I remember trying to read the Forever War.
Few books have managed to depress me to the point where I put them aside, but that one did.
You tried to read it, which is fair enough, but I am liking this post for the avatar. I have a very soft spot for Amy Acker.
While time dilation likely wasn't given much consideration when crafting that portion of the game, even from an in universe perspective time dilation would still be a thing when close enough to something with sufficient mass (like a black hole) to make the effects noticeable. Gravitational time dilation couldn't be hand-waved in the same way that the mass effect does with FTL travel.
Since there wasn't any noticeable effects, from an in universe perspective they must have still been far enough away for the effects not to be noticeable.
The Collector base is stated to be on the accretion disk of the black hole. That means it's within its gravity field. But I guess the extent of the effect could be debatable.
@Saul Iscariot
So do I 
Its not that I thought it was a bad book, but I think I needed something more uplifting in my life at the time. And that book was just kinda the opposite.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
Actually, It was due to get introduced in Mass Effect. Drew K has already discussed his original plans for ME3, And it included Space-Time dilation.
Too depressing. I realize that they circumvented it with hand-waving, but it's no different than hyperspace in Star Wars. I'd hate the fact of everyone being long gone when you returned from your trip. From a practical standpoint, they wouldn't be able to make a location look brand new every time you visited it.
Something involving time will happen. I feel it. Dunno what though, and I'm not so sure it'll be a big part of the main plot.
Honestly, I don't want time travel anywhere near Mass Effect. It practically always leads to some inane predestination paradox, which hasn't been a clever plot twist since 1950's. Time travel stories tend to lead to cheap cop-outs, as anything that goes wrong, can, in principle, be corrected.
And it so happens, that if you combine relativity (time dilation) and faster-than-light travel, you lose causality (i.e. the principle that the cause must happen before the effect), which leads to a form of time travel. In that light I'd prefer that they just handwave time dilation away with space magic. It's not as if a real scientifc explanation exists anyway.
I wish I had my textbook with me so I could look up the exact equations, but people are seriously underestimating how much gravitational force it takes to make this sort of thing significant.
The short version is that the gravity necessary to get any kind of significant effects would crush pretty much anything we consider standard matter here on Earth.
The effect is miniscule, but wouldn't be if instead of orbiting Earth the astronauts were orbiting close enough to something with many times the mass of Earth, like a black hole. The movie Interstellar featured this, with the astronauts searching for a habitable planet among several that were orbiting a black hole. For every hour spent on the surface of the planet closet to the black hole, years were passing on Earth.
Yeah, this is just movie nonsense.
It would not be significant at all.
I wish I had my textbook with me so I could look up the exact equations, but people are seriously underestimating how much gravitational force it takes to make this sort of thing significant.
The short version is that the gravity necessary to get any kind of significant effects would crush pretty much anything we consider standard matter here on Earth.
Yeah, this is just movie nonsense.
It would not be significant at all.
Did you read the earlier drafts of the interstellar script? Ignoring the far more nonsensical plot, the scientific gloss on it was very different, tying in with an interlocking series of black holes rather than just one supermassive one.
I didn't see the film. My dad told me it wasn't very good, and I've rather soured on Nolan since TDKR. But potential is potential. It's a scaler field. (Well, scaler potential, anyway.) Doesn't matter if it's from one source or a thousand.
Yeah, looking at some numbers and doing a few back-of-the-envelope calculations, this doesn't look promising. On the surface of the sun, you might have around an extra minute 'added' to each year. Even on the surface of a neutron star, you're not looking at any effects large enough to drive that kind of plot. Maybe a week would "last" an extra day. And that's sitting on the surface of a neutron star.
I'm going to go ahead and make the call that this is not scientifically possible.
Messing around with time is messing around with the fabric of narrative, that's not something I feel you can do casually.
So far ME hasn't touched it. I don't think putting it in as a secondary thing would be anything other than confusing and annoying, and making it a primary plot thing would be a big shift. Beyond that, I think for it to work well it would need a rhythm to it: you go out, get dilated, come back, have feels, go out again - but with annoying lightspeed maths specially handwaved that requires a situational plot thing, and is that really going to be that interesting to play off?
Time travel is a bad drug. Star Trek got hooked on it.
The sniper rifles already do it in SP. Pandora's box has been opened.
The game even has autoaim lol.
Where is all the Interstellar hate coming from? You guys do realize the calculation for time dilitation effect in that movie was correct right? These are commonly known formulas, "we" use them on a daily basis to fix disparity between satellites and instruments on Earth.
As for Suicide Mission, the Collector Base was way way further away from the black hole than the water planet in Interstellar
Where is all the Interstellar hate coming from? You guys do realize the calculation for time dilitation effect in that movie was correct right? These are commonly known formulas, "we" use them on a daily basis to fix disparity between satellites and instruments on Earth.
As for Suicide Mission, the Collector Base was way way further away from the black hole than the water planet in Interstellar
Where is all the Interstellar hate coming from? You guys do realize the calculation for time dilitation effect in that movie was correct right? These are commonly known formulas, "we" use them on a daily basis to fix disparity between satellites and instruments on Earth.
The way Gargantua was set up in the movie didn't make sense because it should have crushed planets in its pull.
Not really, the jury's out on that one http://www.slate.com...e_was_mine.html
If this "calculation" leads to gravitational time dialation on the scale on days on this planet or wherever they are lasting decades on Earth, I can assure you it's nowhere even remotely close to correct. It's off by many orders of magnitude.
? I read many articles on the movie and even the biggest sceptics agree that time dilitation on this scale can exist, it's not fiction. The debate centers on whether the planet so close to the black hole can exist/maintain orbit and what other negative effect such close proximity to the massive black hole would occur to human body
I read many articles on the movie and even the biggest sceptics agree that time dilitation on this scale can exist, it's not fiction. The debate centers on whether the planet so close to the black hole can exist/maintain orbit and what other negative effect such close proximity to the massive black hole would occur to human body
The science in Interstellar is totally wrong. That kind of time dilation would mean that the planet is practically touching the black hole, and the gravity differential would tear it to shreds. And orbits very close to a black hole aren't stable anyway.
You know, I think I'll trust the textbooks on this one instead of the consumer pop culture science 'articles' on websites I don't trust to get basic journalism straight.
There's no way that a gravitational field can lead to dilation of this scale.
Ok so what do the textbooks say? Obviously I'm not a scientist or anything, but for my 'common' understanding, it's just a simple formula of how massive object is required combined with how close to it someone has to be to "get" any dilitation scale required
Ok so what do the textbooks say? Obviously I'm not a scientist or anything, but for my 'common' understanding, it's just a simple formula of how massive object is required combined with how close to it someone has to be to "get" any dilitation scale required
Right. The problem is that the mass required and the proximity necessary would mean the object in question would have to be dense beyond comprehension. We're talking way denser than a neutron star.
Even if that kind of mass was possible, matter as we know it could not exist nearby. Certainly not humans in suits.
Right. The problem is that the mass required and the proximity necessary would mean the object in question would have to be dense beyond comprehension. We're talking way denser than a neutron star.
Even if that kind of mass was possible, matter as we know it could not exist nearby. Certainly not humans in suits.
Fair enough. What if the scaled was brought down though? For example 1 hour = 1 month? Still a massive dilitation if someone spends like few weeks within the hypothetical gravitational field? Would that still be unrealistic?
Fair enough. What if the scaled was brought down though? For example 1 hour = 1 month? Still a massive dilitation if someone spends like few weeks within the hypothetical gravitational field? Would that still be unrealistic?
Without doing any calculations, I'd say that the planet would still have to be way too close for any kind of stable orbit.
It would.
If you're somewhere with insanely high gravity, say, 20 or 30 times what we have on Earth you might have an 'extra' minute a year.
Retour en haut