FTL or not FTL...
POSTED BY: BadgersHat
UPDATED: Friday, May 14, 2004 20:35
VIEWED: 17361
PAGE 8 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:
Indeed! (dammit I need a David Lo Pan picture for that)
... You know what Jack Burton always says at a time like this...
Who?
Jack Burton? Me???
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:
Indeed! (dammit I need a David Lo Pan picture for that)
... You know what Jack Burton always says at a time like this...
Who?
Jack Burton? Me???
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
You were not put on this Earth to "get it" Mr. Hat!
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"
My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
...... huh?
But I DID get it... didn't I?
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Is Serenity traveling fater than light, and if so, how?
It is apparent that Serenity travels between solar systems in times ranging from hours to weeks. The ship is therefore obviously capable of travelling faster than light. FTL travel is a science fiction staple that I wouldn't expect to be missed in this show.
Quote:
Faster than Light seems to be impossible, if you believe Einstein (and there's a lot of reasons to do just that).
However, there's many that disagree, not so much with the faster than light, but with the speed of light itself--they think that the speed of light is NOT a constant velocity, it shifts in many cases due to various factors.
People who believe otherwise are on the lunatic fringe of the scientific community.
Quote:
Is faster than light speed possible in normal space? Not bloody likely, but then again, you never know. Some say, the Conservation of Energy prevents it, some say it's just another speed. We in our lifetimes will likely not know the truth.
Time and mass dilation are the primarily stumbling blocks. Plus, an object would have to annihilate more than its one mass to achieve that kind of kinetic energy.
Quote:
But, I don't think any of us can give more than an opinion on this matter, regardless of our reading habits. Theoretical physicists create.... wait for it... THEORIES. Theories are NOT facts, they are ideas on something, and ideas on how to maybe prove or disprove those somethings. Nothing more, nothing less.
Theories are not facts, they are explanations of the facts. It is a fact that objects with mass are attracted toward each other; the Theory of Gravity is an explanation for this observed phenomenon.
Quote:
The most brilliant minds in the world are in disagreement about this issue. There's the hypserstring idea, the quantum tunnelling idea, hyperspace, warp space, etc etc etc.
More fringe science. Many of these are hypotheses about phenomena that a mathematically possible under established scientific laws but have never been observed.
Quote:
Personally, I think hyperspace is the true answer--a plane of existence in which everything is accelerated, meaning that even if we travel a fraction of lightspeed, that speed is exponentially faster than it would be in normal space. But, I don't know from theoretical physics and such.
There is no scientific basis for your belief. Hyperspace is an entirely fictional concept.
Quote:
Anyway, the long-since-buried point is, we shouldn't quibble over FTL or not FTL possibilities, because we simply don't know.
Firefly generally uses the same "black box" concept for technology that Star Wars employs. The technology exists; it's underlying principles are unexplained (because the technology exists to serve the story, and its nuts and bolts are irrelevant to the story).
Quote:
Oh, and just for the record, there IS sound in space, just WAAAAAYY below human hearing (it's recordable with highly sensitive instruments, because, after all, there IS air in space, it's just EXTREMELY thin--if space were a TRUE vacuum, everything within it would collapse, and we wouldn't be here to have this stimulating discussion).
There is no significant amount of sound propagation in space. Space is not a "pure" vacuum, but it's certainly not dense enough to sound to propagate. Even if it were a "true" vacuum, everything in it wouldn't "collapse".
"Burn the land and boil the sea, still can't keep the sky from me."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Gunhand I thought I add a "little" bit to your statements about the Kobra and the Crazy Ivan.
The Russian SU-33 and SU-35 can perform the Kobra and Bell maneuvers. The SU-33 is the Naval version of the SU-27 Flanker, and the SU-35 is the new thrust vectoring air force version of the SU-33. They can accomplish this maneuver with the aid of "Canards" or little wing like appendages located just aft of the cockpit.
BTW the Bell maneuver is just like the Kobra except they do not keep the nose in the air instead the do a 360-degree roll along the axes that runs wing tip to wing tip.
Now on to the topic of the Crazy Ivan many modern Russian submarines are capable of carrying Towed Arrays. The classes that do are, Victor III, Akula 1, 1-Improved and 2, Delta III and IV, Typhoon, Sierra I and II, Oscar I and II, Lada/Amur (the new Kilo) and the Two next gen submarine classes that are still being built (Severvnisk and Bory?). These classes make up nearly the entire operational force of the Russian navy. However you are correct in saying that hard financial times have no doubt prevented the constant deployment of such systems aboard all active Russian subs.
The Towed Array is more sensitive to lower frequency sound that is used to detect submarines and distance surface ships than the spherical and conformal arrays located in the bow and along the sides thus making them a more powerful tool for detection even aboard older subs. While these systems are not up to the standards of the US and UK their major fault is the weakness of the TA cable on the older boats. If you look at the designs of the Victor III and Akulas you will see a large pod on her rudder, this pod houses the TA because its cable is made up of a brittle rubber like material that can not be brought in to the hull or ballast tanks like on US subs, newer boats have been given a more western like TA cable and their TA Pods are quite smaller. (I wonder if they got the design of a better TA towing cable from the time that Victor III was tangled up in one from a US Destroyer)
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
My Other Site:
http://www.geocities.com/billds9/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TedC:Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Is Serenity traveling fater than light, and if so, how?
It is apparent that Serenity travels between solar systems in times ranging from hours to weeks. The ship is therefore obviously capable of travelling faster than light. FTL travel is a science fiction staple that I wouldn't expect to be missed in this show.Quote:
Faster than Light seems to be impossible, if you believe Einstein (and there's a lot of reasons to do just that).
However, there's many that disagree, not so much with the faster than light, but with the speed of light itself--they think that the speed of light is NOT a constant velocity, it shifts in many cases due to various factors.
People who believe otherwise are on the lunatic fringe of the scientific community.
...Quote:
But, I don't think any of us can give more than an opinion on this matter, regardless of our reading habits. Theoretical physicists create.... wait for it... THEORIES. Theories are NOT facts, they are ideas on something, and ideas on how to maybe prove or disprove those somethings. Nothing more, nothing less.
Theories are not facts, they are explanations of the facts. It is a fact that objects with mass are attracted toward each other; the Theory of Gravity is an explanation for this observed phenomenon.Quote:
The most brilliant minds in the world are in disagreement about this issue. There's the hypserstring idea, the quantum tunnelling idea, hyperspace, warp space, etc etc etc.
More fringe science. Many of these are hypotheses about phenomena that a mathematically possible under established scientific laws but have never been observed.
Okay, dude, I hear ya.
BUT--
Keep in mind, the idea of a round earth was "fringe science" at one time, as was the concept of the earth revolving around the sun, the idea of flight, the idea of reaching the mind... etc etc etc. Anything NEW is considered "Fringe Science" until it happens.
ALSO--Theories are NOT neccessarily "explanations of the facts"--actually, I think a theory CANNOT be an explanation of the facts, because if they're facts, they don't need theorizing. Granted, if you look at dictionary.com's definition, it DOES say "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts..." BUT, it also says "abstract reasoning; speculation" AND "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; conjecture"
So, theories are not strictly used to explain facts, they're used to create an environment in which to discover facts.
ALSO AGAIN--There's only ONE "Solar System"--OUR star system (Named the "Solar" system, because our sun is named "Sol")
... wow, do I sound smarmy as hell or what?
Sorry to sound this way, but as SigmaNunki can tell you, I often type at different speeds than my mind processes...
Anyway... um... what was the question... ?
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Was it not done on reentry? I thought they entered the atmosphere before doing that, but I guess they were taking off.I need to rewatch my Firefly episodes, I think I'm rusty.
After all the fighting was done on that little moon Jayne *ran* down the hill (from his sniping position) and said something like "It's the gorram Reavers, they followed us." Then we enter a stimulating spaceship chase scene in atmo where that maneuver was done, then full burn. And our crew went merrily on it's way
God I'm a Firefly geek
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
thing is if you travel at the speed of light, don't you see where you going, while being there and i'm all confused
Wash is a great pilot,
so it seems plausable that serenity dosn't travel faster then light, just really really quick...besides you'd need a lot of energy to travel at the speed of light considering a vessel of serenity's size its safe to say no.
think we've been listening too much to Data and Mr Laforge.
*
This post's spelling was brought to you today by pap-gram.org
*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Keep in mind, the idea of a round earth was "fringe science" at one time, as was the concept of the earth revolving around the sun, the idea of flight, the idea of reaching the mind... etc etc etc. Anything NEW is considered "Fringe Science" until it happens.
Very true.
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
ALSO--Theories are NOT neccessarily "explanations of the facts"--actually, I think a theory CANNOT be an explanation of the facts, because if they're facts, they don't need theorizing. Granted, if you look at dictionary.com's definition, it DOES say "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts..." BUT, it also says "abstract reasoning; speculation" AND "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; conjecture"
So, theories are not strictly used to explain facts, they're used to create an environment in which to discover facts.
I would have to side with that last two there and/or change the word "facts" to "observations" in that first one.
My personal view is that theories don't really have much to do with facts, those I call statements. Theories are used to try to ex pain something with the limited amount of observables that we have and mostly to try to predict what we will see next to get a deeper understanding of what is going on. Of course these will all have limitations which will then create a new more mature theory... and the cycle continues.
These things are much more clear in Math. Theorems, conjectures, lemmas, etc all have clear cut definitions. Maybe that's why I lean to the math more than the physics.
A prof just finished giving a presentation of a proof.
Prof: "And we are done."
Audience Member: "That's wrong! And I have a counter example to show that it is wrong!"
Prof: "I don't care, I have a proof!"
Just one of those math jokes
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Sorry to sound this way, but as SigmaNunki can tell you, I often type at different speeds than my mind processes...
tee hee
We both did that. tee hee ----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There's no way we could travel at 90c, because the relativistic acceleration would turn the vehicle's inhabitants to jelly.
At most, we could withstand a constant acceleration of about 1.5G (half again the currect gravity of Earth that is). That means, and I forget the exact number, but it would take something like either centuries or millenia to reach Alpha Centari at the 1.5G acceleration curve--you spend half the distance in acceleration, the other half in deceleration...
So, FTL is a must.
--Jefé The Hat
I have to correct you on a point. If you do the math you'll find that it would take about 11 months for an object to reach the velocity of light (approx 3x10^8 m/s) at an acceleration rate of 1G or 9.8 meters/sec^2. Heinlein uses this in "Time for the Stars" to great affect. As the ship reaches that velocity time dilation slows down for those riding onboard. If they were going to Alpha Cent. 4.2 lt-yrs away it would take about 5-6 yrs to get there. For the passengers it would seem shorter, 2 years.
Barnard star is the next closest star at 6 lt-yrs and has long been suspected of having a Jupiter size planet. But I think even today that is still being debated.
check out this link
http://exoplanets.org/exoplanets_pub.html
It seems most planets discovered are larger than Jupiter... and if a star has several gas giants, it could concievably have many moons of varying sizes including Earth-size moons that could be terraformed.
Jaymes
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME