Just balance the equation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Like_a_Dinosaur_(The_Outer_Limits)

Count me in.

Yes a warp capable Dyson Sphere the size of our Solar System.

Is that a moon, Nah it is too big for a moon. I think we better turn around.

Out of curiosity, where are you reading this? Everything I'm finding says that peer review of EmDrive is expected to take a long time (i.e., won't be complete any time soon), and that EmDrive has nothing at all to do with warp drive whatsoever (which we already knew). I can't find anything (from a believable source) that mentions any warp drive discoveries that have come from EmDrive research...just a lot of journalists "mistakenly" conflating EmDrive and warp drive.

I have a feeling we know less about that than about actual warping. Preserving a person, as in, the mind, seems like something we could never figured out, and such technology might, at best, end up being used to send or duplicate objects. Or, if ever possible, animals, sine we don't care about memories of cute puppies, although that could also hit the roadblock of morality that cloning did.

I think I found what is best described.

It's a website from the United Kingdom (UK).

Here it is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3305990/Nasa-conducts-secret-tests-impossible-engine-Study-reveals-fuel-free-thrusters-work-no-one-knows-why.html

NASA's Eaglelabs and Texas that did the experiments discovered some strange anomalies in the space around the EmDrive that cannot be explained yet.

This was from November 5th, 2015.

There should be more stuff talking about this, but it seems like it got removed from the internet or something.

They put the EmDrive in a closed chamber or something like that and the space around the EmDrive acted strangely.

NASA and whoever else still has a lot of studying to do to see what this strange anomaly is that the EmDrive produces.

I'm guessing this website still won't answer much of the questions?

Ah...a Daily Mail "science" article. It's worth pointing out to all non-UK people that the DM is generally considered a huge joke where it comes to reporting science accurately. Take most anything you read there with a huge pinch of salt, and check it out with more reputable sources.

I'm guessing you didn't catch on when I said this was the best I can find and that it should of talked a lot more about the EmDrive and the anomalies?


In Texas they did find anomalies concerning the space around the EmDrive.

Like I said they did the experiments in a closed chamber or something like that with the EmDrive, but as I said I guess this isn't enough information?

Have to dig deeper, but I don't have the time.

There should be a lot of other articles hopefully mentioning something at nasa.gov.

Also this peer review of results that came in that I made my topic about I'm guessing is the successes of this technology and what they found with Dresden and NASA's Eaglelabs?

I hope we learn a lot more about this stuff in 2020.

Just because they may be funding research for a space-warping propulsion system doesn't mean that they expect to achieve FTL or even relativistic speeds with it. Given what I know of the limitations of chemical rockets and ion thrusters, I hypothesize that the merits of a reactionless, fuel-less warp drive- assuming it's both possible and practical- would be the efficiency of a system that doesn't need to burn massive quantities of liquid rocket fuel to accelerate in any real capacity.

The problem I have with what you're saying there is you're talking like it's a thing we have, when it doesn't exist outside science fiction; yes, it is the most plausible way for us to achieve the result in the predictable future*, but we're not even at that point yet (or anywhere close to it).

So don't act like that's how it's done, since it ain't being done at all -- and who knows, maybe we'll find some kinda roadblock to that avenue and it'll actually turn out to be impossible (e.g. it may not be possible to do the 'scanning' step in the necessary way).

*I'm reluctant to use the word "foreseeable" 'cause it has connotations if being near.


Now, I'm not saying all that as a lead up to a "Anytingz pessuble!!11!!!!1" type of thing... but it's important to draw distinctions between what we've figured out how to do, what is theoretically possible, what is hypothetically possible, and what is pure speculation/conjecture. I would say the last one applies to anything where we have a fairly solid understanding which is contrary to the supposition -- in contrast to what is theoretically possible, i.e. stuff which aligns with a similarly solid grasp of the subject. Warping space-time is the latter (it fits with physics), while using black holes as wormholes is the former (it makes no sense at all in the context of what a black hole appears to be).

When I say "figured out how to do," there is some overlap with the theory category -and I don't necessary mean we can actually do it (at this point)- but it's a category for stuff where we have ideas that might actually work, such as fusion powered electricity generation (we've yet to pull it off, but there's clear paths to explore).

Lastly, hypotheticals are where there's nothing saying it's a thing, but there's (currently) room for it to be true. Anything prior to the big bang counts, as it's kinda beyond the horizon in terms of what we can observe (e.g. even if we could FTL our way to the very edge of the universe and set up a telescope... how do you take pictures of the time before there were any photons? [Or time]).


Deconstruction/reconstruction is theoretically possible (as far as I know), since there's nothing that says we can't do it* and plenty says it could probably be done; while true teleportation is hypothetically possible, 'cause our knowledge in the relevant fields still has a lot of gaps and room for new discoveries.

*I mean, you may not be able to get a 100% identical copy down to the subatomic level, what with the whole position/velocity thing and whatnot, but close enough is good enough...


[/ramble]

If you're going to post something as interesting as the EmDrive then linking to the Daily Mail will not win anyone over, seriously that place is utter crap.

A couple of minutes search brings up this:

"Despite his insistence that the drive behaves within the laws of physics, it hasn’t prevented him from making bold assertions regarding EmDrive. Shawyer has gone on record saying that this new drive produced warp bubbles which allow the drive to move, claiming that this is how NASA’s test results were likely achieved. Assertions such as these have garnered much interest online, but have no clear supporting data and will (at the very least) require extensive testing and debate in order to be taken seriously by the scientific community — the majority of which remain skeptical of Shawyer’s claims. Hopefully, with this new peer reviewed paper, more EmDrive tests will be undertaken, helping elucidate just how this thing works."

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/emdrive-news-rumors/

More about the supposed http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/04/28/nasa-may-have-invented-a-warp-drive

There we go that's exactly what I've been looking for.

Anyways I hope we see some kind of advancements and discover more new stuff about our physics in 2020 and so on.

Thank you for finding it.

Mate, there is a big difference between funding research and expecting a device.

It's quite likely that what they expect to have in 2050 is a big pile of paper. Useful and interesting paper, sure, but still just one step in the long grind that is scientific progress.

Consider that people have been researching and developing fusion reactors for decades, and we're still decades away from fusion powerplants. It would have much more immediate and general usefulness than warp tech (there is stronger motivation to get it working).

No the funding of NASA's budget for this stuff is not in any of these articles shown to us in my topic that was something for after the launch of the SLS rocket.

This stuff I read about in 2013.

But I think you are right it could be a big pile of paper.

Anyways as I said before we should still see a lot of advancements in the next 20 or so years.

Aren't you even one bit excited about this.?

http://www.inquisitr.com/2040259/did-nasa-just-accidentally-produce-a-warp-bubble-emdrive-could-lead-to-warp-drive/. Talks a bit more about the experiment.

You make good points and yeah, we dont know how to do it. But from what I've seen in what few theories there are on teleportation, that's the most common accepted way of doing it. Either way you'd still have to break down the object at the atomic level which still means you are killing it if it is alive.

Well, it's the lowest hanging fruit, so to speak. Still beyong our grasp, but we can see it, more or less.

I just said that isn't necessarily necessary . Could be there's some sort of space-warping hijinks humanity can get up to, or handy phenomena we'll stumble across. It's something we know we don't know.

But that wouldn't be teleporting, would it? That would essentially be using worm holes if I follow your meaning correctly.

Printing a human based on data scanned at another location... is that teleportation?

I meant 'warp' in the sense of messing with stuff and twisting it to our ends, and didn't have a particular process in mind.

By astronomical, are we talking harnessing a star or containing a Big Bang?

Let's not go crazy.

Towing a medium-size star should suffice

For now, my good friend, for now.

Maybe we can make it 2 medium stars

Will that be for here or to go?


Somewhere around here is a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy joke...

Ah, no, you've misunderstood. There was an experiment aimed at detecting 'fuzziness' which may be an indication of the holographic principle, the idea that data is stored at the boundary of the universe. You can read about it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle. Nothing to do with NASA, probes and nothing to do with The Matrix, I'm afraid.

Well, that galactic freeway still has to be built.