<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the NS universe, whats the spaceships top speed? Kinda wondering, as it seems like they have colonized a lot of planets. Now the closest star to our sun is Alpha Centauri (Or so I heard, dont know which of three stars though) which is about 4.6 lightyears away, meaning that if you had a space ship travelling as fast as light , it would still take 4.6 years to cover that distance, so really, how fast can a spacehip go? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok ok like it matters, but with as u state the nearest star is 4.6 lightyears away now theres no way a space ship would be able to carry that mutch fuel unless it was one big fuel tank and with all the crap like BIG FUK OFF ASTORIODS floading around and blown up NASA space craft from the 20th century it just wouldednt get there in one peice. imo the only logical way they could have " colonized a lot of planets " would be to take a 1.04 JP and build a pg when u get there... pefrect you would nvr run out of fuel and youd be there in no time at all ( relativly speeking ) cing as them old sk00l jp's were the fastest thing in ns.
<!--QuoteBegin--r3dsk4r3+Nov 11 2003, 07:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (r3dsk4r3 @ Nov 11 2003, 07:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 9.) Don't flame me. My post is long and has big words in it. Because it is longer, it has more room to have things that are right in it. Therefore, my post has more right things in it than yours does. You would think that it would also have more room to have wrong things, but it doesn't. I did the math, trust me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Owned <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--r3dsk4r3+Nov 11 2003, 01:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (r3dsk4r3 @ Nov 11 2003, 01:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hahaha... now I end this.
1.) It is IMPOSSIBLE to travel faster than the speed of light. Period. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right on most accounts. Here's the most glaring error:
This law only applies to direct travel. Taking a shortcut doesn't count in the equation (it's not dependant on distance). We've actually transmitted particles at a larger net speed than c. Even with fairly massive particles, it's not to hard to get to near c and then decrease the distance needed to travel between two points, thus exceeding c relative to an outside observer. The catch: we haven't found a way to make it even remotely energy efficient or practical (or safe, even).
An amusing thought for you though: It would take a really long time to get anywhere near light speed (assuming you had the force available) because there is easily enough force involved to turn you into a fine paste.
edit: oops, more stuff...
in #9, you commited the genetic fallicy. Even if you somehow managed to avoid it, it would still be bad logic on other counts.
Oh, and on the fuel issue: you can easily collect energy along the way. Space is full of so much energy it's rediculous. Plus, once you get started, there aren't many sources of friction in space, so you don't loose much speed as you go. Gravity, on the other hand, can actually be used to <i>increase</i> your speed.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Let's not forget that the theory of relativity is fundamentally flawed. It's a good guideline, but by no means is it exact (well... nothing is). Einstein was working off bad information. The speed of light in his equation is an assumed constant... it assumes light travels just as fast in atmosphere as in a vacuum, and that gravity has no effect.
One thing i learnt in physics was that almost everything they talk about is the best model to fit what we know about the universe as Tal said .. they are guidelines <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're right on most accounts. Here's the most glaring error:
This law only applies to direct travel. Taking a shortcut doesn't count in the equation (it's not dependant on distance). We've actually transmitted particles at a larger net speed than c. Even with fairly massive particles, it's not to hard to get to near c and then decrease the distance needed to travel between two points, thus exceeding c relative to an outside observer. The catch: we haven't found a way to make it even remotely energy efficient or practical (or safe, even).
wow, thats why i went into 5 paragraphs on wormholes.
it is impossible to travel the speed of light or faster. it is possible to beat light there, but in no way can you travel faster than it. if i were to run a 10' circle around the finish line at sebring, by your calculations i would be traveling about 4000mph since i can lap the corvette-c5r hundreds of times. i'm not going faster than light, i'm just going a shorter distance.
if you reduce the distance that you traveled you wouldn't be traveling the speed of light. to an outside observer, you would appear to be, but thats like saying that if i throw the radar gun at the ball that i can pitch 120 mph fastballs. relative to the radar gun, i would be going that fast, but based on the REAL distance that i traveled, i would only be going 60 or so.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok ok like it matters, but with as u state the nearest star is 4.6 lightyears away now theres no way a space ship would be able to carry that mutch fuel unless it was one big fuel tank and with all the crap like BIG FUK OFF ASTORIODS floading around and blown up NASA space craft from the 20th century it just wouldednt get there in one peice. imo the only logical way they could have " colonized a lot of planets " would be to take a 1.04 JP and build a pg when u get there...
pefrect you would nvr run out of fuel and youd be there in no time at all ( relativly speeking ) cing as them old sk00l jp's were the fastest thing in ns.
Owned <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo-->
OWNENENDNDNDDNDN <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
1.) It is IMPOSSIBLE to travel faster than the speed of light. Period. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right on most accounts. Here's the most glaring error:
This law only applies to direct travel. Taking a shortcut doesn't count in the equation (it's not dependant on distance). We've actually transmitted particles at a larger net speed than c. Even with fairly massive particles, it's not to hard to get to near c and then decrease the distance needed to travel between two points, thus exceeding c relative to an outside observer. The catch: we haven't found a way to make it even remotely energy efficient or practical (or safe, even).
An amusing thought for you though: It would take a really long time to get anywhere near light speed (assuming you had the force available) because there is easily enough force involved to turn you into a fine paste.
edit: oops, more stuff...
in #9, you commited the genetic fallicy. Even if you somehow managed to avoid it, it would still be bad logic on other counts.
Oh, and on the fuel issue: you can easily collect energy along the way. Space is full of so much energy it's rediculous. Plus, once you get started, there aren't many sources of friction in space, so you don't loose much speed as you go. Gravity, on the other hand, can actually be used to <i>increase</i> your speed.
as Tal said .. they are guidelines <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
This law only applies to direct travel. Taking a shortcut doesn't count in the equation (it's not dependant on distance). We've actually transmitted particles at a larger net speed than c. Even with fairly massive particles, it's not to hard to get to near c and then decrease the distance needed to travel between two points, thus exceeding c relative to an outside observer. The catch: we haven't found a way to make it even remotely energy efficient or practical (or safe, even).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow, thats why i went into 5 paragraphs on wormholes.
it is impossible to travel the speed of light or faster. it is possible to beat light there, but in no way can you travel faster than it. if i were to run a 10' circle around the finish line at sebring, by your calculations i would be traveling about 4000mph since i can lap the corvette-c5r hundreds of times. i'm not going faster than light, i'm just going a shorter distance.
if you reduce the distance that you traveled you wouldn't be traveling the speed of light. to an outside observer, you would appear to be, but thats like saying that if i throw the radar gun at the ball that i can pitch 120 mph fastballs. relative to the radar gun, i would be going that fast, but based on the REAL distance that i traveled, i would only be going 60 or so.
and '#9' was a joke.