Ship size vs. weapons

apache · #1 January 31st, 2001, 08:07 PM

Yep, a ship sure can turn to be able to fire all of its weapons at one target. But, it would take quite a while to do so if it had an inertial propulsion system. A dreadnought trying to aim its rear guns at an escort would have one hell of a hard time. But, again, I always assume a non inertial propulsion system in this game, so yes, they could turn pretty easily to engage with all weapons.
Now, as for Einstein's relativity, well, the fact is that this is all theoretical, not a proven fact. Just because the equations say its so does not mean the equations are valid. I will remind you that they said the exact same thing about the speed of sound, and were proven completely wrong. Yes, the equation used to calculate drag shows that as you approach the speed of sound, drag force goes to infinity. But in practice, there are more complicated effects that no one could predict until they tried and passed the speed of sound.
There is no proof that the light barrier is some ultimate all defeating universal property. The equation is actually identical to the drag equations of long ago. And think about it, if something actually were going faster than light, how could we possibly detect it?
Something else to note is that the speed of light is not a constant. It varies based on the medium it is actually travelling through. Information can definitely travel faster than light. It is possible to slow light down so much that you can actually walk faster than the beam of light.
Another property theoretically claimed by light is that it is massless. But then you have to ask yourself, how is it then affected by gravitational forces?
Now, on to the beam attenuation subject again, a laser beam will not attenuate or lose focus over a significant amount of distance in space. Right now, there are lasers with enough power to vaporize a bulldozer at 1000 yards. In space, you really would not want to get in the way, no matter how far away you are. Less powerful lasers can be used to transmit power to satellites for propulsion or simply powering a few systems on the satellite. This requires pinpoint accuracy by the laser, and it can be done. Now, yes, the beam will attenuate considerably though the atmosphere, but once it gets through the atmosphere, its rate of attenuation is approximately zero since there is nothing to cause attenuation.
Laser light is super focused, and no lenses are even used when making laser light. It is simply by the nature of the reaction itself that lasers are that focused. Also, a laser's power does not depend on how focused it is, it depends on how many photons are travelling in the beam. Basically this means that in the atmosphere, the laser light will attenuate severely as the photons are reflected off or absorbed into the air molecules. In a vacuum, there is nothing to diminish the power of the laser, and so the beam diameter at a long distance, though still almost exactly the same as it was when the laser beam was generated, will still be carrying the same amount of energy that it had when it left. What does it mean? It means that if you fire off a terrawatt of power in a laser in space, you can be sure a terrawatt is going to hit something (and probably blow it up since a terrawatt is a ridiculous amount of power).
Now, one other point to make, none of the beam weapons in the game are using light as their main energy form. They are all using subatomic particles. There is, sadly enough, no laser weapon in the game.
But yes, when it comes down to it, it is a game, and we are all nerds for even trying to explain it realistically.

SunDevil · #2 January 31st, 2001, 08:19 PM

What the else can you say after that post, but damn.

Thanks apache I learned something new today.

jimbob55 · #3 January 31st, 2001, 09:21 PM

quote:
Now, as for Einstein's relativity, well, the fact is that this is all theoretical, not a proven fact.

snip etc.
Um... Drag increasing to infinity is slightly different to mass increasing to infinity. I believe that the increased mass effect has been shown through experimentation. Even if your spaceship managed to hit 99% light speed without hitting anything nasty (like a hydrogen atom) you will need an almost infinite force to accelerate that extra few metres per second. The answer to drag was to create very pointy things which brush aside the medium (air). The only way round lightspeed barrier is either a shortcut (wormhole or suchlike) or hyperdrive (something that pushes space out of the way, positive gravitational curvature generator or suchlike) Neither of these devices has been widely used in the real world.

quote:
Laser light is super focussed

Incorrect. Laser light is very high number of photons / cubic area with waveform 'in phase'. There is beam attenuation over distance because even the longest lasing chamber will not produce a completely cylindrical beam. Even a few moments of a degree of diVersion at the emitting end of your 3 mile long lasing chamber will produce a bit of attenuation. With a Terrawatt laser, it doesn't matter too much if you're shooting at something within say one Astronomical unit. Anything outside that distance and you end up with beam attenuation because of the sheer volume of emptiness you're shooting through. (1 particle per cubic km isn't much when you need to breathe, but it adds up to a lot over 4.2 light years)

It's just a game...it's just a game...Oh damnit, which part is just a game and which is reality....MEDIC!!

Daynarr · #4 January 31st, 2001, 10:01 PM

Well, after Barnacle Bill posted a link to Starfire homepage, I paid it a visit and there I found an explanation of the drive system used there. Since Starfire inspires SE series, that explanation might work here too.
To see explanation go here: http://www.starfiredesign.com/starfire

apache · #5 February 1st, 2001, 12:54 AM

Again, I will say that relativity is unproven. Nothing manmade has ever traveled to any significant portion of the speed of light, and if you want to believe it as fact, thats fine, but the truth is that it has never been proven absolutly.
Yes, a laser does attenuate over distance, (I thought I already conceded that in my Last post), but over the tactical combat distances in the game, and in a total vacuum, attenuation is extremely small, almost negligeable, and you are still going to get 99.99999999999% of all the laser energy to the target since it will not likely encounter many particles to reflect a significant amount of energy within that distance.
Since most beam weapons don't reach out farther than a range of 8, and about 3 spaces seem to be the diameter of an earth-sized planet, we can assume that the range of those range 8 weapons is about 32000 kilometers (less than a tenth of the distance from the earth to the moon). I hope we can agree that over this distance, in a vacuum, beam attenuation of a megawatt (much less powerful than my previously mentioned terrawatt laser) or greater laser is going to be small, and probably will be able to damage/kill something quite easily.

BKrani · #6 February 1st, 2001, 01:11 AM

quote:
Originally posted by apache:
Again, I will say that relativity is unproven.

This is true in the sence that a quite a number of scientific discoveries fall into the Category of things that cannot be proven, only disproven. However, so many of our current (and provable) understandings of the universe around us are based on these unprovable theories now. It might be that at some time in the future, they are disproven - and a whole branch of human understanding comes crashing to the ground - but at the moment, they are largely agreed upon.

quote:
Nothing manmade has ever traveled to any significant portion of the speed of light.

Except man-made light. I understand that quite a few experiments were made measuring the effects of gravitational structures on the speed of light and the passing of time (two related issues).

However, I have to admit that I am not a physisist (I used to have a friend who worked with me in the accounts dept. as a general lackey - who was currently completing a doctorate in physics. Unfortunately we lost him to the SETI programme. Really) and can't fully comment on these ideas.

Cheers.

[This message has been edited by BKrani (edited 31 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by BKrani (edited 31 January 2001).]

Tomgs · #7 February 1st, 2001, 03:29 AM

quote:
Originally posted by apache:
Again, I will say that relativity is unproven.

Thats why they call it a theory. All of science is theories none of it is proven as far as I know and is subject to change with new evidence. Relativity is a theory and so is gravity and molecular bonding. Its just the way we explain things that happen to fit the evidence that we so far have gathered. That is not to say some things aren't more likely to be true than others. Relativity is like all other theories subject to changes and additions as evidence is found from tests and the universe around us. I would not doubt that there are many things that we do not know about this area now. I know it will be tested from many angles many times in the future and more will be learned.