NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings.

The following is the second half of the original Law of Space proposal. It is now also under 3200 characters in length.

======

Preamble:

We of Roathin, recognising the difficulty of maintaining the peaceful use of space and the inhibitory effect of this difficulty on physical transactions across that vast domain, submit the following draft proposal for critique before the merciless, kindly or otherwise perceptive examination of our peers, the august assembly of the NSUN.

The proposal below resolves to establish a legal framework for defining regions of free space, even causing to exist such regions where none currently exist, and thus promoting free trade by extending the area in which it might be carried out.
======

Draft Proposal: The NSUN 'Law of Space' Resolution on Regions of Free Space
Proposer: Roathin
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant


A resolution to promote free trade through defining regions of free space, and causing such regions to exist even if not currently in existence, thus extending the area in which such trade might take place.

=====
RECOGNISING the difficulty of maintaining the peaceful use of space and the inhibitory effect of this difficulty on physical transactions across that vast domain;

CONCERNED THAT the free passage of peaceful craft might be forcibly terminated, or that the passage of peaceful sentient beings might be ended through the automatic exercise of sovereign territorial claims, application of deadly force or other means contrary to the principles of the NSUN;

The NSUN resolves that

1 A region of three-dimensional space (‘3DS’) free to travel between two or more bodies be established as follows:

1.1 Where a region of 3DS exists such that it does not impinge on the above claims, it remains free to navigation, commerce and other peaceful enterprises and that no act of imposition of sovereignty be committed by an agent of one state against another.

1.2 Where, because of contiguous relationship or overlap, no such region exists between two or more bodies, and passage rights being in dispute, that a corridor of passage be defined between them, as follows:

1.2.1 Within a plane of bisection of the overlapping territorial space between two bodies, all paths be treated as the regions of 3DS defined in 1.1, subject to an extension of a 100-km radius around each such path, provided that such a path and its extension do not infringe on the radius delimited by 1.05 times the radius of each body in the case under dispute.

1.3 Should a craft be too large to traverse such regions of space defined by the above as free regions, it shall be barred from such passage without the agreement of all bodies through whose extent of claim the craft requires passage.

And that

2. Each member of the NSUN be encouraged to develop personnel and/or institutions trained in the arts and sciences which are:

2.1 Required to determine accurately the extent of any claims of sovereignty such that they be aware of the maximum extent of their sovereign claims, and those of others, and be prepared to accord free rights of passage as outlined above;

2.2 Required for defending such sovereignty as outlined by this most reasonable resolution;

2.3 Required for communication between member states such that they might elucidate and clarify related situations and make or fulfil reasonable requests pertaining to aid in the matters above.

Greetings.

There being no objections to this draft as printed, we call once more for constructive opinions prior to the imminent act of publishing as an actual proposal. Many thanks.

Can we go down to the plain english explanations of (1) what does this do? and (2) why should we support it?

Remember, most of those who are going to read this will take one look, roll their eyes at the language and pass along. You'll need an explanation to telegram delegates with.

Which begs the question - why not simplify?

Greetings.

We have engaged the services of an other-dimensional voice.

OCC: Yes, we could just say that this is a proposal that restricts people's claim on space so that more of it is available for moving stuff freely around without being taxed, boarded, assaulted, held up at customs, etc. and most of us should support it to avoid being held up when we could spend that time in free trade and other wonderful money-making activities. But of course, it sounds better in formal prose. Sorry.

1.2.1 Within a plane of bisection of the overlapping territorial space between two bodies, all paths be treated as the regions of 3DS defined in 1.1, subject to an extension of a 100-km radius around each such path, provided that such a path and its extension do not infringe on the radius delimited by 1.05 times the radius of each body in the case under dispute.
This suffers from the same problems with multiple intersecting claims and relativistic definitions of the centre of mass I mentioned in your other thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423872

Greetings.

We of Roathin seek to address certain concerns made in this forum, regarding dimensionality and geometry.

1. Dimensionality:

The proposed resolution in this thread addresses only three-dimensional space in a deliberate attempt to address the maximum extent of a sovereign claim in that dimensionality of space alone. This prevents the problem of invoking higher dimensions, the measurement of which is manifestly not possible for many states in a way agreeable to most, and which have geometries (see below) not easily visualised or otherwise conceptualised. It is not intended to be all inclusive, bearing in mind that other planes of existence without conventional dimensionality also exist.

2. Geometry:

The act of definition using a physical radius in 3DS thus sweeping out a circle around a centre of mass is one which is easily conceptualised. Defining the centre of mass is a practical problem but that can be left to the experts of the NSUN. We agree that it is a concern, but expect that should the extent come under dispute, it can be negotiated at least with some physical data, unlike the existing situation in which extent of claim is effectively the same as extent of assertion of claim.

For a body whose extent of claim is contained within a larger claim, note that this is certainly true: the larger body's maximum extent of claim does indeed include that of the smaller body in some situations. It is a physical fact, but it need not be legally implemented such that the smaller body automatically becomes a territory of the larger.

3. Concluding remarks:

This resolution does not seek to establish a specific territory or discuss sovereign rights. Rather it seeks to limit the extent of sovereign claim to a maximum. It does not assert that one claim of sovereignty should automatically absorb another; there are terrestrial cases where one state is contained within another and yet maintains its sovereignty.

The act of definition using a physical radius in 3DS thus sweeping out a circle around a centre of mass is one which is easily conceptualised. Defining the centre of mass is a practical problem but that can be left to the experts of the NSUN. We agree that it is a concern, but expect that should the extent come under dispute, it can be negotiated at least with some physical data, unlike the existing situation in which extent of claim is effectively the same as extent of assertion of claim.

Leaving part of a resolution open to interpretation frequently results in repeals. This is especially true when the definitions are not precise. Placing a sphere around the centre of mass of an object is easy to understand in Newtonian physics, but under relativity the concept is not well defined - the locus of points equidistant from a given point is observer dependent, as is the centre of mass itself. Dismissing it as a just a practical problem seems unwise at best.

Leaving part of a resolution open to interpretation frequently results in repeals. This is especially true when the definitions are not precise. Placing a sphere around the centre of mass of an object is easy to understand in Newtonian physics, but under relativity the concept is not well defined - the locus of points equidistant from a given point is observer dependent, as is the centre of mass itself. Dismissing it as a just a practical problem seems unwise at best.
Greetings.

We do not dismiss it lightly. However, the locus of points equidistant from a given point is easily defined by the distance travelled by a hypothetical sphere of massless particles travelling at the speed of light away from the initial point in vacuo. The difficulty, we repeat, is a practical one, which can be resolved by claim followed by acceptance of claim or rejection thereof, based on the presentation of physical data.

It would be disingenuous to state that this is not possible to an acceptable degree of exactitude as several states in the NSUN have implicit possession of such technology (consider all the starfaring states, for example).

The fact is that unless someone can think of a complete repeal that would be more obvious and easier to understand than the resolution it repeals, it probably will not be passed. Therefore, we of Roathin ask you to attempt to describe your objection in complete and understandable terms, bearing in mind that a fair number of our colleagues claim possession of technology which might perhaps be sufficient to neutralise the grounds of objection.

The fact is that unless someone can think of a complete repeal that would be more obvious and easier to understand than the resolution it repeals, it probably will not be passed. Therefore, we of Roathin ask you to attempt to describe your objection in complete and understandable terms, bearing in mind that a fair number of our colleagues claim possession of technology which might perhaps be sufficient to neutralise the grounds of objection.

Technology that can neutralise the laws of physics? That's impressive...

Now let me try to explain the problem 'in complete and understandable terms': Under relativity theory the concept of distance is observer dependent. Any attempt to define an area of space using a distance (for example the distance light travels in a given time) is also observer dependent. High relative velocities that make this difference relevant are common in space.

Technology that can neutralise the laws of physics? That's impressive...

Now let me try to explain the problem 'in complete and understandable terms': Under relativity theory the concept of distance is observer dependent. Any attempt to define an area of space using a distance (for example the distance light travels in a given time) is also observer dependent. High relative velocities that make this difference relevant are common in space.
Greetings.

We note that there appear to be states out there using wormhole technology. It is possible to displace the observer dependency by using entangled qubits. Relative velocity is not the issue. This is not a problem of neutralising physics, but of neutralising the grounds of objection, i.e. that you believe defining the extent of space is impossible.

The fact is that should you pursue this line of reasoning with insufficient imagination, the huge battlefleets of many of our colleagues become untenable within the universe defined by your intransigence. We are sure that since the battlefleets are NS fact, and your reasoning is not, the battlefleets should win. Unless of course you prefer to take them on.

[Hypothetical] A nation has technology allowing gravitons to be displaced from their usual position, and can hence move the centre of mass wherever they want. They project their centre of mass into a nearby nebulae and claim it and the space around it to a distance of 1.05 times its diameter, all within the terms of your proposed resolution.

OOC: This is what happens if we allow nations to invent any technology they wish to get around the laws of physics. Presumably this is why the most advanced technology mentioned in any passed resolution is the genetic engineering of humans.

After consultation with the Chief of Stellar Operations over the Tekanian Stellar Navy, we concur with the principle the esteemed member of Roathin is trying to present on the issue of points equidistant from a body of mass in claim.

The fleets of this Republic in fact use wormhole type technology (Kraskinov based technologies). And thus concur it is the points equidistance in normal space, and not confined to "observational" points of refference outside of normal space.

Utilization of Wormhole based technologies, however, negate the need for the proposal, since connectivitity and pathways between systems do not occur in "normal space", but through interconnection of the points in normal space, through other medium.

The Republic is composed of 5 star systems, and passage is allowed between systems, vessels free in transit; However, they may not enter specific territorial aquisitions (as defined as 1 Parsec distance from the core star of each system) without first submission of flight plan through Tekanian authorities. (This gives a berth of several lightyears between the various systems of the Republic open to free transit by all vessels.)

Utilization of Wormhole based technologies, however, negate the need for the proposal, since connectivitity and pathways between systems do not occur in "normal space", but through interconnection of the points in normal space, through other medium.
Greetings.

With due respect, we note that the necessity of the proposal is not obviated or negated by Tekania's up-to-date technology. It should be remembered that the one level of spatial definition all member states share is the definition of space in three dimensions. Which is exactly what Tekania alludes to when Tekania measures a radius of one parsec from a core star, surely.

Also, we note that currently, before passage of this proposal, should an interstellar freighter (for example) emerge just barely within Tekanian one-parsec-radius domain, and then jet out slightly, it might be within extra-territorial space or within DLE space or any other kind of three-dimensional space. So the proposal will help affirm the right of that freighter to carry out business without let or hindrance.

We also note that should Tekania place marker buoys at strategic locations on that one-parsec radius circumsphere, Tekania stands to, in effect, have a 1.05 parsec radius of claim around each core star without having to change Tekania's current strategic dispositions.

Greetings.

With due respect, we note that the necessity of the proposal is not obviated or negated by Tekania's up-to-date technology. It should be remembered that the one level of spatial definition all member states share is the definition of space in three dimensions. Which is exactly what Tekania alludes to when Tekania measures a radius of one parsec from a core star, surely.

Also, we note that currently, before passage of this proposal, should an interstellar freighter (for example) emerge just barely within Tekanian one-parsec-radius domain, and then jet out slightly, it might be within extra-territorial space or within DLE space or any other kind of three-dimensional space. So the proposal will help affirm the right of that freighter to carry out business without let or hindrance.

We also note that should Tekania place marker buoys at strategic locations on that one-parsec radius circumsphere, Tekania stands to, in effect, have a 1.05 parsec radius of claim around each core star without having to change Tekania's current strategic dispositions.

I just point out, that Wormhole technologies do not suffer from a "trade-route" system. So it's non issue.

The 5 systems of the Republic maintain Outposts and listening stations along it's radius (1 parsec from each systems core star), 12 stations in total [per system], and around 600 listening posts assigned to each station.

We however, would reserve the right to halt, and inspect any vessel which emerged within the confines of territorial space defined around any of the individual Dominion systems of the Republic. [Generaly each Dominion has several Warner Class cruisers assigned to border patrol missions, for handling violations of territorial boundries... Or larger vessels if around the Prime system and 'Eagle One' the Orbital Station housing Fleet Operations]

The closest systems in the Republic are with 5 parsec's, leaving wide enough berth for transit lanes for normal, hyper, or sub-space transit between individual systems (as out Kraskinov does not require the need for "transit lanes" being completely divorced from "space" as it's operatively known, while in transit between systems.

Tekanian Stellar Territories, and marked Defensive perimeters, are kept on Record at GEDRA offices. And are an official public record of known charted space in M1, M31 and M33 galaxies, in accordance with charter (of the alliance).

Greetings.

We acknowledge the facts of Tekania's case. Nevertheless, we sincerely hope that Tekania will lend support as we prepare to put forward this draft as a proposal requiring quorum approval. Not many states will find this proposal as irrelevant as Tekania might, and it will serve to make clear in no uncertain terms the extent of Tekanian might.

Technology that can neutralise the laws of physics? That's impressive...

Now let me try to explain the problem 'in complete and understandable terms': Under relativity theory the concept of distance is observer dependent. Any attempt to define an area of space using a distance (for example the distance light travels in a given time) is also observer dependent. High relative velocities that make this difference relevant are common in space.

Relativistic theory is, itself, flawed. It does not take into account the natural bendings and curvatures of space/time, nor the artificial ones that ships can produce (such as mine do using advanced graviton drives). Relativity is, itself, mostly a local phenomena. This is not neutralizing the laws of physics, but realizing that not all parts of physics are true laws and that some can be worked around or bypassed entirely. Einstein's equation is one of them.

[Hypothetical] A nation has technology allowing gravitons to be displaced from their usual position, and can hence move the centre of mass wherever they want. They project their centre of mass into a nearby nebulae and claim it and the space around it to a distance of 1.05 times its diameter, all within the terms of your proposed resolution.

OOC: This is what happens if we allow nations to invent any technology they wish to get around the laws of physics. Presumably this is why the most advanced technology mentioned in any passed resolution is the genetic engineering of humans.

The problem is that they would need a graviton generator to be working constantly, at which case another nation that can detect gravitons can come along and figure out what's going on.

Actually, recently we've been working on allowing the more advanced nations in the UN say in its laws. That's part of why many resolutions are getting vague in areas of age and technology.

Greetings.

We concur with the great Enigma that there is a certain lack of firm definition which may in part be attributed to the very broad range of technological levels, cultures and social norms present in NSUN states.

However, we believe that the lowest common denominator is still a workable approach. Hence our proposal addresses only three-dimensional space. After due consideration, we believe that this is the lowest common denominator for states able to post in this forum. The medium by which states communicate in the NS milieu, has at least the three basic spatial dimensions in common.

Relativistic theory is, itself, flawed. It does not take into account the natural bendings and curvatures of space/time,
Excuse me? That's exactly what General Relativity does.

Relativity is, itself, mostly a local phenomena.
I think you're getting confused with quantum mechanics. Relativistic effects (such as Einstrin rings) have been observed at distances of over 9 billion light years.

Even if some advanced nations can solve the reference frame issue, the fact is that most nations are still working at the relativity level. Effects such as time and space dilation have been observed, and with no advanced technology or science to define an absolute notion of distance, the definitions in this resolution are fundamentally oberserver-dependent for these nations.

OOC: It would be like having a resolution forcing all UN nations to set up a unicorn sanctuary - good for the fantasy nations, but where are the rest meant to find their unicorns?

OOC: It would be like having a resolution forcing all UN nations to set up a unicorn sanctuary - good for the fantasy nations, but where are the rest meant to find their unicorns?
IC (we believe):

Greetings.

We believe that our resolution, aimed at a lowest common denominator, is more like one which urges nations to set up sanctuaries for rare species without specifying further which species. It is your approach which says, "What about unicorns, wyverns and grues?"

Excuse me? That's exactly what General Relativity does.Don't worry. DLE's also developed actually working FTL that doesn't break the laws of physics as we know them, IRL. Of course, he hasn't told anybody (And by his own admission, the math is too high for him. No idea how he managed to develop the thing, but... well, that's DLE for you). He's odd like that, really... Just disregard it/ him.

We believe that our resolution, aimed at a lowest common denominator, is more like one which urges nations to set up sanctuaries for rare species without specifying further which species. It is your approach which says, "What about unicorns, wyverns and grues?"
Who'd want to save a grue? Seriously though, my point is that for a nation whose physics is at the level of relativity theory (that is, most nations) the terms of the resolution are ill-defined.

Excuse me? That's exactly what General Relativity does.


I think you're getting confused with quantum mechanics. Relativistic effects (such as Einstrin rings) have been observed at distances of over 9 billion light years.

Even if some advanced nations can solve the reference frame issue, the fact is that most nations are still working at the relativity level. Effects such as time and space dilation have been observed, and with no advanced technology or science to define an absolute notion of distance, the definitions in this resolution are fundamentally oberserver-dependent for these nations.

OOC: It would be like having a resolution forcing all UN nations to set up a unicorn sanctuary - good for the fantasy nations, but where are the rest meant to find their unicorns?

It does not take advanced technology, to base all frames off of a "common refference" (which is all FFT nation-states do, and even NFT/PMT). Stellar locality is generally refferenced from Galactic Center, and intra-system charts are refferenced from stellar center refference. Intra-planetary concepts are not effected by general relativistic concerns (as they lack both the mass, and velocity to create much more than negligible difference).

Don't worry. DLE's also developed actually working FTL that doesn't break the laws of physics as we know them, IRL. Of course, he hasn't told anybody (And by his own admission, the math is too high for him. No idea how he managed to develop the thing, but... well, that's DLE for you). He's odd like that, really... Just disregard it/ him.

I've seen very little in the way of FTL which lays claims to "breaking the laws of physics". All systems generally use a system whereby a vessel or object is moved from Point A to Point B in normal space, quicker than it could in normal space, as none traverse in "normal space" to begin with. None actuall "pass" the in the space they transverse.

Who'd want to save a grue? Seriously though, my point is that for a nation whose physics is at the level of relativity theory (that is, most nations) the terms of the resolution are ill-defined.
Greetings.

We understand your objection. However, the fact remains that we have two options: to define space in terms of spatial terms or not. If we say no, it is not possible, then there is no way to determine whether sovereignty has been infringed or not, one parsec limit or no. If we say yes, we have to find practical ways of doing so. So the resolution has to be passed in principle, else it will be determined not by law, but by might.

We are loath to see contests of yottawatt meson cannonades vs sorcerously-augmented pan-dimensional psychic screams, said contests thus determining the limits of sovereign space.

We believe that all spacefaring states do, in practice, use units of length (or ratios thereof) to determine areas of influence, ranges of combat, or anything else in space in which two or more vessels must interact. That is why our proposal is couched in terms of ratio (i.e. 1/6 of a light-second, and 1.05 x the radius).

Greetings. This draft has not yet entered the proposals list. We respectfully ask if it is at all worth the time of this august assembly to consider it for advancement and endorsement. Thank you.