NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, as the title suggest this is about spaceships and RPs involving spaceships in NS. I read them from time to time, mainly since I'm a FT nation but also just for fun. Something I see a lot and that has started to bug me is people giving maximum speeds for spaceships, even ones that are greater than 1c (the speed of light).

First of all, a spaceship shouldn't have any sort of 'speed limit' (other than 1c which makes those stats equally rediculous). This is because, obviously, that there is no matter in the great void that is 'space', there for any speed below 1c is feasable for any craft not beeing affected by gravity since there is no air resistance, it may just take some ships longer to get up to speed based on their engine size, but even then since there is no gravity in space you can always just add a bigger engine.

Now, about the speed of light being a 'cosmic speed limit'. This is something that is rarely understood and is often not accepted as true to very FT nations. However, no matter what you tech level, you can never reach a speed greather than 1c nor can any object. The reason for this is because E=MC2 when you reach the speed of light, energy is converted into mass which is added to the travelling object, which in turn would make it appear heavier to a person watching the object move. Since the object becomes heavier it requires more energy to get back up to 1c at which time it will become heavier again...starting to see where I'm going with this?

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't the worst mistakes people make, but being lover of science this is one thing that really bugs me. So, there you go, that was my small rant, now I must ask you if there is anything concerning FT in NS that you find odd/incorrect/flat out stupid.

Well, as the title suggest this is about spaceships and RPs involving spaceships in NS. I read them from time to time, mainly since I'm a FT nation but also just for fun. Something I see a lot and that has started to bug me is people giving maximum speeds for spaceships, even ones that are greater than 1c (the speed of light).

First of all, a spaceship shouldn't have any sort of 'speed limit' (other than 1c which makes those stats equally rediculous). This is because, obviously, that there is no matter in the great void that is 'space', there for any speed below 1c is feasable for any craft not beeing affected by gravity since there is no air resistance,

Contrary to what you just stated space is not empty... it is not a perfect vacuum, there is particle density out there. Therefore the efficiency of your shielding can play a large role in what your practical top acheivable speed would be while travelling through space. At least if you have any concerns about surviving the trip.

And while c is one hard limit it is not the only one even putting aside particle shielding issues since a ship has to carry enough power-generation capacity to accelerate itself to it's top speed... and acceleration to anywhere even approaching c would require enormous amounts of power which would not necessarily be within the capabilities of a ship to generate.

As for ships going greater than c, those tend to involve rather exotic sci-fiesque manipulations of space-time to skirt that limitation... which might not necessarily be realistic... but that's not really the point when you're RPing future tech anyway.

Well, as the title suggest this is about spaceships and RPs involving spaceships in NS. I read them from time to time, mainly since I'm a FT nation but also just for fun. Something I see a lot and that has started to bug me is people giving maximum speeds for spaceships, even ones that are greater than 1c (the speed of light).

First of all, a spaceship shouldn't have any sort of 'speed limit' (other than 1c which makes those stats equally rediculous). This is because, obviously, that there is no matter in the great void that is 'space', there for any speed below 1c is feasable for any craft not beeing affected by gravity since there is no air resistance, it may just take some ships longer to get up to speed based on their engine size, but even then since there is no gravity in space you can always just add a bigger engine.

Now, about the speed of light being a 'cosmic speed limit'. This is something that is rarely understood and is often not accepted as true to very FT nations. However, no matter what you tech level, you can never reach a speed greather than 1c nor can any object. The reason for this is because E=MC2 when you reach the speed of light, energy is converted into mass which is added to the travelling object, which in turn would make it appear heavier to a person watching the object move. Since the object becomes heavier it requires more energy to get back up to 1c at which time it will become heavier again...starting to see where I'm going with this?

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't the worst mistakes people make, but being lover of science this is one thing that really bugs me. So, there you go, that was my small rant, now I must ask you if there is anything concerning FT in NS that you find odd/incorrect/flat out stupid.


Ok, E=MC^2 tells us that to reach the speed of light a ship would need infinite power because as something approches the speed of ligt it will become infinitly massive.

Howere, While nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, there is actually nothing in relativity to bad something from traveling faster than light - you just had to (somehow) get through the light barrier.

There are some interesting articles on the web on various ways that may get us around the speed of light, but at the moment we lack the technology.

Now, what angers me more, if the idiots who turn up to roleplay and want to start off by being able to build massive fleets of super-high-tech spaceships and sell them to others. Or are the idiots the ones who buy role-play buying the ships when all they have to do is just "invent" the ships themselves :)

Ok, E=MC^2 tells us that to reach the speed of light a ship would need infinite power because as something approches the speed of ligt it will become infinitly massive.



No it doesn't.

E^2=(M^2)(C^4)+(P^2)(C^2) on the other hand

~snip~

Aren't you lost?

The maximum relative speed achievable is very near to the speed of light.

However the maximum (unmeasurable) speed difference is 2c :P

The maximum relative speed achievable is very near to the speed of light.

However the maximum (unmeasurable) speed difference is 2c :P

Wrong.

The maximum attainable relative velocity (which is what I assume you meant by maximum speed difference) is still the speed if light.

God, how I hate bad physics spouted by muppets with no clue what they're doing.

Contrary to what you just stated space is not empty... it is not a perfect vacuum, there is particle density out there. Therefore the efficiency of your shielding can play a large role in what your practical top acheivable speed would be while travelling through space. At least if you have any concerns about surviving the trip.

And while c is one hard limit it is not the only one even putting aside particle shielding issues since a ship has to carry enough power-generation capacity to accelerate itself to it's top speed... and acceleration to anywhere even approaching c would require enormous amounts of power which would not necessarily be within the capabilities of a ship to generate.

As for ships going greater than c, those tend to involve rather exotic sci-fiesque manipulations of space-time to skirt that limitation... which might not necessarily be realistic... but that's not really the point when you're RPing future tech anyway.

Firstly, FT is not meant to defy the laws of physics. Secondly, space not being a perfect vacuum was really not my point.

Firstly, FT is not meant to defy the laws of physics.

You're quite right, it's not...

The FT transportation tech that allows ships to acheive apparent greater than c velocities is not meant to be defying the laws of physics. That's not to say the ideas put forward would actually work, but they're not just completely ignoring physics in the process.

Secondly, space not being a perfect vacuum was really not my point.

Your point was that giving maximum speed limits to spaceships "bugged" you, and the reasoning provided for this was that since there is no air resistance to overcome c should be the only upper speed limit.

You are wrong, and I explained why.

1. There IS in fact air resistance in space. It's negligible enough to be completely disregarded at low velocities but at c-fractionals it is a significant factor.

2. It's not as simple as just throwing a bigger engine in a spaceship if you want to acheive light speed.

And just to toss in another note...

3. Yes, there is gravity in space.

Wrong.

The maximum attainable relative velocity (which is what I assume you meant by maximum speed difference) is still the speed if light.Yes, did I conflict this?

Yes, there is gravity in space.
Inverse square law, very true. I'd like to ask though, does this also mean you also have to include EM in calculations?

Yes, did I conflict this?
Were you suggesting that two objects, moving away from each other at c, would have a speed of 2c relative to each other?

Yes, did I conflict this?

Yes, you did. Or at least, from your frankly pisspoor terminology, you appear to. I'm going to give you the beneift, of the doubt, and assume you know what you are talking about, but expressed yourself badly. Must be because I'm wasted. Anyway

You said that two objects moving away from each other with identical speeds could have a relative velocity of 2c. But from a physics point of view, there is no difference in that scenario and one in which one object is not moving and the other moves at a speed of 2c away from it. That is impossible.

You have forgotten to allow for the warping of space time as predicted in the General Theory of Relativity.

Assuming I have interpreted your words correctly, you are wrong.

Assuming I have interpreted your words correctly, you are wrong.
Now that deserves an OWNED if ever I thought it.

Were you suggesting that two objects, moving away from each other at c, would have a speed of 2c relative to each other?I said that maximum measurable relative speed difference is 1 c.

You said that two objects moving away from each other with identical speeds could have a relative velocity of 2c. But from a physics point of view, there is no difference in that scenario and one in which one object is not moving and the other moves at a speed of 2c away from it. That is impossible.This is completely dependent of the observer.

If A is going left at the speed nearing c and B is going right at the speed nearing c then an observer between them could note the speed of A and B and conclude that they are both moving away at the speed nearing c thus making their combined seperational velocity somewhere near 2c.

However observers in A or B could not conclude this speed difference within their observational field: They would see A (or B) move at a speed nearing c.

If A is going left at the speed nearing c and B is going right at the speed nearing c then an observer between them could note the speed of A and B and conclude that they are both moving away at the speed nearing c thus making their combined seperational velocity somewhere near 2c.

However observers in A or B could not conclude this speed difference within their observational field: They would see A (or B) move at a speed nearing c.

Before I flame your ass and have a barbecue, I'm going to ask what, if any, formal training have you in the field of advanced physics?

Before I flame your ass and have a barbecue, I'm going to ask what, if any, formal training have you in the field of advanced physics?This depends on how are you going to flame me. :P

This depends on how are you going to flame me. :P

Then i would guess that you don't have anything special to trump me with. I know it seems weird, but I am right about this.

Then i would guess that you don't have anything special to trump me with. I know it seems weird, but I am right about this.I did not conflict what you said in any way.

The maximum relative speed difference that can be measured is near the speed of light.

However to any observer the maximum measured relative speed difference is the speed of light regardless of the direction of the movement.

Thus we can conclude that to an observer the maximum apparent velocity difference has to be, logically, 2C.

Very easy experiment:

Let's take a light bulb and a room that is 600,000 kms wide. Now the light bulb is situated in the center and has 300,000kms to either side of the room.

Now the light bulb is turned on.

How long will the light take to reach both walls?

1 second.

I did not conflict what you said in any way.

The maximum relative speed difference that can be measured is near the speed of light.

However to any observer the maximum measured relative speed difference is the speed of light regardless of the direction of the movement.

Thus we can conclude that to an observer the maximum apparent velocity difference has to be, logically, 2C.

Very easy experiment:

Let's take a light bulb and a room that is 600,000 kms wide. Now the light bulb is situated in the center and has 300,000kms to either side of the room.

Now the light bulb is turned on.

How long will the light take to reach both walls?

1 second.

And what was that meant to proove?

And what was that meant to proove?That the maximum apparent velocity difference is 2 c, because the maximum measurable velocity of c applies to all directions at once.

Firstly, FT is not meant to defy the laws of physics. Secondly, space not being a perfect vacuum was really not my point.

The entire art of science fiction is taking the laws of science and telling them to bend over and take it in the most convincing way. Obviously FTL is waaaaaaaay insanely impossibly by our current technological standing. But that really doesn't matter, does it? We're not going around for realism, we're in it for the story and the fun aspect. I can understand this attitude in MT and PT, but in Science Fiction/Fantasy, things don't have to be 100% accurate.

Plus wasn't it Clarke or someone who said that any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic or something? Newton would have a heart attack if he saw a TV. Copernicus would have an aneurism over a tank. And so would we over anything far enough in the future.



As for this motion at the speed of light crap, here's a brief lowdown on my understanding of it.

Every point of view in the universe (regardless of whether it's accelerating or standing still) is equally valid in saying it's standing still, since all motion is RELATIVE TO ANOTHER POINT. There is no test you can do to discern motion that doesn't involve another point.

The fastest any object can go is C, and only photons and the gravitron (depending on if you believe that it exists) can go that fast.

So if you are standing still (which everyone is simultaneously), then something can only move away from you at the speed of light. So if you're moving in one direction at C and your friend is moving in the other direction at C, he will really only be moving away from you at C (just go with it, it's wierd)

HOWEVER, if you are standing between two people, and they are both moving away from you at the speed of light, you could conclude by differential that they are moving away from each other at 2C. However, neither is actuially going any faster than 1C WHEN COMPARED TO YOU.




At least that's how I think special relativity works... I'm probably completly wrong though.

LOL I just avoid all the FTL and near-FTL stuff by staying near-FT. Supposedly in the series that one of my weapons is from it can go .80c, but I'm leaving that out of my RPs

That the maximum apparent velocity difference is 2 c, because the maximum measurable velocity of c applies to all directions at once.

But it doesn't, because that is impossible.

Just because someone can't regurgitate little nitpicky details about theory that neither you nor I can even begin to comprehend doesn't mean you can go on a little tirade.

So I shall assume I'm the only person in this thread that has actually studied the relevant theory to any level. I know perfectly well what I am talking about.

The theory behind this is not truly that difficult, it's just far removed from what common sense would suggest

The theory behind this is not truly that difficult, it's just far removed from what common sense would suggest
Seeing as its' so simple, why don't you choose to inform us great unwashed rather than take people to task for trying to explain how they think it's supposed to work.

Or are you too far removed from your fellow NSers?

Seeing as its' so simple, why don't you choose to inform us great unwashed rather than take people to task for trying to explain how they think it's supposed to work.

Or are you too far removed from your fellow NSers?

I have done. But i'll do it again for the benefit of those who didn't get it the first time.

First comes the concept of realtive velocity. That is, if an object A is moving with speed V along the X axis in the direction of X increasing, and an object B is moving along the X axis with speed V in the direction of X decreasing, then the velocity of A relative to B is 2V in the direction of X increasing. (That's a fairly basic example. I'm not teaching relative velocity to the population of NS general.)

The second concept is that it is equally valid to see the above example as B not moving and A moving with speed 2V in the direction of X increasing.

The third concept is that no speed can be greater than c, the speed of light.

I trust you are keeping up with this. Can you now see that the relative velocity cannot be 2c, because that would be equivalent to and, crucially, indistinguishable from, one remaining still while the other moved at 2c, which is of course impossible.

The entire art of science fiction is taking the laws of science and telling them to bend over and take it in the most convincing way. Obviously FTL is waaaaaaaay insanely impossibly by our current technological standing. But that really doesn't matter, does it? We're not going around for realism, we're in it for the story and the fun aspect. I can understand this attitude in MT and PT, but in Science Fiction/Fantasy, things don't have to be 100% accurate.

Plus wasn't it Clarke or someone who said that any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic or something? Newton would have a heart attack if he saw a TV. Copernicus would have an aneurism over a tank. And so would we over anything far enough in the future.



As for this motion at the speed of light crap, here's a brief lowdown on my understanding of it.

Every point of view in the universe (regardless of whether it's accelerating or standing still) is equally valid in saying it's standing still, since all motion is RELATIVE TO ANOTHER POINT. There is no test you can do to discern motion that doesn't involve another point.

The fastest any object can go is C, and only photons and the gravitron (depending on if you believe that it exists) can go that fast.

So if you are standing still (which everyone is simultaneously), then something can only move away from you at the speed of light. So if you're moving in one direction at C and your friend is moving in the other direction at C, he will really only be moving away from you at C (just go with it, it's wierd)

HOWEVER, if you are standing between two people, and they are both moving away from you at the speed of light, you could conclude by differential that they are moving away from each other at 2C. However, neither is actuially going any faster than 1C WHEN COMPARED TO YOU.




At least that's how I think special relativity works... I'm probably completly wrong though.

I definately disagree. This is because if what you are saying is correct, a person could theoretically look at a star millions of lightyears away, spin in a circle, and say the star travelled the parimeter of the circle (with a radius of millions of light years) in about one second, which would probably come out to about 1000c...completely rediculous because the star did not catch up the the light it was sending so was not really travelling faster than light.

hmm, this is an extremely interesting perspective on the problem. However, I'm not sure if the relativity applies to rotational motion. I'll need to look that up.

hmm, this is an extremely interesting perspective on the problem. However, I'm not sure if the relativity applies to rotational motion. I'll need to look that up.


It does, I checked before I posted that ;)

Well, you see. FT is way ahead of anything that we have today, we use things called FTL drives, that can basicly bypass the laws of phyics.

A good example would be Warp Drive from Star Trek, or Hyperspace from Star Wars.

The entire art of science fiction is taking the laws of science and telling them to bend over and take it in the most convincing way. Obviously FTL is waaaaaaaay insanely impossibly by our current technological standing. But that really doesn't matter, does it? We're not going around for realism, we're in it for the story and the fun aspect. I can understand this attitude in MT and PT, but in Science Fiction/Fantasy, things don't have to be 100% accurate.

Plus wasn't it Clarke or someone who said that any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic or something? Newton would have a heart attack if he saw a TV. Copernicus would have an aneurism over a tank. And so would we over anything far enough in the future.



As for this motion at the speed of light crap, here's a brief lowdown on my understanding of it.

Every point of view in the universe (regardless of whether it's accelerating or standing still) is equally valid in saying it's standing still, since all motion is RELATIVE TO ANOTHER POINT. There is no test you can do to discern motion that doesn't involve another point.

The fastest any object can go is C, and only photons and the gravitron (depending on if you believe that it exists) can go that fast.

So if you are standing still (which everyone is simultaneously), then something can only move away from you at the speed of light. So if you're moving in one direction at C and your friend is moving in the other direction at C, he will really only be moving away from you at C (just go with it, it's wierd)

HOWEVER, if you are standing between two people, and they are both moving away from you at the speed of light, you could conclude by differential that they are moving away from each other at 2C. However, neither is actuially going any faster than 1C WHEN COMPARED TO YOU.




At least that's how I think special relativity works... I'm probably completly wrong though.


Good post. You sum it up very well. Only one minor eorro and that is: Particles with mass cannot travel at the spped of light - only lower speeds (or, strangley, faster speeds). Massless particles like Photons cannot travel at any speed except at the speed of light.

One quirk it the possible graviton. Some scientists believe this may actualy travel faster than light, in which case it has to have mass. However, until we can work in close proximity to a blackhole to test some ideas, we may not be able to prove that one way or another.

I have done. But i'll do it again for the benefit of those who didn't get it the first time.

First comes the concept of realtive velocity. That is, if an object A is moving with speed V along the X axis in the direction of X increasing, and an object B is moving along the X axis with speed V in the direction of X decreasing, then the velocity of A relative to B is 2V in the direction of X increasing. (That's a fairly basic example. I'm not teaching relative velocity to the population of NS general.)

The second concept is that it is equally valid to see the above example as B not moving and A moving with speed 2V in the direction of X increasing.

The third concept is that no speed can be greater than c, the speed of light.

I trust you are keeping up with this. Can you now see that the relative velocity cannot be 2c, because that would be equivalent to and, crucially, indistinguishable from, one remaining still while the other moved at 2c, which is of course impossible.


You fail to allow for relativity.

A = -X@c (or in fact a tiny fraction below c as nothing with mass can travel at c)

B = X0

C = +X@c

Since nothing can travel at c, and B sees both travelling at c in opposite directions giving a relative speed difference of 2c then the only way A and B can see each other travelling at c is if time is running slower for them.

Well, you see. FT is way ahead of anything that we have today, we use things called FTL drives, that can basicly bypass the laws of phyics.

A good example would be Warp Drive from Star Trek, or Hyperspace from Star Wars.

Both of which have some basis in science.

Well, as the title suggest this is about spaceships and RPs involving spaceships in NS. I read them from time to time, mainly since I'm a FT nation but also just for fun. Something I see a lot and that has started to bug me is people giving maximum speeds for spaceships, even ones that are greater than 1c (the speed of light).

First of all, a spaceship shouldn't have any sort of 'speed limit' (other than 1c which makes those stats equally rediculous). This is because, obviously, that there is no matter in the great void that is 'space', there for any speed below 1c is feasable for any craft not beeing affected by gravity since there is no air resistance, it may just take some ships longer to get up to speed based on their engine size, but even then since there is no gravity in space you can always just add a bigger engine.

Now, about the speed of light being a 'cosmic speed limit'. This is something that is rarely understood and is often not accepted as true to very FT nations. However, no matter what you tech level, you can never reach a speed greather than 1c nor can any object. The reason for this is because E=MC2 when you reach the speed of light, energy is converted into mass which is added to the travelling object, which in turn would make it appear heavier to a person watching the object move. Since the object becomes heavier it requires more energy to get back up to 1c at which time it will become heavier again...starting to see where I'm going with this?

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't the worst mistakes people make, but being lover of science this is one thing that really bugs me. So, there you go, that was my small rant, now I must ask you if there is anything concerning FT in NS that you find odd/incorrect/flat out stupid.


1. Space is not an actual vacuum... You will have friction, because there is in fact negligible resistance.
2. Inertial mass... As v -> c, inertial mass increases.... Since engines are rated to provide a reactionary force (either chemical, or spatial), which would have a max rating, as v -> c the accelleration decreases towards 0 untill the applicable force is balanced out by the inertial mass combined with point 1's issue of friction [which will increase as well]... (thus, realisically, all Starships will have max sublight velocity ratings < 1c)...
3. No FTL capable ships actually, in the technical sense, exceed the speed of light within the space they are traveling [note: in the SPACE THEY ARE travelling]... All pretty much circumvent "c" by moving through "different" space (Warp, Hyperspace, Wormholes, Fold-Drives, etc.)....

Since nothing can travel at c...

Question for your good self: at what speed does light travel?

I have done. But i'll do it again for the benefit of those who didn't get it the first time.

First comes the concept of realtive velocity. That is, if an object A is moving with speed V along the X axis in the direction of X increasing, and an object B is moving along the X axis with speed V in the direction of X decreasing, then the velocity of A relative to B is 2V in the direction of X increasing. (That's a fairly basic example. I'm not teaching relative velocity to the population of NS general.)

The second concept is that it is equally valid to see the above example as B not moving and A moving with speed 2V in the direction of X increasing.

The third concept is that no speed can be greater than c, the speed of light.

I trust you are keeping up with this. Can you now see that the relative velocity cannot be 2c, because that would be equivalent to and, crucially, indistinguishable from, one remaining still while the other moved at 2c, which is of course impossible.

Actually, you're confusing difference in velocity with relative velocity... (Relative velocity of the other object is how fast the object appears to be moving from the view of the other)....

The difference in velocity between two objects, X and Y, moving at 1c apart from one another is 2c.... However, the relative velocity is 0... Because, from the vantage point of object X (assuming no time dialation on part of relativistic speeds), moving itself at 1c, would appear to remain in the same place... (given that, assuming no time dialition) you would see the same "frame" of Object Y from X's refference as long as you're in motion. You would be moving at the same speed "away" from object Y, as is the light which has come from object Y... Thus, from each object... it would see the other as stationary within its own reffernce.

Question for your good self: at what speed does light travel?

Photons have no mass, therefore they can only travel at c, never fast and never slower.

Anything with mass cannot travel at c, always slower or (possibly) faster but never at the speed of light.

<...>


Realistically things may be thus-and-so. Accelerate thus, so much jolt, so much fuel and reaction mass, slingshots, aerobraking, laser thrust, whatever.

I'm more interested in verisimilitude and internal consistency. And especially with ripped-off stuff, realism can truly go out the window. Say I steal "Doc" Smith's Lensmen, and their fantastic inertialess ships going at dozens of parsecs per hour, powered by cosmic rais and atomics, and run not by computers but steely-eyed manly men with prodiguous minds?

The science is complete bunk. But it's cool as all get out. It's up to me to keep things straight - in spite of all the manly men hot-bunking in a flying phallus - and work my assumptions so it's possible to interact with others in a manner fun for all.

Oh dear.... Does it really matter if someone breaks physics in an RP? Only if you RP with them. Seriously.... a substantial section of FT would break down without any form of FTL travel, not to mention that it'd be less fun to many people.

Looks like freeform RP strikes again.

But hey, you asked if there's anything I find stupid about FT RP? Here's my two cents. People who would like to impose their version of FT on everyone else.

But allow me to ask a question. Assuming there is a way to "break out" of our existing universe, to a plane that either had a higher speed of light (thus allowing faster travel before hitting that speed limit) or a far smaller universe (meaning that moving say 1m there corresponds to 2m here) would not seeming FTL be possible?

Photons have no mass, therefore they can only travel at c, never fast and never slower.

Anything with mass cannot travel at c, always slower or (possibly) faster but never at the speed of light.

Indeed, which is a very different thing from your statement 'nothing can travel at c'.

Indeed, which is a very different thing from your statement 'nothing can travel at c'.

No, light is nothing - it has no mass.

But it is true that I could have been clearer.

No, light is nothing - it has no mass.

I believe 'opening a can of worms' is the appropriate description for this statement.

No, light is nothing - it has no mass.

But it is true that I could have been clearer.

Light has no "rest mass"... But, it does have (for some reason) an inertial mass... Which does not necessarily make it "nothing".

Even more interesting is the present Luxon Momentum theories... which are redefining the nature of mass, as based upon MOMENTUM as opposed to rest mass.... That is, rest mass is a product of momentum (inertial mass) and not, realicially, the other way around relating to energy.

"One result of using momentum formulas is that it shows that mass is not a fundamental property. Momentum is fundamental. [...] A new physical law is postulated: All known particles are elements of momentum moving at a velocity c. This is the result of extending a quantum theory formula for massless particles to all particles. The new postulate is known to be true for photons. They have no [rest] mass, move at the speed of light and have momentum. "

- Robert Rutkiewicz: A General Theory of Particles and Forces.

In addition there are two floating mathmatical "definitions" of mass... Both quantifying around the type of Energy postulated assigning "total" enegy, while newer theory involved applying total rest energy of the object in the m = E / c^2...

So, one could say that E=mc^2 does not work in all cases... (The photon) when applying rest mass as the equation postules.... However, when applying newer theory:

E = m_i c^2 / SQRT( 1 - v^2 / c^2 )

What happens here, is everything gets defined around "momentum"; Mass and Energy merely being PRODUCTS of momentum, and not the otherway around. This deals, very realistically, with Special Relativity.... Mass and Energy aren't just in relation to one another.... They are in fact merely "Facets" of the greater (momentum)... And thus, defining things around momentum, moves us closer to dealing which what is going on around us (like light... E=mc^2 would say light does not exist.... it has no mass... but m = E/c^2 would say light does... making m in the equaton intertial mass (and thereby momentum), the equation finally works again.... "mass" (as in what is called rest mass) is merely relativitic mass, assuming objects not in motion relative to one another... That is, "rest mass" does not even exist... Nothing is actual stationary... Everything is a product of (and exists by) it's momentum. Nothing, really, has "rest mass".... So defining "things" around some"thing" which does, itself, not exist; does not work.

Light has no "rest mass"... But, it does have (for some reason) an inertial mass... Which does not necessarily make it "nothing".

Even more interesting is the present Luxon Momentum theories... which are redefining the nature of mass, as based upon MOMENTUM as opposed to rest mass.... That is, rest mass is a product of momentum (inertial mass) and not, realicially, the other way around relating to energy.

"One result of using momentum formulas is that it shows that mass is not a fundamental property. Momentum is fundamental. [...] A new physical law is postulated: All known particles are elements of momentum moving at a velocity c. This is the result of extending a quantum theory formula for massless particles to all particles. The new postulate is known to be true for photons. They have no [rest] mass, move at the speed of light and have momentum. "

- Robert Rutkiewicz: A General Theory of Particles and Forces.

In addition there are two floating mathmatical "definitions" of mass... Both quantifying around the type of Energy postulated assigning "total" enegy, while newer theory involved applying total rest energy of the object in the m = E / c^2...

So, one could say that E=mc^2 does not work in all cases... (The photon) when applying rest mass as the equation postules.... However, when applying newer theory:

E = m_i c^2 / SQRT( 1 - v^2 / c^2 )

What happens here, is everything gets defined around "momentum"; Mass and Energy merely being PRODUCTS of momentum, and not the otherway around. This deals, very realistically, with Special Relativity.... Mass and Energy aren't just in relation to one another.... They are in fact merely "Facets" of the greater (momentum)... And thus, defining things around momentum, moves us closer to dealing which what is going on around us (like light... E=mc^2 would say light does not exist.... it has no mass... but m = E/c^2 would say light does... making m in the equaton intertial mass (and thereby momentum), the equation finally works again.... "mass" (as in what is called rest mass) is merely relativitic mass, assuming objects not in motion relative to one another... That is, "rest mass" does not even exist... Nothing is actual stationary... Everything is a product of (and exists by) it's momentum. Nothing, really, has "rest mass".... So defining "things" around some"thing" which does, itself, not exist; does not work.

Care to come up with some peer reviewed backing for this idea?

But it doesn't, because that is impossible. It does because it isn't impossible.

Let's take the room example: A light bulb is turned on. At t+2 seconds the observer in the middle is capable of noticing the reflections from the walls. Thus he can conclude that the room is 600,000km in diameter and that the light sphere advanced at the velocity of 1 c to both directions. Hence he can conclude that the speed difference between the edges of light was 600,000km/s because the distance edges traveled combined was 1.2 million kilometers while at the same time he did not measure speeds above 1 c.

Furthermore the results of the example are not dependant on the velocity of the room.

Care to come up with some peer reviewed backing for this idea?

Peer reviewed? This is far past peer-review... Luxon momentum is a function of Quantum theory...

Care to come up with a peer reviewed article that says "light doesn't exist"? I'm not the one trying to postulate that photons do not exist here.... You are!

And "rest mass" (sic the "mass" you reffer to); does not exist, as already established... NOTHING IS AT REST... Everything is in motion, and "rest" only exists to the extent that something possesses equal momentum to that of another... That is, relative motion is equal between the observer and the object in question. A "photon" has no "rest mass" because it is never "at rest" relative to anything but other photons. If "mass" was actually "rest mass"; then a photon would have no energy.. 0 * c^2 = 0... It does have energy, and therefore does have "mass".... (It has a definite momentum, a definite energy)... It exerts force on other objects, and can be effected by other objects... sic. it exists....

Saying something "does not exists" because it does not possess a "qualifier" itself which does not "exist" [rest mass] is absurd to say the least.... Rest mass is merely a construct to deal with objects in the same frame of refference... "rest" is a relative state which can only exist in a "relative" sense; that is... it's an artificial construct, much like ignoring friction in an equation, to make it more simple.

A photon has no "rest mass" simply because, it is never "relatively" at rest.

But a photon does have energy and momentum (and can exert force upon other objects, even ones "at rest")... It does "have a mass", it has an "inertial mass"...

You opened this can of worms.

Peer reviewed? This is far past peer-review... Luxon momentum is a function of Quantum theory...

Care to come up with a peer reviewed article that says "light doesn't exist"? I'm not the one trying to postulate that photons do not exist here.... You are!

And "rest mass" (sic the "mass" you reffer to); does not exist, as already established... NOTHING IS AT REST... Everything is in motion, and "rest" only exists to the extent that something possesses equal momentum to that of another... That is, relative motion is equal between the observer and the object in question. A "photon" has no "rest mass" because it is never "at rest" relative to anything but other photons. If "mass" was actually "rest mass"; then a photon would have no energy.. 0 * c^2 = 0... It does have energy, and therefore does have "mass".... (It has a definite momentum, a definite energy)... It exerts force on other objects, and can be effected by other objects... sic. it exists....

Saying something "does not exists" because it does not possess a "qualifier" itself which does not "exist" [rest mass] is absurd to say the least.... Rest mass is merely a construct to deal with objects in the same frame of refference... "rest" is a relative state which can only exist in a "relative" sense; that is... it's an artificial construct, much like ignoring friction in an equation, to make it more simple.

A photon has no "rest mass" simply because, it is never "relatively" at rest.

But a photon does have energy and momentum (and can exert force upon other objects, even ones "at rest")... It does "have a mass", it has an "inertial mass"...

You opened this can of worms.


You see you mentioned a name, Robert Rutkiewicz, and most references to him lead back to a site http://www.tardyon.de/ which is clearly dealing with a non peer reviewed theory. That is why I thought I would give you the chance to come up with something that was peer reviewed.

Right. A luxon is a particle that always travels at the speed of light. Currently, the only known luxons are the massless gauge bosons, the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force).

Photons have no detectable “intrinsic mass” (also referred to as rest mass). Photons are always moving at the speed of light (which of course varies according to the medium in which they travel) with respect to all observers. Despite their lack of mass, photons have momentum proportional to their frequency, and this momentum can be transferred when a photon collides with matter.

Photons have spin 1 , as I’ve said, are classified as bosons. Now, a boson with spin 1 should be observable with three distinct spin projections (−1, 0 and 1). But the zero projection would require a frame where the photon is at rest and because the rest mass is zero, such a frame cannot exist, according to the theory of relativity. So photons in empty space always travel at the nominal speed of light, and show only two spin projections, corresponding to two opposite circular polarizations. As time does not exist for a photon, in reality this spin only exist at the moment of its creation in an atom and at the moment it reacts with other atoms.

In quantum mechanics momentum is defined as an operator on the wave function. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle defines limits on how accurately the momentum and position of a single observable system can be known at once. In quantum mechanics position and momentum are interchangeable.

So, we now know what a luxon is and what momentum is to quantum theory. Still doesn’t seem to back up anything you posted.

Ok. How about the WWW. Put "Luxon Momentum" into a search engine and what do we get? Lots of sites? No – just one – the same German one above. Funny that, if it is such a “a function of Quantum theory”.

Photons have no mass, therefore they can only travel at c, never fast and never slower.

Ahem... <much coughing and clearing of throat while looking suggestively at bolded section...>

((I just don't like super ships or planet killing guns... The cost of building one freakishly large ship would strip-mine most worlds, not to mention the costs for maintaining a fleet of them. As for planet killers, dispersing biological weapons in the atmosphere is one thing, blowing the planet up with a fictional weapon is quite another.))

It seems that this has come up once or twice before, but it would be impossible (impractical) to interact with anyone outside of your one individual system in FTL was not used. All of FT NS in one star system? It just doesn't work, so we create FTL for the purposes of RP.

And who's to say that FTL isn't possible? We already have proof that E=MC^2 is mostly but not completely correct. Most scientists are capable of admitting that we don’t know everything, in fact we know very little at the moment. Cave men had no concept of traveling around our own globe, let alone to the stars. Our technology has advanced worlds from what it was and will continue to do so until we wipe ourselves from existence.

Yea, the arguments is rather stupid. We KNOW nothing can move faster then light, but we get over it in order to have fun. If you don't like it, don't RP FT, its that simple...

Oh, btw, its cool we have an argument on science in II to, keep it up, quite fun to read.

This might have been posted already, but consider this:

It take about eight minutes, traveling at the speed of light, to reach the sun from Earth. Not very long, but considering that distance on a universal scale? BLAH!

Now, our galaxy is thought to be 100,000 lightyears wide (or so I've read). 100,000 years, traveling at lightspeed! Most crews would die in that time period, and that's just one solar system.

You all seem to be forgetting that any FTL drive from any sci-fi show or story is merely a plot device to allow characters access to a wider stage on which to act.

Having never taken this level of science, I can only say that, yes, it is probably impossible to go faster then the speed of light in space. However, things like hyperdrives and warp drives supposably send the ship into an alternate demension, allowing it to go FTL in our demension, but actually not going as fast in the demension it is in (like hyperspace). So a ship in hyperspace is going only moderatly fast in the demension it is in (hyperspace), but going FTL in the demension it isnt. Of course, I cant back this up with anything, because it cant happen in RL right now. Its just a plot device, allowing wars/ect to take place in a broader region of space then just one star system.

[QUOTE=Heron-Marked Warriors]
You have forgotten to allow for the warping of space time as predicted in the General Theory of Relativity.

QUOTE]

Thank you for stating this. By warping true space you alter you physics. now in warp stages 1-9, You bend space to fit you need for speed, you push into it making it bend like a wind tunnel the higher your warp the more you push on space. Now warp 10 is the dangerous side. 1-9 only push and bend space around you, 10 shatters true space, Breaking holes in what we know to be our reality. Thus your ships are in completely different reality with its own set of physics. Nw if a dimensional nation where reading this They could eat this thread alive. And thier science is out there....

Having never taken this level of science, I can only say that, yes, it is probably impossible to go faster then the speed of light in space. However, things like hyperdrives and warp drives supposably send the ship into an alternate demension, allowing it to go FTL in our demension, but actually not going as fast in the demension it is in (like hyperspace). So a ship in hyperspace is going only moderatly fast in the demension it is in (hyperspace), but going FTL in the demension it isnt. Of course, I cant back this up with anything, because it cant happen in RL right now. Its just a plot device, allowing wars/ect to take place in a broader region of space then just one star system.

According to accepted physics, nothing made of normal particles (protons, electrons, neutrons and the like) can travel AT the speed of light. However, there is no rule that prevents something made of ordinary matter travelling faster than light - the only problem is getting a ship from <c to >c without ever trying to travel @c.

This might have been posted already, but consider this:

It take about eight minutes, traveling at the speed of light, to reach the sun from Earth. Not very long, but considering that distance on a universal scale? BLAH!

Now, our galaxy is thought to be 100,000 lightyears wide (or so I've read). 100,000 years, traveling at lightspeed! Most crews would die in that time period, and that's just one solar system.

with respect, no, that is just one GALAXY :)

I refer you to http://www.theforce.net/swtc/hyperspace.html for an excellent look at Star Wars Hyperspace and superluminal physics in general written by Dr. Curtis Saxton.

Brenchley:

Photons have no mass in the traditional sense but do have momentum as has already been stated. This is equivalent to p=u/c where p is momentum, u is energy and c is the speed of light. This has been determined experimentally.

Thus photons have momentum. So shut up about it will you.

Draconic Order:

Super ships take up a minuscule amount of the resources any one system gives a FT nation. They're not as unfeasable for FT nations as you say.

tag

I refer you to http://www.theforce.net/swtc/hyperspace.html for an excellent look at Star Wars Hyperspace and superluminal physics in general written by Dr. Curtis Saxton.

Brenchley:

Photons have no mass in the traditional sense but do have momentum as has already been stated. This is equivalent to p=u/c where p is momentum, u is energy and c is the speed of light. This has been determined experimentally.

Thus photons have momentum. So shut up about it will you.

Doesn't change the basic fact that a photon has zero rest mass.

Draconic Order:

Super ships take up a minuscule amount of the resources any one system gives a FT nation. They're not as unfeasable for FT nations as you say.

"minuscule"??? that is the problem if you try to roleplay without some basic common sense rules.

"minuscule"??? that is the problem if you try to roleplay without some basic common sense rules.


Common sense rules? Who decides that? you? me? Who?

Max Barry certainly didn't design them, Salusa didn't implement any.... tell me where the RP rules are.

Would you consider the "rules" of modern tech to be the definitive? post-modern? In-sol Future tech? What makes Far Future tech so incompatible? There's a large group of people who want to RP it... what makes them in the wrong? Remember, for the main they don't RP with other time periods unless the other side agrees, so it's not affecting anybody but those who choose to get involved... If you don't like it.... don't pay any attention to it.

Especially as common sense doesn't even apply to modern high-end physics.

I go out in my back yard and I look at the stars. I know they're far away, but I expect to be seeing them, not an image of them that is dozens, hundreds, or thousands of years old. No standard experience in life will bring someone face to face with light have a finite speed and no standard experience in life will bring someone face to face with the consequences of light having a non-variable speed.

Common sense dictates that a lot of quantum mechanics is bunk. Science thumbs it's nose at common sense and goes on its way.

Common sense rules? Who decides that? you? me? Who?

Max Barry certainly didn't design them, Salusa didn't implement any.... tell me where the RP rules are.

Would you consider the "rules" of modern tech to be the definitive? post-modern? In-sol Future tech? What makes Far Future tech so incompatible? There's a large group of people who want to RP it... what makes them in the wrong? Remember, for the main they don't RP with other time periods unless the other side agrees, so it's not affecting anybody but those who choose to get involved... If you don't like it.... don't pay any attention to it.

Common sense in role-play means things like:-

You can't have a newly formed country offering to supply whole fleets of star ships to order. (just one recent argument was about exactly that).

You cannot have someone "invent" something in the middle of a RP as a sort of "get out of jail" card.

It means that you cannot claim your XYZ class ship beats their XYZ class simply because you have "tweeked" yours.


There is no problem at all with RPing anything, provided all agree and provided you trust someone to act as final judge if someone shouts "you can't be serious..."

Enjoy.

Especially as common sense doesn't even apply to modern high-end physics.

I go out in my back yard and I look at the stars. I know they're far away, but I expect to be seeing them, not an image of them that is dozens, hundreds, or thousands of years old. No standard experience in life will bring someone face to face with light have a finite speed and no standard experience in life will bring someone face to face with the consequences of light having a non-variable speed.

Common sense dictates that a lot of quantum mechanics is bunk. Science thumbs it's nose at common sense and goes on its way.

Well most things have a fixed speed. Try to think of sound for a start - everyone knows it takes time for the sound of something to travel to their ears. Light is just the same - only a lot faster.

One thing that If find interesting is the lowest speed of light - which so far has been set at 27.5mph (back in 1998 IIRC.)

Well most things have a fixed speed. Try to think of sound for a start - everyone knows it takes time for the sound of something to travel to their ears. Light is just the same - only a lot faster.

One thing that If find interesting is the lowest speed of light - which so far has been set at 27.5mph (back in 1998 IIRC.)

I'm pretty sure they've succeeded in freezing light in position. Let me find the article.

Common sense dictates that a lot of quantum mechanics is bunk. Science thumbs it's nose at common sense and goes on its way.

And FT role-play tells science to get knotted and does what it pleases.

Seriously though, who cares whether or not its actually possible as long as it makes a good story. Everything to do with FT is currently impossible, but it doesn't mean it still will be at some indeterminate point in the future.

And as Jordaxia said, how about not imposing your definition of what is and isn't acceptable on other people.

Also, as has already been said (I think), most 'FTL' drives don't actually involve specifically travelling faster than light, just appearing to, by effectively shortening the distance between the two points or using an alternate dimension that doesn't follow the same rules, in both cases travelling slower than light.

My nation is based on tech from the 41st Millenium; which uses travel in alternate dimensions, serious genetic engineering; veneration of technology as god; the worship and summoning of Daemons; Psychic Abilities, Sorcery; so I think I'm well beyond feasible MT :P

I say to each their own; to criticise the method by which FT RP works is to defunct it entirely; along with Stargate, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc etc. You know why? Because its FICTION! Theres no real science behind a warp drive or a hyperdrive; its all theoretical and made up. We play for enjoyment; not for the wank-physics.

with respect, no, that is just one GALAXY :)
Oh, heheh. Sorry. I put galaxy in the first "stellar object" sentence, but I guess I got a bit mixed up. My bad.

What drives me up the wall is RPers that use Star Wars/Tech, Stargate, and Babylon 5 tech, can't we be more original. Take the pride in designing your own ship from scratch . I base my tech off a not so well known book called "Pandora’s Star". The only tech I take from it are sensors, AI, FTL, and power. The rest of my designs are all original save the pelican dropships I use. I just think those techs are way over used. So that is my rant.

Common sense in role-play means things like:-

You can't have a newly formed country offering to supply whole fleets of star ships to order. (just one recent argument was about exactly that).

You cannot have someone "invent" something in the middle of a RP as a sort of "get out of jail" card.

It means that you cannot claim your XYZ class ship beats their XYZ class simply because you have "tweeked" yours.


There is no problem at all with RPing anything, provided all agree and provided you trust someone to act as final judge if someone shouts "you can't be serious..."

Enjoy.

This is what I was trying to say... too many starting nations are playing galaxy spanning empires with planet/system destroying superweapons, when they don't deserve them. Now people like Chronosia and Gaian Ascendacy do, because they have been doing well in the rp field and have been around a long time. I respect those two enough to recognize their technology and not ignore them.

Well, thank you Drac! I am honored to think you respect me; as all I ever do is my best at RP; I'm in it for the RP; not the stats or the tech wank; I just love to RP with you all; your all such interesting; dynamic characters. I just love NS for the sheer variety and scale of what can be done.

A note about large ships: Anyone with industrial grade transmutation capacities can make really big ships pretty easy by mining either a gas giant or a star, which is my preferred method. Simply gather all the hydrogen you need, transmute it into a usable element, and assemble the finished product.

As for FTL, thank you, but I don't want to spend a hundred years sending a fleet to attack someone. By the time it got there, chances are, both sides would be long gone, with their leaders dead. It's much nicer to use FTL where we can get there whenever we damn well please, before both sides croak from old age.

Well, thank you Drac! I am honored to think you respect me; as all I ever do is my best at RP; I'm in it for the RP; not the stats or the tech wank; I just love to RP with you all; your all such interesting; dynamic characters. I just love NS for the sheer variety and scale of what can be done.

Indeed. I try to develop characters, as well.

You see, the n00bs with galaxy-spanning empires, and millions of ships, (although only with 12 million NS pop), are not a problem. Simply put, I run a little equation every time through my head every time I RP.

size/number = power

It's really that simple. If they're 5 million, and they have a thousand ships, their 'average' power will be 5000. However, if they face, say Chronosia, who, for some peverse reason, only has a hundred ships, his will have 50 million power.

Y'see, n00bs like Scandinivians , who RP having a huge, 10k galaxy empire, simply aren't respected. We don't respect people for (Forgive my use of this metaphor) saying how big their virtual penis is. We don't care.

Those people want to impress us, and, by trying to impress us, they don't. However, those of us who are here for the writing only care about the writing. People like Chronosia, Otagia, The Kadell (Who, I may mention, is still a small nation, and RPs one very well.), and, I daresay, myself, want to read, and then give something back to the 'community', by writing.

Y'see, I'm a book addict. I read nigh-compulsively, a good book can enthrall me for over an hour, and nothing during that time will break my concentration, and I have to concentrate on reading slower, to savor the 'flavor', as it is. However, after a time, the flood of books ceased, and only every few weeks do I get a good read. Naturally, NS seemed the answer. I didn't want to write about MT, it felt too real. I wanted to lose myself in an alternate universe, one with some measure of reality, but one that would award me the same joy as an excellent novel. Of course, after reading, you have to write back. And when you write, more people write, constantly adding to the great library that is NS.

Physics, however, doesn't come into it. My planet-destroying, implacable, unstoppable dreadnought? A plot device, to add drama to the story.

My million c+ FTL? A plot device, to get me to the action faster, so the story doesn't die.

My weapons of some weird glowing white substance that obliterates cities? Another plot device.

Chronosia's psychic powers? A device to improve the plot!

Y'see, once you get to a certain point, you realise something about NS.

We're not here to win.

The people you are complaining about, are. If my planet-killer detracts from a story, we find an amusing way, or maybe a dramatic one, to make it die. If Chronosia's 5000-ship fleet makes the RP unfair, or ruins the story, there'll probably be a directive from home, or a strange anamoly in space, transporting 3/4 of his fleet to another galaxy, returning just in time for the next RP.

We're not engineers, we're not scientists. We don't care about winning, technology, impossibilities, or anything else. In fact, when writing our stories, we thumb our nose at science, shout "Neener neener neener! You are worthless! Nyah!", and run off, to make the story more enjoyable.

Go talk to people who care about science, about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and enjoy your scientific queries. Just don't try and make our stories any worse.

Don't you just hate it when most of your fleet ends up in another galaxy; the unpredictable fun of Warp Travel :P

I care far more about the story than anything else. But you need to sustain Suspension of Disbelief, and having things that make no fucking sense makes that imposible.

That's why there's things like stats and what not, to keep people's SoD intact. If someone knows what a certain ship can do in advance they won't lose SoD when that ship does it.

An example from my own nation is my Nightingale-class ships. They're extremely powerfull and many people don't like it. But it needs to be that way for it to make sense given its designated role.

Now when dealing with characters it's far more fuzzy. If you want your heroes to be annoying but good, paragons of virtue or whatever they still need to be cheered for. As an example I find myself wanting every single hero of Coreworlds' and Godular's Adventures or Travis Masaki RP to get killed. That's not a good thing.

Why is that? Because it breaks SoD having these super-powered people walk through an enemy base without getting a scratch. It is simply bad writing if you the reader doesn't think the heroes are in any danger, and in fact are cheering for the bad guys. Despite what CW may think it is not fun reading his wanking about how 3 ten year olds and an uber-magic ninja fight off hordes of stupid villains like the current "Ninja Nazis".

Now I know that I've done things like that as well, and I do my best to stop myself and in the future you can be sure I'll do better. So don't call my a hypocrite, I'm not one.

My guys are just corrupt; and I will soon put into effect a story arc that will bring about a great change into my nation; ranging from all out civil war, to an assault on the enemies of the Imperium. Hopefully it should be epic in scale; and reshape my nation into a more streamlined machine of evil and fun :P

I always tend to aim for the epic in characters and in scale; a vast machiavellian, Lovecraftian, horror and intrigue ridden gumbo :)

My guys are just corrupt; and I will soon put into effect a story arc that will bring about a great change into my nation; ranging from all out civil war, to an assault on the enemies of the Imperium. Hopefully it should be epic in scale; and reshape my nation into a more streamlined machine of evil and fun :P

I always tend to aim for the epic in characters and in scale; a vast machiavellian, Lovecraftian, horror and intrigue ridden gumbo :)
Sounds fun. I hope to be active enough by then to participate.

Oh it'll be fun, and others will be welcome to join; providing everything goes to plan. Basically I feel that FT is a great opportunity to create entire new aspects of RP; not as chained by reality as MT; it's more the imagination is the only limit.

However, it has to be done well; certainly its freeform; certainly there should be a suspension of disbelief; but sometimes it can be pushed too far. I've worked my way up the ladder; I remember when I started back on NS RP and decided to go FT, one of the first things that happened was my first ship got raped by Shivans :D But it was fun; it was interesting to watch the war unfold; to take part on the sidelines; and then to evolve my nations ideal; to be WH40K Imperials, and then Chaos. Before all that, I was a Communist state for christsakes :P

Thing is, when using daemons, psykers, hell as FTL and accurate prophecy, SoD can go out the window pretty fast (this all describes Khurgan). Otagia tends to keep it relatively intact (mostly through handwaving).

No prophecy is accurate; even the Emperor's tarot and Farseers see myriad futures; or vague futures :P Besides, Daemons are extra-dimensional entities and Psykers are powerful psychics; so it's all about extending your belief to encompass aspects which could be disbelieved of sorts

If I remember right, from my professor's lectures, it was Einstein's 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", that introduced the special theory of relativity.

Special relativity considers that observers are in inertial reference frames, which are in uniform motion relative to one another, cannot perform any experiment to determine which one of them is in "absolute motion". The theory postulates that the speed of light in a vacuum will be the same for these observers (i.e. an observer invariant speed).

The major strength of special relativity is that it can be derived from only a few premises:

1) The speed of light in vacuum is a constant (specifically, 299,792,458 metres per second).
2) The laws of physics are the same for all observers in inertial frames.


So No Endorse, you were somewhat correct. Personally I find most of Heron's arguements quite correct and he seems to have studied advanced physics indepth. I'm sort-of getting into it myself.


And No Endorse is right on another note: ITS ALL FREAKING ROLEPLAY! Of course its nice to have it where the rl rules are all followed, but for those of us who do not study physics, its just plain fun to just say or give limit to your space ships so one doesn't God-mod in a way the sephiroth did when fleets came out of the abiss when you destroyed a real one. (boy he was a hardhead to crack, but the trusty old IGNORE button came in handy)