Ship size vs. weapons - Page 5

apache · #41 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 · #42 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 · #43 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.

apache · #44 February 1st, 2001, 06:20 AM

Yeah technically nothing can ever be proven. However, there comes a point at which numerous experiments and calculations, etc. consistantly fail to disprove a theory. At this point it becomes a law, and can readily be taken as fact. Gravity is one of those things. Newton's Laws are others.
However, Einstein's theory of relativity simply cannot be tested at this time. So it will stay a theory until disproven or numerous attempts to disprove it consistantly fail. My point is that it simply cannot even be experimented with, so it is a 'pure' theory, based only on mathematical equations.

oleg · #45 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 · #46 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 · #47 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 · #48 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.