I'm glad I was not the one to bring up the possibility that einstein might simply be wrong (good to know I'm not the only scientific heretic around ).
However, I also think it's retrogressive for us to be trying to measure and limit science fiction by our current and obviously flawed veiw of science (It obviously must be flawed becuase they are still so many unexplained paradoxes and events). If H.G. Wells had only written about stuff which he could 'prove' by the dodgy science of his day then he would not have inspired a lot of the real scientists of today!

IMHO All you need for good sci-fi is a consistent universe. It doesn't matter what your theories are as long as they are consistent throughout your universe (and of course pay at least a cursory nod to accepted science) The only reason using 'real' science is useful is becuase you don't have to take your readers through another six years of high school to study the physics of your book!

P/s
Btw, an inertialess drive is actually easy to implement with a field based propulsion system. As perceived inertia is actually the result of a difference in acceleration between two bodies in contact with each other (E.g. your head and your steering wheel) if movement is implemented by a feild (like gravity) which affects all matter within it intantsaenously then yourt head and the steering wheel will always have the same relative acceleration.
an example of this is astronauts orbiting the earth who are actually in constant acceleration but experience weightlessness. This is becuase their motion is actually powered by earth's gravity. So theoretically anyoine who has Artificial gravity technology can make inertial dampeners.
Take that all you blasphemers of The Trek!!!

---------------------------------------------------
There are two things he who seeks wisdom must understand...
Love... and Wudan!

{edit: 'As perceived inertia'. Yes I know inertia is always there but it is not felt unless it causes a hinderance to acceleration}


[edited by - thelurch on August 2, 2003 2:31:41 PM]

quote: Original post by thelurch
I''m glad I was not the one to bring up the possibility that einstein might simply be wrong (good to know I''m not the only scientific heretic around ).
However, I also think it''s retrogressive for us to be trying to measure and limit science fiction by our current and obviously flawed veiw of science (It obviously must be flawed becuase they are still so many unexplained paradoxes and events). If H.G. Wells had only written about stuff which he could ''prove'' by the dodgy science of his day then he would not have inspired a lot of the real scientists of today!

IMHO All you need for good sci-fi is a consistent universe.

Exactly, as long as it seems plausible it doesn''t matter whether (current science) thinks it''s possible or not.

quote:
It doesn''t matter what your theories are as long as they are consistent throughout your universe (and of course pay at least a cursory nod to accepted science) The only reason using ''real'' science is useful is becuase you don''t have to take your readers through another six years of high school to study the physics of your book!

Another advantage is that it helps with suspension of disbelief. If you use what people already believe, there''s no disbelief to suspend. Basically, the best lies are the ones that are closest to the truth.

quote:
P/s
Btw, an inertialess drive is actually easy to implement with a field based propulsion system.

Clarke stated that this is why the idea of an inertialess drive seems plausible, but still said that it''s likely impossible.

"Now, it is important to note, its only been proven that light travels at C."

Its actually now suspected (and theres some evidence, although its still far from "proven") that C is NOT a constant.

Since it in theory requires all the energy avaliable in the universe (pfft - that implies its unique, but thats another topic) to accelerate to light speed, how about something that destroys and uses the energy of alternate universes? Heh - it ignores a hell of a lot of physics, but it does have some scientific basis, and it''d give a nice storyline involving saving alternate universes or some such. My physics teacher suggested that too me

quote: Original post by Kazgoroth
"Now, it is important to note, its only been proven that light travels at C."

Its actually now suspected (and theres some evidence, although its still far from "proven") that C is NOT a constant.

Since it in theory requires all the energy avaliable in the universe (pfft - that implies its unique, but thats another topic) to accelerate to light speed,

Yes, to accelerate an object to light speed would require an infinite amount of energy. Thus, things that move at the speed of light cannot accelerate nor can they move at any speed other than the speed of light.

quote:
how about something that destroys and uses the energy of alternate universes?

Reminds me a bit of FF7, except they were destroying their own world. Violates conservation of energy, but rather than destroying it, perhaps it just moves it into our universe. So you conserve energy, but drain their world of energy and create an over abundance of energy in our world.

quote: Original post by Kazgoroth
Its actually now suspected (and theres some evidence, although its still far from "proven") that C is NOT a constant.

Interesting. Haven''t heard this. Do you have a link?

quote: Yes, to accelerate an object to light speed would require an infinite amount of energy. Thus, things that move at the speed of light cannot accelerate nor can they move at any speed other than the speed of light.

So where did the energy come from to get light up to the speed of light in the first place......

I could be mistaken but isn''t light a form of energy?

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

quote: Yes, to accelerate an object to light speed would require an infinite amount of energy. Thus, things that move at the speed of light cannot accelerate nor can they move at any speed other than the speed of light.

So where did the energy come from to get light up to the speed of light in the first place......

Basically, photons have 0 mass so it takes 0 Energy to "accelerate" them to light speed. I''ve only had one semester of modern physics so the equations aren''t ingrained yet, but I could dig out the text book, if you like.

quote:
Basically, photons have 0 mass so it takes 0 Energy to "accelerate" them to light speed. I''ve only had one semester of modern physics so the equations aren''t ingrained yet, but I could dig out the text book, if you like.

0 * 0 = light speed?

The only problem I have with this theory is that if something has no mass how would you ever perceive it? It would pass right through anything attempting to measure it. If you said that photons had VERY little mass and thus VERY little energy to accelerate, I could agree with you there.

quote:
I could be mistaken but isn''t light a form of energy?

I have always though of energy as being something that you can only "see" through something with mass during time. Energy would be the acting of an object through space for a certain amount of time, i.e. gravity pulling the apple to the ground, coil rotating in a magnetic field to produce electricity (which is basically electrons moving from one point to another), etc.

So what you see would not be energy directly but the mass that the energy acts on. So if you see it, can it really be energy as well?

quote:
Yes, to accelerate an object to light speed would require an infinite amount of energy. Thus, things that move at the speed of light cannot accelerate nor can they move at any speed other than the speed of light.

It takes an infinite amount of energy to push/pull something to a finite speed? I guess you could explain this through the math equation where if you keep adding half the previous number to itself, it only ever gets so big (cna''t remember the specific name for this equation). I.e.

1 1 1 1 1 1
(2 * -) + (1 * -) + ( - * -) + ( - * -) ... will never reach 2
2 2 2 2 4 2

Something traveling at the speed of light can go no other speed? So how is it then that we have shadows? Wouldn''t the light travel right through the object? If it bounces off another object, are you saying that friction never slows it down and that zero time is lost by the direction change? If light emanates from a source (i.e. a sun) where did it start since it can never travels slower then light? Is it spontaneously created? Travel in very tight circles until it is let go?

I found a table on the internet of the speed of light through different mediums:
Medium Speed of Light in Medium
speed of light in a vacuum is 299 792 458 m/s
speed of light in air is 299 702 547 m/s
speed of light in ice 228 849 204 m/s
what is the speed of light in water 225 407 863 m/s
what is the speed of light in glass 199 861 638 m/s

Not being facetious with the questions, just want to know what the hang up is on saying that you can''t travel faster than the speed of light.

Ok, how about this:

Since it takes alot of energy to move a larger object, but only a little bit of energy to move a smaller object, why not have a Subdevision system? Like a ring of solid Dark Matter, and when you drive your ship/whatever through it, the dark matter attracts the closest atoms/molocules to it, thuse breaking apart the structure. Then, you can apply a small magnetic force to all of them as a whole to get them traveling at berry high speeds, and then have a sphere of Dark Matter at certain destinations, and before arrival, it vacumes all other particles out of the gravitational pull, and then when your ship arrives, it pulls all of the particles back together. You might have to tweak it a bit i think.

[offtopic]
Ok, heres some ideas for Cloaking and Weapons. For cloaking, you have strategic spheres of some kind of metal on the hull of your ship, and an Electromagnet so powerful it can reduce the spheres or hemispheres to singple points, which would reduce them to a single point, creating dark matter, and bending all light from the surrounding area around the ship, cloaking it. For weapons, you have a set number of chunks of dark matter arranged in a circle, bending the light in an infinate circle. You then get a fiber optics wire, thread it into the circle, and focus it through a few amplification focusing devices. All light form a surrounding meter or so will then be sucked into a circle, and when you pull it out with fiber optics, it will be what is put in almost 20 fold, and then amplified, one of the srongist lazers imaginable
[/offtopic]

Heh, just had to add that... anyway, Tell me what you think.


______________________________
Quantum
CEO of Quantum Rebound Software
Website Up Soon