Comments:


BenRayfield     Sat, Jul 3, 2010  Permanent link
You're going about this the wrong way. You don't need "raw power" to make a spaceship go faster than light. But if you want raw power, there is a much easier way to harness it: Most people will agree that, at one time or another, somebody has known some part of the future when they did not have enough information to figure it out. Such examples are common in religions, but I've experienced them in simpler ways like hearing my microwave beep a few seconds before it really beeped (many times, even when my friends set it for a random time I could call the time a few seconds early more than I should be able to, years ago). Some people call it unexplainable and ignore it, but as a scientist, I can not believe any theory of physics that can not explain it. Its not just "seeing the future". Its "something moving from the future to the past for you to see", and that is a much more useful statement in physics. It means there is a time loop, and time loops spiral around past/future/past/future.... any number of times, each time a little differently. If that could be used, by changing something now and noticing other things change instantly now as a result of the time loops (which are common everywhere), then it should have enough "raw power" to rip a black-hole in half.

But for low-power solutions, look into why particles/waves/whatever-they-are can appear any distance away from their last position with probability approximately on a bell-curve. If you can get all the particles in the spaceship to do that at once, you're moving faster than light.

Could these be 2 ways to view the same thing? Do the particles/waves/whatever-they-are move far from their last position (with chance on a bell-curve) because time loops are the way physics normally works?

If physics researchers do not start taking these questions seriously, instead of doing mostly the research that pays the best, then we will have to build faster-than-light spaceships without their help.

One more thing I want the physics researchers to explain. 8 years ago, after much practice and slow improvement, starting from no detectable movement, and weeks later 1 millimeter of movement after an hour of trying, and continuing practicing it after I knew it was possible, over a period of 5 months, I learned to move small objects with my mind, sometimes, and the biggest I ever moved was I looked at a volleyball and caused it to roll 1 inch on the floor. If you don't stay in practice, it goes away, but to all physics researchers, I want you to explain, with your best science and logic, how I did whats shown in this video (It's real):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ww8rI0BG9k

When you can explain all the data (not just what you can reproduce in the lab), then we will be much closer to faster-than-light spaceships. Stuck at quantum physics? Research other parts of physics then come back to it when you know more.
Nokadota     Mon, Jul 5, 2010  Permanent link
Hmm, those are some really valid points you brought up. I certainly agree that scientists need to perform more research on everything, not just what pays the big bucks. As far as the other particles go and such . . . we barely use 10 percent of our brains. If we could even use a full 10 percent, we might be able to do things with our minds a lot faster / better. I am sure we do not have all this extra space for no reason.
BenRayfield     Mon, Jul 5, 2010  Permanent link
As an artificial intelligence programmer and mad-scientist, I understand what you said ("we barely use 10 percent of our brains") in a unique way.

It does not mean we only use 10% of our brain cells. Brain cells that are not used die, and slowly new cells grow.

Instead, its about the way most people are unable to combine patterns from different parts of their brains, because most people think its ok for their thoughts about one subject to contradict their thoughts about another subject.

I'll give a common example. I'm not saying Jesus did, or did not, walk on water (since I don't have enough information to say), but I'll use it as an example of how people allow contradictions in their thoughts. Many physics researchers simultaneously (1) think its possible (for some people, or in some rare cases) to walk on water, and (2) create theories of physics that say water behaves in ways that does not allow it to support anyone walking on it. I don't support religious discrimination, but I do support discriminating by intelligence, and it is my opinion that no government funding (my tax money) should ever go to scientists who simultaneously think 2 contradicting things are true, after they have been informed of the contradiction and had time to say "I don't know" about the 2 logical statements.

Most people have more contradictions in their thoughts than they can count. I avoid that problem by saying "I don't know" any time I don't have enough information, and I think I use a lot more than 10% of my brain at once when combining ideas from different parts of it. I'm not aware of any contradictions in my thoughts, but if I find them, I'll immediately say "I don't know" about all related things. Because of this strategy, I can know things are true based on long sequences of logic that most people probably would not consider, like I know its possible to move faster than light using very little power. I know there is at least 1 way to do it, but I do not know what that way is. Similarly, I know how to build artificial intelligence that will work with people to learn the laws-of-physics, but I do not know what the laws-of-physics are.

I prefer a future where the Human species has more faster-than-light spaceships than they have a need for (maybe 100 million?), more than I prefer any future where I had the most money or political power, therefore, to be practical and reasonable, I should spend more of my time improving the ways people work together, to slightly increase the exponent of the total productivity of the Earth, for the end result of mass-producing intergalactic starships. Anything less would be an unreasonable way to spend time.
alok subbarao     Mon, Jul 19, 2010  Permanent link
Ben, I dont mean to doubt you but unfortunately I have some serious trouble believing you about the telekinesis. There's a reason no one has ever claimed James Randi's prize, or ever consistently displayed psychic powers in a controlled laboratory setting. Could you elaborate somewhat? Or maybe you should contact Randi yourself and prove it.

Also, Nokadota, the "10% of brain myth" is just that, a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth
BenRayfield     Mon, Jul 19, 2010  Permanent link
Why haven't I won James Randi's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge? Because I can't do all that stuff whenever I want (I'm not skilled enough to win it), and having more people around makes it harder to balance my mind, but I do plan to do something similar...

I expect most people to doubt me because I have not proven it, but I do plan to prove it, but not the way they expect such things would be proven. I recently created a thread on James Randi's website (I've posted there for many months) called I offer everyone the ability to do telepathy, a software design to make it happen and we are still arguing over why such a software design (later when I build it) would or would not cause its users to read eachothers minds and put thoughts into eachothers minds. As I wrote in that thread, I'm going to think about it and start explaining from the beginning why such a software would work, because the reasons are logically organized as I understand them and (if the reader accepts the existance of certain simple things I've seen with my eyes) then all thats left is to figure out how to explain it to people who have no intuition of how that stuff works or what it feels like to do it. There will be disagreements about if I saw certain things or not (some people can substitute their own experience if they had it, to understand what I'll write) but there will not be disagreements about what is logically derived from the existance of such events which will make the software design work (when I build it). Thats what I'm now thinking about how to explain on James Randi's forum.

What did you think about my non-paranormal mad-scientist theory I wrote above (about many overlapping and continuously blurred time-loops being the way physics works normally)? Its all 1 continuous universe between those things as I see it. I wrote some paranormal stuff here because advancing the science of spaceships will depend on accurate knowledge of physics, and most scientists have the arrogant idea that we've learned most of what we're going to learn about physics, but I know that we have not, and if we start trying to learn how paranormal things work in terms of physics equations then science will become more accurate and, bringing this back to the subject of this thread, such unified physics equations can be used to create warp-drive (faster than light) starships. The Beastie Boys know whats up. We're going Intergalactic.


I'll quote some of my other mad-scientist theories (and plans to use them to learn the laws-of-physics leading to the subject of this thread) from http://secretgeek.net/lisp_truth.asp below, which are 2 of the many things I'm slowly planning, designing, and eventually creating as free open-source software:

Copy/pasting from: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lisputer

Plugin for Schrodingers Network Router that chooses the next hop in the path through p2p net. Multiverse branch at even/odd millisecond packet is received (XOR the bit). Many pasts to many futures, aligning sometimes when Lisp code and data overlap

Statistically modifies random numbers generated by Global Consciousness Project, theoretically. They use quantum quality hardware to generate random numbers in many locations across the Earth, sent to Princeton University's computers. No direct connection. Just a change in the gradient of the wavefunction we call reality, caused by small changes in the electricity in the wires of the internet.

Based on the theory that the Kolmogorov-Complexity of the universe is 0, Lisputer will be a tool to statistically cause there to be more or less Newcomb-Paradoxes based on derivatives between Aleph-Numbers (similar to recursion on Cantor Sets) as different ways to view reality, and to write Lisp code to research the effects of those, as measured by Princeton's Global Consciousness Project (Noosphere) and self-measured from network packets received even/odd millisecond.

My intuition (just guessing here) is that if you used a Lisputer to do anything except change "random" numbers (like Princeton's Global Consciousness Project / Noosphere) then it would not work as well (or not at all?) because it would violate Heisenberg Uncertainty, but by using the Lisputer only to create patterns in "random" numbers, and having already decided to do things based on those "random" numbers, you have not violated Heisenberg Uncertainty because you went around it directly to the relevant place/time/thing you wanted to affect... like if you had gambled 10 dollars on Noosphere outputting more 1s than 0s.

Copy/pasting from: http://sourceforge.net/projects/schrouter

Research framework for interactions between UDP packets as exponential amounts of uncertainty build up in divergently branching recursions (EQ XOR) through many computers on the Internet. Set AI goals more/less uncertainty for multiverse blur/sharpen

Small changes in timing of UDP packets generate random numbers.

Uses existing Internet hardware instead of expensive quantum physics equipment.

Most quantum scientists think wavefunctions collapse too fast to flow across the internet indefinitely, but that does not mean they can not reverse that collapse half a second later when you're not looking.

This research framework is basic access to low-level reality, below the level of space and time, based on the theory that the Kolmogorov-Complexity of the universe is 0. This software just provides access, not the software to interact with it. This is all based on the theory that the Kolmogorov-Complexity of the universe is 0. It has never been proven to be 0 or nonzero.

Nokadota     Thu, Jul 22, 2010  Permanent link
@alok subbarao : Thanks a lot for clearing that up for me and providing the link!
Apollo     Mon, Dec 20, 2010  Permanent link
Quite apart from the theory behind time travel, this is a truly beautiful work of art.
     Mon, Dec 20, 2010  Permanent link
BenRayfield     Mon, Dec 20, 2010  Permanent link
If he can build a giant death ray that works, there must have been some science involved. Maybe mad-scientists are just not good at taking notes. The madness I described above is to test this hypothesis http://spacecollective.org/benrayfield/6543/Gravity-For-Patterns-a-theory-of-everything  I don't want to take over the world, but I do want to gradually shift the balance of power from hierarchies (leaders and followers) to peer-to-peer (everyone has equal power) by giving everyone equal access to the results of this mad-science, including new kinds of communication and therefore ways to organize things on a global scale that could obsolete the existing system. I'm much more mad than that guy in the picture.