| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
meowcat
   |
Posted - 2004.04.16 14:33:00 -
[1]
[pedantry module activated]
so, whats with this 'maximum velocity' stuff then?
surely the game should be based around maximum acceleration/decceleration for realistic physics?
or did concord fill up space with lots of hot air and arse-gasses?
[pedantry module deactivated]
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 14:34:00 -
[2]
Real life physics has nothing to do with Eve 
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 14:36:00 -
[3]
Who gives a **** about RL physics anyway?
EVE would be unplayable if everything was realistic.
|
Nemesis I
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 14:38:00 -
[4]
3 Over (x-3 * c) = Lag * User base in system + drones
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 14:43:00 -
[5]
thank you for assisting me in my experiment:
i can now conclude that posts which contain irritating pedantry such as this one are more popular than those which contain constructive comment.
i shall thus persue my career in pedantry to further increase my popularity
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 14:44:00 -
[6]
someone please delete my thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
haggis
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 14:56:00 -
[7]
Never seen any reason not to have real-life physics myself, it would just mean acceleration was super-important, which I'm fine with  .
In fact, it would greatly improve combat, not only would you be duelling over who gets blown up first, but, you would also be fighting to stop yourself from being too much slower than your competitor (so afterburner and mwd management would be essential). Speed would actually be important, a battleship would be completely and utterly useless if it could not keep up with a frigate (I'm thinking of gun tracking here, the battleship would have to go in the same direction as the frigate and at a similiar or faster speed to keep it's accuracy).
All in all, it takes away from the immersion, and would be much more fun with .
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 15:06:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Baldour Ngarr on 16/04/2004 15:07:47
 Quote:
Never seen any reason not to have real-life physics myself, it would just mean acceleration was super-important, which I'm fine with
Six IRL months to travel from one station to another. 10,000 IRL years to travel from one system to another. Missiles armed with nuclear warheads that will instantly annihilate any ship - come to that, any station - in a single blow. No clones - the first time you lose in combat, anywhere, to anybody, GAME OVER. And you're not allowed to start again - once you're dead, you're dead and gone.
There are others, but that's enough reasons for me.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Jay Gatsby
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 15:14:00 -
[9]
Gah! Combat dictated by Newtonian physics - guess you didn't play Frontier; there was a game in which it was impossible to destroy a small, fast ship. And people complain about shooting frigates in Eve!
|
Zen Jakkaru
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 15:17:00 -
[10]
Isaac Newbton was wrong.Spaceships slow down, 6000 AU/s travel is possible and you can fly through solid planets without as much as a scratch.. because TomB said so!
Nerf physics imho.
Har-de-fraggin'-har-har!
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 15:22:00 -
[11]
Quote:
Isaac Newbton was wrong.Spaceships slow down, 6000 AU/s travel is possible and you can fly through solid planets without as much as a scratch.. because TomB said so!
Nerf physics imho.
Did anyone ever play Terminus?
Crap game but it had acceleration based real physics with a speed limit that caused damage to be applied based on hull strength and calculated forces in the hull which depended on velocity, turning circle etc.
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
Haratu
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 15:47:00 -
[12]
Actually, the vacuum we call space is not a true vacuum and there is dust particles and phoons wizzing about... in solar systems there is even a thing called a 'solar wind'.
With this in mind note that there is some drag in space... however this is so small that it only becomes noticeable at speeds close to the speed of light.
I roleplay... there is this computer game called "Earth - The First Genesis" where i play a character in the early 21st century. |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 15:52:00 -
[13]
yes. newton may been around 200 years earlier, but einsteins **** was definitely bigger
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
Silverlancer
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 15:53:00 -
[14]
Uh, Isaac Newton's physics have a maximum velocity just like EVE does. And it applies just as much in real life. The maximum velocity of a spacecraft is limited to exactly twice the speed of the thrust. Since EVE ships appear to use high-efficiency no-fuel-required fusion drives like the ships in Homeworld, they would probably have very low maximum speeds as they do in the game.
Plus, there are science articles about how warp speed works, read them. And there is a reason why you can go through planets in warp 
|
Ichabod Dirange
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 16:02:00 -
[15]
A theory is only true untill another one comes along that is more true, a strange currency indeed.
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 16:03:00 -
[16]
Quote:
Uh, Isaac Newton's physics have a maximum velocity just like EVE does. And it applies just as much in real life. The maximum velocity of a spacecraft is limited to exactly twice the speed of the thrust. ...... quote]
no, no and thrice NO.... at least not unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed since i did my first degree
*shuffles to cupboard to dig out old degree notes...*
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
Tease
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 16:10:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Tease on 16/04/2004 16:11:54
Quote:
no, no and thrice NO.... at least not unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed since i did my first degree
*shuffles to cupboard to dig out old degree notes...*
Guess what... In Eve, they did change.
Eve doesn't take place today, it doesn't even take place 3 weeks from now. What I can't understand is why so many of you hardline "Its not realistic!!!!" people can't accept the fact that this is a game, set in the far future and "reality" has no bearing on anything.
On top of that, and I know this is hard for some people to accept(especially those with Degrees), we *don't* know everything about physics, we learn something new about physics all the time.. EX: a few days ago: http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/1/2004/04/11/story001.html
-----------------------------------------
[2003.12.17 06:35:20] Corwin > Orvolle is .4? Doesn't that mean that it's
less than .5 ? and isn't .5 what starts the danger level?
[2003.12.30 07:15:50] Corwin > Tech 2, IE expanded cargo holds I, MIning
lasers 2, etc.... TL2 is being released all around you
[2003.12.30 07:21:20] Corwin > tech 2 is released to players. Some players
are busy researching the BPs before building stuff. Others are sitting on
the BPs making copies to make money off of them that way |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 16:12:00 -
[18]
no need to get stroppy
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 16:17:00 -
[19]
Quote:
Uh, Isaac Newton's physics have a maximum velocity just like EVE does. And it applies just as much in real life. The maximum velocity of a spacecraft is limited to exactly twice the speed of the thrust.
I don't think this is correct.
In space as long as you apply a force (thrust in this case) you get constant acceleration.
NewtonÆs Second Law
The Law of Acceleration
The acceleration of a body is proportional to and takes place in the direction in which the force acts and is inversely proportional to the bodyÆs mass.
Acceleration = Force/Mass
Nothing in that to suggest any limitation.
Newton's Third Law
The Law of Reaction
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So, as long as there is a thrust being applied (action) there is acceleration of the object (reaction).
If we add time into the equation we get impulse. The application of force over a period of time shown simply by the equation:
Impulse = Force * Time
All of that said there are indeed limits. On earth with friction (air resistance for instance) you reach a point where the acceleration force is cancelled by the resistance...as seen in skydivers reaching terminal velocity.
In space if you get going really fast relativistic issues come into play in a noticeable way (they are always there...just far too small to be noticed till significant speed is reached). You have to fall back on Einstein's equations then to get a correct answer for acceleration (NOTE: Einstein's and Newton's equations mostly agree at 'normal' speeds. Where they diverge in our daily experience is at degrees of precision few if anyone ever need worry about much less notice. Hence Newton's equations work very well and are much easier to manage than Einstein's as only rare cases require the greater precision. Again it is only at significant fractions fo the Speed of Light that the 'small' differences grow to become quite noticeable.)
Of course, the Speed of Light is the ultimate speed limit.
As to EVE being not 'true' to physics be glad it isn't. In addition to other good points here faster than light travel, no matter how you do it, implies time travel. You would get wierdness like a Tachyon Cannon (tachyons are hypothetical FTL objects) striking their target before they were fired  . There are many other such implications (like selling minerals before you mined them) best left aside for teh sake and fun of the game.
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 16:25:00 -
[20]
Well, if they were to model speed without maximum limits, they'd then have to find a way to handle time dialation effects, and laser velocities, among other things.
It would also change combat in rather serious ways, as even MWDless Amar Warships could easily reach significant fractions of the speed of light. With those sort of velocities, battles stop taking hours, and start taking years of manuver. Truely realistic space combat is a dull thing indeed.
Harry Voyager
|
Ulendar
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 16:45:00 -
[21]
Eve does not have a real physics engine..
hence real life physics do not apply.
They could have made it with a physics engine i suppose but the bottom line is thet EVE is an RPG and not a space sim.
Originally by: cashman
It's time for Eris to get a clue. CCP should make a statement about this.
It's the exact same things as what Zombie did, you may not attack in "safe-areas" (empire/within sentry range) without loosing your ship.
|
Luc Guerrier
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 17:04:00 -
[22]
Quote:
Who gives a **** about RL physics anyway?
My ass after 6 hours of straight eve-gaming.
|
Heritor
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 17:51:00 -
[23]
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........loves physics 
|
Galdain
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 17:53:00 -
[24]
Acceleration based physics might seem more realistic, however you cannot accelerate infinitly unless you also have an infinite amout of energy with which to increase your rate of acceleration. Hence, you hit an effective speed limit and stop accelerating.
So really, it's about an energy limit. In eve, we hit the energy limit at fairly slow speeds. Mind you, there probably shouldn't even be a speed indicator, since there is no absolute frame of reference. Since nothing is truly at rest, when I look at my badger's speed of a terrifying 90 m/s, I have to ask "90 m/s, reletive to what?"
hehe. Sorry folks, just couldn't resist :)
|
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 18:12:00 -
[25]
Quote:
Acceleration based physics might seem more realistic, however you cannot accelerate infinitly unless you also have an infinite amout of energy with which to increase your rate of acceleration. Hence, you hit an effective speed limit and stop accelerating.
Yes and no.
There is no "speed limit" at all except for the speed of light. Nevertheless you can accelerate forever. Always approaching but never quite reaching the speed of light (it is here that relativity is in full swing and to an outside observer you will be accelerating at an ever decreasing rate...from your perspective all is normal...well actually the universe outside your window will look pretty strange but unless you somehow know better that would be 'normal' to you).
Of course, forever is a long time. As you mentioned nothing carries an infinite amount of energy to do this. The point however is that as long as you are applying a thrust to your ship you will accelerate. If you run out of gas then no more thrust and no more acceleration.
|
Silverlancer
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 18:12:00 -
[26]
Well, actually, a correction. The fact that a spaceship is limited to twice the velocity of its thrust was not discovered by Newton, but by a guy much later. But it is a very well known law--one of the reasons why a Fusion Ramjet would take 42 years to get to alpha centauri--it has a max speed of 12.5% the speed of light.
|
Drakma
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 18:34:00 -
[27]
Quote:
...snip...
Mind you, there probably shouldn't even be a speed indicator, since there is no absolute frame of reference. Since nothing is truly at rest, when I look at my badger's speed of a terrifying 90 m/s, I have to ask "90 m/s, reletive to what?"
Relative to it's starting point maybe?
Also, I'm of the mind the the top "Speed Limit" is the Speed of Time, not light...
Now... let THAT bake your noodle.
|
Galdain
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 18:39:00 -
[28]
Time may only be a construct created by humans to describe something that isn't what we really think it is.
Also, the speed of light may.....erk.....
gak.....wook...fizz...
*smell of burnt noodle*
mmmm.....noodles....
|
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 19:01:00 -
[29]
Quote:
Also, I'm of the mind the the top "Speed Limit" is the Speed of Time, not light...
Now... let THAT bake your noodle.
Well...yes. They are intertwined. If you reach the speed of light then time stops. Pretty hard limit to imagine breaching.
Imagine you have you Super-Duper Light Speed ship. Hit a button and you accelerate to light speed instantly. On the first test you just want to see what will happen so you plan to hit the button to go to light speed and then hit the button to shut it off as fast as you can.
You hit the button and reach light speed...you never ever get to turn it off. The universe itself will come to an end before you turn it off. Time has stopped for you, the universe has compressed to a line with no width (2 dimensional) and you have infinite mass (hence infinite energy too) and are everywhere in the universe at once.
As you can see going that fast is problematic.
|
Meirantean
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 19:07:00 -
[30]
>Well, actually, a correction. The fact that a spaceship is limited to >twice the velocity of its thrust was not discovered by Newton, but by a >guy much later. But it is a very well known law--one of the reasons why >a Fusion Ramjet would take 42 years to get to alpha centauri--it has a >max speed of 12.5% the speed of light.
Not true...
Besides what the hell is a fusion ramjet? Even if you had some fusion based engine, in the end the concept of matter 'ejection' based thrust would probably be the same. Even these current ION engines are basically the same principle. Unless your talking about somekind of impulse engine, where you throw bombs out of the back window :)
There is nothing stopping your maximum velocity, except your acceleration... it may be if you want to get to Alpha Centauri, your maximum velocity is set by the power of your engine, in that half way there you want to start slowing down, and so your maximum velocity would be the speed you could reach after accelerating as hard as your engine would let you till you got half way to Alpha Centauri. But in principle, as previous posters said, you can keep accelarating forever, as long as you have enough energy.
It was an interesting point that previous guy mentioned that you do keep accelerating, but space and time become so warped, from the point of view of an external observer you never reach c.
Meirantean
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 19:24:00 -
[31]
A fusion ramjet is a type of engine that uses magnetic scopes to collect interstellar hydrogen, compress it until it fuses, and uses the resultant energy to accellerate the ship and perpetuate the reaction.
Time is a dimention, same as space it. The reason we percieve time the way we do, is because we are time integrating systems. Thus we are only able to be affected by forces that occured within the span of time overwhich we have existed, until the point in time of interest.
An interesting corallary of this, is that one could easily be sampling time points in a completely random order, and you would never be albe to tell, as you could only receive influences from the point of time at which you originated, and the point of time at which you observe.
Time is fun isn't it? :)
|
Meirantean
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 19:56:00 -
[32]
Quote:
A fusion ramjet is a type of engine that uses magnetic scopes to collect interstellar hydrogen, compress it until it fuses, and uses the resultant energy to accellerate the ship and perpetuate the reaction.
I know what a ramjet is... and I know what fusion is. My problem is, what is the method for converting this energy into kinetic energy? Most propulsion systems in space involve simply ejecting some form of pressurised gas, ionized gas, whatever... you can certainly create allot of heat with a fusion engine (assuming you had a huge working tokomak in your ship, or somekind of cold fusion process..heh)
One workable idea (never really used because of environmental problems) is to use the impulse from small nuclear explosions.
These solar sails are nice too. I'd like to see a ship in eve with a nice solar sail the size of the UK :)
Quote:
is that one could easily be sampling time points in a completely random order, and you would never be albe to tell, as you could only receive influences from the point of time at which you originated, and the point of time at which you observe.
This would be a Markovian process? I'm pretty sure we have memory.
Meirantean
|
Galdain
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 20:07:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Galdain on 16/04/2004 20:10:48
The ramjet in question is known as a Bussard Ramjet, I believe. The key factor in whether it'll work or not is that it must rely on conventional propulsion, of some sort, to get it to a speed where the magnetic field used to scoop interstellar hydrogen into the ramjet can compress the hydrogen enough to, hopefully, start a fusion reaction. It's very theoretical and probably impractical to test out since there are size limitations (ie minimum sizes). Also, the estimate of the density of hydrogen in Interstellar space would have a huge impact on it's success.
What I've read on the subject estimates years to use something like an ion drive to get the thing up to speed. However the upper velocity limits that I have seen are closer to 0.99C, not 0.12c. The long time to get anywhere is due to bringing the thing up to a speed where the ramjet will work.
Anyway, that's what I know about it. Goin' back to tending my noodle now...
|
Meirantean
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 20:19:00 -
[34]
Thanks for the reply... that sounds interesting. What confuses me is these new modern ramjets (like the ones they tested the other day) carry their own traditional fuel with them, but scoop oxygen out of the atmosphere to burn it... (I think!)
Say you're doing the same in space, except the hydrogen that your scooping is the fuel, and you get enough, at high enough pressure, temperature, whatever, to start fusion... which you can then eject in a controlled way, at probably pretty high velocities, giving you thrust?
Meirantean
|
Vodalus
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 20:43:00 -
[35]
Before the word "nuclear" became a bad word, there were plans to build spaceships that were powered via nuclear reactors or via actual nuclear bombs. Here's a nice abstract from one of the original proposals to build a ship to get to mars (from a guy named Stephen Howe at Los Alamos National Laboratory).
Quote:
The feasibility of rebuilding and testing a nuclear thermal
rocket (NTR) for the Mars mission has been investigated. Calculations
indicate that an NTR would substantially reduce the earth-orbit assembled
mass compared to L02/LH2 systems. The mass savings were 36%
and 65% for the cases of total aerobraking and of total propulsive
braking respectively. Consequently, the cost savings for a single
mission of using an NTR, if aerobraking is feasible, are probably insufficient
to warrant the NTR development. If multiple missions are
planned or if propulsive braking is desired at Mars and/or at Earth,
then the savings of up to $7 billion will easily pay for the NTR
development.
Estimates of the cost of rebuilding a NTR were based on the previous
NERVA programÆs budget plus additional costs to develop a flight
ready engine. The total cost to build the engine would be between $4-
5 Billion. The concept of developing a full-power test stand at
Johnston Atoll in the Pacific appears very feasible. The added expense
of building facilities on the island should be less than $1.4
billion.
heres the link: link
As far as this fusion ramjet business, it would likely work on the same principle, i.e. a series of nuclear "explosions" with hydrogen (more likely deuterium) as the fuel (as far as "scooping" hydrogen out of space, it ain't gonna happen, because the concentration of stuff floating around in space is virtually zero.)
If you want to read about some absolutely crazy ideas the original developers of nuclear weapons had about ways to utilize bombs for "civilian" application (re: uses other than blowing stuff up - like a spaceship) google "Edward Teller". He was one of the most vociferous advocates of nuclear weapons technology for "civilian" applications.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: Oveur
EVE is primarily a PVP game
|
Meirantean
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 20:50:00 -
[36]
I saw a documentary about the old 'Orion' project they ran... the main idea though was to use small nuclear explosions to get a large ship into orbit. There was a great interview with Dysan Freeman where he says 'I estimated the fallout would kill one person in every thousand, which seemed exceptable`.
They even had footage of scale models reaching about a hundred feet by ejecting small bombs out of the rear, and riding the explosion.
Unfortunately the DOD reimagined it as a way to put a huge nuclear bomb carrying battleship into orbit, and Kennedy canned the project :)
Meirantean
|
Acix
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 20:58:00 -
[37]
I like the way the ship in Futurama ( the cartoon ) moves. The whole idea is that the drive for the ship actually moves the universe around it. This seems to be the most plausible answer for how our ships in EVE move through space. Its loosely based on quantum theory.....
It probably has something to do with Schrodinger's cat having hairballs, or something to that effect.................
SNIGG is now officially open for business. We are a merc corp looking for contracts.
For more info click below
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=68313 |
Fetty Chico
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 21:09:00 -
[38]
real physics means, dat ammo from wars long past might up an pod your @$$, so no real physics fo de good of da galixy
------------------------------------------------
Tell my tale to those who ask.
Tell it truly - the ill deeds, along with the good - and let me be judged accordingly.
If this world was supposed to be friendly
CCP wouldnt have wasted time paying the devs to code so many weapons |
Mi Canio
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 21:15:00 -
[39]
Theoretical physics???? On the EVE forums??? Are u mad???????
Why can't all threads be like this?? Mature discussions, no flaming, no "OMG I PWN u, I R 1337" etc etc....
Just one thing tho and it is a thing that really pees me off - why the sound in space?? Everyone knows that sound can't travel in a vacuum... ahh, the legacy of Star Trek. I think it would be so much better if everything happened silently... You must have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey. Its so much more eery and atmospheric (imo) to have no sound than having big explosions and the sound of lasers and railguns peppering the space....
Ensign Mi Canio - MIL Div. - Combat Air Patrol
|
Acix
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 21:22:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Acix on 16/04/2004 21:27:43
Quote:
Theoretical physics???? On the EVE forums??? Are u mad???????
Why can't all threads be like this?? Mature discussions, no flaming, no "OMG I PWN u, I R 1337" etc etc....
Just one thing tho and it is a thing that really pees me off - why the sound in space?? Everyone knows that sound can't travel in a vacuum... ahh, the legacy of Star Trek. I think it would be so much better if everything happened silently... You must have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey. Its so much more eery and atmospheric (imo) to have no sound than having big explosions and the sound of lasers and railguns peppering the space....
Actually there is a kind of sound in space. Dust and gases hitting your hull will give a fain hum sound. The release of material due to an explosion will also hit your hull causing sound. Nothing is completely empty and devoid of all material. Sound travels because of the atoms bouncing into each other as it propogates though a material. If a force moves things in space it could still be thought of as sound.
Edit:
True sound does move slower and looses its energy faster when moving through a less dense material.
SNIGG is now officially open for business. We are a merc corp looking for contracts.
For more info click below
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=68313 |
Stradivarious Hawke
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 21:26:00 -
[41]
Quote:
Thanks for the reply... that sounds interesting. What confuses me is these new modern ramjets (like the ones they tested the other day) carry their own traditional fuel with them, but scoop oxygen out of the atmosphere to burn it... (I think!)
Meirantean
Maybe I didn't quite get what you meant there but ..
It is not only modern aircrafts' engines that get the oxygen they need for combustion from the surrounding air.
There is plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere ( at least in the range where conventional planes fly ), so why bother with the extra weight ?
Turbojets can achieve the required flux pressure by using rotating masses ( compressors+ turbines ).
Ramjets , on the other hand, work on the principle that high enough pressure is achieved, at high speeds, simply by slowing down the mass of air entering the engine's air intake.
It's only rockets that carry both components on board.
Even in that case, you have some different types of rockets that, combined with an air-breathing engine,collect the oxygen they'll need during the flight , once again reducing the take off weight.
Cheers .
Nemo me impune lacessit |
Myko
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 21:28:00 -
[42]
All the 'sounds' in space are created by the onboard computer to keep most pilots sane (and keep crazed scientists annoyed).
As has been said before, do you really want space travel to take years instead of seconds? Do you really want to die from acceleration? Do you really want long range missile battles? Real-life does not make a very fun game.
|
Mi Canio
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 21:29:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Mi Canio on 16/04/2004 21:31:34
Quote:
Actually there is a kind of sound in space. Dust and gases hitting your hull will give a fain hum sound. The release of material due to an explosion will also hit your hull causing sound. Nothing is completely empty and devoid of all material. Sound travels because of the atoms bouncing into each other as it propogates though a material. If a force moves things in space it could still be thought of as sound.
I realise that but there is not enough "matter" as such to transmit any sound waves as we know them. You would never hear anything like the sound of lasers or explosions. If you were in a dust cloud then maybe but even then you would struggle to hear anything resembling a sound like you would hear in an atmosphere. But fair point tho....
Ensign Mi Canio - MIL Div. - Combat Air Patrol
|
Dirtball
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 21:36:00 -
[44]
Quote:
They even had footage of scale models reaching about a hundred feet by ejecting small bombs out of the rear, and riding the explosion.
In the first metroid getting the timing right on that really sucked, I'd hate to try that in real life.
An explosion can only push you as fast as it exploses which probably isn't that fast really. I suppose you could base it on blowing up something really dense really quick would get you the most speed. I wonder if based on that what the theoretical limit is on a piston engine for rpms, you know cause the piston speed could only go as fast as the explosion exploses.
|
Galdain
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 21:42:00 -
[45]
To Mi Canio, from page 2... in reply:
Yes, we are quite mad.
Cosmology and the theories its study generates can lead to some pretty wild stuff. The problem is sorting theory from practicality. For example, Rotating black holes might just be infantessimally dense at their equators allowing ships to escape the bad effects of crossing an event horizon, which might allow for nearly instantaneous travel across huge distances of space.
Practically, questions arise like:
1) How do we get to the black hole in the first place?
2) The area of infantessimal density might only be a wide as a pencil.
3) Who is going to take the first trip? Not me
Anyway, reading up on such things can be fascinating. I should qualify that by saying reading books by theorists is really interesting. Books by experimentalists can be a downer.
|
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2004.04.16 22:07:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Mon Palae on 16/04/2004 22:09:32
About space 'vacuum' and Bussard Ramjets:
Space...even deep space...is not empty at all. Average density of deep space is about 1 hydrogen atom (almost all hydrogen out there) per cm3. That number obviously can vary up and down but that's about what you will get. That is not very much at all but neither is space empty. How fast a ship would have to move to be able to scoop enough hydrogen to be useful in an engine is beyond my math but you can get an idea if you think of the billions of atoms in no more than a thimble-full of, say liquid hydrogen, and then multiply how many centimeters you need to cross to get even that meager amount collected. Likely you will need a big magnetic field to collect from a wide area and a pretty high speed before you scoop enough to even so much as pay for the energy expenditure (running the magnetic field for instance) to collect it in the first place.
Then of course you have virtual particle pairs (particle and anti-particle) popping in and out of existence all over the place as a side effect of quantum theory. We don't notice this because they are formed and annihilate on the order of Planck Time but Stephen Hawking postulated that this effect could actually make a Black Hole glow (Hawking Radiation). For a stellar mass black hole the energy emission is very very low...below the cosmic microwave background...so it likely will never be detected unless someone gets around to visitng one in person. A small (or micro...say about the size of a basketball) black hole on the other hand would glow like the sun and emit tons of energy. How one would form such a mini black hole is hard to imagine but there is nothing that says such a thing can't exist (micro black holes may have existed in the very earliest moments after the Big Bang).
|
Heff
|
Posted - 2004.04.17 00:15:00 -
[47]
The game is only loosely based on RL physics. There are dozens of things I can think of now that are not realistic, but they exist to make the game playable.
Speeds...
Gravity effects...
Weapon use...
Acceleration...
It's a game, not a simulation.
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2004.04.17 01:02:00 -
[48]
Also, Fusion ramjets are expected to require scooping systems hundreds of square kilometers wide.
The reason Fusion Ramjets are expected to be able to keep moving, would be because the energy released by the fusion reaction would accellerate the newly formed helium atoms out the back end of the engine with enough energy to both accellerate the ship, and to counteract the scooping drag.
Basicallly, the fusion reaction releases additional energy to the system, and it if is enough energy to cause the next batch of particals to fuse, then the reaction will be self perpetuating. Kind of the way a fire will keep burning for a long time before it stops.
Harry Voyager
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.04.17 11:21:00 -
[49]
i wish i hadn't said anything now :-)
sorry
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |