| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Buggsi
   |
Posted - 2004.03.02 02:29:00 -
[1]
Congradulations, first game/movie i've seen that actually implimented it.
*technically no light would be receieved on the back end, and the front end would be hit by far shorter wavelengths then blue visible light, but no need to get picky*
:)
|
MaD MaCe
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 02:51:00 -
[2]
eh? |
BigB
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 02:55:00 -
[3]
i beleive he is talking aabout a phenomina called 'doppler shift'
all visible bodies have a certain wavelength being emmitted from there surface,
the the shorter the wavelength the redder the object,
and the longer the wavelength the bluer the object.
as we move towards an object the wavelength is shortened due to reteative velocities,
and as we move away it appears blue,
this is used to measure the speed of expansion of the universe, more blue stars = expanding,
more red stars = collapsing,
but i wont go into the rest :)
--------------------------------
http://www.freewebs.com/bigb_home/ |
Zak Kingsman
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 03:23:00 -
[4]
right which means the red shift should be looking forward and the blue would be behind you going away...
|
Lord Grim
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 03:48:00 -
[5]
yeah.. well except that in warp you're going 1440 times the speed of light so er.. 
|
Vacuole
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 04:13:00 -
[6]
I think ya got it backwards.
Light with less energy (longer wavelengths) looks red.. More energy (shorter wavelengths) appears blue.
|
LaneHacker
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 04:23:00 -
[7]
nerds....
=Vagabonds= |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 04:57:00 -
[8]
*technically*, you wouldn't be in warp drive anyway because the speed of light cannot be exceeded, or even attained, by any particle possessing mass. But there ya go.
Anyway, yeah ... it looks cool 
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Lord Grim
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 04:59:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Lord Grim on 02/03/2004 05:04:57
 Quote:
I think ya got it backwards.
Light with less energy (longer wavelengths) looks red.. More energy (shorter wavelengths) appears blue.
isnt anything to do with that i dont think
red shift is basiaclly where a distant object is moving away from you at speed, causing an effective stretch in the wavelength of the light coming from the source.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 05:01:00 -
[10]
Quote:
Quote:
I think ya got it backwards.
Light with less energy (longer wavelengths) looks red.. More energy (shorter wavelengths) appears blue.
wrong, sorry its not that :)
red shift is basiaclly where a distant object is moving away from you at speed, causing an effective stretch in the wavelength of the light coming from the source.
Which is what she said. Longer wavelengths = redder light.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Lord Grim
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 05:05:00 -
[11]
its 5am. my excuse.
|
Zak Kingsman
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 05:08:00 -
[12]
ahh found this: http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/glossary/redshift.htm
I had it backwards.
|
Aldelphius
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 05:15:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Aldelphius on 02/03/2004 05:17:06
Quote:
*technically*, you wouldn't be in warp drive anyway because the speed of light cannot be exceeded, or even attained, by any particle possessing mass. But there ya go.
Anyway, yeah ... it looks cool
yes it is possible, just not probable. only reason its not possible to do know is we lack the technology. innovation allways preceeds the ability to carry it out.
Linkage
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 06:06:00 -
[14]
Quote:
yes it is possible, just not probable.
Show me it being done. Till you can, there's almost a century of hard evidence that says it's impossible.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 06:12:00 -
[15]
Quote:
Edited by: Aldelphius on 02/03/2004 05:17:06
Quote:
*technically*, you wouldn't be in warp drive anyway because the speed of light cannot be exceeded, or even attained, by any particle possessing mass. But there ya go.
Anyway, yeah ... it looks cool
yes it is possible, just not probable. only reason its not possible to do know is we lack the technology. innovation allways preceeds the ability to carry it out.
Linkage
Right Einstein...
Try to accelerate an electron to the light of speed and watch what will happen with the universe...
--
Stories: #1
--
|
Archemedes
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 06:16:00 -
[16]
Quote:
nerds....
<gasp!> Nerds? In a sci-fi MMORPG? I'm shocked! 
|
Azamien
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 06:17:00 -
[17]
Quote:
Show me it being done. Till you can, there's almost a century of hard evidence that says it's impossible.
That's a pretty weak argument.
Before Chuck Yeager did it, there was a century of hard evidence that the sound barrier could not be broken. (Indeed, it gots its name because scientific evidence showed that an object would smash into an invisible barrier, much like a wall, when too close to the speed of sound.)
Never count technology out.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 06:21:00 -
[18]
Quote:
Quote:
Show me it being done. Till you can, there's almost a century of hard evidence that says it's impossible.
That's a pretty weak argument.
Well, if you don't believe in logic and have a brain the size a half a peanut, I guess you'd say it is. Never mind.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Azamien
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 06:37:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Azamien on 02/03/2004 06:39:01
Wow, jumping already to accusing me of basically being retarded, huh?
Let me spell it out for you then, Einstein.
I said your argument is weak because the entire thing consisted of the equivilant of "it hasn't been done yet."
I then provided an example (which you left out of the quote preceeding your verbal jab, amazingly) of another achievement said to be impossible until it was done.
Thus, saying something is impossible because it hasn't happened yet is not a good argument. Period.
Now I'll take my lack of logic and undersized brain and go talk to a group of fourth graders. They'll probably be slightly more inclined to debate a point before jumping directly to insults than you just were.
|
Heritor
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 06:49:00 -
[20]
While in warp you are not travelling at the speed of light you are warping space so as to create a shorter journey and there by travelling disances faster
WE can just use speed as a basic measurement so we can understand as it carries the dimensions of distance and time which would be easier to understand.
Dont anybody read Star Trek 
|
Leyla Mirkovic
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 07:03:00 -
[21]
I don't know if I remember correctly, but: Using the warp drive doesn't "move" the ship, i.e. there's no acceleration involved. It just makes millions of small "teleports" to an adjacent position. Otherwise the pilot and crew would be instantly squished to red jelly inside the ship. (Or was that how the warp system worked in I-war?)
|
Heritor
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 07:36:00 -
[22]
Inertial Dampers...Inertial Dampers my dear
|
Reiisha
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 09:08:00 -
[23]
Yup, space gets warped - or wrapped actually. Einstein even mentioned this passably in his general relativity theory, thus making travel at speeds exceeding the speed of light possible, relatively speaking [;)]
Gamersland.nl, DE site voor PC gaming! |
Leyla Mirkovic
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 09:13:00 -
[24]
I didn't remember it right, it got to be the Independence Wars technology. In Eve , the warp drive creates a bubble of 'depleted vacuum' around the ship, which affects friction and transforms it into negative friction, so the ship can travel ftl speeds..
Well, I didn't expect a scientifically accurate engine definition 
About Buggsi's opening post, that said "technically no light would be received on the back end,... " ,
The image that we see isn't probably the visible light at all. It could use the same system which handles the warp drive navigation by using gravity measurements, and create a cgi-simulated image of the whereabouts of the stellar objects. I *love* scientific speculation
|
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 09:37:00 -
[25]
Um, sorry to rain on everyone's parade but the real issue isn't the "light barrier". The real issue is causality. It can be shown that under the right conditions (which really just means two ships on certain courses) an effect can be observed before the cause.
One example (currently off line it appears) has one person receiving evidence of a victim's death before a third person has fired the weapon that killed them. FWIW the link to that is:
Probably off line
This is a violation of the basic laws of the universe in that cause has to come before effect. The result of this the simple statement that you cannot get from A to B faster than light does no matter what mechanism is used to achieve it. Worm-holes; Warp drive; Hyperspace; Whatever.
I am a science-fiction fan (not Sci-fi - the real stuff) and I hate to admit it but you have to come up with some really wacky (and thus hard to believe) theories in order to get round this problem.
Note:I'm not talking about a light based version of "I got home from holiday before my postcards". This problem is the issue of taking delivery of a postcard before you've even posted it.
http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html
I still hope for there to be a solution but I have to concede that it seems unlikely.
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 09:53:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Siddy on 02/03/2004 09:58:42
yes.. i noticed it first day i was gaming...
but then agen.. this game didint winn Best Graphiks of the year Award for nothing
and warpdrive make a "wormhole" trough space....
its like this
A.=> .....1.........2........3........4.......5......6....B (warp drive not active)
A=>..1..2..3..4..5..6..B (warp drive active)
its Bends the space Betveen point A and B so if u travel 1 kilometer in Bent space, u normal space u actualy traveled 1000KM
-------------------------------------------
|
Braccas
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 10:04:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Braccas on 02/03/2004 10:11:23
Quote:
*technically*, you wouldn't be in warp drive anyway because the speed of light cannot be exceeded, or even attained, by any particle possessing mass. But there ya go.
Anyway, yeah ... it looks cool
Speed of light can be exceeded! proven by the socalled ERP-Paradoxon (Einstein/Rosen/Podolsky). It has somehing to do with the wave-aspect of 2 photons (too long story).
There¦s also a second ERP-Theory which impressively show the strange behaviour of photon-plasma. Those grumpy old farts already countered the relativity quite a long time ago!
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 10:05:00 -
[28]
Neutrino's travel faster than light, but don't.
If a neutrino and a photon left a distant star (at the same instant) and came to earth, the neutrino would arrive first even though it hadn't at any point gone faster than the photon.
Why?
Because neutrinos have an exceptionaly weak interaction with matter and gravity. Whilst a photon will get pulled in arcs around massive gravity wells (like stars), the clever little neutrino just ignores all that effort and takes a nice straight route through everything.
So, it travels the same speed, just takes a shorter route.
Now some people might think that reducing the distance is the same as warping, but it is quite different and obeys the laws of relativity and QED (Quantum electrodynamics)
But what does a particle do if it finds itself on the wrong side of the universe late on a saturday night, with no way to get home in a reasonable timeframe?
Simple.
It just annihilates itself and pops out of nowhere in the right place.
Net velocity, infinate.
Happens all the time.
Remember, you can't prove a negative.
No point saying it is impossible to go faster than light because:
a - you can't prove it
b - some things do
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Leyla Mirkovic
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 10:07:00 -
[29]
Quote:
The result of this the simple statement that you cannot get from A to B faster than light does no matter what mechanism is used to achieve it. Worm-holes; Warp drive; Hyperspace; Whatever.
That is an example of a thing that i know, but I still don't get it.
Example : the speed of sound. An object can travel faster than sound, and when it does so, we won't hear it until it has passed us.
Why doesn't that work for the speed of light? Like, we're not capable of detecting ftl objects if they are travelling towards us. (I know accelerating an object to ftl speed would require more than an infinite amount of energy, or something like that)
Somebody please explain to me
|
Leyla Mirkovic
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 10:12:00 -
[30]
And I read an article about what would be needed to make a wormhole. Perfectly doable, but you would need an exotic substance that hasn't been found anywhere, but is possible to exist, in theory. It would have negative gravity effect :) Next, you would need to fetch a small black hole, I think. Yeah, that was it.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |