Moderator: Vympel
Tesla would've required a great deal of power
The brute force application of large amounts of raw energy isn't the only conceivable way to shatter planets.
Wouldn't work since the Rebellion are considered the good guys as well thus negating the overall character shields of bothwautd wrote:Alltough i disagree with Pine Tree and other trekkies on a lot of topics i agree them on one thing, and that is that Trek beats Wars
Not because of their firepower
Not because of their numbers
Not because of their transporters
...
But because they are the good guys. And somehow the good guys always win
trueGhost Rider wrote:Wouldn't work since the Rebellion are considered the good guys as well thus negating the overall character shields of bothwautd wrote:Alltough i disagree with Pine Tree and other trekkies on a lot of topics i agree them on one thing, and that is that Trek beats Wars
Not because of their firepower
Not because of their numbers
Not because of their transporters
...
But because they are the good guys. And somehow the good guys always win
Depends. Besides, a strong enemy is always allowed to do its due before being destroyed in a good story, as long as it doesn't kill off the main characters. If the Death Star destroys all of the Federation's planets and fleets except for Earth, Picard, Janeway, Sisko, that's not my idea of a Federation victory. But that would be an acceptable result in a show, even with character shields.wautd wrote:the power to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the power of the caractershieldSolauren wrote:Nah.
The Death Star > Character Shields
(or is it...?
The second equation I can see is what you used to solve for V(H), which I assume is Hyperspace velocity. The first equation, I am not familiar with, or I can't recognise due to HTML being a shitty format for math talks, could you explain/repeat it. And specifically how the two relate to each other.tjhairball wrote:The quote states that imaginary and real mass components are held to equal states before and after the transition. Since m(0)=m(r)/(1-V2/C2)^0.5, the real and imaginary components switch after a fashion when you transition from sub to superluminal speeds. It's a very clever abuse of Einstein, but it doesn't explain Star Wars very well - the governing equation for the transition, based on the component maintainence set forth by the E2ICS, is that 2C^2-V(0)^2=V(H)^2 - thus a 1.41c limit. Alternatively, of course, you could assume an extra matter inversion factor, and essentially arbitrarily swap out a sign to get 2C^2+V(0)^2=V(H)^2, but that isn't much better. You're still stuck with an arbitrary speed limit between c and 2c that depends on your initial subluminal velocity.
And why is it necessary to have near-zero dilation? Did you not understand the point I was making?tjhairball wrote:I've made no such claim. Actually, this system is based entirely on mass dilation by speed - that's both the entire point of the complex mass system and its critical mathematical weakness. "Zero dilation," or rather very close to 1.00x dilation effect, occurs at low speeds, which allows maximum effect from a complex mass system.Darth Wong wrote:And your evidence for the claim that no mass dilation can possibly occur during hyperspace travel is ...? Especially when relativistic sublight travel (as demonstrated in real-life particle accelerators) causes mass dilation, hence we have successfully broken this zero-dilation condition that you consider to be an immutable and unbreakable law?
Right, so the equation is; M(r) = M(0)*(1-(v^2/c^2))^-0.5tjhairball wrote:The root equation I'm using comes straight out of relativity; the phenomenon it describes appears to be the inspiration for the cited explanation for hyperdrive. I hate trying to write math equations in html, so I didn't really bother trying. Us bearded fogeys and our quirky ways...
No need. I am an engineer, it's obvious though that I haven't study the theory or relativity, but I do know how to work math.A website on relativistic mass. I'm not a very good teacher, in my opinion, but this fellow has a reasonable explanation that I think is approachable from a non-physics background. If it's not, please say so and I'll try to come up with a more easily understood explanation.
Actually, the complex mass of the system at 10c has a magnitude of ~9.94x its original mass, not ~1/9.94 - it's easy to get the M0 and MR terms mixed up. The meaning is the same, however.Darth Wong wrote:OK, so let's accelerate it to 10c. Its dilated complex mass would now be roughly 10kg. This is not 100kg, so you say it's impossible. Hence, you are essentially arguing that mass dilation is IMPOSSIBLE in a hyperdrive system. Do you get it now?
No, it's you. The E2ICS never says that the relativistically dilated complex mass is held equal; only that the complex mass is held equal. If you accelerate a 1 kg object to very close to the speed of light, you still describe it as a 1 kg object, albeit one whose dilated mass is much larger.tjhairball wrote:The problem is that the E2ICS quote states that complex mass is held EQUAL with the hyper-transition. That's why the 1.41c limit - the E2ICS is the one banning dilation in hypertransition here, not I.
(Much smaller, btw; objects approaching the speed of light lose mass, not gain. Past the speed of light, they theoretically become negative imaginary masses, increasing in magnitude thereon.)Darth Wong wrote:No, it's you. The E2ICS never says that the relativistically dilated complex mass is held equal; only that the complex mass is held equal. If you accelerate a 1 kg object to very close to the speed of light, you still describe it as a 1 kg object, albeit one whose dilated mass is much larger.
If I'm talking about physics, I try not to mistakenly describe it as a 1kg object any more. Relativistic mass is the real mass, as far as relativistic physics is concerned; we just like talking about rest masses, and if we're going slow, it doesn't matter, because the two are awfully close. The problem is that I can't imagine what the E2ICS is proposing if it isn't talking about real (i.e., relativistic) mass; holding rest masses the same in a jump requires no adjustment of imaginary mass components, nor any calculation whatsoever.Hyperdrives adjust faster-than-light "hypermatter" particles to allow a jump to light-speed without changing the complex mass and energy of the ship.
Are you disputing the formula I posted earlier? Because that formula produces an extremely large mass as velocity approaches c.tjhairball wrote:(Much smaller, btw; objects approaching the speed of light lose mass, not gain. Past the speed of light, they theoretically become negative imaginary masses, increasing in magnitude thereon.)
So? The point remains that the ICS does not actually say whether it refers to rest mass or relativistic mass, yet you assume that it MUST be referring to relativistic mass. By deliberately choosing to interpret it in such a manner as to make its own conclusions impossible, you are being disingenuous.If I'm talking about physics, I try not to mistakenly describe it as a 1kg object any more. Relativistic mass is the real mass, as far as relativistic physics is concerned; we just like talking about rest masses, and if we're going slow, it doesn't matter, because the two are awfully close.
GAH! I flipped the M(R) and M(0), sorry.Darth Wong wrote:Are you disputing the formula I posted earlier? Because that formula produces an extremely large mass as velocity approaches c.tjhairball wrote:(Much smaller, btw; objects approaching the speed of light lose mass, not gain. Past the speed of light, they theoretically become negative imaginary masses, increasing in magnitude thereon.)
So? The point remains that the ICS does not actually say whether it refers to rest mass or relativistic mass, yet you assume that it MUST be referring to relativistic mass. By deliberately choosing to interpret it in such a manner as to make its own conclusions impossible, you are being disingenuous.
Again, I don't see what the E2ICS is talking about if it's not talking about mass dilation. The informational equivalent, if it's talking about rest mass, is basically to say that hyperdrive works by jumping past lightspeed.The problem is that I can't imagine what the E2ICS is proposing if it isn't talking about real (i.e., relativistic) mass; holding rest masses the same in a jump requires no adjustment of imaginary mass components, nor any calculation whatsoever.
Which is precisely what Dr. Saxton proposes. The passage about maintaining the complex mass has nothing to do with relativistic dilation, and is included in order to show how the idea does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.tjhairball wrote:Again, I don't see what the E2ICS is talking about if it's not talking about mass dilation. The informational equivalent, if it's talking about rest mass, is basically to say that hyperdrive works by jumping past lightspeed.
Dr. Curtis Saxton, Ph.D. wrote:A starship can exist comfortably above or below lightspeed but cannot pass through lightspeed via ordinary physical means. However all of ordinary physical existence becomes imprecisely defined below a certain subatomic scale, and we can speculate that this may have something to do with the super-technology that permits hyperdrive in STAR WARS. The leap beyond the lightspeed may be an event which exploits some kind of quantum-mechanical effect in order to slip from subluminal to superluminal speed without ever being at intermediate speeds. As seen by an external observer, the jump must be accomplished within Plank time, a tiny time unit below which time itself becomes meaningless.
