| 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.
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 10:19:00 -
[31]
Quote:
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!
ofcorse speed of light can be exedet.. Tacyon partikles do it all the time...
point is: Normal materjals cant, because information travels betven materjals at speed of light.. what makes it impossible to exeed it
-------------------------------------------
|
CT BadIronTree
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 10:24:00 -
[32]
wtf? omg! my head will go boom...
i am stupid :P
============================================
Colossus Technologies
The first and oldest corp in eve!
BadIronTree Head of Production
CSM Chat Log September 25, 2003:
Fuhry> Some things we simply cannot test, and therefore we just put it on Tranq. cross our fingers and then get into panic mode.
---------------------------------------
playing (or beta testing)since Sat, 2 Nov 2002 16:06 (beta 5)
---------------------------------------
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 10:24:00 -
[33]
Quote:
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.
u need exelent understandmet in Time before u can even begin to contain Black hole.....Black holes exixt in space but not in time.... odd, isint it 
thats the reason why nothing comes back after enttering event horizont
and one Black hole can exist simutaneosly in 2 totally diferent times simultaneosly
-------------------------------------------
|
Leyla Mirkovic
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 10:40:00 -
[34]
Quote:
Black holes exixt in space but not in time.... odd, isint it
thats the reason why nothing comes back after enttering event horizont
and one Black hole can exist simutaneosly in 2 totally diferent times simultaneosly
Now that is something that I don't buy right away. You can explain further, what's your point? 2 different times simultaneously? Huh?
The reason why matter doesn't come back from black holes it that there's a singularity, i.e. infinite density and infinitely small space. So in a certain proximity, infinite gravity, too. Thats why black holes suck matter in so well. However, there exist certain matter sprays from the 'poles' of the black holes. I'm not sure if they come from within, or just from the material entering the black hole, outside the event horizon.
|
Buggsi
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 11:09:00 -
[35]
No offense but the relativity theories proposed in the 1910's (a century ago) are a little goofy.
Dont forget, its still a theory. Speculation, more or less, cant be proven by actual measurements. Lorenz transformation equations could be the result of a totally different phenomenon. Einstein just came up with the best plausible explaination to Lorenz's equations. Just a theory.
I see were also still taking hydrogen and oxygen and putting them together to create enormous explosions to BLAST objects into orbit. A cannon turned backwards, embarrasing. Pretty much NASA using the exact same technology the frigging ****S used 60+ FREAKING YEARS ago in their rocket program.
Humanity is going nowhere, fast. Someone gimme a beer.
|
Buggsi
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 11:22:00 -
[36]
one things for sure, genetic mutations of space travel in the future created the race of humans with the nasty LAZY EYE.
|
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 11:38:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Rodj Blake on 02/03/2004 11:44:34
Quote:
No offense but the relativity theories proposed in the 1910's (a century ago) are a little goofy.
Dont forget, its still a theory. Speculation, more or less, cant be proven by actual measurements. Lorenz transformation equations could be the result of a totally different phenomenon. Einstein just came up with the best plausible explaination to Lorenz's equations. Just a theory.
Yep, relativity is just a theory.
As it happens, it's one of the two most successful scientific theories (along with quantum theory) ever proposed by a human. Relativity's predictions have been quantitatively verified by experiment on numerous occasions.
So I'd say that it's a pretty good theory, and deserves to be treated as such.
Quote:
I see were also still taking hydrogen and oxygen and putting them together to create enormous explosions to BLAST objects into orbit. A cannon turned backwards, embarrasing. Pretty much NASA using the exact same technology the frigging ****S used 60+ FREAKING YEARS ago in their rocket program.
Humanity is going nowhere, fast. Someone gimme a beer.
Other methods of spaceflight have been developed (such as Project Orion), but discarded due to various problems. It's more efficient to improve existing technology rather than developing new methods.
We're also using the same basic design of computer envisaged by Turing in the thirties, and engineered by Flowers in the forties. Your point is?
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
Majin Buu
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 11:39:00 -
[38]
i think i have just got a new haircut
BoB KillBoard |
OmegaPsycho
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 13:51:00 -
[39]
Quote:
nerds....
i think there trying to say something to us shhh listen maybe they will speak english anyways i flunked science
------------------------------------------------
Give me what I want and i'll leave....
------------------------------------------------
Guidelines For opening a "Thread of Smack Talking" on Forums:
a)Have a pic,video or chat log of how u owned the player or Corp. if not then STFU!!! k?
b)If someone has pwned u because u suck at EVE do not come crying to the forums cause NO 1 GIVES A FLYING DUCK!!! k?
c)If someone has "ganked" u "HARD" because of "poor game mechanics" send in a "Petition" don't come crying to forums. k?
d) last but not least, If u do not have something constructive to say on the forums then STFU!! k?
TPOD ALLIANCE is Recruiting....click link for more info. |
Ukiah
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 13:53:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Ukiah on 02/03/2004 16:14:02
If you guys are going to insist on having this sort of discussion, I need to go put on my wizard hat and wand.
|
Lomex
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 14:00:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Lomex on 02/03/2004 14:01:43
Quote:
Yep, relativity is just a theory.
As it happens, it's one of the two most successful scientific theories (along with quantum theory) ever proposed by a human. Relativity's predictions have been quantitatively verified by experiment on numerous occasions.
Its also incomplete and at odds with parts of other working theories. The problem with many if not all of them is they fail to work in ultra high energy systems such as those just after (micro-seconds) the big bang.
The speed of light is falling, so if nothing could ever go faster than light, then the universe will wind down. As has been said neutrinos' travel at the speed of light (they DO have mass incidently, just a stupidly minute amount), but as they are seemingly almost immue to any interference they can arrive before the photons.
Spacetime has currently only been observed to bend downward due to mass, but theres no reason why it couldn't bend upwards, the resulting slope would propel anything at a remarkable speed.
One last thing, information can be and has been transmitted at or close to the speed of gravity. This has been achieved using the star-trek method of transporters.... ok ok not quite, its due to the quantum entanglement of like minded particles. The speed of gravity is uncalculatable and thought to be very large indeed.
___________________________________________
Join in the NEW Sci-Fi Quiz |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 14:13:00 -
[42]
Quote:
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?
It's basically because the speed of light is a fundamental aspect of the universe whereas the speed of sound is only a consequence of the way the universe acts at that particular location. You might say that the speed of light is part of the 'hardware' that makes up the universe. The speed of sound is just an application that runs on that hardware. Sorta :)
If you really want to know you need to read those articles I posted links to. Or find some others (there's plenty of hits on google) or get a good book. Don't feel bad if you can't figure it out. I knew about this for over ten years (and largely dismissed it) until I finally sat down and spent an afternoon with a couple of friends figuring it out.
It's not simple and in some areas seems to defy common sense. Not understanding relativity doesn't brand you an idiot - it just means you're normal :)
If you can understand it then you are probably above average intelligence or like me got so bored that you have enough time to bash at the ideas for long enough to get them to stick
One thing I will add:It does all depend on relativity being correct..but so far no one has disproved it and several experiments have verified it. As was said earlier FTL may still be possible..just highly unlikely from what we know right now.
..and no, that doesn't make me any happier. If it turns out God does exist after all I shall raise a stink about it when I meet him 
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Sheriff Jones
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 14:20:00 -
[43]
"The sky is blue until someone proves it otherwise."
That's the basic of any scientific research. Everything is true only as long as it's proven otherwise. The classic phrase goes:
"Anything can be proven wrong, but nothing can ever be proven a 100% right."
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 14:42:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Gan Howorth on 02/03/2004 14:43:34
Actually i do believe that the speed of gravitational effect is equal to the speed of light. i.e. if the sun suddenly vanished we would continue to orbit the spot it was until the time for the speed of light to corss the 96m miles had elapsed..about 10mins.
|
Moah
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 15:06:00 -
[45]
You are wrong.
Not the Ship move in the space, the Space move around the Ship. But im not sure if "Futurama" allways is the Truth...
Fancy. |
Toulak
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 15:09:00 -
[46]
|
Atandros
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 15:17:00 -
[47]
Quote:
ofcorse speed of light can be exedet.. Tacyon partikles do it all the time...
Tachyons were a hypothesis that was found not to exist. Stop watching Star Trek.
|
Nashal Couronne
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 15:55:00 -
[48]
Personaly, I disbelieve every single scientific theory. All of them. Because one day, they WILL be proven false, and another will be put forward, and in time that too will be disproven and replaced, and all that time we will be advancing.
I would be willing to bet everything I own that in 200 years time, those of you who cling to ideas like causality will be looked upon by the scientific community in the same way we look back at those who refused to believe the world was round. Closed minded and foolish.
Until something is UTTERLY, beyond a shadow of a doubt, disproven, then its possible, and as all science is theory, its impossible to disprove anything. Therefor anything is hypothetically possible.
|
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 16:05:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Rodj Blake on 02/03/2004 16:13:53
Quote:
Personaly, I disbelieve every single scientific theory. All of them. Because one day, they WILL be proven false, and another will be put forward, and in time that too will be disproven and replaced, and all that time we will be advancing.
I would be willing to bet everything I own that in 200 years time, those of you who cling to ideas like causality will be looked upon by the scientific community in the same way we look back at those who refused to believe the world was round. Closed minded and foolish.
Until something is UTTERLY, beyond a shadow of a doubt, disproven, then its possible, and as all science is theory, its impossible to disprove anything. Therefor anything is hypothetically possible.
You can't utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt prove that the sky is blue, that the Earth goes around the Sun, or indeed that anything even exists (with the exception of your own conciousness).
For all we know, we could be in a giant VR simulation a la The Matrix.
So what exactly do you believe in?
The thing is, as human beings, we have an innate need to try and understand the world around us. That's why we're having this discussion in the first place! Relativity is not a perfect theory, in the same as Newtonian mechanics wasn't perfect. But it's the best we've got, and it's the most accurate model.
Even though Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by relativity, it's not correct to sat that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. It's simply a less accurate description of the universe. Until something comes along that describes the world better than realativity, I'll stick with that thanks.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
Gun Kata
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 16:11:00 -
[50]
Tachyon particle info
Linkage
"I have seen everything now."
"Yeah? Have you seen a man eat his own head?" |
Mr nStuff
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 16:11:00 -
[51]
As shown on one of the linkages from the 1st page. It is mathematically proven that faster than light travel is possible.. Only major set back right now is. You need about as much energy as it takes a star it's whole life time to produce. Just to create a magnetic field strong enough to keep the universe from crushing your little space ship.
And to anyone ignorant enough to say that it's completely and utterly impossible today and one thousand years from now. What about the fricken aliens? How did they get here? Walk?
5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers..
Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer.
My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period.
Expires on 19. September 2004 |
csebal
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 16:32:00 -
[52]
Quote:
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.
To the luck of humanity, there were always people beliving, that certain rules are wrong, as they are based on our perception and the knowledge of the world around us.
Without these people, we would still belive that earth is the middle of the univers, that its actually a plate, and the ocean just falls down on the edge, like a big waterfall. Not to mention the large giant, who holds this plate.
Be a little more open to new ideas / possibilites and look back into history, before you start to insult others.
BTW: The whole principle of warp is, (as far i know at least) that you do not exceed the speed of light, but instead warp the space, so that the two points come a lot closer.
Just imagine a single line. Now form a U out of that line, and watch how much closer the two ends are... thats the point of it.
Of course, i may be wrong, in this case, feel free to correct me.
-------------
This post is nothing more than my personal opinion. It does not represent the official standpoint of Fountain Alliance, or the HUN Corporation in any way.
------------- |
Burga Galti
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 16:33:00 -
[53]
On the whole proof thing let me say this...
In the 16th century there was a theory. This theory said that all swans were white. It was impossible to have a swan anohter colour. No Blue swans, no red swans, no yellow or green swans, no black or purple swans even.
Then, science reached Australia and what did we find...
Black Swans.
Never count anything out beacuse every major theory held today is in essence empirical.
Tales from the EVE Cluster |
Kyt Kraiten
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 16:46:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Kyt Kraiten on 02/03/2004 16:48:23
those who would claim with absolute certainty that faster than light travel is either possible or impossible, are deluding themselves. if there is one thing constant about science, it's that it constantly challenges itself. this is what sets it apart from other means to grasp reality such as religion, it improves upon itself and frequently proves old thoughts and ideas wrong, and replaces them with better fitting theories. even the old axiom of cause and effect has been shown to not be 100% absolute with research into quantum effects.
our understanding of physics and reality is vast compared to any other point in time before a mere decade ago. yet it is nothing compared to the near-infinite pool of knowledge that still awaits us. i believe it possible to achieve a practical form of FTL travel, though i do not hold this possibility as a fact. but as others have pointed out in this thread, it is indeed true that science often outdoes science fiction. that which was once thought impossible is now a common-day occurance.
there is a lot of research into the matter done by people who are infinitely more knowledgeable and qualified than any of us here, and they have not seem to lost their hope and enthusiasm. fact is stranger than fiction, and the future will very likely hold advances even the most fringe sci-fi writers have not yet imagined.
______________________________________
Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 17:09:00 -
[55]
Well one solution is to consider the possibility of Relativity being a localised phenomena. Vernor Vinge used such an idea in A Fire Upon the Deep. In this book he suggested that gravity affects both the speed of light and intelligence. In particular the further you are from galactic centre the faster you can go and better you (and machines) can think.
He places Earth (indirectly - the origins of our species in the book are uncertain) as being close to the point at which FTL and Artificial Intelligence become possible. IIRC we are described as being lucky in that we were close enough for some of our members to eventually climb out of the trap that lack of FTL becomes.
It's actually a very good book and like its sister book does a remarkably good job of conveying the size of the galaxy. At one point he describes how civilisations consisting of thousands of star systems can be born, live then die without ever coming into contact with any other civilisation.
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Kyt Kraiten
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 17:21:00 -
[56]
actually, general relativity says nothing about mass travelling faster than the speed of light. it forbids travel *at* the speed of light, there are those who argue that if instant acceleration to a point beyond the speed of light, it would be possible.
______________________________________
Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Infection
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 17:49:00 -
[57]
This discussion has gone from neato graphics to scientific backings on possibility to a philosophical discussion.....
So yeah, where is this new red/blue thing that was spoke of?
|
shivan
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 18:16:00 -
[58]
ok did physics at college so i should know what im talking about hehe.
1) Yes it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, there are particles that do, such as a quark. (Sub-atomic)
2) It is however impossible (under current theories) to travel at the speed of light. This is because as you approch the speed of light your mass increase, therefore you need a greater amount of energy to keep you accelerateing towards the speed of light. Therefore at the speed of light you have infite mass and therefore you need infite energy to stay at that speed which is also (under current theories) impossible.
---------------------------------------
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination. |
Marcus Grisbius
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 18:26:00 -
[59]
Does anyone have any screenies or chatlogs of FTL travel. Oh well, unless CCP has a log of it on their server it didn't happen, relativity or not.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Mr nStuff
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 18:58:00 -
[60]
Yes, yes.. FTL travel is, yes, impossible for matter or whatever. No one disputes that. HOWEVER!! With a powerful enough warp field (electromagnetic field) around your ship. You wouldn't get crushed as you approached the speed of light. After you get that warp field up. You can then push your spaceship forward through space by expanding the universe at the rear, and contracting the universe in the front of your warp field thingy.. Wee!! Now we are hauling buttox. True story.
5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers..
Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer.
My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period.
Expires on 19. September 2004 |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |