuver so rapidly. We imagine massive acceleration forces, but that is incorrect. There are no forces when falling in a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the acceleration and still with zero forces.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
Your acceptance of Einstein’s relativity leads to contradictory reasoning. Mass distorts the space/time continuum which produces gravity without using energy or force, but your plan involves distorting the continuum without using mass.
If acceleration and gravity are identical (as Einstein contends), then when an object accelerates the distance or unit of length it travels increases, which because the speed of light, c, is constant, necessitates time to expand. In an increasing gravitational field time also expands and since gravity is an inverse function of distance this means the distance to the center of gravity must increase. The closer the object gets to the center of gravity, the stronger the gravitational field and the greater the distance to the center of gravity.
Your belief that the change of distance in an accelerating object is due to decreasing length of the moving objet is impossible. It would mean that any time dilation would not only be a factor of the objects speed but also its size.
An object slightly larger than 30m, as it approached the speed of light, would have a change of distance of 30m which, because of the constant speed of light, would mean a change of time of one 10 trillionth of a second. Smaller objects would have smaller alterations of time resulting in no one being able to ever detect any time dilation for atoms or subatomic particles
Since relativity squares velocity it loses any direction and objects traveling in opposite directions have the same value. In reality directions matter and two objects traveling in opposite directions at close to the speed of light would have the distance between them expanding at greater than the speed of light.
Herb.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“If acceleration and gravity are identical (as Einstein contends)” Two issues. First I would like your reference to when Einstein contended this. Second, it does not matter if he did contend this because Einstein accepted that what he reasoned did not matter for he was uncertain that his reasoning (or any one else) was correct, I conclude this from his statement: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I don’t give references because the references people cite are those that support their view. If you doubt what I say do a search for Einstein equivalence theory. He maintained that in a closed container with no outside references you cannot do an experiment that distinguishes between acceleration and gravity field. He was wrong as experiments were proposed that would detect the difference. (A laser light being reflected between the walls would descend as the walls moved up in with acceleration but not with gravity.
For people, like you, who believe Einstein is infallible there is no experiment that can prove him wrong. When the energy given off from radioactive decay did not match that expected by E=mc^2, the formula was not declared wrong, the neutrino was invented to make it right.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you for the reference.
From an abstract of a scholarly paper I read: ”Einstein’s equivalence principle for a uniform gravitational field states that the motion of an object in an inertial reference frame is indistinguishable from the motion of the object in the absence of this field but with respect to a suitable uniformly accelerated reference system.”
In this statement there is the non-specific adjective—SUITABLE—which wouldn’t be needed if there was a specifically defined “uniformly accelerated reference system”.
I have a comment about one of Einstein’s pondering: that gravity bends light. Which some time in the past I have commented upon.
My comment is that I read that here on earth we see the sun rise over an eastern horizon before we should according to other observations of the astronomers. This observation has been explained by the phenomenon of refraction due to the atmospheres density which decreases with altitude above the earth’s surface.
Most know about how many rushed to see the next total solar eclipse so the light of a distant star should past near the sun and be seen. And sure enough what they observed was what Einstein’s theory predicted. However, it seems no one considered that the sun had an atmosphere whose density should decrease as the distance from the sun increased. So there is another known (observed) phenomenon which should (could) bend the light of the star.
And I have already quoted Einstein’s statement that he was always uncertain about all his theories (ideas).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
RockyTSquirrel
| #
Ever notice only “mathematical” scientist, have a “fixed” point that can not be altered..
(light is a constant, atomic weights are set, etc…)
But by real world observations, we see variations, in these givens…
I suspect “truth” is somewhere in the middle, even if only in the mind of one individual..
. . .
I consider, civilizations in the cosmos, are so far apart for a “good” reason,
If their are any others, out there like us, we should hope and pray we never meet..
. . .
We, as a civilization, should be happy we have a “small” back yard to play in…
Seeing the damage we do to ourselves, I’d hate to imagine, the damage we’d do to the universe..
RTS
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello RockyT:
Your small back yard is going to get a lot smaller when the WEF’s 4th Industrial Revolution arrives. More like a 200 sq. ft. high rise in the urban rat hole. As far as the cosmos, there’s nothing else out there.
Reply
David Gliewe
| #
As a practical matter, how does one slow the vehicle down to enter an orbit? Obviously the engine is designed to accelerate – can it take the stress of flipping the vehicle 180 degrees to slow it down?
Reply
Tom
| #
While this theory is extremely interesting, we have much greater problems to deal with. Like hunger, poverty and the fact that certain factions want to murder billions of humans.
Reply
lloyd
| #
Large Problems should not negate scientific research.
Reply
Jerome
| #
NASA is welfare for engineers.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerome:
Not just a welfare program for engineers but a money laundering operation for billions of dollars to the “Defense” industry insiders, similar to the CDC and FDA which are racketeers for big Pharma and the Zionist medical control network. But its easy if your’e a criminal. All you have to do is tell the goyim there is a fake virus and that you have put a helicopter on Mars that flys in a vacuum.
Reply
lloyd
| #
Do understand what money laundering is? Have you ever conducted such a criminal investigation? Post your proof.
Reply