EVE Search - Warp Drive possible?!

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Warp Drive possible?!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.09.28 05:24:00 - [31] i tend to think we will find a way to break the light barrier someday. maybe not soon but it will happen. remember people used to say the sound barrier was impossible and nowdays the f22 raptor can do it without even using ABs.
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.28 07:16:00 - [32] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker i tend to think we will find a way to break the light barrier someday. maybe not soon but it will happen. remember people used to say the sound barrier was impossible and nowdays the f22 raptor can do it without even using ABs. I honestly think it's maths alone that can't break the light barrier. Because we use light speed as a constant, it is then the absolute. If C wasn't used in the relativity equation, it wouldn't be so hard to calculate. In addition, many of the equations were created when far less was known about physics and you could only calculate as far as you could possibly understand. Now we recognise the tachyon particle which defies physics by travelling faster than light but, since we use light (protons) to capture particles which are too slow to capture a tachyon, we have not yet gained a means of identifying whether it has mass or is pure energy. Once we can catch and analyse a tachyon, physics will have a means to measure speeds faster than light and therefore light speed travel could become a reality. For example, we count in base 10 so therefore 10 is an absolute. If we had 2 more fingers, we would count in base 12 and so 10 would be just another number. If the speed of a tachyon could be used in place of C, and the equation re-calculated to introduce findings from the analysis of the tachyon, then light speed would be just another number - therefore surmountable. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
Mea Lustra Amarr Toxic Tendencies	Posted - 2008.09.28 07:28:00 - [33] People using theories making statements asif these theories are facts, just so they can show others how much they know... What they fail to realize is that we don't know a whole lot and should not be so arrogant as to think that with the little we've seen from the universe, the little we ACTUALLY know to try and state our puny little wishful thinking as facts. We don't know crap. Don't come into discussions like these with statements, just theories.
Baldour Ngarr Interwarp Plexus Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2008.09.28 11:10:00 - [34] Originally by: Dantes Revenge I honestly think it's maths alone that can't break the light barrier. Because we use light speed as a constant, it is then the absolute. The cart belongs behind the horse. ;) Because the speed of light is an absolute - THE absolute - we use it as a constant. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.28 11:28:00 - [35] Originally by: Dantes Revenge i tend to think we will find a way to break the light barrier someday. maybe not soon but it will happen. remember people used to say the sound barrier was impossible and nowdays the f22 raptor can do it without even using ABs. No-one thought that the speed of sound was an unbreakable constant. They haven't done for as long as we've had science. You just need to watch a thunderstorm to see, undeniably demonstrated, something going faster than the speed of sound. A bullet out of an old-time musket comfortably whizzes past it. For a long time they thought that breaking the speed of sound was infeasible for humans in earth's atmosphere, due to the various unpleasant effects that it produces. But thats not really the same thing. ------ Originally by: Micheal Dietrich You can even get a midget with a camera to sit on the floorboard.
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.28 14:21:00 - [36] Edited by: Dantes Revenge on 28/09/2008 14:22:23 Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Originally by: Dantes Revenge I honestly think it's maths alone that can't break the light barrier. Because we use light speed as a constant, it is then the absolute. The cart belongs behind the horse. ;) You have just proved my point by saying that it's the way it has always been done so that's how it should be done in future. Remember that the horse can just as easily push the cart. Quote: Because the speed of light is an absolute - THE absolute Only because we chose to see it that way. Physics has said so therefore it must be true The existance of the tachyon already disproves that light speed is absolute. The sun burns hotter than anything physics can account for. Therefore, it proves we have only a limited understanding that prevents us from figuring out why it burns so hot. There was a time when everyone said the world was flat because they could see no further than the horizon. It even went to such an extreme that anyone who denied it was accused of being a heretic and put to death. We have hopefully advanced mentally further than that and it should be recognised that nothing is absolute. It's naysayers like you who prevent advance by denying any theories that rock your world without trying to see if there may be any evidence to support them. To shorten it to a simple statement: Accept that you may be wrong occasionally. Edit: @Patch86: You misquoted, that was Viktor Fyretracker who made that statement, I was replying to it. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.28 14:40:00 - [37] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Edit: @Patch86: You misquoted, that was Viktor Fyretracker who made that statement, I was replying to it. Apologies, got my tags confused ------ Originally by: Micheal Dietrich You can even get a midget with a camera to sit on the floorboard.
Baldour Ngarr Interwarp Plexus Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2008.09.28 17:01:00 - [38] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Quote: Because the speed of light is an absolute - THE absolute Only because we chose to see it that way. We didn't CHOOSE to see it that way; it is that way, which is why we saw it. While ever you insist on looking at this entirely the wrong way round, so long will you continue to make yourself look like an idiot. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Plim Gallente Oursulaert Technology Institute	Posted - 2008.09.29 03:56:00 - [39] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Edited by: Dantes Revenge on 28/09/2008 14:27:03 Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Originally by: Dantes Revenge I honestly think it's maths alone that can't break the light barrier. Because we use light speed as a constant, it is then the absolute. The cart belongs behind the horse. ;) You have just proved my point by saying that it's the way it has always been done so that's how it should be done in future. Remember that the horse can just as easily push the cart. Quote: Because the speed of light is an absolute - THE absolute Only because we chose to see it that way. Physics has said so therefore it must be true The existance of the tachyon already disproves that light speed is absolute. The sun burns hotter than anything physics can account for. Therefore, it proves we have only a limited understanding that prevents us from figuring out why it burns so hot. There was a time when everyone said the world was flat because they could see no further than the horizon. It even went to such an extreme that anyone who denied it was accused of being a heretic and put to death. We have hopefully advanced mentally further than that and it should be recognised that nothing is absolute. It's naysayers like you who prevent advance by denying any theories that rock your world without trying to see if there may be any evidence to support them. There have been occasions where physics has had to be re-worked because it has been proved wrong. To shorten it to a simple statement: Accept that you may be wrong occasionally. Edit: @Patch86: You misquoted, that was Viktor Fyretracker who made that statement, I was replying to it. Can you provide any empirical evidence, where the velocity of light was measured as being relative to the velocity of the observer? You don't seem to understand what is meant when the speed of light is defined as an 'absolute'. It means that the speed of light is measured as an absolute speed and not relative to the speed of the observer. So if two spaceships were travelling towards each other at 0.5 of c and shined a beam of light towards each other, that light would still be measured at c, rather than 3 x c. This observation formed the basis of the theory of relativity and the reason why c is called the cosmic speed limit. It does not mean that scientists simply believe that the speed of light is (almost) 300,000,000 m/s as a doctrine. If you want to understand why it is believed that the light barrier cannot be exceeded, study special and general relativity, do not just make hollow abstract arguments (which is speculation, not 'theory'). If you study relativity and don't agree with it, fine, attempt to disprove it with a reasoned argument. That's the basis of the scientific method, that the physical world is absolute, but our beliefs regarding it's function are transient. It is not 'maths' in some vacuum, that tells us that c cannot be exceeded, it is observations made of the physical world which are described and interpreted through maths. Also, tachyons don't actually exist, you have been given faulty information (Star Trek?). It is just a name given to any hypothetical superluminal particle. There is no empirical evidence for the existance of superluminal particles, although the possibility of their existance has been invoked in various theories. Another point, people were not being persecuted for belief in a non-flat world, they were persecuted for belief in a heliocentric orbit. The flat Earth thing is quite mythical. Even in the 4th century BC is was believed that the world is a sphere. Aristotle made the observation that the shape of the shadow cast upon the moon in a lunar ecliplse was round, and that when he went on long journies he began to see new stars. Rudolf: "I was sworn to absolute secrecy by Santa Claus."
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2008.09.29 04:08:00 - [40] i believe we will find a way around the light barrier before we ever break it. wormholes? warp drive? these may be ways around it. so yea, i think warp travel is just as possible. getting from point a to point b in a time faster than light can make it in normal 3 dimensional travel is what we are looking for. we wont will find a way to simply accelerate mass beyond the speed of light. not gonna happen. sure, we didn't think we could break the speed of sound, but we were vastly ignorant in regards to science and engineering. sure we may have a long ways to go, but i'd have to say we have advanced to the point that that isn't really a valid comparison. ------------------------------ everybody be cool this is a threadjack! just lay face down on the ground and no one will get hurt!
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.29 07:34:00 - [41] Originally by: Plim If you study relativity and don't agree with it, fine, attempt to disprove it with a reasoned argument. I am making a reasoned arguement. What I am saying is that if you want to see beyond a barrier, you have to go on the assumption that the barrier does not exist. Physics in it's current state does not allow for that assumption because it creates absolutes which are barriers in themselves. If I could provide proof that the barrier doesn't exist then I would be a very rich and famous man. I know the theory of relativity and don't agree with it because I can work on the basis that there are no barriers except those we create ourselves through ignorance. I'm no scientist but even I can see that when you create a value as an absolute limit, it makes it impossible to have it remain in the equation and yet surmount that same limit. You can't put a dog in a car and then drive that car away leaving the dog behind unless you take the dog out of the car first. Infinity is an absolute as far as math is concerned. Add 10 to it and math still says it is infinity. I say it is 10 larger than the previous infinity and therefore it is now a larger value. Just because something is beyond our ability to comprehend using current knowledge, shouldn't mean it doesn't exist. An open mind is the basis of new understanding and new discoveries, being a sheep with a closed mind leads only to stagnation. The true pioneers of science have always been the ones that though "what if" instead of only using information that is generations old. It's the sheep that wear lab coats all their lives, it's the pioneers who trade in their lab coat for an Armani suit. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2008.09.29 08:39:00 - [42] Edited by: HankMurphy on 29/09/2008 08:41:06 Originally by: Dantes Revenge You can't put a dog in a car and then drive that car away leaving the dog behind unless you take the dog out of the car first. agreed Originally by: Dantes Revenge Infinity is an absolute as far as math is concerned. Add 10 to it and math still says it is infinity. I say it is 10 larger than the previous infinity and therefore it is now a larger value. Just because something is beyond our ability to comprehend using current knowledge, shouldn't mean it doesn't exist. An open mind is the basis of new understanding and new discoveries, being a sheep with a closed mind leads only to stagnation. The true pioneers of science have always been the ones that though "what if" instead of only using information that is generations old. It's the sheep that wear lab coats all their lives, it's the pioneers who trade in their lab coat for an Armani suit. you cant make a statement like that without recognizing that you just decided to change what infinity is and means. you might as well say you just added +10 to Fdjkalf and now you have Fdjkalf+10, cause otherwise its not infinity anymore. sure you can bend the rules and ignore laws all you want in the name of theory, but at the end of the day you are taking steps backwards not forwards. while science is about new horizons and all, it's primarily about building on the knowledge you have, not throwing it out the window and making stuff up. new ideas sometimes call for considering 'what if' scenarios, but taking the very fundamentals and turning them on their heads just to pose a question is more of a baseless assumption not scientific method. when you DISCOVER something that would LEAD you to believe that the THEORY of relativity is different. THEN you would CONCLUDE that there may be extenuating circumstances that the theory doesn't cover. But you do not start by saying "ok, this theory of relativity is OLD science. lets make some equations that ignore it" ------------------------------ everybody be cool this is a threadjack! just lay face down on the ground and no one will get hurt!
Grimster Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:57:00 - [43] Edited by: Grimster on 29/09/2008 10:57:48 I'm not coming down on any sides and tbh not bright enough to put up a valid an plausible argument for this, but I understood that the mere fact the theory of relativity is called just that because it was one way of explaining a set of phenomena, else it'd be called the fact of relativity right? Surely this in itself doesn't rule anything out regardless of how much it goes against the grain of common thought? Semantics I know but IÆd like to think thereÆs a way of cracking this nut, else we're gonna be fracked in a few billion years anyway. _______________________________
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.09.29 11:05:00 - [44] If there was a way to compress space in front of your ship without compressing time (a pretty tall order for a whole mess of reasons), then you could break the lightspeed barrier. As things stand, you can compress space in front of you by moving really really fast. By that, I mean that when you travel at relativistic velocities, the distance between your start point and end point seems smaller. So by your own frame of reference, you can travel across the universe in a couple of minutes if you had enough energy. Trouble is you're also compressing time, so for an outside observer, you appear to be travelling under the speed of light and taking billions of years to reach your destination. __________________________ Quote: ...bored, skint, no charter, and a ship that looks like an explosion in a girder factory...
Pwett Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2008.09.30 15:42:00 - [45] You guys are silly, stop thinking time is a constant!
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.30 16:33:00 - [46] Originally by: Pwett You guys are silly, stop thinking time is a constant! That may or may not have been a sarcastic comment but in some cases, you are right. Time is relative to speed and therefore not a constant. To the indivudual, it is constant but when viewed from the position of both the traveller and the observer, it passes at different rates for each of them. Theory says that FTL means travelling backward in time since time would stop at light speed. However, it was never understood until we broke the sound barrier what happens at speeds faster than sound. Nobody imagined that the aircraft would have to reverse it's controls in order to continue flying. If and when we break the light barrier, it may cause severe changes to our knowledge of physics and therefore we may realise that the theories are correct only up to light speed. The equations that we know so well now may be thrown out of the window and new ones created to take into consideration what happens beyond light speed, this is what I have been getting at. Since we don't know what happens above light speed, we can only speculate but that speculation cannot even begin unless we stop using theories that dictate that it's impossible to start with. If you work on the assumption that it is possible to break the light barrier, that is a beginning. If you discard and idea of FTL travel because what we know about physics so far dictates that we can't do it, you will never even begin to wonder "what if". In fact, what we are debating about here is not on topic anyway. What we are really talking about is FTL travel and not warp. Warp was originally a sci-fi term for folding space, being at the point of origin and destination at the same instant so that time never becomes a part of the equation at all. However, the two may actually be related and FTL may be a means to initiate warping of space. I may be sticking my neck out here but I would say that the inventor of the first FTL drive will be someone with little or no knowledge of physics. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.09.30 22:52:00 - [47] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Originally by: Pwett You guys are silly, stop thinking time is a constant! That may or may not have been a sarcastic comment but in some cases, you are right. Time is relative to speed and therefore not a constant. To the indivudual, it is constant but when viewed from the position of both the traveller and the observer, it passes at different rates for each of them. Theory says that FTL means travelling backward in time since time would stop at light speed. However, it was never understood until we broke the sound barrier what happens at speeds faster than sound. Nobody imagined that the aircraft would have to reverse it's controls in order to continue flying. If and when we break the light barrier, it may cause severe changes to our knowledge of physics and therefore we may realise that the theories are correct only up to light speed. The equations that we know so well now may be thrown out of the window and new ones created to take into consideration what happens beyond light speed, this is what I have been getting at. Since we don't know what happens above light speed, we can only speculate but that speculation cannot even begin unless we stop using theories that dictate that it's impossible to start with. If you work on the assumption that it is possible to break the light barrier, that is a beginning. If you discard and idea of FTL travel because what we know about physics so far dictates that we can't do it, you will never even begin to wonder "what if". In fact, what we are debating about here is not on topic anyway. What we are really talking about is FTL travel and not warp. Warp was originally a sci-fi term for folding space, being at the point of origin and destination at the same instant so that time never becomes a part of the equation at all. However, the two may actually be related and FTL may be a means to initiate warping of space. I may be sticking my neck out here but I would say that the inventor of the first FTL drive will be someone with little or no knowledge of physics. Going faster than light wouldn't make you go backwards in time. It would make you go forwards in imaginary time. t' = (gamma)t where gamma = 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), v is your speed, and c is the speed of light. So at v = c, t' = infinity. For v > c, t' is an imaginary number. Nobody really knows what this means. __________________________ Quote:* ...bored, skint, no charter, and a ship that looks like an explosion in a girder factory...
Aurelio Baran Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.01 00:30:00 - [48] I want this to work. I really wish the damned Chinese got to it first though ---
Jaffacake Box	Posted - 2008.10.01 08:05:00 - [49] We have to suppress our natural built in tendency to kill each other with sticks (guns, bombs whatever) first then we may have a chance.
Grimster Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.10.01 13:12:00 - [50] Originally by: Jaffacake Box We have to suppress our natural built in tendency to kill each other with sticks (guns, bombs whatever) first then we may have a chance. Should never happen - this trait drives human tenacity, without which we'd all drown in murky pools of "X Factor" and "Dancing with the Stars" which are, let's face it, designed to enhance the need to kill each other. _______________________________
Jaffacake Box	Posted - 2008.10.01 14:20:00 - [51] ahahha. I have never watched the x factor and never watched any reality program. Ever! .I also refuse to watch eastenders corination st or any other soap. Only programs I watch are Top gear beacuse I usualy end up on the floor trying to breath from laughing, and wildlife docs.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.