johnw@astroatc.UUCP (John F. Wardale) (03/18/86)
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 (possibly metal cased)
matter/anti-matter bombs, energy-partical bundles, lasers, phasers,
or any other weopon while they're going at warp speed? (ie FTL?)
....ok, so if you can do ftl, you can do anything you want to do...
--
John W
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Name: John F. Wardale
UUCP: ... {seismo | harvard | ihnp4} !uwvax!astroatc!johnw
arpa: astroatc!johnw@rsch.wisc.edu
snail: 5800 Cottage Gr. Rd. ;;; Madison WI 53716
audio: 608-221-9001 eXt 110
To err is human, to really foul up world news requires the net!polish@garfield.columbia.edu (Nathaniel Polish) (03/19/86)
As I recall, Nomad was firing torps at some VERY high warp speed. So it seems the weapon speeds are finite but very fast (ftl). sorry--I am a physics type.
MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (03/20/86)
In article <313@astroatc.UUCP>, johnw@astroatc.UUCP (John F. Wardale) says: >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 (possibly metal cased) >matter/anti-matter bombs, energy-partical bundles, lasers, phasers, >or any other weopon while they're going at warp speed? (ie FTL?) > > John W As far as the actual scientific reasons, I won't attempt any guesses. However, if there's technology to move a whole ship at warp speed, it seems reasonable to assume that a small metal canister could be moved FTL just as easily. The simple fact of FTL ships implies matching weapons; in fact, such weapons were probably developed BEFORE the ships. (I may be wrong on this as far as the official chonologies, but consider the fact that any weapon MUST be faster than its potential target to be effective.) There's probably someone out there with the Starfleet Tech Manual or some other source that can supply a good semi-scientific explanation for starship weaponry; he/she can take it from here. ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE | | The Pennsylvania State University | FOR RENT | | | | | UUCP Path: ihnp4!psuvax1!miq@psuvma.bitnet | Call 555-6821 | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am pleased to see we have differences. May we together become greater than the sum of both of us." -- Surak of Vulcan
mnw@trwrba.UUCP (Michael N. Washington) (03/20/86)
In article <1421@garfield.columbia.edu> polish@garfield.UUCP (Nathaniel Polish) writes: >As I recall, Nomad was firing torps at some VERY high warp speed. >So it seems the weapon speeds are finite but very fast (ftl). > >sorry--I am a physics type. I believe Nomad fired it's torps at warp 15, so the big E could not outrun them. "Live Long and Prosper!" Michael N. Washington TRW E&DS Redondo Beach, Ca. 90278 {ucbvax,decvax,hplabs}!trwrb!trwrba!mnw
buchbind@agrigene.UUCP (03/22/86)
> > 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 (possibly metal cased) > matter/anti-matter bombs, energy-partical bundles, lasers, phasers, > or any other weopon while they're going at warp speed? (ie FTL?) If a starship can travel at warp speed and still interact with the sub-light-speed universe, why question how a photon torpedo can be fired? Other questions: If a photon torpedo travels faster than the speed of light, why is it a PHOTON torpedo? If a photon torpedo is a matter/antimatter bomb, why call it a photon torpedo? Rather call it a mass-anihilation bomb or antimatter torpedo. Since most everything in the galaxy is made of matter, why include matter in antimatter bombs? -- Barry Buchbinder (608)221-5000 Agrigenetics Corporation; 5649 East Buckeye Road; Madison WI 53716 USA {{harvard|topaz|seismo}!uwvax!|decvax|ihnp4}!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/23/86)
> Since most everything in the galaxy is made of matter, why >include matter in antimatter bombs? Deflector shields, etc... aren't made of matter (or antimatter). You want the torpedo to explode without having to physically contact the ship it's aimed at. -- Kenneth Arromdee | | BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM, INS_AKAA at JHUVMS -|------|- CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET -|------|- ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA -|------|- UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} -|------|- !jhunix!ins_akaa | |
MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (03/23/86)
In article <305@agrigene.UUCP>, buchbind@agrigene.UUCP says: > Since most everything in the galaxy is made of matter, why >include matter in antimatter bombs? Beacause space is largely vacuum. There's too little matter in space for a decent amount of the antimatter to react with (i.e., not a big enough boom). Even if the bomb struck the ship itself (which would only happen if the shields were completely gone), there would still be a pretty small concentration of the stuff making contact with the surface of the ship. ------- ------------------ 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
tainter@ihlpg.UUCP (Tainter) (03/24/86)
> 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 (possibly metal cased) > matter/anti-matter bombs, energy-partical bundles, lasers, phasers, > or any other weopon while they're going at warp speed? (ie FTL?) > Name: John F. Wardale Projectiles are no problem. They are already travelling FTL accelerating a tiny bit faster than yourself is easy. Energy weaopns not on the projectile level have a more serious problem. I not only cannot justify weapons of this type, I can't even justify using energy at these speeds. How do you see anything when you travel faster than the light? --j.a.tainter Once upon a time in a starship far far away there was a five year mission..
MW9@PSUVM.BITNET (03/25/86)
In article <305@agrigene.UUCP>, buchbind@agrigene.UUCP says: > Since most everything in the galaxy is made of matter, why >include matter in antimatter bombs? Ok, for matter/anti-matter to explode they must be opposite "images" of the same thing. Like, matter-x will only explode when it comes in contact with anti-matter-x. Anti-matter-y and matter-x can romp around forever. At least, this is how I understand it. I could be wrong. Then again, maybe not. ------- "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.) *>
kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (03/26/86)
In article <4639MW9@PSUVM> MW9@PSUVM.BITNET (Michael S. Weiss) writes: >In article <305@agrigene.UUCP>, buchbind@agrigene.UUCP says: >>Since most everything in the galaxy is made of matter, why >>include matter in antimatter bombs? > >Ok, for matter/anti-matter to explode they must be opposite "images" >of the same thing. Like, matter-x will only explode when it comes >in contact with anti-matter-x. Anti-matter-y and matter-x can romp >around forever. At least, this is how I understand it. I could be >wrong. Then again, maybe not. I believe this is hogwash as far as real physics is concerned, and I think ST normally handles antimatter physics correctly. (Didn't they use pure antimatter against the giant amoeba in _The Immunity Syndrome_?) But in _The Alternative Factor_, I think they used the "opposite image" idea -- one of the Lazari was antimatter, but but could exist in our matter universe as long as he never met his couterpart. Of course, one might note that the universe didn't collapse when his first breathful of matter-air contacted the residual antimatter-air at the bottom of his lungs...
pritch@osu-eddie.UUCP (Norman Pritchett) (03/26/86)
In article <2324@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes: >> Since most everything in the galaxy is made of matter, why >>include matter in antimatter bombs? > >Deflector shields, etc... aren't made of matter (or antimatter). You want >the torpedo to explode without having to physically contact the ship it's >aimed at. >-- >Kenneth Arromdee | | Additionally, if the torpedo misses you won't want a lot of antimatter floating free waiting for the next unsuspecting ship to happen across. -- Norm Pritchett, The Ohio State University BITNET: TS1703 at OHSTVMA Bellnet: (614) 422-0885 UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!pritch CSNET: pritch@ohio-state ARPANET: NPRITCHETT%osu-20@ohio-state (or) pritch@ohio-state
buchbind@agrigene.UUCP (03/26/86)
> > consider the fact that any weapon MUST > be faster than its potential target to be effective. It's also generally useful for a projectile to travel faster than the weapons platform that carries it. -- Barry Buchbinder (608)221-5000 Agrigenetics Corporation; 5649 East Buckeye Road; Madison WI 53716 USA {{harvard|topaz|seismo}!uwvax!|decvax|ihnp4}!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind
spock@hope.UUCP (Chris Ambler) (03/27/86)
> If a starship can travel at warp speed and still interact with > the sub-light-speed universe, why question how a photon torpedo can be > fired? A starship in warp speed can only interact with the sub-light universe through radio (subspace, etc.). THAT'S *IT* > Other questions: > If a photon torpedo travels faster than the speed of light, why > is it a PHOTON torpedo? It is a Photon torpedo because it uses a Photon guidance system. > If a photon torpedo is a matter/antimatter bomb, why call it a > photon torpedo? Rather call it a mass-anihilation bomb or antimatter > torpedo. ABOVE... > Since most everything in the galaxy is made of matter, why > include matter in antimatter bombs? Because space is big, and a few hydrogen atoms per kilometre don't make for a very big boom. -Spock! (Christopher J. Ambler, University of California, Riverside) -"Captain, I see no reason to bother Starfleet..."
spinner@caip.RUTGERS.EDU (Spinner) (03/29/86)
>> If a photon torpedo travels faster than the speed of light, why >> is it a PHOTON torpedo? >It is a Photon torpedo because it uses a Photon guidance system. >> If a photon torpedo is a matter/antimatter bomb, why call it a >> photon torpedo? Rather call it a mass-anihilation bomb or antimatter >> torpedo. As I understand it, a matter/antimatter reaction gives off most of its energy in gamma radiation (i.e. high energy photons of light). Hence the name photon torpedo... Ron Spinner (Spinner@caip.rutgers.edu)