MW9@PSUVM.BITNET (03/21/86)
Ok, two thoughts on it:
1) If the ship is going FTL, then everything inside it is going FTL, too,
right? Like, in a plane or car, everything inside is going the same
speed as the vehicle. So, if the ship is travelling X, and a torpedo
is fired at speed v, then the speed of the torpedo upon leaving the
ship is X + v. This makes sense.
2) I was read an SF book about FTL travel and they made an interesting
remark. Now, travel approaches a limit, C (speed of light). That is,
The curve approaches C but never hits it. Well, this guy suggested
that the limits on the other side work the same way. Like if you are
travelling faster than light, you can slow down almost too, but not
to C. Same limit, other side. (The only exception is the thrust
from one side of C to the other.) In fact, this author went on to
say that he thought travel *at* C would be therefore impossible.
Well, that's our opinion. What's yours? We'd like to know.
-------
"I always lie ... and I'm always right."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, The Church of the SubGenius
Michael S. Weiss
The Pennsylvania State University
MW9@PSUVM.BITNET
<* The opinions expressed by me do not reflect those held *>
<* by my school nor those of my employer. (If I had one.) *>
eric@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Eric Cotton) (03/21/86)
> 2) I was read an SF book about FTL travel and they made an interesting > remark. Now, travel approaches a limit, C (speed of light). That is, > The curve approaches C but never hits it. Well, this guy suggested > that the limits on the other side work the same way. Like if you are > travelling faster than light, you can slow down almost too, but not > to C. Same limit, other side. (The only exception is the thrust > from one side of C to the other.) In fact, this author went on to > say that he thought travel *at* C would be therefore impossible. > > Well, that's our opinion. What's yours? We'd like to know. > ------- > > "I always lie ... and I'm always right." > -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, The Church of the SubGenius > > Michael S. Weiss > The Pennsylvania State University > MW9@PSUVM.BITNET > > <* The opinions expressed by me do not reflect those held *> > <* by my school nor those of my employer. (If I had one.) *> > I think what you read in a SF book is actually a real theory, that of the nature of tachyons. Eric Cotton Commodore "My hovercraft is full of eels!"
spock@hope.UUCP (Chris Ambler) (03/22/86)
Gentlemen! The issue here is *NOT* FTL!!! The weapons used by the Feds (and for that matter, all) that travel FTL (phasers are at C) are not in our space! Take a look at the explanation of 'warp' speed. The ship projects a shell of 'otherspace' around it so as to slip into an alternate space (known, again, as 'otherspace'). When one fires a torpedo, it, too, is in 'otherspace'. A common tactic for evading a torpedo (I know this because I am in the porting stage of an advanced starship simulator) is to drop out of otherspace when you see it coming. It then, goes 'right through you' (actually, this is a paradox, but it sounds good to describe it this way). In 'otherspace', C is a different value. I could attempt to explain further, but it's dinnertime in the old cafe...(DORM FOOD SUCKS), see net.jokes (you know you're in college when...) |-Spock! (Christopher J. Ambler, University of California, Riverside)| | ...ucbvax!ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!spock | | -"Captain, I see no reason to bother Starfleet..." |
kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (03/22/86)
In <313@astroatc.UUCP> johnw@astroatc.UUCP (John F. Wardale) writes: >Does any non-physics type out there want to take a crack at explaining >their theory as to how the Big E can fire these [weapons at FTL]? My first reaction was that there should be no difficulty. As pointed out by MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET in <4595MIQ@PSUVMA>, an FTL weapon should be no harder than an FTL ship. Moreover, if you assume additive velocity, the weapon can be slower than light relative to the ship (as mentioned in articles <4609MW9@PSUVM><4610MW9@PSUVM> by MW9@PSUVM.BITNET). Now I'm not going to invoke Einstein because [0] you wanted "non-physics types"; [1] Einstein's equations don't behave nicely for v > c; and [2] Star Trek seems to have taken a leap beyond Einstein, all the way to Aristotle. :-) Note that in the Star Trek universe, FTL is some sort of abnormal state. "No natural object can travel faster than light!" (I don't remember the episode.) It strains the engines to _continue_ to travel at warp 10; they can't just coast. In fact if they turn off the engines, don't they revert to sublight? Perhaps even "stop"? (Relative to what?) Given this, one would expect that the weaponry must have its own propulsion system, once it leaves the field that propels the ship. Has there ever been any mention of such a system? (I remember that the Romulan weaponry had a tracking device.) Note also that the sensors, since they can observe an oncoming FTL object, must transmit FTL information (probably instantaneously). Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
6080733@pucc.BITNET (Gavin Bell) (03/23/86)
Ok, I can't resist adding a few musings on Faster Than Light Stuff: It seems to me a big problem with faster-than-light weapons is not making them go faster than light (if the enterprise can do it, why not them?), but how do you _see_ what you are trying to hit? Weapons couldn't use regular electromagnetic waves to guide them-- they would overtake these waves. I suppose that, if you can hurl ships through space faster than light, then it wouldn't be too tough to scan at faster than faster than light, but.... Another question: How fast did the transporters move objects? Was it instantaneous, or just very fast? I have heard that the TransWarp technology introduced in the last Star Trek flick uses some form of advanced transporter technology to transport the ship across space. Any comments? Seems like a good idea... -Gavin Bell (aka Fred Bear-- Fred Bear has no hair! SCARE Fred Bear!) 6080733@pucc.bitnet
atoy@watnot.UUCP (Andy Toy) (03/24/86)
In article <656@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes: >Note that in the Star Trek universe, FTL is some sort of abnormal state. >"No natural object can travel faster than light!" (I don't remember the >episode.) It strains the engines to _continue_ to travel at warp 10; >they can't just coast. In fact if they turn off the engines, don't they >revert to sublight? Perhaps even "stop"? (Relative to what?) Given >this, one would expect that the weaponry must have its own propulsion >system, once it leaves the field that propels the ship. Has there ever >been any mention of such a system? (I remember that the Romulan weaponry >had a tracking device.) I recall some episodes where the the Enterprise is going *really* fast and they have to reverse engines to slow down. I think one of them is the one where they mix matter and anti-matter *cold* because the engines were shut down and they didn't have time to get them to operating temperature since they were trying to get out of a decaying orbit. -- Andy Toy, Mapping Analysis and Design Group (MAD), Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1 (519) 885-1211 x6592 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | UUCP: ...!watmath!watdcsu!atoy BITNET: atoy at watdcsu | # CSNET: atoy%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet CDN: atoy@dcsu.waterloo.cdn # | ARPA: atoy%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
gardner@rochester.ARPA (Paul Gardner ) (03/27/86)
In article <11652@watnot.UUCP>, atoy@watnot.UUCP (Andy Toy) writes: > I recall some episodes where the the Enterprise is going *really* fast > and they have to reverse engines to slow down. I think one of them is > the one where they mix matter and anti-matter *cold* because the > engines were shut down and they didn't have time to get them to > operating temperature since they were trying to get out of a decaying > orbit. The Naked Time. While I'm here: What is the episode in which our heroes are in a similar situation and Spock is telling Scotty, who is in that slanted engineering tube, "Mr. Scott, you have 3.8 seconds in which to complete the repairs", and Scotty says "Mr. Spock, I don't need a bloomin' cuckoo clock!" Classic line. --------------- Paul C. Gardner UUCP: ..!{allegra,seismo,decvax,cmcl2}!rochester!gardner
atoy@watnot.UUCP (Andy Toy) (03/28/86)
In article <185@hope.UUCP> spock@hope.UUCP (Chris Ambler) writes: >Gentlemen! The issue here is *NOT* FTL!!! The weapons used by the Feds >(and for that matter, all) that travel FTL (phasers are at C) are not >in our space! BTW, can the Enterprise fire phasers while travelling at warp speeds? Also, is it correct that phasers can't be fired while the deflector shields are up. I seem to recall quite a few episodes where the phasers can't be fired because the shields are up (I don't know why they didn't use photon torpedoes instead). Are there any other major limitations to phasers? > Take a look at the explanation of 'warp' speed. The ship >projects a shell of 'otherspace' around it so as to slip into an alternate >space (known, again, as 'otherspace'). When one fires a torpedo, it, too, >is in 'otherspace'. A common tactic for evading a torpedo (I know this >because I am in the porting stage of an advanced starship simulator) is >to drop out of otherspace when you see it coming. It then, goes 'right >through you' (actually, this is a paradox, but it sounds good to describe >it this way). In 'otherspace', C is a different value... I don't recall this tactic ever being used by any ships in Star Trek. Is this space that you call 'otherspace' also known as 'subspace' as mentioned it the series? What are your references of the above? Particularly the torpedo scenario and the "c is a different value" bits. >|-Spock! (Christopher J. Ambler, University of California, Riverside)| -- Andy Toy, Mapping Analysis and Design Group (MAD), Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1 (519) 885-1211 x6592 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | UUCP: ...!watmath!watdcsu!atoy BITNET: atoy at watdcsu | # CSNET: atoy%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet CDN: atoy@dcsu.waterloo.cdn # | ARPA: atoy%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (03/29/86)
In article <417@pucc.BITNET>, 6080733@pucc.BITNET (Gavin Bell) says: >Ok, I can't resist adding a few musings on Faster Than Light Stuff: > >It seems to me a big problem with faster-than-light weapons is not making >them go faster than light (if the enterprise can do it, why not them?), >but how do you _see_ what you are trying to hit? Weapons couldn't use >regular electromagnetic waves to guide them-- they would overtake these >waves. I suppose that, if you can hurl ships through space faster than >light, then it wouldn't be too tough to scan at faster than faster than >light, but.... From what I've gathered from the show/films, the photon torpedoes are "aimed" by the Enterprise. After firing, they're just blind projectiles. As for guided weapons, e.g. plasma torpedoes, I'd guess they use a primitive form of starship sensors-- which can certainly scan at FTL. Anyone else have additional/conflicting info? ------- ------------------ James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE | The Pennsylvania State University | FOR RENT | UUCP Path: ihnp4!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq | Call 555-1723 | ------------------ "I am pleased to see we have differences. May we together become greater than the sum of both of us." -- Surak of Vulcan