| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Clay101
Caldari
M. Corp
Mostly Harmless
   |
Posted - 2008.09.26 15:15:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Clay101 on 26/09/2008 15:23:37
Wow! So I was reading an article and could hardly keep my pants on! Ok, so it wasn't quite that exciting but I was amazed at the possibilities that could emerge if the testing proved this thruster to actually work.
Find more on the article here at The Topic Wire. (it's the top thread)
It's almost hard to believe that in a hundred years (maybe sooner, maybe longer) our grandchildren or great grandchildren may be flying in spaceships designed after the internet spaceships we love and fly daily!
Clay101
ps - there's an Eve thread in the gaming section if you'd like to leave your comments!
The NEW M.Corp Data Hub - Check it out! |
Clay101
Caldari
M. Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 15:15:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Clay101 on 26/09/2008 15:23:37
Wow! So I was reading an article and could hardly keep my pants on! Ok, so it wasn't quite that exciting but I was amazed at the possibilities that could emerge if the testing proved this thruster to actually work.
Find more on the article here at The Topic Wire. (it's the top thread)
It's almost hard to believe that in a hundred years (maybe sooner, maybe longer) our grandchildren or great grandchildren may be flying in spaceships designed after the internet spaceships we love and fly daily!
Clay101
ps - there's an Eve thread in the gaming section if you'd like to leave your comments!
The NEW M.Corp Data Hub - Check it out! |
annoing
Amarr
MisFunk Inc.
Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 15:20:00 -
[3]
Fraud!! John Costella says so, so it must be true 
It violates several basic laws of physics apprently .....
|
annoing
Amarr
MisFunk Inc.
Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 15:20:00 -
[4]
Fraud!! John Costella says so, so it must be true
It violates several basic laws of physics apprently .....
|
Pwett
Minmatar
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 15:22:00 -
[5]
If we could simply find a way to replace vacuum with caesium we could easily move at over 300c. No need to warp! 
_______________
Pwett
CEO, Founder, & Executor
<Q> QUANT Hegemony
|
Raymond Sterns
Utopian Research I.E.L.
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 15:22:00 -
[6]
Haha, physics laws. What the **** do we know, we're still stuck on this god forsaken rock.
_
|
Pwett
Minmatar
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 15:22:00 -
[7]
If we could simply find a way to replace vacuum with caesium we could easily move at over 300c. No need to warp!
_______________
Pwett
CEO, Founder, & Executor
<Q> QUANT Hegemony
|
Raymond Sterns
Utopian Research I.E.L.
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 15:22:00 -
[8]
Haha, physics laws. What the **** do we know, we're still stuck on this god forsaken rock.
_
|
P'uck
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 15:45:00 -
[9]
No,
you're unable to warp, because we are warp scrambled.
I just pointed a whole thread! HA! Now give me the moneh.
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
Yarsk Hunters
DeaDSpace Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 20:22:00 -
[10]
 Originally by: P'uck
No,
you're unable to warp, because we are warp scrambled.
I just pointed a whole thread! HA! Now give me the moneh.
WIN
|
Buff Plankchest
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 21:43:00 -
[11]
We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have... according to a thing I read once, I really don't care
|
Baldour Ngarr
Interwarp Plexus
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 00:12:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Buff Plankchest
We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have...
Up to a point.
Energy poured into an object can do one of two things. It can increase said object's velocity, or increase its mass. At common everyday speeds, effectively 100% of the energy goes into increasing velocity; the difference in mass is completely immeasurable and may as well not exist. That's why Newtonian mechanics seemed a perfectly accurate world description for three centuries.
At near-light speeds, more and more energy gets converted into mass and less and less of it goes to increasing velocity. The reason you can't reach the speed of light is because, before you get there, you find that ALL of the energy goes to increasing an object's mass, and NONE of it imparts any extra speed. Beyond that point, pour in all the energy you want, you still ain't going any faster.
A true "warp drive" would be some method of subverting the process altogether, such as finding that two points a vast distance apart in three dimensions, are close together if you travel through a fourth or fifth. While you stick to regular four-dimensional spacetime ... nil. Nada. Ziltch. Squat. Jack diddely.
________________________________________________
"I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked." |
Buff Plankchest
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 00:21:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Originally by: Buff Plankchest
We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have...
Up to a point.
Energy poured into an object can do one of two things. It can increase said object's velocity, or increase its mass. At common everyday speeds, effectively 100% of the energy goes into increasing velocity; the difference in mass is completely immeasurable and may as well not exist. That's why Newtonian mechanics seemed a perfectly accurate world description for three centuries.
At near-light speeds, more and more energy gets converted into mass and less and less of it goes to increasing velocity. The reason you can't reach the speed of light is because, before you get there, you find that ALL of the energy goes to increasing an object's mass, and NONE of it imparts any extra speed. Beyond that point, pour in all the energy you want, you still ain't going any faster.
A true "warp drive" would be some method of subverting the process altogether, such as finding that two points a vast distance apart in three dimensions, are close together if you travel through a fourth or fifth. While you stick to regular four-dimensional spacetime ... nil. Nada. Ziltch. Squat. Jack diddely.
I saw Event Horizon... scared me out of ever trying 
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 00:51:00 -
[14]
First off, this is NOT a warp drive, it's an alleged no-exhaust engine.
And the alleged enerated thrust is nothing to write home about, not yet anyway.
It is most likely yet another case of mistaken effect, even if it does actually work as described.
Too bad it means it probably won't work without an atmosphere, or it won't work outside a planetary magnetic field, or it won't work too far off a huge mass or something like that.
BUT, if it actually works in any of those cases (which I seriously doubt, but you never know), it would be awesome, even if the applications would be severely limited.
_
SHOPS || Mission rewards revamp || better nanofix
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 16:11:00 -
[15]
Just don't expect too much from it. EM and electrical equipment doesn't mix and I'd guess that it will fry it's own electrical systems before it begins to move.
Also, getting up to light speed would be one problem but the biggest problem would be doing it slowly enough that any passengers wouldn't just end up as marks on the bulkhead due to the intense G forces of acceleration.
Calculate the safest acceleration rate over a prolonged period and then figure out how long it would take to reach light speed at that acceleration rate. The human body may not disintigrate at 5 or 6 G and could stand it for a very short period of time, but spending days or weeks with that amount of G force would cause some serious internal damage, possibly even brain damage. Therefore, you are probably looking realistically at between 1 and 2 G max prolonged. It would take so long to reach light speed, that it's not even plausible.
--
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. |
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 16:27:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Originally by: Buff Plankchest
We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have...
Up to a point.
Energy poured into an object can do one of two things. It can increase said object's velocity, or increase its mass. At common everyday speeds, effectively 100% of the energy goes into increasing velocity; the difference in mass is completely immeasurable and may as well not exist. That's why Newtonian mechanics seemed a perfectly accurate world description for three centuries.
At near-light speeds, more and more energy gets converted into mass and less and less of it goes to increasing velocity. The reason you can't reach the speed of light is because, before you get there, you find that ALL of the energy goes to increasing an object's mass, and NONE of it imparts any extra speed. Beyond that point, pour in all the energy you want, you still ain't going any faster.
A true "warp drive" would be some method of subverting the process altogether, such as finding that two points a vast distance apart in three dimensions, are close together if you travel through a fourth or fifth. While you stick to regular four-dimensional spacetime ... nil. Nada. Ziltch. Squat. Jack diddely.
So how does light do it? huh Mr. smartypants?
|
Baldour Ngarr
Interwarp Plexus
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 17:00:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Vabjekf
So how does light do it? huh Mr. smartypants?
Fair cop. The above discourse only applies to objects which have mass. Massless objects, like photons, can move only at the speed of light - never more, never less.
________________________________________________
"I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked." |
EnslaverOfMinmatar
Yarsk Hunters
DeaDSpace Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 17:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Originally by: Vabjekf
So how does light do it? huh Mr. smartypants?
Fair cop. The above discourse only applies to objects which have mass. Massless objects, like photons, can move only at the speed of light - never more, never less.
so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol
|
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 17:35:00 -
[19]
Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Originally by: Vabjekf
So how does light do it? huh Mr. smartypants?
Fair cop. The above discourse only applies to objects which have mass. Massless objects, like photons, can move only at the speed of light - never more, never less.
so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol
lol science!
|
Brock Nelson
Caldari
Flux Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 17:57:00 -
[20]
Wow, someone started a thread with a link and call it a article; only to turn out its just another thread starter.
Way to go OP.
You win the internet
|
Keta Min
Pre-nerfed Tactics
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 18:14:00 -
[21]
Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar
so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol
this is why it is E=hc/lambda for photons
|
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 18:18:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Keta Min
Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar
so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol
this is why it is E=hc/lambda for photons
how many patches to the system will there be before someone realizes the whole thing needs to be reworked from scratch?
|
IstariFortunae
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 18:45:00 -
[23]
Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar
so if photons are massless, and E=mc^2, they should have 0 energy......... lol
E=mc^2 only gives the "rest energy" of a particle. The correct formula is actually E=gamma*mc^2, where gamma=1/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2). You can see that gamma goes to infinity for v=c, so you have infinity*0 which can be pretty much anything (for massive particles, doing a Taylor expansion for small v also shows that this reduces to the rest energy mc^2 plus the kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2). An equivalent expression is E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2, so for a massless particle energy and momentum are related by E=cp. For light, energy and momentum are both dependent on the frequency or wavelength, E=hf=hc/lambda, p=hf/c=h/lambda, where h is Plank's constant.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 20:58:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Also, getting up to light speed would be one problem but the biggest problem would be doing it slowly enough that any passengers wouldn't just end up as marks on the bulkhead due to the intense G forces of acceleration.
Calculate the safest acceleration rate over a prolonged period and then figure out how long it would take to reach light speed at that acceleration rate.
It says right there that thrust generated gets lower the faster you accelerate, so this "engine" (if it works) would only work at low acceleration rates anyway.
Also, while "space" might be MOSTLY empty, it's not completely empty, so you get some drag at very high speeds, which also limits your "top speed" pretty much the same way speed is limited in water or air (just much higher).
Accelerating at 1 g, starting from zero (or near-zero) speed :
* you reach 847 km/sec in 1 day, traversing 0.49 AU
* you reach 5931 km/sec in 7 days, traversing 23.97 AU
* you reach 25418 km/sec (0.08 c) in 30 days, traversing 440.4 AU (0.0069 lightyears)
* if relativity and drag would not be an issue, you would reach ~230000 km/sec (0.76 c) in 9 months, traversing 37000 AU (0.585 lightyears) in the same time
Don't diss constant, slow acceleration so easily 
_
SHOPS || Mission rewards revamp || better nanofix
|
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 21:02:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Also, getting up to light speed would be one problem but the biggest problem would be doing it slowly enough that any passengers wouldn't just end up as marks on the bulkhead due to the intense G forces of acceleration.
Calculate the safest acceleration rate over a prolonged period and then figure out how long it would take to reach light speed at that acceleration rate.
It says right there that thrust generated gets lower the faster you accelerate, so this "engine" (if it works) would only work at low acceleration rates anyway.
Also, while "space" might be MOSTLY empty, it's not completely empty, so you get some drag at very high speeds, which also limits your "top speed" pretty much the same way speed is limited in water or air (just much higher).
Accelerating at 1 g, starting from zero (or near-zero) speed :
* you reach 847 km/sec in 1 day, traversing 0.49 AU
* you reach 5931 km/sec in 7 days, traversing 23.97 AU
* you reach 25418 km/sec (0.08 c) in 30 days, traversing 440.4 AU (0.0069 lightyears)
* if relativity and drag would not be an issue, you would reach ~230000 km/sec (0.76 c) in 9 months, traversing 37000 AU (0.585 lightyears) in the same time
Don't diss constant, slow acceleration so easily
But then youve got to slow down =D
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 21:10:00 -
[26]
Just multiply everything by two (acceleration and deceleration are symetrical just acceleration is in the opposite way) : 2 days 1 AU... 14 days 48 AU, 2 months 880 AU, one year and a half 1.17 light years
_
SHOPS || Mission rewards revamp || better nanofix
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 21:49:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Also, getting up to light speed would be one problem but the biggest problem would be doing it slowly enough that any passengers wouldn't just end up as marks on the bulkhead due to the intense G forces of acceleration.
Calculate the safest acceleration rate over a prolonged period and then figure out how long it would take to reach light speed at that acceleration rate.
It says right there that thrust generated gets lower the faster you accelerate, so this "engine" (if it works) would only work at low acceleration rates anyway.
Also, while "space" might be MOSTLY empty, it's not completely empty, so you get some drag at very high speeds, which also limits your "top speed" pretty much the same way speed is limited in water or air (just much higher).
Accelerating at 1 g, starting from zero (or near-zero) speed :
* you reach 847 km/sec in 1 day, traversing 0.49 AU
* you reach 5931 km/sec in 7 days, traversing 23.97 AU
* you reach 25418 km/sec (0.08 c) in 30 days, traversing 440.4 AU (0.0069 lightyears)
* if relativity and drag would not be an issue, you would reach ~230000 km/sec (0.76 c) in 9 months, traversing 37000 AU (0.585 lightyears) in the same time
Don't diss constant, slow acceleration so easily
Excellent, when you consider that humans can endure 2 or 3 g for quite a long time, in the right conditions. Not comfortably, of course, but without any damage being done. You can happily double that math- light speed in 4 months 
The problem, to anyone who doesn't get it yet, isn't and never has been acceleration. Its no time at all to accelerate to lightspeed even and comfortable thrusts. The problem is fuel- Earth's current offerings only carry enough fuel to accelerate for barely 5 minutes, let alone 9 months; and they're the size of sky sc****rs, being almost entirely made of fuel tanks. The holy grail of space-engine design is something that can accelerate for a long time on a sensible amount of fuel; if we can crack that, then the solar system is our oyster.
------
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
You can even get a midget with a camera to sit on the floorboard.
|
Hesod Adee
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 22:12:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Originally by: Buff Plankchest
We haven't found a fuel source that can provide enough energy to attain warp speed... constant acceleration requires an exponential amount of energy, which we don't currently have...
Up to a point.
Energy poured into an object can do one of two things. It can increase said object's velocity, or increase its mass.
Actually relativity states that going faster makes your observed mass increase, so putting energy in does both. Heating it just making the molecules vibrate faster, though you might not want that speed increase.
Quote:
At near-light speeds, more and more energy gets converted into mass and less and less of it goes to increasing velocity. The reason you can't reach the speed of light is because, before you get there, you find that ALL of the energy goes to increasing an object's mass, and NONE of it imparts any extra speed. Beyond that point, pour in all the energy you want, you still ain't going any faster.
Actually, because of the increased mass, each joule of energy increases your velocity by a smaller amount. To hit c you need an infinite amount of energy to be pumped in.
To exceed c you need a complex amount of energy. As in the amount of energy is x + y*sqrt(-1) where y is a non-zero number.
Just have a read about Lorentz transformations, see what happens to the Lorentz factor as the velocity exceeds c and note that it is present in all the equations.
As for the thing in the OP, call me when they release enough information for someone else to build it.
|
Plim
Gallente
Oursulaert Technology Institute
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 22:16:00 -
[29]
The must efficient fuel of all is anti-matter used in particle/anti-particle annihilation, for obvious reasons. If large quantities could be produced (and safely), it would provide a mechanism to travel to nearby star systems within a matter of a few years.
A system was proposed called a Beamed Core anti-matter rocket, which could theoretically reach .4 of C.
Unfortunately global anti-matter production only reaches something like 10 nano grams at most.
This is really the only fully understood possible mechanism currently proposed for fast interstella travel, without invoking something extremely exotic to evade the laws of relativity.
The emdrive theory is being treated as very implausable I think, because it seems to violate the idea of conservation of momentum, something which is discussed in those links in the OP.
Rudolf: "I was sworn to absolute secrecy by Santa Claus." |
Baldour Ngarr
Interwarp Plexus
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 03:31:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Hesod Adee
Actually, because of the increased mass, each joule of energy increases your velocity by a smaller amount. To hit c you need an infinite amount of energy to be pumped in.
That's the alternative argument to show you can't reach, let alone exceed, the speed of light. Either works.
________________________________________________
"I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked." |
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 IĘd like to think thereĘs 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] |