the problem with that idea is I think you would have to take the sun too… Or it would take a ridiculous amount of power just to sustain life on the planet…still 9and it may be easier then to do it otherwise, less costly on all biases)
And I don’t want you moving my planet 
I’m not a space explorer, that would be unfair…
I said you would need a huge power source. But the power is not being expended. And Man has never even seen the scale of dipole that I am talking about, perhaps a 10 ton compressed plasma bottle at the bow and its counterpart at the stern.
Oh, those are my babies. 
I deal in subspace affectance which is all about what they are calling zero-point energy and scalar fields (and vector fields).
But a common misunderstanding is that the affectance field offers a huge amount of energy. It doesn’t. It only provides endless energy, but extremely small amounts. If one were to establish a subspace field, he could then use it to do a variety of things including disintegrating matter and thereby obtain a portion of the energy released. But the energy that emerges from subspace is infinitesimal.
Your kidding? 
Mine was stolen some time back. Your not selling MY PARTS are you?!?! 
Surely it would expend energy…just really really really really slowly…?
Well initial propulsion isn’t so much the issue as obtaining near light speed, especially if you can arrange for higher speed without having to compensate for the inertia (which is what such a dipole would be doing if it did turn out to be that simple). Once acceleration has been accomplished, there is little need of more power other than to compensate for losses or to get back up to speed after a short roadside restroom break.
in other words most of the energy would be spent in gaining momentum?
right.
…well and initially producing the field.
And btw, space is necessarily describable as an infinite matrix of infinite series’, much like an infinite matrix of Fourier series except unlike a Fourier series, there must be a single scalar followed by an infinite series of vectors.
Each point in space can be (for practical modeling), expressed as [p, v, m], the first 3 of the series.
This sparked a question…could space be filled infinitely, or is there a limit to the degree of filling by volume or something…?
Space is caused by the “energy” that fills it. In a sense, it is the space that fills energy, not energy that fills space.
It is impossible for energy to not exist everywhere - infinitely. Without energy, there is no “where” for anything to exist.
Since space is a near void (we don’t exactly know that) and since Einstein has told us that only light can achieve the speed of light, I’d say the only answer is in Dylithium Crystals. But you’d have to first discover the properties of dylithium crystals to determine if they would, in fact, give you the propulsion needed and then you’d have to find a source for them–hopefully on a planet that doesn’t rely on slave labor.
Also needed would be navigational skills to make constant corrections between your velocity and the velocity of the ever-expanding universe. Then there’s the question of, if you get to your goal in space-time, can you come back to your original departure point without reversing time. That may be another navigational problem.
but then could there be an infinite amount of energy in one point relative to more energy still being elsewhere…?
[size=150]James[/size] sorry about what i said in that other thread if it offended you deeply…
A while back I outlined my idea of a spacecraft which could reach great distances without tremendous energy consumption. Since i’d hate translating the whole thing, i’ll post the link so if you’re in the mood - check it out!
The sketches themselves should be clear enough, even without google-translating the page. If they’re not - i’m here to clarify…
Why, you’re missing some parts? Bummer…! 
Emm… I don’t know to what you are referring, but if you think you said something that offended me, SHAME on you. 
Good enough.
Now that i finally found time and actually remembered this topic, i shall try to clarify what my spacecraft would be like.
We can see in the figure above that the driving force is created via changing the radius of rotation of the flywheels’ barycenters (centers of mass) in relation to the center of the rotating discs. The area hatched in red represents the intensities (not vectors)of the redundant centrifugal force created on the 3pi/2 - pi/2 segment, which forces the entire assembly to move. This is still just an idea, but I’m over 99% sure that this vehicle could ascend from the surface of the earth, and after leaving the intense gravitational field continue to effectively accelerate without any restrictions.
Theoretically, if faster-than-light speeds are possible, it should, without major problems, after some time (eg one year of flight) reach and exceed the speed of light, but this is still in question. The problem is that, according to the original idea, the driving energy would be electric current and if it did reach the speed of light it is likely that the entire system would shut down, because the craft would try to exceed the speed of electrical charge propagation.
However, even with that, this type of propulsion has several indisputable advantages: doesn’t need large amounts of fuel, there is practically no interaction between the assembly and the environment, doesn’t pollute, and - it could fly over or even land in someone’s flower garden without disturbing the dust on the plants.
Details still to be worked out: characteristics and performance of transmission, friction minimalization, types of material used, material strains and vertical control. Regarding the stress of the materials, according to my preliminary calculations, it wouldn’t be too excessive, it should be far less than the stress produced by Petrus’ rotary ring, and immeasurably more energy-efficient. Carbon fiber technology, of course, is always welcome, but it might be sufficient and far more cost-effective to use a steel alloy, like tempered martensite or silicon-manganese steel. For successful transfer of energy from the engine (electromotor) to the flywheels all the rotations must be strictly controlled, otherwise energy will dissipate and the driving force will be either very low or non-existent. The trick is that all moving parts must have the same angular velocity and
This principle of operation is technically flexible, and there are many variations in utilizing the excess spin. The figure below shows a more advanced and simpler form of the same basic propulsion principle.
To drive the “rotating mass” we could use electromagnets, like in ultra-fast trains.
All in all, this is pretty much how the final product would look like:
This idea is about a year old now. In the meantime, I figured out the vertical control problem - instead of treating the whole contraption as a spacecraft, we could treat it as a “drive cell” - several devices like these spread throughout a much larger vessel of any shape could, if the force/mass ratio is adequate, provide a much better solution. Simply increasing the resulting force on a particular drive cell would act as a steering wheel, and it would make maneuvering simple and efficient.
The price of the prototype would be, by my guess, less than $ 1 million and a working model, if all goes as planned, about 10-15 thousand…
Consider me an investor.
Ok, although I have a good excuse for not knowing this (not having Internet connection until 3 months ago) I feel compelled to place this LINK here just so that nobody would accuse me of plagiarism. As it turns out, my idea of a centrifugal propulsion (also a new term for me) or intertial drive is actually not mine, but has been in development since the mid-20. century.
I cannot help but wonder why is this type of propulsion so “bellow the radar”. I mean, this is not magic, nobody is proposing a perpetual motion machine or anything, so why not considering this more seriously? It has everything going in it’s favour, cost, efficiency, potential speed and acceleration, flexibility and a number of other things. Yet, on every site, with a very small number of exceptions, there’s talk about warping space, jumping through wormholes and similar nonsensical stuff - not much talk about something that has an actual chance of working. I mean in our lifetime, I don’t care if we come up with the perfect space drive in 100 000 years or so. I’ll probably be dead by then…
It looks like everybody’s waiting for a breakthrough in spacial bending technology, waiting for Captain Kirk to show up and take us for a joy ride in his Enterprise… Its’ like an old maid and her waiting on Prince Charming to sweep her off her feet… Now, even a light breeze can do that. Rheumatism’s a bitch…
It seems that you are an advocate for creating momentum. Back in the early 70’s I took on that endeavor and concluded that by contemporary laws of physics it couldn’t be done. Of course since then I have found loopholes in contemporary physics, but not on the level of conservation of momentum. And at this point, I can’t say that it is impossible, but I’m still of the mind that it is highly unlikely.
I did, btw, manage to come up with a momentum translation device which will shift the momentum vector laterally such that one could build a plank, unfastened, sitting on a window sill and walk out to the end of the plank and back without being concerned that the floating plank would fall. I never came up with much application for the device so it just sits in my backlog of “kewl but pretty useless ideas”.
In the model you are presenting, you focus on the moving masses and see a shift in the center of mass. I used to have a similar thought myself, as have probably many. But I couldn’t get around the fact that the only reason those masses shift is because they are being tethered by an opposing mass, resulting in an actual zero overall gain.
My brain isn’t what it used to be thus I am having a little trouble following exactly how your model is proposing to function. The first time, back in the 60’s when I mentioned understanding how a gyroscope works, after an extremely detailed explanation, I was commanded that such isn’t to be known (an old WW2 military issue). Assuming your model actually worked, you could bet on the same response yourself. But such commands don’t come until you actually demonstrate that you really do understand exactly what you have proposed. So, could you possibly go exactly step by step through the functioning? I am still strongly suspecting that you haven’t considered something, but maybe not.
If you take each portion proposed to move and explain by what means it is moving and against what mass it has been thrust, and in what direction, we can see if it really ends up ahead of where it started for any more than a few rotations. Making an object jerk forward and back is easy enough, but jerking forward only has never been demonstrated to my knowledge.
…and even if it does work, it still won’t exceed the speed of light. That one I can assure you.