CPL.Luke

there's nothing to research yet. A basic preliminary study has been done which basicly describes what would be needed for a warp drive to work, but to ask someone to actively research it would be like asking a highschool student to derive string theory, no one would know where to start. or more likely it would be like telling the greeks that an atom has a huge amount of potential energy in it, it may be possible to split it and extract this energy. If nasa were to fund this actively over the next 5 years they would not really be able to budget it because they would not know what kind of break throughs would occur over this time, or they could discover two years into it that the entire thing is impossible because negative energy does not exist. this money could be better spent on other things like ion propulsion and the like and let the universities figure out whether or not warp drive is possible by virtue of them just continuing their normal activities

it wouldn't protect from mirowaves, the earths atmosphere is virtually clear to them. The idea has been considered for solar power stations that beam enerrgy to earth. Howerver for a weapon the station would be destroyed by enemy missles etc. it would cost billions, and there isn't much of a use for it anymore

plasma isn't much of a weapon unless its really hot, I use my microwave to generate plasma all the time. In fact a candle flame is a kind of plasma a space weapon capable of decimating large areas of land would probably be a sattelite that collected massive amounts of light and then fired a large beam of microwaves down at the ground. This could be a very potent weapon

actually originally the earth was round, thats what the greeks thought. any see going people would soon discover this fact, (the horizon). peole think of stuff like this alot, but its mainly just kicking ideas around. If you really want to think about it most research into string and all those GUFT's could be tied to things like warp drive, its just that stuff like warp drive is so far down the road that it can't be seriously contemplated in a research enviroment

my gpa looks like crap, but there are a fare number of other factors, for 1 I have great recommendations, 2 I have a science project this year that should do pretty well in the competitions. So basicly I'm trying to find a good range of schools. As for atmosphere, in class I like work. Outside of class I would like there to be some social happenings.

nothing could do that, except some sort of super space based weapon

if you mean death ray as in something that would burn holes in various objects then its been around since the 70's. The Laser. In fact there is a new system to shoot down icbms being built by the airforce, They basicly put a 1MW laser in a 747 and fly it to where ever its needed, then the 747 can shoot down any missle launched within 200 miles. but it takes something the size of a 747 to carry and it has about 20 shots before it runs out of the chemicals it needs to generate the laser My personal opinion of tesla's death ray is that its a load of crap. it sounds like he was talking about producing a high powered beam of electrons to fire upon enemy aircraft. This would most likely require huge amounts of energy and make the plant unfeasible. the idea of using lasers for this purpose is now readily being explored however.

I agree completely, I would refuse to go to a school like MIT because of the way they work you (I have an uncle who went) (although I don't think Im in much danger of having to decline an invitation to mit). I also know however that I work very poorly when I'm not challenged, so I realy do want to get into a college with a good undergrad physics program.

no one is researching it because it requires the existance of negative energy. the point I'm trying to make here is that it would be impossible to research these technologies because they require things that we don't know about yet. it would be like the ancient greeks researching the atomic bomb because they knew about the atom. It just would be impossible

infinity +1 =infinity space is not like a balloon (but if there was more matter in it it could be one), it goes on forever its just that each section of it is expanding so that everything is getting farther away from eachother. For instance a galaxy 1 billion light years is moving away from us at x velocity, a galaxy 8 billion light years away has velocity 8x (drastically oversimplified)

take a look at his idea of a death ray, or the tele whatchamakalit he thought that you could instantly vaporize entire armies and such from 250 miles away. go read a bit about what he was saying with these thinks, there plane nuts although I will admit most of his research was classified at the end of his life and alot of it remains classified today, I think its mostly because some colonel thought that there was a 1 in a million chance that he was right, I'm sure nothing came of this work though as the cold war would never have happened

but space expansion does occur. Originally GR had to be altered slightly so that it didn't happen. Then hubble observed the expansion, and the correction factor in GR became known as Einsteins greatest blunder. The big bang originally came from the idea that if you reversed expansion eventually you'd get to a single point. This model failed, and alan guth created cosmic inflation which matches observations of the cosmos very closely as for the universe I posted what it looks like already, it included all matter energy, and what the shape of space is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg ^there it is, now universe either attempt to disprove what I have said by analysing the evidence, or stop posting this nonsense

bump, any suggestions

go and read the posts space universe are essentially the same terms in this debate. space does not end, space does not have a shape. If you would like to disproove this you are welcome, but please post something more than just "space ends and it takes a shape, not the universe"

also a photons energy is E=hf or energy is equal to planks constant (h) times the frequency (f). A photon doesn't have any rest mass or m_0 . if you insist however you can apply a relativistic mass to the photon. In which case you just take the energy value from e=hf and divide it by c^2. This value is of virtually no importance though so most physicists will just use energy (in fact relativistic mass is barely used at all now for anything). if a photon is absorbed by something it transfers its energy to that adam, usually in the form of heat but its possible to make it work for propulsion as well If C was equal to 0 then there wouldn't really be any energy. However there is no accepted theory in physics (by accepted I mean like quantum mechanics accepted) that allows the speed of light to change.

I think we should submit this thread to the bush administration, they are afterall in a global struggle against extremism - you might be an extremist if you submitted this post

I would first go to your physics teacher and ask for either the AP book or any other book that the school may have. This might help you a bit more as you would at least have someone to go to in person for help

I assume you meant nikola tesla you may want to consider though that tesla was a tad bit on the nuts side towards the end of his life before you use him as the basis of your argument. For instance he claimed that he had created a unified field theory that he never unveiled. He also supposedly created a "death ray" I personally feel that although he was brilliant, you have to take what he did with a grain of salt. especially the stuff that he claimed he did at the end of his life

does it really matter if abiogenesis occured on earth or not? I don't see much of a difference between having a couple of dna molecules form on earth or having them form on anouther planet and landing here.

evolutionists say nothing about god scientifically, the head of the human genome project is actually a bit on the religious side. Evolution just says that organisms evolved from simpler ones because that is the simplest and most logical conclusion coming from the evidence. It is entirely possible that god gided every single mutation to ever occur and was guiding life towards humanity, but because there is no evidence for this its not science and is instead a matter of belief. Science however has to be agnostic, anything other than that wouldn't be scientific

maybe, but I think occams razor would rule that space is infinite

so then you aren't confined to a limited volume, and space is infinite!!!!

but then what happens when you cross this point?

I got must from assuming (quite reasonably) that you can never come to a point in the universe where the universe just ends, if this point can't exist and space has no curvature, then space must be infinite The microwave background shows that space has no curvature

two or three of those things don't effect humans anyway the wikipedia articles on them should be good enough for you, if you need more information I would suggest google as these are rather specific information requests