| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Darlan Flame
   |
Posted - 2005.07.22 05:15:00 -
[1]
Well if you follow the 1-10 warp drive warp scale where warp 10 is infinity, a number impossible to go higher than, you realize that every time someone in star trek went past warp 10, it was a lousy writer trying to impress us with bigger numbers, as they were too lazy to follow their own mythos strictly.
How do you go past warp 10?
Well first you flunk out of community college...
|
Darlan Flame
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2005.07.22 05:15:00 -
[2]
Well if you follow the 1-10 warp drive warp scale where warp 10 is infinity, a number impossible to go higher than, you realize that every time someone in star trek went past warp 10, it was a lousy writer trying to impress us with bigger numbers, as they were too lazy to follow their own mythos strictly.
How do you go past warp 10?
Well first you flunk out of community college...
|
Darlan Flame
|
Posted - 2005.07.24 06:10:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Vivus Mors
BAH!
All of the above would be little more than an effort in ôfiringö for the Dyson Sphere to obliterateà
Many hundreds of thousands of kilometers in diameter and powered by its own self contained star.
While the logistics of one would be completely unfathomable, we are talking ôdream shipsö.
As for locomotion? Well, being big isnÆt necessarily a detriment since it could have something akin to a jump drive to get about all it likes.
The armament would easily be in the many orders of magnitude over any ship or its weapon systemsà
The death star may be able to destroy a planet with its power, the Dyson Sphere could obliterate entire solar systems merely by passing too closely to them! lol
As for how many weapons it could mount, well, if the Sphere is 300,000 Kilometers in diameter (150,000 km radius) it would have a surface area of 282,743,338,833 square-kilometersà in comparison, the Earth has a surface area round about 509,295,817 square-kilometersà so even a ôsmallö Dyson sphere of 300,000 km in diameter would have in the area of 550 TIMES as much area to place goodies of mass destruction upon as even the entirety of Earthà
Rather than being limited like a death star with one super laserà why not have HUNDREDS lol
More over, why waste time with such a PITTIFUL weapon when a Dyson sphere could easily support dozens or more weapons even far superior to the ôgalaxy gunö
Galaxy Gun
bigger IS better you see! :D lol
All other craft would either be too small to do any significant damage so such an enormous structure, but even opponents like a Death Star wouldnÆt even be able to get within their own targeting radius without their own Roche limit being far surpassed possibly annihilating things like a death star by merely being near it, or the force of gravity wake would be such to either brush any foe aside like a toy.
Said force of gravity would be my best friend here, as the sheer size of any structure that could completely encompass a star would most assurdly collapse in on itself almost immediatly.
|
Darlan Flame
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2005.07.24 06:10:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Vivus Mors
BAH!
All of the above would be little more than an effort in ôfiringö for the Dyson Sphere to obliterateà
Many hundreds of thousands of kilometers in diameter and powered by its own self contained star.
While the logistics of one would be completely unfathomable, we are talking ôdream shipsö.
As for locomotion? Well, being big isnÆt necessarily a detriment since it could have something akin to a jump drive to get about all it likes.
The armament would easily be in the many orders of magnitude over any ship or its weapon systemsà
The death star may be able to destroy a planet with its power, the Dyson Sphere could obliterate entire solar systems merely by passing too closely to them! lol
As for how many weapons it could mount, well, if the Sphere is 300,000 Kilometers in diameter (150,000 km radius) it would have a surface area of 282,743,338,833 square-kilometersà in comparison, the Earth has a surface area round about 509,295,817 square-kilometersà so even a ôsmallö Dyson sphere of 300,000 km in diameter would have in the area of 550 TIMES as much area to place goodies of mass destruction upon as even the entirety of Earthà
Rather than being limited like a death star with one super laserà why not have HUNDREDS lol
More over, why waste time with such a PITTIFUL weapon when a Dyson sphere could easily support dozens or more weapons even far superior to the ôgalaxy gunö
Galaxy Gun
bigger IS better you see! :D lol
All other craft would either be too small to do any significant damage so such an enormous structure, but even opponents like a Death Star wouldnÆt even be able to get within their own targeting radius without their own Roche limit being far surpassed possibly annihilating things like a death star by merely being near it, or the force of gravity wake would be such to either brush any foe aside like a toy.
Said force of gravity would be my best friend here, as the sheer size of any structure that could completely encompass a star would most assurdly collapse in on itself almost immediatly.
|
Darlan Flame
|
Posted - 2005.07.24 17:39:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Vivus Mors
Originally by: Darlan Flame
Said force of gravity would be my best friend here, as the sheer size of any structure that could completely encompass a star would most assurdly collapse in on itself almost immediatly.
ummm, no... you see gravity doesn't work that way...
your own gravity doesn't work that way, Relativity specifically eliminates that possibility, it is RELATIVE gravity and the wake there of that would obliterate any rinky dink ships or brush them aside like so much litter. The ultra-massive sphere being as big as some entire solar systems unto itself, versus a vessel even such as a death star is hardly the size of a small moonà well, IÆll let you figure on which one would be producing more gravity simply by virtue of being millions upon millions of times more massive.
the sphere most certainly wouldn't collapse in on itself as there is nowhere near enough external force to over come such a massive structureÆs natural tensile strength, and itÆs own gravity would only lend strength to it keeping it together...
the gravitational force of the star inside would be insignificant compared to the greater field of the sphere itself. the sphere (i.e. one of the strongest shapes known to exist) would perform better with force of constriction, and any impact from the outside would be dissipated across the shape of the sphere.
as for the sphere's effect of gravity upon itself, it would be negligible as again the surface of the sphere would again divide any force among the greater whole, and to say that it would collapse in on itself is incorrect, as the same could be said for any super massive structure or planetoid, and they donÆt collapse in upon themselves.
In fact, it is their own gravity that gives them the ability to stay in one piece, and gives them cohesive strength, not a weakness.
Well argued, though I still doubt the claim that any mineral in the plethera of human knowledge can possibly be as large as that and not snap under its own weight. This is a structure large enough to completely encompass a star. Stars, which are hundreds of times larger than anything else. Assuming every bit of mass from every solid planet in the solar system was used in an atempt to create a sphere around our sun, would all those minerals even begin to encompass the star? How many planets to a sphere like that? Hell, the last time all the matter that formed earth was close to each other like that, it compressed itself into earth. But you're telling me a structure large enough to encompass a FULL STAR, some of the hugest stellar bodies in exsistance, would act completely normal, just sitting there in the shape we wrought it in. Is there something about steel that makes it act diffrently than all the rest of the matter in the universe?
In conclusion, there simply isn't a material in exsistance that could hold a mass as large as a solar system and not collapse in on itself in a hundred diffrent ways. "Snapping under its own weight" comes to mind, as well as "that much steel put together reaches critical mass and becomes a star itself". Has there ever been a solid planet in the history of time that has been as large as a normal star, much less large enough to encompass one? No, never, not once.
But as you said way back in your first post, logistics are aside, and thus, I give you your super sun sphere of death.
|
Darlan Flame
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2005.07.24 17:39:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Vivus Mors
Originally by: Darlan Flame
Said force of gravity would be my best friend here, as the sheer size of any structure that could completely encompass a star would most assurdly collapse in on itself almost immediatly.
ummm, no... you see gravity doesn't work that way...
your own gravity doesn't work that way, Relativity specifically eliminates that possibility, it is RELATIVE gravity and the wake there of that would obliterate any rinky dink ships or brush them aside like so much litter. The ultra-massive sphere being as big as some entire solar systems unto itself, versus a vessel even such as a death star is hardly the size of a small moonà well, IÆll let you figure on which one would be producing more gravity simply by virtue of being millions upon millions of times more massive.
the sphere most certainly wouldn't collapse in on itself as there is nowhere near enough external force to over come such a massive structureÆs natural tensile strength, and itÆs own gravity would only lend strength to it keeping it together...
the gravitational force of the star inside would be insignificant compared to the greater field of the sphere itself. the sphere (i.e. one of the strongest shapes known to exist) would perform better with force of constriction, and any impact from the outside would be dissipated across the shape of the sphere.
as for the sphere's effect of gravity upon itself, it would be negligible as again the surface of the sphere would again divide any force among the greater whole, and to say that it would collapse in on itself is incorrect, as the same could be said for any super massive structure or planetoid, and they donÆt collapse in upon themselves.
In fact, it is their own gravity that gives them the ability to stay in one piece, and gives them cohesive strength, not a weakness.
Well argued, though I still doubt the claim that any mineral in the plethera of human knowledge can possibly be as large as that and not snap under its own weight. This is a structure large enough to completely encompass a star. Stars, which are hundreds of times larger than anything else. Assuming every bit of mass from every solid planet in the solar system was used in an atempt to create a sphere around our sun, would all those minerals even begin to encompass the star? How many planets to a sphere like that? Hell, the last time all the matter that formed earth was close to each other like that, it compressed itself into earth. But you're telling me a structure large enough to encompass a FULL STAR, some of the hugest stellar bodies in exsistance, would act completely normal, just sitting there in the shape we wrought it in. Is there something about steel that makes it act diffrently than all the rest of the matter in the universe?
In conclusion, there simply isn't a material in exsistance that could hold a mass as large as a solar system and not collapse in on itself in a hundred diffrent ways. "Snapping under its own weight" comes to mind, as well as "that much steel put together reaches critical mass and becomes a star itself". Has there ever been a solid planet in the history of time that has been as large as a normal star, much less large enough to encompass one? No, never, not once.
But as you said way back in your first post, logistics are aside, and thus, I give you your super sun sphere of death.
|
Darlan Flame
|
Posted - 2005.07.24 23:12:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Vivus Mors
*stuff*
You win.
|
Darlan Flame
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2005.07.24 23:12:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Vivus Mors
*stuff*
You win.
|
| |
|
