| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Krondus
   |
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:32:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Krondus on 19/12/2003 22:40:44
Just some thoughts about real world combat ship speeds:
Ever hear this argument being used the last couple of days: ôBattleships canÆt travel as fast frigates due to all their mass.ö I find this argument is flawed. In real life this is not true. The following are real world speeds of US combat ships:
Class Speed
CV-9 Essex (Carrier)33 Knots
CV-41 Midway (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-59 Forrestal (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-63 Kitty Hawk (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-67 JFK (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-65 Enterprise (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-68 Nimitz (Carrier)30+Knots
BB-61 Iowa (Battleship)35 Knots
CGN-38 Virginia (Cruiser)30+Knots
CG-47 Ticonderoga (Cruiser)30+Knots
DD-963 Spruance (Destroyer)33 Knots
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke (Destroyer)31 Knots
FF-1098 Glover (Frigate)27 Knots
FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry (Frigate)29 Knots
T-AKR Watson (Military Cargo Ship)24 KnotsCargo: 393,000 sq ft
ULCC Jahre Viking (Supertanker, worlds largest ship)14 Knots Cargo 638,400 m3
Conclusions: The frigates are slower than a huge aircraft carrier even though the carrierÆs mass is a lot more than the frigate. Why does the carrier go faster, the carrier has 3 larger engines than the frigate.
Just my .02 isk on the speed nerf. 
Krondus
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:40:00 -
[2]
These are all ships that move on water: water presents an unstable surface on which to move. It's become more and more obvious that, with current technology at least, NO ship can safely travel at much more than 35 knots. This, evidently, wouldn't apply to spaceships.
Then again, if you want realism, the difference in spaceships would have no effect at all on maximum speed, only on acceleration. The maximum speed of any ship, under any circumstances, would be 300,000,000km/s. Which kinda wrecks the entire game, since it'll take over a month to traverse a single system.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Brom
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:46:00 -
[3]
It all depends on what size engine you strap on. The Nimitz has a nuclear reactor where an aegis has a deisel engine.
If you strp a 747 turbojet on the back of an 18-wheeler, it's gonna go a lot faster than it would with a 40 horsepower suzuki 3 stroke :P
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:47:00 -
[4]
 Quote:
It all depends on what size engine you strap on. The Nimitz has a nuclear reactor where an aegis has a deisel engine.
Err ... that's exactly what he concluded. Did you have a point to make?
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Lysithea
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:05:00 -
[5]
I am more concerned with the realism of ship speeds in Eve.
Imagine sitting in your ship that goes 200 meters/second. Do you know how fast that really is? That equates to just over 447 miles per hour. This is SPACE! Airplanes on Earth have been going MUCH faster than that for decades. Why are ships in Eve so slow? Seems like we could easily multiply everything by 20 and be done with it.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:12:00 -
[6]
A ship which is STOPPED (I use capitals because that's how the display reads in-game, not to shout at you) is in reality moving at several tens of thousands of miles an hour, relative to the star - or to one of the planets - or both - or to some asteroid belts - or ....
Realism is simply out. Look at the calculations NASA have to make to get *one* ship to fly between planets, and find me a computer than can do those calculations for several thousand ships all flying around at once, some of them in the same system, some of them so close together in that system that they're actually shooting at each other .. and can update the information to each of them, via the internet, at sufficiently high speed not to cause unacceptable lag.
It ain't gonna happen matey 
That said, I agree that changing the m/s to km/s, weapons' ranges to megametres instead of kms etc. , wouldn't appear to make any obvious difference. It still would be flatly impossible to fly across a star system outside of warp, and get to your destination before next July.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:28:00 -
[7]
"Conclusions: The frigates are slower than a huge aircraft carrier even though the carrierÆs mass is a lot more than the frigate. Why does the carrier go faster, the carrier has 3 larger engines than the frigate.
Just my .02 isk on the speed nerf. "
... Simple counter: EVE frigates have (relatively) more powerful engines than the frigates of nowadays Earth. Which enables them to move faster than it's possible for EVE battleships. :s
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:30:00 -
[8]
Quote:
... Simple counter: EVE frigates have (relatively) more powerful engines than the frigates of nowadays Earth. Which enables them to move faster than it's possible for EVE battleships. :s
Don't the battleships also have more powerful engines than the battleships of nowadays Earth? So why can't they also move faster, and still be as quick as frigates?
It's because in space, friction of the medium is not a factor; it is in water.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Spock Eltigre
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:35:00 -
[9]
Quote:
Edited by: Krondus on 19/12/2003 22:40:44
Just some thoughts about real world combat ship speeds:
Ever hear this argument being used the last couple of days: ôBattleships canÆt travel as fast frigates due to all their mass.ö I find this argument is flawed. In real life this is not true. The following are real world speeds of US combat ships:
Class Speed
CV-9 Essex (Carrier)33 Knots
CV-41 Midway (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-59 Forrestal (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-63 Kitty Hawk (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-67 JFK (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-65 Enterprise (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-68 Nimitz (Carrier)30+Knots
BB-61 Iowa (Battleship)35 Knots
CGN-38 Virginia (Cruiser)30+Knots
CG-47 Ticonderoga (Cruiser)30+Knots
DD-963 Spruance (Destroyer)33 Knots
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke (Destroyer)31 Knots
FF-1098 Glover (Frigate)27 Knots
FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry (Frigate)29 Knots
T-AKR Watson (Military Cargo Ship)24 KnotsCargo: 393,000 sq ft
ULCC Jahre Viking (Supertanker, worlds largest ship)14 Knots Cargo 638,400 m3
Conclusions: The frigates are slower than a huge aircraft carrier even though the carrierÆs mass is a lot more than the frigate. Why does the carrier go faster, the carrier has 3 larger engines than the frigate.
Just my .02 isk on the speed nerf.
Krondus
The bottom line is that speed has NOTHING to do with mass ! Acceleration is another thing - accleration is based on mass cuz a huge ship ain't gonna go 0 to 30 fast but it will eventually go 30, it just takes longer than a smaller ship.
All things being equal... a BS in EVE should be able to go 10x faster than a Cruiser or 100x faster than a Frigate due to the number of engines a BS has versus a Cruiser. A BS in EVE should take a long time to get up to speed and be less agile than a Cruiser or Frigate...
Now this will blow all your minds, I know, but here goes... Mass in space is NOT the same as mass on earth so in space with no gravity acting on said mass the mass of something large is no more meaningful than the mass of something small. Try dropping a feather and an anvil at the same time in a vacuum - they both fall at the same rate towards the center of a gravity well. Frigates, Cruisers and BS should therefore each be able to go the same speed (aka terminal velocity) using varying amounts of thrust. Perhaps in EVE the engines of a BS are less powerful than the engines of a Frigate (makes little sense to me).
CCP needs to seriously go back to school on their take of Physics and how mass, speed and acceleration are related.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:40:00 -
[10]
The physics lessons must have clashed with the gameplay lessons: we can tell which ones you attended.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:41:00 -
[11]
"Don't the battleships also have more powerful engines than the battleships of nowadays Earth? So why can't they also move faster, and still be as quick as frigates?"
I said relatively more powerful. As in, the ratio between EVE frigate/EVE battleship engines is greater than ratio between naval frigate/naval battleship engines.
"It's because in space, friction of the medium is not a factor; it is in water."
The friction is still a factor in EVE space -- the warp bubble works by removing all possible reasons for that friction from area near the ship, if i remember correctly... o.o;;
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:43:00 -
[12]
Quote:
The friction is still a factor in EVE space
Not at metres per second; not even at kilometres per second. It is at sizeable percentage of c, I grant you, but the regular drives don't reach those.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 00:17:00 -
[13]
Do we really have to go here? Comparing real world Sea Vessels to make believe Space Vessels? And only taking the good and not the bad?
Like for example a single torpedo capable of sending an Aircraft Carrier into dry dock for months? Of that a flight group of fighters with Harpoons stand a very good chance of sinking one?
Or, for example, the amount of damage running the USS Nimitz at flank speed 24/7 would cause?
Or, for example, the construction costs requiring the budget of a mid-sized nation?
Or, for example, the maintenance costs requiring the budget of a mid-sized nation?
It's a game. Using Non-Fiction to counter Fictional issues is irrelevant in the face of game mechanics and game balance.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
StealthNet
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 00:37:00 -
[14]
Forget your RL reasons. We made those points 4 months ago, nothing changed (well, in fact it changed )
All you can see and experiment in eve are a result of gameplay "balance" (in someone's mind).
They modded the speeds because they were pursuing clear goals: nerf BS, boost frigs and cruisers.
imho, they arrived too late, after a huge percentage of the player base was already flying BS. This is the main problem: the human being hates changes.
But the problem here is not simply about change. It's about game quality too. Look at the haulers today. It's a joke.
Wanna keep the speed as they are now ? Cut at least in half the cap cost of ABs / MWDs. Make npc rats succeptible to cap use too, because they can use them indefinitely.
What Im basically saying is: ppl at CCP have a good interest in keeping things RPable. But the changes made have only one thing in mind: achieve the "balance" *they* are looking for, after throwing through the window the RP aspect of it. It's like "we will make up a story if we need it".
The side effect: huge differences and gaps between feature / balance patches. I said this 5 months ago, Ill say it again, quoting a nice movie (Contact):
"small moves Ellie, small moves".
I remember my last post in the beta forums, when I said that balance issues are a real concern, because MMORPGs won't achieve success if they keep changing the rules of the game.
It's like playing poker against someone that changes the rule every hand, in the middle of it, without you being aware of, and you are obligated to play as your opponent tells you.
_______________________________________________
|
Raven DeBlade
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:00:00 -
[15]
Yes most larger naval vessels are faster than the smaller ones, it is due to the fact they have larger engines thus causing greater thrust/propulsion. They do however turn, accelerate and stop slower than smaller ships. This should also be the same with ships in EVE, Smaller ships shouldnt move 3-4x faster than larger, they should have aprox the same topsspeed, but larger ships should accellerate/deaccelerate/turn/stop slower.
"To hunt pirates you need time and patience, because even monkeys fall from the trees"
"Any statements made above this line are my persona" |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:18:00 -
[16]
Quote:
Forget your RL reasons. We made those points 4 months ago, nothing changed (well, in fact it changed )
All you can see and experiment in eve are a result of gameplay "balance" (in someone's mind).
They modded the speeds because they were pursuing clear goals: nerf BS, boost frigs and cruisers.
imho, they arrived too late, after a huge percentage of the player base was already flying BS. This is the main problem: the human being hates changes.
But the problem here is not simply about change. It's about game quality too. Look at the haulers today. It's a joke.
Wanna keep the speed as they are now ? Cut at least in half the cap cost of ABs / MWDs. Make npc rats succeptible to cap use too, because they can use them indefinitely.
What Im basically saying is: ppl at CCP have a good interest in keeping things RPable. But the changes made have only one thing in mind: achieve the "balance" *they* are looking for, after throwing through the window the RP aspect of it. It's like "we will make up a story if we need it".
The side effect: huge differences and gaps between feature / balance patches. I said this 5 months ago, Ill say it again, quoting a nice movie (Contact):
"small moves Ellie, small moves".
I remember my last post in the beta forums, when I said that balance issues are a real concern, because MMORPGs won't achieve success if they keep changing the rules of the game.
It's like playing poker against someone that changes the rule every hand, in the middle of it, without you being aware of, and you are obligated to play as your opponent tells you.
I'm sorry but I don't see the speed changes as being bad. Prolly because I stopped using MWD a while back due to the shield/cap issues (hadn't worked on energy skills much). Now the Scorpion is actually faster than it was pre-Castor for me (top speed pre-Castor was 225m/s, now 246m/s  )
Adaptation is supposed to be one of the defining attributes of Human Beings. Any animal can be stubborn.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Booky
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:29:00 -
[17]
My Galactic BattleCruiser I got sitting in my hanger at home can do 50knots on water and .25au/s once I leave earth. Oh and it accelerates and stops in 1 meter. You ever see the movie "Flight of the Navigator"? It looks just like that only it has 10x 5000mm railguns with a 2000x scope, rof 2 secs, range of 500000km with antimatter ammo.
Come on people, why compare RL to a game, its just silly. I learned this a long time ago when I started flying flight sims. Im a pilot in RL and flight sims just don't cut it if you are going to expect a RL situation.
Spelling corrections welcome, but don't expect me to edit my post. |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:37:00 -
[18]
Quote:
...
Come on people, why compare RL to a game, its just silly. I learned this a long time ago when I started flying flight sims. Im a pilot in RL and flight sims just don't cut it if you are going to expect a RL situation.
Actually that depends on the game itself. The goal of a real flight sim is to simulate reality as close as possible (Microsoft Flight Simulator, Falcon 3.0 & 4.0).
If Eve was a real space sim, we'd all be in space shuttles trying to dock with a single space station in orbit around a single planet 
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Vicarrah
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 02:40:00 -
[19]
The plain fact is.... we don't have enough processing power, or band width to accurately simulate spatial objects, and distribute the information contained in that spatial state to thousands of people fast enough to make the simulation run at (near) realtime.
Think about the amount of data... the mind boggles.
Give it a few years, and a *MAJOR* boost in available bandwith, and we'll see it happening.
Vicarrah
Tahiri Protector |
Hasek
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 03:39:00 -
[20]
Quote:
The following are real world speeds of US combat ships:
Class Speed
CV-9 Essex (Carrier)33 Knots
CV-41 Midway (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-59 Forrestal (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-63 Kitty Hawk (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-67 JFK (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-65 Enterprise (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-68 Nimitz (Carrier)30+Knots
BB-61 Iowa (Battleship)35 Knots
CGN-38 Virginia (Cruiser)30+Knots
CG-47 Ticonderoga (Cruiser)30+Knots
DD-963 Spruance (Destroyer)33 Knots
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke (Destroyer)31 Knots
FF-1098 Glover (Frigate)27 Knots
FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry (Frigate)29 Knots
T-AKR Watson (Military Cargo Ship)24 KnotsCargo: 393,000 sq ft
ULCC Jahre Viking (Supertanker, worlds largest ship)14 Knots Cargo 638,400 m3
hehe if you only knew what a carrier could do...
GO NAVY! BEAT ARMY!
|
Skillz
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 03:43:00 -
[21]
Quote:
CV-59 Forrestal (Carrier) 30+Knots
Naw, why not Slava class missile cruiser from the Northen Red Banner Fleet? (Which would sink it)
Arrogant American.
Keep on flaming, lamers.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 03:55:00 -
[22]
Quote:
... why not Slava class missile cruiser from the Northen Red Banner Fleet? (Which would sink it)
Arrogant American.
Given that ALL of his examples were from the US fleet, I'd guess ignorant rather than arrogant. Or maybe just economical, and the US details were the ones he had nearest to hand.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Ly'sol
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 04:29:00 -
[23]
well mate considering the US fleet is the the most advanced technically and versitial of the worlds navies its easy to use it as a standard. Its not arrogance. I can give you details on any type of war ship in the world.
*pats his copy of JANES fighting ships*
Ive seen those Nimitz class carriers go MUCH faster than 30 knots. And unsafe for a vessel to go 30 knots? Its becomeing a standard.
Lysol Knows the oceans ships
--------------------------
Vist the Jericho Fraction Forums
|
Gdriver
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 04:37:00 -
[24]
Everyone has missed a very importan LAW of physics and motion. Once an object is in motion it will stay in motion until acted upon by an outside FORCE. If they were trying to make it more REALISTIC. then once your ship is in motion at a given speed and you shut down the thrust it will stay at that speed until acted upon by Gravity or you apply reverse thrust. Very basic Very simple laws of physics,
This way you wont have to eat your entire cap to go to a gate or reach and sustain a resonable speed.
|
Skillz
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 04:41:00 -
[25]
Just a lot of crap, find me one USN admiral that would send a taskforce to the eastern north atlanic.
Arrogant Americans.
Keep on flaming, lamers.
|
Ly'sol
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 04:51:00 -
[26]
Skillz
what are you talking about...first off why would they second off whats your point?
--------------------------
Vist the Jericho Fraction Forums
|
Booky
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 05:53:00 -
[27]
Keep in mind that the true speeds of US Naval Vessels is classified. Even Janes is clueless of the true power behind Nuclear powered ships.
Spelling corrections welcome, but don't expect me to edit my post. |
Krondus
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 05:57:00 -
[28]
Russian Naval Ships
Krenl (Carrier) 32Knots
Kirov (Cruiser) 32Knots
Slava (Cruiser) 32Knots
Kara (Destoyer) 34Knots
Udaloy (Destoyer) 30Knots
Sovremennyy (Destoyer) 32Knots
Krivak (Frigate) 32Knots
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 07:00:00 -
[29]
Hmm I think people are forgetting a very important fact(or maybe they don't know?) But the max speed a displacement hull can handle is based on the length of it. I don't remember the exact reason why, but if you've ever sailed alot you would know this. The speed and acceleration then is dependant on the power available and the weight of the ship.
In sailing races its all about given winds for the race, High winds provided enough power to reach max speeds, the heavier longer sailboat will win. However if winds are low then the smaller lighter boat whom can make the best use of the limited power is usually the winner.
*displacement hull being those found on most large military ships, most sail boats, tugboats, trollers, freighters etc*
(not to be confused with planar hull aka the speedboat)
If you wanted to make a significant comparison perhaps you should of used aviation as the medium of travel is closer to that of space(with exception of drag, lift and those concepts) You would not expect a b- 52bomber or Passenger jet to be able to keep up with a fighter jet.
I think the reason why Sci-Fi space fleets are related to Naval more so than avionics is that the ships are supposedly large, and operate for long periods of time. Not because similarities in tactics, or how they operate.
Any reason, your analogy is flawed. Spaceships operate in a vacume thus are governed by the rules of inertia only. Meaning a lighter ship is easier to manuever and much easier to move(go faster, accelerate etc...)
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 07:15:00 -
[30]
and one more thing on the mass subject.
Items have the same mass in space as they do on the ground. They just have no WEIGHT. Mass is the amount of matter in an object and thus the bases for determining the amount of force needed to move that mass.
Why in real space all ships would have the same max speed, its the frigs that would achieve it faster(they are of less mass and thus need less force to act on the object) While a BS may have generally bigger engines, the average bs wouldn't provide enough power to accelerate faster than the Frig. Not to mention manueverability.(their could be exceptions, like a BS hull wrapped around one large engine, or a frig hull with little engine)
|
BigBadToughGuy
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 08:14:00 -
[31]
Hey Skillz, I'm guessing your reading some fiction on Russian ships. Name one Russian vessel that can go over 15 knots without the pressure from the bow wave caving in it's rusted hull, other than the icebreakers.
Don't hate us because the Russians couldn't afford to keep up with our Navy. We deploy to the North Atlantic regulary, we even earn our "Blue Nose" certificate for the cruise.
If you have any doubts as to the quality of American warships, take a look at the damage sustained by the USS Forestal, USS Enterprise and most of all the USS Cole. These ships returned to active duty and other than the retired Forestal, are still on active duty.
Keeping the entire world safe...go Navy!!!
|
NGRU Rix
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 08:24:00 -
[32]
From a pure gaming viewpoint and to be a simple as possible:
Bigger is slower - the slower it is the bigger it seems.
Smaller is faster.
Bigger is louder.
Smaller is quieter.
Bigger is stonger.
Smaller is weaker.
Doesn't mean it's always right - but more often than not, it's how it works.
|
Fred0
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 09:17:00 -
[33]
Quote:
Just my .02 isk on the speed nerf.
Krondus
You want realism and then you bring up present day ship speeds?
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 11:25:00 -
[34]
Can we please quit with the arguments over whose Navy is the best? You don't have to listen to me, but if you don't, you'll get the same request in the form of an order, from a board moderator, and the thread will be locked and deleted.
Talking about whether or not this subject should be relevant to EVE, is relevant to EVE. Talking about the subject itself, and discussing who has the more powerful/faster ships, is not, and we all know how strict the rules in here are.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
StealthNet
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 11:56:00 -
[35]
Quote:
Adaptation is supposed to be one of the defining attributes of Human Beings. Any animal can be stubborn.
Yes, adaptation is good. But we should adapt to new things and conditions inside the logic of the game, not changing rules. We are talking here about game rules that change everytime someone cries out loud that something is uber, unfair, etc etc etc.
If these changes are unavoidable, then make it slowly. One day you log and your bestower does 404 m/s. The other day, it is down to 92 m/s.
One day you log after farming NPC rats for 3 hours. The next day you warp to a belt and you are owned by the "new" pirates that changed because they were too easy.
making small moves and one at a time will enable CCP to tune the game as they see fit. Changing everything drastically at once only creates more inbalances.
_______________________________________________
|
SwitchBl4d3
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 12:47:00 -
[36]
If you touching cloth on a subject liek this WTF in a non gravity environment MWD one blast should take you at the same speed acrross the solar system relying on reverse thrust to stop.
"Teh lord of Nonni"
|
Jera
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 12:49:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Jera on 20/12/2003 12:54:46
Quote:
The maximum speed of any ship, under any circumstances, would be 300,000,000km/s.
(
Now let's have some fun.
As it gains speed, stored energy to matter results to increasing its mass. And according to Einstein famous formulas, matter reaching light speed would have reached an infinite time the mass it has when still.
So a starship reaching light speed would have an infinite mass, having all the universe collapsing on it due to the insane gravitational field created. :)
Now food for though : are big bangs happening each time a conscious specy tries to reach light speed ?
)
Discuss loyalty to the State issues on the 'Caldari' channel
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 14:14:00 -
[38]
Quote:
Quote:
The maximum speed of any ship, under any circumstances, would be 300,000,000km/s.
(
Now let's have some fun.
As it gains speed, stored energy to matter results to increasing its mass. And according to Einstein famous formulas, matter reaching light speed would have reached an infinite time the mass it has when still.
So a starship reaching light speed would have an infinite mass, having all the universe collapsing on it due to the insane gravitational field created. :)
Now food for though : are big bangs happening each time a conscious specy tries to reach light speed ?
)
You missed the second part of the argument. Still according to Einstein, and assuming his theory to be correct:
The nearer to light-speed the ship is going, and consequently the more mass it has, the greater an amount of energy is needed to get it to increase its speed at all; also, the nearer to light-speed it is going, the greater a percentage of added energy goes towards increasing its mass, and the less goes towards increasing its velocity. It is these two factors - pick whichever you prefer - that mean the speed of light is an asymptote: you can - at least in theory and for subatomic particles, if not for macroscopic objects - get as CLOSE to that limit as you please, to any number of decimal places of measurement - but you can NOT, under ANY circumstances, actually reach it.
That said, if you DID reach it, then what you suggest about the Big Bang probably would occur.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Kunming
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 16:11:00 -
[39]
I think u r forgetting something!! If u want to move something in space u need the equal or higher force of the mass.
x=Mass [kg]
y=Force [N] (Newton)
If x is like 10kg this means u need a force of 100N. The bigger the ship the larger the engine must be if u want to go fast. And I think speed is not the main priority of a battleship. I also think the new AB and MWD system is made very realistic! Which is good IMO.
Intercepting since BETA |
Kunming
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 16:19:00 -
[40]
About Einsteins theory:
It's wrong! Search in the internet for "Quantum tunneling effect" and "Tachyon particles"...
Its just like u cant stay at light speed but u can go faster than it! U just need the starting energy that equals to the force that brings a certain amount of mass over light speed, cause after u reach tachyon, mass and energy goes antiproportional.
Intercepting since BETA |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 16:57:00 -
[41]
Quote:
About Einsteins theory:
It's wrong! Search in the internet for "Quantum tunneling effect" and "Tachyon particles"...
Its just like u cant stay at light speed but u can go faster than it! U just need the starting energy that equals to the force that brings a certain amount of mass over light speed, cause after u reach tachyon, mass and energy goes antiproportional.
Tachyonic particles hadn't ever been observed the last I read up on this subject; and, in theory, they would still obey Einstein's theorems, but in odd ways due to being super-light particles rather than sub-light.
Quantum tunnelling is something altogether else. Everything about the quantum world defies sensible explanation.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
StealthNet
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 18:36:00 -
[42]
Edited by: StealthNet on 20/12/2003 18:39:26
Folks,
Last time I checked, we are talking here about 3 different theories, and they do not agree about what it is being discussed, so, basically, we are all right...
... or wrong
_______________________________________________
|
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 19:03:00 -
[43]
Then lets just make something up that will set your mind at ease, battleships are slower 'cause they have to, moving their massive hulk of energy any faster would create negative energy around them which would be eating at their hulls much like tiny black holes of corrosion, there, reality out the window. Buh-bye!
Convert Stations
|
Seth Argon
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 19:44:00 -
[44]
Why did I read this entire post?
|
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 22:18:00 -
[45]
We are not riding boats on water in EvE.
Mai's Idealog |
Steven Dynahir
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 22:48:00 -
[46]
Fastest "ship" is soviet build cargo "ship" which goes around 600kph =) And no, it cannot fly, so it's not an aeroplane. (Uses ground effect to skip from wave to wave and with four jet engines)
SigPl/HQ&Log Coy/MNB(C)/KFOR |
White Tiger
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 23:01:00 -
[47]
Quote:
Quote:
CV-59 Forrestal (Carrier) 30+Knots
Naw, why not Slava class missile cruiser from the Northen Red Banner Fleet? (Which would sink it)
Arrogant American.
Well...Seeing as how the Forrestal has long since been decommissioned for many years I would love to hear how your Slava CG is gonna sink her.
Oh...BTW...Hypothetically your Slava would be toast long before He could get within Missile Range of the Forrestal...
Blind Russian....GRIN
White Tiger
Founding Member and CEO of Tactical Advisory Group
"The Only Easy Day was Yesterday." |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 23:51:00 -
[48]
sci-fi Pronunciation Key (sI fI)
n. Informal pl. sci-Àfis
Science fiction.
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or similar to science fiction: a sci-fi movie; a sci-fi weapons system.
ficÀtion Pronunciation Key (fik-shun)
n.
- An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
- The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
Applying Reality to Fiction is useless, especially Science Fiction. It has been proven repeatedly that scientific facts only hold true until someone else proves them to be false.
Whatever vulnerabilities and strengths are needed to make the game work will exist, regardless of what Einstein, Newton or Roddenberry might have had to say on the matter.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Nemesis I
|
Posted - 2003.12.22 00:05:00 -
[49]
Hijack in a way!
If youÆre after realism well not realism but logic - how come the emperor died? or donÆt they do royal clones!
Its a game the developers created as it is and can change it at whim!
Nem
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.22 00:09:00 -
[50]
Quote:
Hijack in a way!
If youÆre after realism well not realism but logic - how come the emperor died? or donÆt they do royal clones!
Its a game the developers created as it is and can change it at whim!
Nem
Actually, they covered that in the fiction. Amarr royalty aren't allowed clones.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Indigo Seqi
|
Posted - 2003.12.22 02:16:00 -
[51]
I find the fact that many battleships don't even fit through the docking bay doors of your avarage space station more disturbing to be honest.
|
Mikelangelo
|
Posted - 2003.12.22 03:57:00 -
[52]
One important note that I have not seen discussed anywhere (of course, I might have missed it), is the issue of design philosophy.
The US Navy, for instance, before WW2, favored armor and firepower OVER speed in its battleship designs. However, the war started, this philosophy changed to empasize speed, as well as comparable firepower.
The Iowa class battleships required 63 percent more horsepower (212000 shp) to get an extra 5 knots of speed over the South Dakota class battleships. (33 knots vs. 27 knots).
Now, its possible that the current races of EVE, have a SLOW battleship philosophy, and so until we can design our own ships, are pretty much stuck to what is available.
Most cruisers however, in both the US and other navies, had speeds above most battleships. Fast battleships were a special purpose design, one which did not come about without painful learning experiences, as the British Navy lost 3 battlecruisers (essentially fast battleships) at Jutland.
Just some food for thought. Yeah speed is nice to have, but you ALWAYS have to pay a price for it, one way, or another.
Still sux.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.22 05:05:00 -
[53]
What I've never understood is why nobody has made the comparison with aeroplanes, which would be much more relevant - if we assume for the sake of argument that anything could possibly be relevant (hi there, Jash) - than with boats. I know spaceships are called "ships" but they *fly*, they don't travel across the surface of a medium, but through it.
So, planes. Why aren't EVE matters of size/speed more realistic, and based on the way size/speed varies in planes? For instance, a USAF top-grade fighter is tiny (1 or 2 pilots and nobody else) but goes insanely fast: Concorde can do MACH 2.2 with 144 passengers on board; a 747 can do 600mph or so with over 400 passengers on board. In short, the bigger a plane is, the slower it is forced to travel - oh no, wait .....
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Mikelangelo
|
Posted - 2003.12.22 17:36:00 -
[54]
Thats actually a good point Baldour.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |