Ship size vs. weapons

oleg · #1 February 1st, 2001, 04:25 PM

______________
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.
_______________

apache, how about particle accelerators ? proton beams travel there at 0.99 of speed of light and behave in a full and complete
accordance with the theory of relativity.
In fact, Einstein theory is probably the most proven theory in science right now, no doubt about that.

Cheers, Oleg.

E. Albright · #2 February 1st, 2001, 07:03 PM

quote:
Originally posted by apache:
But then again, a ship moving with 30 Gs of acceleration puts a force on the crew roughly equivalent to getting hit by a car going 70 mph. On the other hand, its safe to make the assumption that the propulsion systems in the game are based on non-inertial principles, so the crew would not feel a thing if the ship could move that fast

Actually, what BKrani was saying re: computers doing most of the work in combat makes me think he's going w/ a combat model similar to Haldman's (sp?) The Forever War; the crews of ships would go lay in funky acceleration creches, get pumped full of wierd chemicals, and spend several weeks in wet storage w/ an increased body mass/density (<-???<-I can't remember) while their computer jinxed the ship hither, thither, and yon to dodge all the fun treats the other guys' ship was throwing at it (while throwing its own junk back, of course).

apache · #3 February 2nd, 2001, 01:01 AM

I know there are experiments supporting special relativity. However, general relativity does not assume light is some ultimate speed, nor does it assume that it is a constant speed. Furthermore, there have been experiments in quantum mechanics that show quantum tunneling effects can move a particle faster than light speed. Also, there are some big problems with assuming that going faster than light speed results in going back in time. The big thing is how do you actually go back in time?
My final point is that just because 2+2=4 does not mean that 7-3 does not equal 4, nor does it mean that -i*4i does not also equal 4. My point is that just because the experiments support special relativity does not mean that they cannot support another different theory that is inherrently different than special relativity.

BKrani · #4 February 2nd, 2001, 01:47 AM

quote:
Originally posted by ealbright:
Actually, what BKrani was <snip> makes me think he's going w/ a combat model similar to Haldman's (sp?) The Forever War

I haven't actually read that one. Joe HGaldeman? maybe? What come probably a little closer is the Night's Dawn trilogy by Peter Hamilton. VERY good series - currently my favorite. A must read for believable high-tech cultures.

quote:
the crews of ships would go lay in funky acceleration creches, get pumped full of wierd chemicals, and spend several weeks in wet storage while their computer jinxed the ship hither

Absolutely!
Space Combat (IMO) is not the stately, gracefull process of our current naval combat (assuming of course that you have the option of accelerating at these levels). If pushing your body's limits that much further through high-G's improves your survival/offensive chances, then push as hard as you can. This opinion is largely based on what I've seen of modern day fighter combat. Pilots not only have to have split-second reflexes and keen analytical minds, but need to be enourmously fit to be able to withstand the forces their bodies are put through. I mean, they 'could' take it easy on them selves, but the pilot pulling 2Gs is likely to be run under by the pilot pulling 9Gs. For as long as the mind is a required component of the war engine, it's likely that the body enclosing that mind will be pushed to it's limit, and that the bodies G-limit is likely to be the main limiting factor in manuverability.