TBone Posted June 9, 2000 Report Posted June 9, 2000 Alright, the theory that the time travel (or FTL travel, I'm not sure which we're referring to it as) is just jumping into a new universe (or dimension, again, not sure), doesn't that violate one of the most basic laws of physics: the Law of Conservation? Also, from what I read, it seams that the "Wang Drive" looks more like a subway system than an actual engine system. They were only able to accelerate the pulses within an enclosed area. If I read this correctly, to get anywhere in the universe this fast, we must first get there by conventional methods and build the tunnel there along the way. ------------------ Captain TBone GCV Delorean "If you're gonna build a time machine, you might as well do it in style"[This message has been edited by TBone (edited 06-09-2000).]
Guest aramike01 Posted June 10, 2000 Report Posted June 10, 2000 FTL travel does not equal time travel, as light takes time to reach any given point in space. I think you've missed something. ------------------ Cmdr. Michael Kristophers Spectre Fleet Commanding Officer, Spectre StarStation ICV-Intrepid Recruitment Officer "You won't get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole!"
Hector Socas Navarro Posted June 10, 2000 Report Posted June 10, 2000 Oh, my God. It _is_ too late ------------------ See you out there, among the starsCmdr Nava, GCV Nemesis (Official BC3k tester)
thanatos Posted June 10, 2000 Report Posted June 10, 2000 I just love it when you people go on and on talking dirty!What other public forum, based upon a space simulation GAME, has scientific discussions of this depth occurring? Is this great, or what? (he types, patting self on back)Anyone interested in the biomechanics of contrecoup craniocerebral trauma incurred in an unrestrained fall, or the forces required to cause sonic-type solid organ injury with firearms? Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not some kind of human-cyborg genius; I don't know enough about advanced theoretical sciences to sound "learned". Commander Doc Hoover Biology-Chemistry Major; no theoretical sciences in this guy's curriculum GCV JOHN PAUL JONES [This message has been edited by thanatos (edited 06-10-2000).]
Guest aramike01 Posted June 10, 2000 Report Posted June 10, 2000 Glad you could join us, Doc. You've just in so many words pointed out why I keep coming on back here to mingle. This place is the essense of human evolution - taking everything to the next step! ------------------ Cmdr. Michael Kristophers Spectre Fleet Commanding Officer, Spectre StarStation ICV-Intrepid Recruitment Officer "You won't get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole!"
Whisper Posted June 10, 2000 Report Posted June 10, 2000 I'm terribly sorry, Aramike. I had reseverations about that post, but I did it anyway becasue I thought I worded it in a way that would be non-insulting. I was obviously wrong. I in no way whatsoever intened to call you a liar, or be insulting, and I didn't read your posts well enough, as inturns out. Everything that you said I agree with, it all seemed okay. I had no intention of a debate or anything. The only reason I made the post was because your posts were sounding a little matter-of-facty. Not knowing your writing style well enough, I misread and thought people who aren't acquainted with quantum physics would assum that everything you mentioned was proven to be true. It is shown to be now that you knew waht you were doing.(Note: no scarasm intened.)
Guest aramike01 Posted June 10, 2000 Report Posted June 10, 2000 No problem, man. Hell, we're all guilty of jumping before looking sometimes. No hard feelings here! ------------------ Cmdr. Michael Kristophers Spectre Fleet Commanding Officer, Spectre StarStation ICV-Intrepid Recruitment Officer "You won't get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole!"
Guest Baraka Posted June 11, 2000 Report Posted June 11, 2000 I have a couple of questions - a little bit simpler though. Apparently,(so I've read somewhere)Einstein admitted that there are different speeds of light. The maximum speed accepted and measured up till now, using current technical data, has been 186,000 mps. That's a pretty strange number to limit ourselves to, isn't it? Also, how could the light photons have passed through the chamber and travelled 60 ft across the lab, when that light had only EVER been created WITHIN the chamber? How did the photons get out? Was there another experiment going on in another universe where a student sneaked in and cut a hole in the chamber? Enlighten me as to how this might have been possible, even breaking conventional laws of physics. Cheers!
Guest Baraka Posted June 11, 2000 Report Posted June 11, 2000 BTW, if light can travel at that speed and be unaffected by an obstacle i.e the chamber, perhaps that will eliminate the need to navigate around planets and chunky rocks when moving thru space at such a speed! (or even to place comms relay stations around planets - transmissions might just pass straight thru! Heh heh heh. Oh dear, I've lost it now haven't I. Off to bed then. Hey, I'm just a Chef, alright? Cheerio!------------------ Commander Baraka Spectre Fleet Head Chef, ICV Utu [email protected] ICQ# 67624118"What does not kill us makes us stronger"
Guest aramike01 Posted June 11, 2000 Report Posted June 11, 2000 Baraka, I guess the easiest was to answer your question is to refer you back to the article and ask you to read it a little closer. The chamber was transparent.------------------ Cmdr. Michael Kristophers Spectre Fleet Commanding Officer, Spectre StarStation ICV-Intrepid Recruitment Officer "You won't get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole!"
Guest Posted June 11, 2000 Report Posted June 11, 2000 Yeah, a photon of light will crash, bounce (or be absorbed or whatever) if it hits a non-transparent object...like a planet for example.As far as I know, only Neutrinos or like-particles can travel through solid matter without a problem.
Rippen Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 Tac: Neutrinos can go through solid objects like it was nobodys business!Rippen: That's right! Nuetrinos are one bad mutha-Tac: Match yo mouth!Rippen: Just talkin bout Neutrinos! Anyway, to expand on what Tack said: A particle traveling at several times the speed of light still has to travel the same space as a particle traveling at the speed of light. It is only percieved to jump from point to point. If you want something to jump from point to point, you have to fold space. That's a whole other can of worms...er, wormholes that is.
Guest aramike01 Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 The theory of folding space has been rejected due to the fact that nature of space - nothingness. What one would call a "worm hole" is actually a phenomena representing something such as a tear, or tunnel, in space. The universe is thought to possibly be round, meaning that it wouldn't be much different than digging to China. ------------------ Cmdr. Michael Kristophers Spectre Fleet Commanding Officer, Spectre StarStation ICV-Intrepid Recruitment Officer "You won't get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole!"
Eclipse Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 Cept you would be digging alot farther and longer. ------------------ Cmdr. Antilles Spectre Fleet Spectre Starstation ICV- Eclipse Chief Security Officer Learning is not compulsory... Neither is survival.
Whisper Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 What sort of shovel would one use? Seriously, any ideas on a mechanism for a FTL drive? I'd like to put forward an idea a extracted from Scientific American: use exotic matter to create negative energies, and doing it in such a way that would produce a wormhole. Aramike, you know anything about negitive energy? I picked up the term in that article (forget issue, will look it up) a metioned above. Sounds kinda nifity. Another mode of transport the author suggested was a "warp drive", where the negitive energy would do that tunneling thing sort of. If there was a "thicker" amount of negitive energy at the rear of this "warp bubble" around the ship, then it could travel faster than light. Don't ask me for explainations, I don't understand the mechanics of any of it. But does anyone have an intriging idea on how a device could exploit tunneling through space/time?[This message has been edited by Whisper (edited 06-12-2000).]
Guest Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 You been reading too much Star Trek tech manuals..that's the Cochrane Warp Drive from Star Trek Negative energy... hmm I remember hearing something about "Vacuum Energy".... dont remember the specifics, gotta dig up the info, but it sounds familiar to that.Rippen: You need to get some sleep man hehe Wonder what the SC thinks about this... *hint* *hint*
Guest aramike01 Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 Gawd, now I've gotta do some thinking. 2 2 2 2 4 E = p c + m c (I can't get the formula to display correctly. Just put the exponent above each variable in sequence) The square of the energy cannot be negative. However, take the square root and you get two roots, one of which is postive and the other negative. The negative number is your negative energy which is more like a quantum fluctuation of energy in a physical vaccum. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle hides their direct detection, making a direct observation impossible. Regardless, using slight energy shifts in any given particle, their existance is confirmed. Okay, I cheated. I looked the information up in an old physics book. Here's sorta what that's saying if you're lost: Essentially, these particles are to ordinary matter what space is to time. Or better, time to space. Makes me kinda think about the quantum implications. I mean, could it be that matter and space each has some sort of clock? Matter's clock being negative energy and space's clock being time itself? One can only imagine...------------------ Cmdr. Michael Kristophers Spectre Fleet Commanding Officer, Spectre StarStation ICV-Intrepid Recruitment Officer "You won't get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole!"[This message has been edited by aramike01 (edited 06-12-2000).]
Eclipse Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 It seems that the longer this discussion goes on the more completcated it gets. Anyway, my point. Maybe we caould just get mike to type up another thesis starting at the "beginning" for those of us who are starting to miss 1/2 of whats posted each time ------------------ Cmdr. Antilles Spectre Fleet Spectre Starstation ICV- Eclipse Chief Security Officer Learning is not compulsory... Neither is survival.
Guest Damasceus Klark Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 Weel, I dunna know ef this is already said, but if it has been, dunna read this!Anywho, the plane flying around the Earth doesn't actually arrive at its destination before it has left, it's just avoided the sun' course a little bit. Time is based on the rotation of the Earth around the sun, and certain points during the day are supposed to show where the sun is at that time (like noon or misnight). Now, say that it's noon on one side of the Earth and that it's midnight on the other side, it just means that the midnight side isn't getting sun at that moment. It's actually the same time on both sides (if we're using real time, not this innacurate stuff that we call time (that comes in on digital watches (which we still think are neat))). If I got any of that wrong, then it's just because I'm tired and am having a tough time piecing together words to form sentences (and I'm misspelling halv theg wurdz).Next part, going real fast doesn't really make you start travelling through time (unless, of course, Scotty is you guy in charge of it all). Going real fast does just that, it makes you go real fast. Now, as to whether you percieve time as going slow or not, I won't say (I've always had a disjointed sense of time, anyways). Time could always slow down, but it is very unlikely (in my theorizing).One) Time will probably never ever stop (but it could always be a possibility, I'm not going to start dictating the laws of space/time (if there are any)).Two) The most that will probably happen is that you'll slow way down. This is taking into effect that if you are moving fast, you senses and perception factors will also move fast, making it seel like things are moving slower. Time most likly not slow down, but you'll just speed up. That is why people with funny hair say that time is relative. More accuratly (at least according to me), your perception of time is relative.Again, if I got any of this wrong, you can probably blame it on either the fact that my brain is a puddle of tapioca goo, or that I have a lack of pertenant information. Feel free to yell at me for making accusations (who am I to dictate logic?), or even use nasty words that mean thing like fornication under the consent of the king and things like that.DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY NEXT!!!Now, travelling between universes is a might little difficult. Now creating universes, that's easy (or at least, can be). But for one thing, at a point where I can do something, there is an infinite number of outcomes for this even. Say I write purple monkey bladder for one sentence. But for that sentence, it was also possible that I took my writing untencel, broke it in half, shove it through this monitor, and then filled the monitor with Tang. The universe spawning theory states that I did both of these events, just not in the same universe. But there was an infinite amount of possible things to do, so I therefore did an infinite amount of things.DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THIS, EITHER!!!Infinity is a big number. In fact, it's so big, it equals zero. Nothing, nada, zilch! Well, quite a bit really. Anywho, zero is a little weird. Try multiplying it by 399,785,011,674.376387613 and what do you get? Zero. Any amount of zero that yu have always equals zero. Nothing more, nothing less. But if you add something it goes away! It becomes whatever you add to it! And nothing goes on forever, for if you have nothing, then there is nothing! But in order to have nothing, you must have something, and then there is no nothing! And does that make any sense? Compare it to zero. You have nothing, then you moultiply it, and it still equals nothing. Then you add something to it, nothing goes away! It doesn't even fit into something. You can't devide 4 by zero, it can't be done! You can devide zero by 4, and it equals nothing! Any amount of nothing still equals nothing!I love nonsense!!!------------------ Damasceus "Shiva" Klark Pilot, Wraith Fighter Command Wraith Fleet HQ "Ye gods man, are you insane?!?" =Wraith Fleet=
Guest aramike01 Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 Ummm, that doesn't have any science behind it. If time has a smallest fragment as some believe (time is considered an actualy substance in quantum physics, much like matter and space) then a certain velocity would be unable to stay along time's forward progression scale, thus it'd go back in time. Also, I am aware that an airplane traveling around the world crossing the date line wouldn't go back in time as most people here are; that was just a relative example. A sailboat wouldn't attain the velocity to cross the dateline and be at an earlier date, depending upon the starting points of the plane and boat, of course.Carrying on, infinite does not equal 0. If it did, infinity couldn't contain anything. Our universe contains billions of stars, meaning that it obviously isn't 0. Second, you should read the papers more often. No more than 3 or 4 months ago, scientists were trying to figure out if the universe would expand infinitely, or collapse upon itself in an event known as the "Big Crunch". The only way for something to expand would be for it to have boundaries. That in and of itself means the universe is not infinite. Such is an accepted science. In fact, they have radio maps of the boundaries of the universe. They just can't figure out if it's curved or not. If it's straight, it expands forever. If it's curved, it collapses upon itself when one end meets the other. There were several other possible forms explored but I cannot remember them at this time. A good example of infinite is the path around a circular object. Does it ever end? Nope. Does it not exist thus becoming 0. Nope. Infinite is not a number at all. The closest number it could be defined as is 1 as that number equals a whole. Mathematically, however, assigning a number to infinite would be impossible, as it's number grows with every step into the expanse. ------------------ Cmdr. Michael Kristophers Spectre Fleet Commanding Officer, Spectre StarStation ICV-Intrepid Recruitment Officer "You won't get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole!" [This message has been edited by aramike01 (edited 06-12-2000).]
Guest aramike01 Posted June 12, 2000 Report Posted June 12, 2000 Whisper, forgot to respond to you! Actually, I'm not a scientist so I'm not sure what could propel actually physical matter FTL. But since I've always had fun applying science to possiblity, I'll give it a go! In my personal theory which as far as I know has no scientific evidence to back it up, is that the only way to proper physical matter at the actual speed of light, no less, would be for it to take the property of light. That, at least would be the only way to accomplish such a feat in Einteinian space, as it were. Faster than light travel may not even be possible for anything other than light itself. The reason for that is, while matter can be accelerated, how can we say that light cannot? How can particles hold only a set velocity at any given time? Can light go slower than that set speed as well as faster?What would happen if light were to slow down to, say, the velocity of a bus? Would it's photons take on a physical charactoristic? If we could accelerate matter beyond "c", would it's inherent energy take on a "light" charactoristic? Would the energy be the only thing to accelerate, leaving matter sans energy behind at 99.999999999999999999% the speed of light?Too many variables for me to comprehend. ------------------ Cmdr. Michael Kristophers Spectre Fleet Commanding Officer, Spectre StarStation ICV-Intrepid Recruitment Officer "You won't get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole!"
Guest Damasceus Klark Posted June 13, 2000 Report Posted June 13, 2000 Please excuse all rantings and insults here given if any are. Damasceus is very tired and hasn't had his milk and cookies today. He also is in dire need of a nap. He has also been having too much Tang.Well, I can see some people (ahem, aramike01) just aren't hoopy enough to know what the heck I'm writing about! And I would suggest that you stop saying things like: "Such is an accepted science." Need I remind you that 200 years ago accepted science said that the Earth was flat, it was the center of the unverse, and that the sun rotated around it and it (the sun) was actually a God (well, some of that is a little older than 200 years). Oh yeah, and lead could turn into gold, everything could be blamed on witches, and leeches could cure the common cold. And the black plague was brought on as a punishment for the wicked and it would go away only if you repetedly hit yourself in the head with boards that had spikes driven through them. And the moon was made of green cheese, had aliens on it, and it was covered with diamonds. And space had normal Earth gravity.And if an atomic bomb were to go off it would blow up the world! And we're right, because science says so!Nowadays we say things like: Those ideas are tom-foolery!!! Not these ideas, though! The sun is really a big explosion that just lasts a really long time, and space and time and quarks really exist! And we know all of this because it can't be any other way! It MUST be there, like black holes (which transport you through time and are made out of dead stars which died but didn't really and turned into black holes!), they're there too! And we're right because science says so!And now, maybe in 300 years, we'll have the newer scientists saying things like: Pttttbth! Stupid ancestors! Their science was really wrong, but not ours! We're right because science says so!Does anybody notice a wee bit of a pattern?Well, infinity certainly doesn't equal one! Here's little science experiment that you can all try on your pocket calculators! If you take 1, and multiply it by 67, what do you get? Yes, Billy?67?Very good. If one was really a good number to illustrate infinity, would this be able to work? Yes, Tommy?It couldn't because representing something that equals something to represent something that equals everything goes against the regular laws of making sense.Uhhh, yeah. Now, take zero, class, and multiply it by 67. What do you get? Yes, Franky?You still get zero.Yes, now why is zero a better representation of infinity than that mean ol' aramike01's number one?Because any amount of an infinite something still equals only infinity. Multiply 67 and infinity, what do you get? 67 infinities! But infinity represents any number so 67 infinities just equals infinity.Now class, infinity and devide it by 3. The rules still apply to it as mentioned above (though I shouldn't use the rules word, as nothing is definite (like time)) and it still equals infinity.Zero acts in the exact same way.And, aramike01, I do agree with you that infinity and real numbers aren't truly related (unless you didn't mean that, then you have bad talk skill). I use zero to represent infinity for one really good reason, it acts the same way (aside from addition). Another good reason is that if we do try an come up with a plausible explanation of the big bang (not just one some guys who were smoking a little too much wacky weed put together at the last minute to impress everybody (you know who you are)), then something almost entirely likely came from nothing. And since there probably wasn't anything before the nothing, it then went on forever (since it had nothing to define boundaries (they just didn't exist)) until something started existing and then nothing went kaput (a lot like adding stuff to zero).Oh, and try not to accuse me of having no science behind my claims (ahem, aramike01 (and anybody else reading my stuff, go out and find the theories that work for you, and you probably shouldn't believe any of this bunk being presented around these here boards (but don't listen to my opinions unless you want to))). Unless you don't think that math has anything to do with science (and if you think that, you should probably be checking in with some of the more recent papers around called dictionaries (not the ones you write yourselves)(unless you're perfectly satisfied with your opinion)).And to anybody who reads this, try not to only think of this as right or wrong (or any of this stuff for that matter). Science is a constantly changing field, and if you stick with some parts of it for too long, you'll get sucked into the void of contradicting dooooooooom!!!------------------ Damasceus "Shiva" Klark Pilot, Wraith Fighter Command Wraith Fleet HQ "Ye gods man, are you insane?!?" =Wraith Fleet=
Supreme Cmdr Posted June 13, 2000 Report Posted June 13, 2000 I knew I was in for something unpleasant when I started reading these last two posts.It gave me an unpleasant headache.Anyway, we always welcome a healthy debate here and I'd appreciate it if you two ladies, didn't make it personal.Damasceus: If you're going to barge in on a thread that is supposed to be serious, think twice before you start injecting levity and outright tomfoolery into it. You might be mistaken into thinking that the average BC3K crowd, has not yet made it past high-school (OK, I didn't make it past kindergarten, but please don't hold that against me), you are sorely mistaken. In that respect, please refrain from turning a healthy debate, into a farce. Then again, you did warn them, :-)Aramike01:lighten up. While D probably doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, while at the same time making mincemeat of anything logical, I think you failed to take his posts for what they were, (even though he warned us): laughable verse.And if you guys keep this up, I'm going to call in Hector, my resident Astronomer. What?!? he's the closest thing to a Physicist that I have access to!! This whole thread makes my head hurt. Thanks guys. Now am off to introduce 10 new bugs in the game cuz I can't think with a headache.
Hector Socas Navarro Posted June 13, 2000 Report Posted June 13, 2000 quote: he's the closest thing to a Physicist that I have access to!! Ouch! That hurts , I didn't spend 5 years in the University (+4 more to get my PhD) just to get close to being a Physicist.Anyway, I already expressed my opinion about this "hyperluminical" experiment earlier in this thread. Let's not get confused here, I don't know what the practical applications of this effect might be, but as far as I understand (from what the journalists say, until the actual scientific paper is published in Nature), it has _NO_ philosphical implications at all, and it does not threaten the General Relativity in any way.Now, if you guys want to take this new experiment as an excuse for doing some heavy brainstorming, that's just great. I think the average BC3k gamer is probably smarter and more curious than what you can find inother communities. I must admit that I haven't been following this thread very closely. I would need much more time than I can afford at this moment (you guys write a lot ), and, although I don't agree with some of the statements that I've read, the kind of things that you are talking about here is not something that I can jump in and say "yes, this is right and no, that is wrong". Most of the discussion is rather Metaphysical or Philosophical.The bottom line is that we have people here who are capable of thinking about the deep questions and who like brainstorming. And this is yet another proof that this is a very special community.Now, sir, if you want me to go through the whole thread, read each and every post, and respond to them with my personal opinion, then with all due respect, sir, forget it! ------------------ See you out there, among the starsCmdr Nava, GCV Nemesis (Official BC3k tester)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now