EVE Search - Warp Drive possible?!

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Warp Drive possible?!

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Topic
Clay101 Caldari M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:15:00 - [1] Edited by: Clay101 on 26/09/2008 15:23:37 Wow! So I was reading an article and could hardly keep my pants on! Ok, so it wasn't quite that exciting but I was amazed at the possibilities that could emerge if the testing proved this thruster to actually work. Find more on the article here at The Topic Wire. (it's the top thread) It's almost hard to believe that in a hundred years (maybe sooner, maybe longer) our grandchildren or great grandchildren may be flying in spaceships designed after the internet spaceships we love and fly daily! Clay101 ps - there's an Eve thread in the gaming section if you'd like to leave your comments! The NEW M.Corp Data Hub - Check it out!
Clay101 Caldari M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:15:00 - [2] Edited by: Clay101 on 26/09/2008 15:23:37 Wow! So I was reading an article and could hardly keep my pants on! Ok, so it wasn't quite that exciting but I was amazed at the possibilities that could emerge if the testing proved this thruster to actually work. Find more on the article here at The Topic Wire. (it's the top thread) It's almost hard to believe that in a hundred years (maybe sooner, maybe longer) our grandchildren or great grandchildren may be flying in spaceships designed after the internet spaceships we love and fly daily! Clay101 ps - there's an Eve thread in the gaming section if you'd like to leave your comments! The NEW M.Corp Data Hub - Check it out!
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:20:00 - [3] Fraud!! John Costella says so, so it must be true It violates several basic laws of physics apprently .....
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:20:00 - [4] Fraud!! John Costella says so, so it must be true It violates several basic laws of physics apprently .....
Pwett Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:22:00 - [5] If we could simply find a way to replace vacuum with caesium we could easily move at over 300c. No need to warp! _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
Raymond Sterns Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:22:00 - [6] Haha, physics laws. What the **** do we know, we're still stuck on this god forsaken rock. _
Pwett Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:22:00 - [7] If we could simply find a way to replace vacuum with caesium we could easily move at over 300c. No need to warp! _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
Raymond Sterns Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:22:00 - [8] Haha, physics laws. What the **** do we know, we're still stuck on this god forsaken rock. _
P'uck	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:45:00 - [9] No, you're unable to warp, because we are warp scrambled. I just pointed a whole thread! HA! Now give me the moneh.
EnslaverOfMinmatar Yarsk Hunters DeaDSpace Coalition	Posted - 2008.09.26 20:22:00 - [10] Originally by: P'uck No, you're unable to warp, because we are warp scrambled. I just pointed a whole thread! HA! Now give me the moneh. WIN

Buff Plankchest Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.26 21:43:00 - [11] We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have... according to a thing I read once, I really don't care
Baldour Ngarr Interwarp Plexus Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2008.09.27 00:12:00 - [12] Originally by: Buff Plankchest We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have... Up to a point. Energy poured into an object can do one of two things. It can increase said object's velocity, or increase its mass. At common everyday speeds, effectively 100% of the energy goes into increasing velocity; the difference in mass is completely immeasurable and may as well not exist. That's why Newtonian mechanics seemed a perfectly accurate world description for three centuries. At near-light speeds, more and more energy gets converted into mass and less and less of it goes to increasing velocity. The reason you can't reach the speed of light is because, before you get there, you find that ALL of the energy goes to increasing an object's mass, and NONE of it imparts any extra speed. Beyond that point, pour in all the energy you want, you still ain't going any faster. A true "warp drive" would be some method of subverting the process altogether, such as finding that two points a vast distance apart in three dimensions, are close together if you travel through a fourth or fifth. While you stick to regular four-dimensional spacetime ... nil. Nada. Ziltch. Squat. Jack diddely. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Buff Plankchest Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.27 00:21:00 - [13] Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Originally by: Buff Plankchest We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have... Up to a point. Energy poured into an object can do one of two things. It can increase said object's velocity, or increase its mass. At common everyday speeds, effectively 100% of the energy goes into increasing velocity; the difference in mass is completely immeasurable and may as well not exist. That's why Newtonian mechanics seemed a perfectly accurate world description for three centuries. At near-light speeds, more and more energy gets converted into mass and less and less of it goes to increasing velocity. The reason you can't reach the speed of light is because, before you get there, you find that ALL of the energy goes to increasing an object's mass, and NONE of it imparts any extra speed. Beyond that point, pour in all the energy you want, you still ain't going any faster. A true "warp drive" would be some method of subverting the process altogether, such as finding that two points a vast distance apart in three dimensions, are close together if you travel through a fourth or fifth. While you stick to regular four-dimensional spacetime ... nil. Nada. Ziltch. Squat. Jack diddely. I saw Event Horizon... scared me out of ever trying
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.09.27 00:51:00 - [14] First off, this is NOT a warp drive, it's an alleged no-exhaust engine. And the alleged enerated thrust is nothing to write home about, not yet anyway. It is most likely yet another case of mistaken effect, even if it does actually work as described. Too bad it means it probably won't work without an atmosphere, or it won't work outside a planetary magnetic field, or it won't work too far off a huge mass or something like that. BUT, if it actually works in any of those cases (which I seriously doubt, but you never know), it would be awesome, even if the applications would be severely limited. _ SHOPS \|\| Mission rewards revamp \|\| better nanofix
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.27 16:11:00 - [15] Just don't expect too much from it. EM and electrical equipment doesn't mix and I'd guess that it will fry it's own electrical systems before it begins to move. Also, getting up to light speed would be one problem but the biggest problem would be doing it slowly enough that any passengers wouldn't just end up as marks on the bulkhead due to the intense G forces of acceleration. Calculate the safest acceleration rate over a prolonged period and then figure out how long it would take to reach light speed at that acceleration rate. The human body may not disintigrate at 5 or 6 G and could stand it for a very short period of time, but spending days or weeks with that amount of G force would cause some serious internal damage, possibly even brain damage. Therefore, you are probably looking realistically at between 1 and 2 G max prolonged. It would take so long to reach light speed, that it's not even plausible. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
Vabjekf	Posted - 2008.09.27 16:27:00 - [16] Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Originally by: Buff Plankchest We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have... Up to a point. Energy poured into an object can do one of two things. It can increase said object's velocity, or increase its mass. At common everyday speeds, effectively 100% of the energy goes into increasing velocity; the difference in mass is completely immeasurable and may as well not exist. That's why Newtonian mechanics seemed a perfectly accurate world description for three centuries. At near-light speeds, more and more energy gets converted into mass and less and less of it goes to increasing velocity. The reason you can't reach the speed of light is because, before you get there, you find that ALL of the energy goes to increasing an object's mass, and NONE of it imparts any extra speed. Beyond that point, pour in all the energy you want, you still ain't going any faster. A true "warp drive" would be some method of subverting the process altogether, such as finding that two points a vast distance apart in three dimensions, are close together if you travel through a fourth or fifth. While you stick to regular four-dimensional spacetime ... nil. Nada. Ziltch. Squat. Jack diddely. So how does light do it? huh Mr. smartypants?
Baldour Ngarr Interwarp Plexus Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2008.09.27 17:00:00 - [17] Originally by: Vabjekf So how does light do it? huh Mr. smartypants? Fair cop. The above discourse only applies to objects which have mass. Massless objects, like photons, can move only at the speed of light - never more, never less. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
EnslaverOfMinmatar Yarsk Hunters DeaDSpace Coalition	Posted - 2008.09.27 17:28:00 - [18] Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Originally by: Vabjekf So how does light do it? huh Mr. smartypants? Fair cop. The above discourse only applies to objects which have mass. Massless objects, like photons, can move only at the speed of light - never more, never less. so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol
Vabjekf	Posted - 2008.09.27 17:35:00 - [19] Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Originally by: Vabjekf So how does light do it? huh Mr. smartypants? Fair cop. The above discourse only applies to objects which have mass. Massless objects, like photons, can move only at the speed of light - never more, never less. so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol lol science!
Brock Nelson Caldari Flux Technologies Inc	Posted - 2008.09.27 17:57:00 - [20] Wow, someone started a thread with a link and call it a article; only to turn out its just another thread starter. Way to go OP. You win the internet

Keta Min Pre-nerfed Tactics	Posted - 2008.09.27 18:14:00 - [21] Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol this is why it is E=hc/lambda for photons
Vabjekf	Posted - 2008.09.27 18:18:00 - [22] Originally by: Keta Min Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol this is why it is E=hc/lambda for photons how many patches to the system will there be before someone realizes the whole thing needs to be reworked from scratch?
IstariFortunae	Posted - 2008.09.27 18:45:00 - [23] Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol E=mc^2 only gives the "rest energy" of a particle. The correct formula is actually E=gammamc^2, where gamma=1/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2). You can see that gamma goes to infinity for v=c, so you have infinity0 which can be pretty much anything (for massive particles, doing a Taylor expansion for small v also shows that this reduces to the rest energy mc^2 plus the kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2). An equivalent expression is E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2, so for a massless particle energy and momentum are related by E=cp. For light, energy and momentum are both dependent on the frequency or wavelength, E=hf=hc/lambda, p=hf/c=h/lambda, where h is Plank's constant.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.09.27 20:58:00 - [24] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Also, getting up to light speed would be one problem but the biggest problem would be doing it slowly enough that any passengers wouldn't just end up as marks on the bulkhead due to the intense G forces of acceleration. Calculate the safest acceleration rate over a prolonged period and then figure out how long it would take to reach light speed at that acceleration rate. It says right there that thrust generated gets lower the faster you accelerate, so this "engine" (if it works) would only work at low acceleration rates anyway. Also, while "space" might be MOSTLY empty, it's not completely empty, so you get some drag at very high speeds, which also limits your "top speed" pretty much the same way speed is limited in water or air (just much higher). Accelerating at 1 g, starting from zero (or near-zero) speed : * you reach 847 km/sec in 1 day, traversing 0.49 AU * you reach 5931 km/sec in 7 days, traversing 23.97 AU * you reach 25418 km/sec (0.08 c) in 30 days, traversing 440.4 AU (0.0069 lightyears) * if relativity and drag would not be an issue, you would reach ~230000 km/sec (0.76 c) in 9 months, traversing 37000 AU (0.585 lightyears) in the same time Don't diss constant, slow acceleration so easily _ SHOPS \|\| Mission rewards revamp \|\| better nanofix
Vabjekf	Posted - 2008.09.27 21:02:00 - [25] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Dantes Revenge Also, getting up to light speed would be one problem but the biggest problem would be doing it slowly enough that any passengers wouldn't just end up as marks on the bulkhead due to the intense G forces of acceleration. Calculate the safest acceleration rate over a prolonged period and then figure out how long it would take to reach light speed at that acceleration rate. It says right there that thrust generated gets lower the faster you accelerate, so this "engine" (if it works) would only work at low acceleration rates anyway. Also, while "space" might be MOSTLY empty, it's not completely empty, so you get some drag at very high speeds, which also limits your "top speed" pretty much the same way speed is limited in water or air (just much higher). Accelerating at 1 g, starting from zero (or near-zero) speed : * you reach 847 km/sec in 1 day, traversing 0.49 AU * you reach 5931 km/sec in 7 days, traversing 23.97 AU * you reach 25418 km/sec (0.08 c) in 30 days, traversing 440.4 AU (0.0069 lightyears) * if relativity and drag would not be an issue, you would reach ~230000 km/sec (0.76 c) in 9 months, traversing 37000 AU (0.585 lightyears) in the same time Don't diss constant, slow acceleration so easily But then youve got to slow down =D
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.09.27 21:10:00 - [26] Just multiply everything by two (acceleration and deceleration are symetrical just acceleration is in the opposite way) : 2 days 1 AU... 14 days 48 AU, 2 months 880 AU, one year and a half 1.17 light years _ SHOPS \|\| Mission rewards revamp \|\| better nanofix
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.27 21:49:00 - [27] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Dantes Revenge Also, getting up to light speed would be one problem but the biggest problem would be doing it slowly enough that any passengers wouldn't just end up as marks on the bulkhead due to the intense G forces of acceleration. Calculate the safest acceleration rate over a prolonged period and then figure out how long it would take to reach light speed at that acceleration rate. It says right there that thrust generated gets lower the faster you accelerate, so this "engine" (if it works) would only work at low acceleration rates anyway. Also, while "space" might be MOSTLY empty, it's not completely empty, so you get some drag at very high speeds, which also limits your "top speed" pretty much the same way speed is limited in water or air (just much higher). Accelerating at 1 g, starting from zero (or near-zero) speed : * you reach 847 km/sec in 1 day, traversing 0.49 AU * you reach 5931 km/sec in 7 days, traversing 23.97 AU * you reach 25418 km/sec (0.08 c) in 30 days, traversing 440.4 AU (0.0069 lightyears) * if relativity and drag would not be an issue, you would reach ~230000 km/sec (0.76 c) in 9 months, traversing 37000 AU (0.585 lightyears) in the same time Don't diss constant, slow acceleration so easily Excellent, when you consider that humans can endure 2 or 3 g for quite a long time, in the right conditions. Not comfortably, of course, but without any damage being done. You can happily double that math- light speed in 4 months The problem, to anyone who doesn't get it yet, isn't and never has been acceleration. Its no time at all to accelerate to lightspeed even and comfortable thrusts. The problem is fuel- Earth's current offerings only carry enough fuel to accelerate for barely 5 minutes, let alone 9 months; and they're the size of sky sc**rs, being almost entirely made of fuel tanks. The holy grail of space-engine design is something that can accelerate for a long time on a sensible amount of fuel; if we can crack that, then the solar system is our oyster. ------ Originally by:** Micheal Dietrich You can even get a midget with a camera to sit on the floorboard.
Hesod Adee Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.27 22:12:00 - [28] Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Originally by: Buff Plankchest We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have... Up to a point. Energy poured into an object can do one of two things. It can increase said object's velocity, or increase its mass. Actually relativity states that going faster makes your observed mass increase, so putting energy in does both. Heating it just making the molecules vibrate faster, though you might not want that speed increase. Quote: At near-light speeds, more and more energy gets converted into mass and less and less of it goes to increasing velocity. The reason you can't reach the speed of light is because, before you get there, you find that ALL of the energy goes to increasing an object's mass, and NONE of it imparts any extra speed. Beyond that point, pour in all the energy you want, you still ain't going any faster. Actually, because of the increased mass, each joule of energy increases your velocity by a smaller amount. To hit c you need an infinite amount of energy to be pumped in. To exceed c you need a complex amount of energy. As in the amount of energy is x + y*sqrt(-1) where y is a non-zero number. Just have a read about Lorentz transformations, see what happens to the Lorentz factor as the velocity exceeds c and note that it is present in all the equations. As for the thing in the OP, call me when they release enough information for someone else to build it.
Plim Gallente Oursulaert Technology Institute	Posted - 2008.09.27 22:16:00 - [29] The must efficient fuel of all is anti-matter used in particle/anti-particle annihilation, for obvious reasons. If large quantities could be produced (and safely), it would provide a mechanism to travel to nearby star systems within a matter of a few years. A system was proposed called a Beamed Core anti-matter rocket, which could theoretically reach .4 of C. Unfortunately global anti-matter production only reaches something like 10 nano grams at most. This is really the only fully understood possible mechanism currently proposed for fast interstella travel, without invoking something extremely exotic to evade the laws of relativity. The emdrive theory is being treated as very implausable I think, because it seems to violate the idea of conservation of momentum, something which is discussed in those links in the OP. Rudolf: "I was sworn to absolute secrecy by Santa Claus."
Baldour Ngarr Interwarp Plexus Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2008.09.28 03:31:00 - [30] Originally by: Hesod Adee Actually, because of the increased mass, each joule of energy increases your velocity by a smaller amount. To hit c you need an infinite amount of energy to be pumped in. That's the alternative argument to show you can't reach, let alone exceed, the speed of light. Either works. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.