54 réponses à ce sujet

[Chris2112534566]

OP you have no idea of what Faster-Then-Light Travel is do you?

you want to learn the Theoretical Physics behind FTL

look up Michio Kaku he's one of the leading Minds behind Theoretical Physics and a super nerd at heart.

anyway FTL travel in no way tampers with Time, it is merely a means of making a trip across vast distances in space that would normally take many lifetimes as short as possible, again IT IN NOW WAY TAMPERS WITH TIME!

[TheBaconExperiment]

newcomplex wrote...

Theory is a very strong fact in science, but it stilll not a law.   Laws are proven fact through experimentation and observation, theories are things that are mathematically proven, yet insufficient experimentary data is available.   

Here is a pretty succinct definition of the different between law and theory. http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
The only absolute truth in science is data. Unless someone messes with it. 

You can prove time dilation with wrist-watches and airplanes. Also NASA says so: http://imagine.gsfc....rs/050225a.html

Modifié par TheBaconExperiment, 16 février 2010 - 12:16 .

[vhatever]

Theory of relativity = bunk even as a theory. According to the scientific method, we are to throw out any hypothesis which can be proved epimirically false. Findings in quantum physics have contradicted relativty. In my "western scientst mind", relativity is no more correct than the "theory" earth is the center of the universe.

[CatatonicMan]

vhatever wrote...

Theory of relativity = bunk even as a theory. According to the scientific method, we are to throw out any hypothesis which can be proved epimirically false. Findings in quantum physics have contradicted relativty. In my "western scientst mind", relativity is no more correct than the "theory" earth is the center of the universe.

Not really.

Under that logic, the law of universal gravitation is also a bunk theory. It isn't, however; it just makes assumptions that become invalid when taken out of the context the law was built on.

It would be more accurate to say that relativity is incomplete, rather than wrong - especially considering all the cool things that relativity lets us do.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 16 février 2010 - 12:17 .

[vhatever]

CatatonicMan wrote...

vhatever wrote...

Theory of relativity = bunk even as a theory. According to the scientific method, we are to throw out any hypothesis which can be proved epimirically false. Findings in quantum physics have contradicted relativty. In my "western scientst mind", relativity is no more correct than the "theory" earth is the center of the universe.

Not really.

Under that logic, the law of universal gravitation is also a bunk theory. It isn't, however; it just makes assumptions that become invalid when taken out of the context the law was built on.

It would be more accurate to say that relativity is incomplete, rather than wrong - especially considering all the cool things that relativity lets us do.

Actually, they usually change the name of a law to keep it a law after it has been demonstrated to incorrectly predict some outcome in a certain set of events. But I've never heard of a theory or a law ever being "downgraded". Scientists are surprisngly conservative. Just because it's called a law rhetorically doesn't make it  law scientifically.

[Havokk7]

Chris2112534566 wrote...
anyway FTL travel in no way tampers with Time, it is merely a means of making a trip across vast distances in space that would normally take many lifetimes as short as possible, again IT IN NOW WAY TAMPERS WITH TIME!

Yes it does. Any travel that is faster-than-light will be seen as traveling
backwards in time in some other frames of reference.
www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html

[rayrocksweet]

"Relativity is overcome by sci-fi wizzard writers with warp drives. What WD(warp drives) do, is compress space time, so a lightyear is sqeezed into a couple km (or miles if you're imperial). That way an object travelling through the compressed space/time at non-relativistic speeds would appear to travel at FTL speeds to an outside observer." I got this private message on this subject and i feel it best explains what the creators had in mind when devolping FTL travel. Simple explaination that makes logical sense imo.

[Raptr569]

vdeity wrote...

That's why it's called Einstein's Theory of Relativity and not Einstein's Law of Relativity.

Actually in science a theory is still fact.

A lot of hardcore religious groups often quote science as only having a theory of evolution but scientists always answer back with in science a theory is fact it is only called a theory because what is scientific fact isn't always 100% correct. However it is fact until disproven but that doesn't mean it isn't correct.

[Noble 1]

SPARTAN-860 wrote...

This theory has never been proven, since no one has ever traveled faster than light, so games can do whatever they want.

It has been proven, because one cannot go faster than light (Because anything with mass requires infinite energy to accelerate it to Light Speed, which is the reason in ME ships go FTL by lowering their mass).  The theory states that the closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time goes for you.  The effect is minimal at normal speeds, however it has been measured.  In fact, if you were to spends your entire life traveling around the earth in a jet airplane, you would travel about 1 second into the future during that time.  

Try to understand the theory before making random and completely false statements, please.

[spacehamsterZH]

I actually think the Mass Effect explanation for FTL travel makes a certain amount of sense. As I understand it from the "Relativity for Dummies" simplified version that I've been able to understand, at the speed of light, mass becomes infinite and therefore nothing can travel at or faster than the speed of light. So if you reduce the mass of an object as you're accelerating it, its mass will not become infinite, so it can keep accelerating. Makes a certain amount of logical sense, and it's not the umpteenth iteration of "wormhole" or "hyperspace". And that's really all I'm assuming anyone was trying to accomplish here.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 04 avril 2010 - 12:03 .

[Noble 1]

Alocormin wrote...

Why don't you read the codex? If you have, apologies, just have to make sure.

The Dark Energy or Mass Effect theory that is made up for this series lowers the effective mass of an object, which yes, does take special relativity out of the window with it. But something similar would be the only way FTL would ever be possible, considering that according that theory of relativity thingy, the speed of light is the absolute limit at which anything can move.

If you can point out a sci-fi that believably breaks the theory of relativity, please tell me! I'm pretty sure it hasn't been done yet, and all things considered Bioware did a respectable attempt at their own idea for FTL.  

The theory of relativity doesn't really account for a way that FTL is possible.  So in order to make it possible - in order to make a story that is intergalactic - you've gotta make up your own rules.

Relativity states that anything with MASS can't go FTL, which is the reason for "Mass Effect," the lowering of the mass of objects.

[Noble 1]

Alocormin wrote...

Or on the large level, apparently - with galaxies moving faster than light? Not sure how that works, or how that's proven.

They dont

[Noble 1]

Bob5312 wrote...

Sphaerus: all very true, except that a particle with zero mass must by definition travel at exactly the speed of light in every reference frame; they require no acceleration.
While many of relativity theory's predictions have been verified (time dilation, frame dragging, gravitational lensing, redshifting, etc., though the jury is still out on gravitational waves) this only imposes limits on whatever theory will eventually replace relativity: it needs to make all the same predictions as well as hopefully explaining dark energy and inflation, which general relativity cannot do without adding in an ad hoc cosmological constant or a hypothetical inflaton field, neither of which is very satisfying.

If you want to read my view of FTL travel in the ME universe, scroll up to read my first (longer) post.

Jigero, I think you have missed the point of the discussion; time dilation is exactly what we're trying to address.

CatatonicMan, as I said earlier, all current theories with tachyons have very serious mathematical instability problems.

And physicists see Tachyons appearing in their equations as evidence that the theory itself needs refining

[Noble 1]

Chris2112534566 wrote...

OP you have no idea of what Faster-Then-Light Travel is do you?
you want to learn the Theoretical Physics behind FTL
look up Michio Kaku he's one of the leading Minds behind Theoretical Physics and a super nerd at heart.
anyway FTL travel in no way tampers with Time, it is merely a means of making a trip across vast distances in space that would normally take many lifetimes as short as possible, again IT IN NOW WAY TAMPERS WITH TIME!

Definitely wrong.  Almost every proposed method of FTL violates causality, which states that the cause must come before the effect.  Warp Drive, Wormholes, ETC.

[Noble 1]

vhatever wrote...

Theory of relativity = bunk even as a theory. According to the scientific method, we are to throw out any hypothesis which can be proved epimirically false. Findings in quantum physics have contradicted relativty. In my "western scientst mind", relativity is no more correct than the "theory" earth is the center of the universe.

The same can be shown in reverse.  Quantum Physics is contradicted by Relativity in many cases.  That is why theorist are searching for a "Theory of Everything" which hopes to unify the two incomplete yet largely successful theories.

[Lord_Tirian]

Havokk7 wrote...

Yes it does. Any travel that is faster-than-light will be seen as traveling
backwards in time in some other frames of reference.
www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html

Of course, you can introduce a special inertial frame (which, of course, contradicts the first postulate of special relativity). That preserves most relativistic effects (which we observe), keeps causality working and gives us our FTL.

Of course, this going to do zilch to time dilation, but I see time dilation as a feature anyway (integrated "stasis pods"!), so I'm fine with that.

[tcn-talon]

I always kind of thought the theory didn't mesh with practical application anyway.

Say, for the sake of example, that on Earth we observe an FTL ship leave Earth and arrive in another star system an hour later. It then turns around and comes home, arriving 1 hour later.

Aboard the ship, the trip took 1 hour there, 1 hour back. Everyone aboard aged exactly 2 hours.

On Earth, it took 1 hour for the ship to arrive at the distant star and 1 hour to get back. Everyone aged exactly 2 hours.

Whatever the math Einstein came up with might say, I tend to believe reality would remain intact and everyone would age at the same rate. Sometimes the universe obeys common sense more readily than logic.

Modifié par tcn-talon, 04 avril 2010 - 01:29 .

[Schroing]

vdeity wrote...

That's why it's called Einstein's Theory of Relativity and not Einstein's Law of Relativity.

That's about as meaningless a comment as one could make.

[wolfsite]

That's the nice thing about Science Fiction since they can find ways around Scientific Theory. In Dune for example they use the concept of folding space allowing ships to travel from one point to another instantly threw a single point. The spice must flow.........

[thedoncarnage]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't time dilation only occur at relativistic speeds? If you're moving faster than light (using space folds) you aren't moving at relativistic speed, you're moving outside space-time itself. The "jump" is near instantaneous, and therefore time shift is kept to a minimum compared to the traveler and it's target.

Modifié par thedoncarnage, 04 avril 2010 - 02:31 .

[Noble 1]

tcn-talon wrote...

I always kind of thought the theory didn't mesh with practical application anyway.

Say, for the sake of example, that on Earth we observe an FTL ship leave Earth and arrive in another star system an hour later. It then turns around and comes home, arriving 1 hour later.

Aboard the ship, the trip took 1 hour there, 1 hour back. Everyone aboard aged exactly 2 hours.

On Earth, it took 1 hour for the ship to arrive at the distant star and 1 hour to get back. Everyone aged exactly 2 hours.

Whatever the math Einstein came up with might say, I tend to believe reality would remain intact and everyone would age at the same rate. Sometimes the universe obeys common sense more readily than logic.

This could be true if time dilation hadn't already been demonstrated and confirmed by testing...Science stomps all over common sense, and it's the height of narcissism to believe that the universe behaves a certain way just because it's easier for us to understand it.
 

[Noble 1]

thedoncarnage wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't time dilation only occur at relativistic speeds? If you're moving faster than light (using space folds) you aren't moving at relativistic speed, you're moving outside space-time itself. The "jump" is near instantaneous, and therefore time shift is kept to a minimum compared to the traveler and it's target.

No, time dilation occurs at every speed.  The effect is negligible at speeds mankind can achieve, and then increases exponentially once on approaches Light Speed.  

Also, space and time are once entity, neither can exist without the other.  Because of that,  folding space means folding time, opening up the possibility for time travel, which creates all sorts of paradoxes, and violates causality.

[thedoncarnage]

Noble 1 wrote...

thedoncarnage wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't time dilation only occur at relativistic speeds? If you're moving faster than light (using space folds) you aren't moving at relativistic speed, you're moving outside space-time itself. The "jump" is near instantaneous, and therefore time shift is kept to a minimum compared to the traveler and it's target.

No, time dilation occurs at every speed.  The effect is negligible at speeds mankind can achieve, and then increases exponentially once on approaches Light Speed.  

Also, space and time are once entity, neither can exist without the other.  Because of that,  folding space means folding time, opening up the possibility for time travel, which creates all sorts of paradoxes, and violates causality.

Thanks, Noble1. I'll just retort with "Mass Effect fields" then.

[Noble 1]

thedoncarnage wrote...

Noble 1 wrote...

thedoncarnage wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't time dilation only occur at relativistic speeds? If you're moving faster than light (using space folds) you aren't moving at relativistic speed, you're moving outside space-time itself. The "jump" is near instantaneous, and therefore time shift is kept to a minimum compared to the traveler and it's target.

No, time dilation occurs at every speed.  The effect is negligible at speeds mankind can achieve, and then increases exponentially once on approaches Light Speed.  

Also, space and time are once entity, neither can exist without the other.  Because of that,  folding space means folding time, opening up the possibility for time travel, which creates all sorts of paradoxes, and violates causality.

Thanks, Noble1. I'll just retort with "Mass Effect fields" then.

 That's always the way to go

[bleese]

Havokk7 wrote...

Chris2112534566 wrote...
anyway FTL travel in no way tampers with Time, it is merely a means of making a trip across vast distances in space that would normally take many lifetimes as short as possible, again IT IN NOW WAY TAMPERS WITH TIME!

Yes it does. Any travel that is faster-than-light will be seen as traveling
backwards in time in some other frames of reference.
www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html

The relative time dialation formula for objects going the speed of light is

Tv = To / (1 - v^2/c^2)
Where:
To = Time observe to the spacecraft moving
Tv = Time observed by someone looking at the spacecraft
v = Velocity of the spacecraft
c = Velocity of light.

Now when v becomes greater then c you are then dividing the original time by a negative number, which means that the time observed by someone looking at the spacecraft should, theoretically, go backwards.

If 1 second passed to a person on a spacecraft going 110% of the speed of light, then to a stationary observer looking at that person would observe that spacecraft moving back in time by 4.7 seconds.