NationStates Jolt Archive

AONNN:

"With the occasional Terran "Mothership Project" (which ultametly always fails), the Atlantian people have felt threatened. Therefore, the government has desided to create its own mothership. Diverting a large amount of its annual budget, the largest ship ever concived by the Atlantian people will dwarf even the Titan class Battle cruser. Although details about the vessle are still unknown to the general public, the Senate has released a pic of what the ship will look like:
http://www.freewebs.com/atlantian_outcasts/Olympian.JPG
This ship is xpected to be compleated in 6 months time (Real Time). The Olympian class Mothership is so large, it will be unable to be built in a shipyard. Therefore, different parts will be assembled in shipyards, then attached in orbit. For now, we will all just have to sit back, and wait"

OOC/IC: Adejaani requests this thing be built as far away from Earth as possible as there is enough debris in orbit obscuring the sun already. :P

OOC/IC: Adejaani requests this thing be built as far away from Earth as possible as there is enough debris in orbit obscuring the sun already. :P

We're not on Earth. We're in a cluster of stars on the other side of the galaxy. A wormhole connects us and your side of the Galaxy (the wormhole is located in Sol's Kuper belt)

bump
*is suprised that no one cares about an uberly-powerful ship*

*bump*
the ship's look has been updated

good god people. REPLY!

Fine, but don't blame me in 6 months when my mothership blocks out the sun over your nation.
....wait...you can, nvmd.

OOC: Just to let you know, it's true that no-one cares about an uberly-powerful ship. Why? Because it seems everyone and their second cousin have uberly-powerful ships. Thus people are pretty apathetic about it.

Now if you were to make some drastic or at least interesting research tech breakthrough in terms of ship design, physics, construction and all that, you may peak some interest. Just a heads-up as to what i'm thinking on it.

I'd make an IC comment, but I'm modern. Nice concept though. Good idea putting it together like a puzzle. Maybe make it so certain parts can be jetizined if there is something threatening the rest of the ship on that piece.

Hellberd Science minister,

You don't even know if the worm theory works never mind breaking Einstein's laws of the universe being transported to another point in the cosmos then entering a quantum singularity! Even if you manage that theirs a high probablitiy you'll be crush to an infinitly small size and never spat out again. Either your building a weopon threatening Hellberd's national interests (and I'll have to inform the Prime Minister). Or your just plain stupid! Which? :?

Hellberd Science minister,

You don't even know if the worm theory works never mind breaking Einstein's laws of the universe being transported to another point in the cosmos then entering a quantum singularity! Even if you manage that theirs a high probablitiy you'll be crush to an infinitly small size and never spat out again. Either your building a weopon threatening Hellberd's national interests (and I'll have to inform the Prime Minister). Or your just plain stupid! Which? :?

I have no clue what you just said, so here's a sarcastic smily: :roll:

Sakkara: figures. Damn.

OOC: Tell you what. In Sslaa 5 (9.4 ly from Sol) we have a hollow moon that we built several shipyards in, and use for zero-G research as well as designing new ships. It's heavily defended, of course, but you could start an RP about taking an existing ship model, and doing some joint research to make it lighter, or more maneuverable or to miniaturize everything. Your call on that. It could even be a summit of some sort!

That's no moon! It's a space station!Oh, wait. It is a moon.

http://www.5amfunnies.com/sakkra/space/Vubz.JPG

Atlantian Outcasts: He is basically saying that transportation by going through a miniature black hole at supernaturally high speeds is not possible. Not only is that irrelevant to what this thread is about, but has nothing to do with your nation's security. Don't go calling people stupid and backing up the statement with irrelevant theories.

But the worm theory is indeed flawed. It is based on the assumption a black hole is what it's name implies: a hole. It is actually a point in the universe where gravity is supernaturally strong. If you go at it fast enough to bypass the gravity's crushing effects, then you just get splattered all over the matter that got sucked into it over the years. If absolutely nothing got sucked in beforehand, you would just go though and be at the opposite end of the black hole from which you started.

Here's an interesting concept for the ship itself relevant to the post: imagine if it were able to target a specific location anywhere with a certain range, assuming no large obstacles were in the way, like spacecraft or planets. No imagine if it were able to launch a quantum singularity (the mni black hole) in a specialized stasis field to that point. Now imagine that the ship has a similiar field. The fields generate a gravitational grappling hook from the singularity which is controlled and focused by the fields, and the ship gets sent to the point of the singularity in an instant, no matter the distance. So long as it is within range.

Maybe your capitol ship could use that.

Could you post some specs, AO?

I want to compare your mothership with my flagship, an Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer.

OOC: In reality, Muktar, you don't know much about a black hole as there is nothing to know - no one knows what is at the center of one or anything, so you can spout theories all you want - it's all open for debate *shrug*

\|/
But the worm theory is indeed flawed. It is based on the assumption a black hole is what it's name implies: a hole. It is actually a point in the universe where gravity is supernaturally strong. If you go at it fast enough to bypass the gravity's crushing effects, then you just get splattered all over the matter that got sucked into it over the years. If absolutely nothing got sucked in beforehand, you would just go though and be at the opposite end of the black hole from which you started.

Well, any space travle theory is flawed.

Anyway, the only wormhole I use is the one connecting my cluster and Sol. Everything else is by Jump Nodes (Phudo Wormholes). ANd a wormhole is not a black hole. A Wormhole is a connection of two weak points in spacetime.

Also, the other side of the galaxy was an exatteration. My cluster is actuly on the other side of a dust cloud, keeping people on earth from seeing it.

Sakkara: no thanks, I got a few more ideas.

TF: here ya go (it may be edited in the days to come)

Uber Low Maneuverability
500 Obelisk Fighters
10 Barracuda Destroyers
75 Orcalic Phasers
100 Plasma Cannons
25 Polaron Wave Turrets
Sheilds/Ablative Armor
10,000 Total Personnel

OOC:But the worm theory is indeed flawed. It is based on the assumption a black hole is what it's name implies: a hole. It is actually a point in the universe where gravity is supernaturally strong. If you go at it fast enough to bypass the gravity's crushing effects, then you just get splattered all over the matter that got sucked into it over the years. If absolutely nothing got sucked in beforehand, you would just go though and be at the opposite end of the black hole from which you started.If nothing got sucked in beforehand, it wouldn't be there to run into. And speed won't keep from getting stretched (not crushed) apart. Now, if you could find or manufacture a /rotating/ blackhole, on the other hand, then you /do/ have the potential to use it as something similar to a wormhole, although you'll have a heckuva time trying to predict where it'll spit you out.
Unless, of course, this happens to be a blackhole that was formed not from the collapse of a star but from unbalanced transfer of matter through what was previously a stable wormhole.... in which case it doesn't have to be rotating, and you'll be able to predict where you'll be spat out, but you'll still have to deal with high tide and won't have a snowball's chance in the Sahara of getting back.

But a black hone isn't a wormhole. A wormhole are 2 weak points in spacetime, that are connected. Thus, it truly is a "hole"

Just to clear something up:
There is no such thing as a "mini black hole".

A black hole operates because it is so dense that its gravitational pull exceeds the ability of any matter to escape it, even light. For instance a neutron star, which is created from a much smaller, hundreds of thousands of times smaller, star than a black hole is so dense that a spoonful weighs an inconceivably huge amount. A black hole is denser. The pull it exerts, due to the fact that its density is so great that its constantly pulling itself, and the surrounding space into a ever shrinking area, is totally inescapable. (Note: To go faster than the speed of light is impossible, get over it. You can't go faster than a wavelength of the REM, its just not possible). There is no "hole". The hole only refers to the fact that the black hole, by virtue of its light capturing ability, is impossible to directly see, only its effects are visible. A ship passing by, if it was within range, would be inescapably trapped, and crushed into the black hole. Anything that was out of range would still have a massive pull on it, likely tearing the ship to shreds.

Furthermore, there is no way to set up a "stasis field" around a black hole. Its an ultra-dense object, so dense that it pulls all surrounding matter into itself, making it more dense, and more powerful. You cannot block that effect. As Halberd said, its impossible. If you don't understand how it works, don't talk about it, because it means that you can't justify anything you do.

Finally, worm holes as "Trekkies" view them, have no evidence of existing, and no theoretical explanation, as black holes did before they were proven to exist and identified. The fact is a massive hole in the universe, quite literally a vacuum connecting to places through unknown dimensions, is flabbergastingly foolish and flamboyently ignorant to use. The very idea makes no sense in even the most cutting edge of sciences, even superstring's secondary dimensions have no ability to explain anything like that.

For more information please read up on almost anything regarding black holes, and in the interest of at least getting some slight knowledge I'd recommend the book Flatterland which goes over some of the most cutting-edge mathematics of today in a very simplistic form. Maybe then these kind of stupid things would stop happening.

Finally, worm holes as "Trekkies" view them, have no evidence of existing, and no theoretical explanation

well, there are theorys that they may exist, but yes, no solid evidence. But so what? This is fiction anyways. Dousn't matter if your ship fits in all the right physics rules. It's an RP. Its ment to be fun, not a sciance lesson.

Yeah, but technology or anomaly without explanation makes an Rp feeble, whereas one with insight and logic backing it is impressive.

Yeah, but technology or anomaly without explanation makes an Rp feeble, whereas one with insight and logic backing it is impressive.

A wormhole is two weak points in space time connecting together. It may not have scientific backing, but it is explained.

Actually, current research suggests that there ARE "mini" black holes of quantum size, remnants of the immense energy densities produced shortly after the Big Bang.

And there are in fact at least several energy configurations that can produce wormholes; in addition, experiment has verified the existence of quantum wormholes. Obviously, they are far too small to fly a ship through (and current theory suggests that they would collapse catastrophically if entered), but wormholes DO have a basis in mathematics and do not explicitly defy the laws of physics. That they do not seem to exist in nature is not a proof against their possibility--neither does steel.

However, that noted, it's still worth pointing out that the technology represented by this RP is pretty much crap.

However, that noted, it's still worth pointing out that the technology represented by this RP is pretty much crap.

Well, no shit. I based my space travel tech off a game (Freespace 2). I doubt it would be sciantificly accuret.

Just to clear something up:
There is no such thing as a "mini black hole".
[explanation of high density]First, see what Gamma-12 said. Size does not put any limits on density. It just so happens that the only confirmed natural blackholes are supermassive because all that mass is needed to produce the strong gravity that compresses it into a blackhole. But there's no reason to suppose that even a single atom couldn't be compressed into a quantum blackhole- it would just require a lot of energy and gravity wouldn't be involved in the compression.

For instance a neutron star, which is created from a much smaller, hundreds of thousands of times smaller, star than a black hole is so dense that a spoonful weighs an inconceivably huge amount. Hundreds of thousands? I beg to differ. There is a fine line between what will make a neutron star and what will continue collapsing into a blackhole.

Its an ultra-dense object, so dense that it pulls all surrounding matter into itself, making it more dense, and more powerful.I'll admit right now that this is nitpicking, but.... a blackhole has infinite density, and therefore cannot become more dense. It can become more massive, giving it higher gravity a larger event horizon.

A side note: tidal forces diminish as the blackhole gets larger. A lower-end hole would tear you apart long before you got to the event horizon. A supermassive hole, however, wouldn't tear you apart until you were well within the event horizon. You might not even realize that you were crossing the horizon save for the wacky gravitational lensing effects.

Finally, worm holes as "Trekkies" view them, have no evidence of existing, and no theoretical explanation, as black holes did before they were proven to exist and identified. The fact is a massive hole in the universe, quite literally a vacuum connecting to places through unknown dimensions, is flabbergastingly foolish and flamboyently ignorant to use. The very idea makes no sense in even the most cutting edge of sciences, even superstring's secondary dimensions have no ability to explain anything like that.Maybe not as trekkies view them, but wormholes in general do have plenty of theoretical explanations, and numerous proposals have been made for how to find them. They are perfectly workable under the terms of general relativity. The most well-known constructions are the Morris-Thorne (or Morris-Thorne-Yurtsever) and Visser wormholes, the former of which could theoretically occur naturally and the latter of which could be only come about by artificial construction.

A wormhole is two weak points in space time connecting together. It may not have scientific backing, but it is explained. Not quite. Spacetime has no "weak points". A wormhole is more accurately and generically described as a section of space that provides a shorter path between two points that are separated in normal spacetime.

A wormhole is two weak points in space time connecting together. It may not have scientific backing, but it is explained. Not quite. Spacetime has no "weak points". A wormhole is more accurately and generically described as a section of space that provides a shorter path between two points that are separated in normal spacetime.

I beg to differ. I have read several books that entertain the subject. Then agian, both theorys are just that--theorys.

Just to clear something up:
There is no such thing as a "mini black hole".
[explanation of high density]First, see what Gamma-12 said. Size does not put any limits on density. It just so happens that the only confirmed natural blackholes are supermassive because all that mass is needed to produce the strong gravity that compresses it into a blackhole. But there's no reason to suppose that even a single atom couldn't be compressed into a quantum blackhole- it would just require a lot of energy and gravity wouldn't be involved in the compression.

For instance a neutron star, which is created from a much smaller, hundreds of thousands of times smaller, star than a black hole is so dense that a spoonful weighs an inconceivably huge amount. Hundreds of thousands? I beg to differ. There is a fine line between what will make a neutron star and what will continue collapsing into a blackhole.

Its an ultra-dense object, so dense that it pulls all surrounding matter into itself, making it more dense, and more powerful.I'll admit right now that this is nitpicking, but.... a blackhole has infinite density, and therefore cannot become more dense. It can become more massive, giving it higher gravity a larger event horizon.

A side note: tidal forces diminish as the blackhole gets larger. A lower-end hole would tear you apart long before you got to the event horizon. A supermassive hole, however, wouldn't tear you apart until you were well within the event horizon. You might not even realize that you were crossing the horizon save for the wacky gravitational lensing effects.

Finally, worm holes as "Trekkies" view them, have no evidence of existing, and no theoretical explanation, as black holes did before they were proven to exist and identified. The fact is a massive hole in the universe, quite literally a vacuum connecting to places through unknown dimensions, is flabbergastingly foolish and flamboyently ignorant to use. The very idea makes no sense in even the most cutting edge of sciences, even superstring's secondary dimensions have no ability to explain anything like that.Maybe not as trekkies view them, but wormholes in general do have plenty of theoretical explanations, and numerous proposals have been made for how to find them. They are perfectly workable under the terms of general relativity. The most well-known constructions are the Morris-Thorne (or Morris-Thorne-Yurtsever) and Visser wormholes, the former of which could theoretically occur naturally and the latter of which could be only come about by artificial construction.

A wormhole is two weak points in space time connecting together. It may not have scientific backing, but it is explained. Not quite. Spacetime has no "weak points". A wormhole is more accurately and generically described as a section of space that provides a shorter path between two points that are separated in normal spacetime.
First of all, Gamma12 is patently wrong. Current research suggests that true black holes require massive amounts of matter to be created. Gravity is seemingly a side-effect of density+mass in current research. The reason a black hole is so powerful is that its gravitational pull constantly makes it denser, and thereby increases its pull which pulls in more matter, and it just keeps continuing.

The "remnant" black holes Gamma 12 is referring to are something patently different. They are thought to be large clumps of matter that never truly broke apart, and thereby formed things like galaxies. They don't function as true blackholes because they are isolated from other galaxies, and thereby they cannot increase their strength.

As for wormholes, I again repeat, there is no research indicating that it is possible to create any kind of hole between two points in space. Nothing even vaguely points to this as possible. Again, even extra-dimensional theory such as superstring puts wormholes as an impossibility.

The whole "quantum wormhole" theory bases itself off of dark matter, and I won't even get into that debate, as that just brings in superstring, etc.

Oh, and a blackhole doesn't technically have "infinite" density. That is classically viewed as impossible. Rather its eliminating any spacing between matter, in a way that we as yet have no possible way of measuring.

I beg to differ. I have read several books that entertain the subject. Then agian, both theorys are just that--theorys.What, precisely, is the definition of a "weak point" in those sources? The disagreement may be a simple matter of semantics, but otherwise I'd like to see what there is to be said about the subject. In any case, the general definition of a wormhole remains intact.

First of all, Gamma12 is patently wrong. Current research suggests that true black holes require massive amounts of matter to be created.Two words: Hadron Collider. Some current research indicates that large masses may be required. Other current research indicates that it may not be. Knowing which theories are correct will have to wait for more information, but to completely rule out micro-blackholes before that information is available is irresponsible.
Gravity is seemingly a side-effect of density+mass in current research. The reason a black hole is so powerful is that its gravitational pull constantly makes it denser, and thereby increases its pull which pulls in more matter, and it just keeps continuing.Increasing density has no effect on gravity. Only mass affects gravity.
The "remnant" black holes Gamma 12 is referring to are something patently different. They are thought to be large clumps of matter that never truly broke apart, and thereby formed things like galaxies. They don't function as true blackholes because they are isolated from other galaxies, and thereby they cannot increase their strength. Then, by your definition, a blackhole only "counts" if it is actively sucking in matter. That's a question of semantics, and I refuse to argue the definitions of words.
As for wormholes, I again repeat, there is no research indicating that it is possible to create any kind of hole between two points in space. Nothing even vaguely points to this as possible. Again, even extra-dimensional theory such as superstring puts wormholes as an impossibility.And I repeat, check out the work of Kip Thorne, Michael Morris, Uri Yertsever, Matt Visser, Chris van den Broeck, Krasnikov, Novikov, and many others whose names at this time escape me. Wormholes are actually /required/ as solutions to general relativity applied to black holes, as shown by Einstein, Nathan Rosen, Wheeler, and Kerr. Similarly to the formation of micro-blackholes in the early moments of the Big Bang, it has also been theorized by David Hochberg and Thomas Kephart that the extreme curvature of spacetime could've given rise to regions of negative energy density in which quantum wormholes would've naturally expanded and self-stabilized. And even if macroscale wormholes are somehow proved impossible, quantum wormholes have been accepted for quite some time.
The whole "quantum wormhole" theory bases itself off of dark matter, and I won't even get into that debate, as that just brings in superstring, etc.Exotic matter. That's quite different from dark matter.

I beg to differ. I have read several books that entertain the subject. Then agian, both theorys are just that--theorys.What, precisely, is the definition of a "weak point" in those sources? The disagreement may be a simple matter of semantics, but otherwise I'd like to see what there is to be said about the subject. In any case, the general definition of a wormhole remains intact.

Ya...you'd have to ask me during the school months....when I have access to the school library. Sorries :wink:

Sorry, please let me give my two cents to this:

All Space/Future tech in NS is undoable by today's standards. Repeat, today's standards. Please remember that what we take for granted today (computers, microwaves, televisions, satellites, internet etc) could only be imagined fifty years ago.

Question the technology not for the technology of even twenty years ago has been eclipsed today. What is 'science fiction' of today may be proved right or wrong tomorrow, or ten years, or a hundred or never.

Space/Future tech in NS 'is'. We simply do not have the brainpower or the advanced knowledge to know how it works.

So when you criticise future/space tech... Do so on the basis of "is it too grossly powerful? Could your ships instantaneously cross the universe and get out immediately?"

AO has a few significant hurdles. For example, the wormholes he use are anchored around planets. His ships are limited to sublight otherwise. Blockade and destroy the wormhole, his ships are trapped forever. That to me sounds like good application of "what could" in a realistic manner.

I'll conclude by repeating my first two sentences: All Space/Future tech in NS is undoable by today's standards. Repeat, today's standards.

Thank you.

Alright, thank you, Adej

And your request for a trade route has been confirmed. I shall send you Orcalic, and the tech needed for converting it into a weapon, and You supply me with Steel for the Mothership

Yes, the first convoys of transports containing steel are departing earth orbit now and should be within AO territory in a few days.

Hehe my Eclipse is stronger. :P

Hehe my Eclipse is stronger. :P

Then I guess I'll just have to make it stronger.

Now that's a cool ship, AO. We of Letila certainly don't have that.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

"First of all, Gamma12 is patently wrong. Current research suggests that true black holes require massive amounts of matter to be created."

Spoken like someone who has done no "current research" of their own.

"The reason a black hole is so powerful is that its gravitational pull constantly makes it denser, and thereby increases its pull which pulls in more matter, and it just keeps continuing."

Not at all. Black holes are a function of density, not mass. Any object could theoretically be made into a black hole with enough energy supporting the process.

"The "remnant" black holes Gamma 12 is referring to are something patently different. They are thought to be large clumps of matter that never truly broke apart, and thereby formed things like galaxies. They don't function as true blackholes because they are isolated from other galaxies, and thereby they cannot increase their strength."


You didn't understand my post at all. What I am referring to are quantum-sized black holes which formed during the immense plasma densities immediately following the Big Bang. They are not "large clumps of matter" at all. The sheer energy density tossing around at less than a second after the Big Bang is enough to produce small black holes at the atomic scale or smaller.

"The whole "quantum wormhole" theory bases itself off of dark matter, and I won't even get into that debate, as that just brings in superstring, etc."

Translation: "I'm not equipped to talk about this on a technical level, so I'm going to avoid it."