Faster Than Light

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, August 2, 2004 20:22
VIEWED: 19488
PAGE 2 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

ANTHONYT

Monday, July 28, 2003 11:31 AM

Well, once you have control over gravity, it should be a small matter to manipulate internal G forces.

--Anthony

ZEKE023

Monday, July 28, 2003 1:32 PM

A while back (the link is posted on the "Technology in the 'Verse" thread) found an interview with one of the writers who said that it was never specified whether this show took place in one or many star systems. However, he felt that it really had to be multiple ones.

This necessitates FTL travel.. and the spiel about the inertial-drive above has to be true too.

JUSTME

Monday, July 28, 2003 2:54 PM

WARNING: TECHNICAL DISCUSSION! If you prefer to just 'enjoy the story' and don't want to worry about how it all works, skip to the bottom, now!

Another clue to Serenity having inertial-drive is the Episode Out Of Gas, where the engine stops running and Serenity stops moving. For a normal object moving in space this would not happen, it would keep moving until stopped by something (collision, retrorockets, tractor beam, etc). However, if it is using an inertial drive, and the drive fails, it would come to a stop (or at least slow down a lot).
This same fact could be used to argue that Serenity has some form of 'warp drive' since the same thing would happen if the drive were to fail. Like on a planet, in atmo or underwater, if you stop pushing/pulling the vehicle forward it will slow down and stop.

END TECHNICAL DISCUSSION

On an unrelated topic, I have just been assigned a new computer at work and was allowed to name it. What name did I choose?...... Serenity.

JustMe

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:09 AM

Hi guys,

I don't know if it's the same thing as inertial drive, but I always wondered if mass lightening wasn't used. That is, making the apparent mass of a ship much less. If you make the mass light enough, is it possible to transcend c? I have heard about particles that transcend c. Conventional wisdom when I was in High School suggested that this was impossible.

Any insight?

--Anthony

BIOTECH

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:08 AM

I think its in the episode the message where serenity is flying through the atmosphere of the ice planet and its getting shaken around.

Kaylee explains to the passenger that when the gravity drive of the ship comes into contact with the gravity of a planet there is some interference.

Curiously when the engines stop in out of gas, they still have gravity in the ship.

Serenity can fly near the ground wether its engines are facing front or facing down, which kind of begs the question why it needs jet engines at all if its the gravity drive keeping it in the air.

I think they may just be for maneuvering only, usually forwards, but they can spin you around too in the crazy ivan maneuver from the pilot.

I always assumed that when they were in space and the big yellow flare came from the back of the ship, that was them going faster than light.

BARNEYT

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by biotech:
Curiously when the engines stop in out of gas, they still have gravity in the ship.

Deep science or engineering is definitely not my area of expertise (!), but it made sense to me from a layman's point of view that the gravity generators (especially any auxillary gravity generators) would be completely separate from all the other systems.

After all, if your life support goes, you really don't want to be having to deal with zero gravity as well!

DRAKON

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:32 PM

It really depends on how it is done.

I can see no reason to join the life support and propulsion systems, why these should be interdependent.

However, there is a good reason why gravitional systems and the propulsion systems are so ganged. The various different warp drive proposals and worm hole theories I have read all deal with manipulating the space-time the ship is in.

[note: Propulsion and power need not be the same thing. One could have a power plant separate from the propulsion system. If you lost power, then you would lose both propulsion and life support.]

[But then again, that depends on how life support is made. I come from a submarine background, and life support means srubbers, burners and either O2 generators (hydralize water) or pyrochemical "candles". The O2 goes into tanks, which then can be manually bled back into the ship. Without the need for power. But the burners and scrubbers are off line, and the danger of CO2 and hydrogen gas (or other pollutants) becomes the overriding problem.]

DRAKON

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:40 PM

"That is, making the apparent mass of a ship much less."

I am not sure what this means, so pardon me for going off on this.

You know what the mass is of an object by subjecting it to a known force, and measuring the acceleration of that object, (with respect to some external object) F=MA.

The problem is the definitions are somewhat circular, and relative. How do you know how much force you have applied? Smack a calibrated mass into something?

A "lighter" object will simply undergo a different acceleration when a force is applied. But acceleration is dependent on space covered in a unit of time, (okay, how the amount of space changes as time changes)

So are you really lessening the mass, increasing the distance, or slowing the time?

Also, any measurement we make is relational, dependent on the measure of something else. I am 6 foot tall. At one time some guy planted his foot, and declared that to be the standard measure. I am 6 times as tall as his foot is long.

All measurements are ratios of something. Not things all by themselves.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:54 PM

Hey Drakon,

Good to have your input. I understand what you are saying in regards to ratios.

10 pounds of force may be enough to move 1 kilogram of matter 10 feet. That sort of thing.

What I am suggesting is that the drive system might cause 1 kilogram of matter to respond as though it was, say, 1 gram of matter. Thus 10 pounds of force may be enough to move 1 gram of matter 1000 feet. The efficiency of propulsion is suddenly and profoundly increased.

On another topic, the question has been raised as to why the ship would still have gravity if a gravity based drive system was damaged. I'd like to suggest that there may be seperate systems to modify internal gravity and external gravity.

For instance, an external gravity system might work on the whole of the vessel to make its apparent weight 1/100th the normal value.

An internal gravity system might affect only things internal to the ship, to make their apparent weight whatever would be appropriate to 1g. The two gravity systems may be able to work together at the same time, such that things inside the ship respond as though under 1g, and the whole of the ship responds as though it is under 1/100 g.

Two seperate systems with two different power requirements and two different mechanisms.

Just a thought.

--Anthony

DRAKON

Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:07 AM

"What I am suggesting is that the drive system might cause 1 kilogram of matter to respond as though it was, say, 1 gram of matter. Thus 10 pounds of force may be enough to move 1 gram of matter 1000 feet. The efficiency of propulsion is suddenly and profoundly increased."

Right, I get what you are saying. What I am trying to say is that acting like 1 gram is a matter of geometry. How far it moves in a given amount of time. If your 1 kilo mass is hit by a 10 pound force, the difference between it moving "like" a 1 kilo mass or a 1 gram mass is a matter of distance.

I agree that an internal system seems necessarily separate from the external drive system. But I think the power plant has to be separate from either. Note that the engines were dead in Out of Gas, yet they still had lights, (not obviously emergency lighting either) and radio, etc. Which seems to me that there is a redundant power system. Possibly batteries?

"my kind of stupid"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE