Anacronian Stryx wrote...
Spuudle wrote...
Anacronian Stryx wrote...
JediNg wrote...
blah blah space bends with mass. yes. He was using analogy, that it'd be simpler just to poinat the correct star and burn your engines than to burn your engines in the general direction of the signal. It's debatable. Regardless, redudancy seems like a good idea anyway (speculative), plus it doubles as an indoctrination device
This will actually lead you to a taking a much longer journey since the stars ain't where you see them, What you see is where they where when the light you see originated.
This can be even more confusing if you travel at FTL - IF you move at a decent ME FTL speed (around 200c) you would actually see the star move acose the viewport as you got closer.
thats what i was thinking..
It takes time for light to travel - The sunlight people bathe in on a warm summers day is 8 minutes "old" the light from our nearest neigboring star is around 4 years "old" ..if you on a clear night watch the milky way on the sky and look at the center you will see light thats 50.000 years "old" those stars might not even exist anymore.
I completely agree. I think we see our 'nearest biggest star' as it was about 8000 years ago. Also, i thought (not saying im right) that as you got closer to said star, you could no longer travel in a straight line could you? Also 'aiming' at a star at a slow speed is fine but you'll never get there. At those necessary speeds I just dont find it plausible to be honest.





Guest_Spuudle_*
Retour en haut




