Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

When did I ever mention edgy as fuck spree killers? That was an odd leap of logic.

You're pretty much saying that the only kind of fiction that should be allowed is either straight-up Tolkein-type fantasy or contemporary fiction. Anything else is not true and not saying it's untrue, therefore is, as you say, "bullshit".

[Urist Tilaturist]

No. In my last post I used the example of Star Wars Jedi, who make absolutely no claims to be anything scientific, instead relying on a magical Force. Midichlorians are not real particles, and a scientific term is not misused as with the tachyons earlier.

Contemporary to whom? Us? George Washington? And why does that mean edgy as fuck spree killers (which are not the same as serial killers)?

[miauw62]

Maybe they weren't experts on the topic of relativity? Science fiction doesn't generally explain the things that happen in it. the mechanics of the technology is usually mostly irrelevant, unless it's fueled with newborn babies and causes people around it to go insane or something.
The name is rather fitting, it's fiction exploring hypothetical situations where science is more advanced than it is at the time of writing.

Besides, I've only ever seen tachyons mentioned in one book (in a book where FTL travel did not exist at all, and the attempt to actually use them to go FTL failed rather spectacularily)

Most science fiction uses hyperspace jumps or something similar.

You could probably find dozens of misconceptions and urban myths in most books, does that mean that we should stop reading altogheter?

[Urist Tilaturist]

Whoever was explaining the weird engine mentioned tachyons. I have no idea if the writers themselves mentioned them.

I have not even finished A level physics and even I know that as objects get closer to light speed their mass increases to the point where they can accelerate no longer. It is not expert knowledge and anyone dealing with spacecraft should really know it.

[miauw62]

Whoever was explaining the weird engine mentioned tachyons. I have no idea if the writers themselves mentioned them.

I have not even finished A level physics and even I know that as objects get closer to light speed their mass increases to the point where they can accelerate no longer. It is not expert knowledge and anyone dealing with spacecraft should really know it.

the fun part about the drive i mentioned is that it actually suppressed inertia using quantum magic.

As long as it makes sense to the reader at the moment of reading, is there anything really wrong with it?

[Graknorke]

And why does that mean edgy as fuck spree killers (which are not the same as serial killers)?

Hey it's either that or low-quality romance novels. Take your pick.

[10ebbor10]

How did people think that tachyons with real mass going faster than light were possible in the 1970s, when relativity specifically forbids it? Was the theory thought to be flawed in some way?

The very definition of the Tachyon is that it has imaginary mass. The stipulation that they could go Faster than light was derived from that, but that turned out not to be.

Whoever was explaining the weird engine mentioned tachyons. I have no idea if the writers themselves mentioned them.

I have not even finished A level physics and even I know that as objects get closer to light speed their mass increases to the point where they can accelerate no longer. It is not expert knowledge and anyone dealing with spacecraft should really know it.

The spaceship that laid at the basic of this discussion used tachyons. However, the explanation that was added to it by iamroy, is as far as I know, completely unsupported by canon as well as modern physics. (Note: did not see series).

At the time, I suppose, the entire thing was relatively plausible.

But if you want a scientific term carnage, go look at wikipedia.

[nogoodnames]

When dealing with such highly theoretical concepts as FTL travel it's important to remember that we do not know everything about the workings of the universe. Even our best mathematical models are only reasonable approximations, waiting for some new insight to lead to greater understanding. How many times have revolutionary advances in science been rejected because they do not fit with what others "know" to be true? I'm just saying keep an open mind.

That said, in my opinion the most reasonable form of propulsion available in the foreseeable future for an interstellar craft would be Light Sails driven by lasers. Barring the discovery of exotic matter or some other major upset in our knowledge of physics, FTL travel seems unlikely. Light Sails avoid the tyranny of the rocket equation altogether. The only other plausible near-future propulsion method I know of that can achieve this is the Bussard Ramjet (aka ramscoop), which has its own set of problems. In addition, light sails would be relatively simple, mechanically, and thus reliable. The biggest points of failure would likely be the lasers driving them, which would presumably be close enough to Earth that they could be repaired easily.

[10ebbor10]

Unfortunately, even lasers aren't perfect, and will diffuse eventually. The other problem being off course that laser based propulsion is 1 direction only.

[Orange Wizard]

ptw

[nogoodnames]

Unfortunately, even lasers aren't perfect, and will diffuse eventually. The other problem being off course that laser based propulsion is 1 direction only.

True, but with sufficiently large sails and powerful lasers the first problem can be avoided. Ideally you would hop between nearby stars and set up power stations along the way, so the beam only has to cover a few light years.

The second problem already has a solution. You can release a sail out in front of you and then use the light reflected off of it to accelerate in the opposite direction. I had a picture that illustrated this but I can't seem to find it right now.
Or, if you just want to slow down you can use a magnetic sail to brake on particles in space, possibly even collect them to fuel a fusion reactor or something.

[10ebbor10]

I see, that is a very clever solution. Does result in a further efficiency loss, but still.

[Sergarr]

Any faster than light movement/teleportation method allows time travel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Via_faster-than-light_.28FTL.29_travel).

Time travel is impossible, or else somebody would have arrived at that party Hawking threw for time travelers. (or human civilization dies before it can discover time travel, but that variant is too depressing to consider)

Therefore, faster-than-light movement is impossible, at least for normal objects.

[miauw62]

It could just be incredibly unwieldy to use it for time travel, for all we know.

[i2amroy]

Whoever was explaining the weird engine mentioned tachyons. I have no idea if the writers themselves mentioned them.

The writer himself mentioned them in his description, which was why they ended up in my explanation (which as I have mentioned several times, doesn't work with our current level of known physics).

And keep in mind that many writers don't get much beyond "I took this because it was required" level of physics. I've known of people who were very successful writers yet couldn't even do basic math and physics stuff. (Sure they passed it as a general ed class in college with a 70%, but that was 30 years ago).

And time travel is possible by the laws of physics, it's just that most theories only allow you to travel back to the point of the creation of the time machine. That explains why we haven't seen any time travelers yet, because nobody has yet to developed a time machine yet. (Also even if we did discover it eventually, what is the chance that people remembered a failure party from thousands of years ago? Pretty slim I'd say. Do you remember any of the topics of the parties Napoleon threw? And that was only 250 years ago.)