Geodesic propulsion

[Star reach]

Hi.
I need a device build that will test the feasibility of a geodesic propulsion.
For more physics info I will recommend you reading the following papers:

https://philarchive.org/archive/CHRHVO

https://ayuba.fr/pdf/forward1990.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200000366/downloads/20200000366.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960048672/downloads/19960048672.pdf

As you know from GR physics 1.1 every object has it's own geodesic through spacetime, for example a ball stationary in space has speed of c in time and a ball moving close to c in space has a temporal velocity close to 0.
Interesting thing happens when you add a gradient in spacetime, when one side of the object experiences slower time than the other side, the object will gain velocity towards the region of slower time, because every point of the object has to experience the same passage of time the universe will balance this by accelerating the object towards the slower time zone.
Essentially I want to create a device that will trade part of its temporal velocity to a spatial velocity.

I won't bother you with more physics but I assure you this is just a tip of the iceberg.


I need a two solenoids 20cm long attached at 90 degrees on a shaft so that when it is spined at highest possible rpm they will be free to move on the shaft towards the point of highest velocity.
According to my theory the solenoids should gain momentum, the question is at what speed of rotation and if possible the stronger the magnetic field the better. Superconducting solenoids should increase the effect because of the much higher field strength.
Here is a simple drawing.

 

[Star reach]

"We've begun with the mechanical version" ... ? do you mean someone has built this already ? I thought it was "just" a thought (forgive the pun) experiment.

I still don't get the basic idea ...
ok, something at rest is moving through time at the speed of light, your temporal velocity; never thought of it that way but ok.
Now give this thing some "real world" physical velocity. This causes relativist effects, what I called "time dilation" in school, but you can say it reduces it's temporal velocity, ok.
It sounds to me like you want to trade "temporal" velocity for physical velocity, but I see the two are linked, if you change one, you change the other. And we do this by changing the physical velocity. How would you change something's temporal velocity ? You said something about a temporal velocity gradient, but isn't everywhere on a temporal gradient ?

Imagine on the console of your starship there is a bar chart next to it.
One bar represents temporal velocity and the other spatial velocity. As one increases the other decreases so that the sum is always 0.
In old technology like rockets and jets we accelerate mass backwards so that the other mass accelerates forwards so that -1 direction and +1 direction equals 0 and the ship will coast after the acceleration and will be in inertial reference frame but this is more elegant version where 0=0 is from the start where nothing is accelerated and we have the same final inertial frame of the ship with the same momentum.
See:
rockets and jets : -1+1(acceleration)=0 (inertial frame of the starship with no acceleration)
geodesic drive: 0=0 no acceleration.

 

[Star reach]

"We've begun with the mechanical version" ... ? do you mean someone has built this already ? I thought it was "just" a thought (forgive the pun) experiment.

I still don't get the basic idea ...
ok, something at rest is moving through time at the speed of light, your temporal velocity; never thought of it that way but ok.
Now give this thing some "real world" physical velocity. This causes relativist effects, what I called "time dilation" in school, but you can say it reduces it's temporal velocity, ok.
It sounds to me like you want to trade "temporal" velocity for physical velocity, but I see the two are linked, if you change one, you change the other. And we do this by changing the physical velocity. How would you change something's temporal velocity ? You said something about a temporal velocity gradient, but isn't everywhere on a temporal gradient ?

''Do you mean someone has built this already ?''
When we'll arrive to the vehicle shapes and design ideas we will see that there are some intriguing possibilities.

 

[Star reach]

''You said something about a temporal velocity gradient, but isn't everywhere on a temporal gradient ?''
In layman's terms: objects at rest travel only at temporal velocity of the speed of light and objects in motion the speed of light travel only at the speed light in space (no gradient).
Here we are creating a gradient where one part of the object moves at different speed through space-time than the other.
Let's say the front travels at 50% through time and 50% through space and the rear travels at 100% through time.

 

[Star reach]

''How would you change something's temporal velocity ?''
By moving it faster through space.

 

[Star reach]

Why do we need extended bodies like rods , deformed nuclei and not standard nuclei ?
This Penrose diagram illustrates why.

 

[rb1957]

"One bar represents temporal velocity and the other spatial velocity. As one increases the other decreases so that the sum is always 0." ... I see it as a graph on XY, from (0,1) to (1,0).

"''How would you change something's temporal velocity ?''
By moving it faster through space." ... but that'll take energy (and lots of it)

"Extended body ..." ... so this is what you mean by spinning rod ... the center is "stationary", and the tip has higher velocity. you might up jets at opposite ends of the rod so they both drive the spin motion, with little (no?) net motion. it'll still take a lot of energy to develop measurable relativistic effects, and this'll create inertial loads on the components of the rod.

FWIW (which ain't much) I don't like the horizontal axis of the Penrose diagram being labelled "space time". I think this is really "space" ie the 3D physical world, and "time" is clearly the vertical axis. If the rod is spinning, the ends experience relativistic effects relative to the middle of the rod.

I wonder what is the speed of electrons as they orbit a nucleus ? (I could look it up, probably depends on the energy level of the electron)

 

[SWComposites]

what is the point of this discussion? this site is "Engineering Tips", meaning practical solutions to real world engineering problems. Not metaphysical ramblings about unprovable physics.

 

[IRstuff]

As Mrs. Reagan said in her drug campaign, "Just Say No."

Engagement encourgages further engagement. You have to go cold turkey and just ignore the posts.

 

[Star reach]

"One bar represents temporal velocity and the other spatial velocity. As one increases the other decreases so that the sum is always 0." ... I see it as a graph on XY, from (0,1) to (1,0).

"''How would you change something's temporal velocity ?''
By moving it faster through space." ... but that'll take energy (and lots of it)

"Extended body ..." ... so this is what you mean by spinning rod ... the center is "stationary", and the tip has higher velocity. you might up jets at opposite ends of the rod so they both drive the spin motion, with little (no?) net motion. it'll still take a lot of energy to develop measurable relativistic effects, and this'll create inertial loads on the components of the rod.

FWIW (which ain't much) I don't like the horizontal axis of the Penrose diagram being labelled "space time". I think this is really "space" ie the 3D physical world, and "time" is clearly the vertical axis. If the rod is spinning, the ends experience relativistic effects relative to the middle of the rod.

I wonder what is the speed of electrons as they orbit a nucleus ? (I could look it up, probably depends on the energy level of the electron)

The nucleus of an atom is much more important in this case because more than 99% of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus.
And because most of the mass of the nucleus is in its biding energy a deformed and hyper deformed nuclei can be represented as an extended body in this case ellipsoid.
Why the need to go nuclear ?
Because the same principle of creating artificial geodesic by asymmetrically spinning an extended object can be applied on the deformed nuclei, only this time unlike the mechanical version, relativistic angular velocity can be achieved by using nuclear magnetic resonance which means the desired effect can be increased exponentially.

 

[Star reach]

 

[Star reach]

 

[Star reach]

 

[rb1957]

"creating artificial geodesic by asymmetrically spinning an extended object" ... how do you do this without adding energy ? You're talking about spinning a rod with the tips having relativistic speeds ??

 

[Star reach]

"creating artificial geodesic by asymmetrically spinning an extended object" ... how do you do this without adding energy ? You're talking about spinning a rod with the tips having relativistic speeds ??

You are correct.
You need to add energy for the startup process.
The nuclei will spin at relativistic speed but the mechanical version at a few km/s.
It will need to have some type of independent power source decoupled from the propulsion system.
Like a battery on a ICE car. Once geo is initiated all the power shuts off.
Also to keep in mind is the huge EM field around the vehicle needed for the NMR.

 

[rb1957]

a couple of "lay-man" questions ...

1) how do "all components must experience the same forces and their force vectors must be aligned" ? This sounds like what we'd call a "body force", like an inertia acceleration ... so same acceleration, but components (with different masses) experience different forces. But previously you state this does not experience inertial loads ? How do you create a force that is applied equally on all components ? But this thing is spinning ... so components at different radius distance experience different acceleration (and force) ?
2) which axis are you spinning about ? You'd get a larger difference if spun about the vertical axis (in your "section side" view) so the ends are further from the axis of rotation.
3) so the center has a physical speed of zero and a temporal speed of c, and the tips have some relativistic speed (say 0.1c) and a temporal speed of 0.9c. And you want to move this by ...
4) you can't start this on earth (because of our gravity well ?) ... you need to be outside of gravity effects ? in deep space ??

 

[Star reach]

Body force means a force that acts on the whole object including it's internals with the same amount.
Gravity is a body force and a free-falling objects experience no acceleration due to the body force.
However when large body forces are involved there is something called tidal forces which cause differential between the point of the object closest to the force origin and the point furthest away. (spaghettification in black hole physics).
I'm still figuring this out. It's more complicated than I thought.
Only the deformed nuclei of the atoms that the craft is made of spin. Nothing macroscopic spins in the nuclear version.
The differential you speak of let's say 0.9c and 0.01c is between the top and bottom of the nuclei of the atoms.
You can start this on earth but you don't want to be near it. Not only because of the EM fields but the large stresses that the nuclei of the structure are undergoing can cause radiation problems.
The question is do you build the whole thing from the same materials with the deformed nuclei, or you build some kind of thruster that will push the dead mass of the vehicle in which case the vehicle will experience g forces. So you are limiting the performance at only 5g of acceleration.
It will be better to build it from the ground up with deformed nuclei so that when EM field is applied the whole thing shoots off with 0g forces.
The problem is how do you build it whole with only limited materials available that have deformed nuclei.
One solution would be to create secondary EM field that will lock in place the normal atoms of other materials including living things like that levitating frog experiment.
So you can imagine humans inside the vehicle floating around when the thing shoots off at 1000g of apparent acceleration measured by radar, while the physical acceleration is 0g measured by the travelers.
Not to mention the problem with the atmosphere and friction.

 

[GregLocock]

"free-falling objects experience no acceleration due to the body force" in their own non inertial frame of reference.
Using a non inertial reference frame will tend to end in tears. Consider a 3 body universe. The earth. The hapless observer near the earth, who is the frame of reference. And a remote Speck of Dust colinear with the other two but behind HO. In the observer's frame of reference the earth is approaching at g, he is stationary, and the SoD is retreating at g. Now define your physics to make sense of that.