Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Faster then Light methods.

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wed, 2012-07-18 03:26
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
NewAgeOfPower wrote:
Your imagination is sadly limited. What do you mean by time frame? Define Solar System Edge. Is it the orbit of Pluto? The edge of the Heliosphere? Oort Cloud? Where the Sun's gravity is overcome by other gravitational forces?
I do not see it that way, I think something set up like that should have limits in what it can and can not do. It is what takes something from the harder side of sci-fi to space opera. As to your qrestions. By time frame I mean the over all time of the network. I do not feel the gates or wormholes as a whole allow time travel as once a gate connects it is connecting to the network at the same point in time as ever other gate. The gate on lets say mars and the one on planet B are both in the same time, not now and 400 years in the future. Soloar system edge was just a thrown out exsample, pluto will do.
Quote:
Imagine a gate on a planet, say, Mars. If according to you, its not moving... Imagine that planet is ejected; becoming an rogue planet. Read this link: http://www.eclipsephase.com/runaway-exoplanets Is that gate magically disconnected?
Decivre has responded to this better then I.
Quote:
What is the clock speed on that planet? By Arenamontanus's (and most scientifically-savvy people I know), its going to be dramatically different when compared to the clock speed in Sol. Anyways, on page 38 of Gatecrashing, its is noted a Gate is operational on such a rogue planet. With that, I infer that gates are NOT disconnected when ejected from a solar system; you are incorrect.
I am not talking about clock speed but the age of the network. I understand I am not among the most scientifically-savvy posters. However, One assumption I keep hearing is that you can Move a wormhole end after creation to induce a time dilation effect. That may not be the case, which is the standpoint I am coming from. Wormhole travel is not FTL, you do not go faster then light. If gate 1 is built in say year 47 and then you travel, relatively to planet 2 and built a gate and connect to gate 1 in year 340. Then both gates have connected at year 340 and going forward the time is in synch and matched. You guys are working from an assumption both gates are made in year 47 and then one is moved relativity to planet two. Allowing time dilatation and two different time frames. However if a gate is built later and not all at once, even if the planet moves or goes rogue the system is still set on the same time frame. Humans can not move the gates, humans do not even understand the gates. The gate may be able to move itself but if humans could move gates from place to place a few hyper copse would have done so already. I see nothing that says my assumptions are any less valid then your own.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 03:35
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
CodeBreaker wrote:
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
NewAgeOfPower wrote:
Gates are mobile, or at least not fixed in space-time. Think about it.
I am not sure sure they are. Noe one has been able to move a gate, they barely understand the,m and I am more of the idea that you can not move a point once it is made.
They can move. Or at least they can be seen to be capable of moving. The Discord gate has been moved since its discovery. It was moved from its previous position on Eris' surface down to the bottom of the crater formed when they accidentally made it go boom. And there is the brief mention of a gate moving itselfs somewhere else in Gatecrashing. I cannot seem to find the reference though. It was something like 'we sent a probe through the find the missing crashers, we found their gate severed corpses where our reports said the gate was, but the gate was actually 15m down thataways (I am paraphrasing)".
No, the gate seems to move itself, but not off world or even very far and only after it had been "destroyed" and still it reformed in the same spot, only lower as the old point no longer exsisted. It is hard to say it really moved at all.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 08:59
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Decivre wrote:
Assuming two things: that wormholes can be moved once open, and that spacetime itself is affected by dilation.
Given what I'm responding to (that the only way to create a time travel gate is to intentionally open the gate to another time), I feel that that assumption is fair. And indeed, yes, the gates DO move, and they DO suffer time dilation effects. As Mars swings around its orbit, it accelerates at different rates compared to Eris. Ergo, time dilation applies. In this example, the time dilation is so minor as to be nearly unmeasurable, but it's still very real. This is even more true compared to gates on other stars, which are moving away (or towards) us at tremendous speeds.
Quote:
But it was relevant because Einstein said that [i]traditional travel[/i] cannot exceed the speed of light. He acknowledged that there may very well be non-traditional means of superluminal speed, which bypass the problem. And many have come up with theories regarding that (Alcubierre drives and wormholes being the two I can think of, the latter being proposed by Einstein himself).
Einstein-Rosen bridges still incorporate time travel. This is part of the theory, even ignoring time dilation. The whole point of relativity is that everything is relative, and what is 'now' for me is not the same 'now' for someone on the other side of the galaxy. Ergo, a wormhole will also connect two different 'nows'.
Quote:
Look at Battletech!
Never played it, sorry. Most science fiction whitewash the issue by ignoring relativity and assuming everything works per Newtonian physics; two times c just means I get there twice as fast as if I were travelling at c.
Quote:
If gate 1 is built in say year 47 and then you travel, relatively to planet 2 and built a gate and connect to gate 1 in year 340. Then both gates have connected at year 340 and going forward the time is in synch and matched.
This is a failure to understand relativity. You build gate 1 in year 47. Then you get in your spaceship and fly out to planet 2. Your clock says it's 340. The clock at gate 1 says it's 1232. The star configuration at planet 2 says it's 284. Who is right? The answer is, everyone is. So you build your second gate. You now have a gate from planet 2, year 284, to planet 1, year 1232. While this isn't necessarily an issue, as Arenamonterous showed in his example, it is still time travel. We'll just all agree that on planet 2 it's 1232 because there's no one there to complain.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 10:40
King Shere King Shere's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
You build gate 1 in year 47. Then you get in your spaceship and fly out to planet 2. Your clock says it's 340. The clock at gate 1 says it's 1232. The star configuration at planet 2 says it's 284. Who is right? The answer is, everyone is. So you build your second gate. You now have a gate from planet 2, year 284, to planet 1, year 1232. While this isn't necessarily an issue, as Arenamonterous showed in his example, it is still time travel. We'll just all agree that on planet 2 it's 1232 because there's no one there to complain.
Then there is the idea that one needs to build both gates to get them linked and ferry one of them, so gate 1&2 and is built , gate 2 is then ferried to planet 2...
—
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/tc_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/exh_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/argo_userbar.jpg[/img] [i]"To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."[/i] Plutarch
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 11:05
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
I will admit only have a basic understanding of relativity and have been awake far to long. However if you go from Planet A even at .9999 light to planet B with time dilation the time that passed in the outside universe is not effected.So if you leave in year 47 on an 8 ly trip and arrive in year 57, even though you only felt 4.5 years it is still year 57 to the rest of the universe correct?
King Shere wrote:
Then there is the idea that one needs to build both gates to get them linked and ferry one of them, so gate 1&2 and is built , gate 2 is then ferried to planet 2...
And the other end of that is the idea that a gate can not be moved from its location once it is constructed. If such is the case it can not be ferried to another planet , but must be constructed on site.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 12:27
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
still year 57 to the rest of the universe correct?
You say this like there's some sort of universal calendar, which is a very Newtonian concept. Decivre suggested that perhaps it is the case, and I'm sure he has the support of some very smart people in saying this, but it isn't relativity. Per relativity, there is no universal calendar. Right now, time is moving slower on Earth than it is on Mercury (because of gravity). That time difference is enough that we can actually measure it, comparing a clock at sea level to one on a mountain. Even though they are going at the same speed relative to one another, one goes slower because space-time is tugged differently. And this is the case throughout the universe. There are no two points which are on the same clock. And it goes further. The classic example of relativity is two people riding on a train, as the train is struck by lightning at two points. One person sees the events as simultaneous, another sees them as sequential (and the point is, they're both right). This sort of thing also applies to everyone. As we swing through the galaxy, events occur in a different order for us than they might for someone at Betelgeuse. Which means, not only would the Betelgeuse guy and your Terran disagree on something like 'how old is the universe', but on something as basic as the ordering of events!* This is why I mentioned that the planet has its own calendar, and its own understanding as to how long it's been since some arbitrary event such as the birth of Christ. When you're jumping from Mars to Eris, that difference in time is too small for a human to notice (although a computer should be able to exploit it), and a jump from Mars to say Carnivale is so far that the time difference becomes irrelevant (it'll take centuries to be able to exploit it by sending data 'the old fashioned way'). So in practice, it just doesn't come up. But it's there. And yes, this is a very alien way to see the universe. We assume that things age the same here as they do in Japan or on the Moon, because the difference is too miniscule for us to detect. But that just isn't the case. Time DOES literally flow differently in Japan or on the moon, and we can test it. * I chose 'how old the universe is' as an arbitrary point of time that every place experiences. Of course, scientists can't actually pinpoint the creation of the universe down to the second, but imagine for a moment they could. The point is, they'd get a different answer from Earth than from anywhere else. That difference would probably be on the order of minutes and hours when the total age is measured in billions of years, i.e. too tiny to affect you, but it's there. Similarly with ordering of events. It's not like someone on Betelgeuse would believe Jesus was born before the dinosaurs died out. But he might believe that the supernova of 185 actually occured while Earth was in the year 192 (and he'd be correct. And so would we.)
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 12:49
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Given what I'm responding to (that the only way to create a time travel gate is to intentionally open the gate to another time), I feel that that assumption is fair. And indeed, yes, the gates DO move, and they DO suffer time dilation effects. As Mars swings around its orbit, it accelerates at different rates compared to Eris. Ergo, time dilation applies. In this example, the time dilation is so minor as to be nearly unmeasurable, but it's still very real. This is even more true compared to gates on other stars, which are moving away (or towards) us at tremendous speeds.
You don't know that time dilation applies. No one does, because no one has ever proven that time dilation affects anything but matter. The idea that time dilation affects spacetime itself is purely speculation. It might, but we have no clue.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Einstein-Rosen bridges still incorporate time travel. This is part of the theory, even ignoring time dilation. The whole point of relativity is that everything is relative, and what is 'now' for me is not the same 'now' for someone on the other side of the galaxy. Ergo, a wormhole will also connect two different 'nows'.
You might want to read Einstein's own writing on the matter. He explicitly believed that wormholes did not violate causality because they warped light cones, therefore not allowing time travel at all. You do not actually travel faster than light, you travel slower than light through a shortcut in the fabric of reality. Because light also travels through that shortcut, and it still travels faster than you, time travel never happens. The only means of time travel is by actually exceeding the speed of light while traversing through spacetime.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
This is a failure to understand relativity. You build gate 1 in year 47. Then you get in your spaceship and fly out to planet 2. Your clock says it's 340. The clock at gate 1 says it's 1232. The star configuration at planet 2 says it's 284. Who is right? The answer is, everyone is. So you build your second gate. You now have a gate from planet 2, year 284, to planet 1, year 1232. While this isn't necessarily an issue, as Arenamonterous showed in his example, it is still time travel. We'll just all agree that on planet 2 it's 1232 because there's no one there to complain.
Again, this assumes that that relativity applies to time as a whole, and not as a local process of time. This has never been observed, and is purely speculated. Quantum teleportation was always a thorn in this hypothesis' side, so presumably the means to transmit information through quantum teleportation will invariably prove that only local time is relative, or will prove that time travel is downright easy as hell. But considering that we've observed quantum teleportation, quantum tunneling, and a number of other experiments that exceed the speed of light, and none of them violated causality, I'm starting to think that either special relativity is incomplete, or that it was incorrect in this single regard.
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I will admit only have a basic understanding of relativity and have been awake far to long. However if you go from Planet A even at .9999 light to planet B with time dilation the time that passed in the outside universe is not effected.So if you leave in year 47 on an 8 ly trip and arrive in year 57, even though you only felt 4.5 years it is still year 57 to the rest of the universe correct?
You'd feel a lot less than 4.5 years of time if you traveled at .9999c, because according to the theory, dilation adjusts you such that your reference to the speed of light does not change. That means that at .9999c, local time has been slowed for you by 10,000 times. You will age a single year every 10 millennia.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
You say this like there's some sort of universal calendar, which is a very Newtonian concept. Decivre suggested that perhaps it is the case, and I'm sure he has the support of some very smart people in saying this, but it isn't relativity. Per relativity, there is no universal calendar. Right now, time is moving slower on Earth than it is on Mercury (because of gravity). That time difference is enough that we can actually measure it, comparing a clock at sea level to one on a mountain. Even though they are going at the same speed relative to one another, one goes slower because space-time is tugged differently. And this is the case throughout the universe. There are no two points which are on the same clock.
Unless dilation is adjusted for. You should look up information on our GPS system. It stays on a universal clock synched with the Earth itself, despite being under the constant effects of a different time dilation from us. So apparently, it is feasible to do. Otherwise, our GPS system would fail. Dilation had to be accounted for.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
And it goes further. The classic example of relativity is two people riding on a train, as the train is struck by lightning at two points. One person sees the events as simultaneous, another sees them as sequential (and the point is, they're both right). This sort of thing also applies to everyone. As we swing through the galaxy, events occur in a different order for us than they might for someone at Betelgeuse. Which means, not only would the Betelgeuse guy and your Terran disagree on something like 'how old is the universe', but on something as basic as the ordering of events!*
But is it that the observation of the event is not simultaneous due to the limitations of light, or is the event [i]actually non-simultaneous[/i]? Which of the two it is has never been actually proven. And thought experiments have been made to show that it is very likely that we simply do not have the means of observing true simultaneity, because there is no way to make an instantaneous observation. Absolute simultaneity might be possible, but it would be impossible to observe it if that were the case.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 12:49
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Merged posts.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 12:49
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Merged posts.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 13:01
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
You say this like there's some sort of universal calendar, which is a very Newtonian concept. Decivre suggested that perhaps it is the case, and I'm sure he has the support of some very smart people in saying this, but it isn't relativity. Per relativity, there is no universal calendar. Right now, time is moving slower on Earth than it is on Mercury (because of gravity). That time difference is enough that we can actually measure it, comparing a clock at sea level to one on a mountain. Even though they are going at the same speed relative to one another, one goes slower because space-time is tugged differently. And this is the case throughout the universe. There are no two points which are on the same clock.
As has been said, you can adjust for locale time dilation, we do this now. I know in most cases there is no universal calendar. However, if one can teleport from point A to point B then you are still in the same time frame. If you teleport at 2.15 to another system and could only move along that systems timeframe then you show up at 2:15. Now it is true that light from the system is not the same light from the first, you may well be looking back at light a thousand years old. But as you can not travel the speed of light you could never reach that light. Wormholes or other types of "FTL" may not break the speed of light. So while you may be setting on a world in 2254 looking at back at earth and seeing ligth from a thousand years past, you are still in 2254 and not 3254.
Decivre wrote:
You'd feel a lot less than 4.5 years of time if you traveled at .9999c, because according to the theory, dilation adjusts you such that your reference to the speed of light does not change. That means that at .9999c, time has been slowed for you by 10,000 times. You will age a single year every 10 millennia.
Was not sure on my numbers, My recollection for them is not the best. In any case the speed was not as relevant as the time outside and inside. But thanks I'll check em better next time before I randomly spit them out.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 13:24
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Was not sure on my numbers, My recollection for them is not the best. In any case the speed was not as relevant as the time outside and inside. But thanks I'll check em better next time before I randomly spit them out.
The formula for your frame of reference taking into account time dilation caused by speed (excluding the effects of gravity wells, because that makes it a bit more confusing and I don't remember how to calculate its effects) is d=c/(c-s), with c being the speed of light (of course), and s being your current speed. To simplify, you can always represent s as a fraction of c, and represent c as 1 (so to determine dilation for .9999c, you would replace c with 1, and s with .9999)
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 13:34
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Decivre wrote:
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Was not sure on my numbers, My recollection for them is not the best. In any case the speed was not as relevant as the time outside and inside. But thanks I'll check em better next time before I randomly spit them out.
The formula for your frame of reference taking into account time dilation caused by speed (excluding the effects of gravity wells, because that makes it a bit more confusing and I don't remember how to calculate its effects) is d=c/(c-s), with c being the speed of light (of course), and s being your current speed. To simplify, you can always represent s as a fraction of c, and represent c as 1 (so to determine dilation for .9999c, you would replace c with 1, and s with .9999)
That is more math then I am capable of at the moment, but many thanks. I did find this site which may be useful to some folks however http://mysite.verizon.net/res148h4j/javascript/script_starship.html
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 14:36
NewAgeOfPower NewAgeOfPower's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Seeker, I have nothing to say to you. If you can't understand relativity, don't worry, most of humanity doesn't.
—
As mind to body, so soul to spirit. As death to the mortal man, so failure to the immortal. Such is the price of all ambition.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 15:24
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Decivre wrote:
You don't know that time dilation applies. No one does, because no one has ever proven that time dilation affects anything but matter. The idea that time dilation affects spacetime itself is purely speculation. It might, but we have no clue.
So to clarify, you are hypothesizing that if you have a cube of absolute vacuum (not space vacuum, but a true, not an iota of anything including quantum foam vacuum) and accelerated, that that nothing wouldn't suffer time dilation? And you're saying that if there's so much as an atom there to experience that acceleration, that dilation applies normally? I'm okay with that, but I'm not sure how it's really useful.
Quote:
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Einstein-Rosen bridges still incorporate time travel. This is part of the theory, even ignoring time dilation. The whole point of relativity is that everything is relative, and what is 'now' for me is not the same 'now' for someone on the other side of the galaxy. Ergo, a wormhole will also connect two different 'nows'.
You might want to read Einstein's own writing on the matter. He explicitly believed that wormholes did not violate causality because they warped light cones, therefore not allowing time travel at all. You do not actually travel faster than light, you travel slower than light through a shortcut in the fabric of reality. Because light also travels through that shortcut, and it still travels faster than you, time travel never happens.
I think we may have missed something, by virtue of so much back and forth. If I am at point A and move to point B, there is some degree of time travel, regardless as to whether I move super slowly or whatnot. Point A and point B experience time differently (if imperceptibly so). However, the experience of time between my printer and monitor really is so small that it's effectively nothing, while the passage of time on Europa is measurably different. Europa is at a different point of time than Earth. If you brought Europa next to Earth, it would still have a different point of time. From its point of view, the universe is a different age than from the POV of Earth. This will always be true. Wormholes will also respect that. On Betelgeuse, the universe maybe is a tiny bit younger than on Earth (i.e., particle of Betelgeuse is a tiny bit younger). By travelling through that wormhole, I am travelling "into the past", because not as much time has transpired there as has at home.
Quote:
But considering that we've observed quantum teleportation, quantum tunneling, and a number of other experiments that exceed the speed of light, and none of them violated causality, I'm starting to think that either special relativity is incomplete, or that it was incorrect in this single regard.
Except that, while these have all had some weird effect that seems to go FTL, we still can't seem to do things like send information FTL (information being something which actually CAN violate causality). To say 'we collapsed a q-bit this way, and over there we collapsed it that way, ergo causality is safe' is disingenious. So far we've not done anything which COULD threaten causality.
Quote:
Unless dilation is adjusted for. You should look up information on our GPS system.
This is using math to calculate *what the clock says on Earth*. I can set my clock to the same time zone as Tokyo, but that doesn't make it 2am. The GPS satellites experience of time is correct, even though it's experiencing time faster than on Earth. The GPS is artificially modelling Earth time in order to be useful, but this doesn't make Earth time somehow the objective time. And we keep coming back to this. If I take a gate to Betelgeuse and put up a calendar saying it's 2012, no one is going to argue with me. I can still get my news from Earth on 2012, and my letters will all be postmarked as 2012. But from the POV of Betelgeuse, it may actually have only been 900 years since the birth of Christ (even accounting for lag due to distance).
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 15:44
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
As has been said, you can adjust for locale time dilation, we do this now.
Like I posted, you can set your clock for a different time zone and track it accurately, but that doesn't mean that you are living in that time zone.
Quote:
I know in most cases there is no universal calendar. However, if one can teleport from point A to point B then you are still in the same time frame.
Yes, your personal time frame. But imagine if point B is moving slightly slower than point A. You jump over from A to B at 2:15 on A's clock and your watch. An hour later you jump back, but A's clock says 3:20, not 3:15! It's not that your watch is wrong. It's just time flows differently. You have just come from the past (3:15) into the future (3:20). It also means that point B, which has always been experiencing time slower, is ALWAYS in 'the past'. However you care to measure it; radioactive decay, star positions, whatever, it is in a different time than point A. Yes, for the purpose of running a game, you should say your muse autocorrects for the tiny differences and no one ever sees it. But that STILL doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 15:45
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
I also have to say, I REALLY wish I could bump some rep scores, because whether I disagree with you or not, the arguments I'm seeing here are pretty cool.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 15:59
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
And we keep coming back to this. If I take a gate to Betelgeuse and put up a calendar saying it's 2012, no one is going to argue with me. I can still get my news from Earth on 2012, and my letters will all be postmarked as 2012. But from the POV of Betelgeuse, it may actually have only been 900 years since the birth of Christ (even accounting for lag due to distance).
I had an argument lined up, but half way though it dawned on me ya had a point. I don't know, something about that statement clicked and I got what you are saying. I simply never thought of it as time travel, but I guess it would be once ya stop and think about it. I guess even if you landed "now" in some other system it could technically be years early or late( How would you tell if ya was going forward or backward? I Am guessing if something is spinward or not.) Not that it would really effect anything. I can't think of much it could effect, if ya land 5 years in the past, but it takes 5 years to get home anyhow, I am not sure it would have any real effect.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 16:02
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
I also have to say, I REALLY wish I could bump some rep scores, because whether I disagree with you or not, the arguments I'm seeing here are pretty cool.
I agree, it has been a fun debate and brought up things I never really thought of when I started the thread. A few folks have thought of some off the wall stuff for sure that would make some interesting game side effects.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 16:11
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
NewAgeOfPower wrote:
Seeker, I have nothing to say to you. If you can't understand relativity, don't worry, most of humanity doesn't.
Yep I was less clear on it then I thought.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 16:49
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
So to clarify, you are hypothesizing that if you have a cube of absolute vacuum (not space vacuum, but a true, not an iota of anything including quantum foam vacuum) and accelerated, that that nothing wouldn't suffer time dilation? And you're saying that if there's so much as an atom there to experience that acceleration, that dilation applies normally? I'm okay with that, but I'm not sure how it's really useful.
It doesn't even have to be completely empty space. I don't even think we've tested to see if quantum foam exhibits signs of being affected by time dilation. But more to the point, I'm saying that dilation doesn't affect spacetime. I'm saying that it's very possible that dilation is a property of matter, not of reality itself. So it is only the reference of matter on a local level that is influenced by dilation, not reality as a whole. In other words, time [i]might[/i] traverse at the same pace throughout reality, but our local [i]perception[/i] of time is always different based on gravity and velocity. If we were somehow magically able to create clocks that could sync to the motions of reality itself rather than matter, it would be constant and look to be speeding up as you are affected by dilation. In other words, reality runs at a specific rhythm, and we run slower than that rhythm based on how fast or gravity-affected we happen to be at any given time.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
I think we may have missed something, by virtue of so much back and forth. If I am at point A and move to point B, there is some degree of time travel, regardless as to whether I move super slowly or whatnot. Point A and point B experience time differently (if imperceptibly so). However, the experience of time between my printer and monitor really is so small that it's effectively nothing, while the passage of time on Europa is measurably different. Europa is at a different point of time than Earth. If you brought Europa next to Earth, it would still have a different point of time. From its point of view, the universe is a different age than from the POV of Earth. This will always be true. Wormholes will also respect that. On Betelgeuse, the universe maybe is a tiny bit younger than on Earth (i.e., particle of Betelgeuse is a tiny bit younger). By travelling through that wormhole, I am travelling "into the past", because not as much time has transpired there as has at home.
This is where we disagree. I argue that the universe itself runs at a constant pace, while matter moves at a different pace relative to the influence of dilation upon it. So while a fast traveling person might see the universe aging quicker, this is only an illusion from their frame of reference; in reality, the actions of the matter within them are being slowed by the property of time dilation, and reality is still moving at the same pace it has always moved. If anything, I'm arguing that time, like light, is a constant. Only our perception of it changes on account of matter's unique relationship with the speed of light, and the fact that we are made of matter.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Except that, while these have all had some weird effect that seems to go FTL, we still can't seem to do things like send information FTL (information being something which actually CAN violate causality). To say 'we collapsed a q-bit this way, and over there we collapsed it that way, ergo causality is safe' is disingenious. So far we've not done anything which COULD threaten causality.
It's not disingenuous, anymore so than claiming that causality isn't safe with means of FTL. This is simply an unexplored area of science, and one in which we have little to say other than hypothesis.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
This is using math to calculate *what the clock says on Earth*. I can set my clock to the same time zone as Tokyo, but that doesn't make it 2am. The GPS satellites experience of time is correct, even though it's experiencing time faster than on Earth. The GPS is artificially modelling Earth time in order to be useful, but this doesn't make Earth time somehow the objective time.
Never said that Earth time is objective time. I said that dilation can be accounted for, and that means that calendars don't suddenly become irrelevant when you begin traversing space at difference references. Just because our current time reference is relative does not mean that all time references must be relative. Do not move the goal posts. All that has been proven with regards to dilation is that matter interactions slow at high velocities and in the heavy influence of gravity, and because observation of the universe requires matter interactions to occur, that naturally slows our observation of the universe, making it seem to move faster. No one has ever proven that time itself is completely relative.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
And we keep coming back to this. If I take a gate to Betelgeuse and put up a calendar saying it's 2012, no one is going to argue with me. I can still get my news from Earth on 2012, and my letters will all be postmarked as 2012. But from the POV of Betelgeuse, it may actually have only been 900 years since the birth of Christ (even accounting for lag due to distance).
Again, no. Just because the matter within Betelgeuse has a different decay and interaction rate than the matter on Earth does [i]not[/i] mean that reality itself is moving differently there.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2012-07-18 23:04
NewAgeOfPower NewAgeOfPower's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Yep I was less clear on it then I thought.
I am truly glad SOMEONE on this forum is humble, level headed, and doesn't resort to insulting others when they dispute his/her ideals, rhetoric rising in pitch as the evidence/logical dissertations pile up. I realize I took this for granted... you are most appreciated. Anyways, Seeker, this thread has been most interesting, has it not? Decivre maintaining the is an absolute timeframe in the universe, whilst the more 'conventional' members argue that it doesn't matter or that time is absolutely relative...
—
As mind to body, so soul to spirit. As death to the mortal man, so failure to the immortal. Such is the price of all ambition.
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 05:55
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
NewAgeOfPower wrote:
Anyways, Seeker, this thread has been most interesting, has it not? Decivre maintaining the is an absolute timeframe in the universe, whilst the more 'conventional' members argue that it doesn't matter or that time is absolutely relative...
Oh yes indeed. It turned into a bigger topic then I had in mind and it did give me some ideas. The fun thing is no one can currently prove one way of the other if there is or is not a absolute time frame. Both approaches bring their own pros and cons. I also thought the idea of time dilation may not be caused by speed of light an interesting if an off the wall approach as well.
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 06:20
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
How would you tell if ya was going forward or backward?
Probably through matching star charts, radioactive decay, things like that. Or you take an atomic clock from A, run it in B, bring it back and measure the difference to extrapolate. NewAgePower -- whether you're right or not, you're being awfully rude. Humility applies to yourself as well.
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 06:40
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Oh yes indeed. It turned into a bigger topic then I had in mind and it did give me some ideas. The fun thing is no one can currently prove one way of the other if there is or is not a absolute time frame. Both approaches bring their own pros and cons. I also thought the idea of time dilation may not be caused by speed of light an interesting if an off the wall approach as well.
To be honest, dilation being a property of matter rather than universal time itself does not change much about it. In almost all thought experiments, dilation in either case would function the same. The biggest difference comes into play when something violates the pace of a light cone; the standard interpretation dictates that causality gets violated, while a fixed timeframe dictates that it never can. The latter is more compatible with the idea that some things can be FTL, rendering a multitude of concepts possible (quantum teleportation-based communications, localized FTL events which have already been replicated in observation today), without creating a paradox of issues regarding causality. But yes, this was fun. Certainly one of the best threads I've joined in a while. Speculative science and philosophy tend to be my favorite things to discuss on these boards.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 06:38
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Decivre wrote:
It doesn't even have to be completely empty space. I don't even think we've tested to see if quantum foam exhibits signs of being affected by time dilation. But more to the point, I'm saying that dilation doesn't affect spacetime. I'm saying that it's very possible that dilation is a property of matter, not of reality itself. So it is only the reference of matter on a local level that is influenced by dilation, not reality as a whole.
Okay, I guess I understand, but the end result is you have something that is untestable, and doesn't apply to anything (since if it's a thing, it's matter). So even if you're right, I fail to see how it could be relevant (except perhaps to establish a limit on how far we can travel into the future).
Quote:
This is where we disagree. I argue that the universe itself runs at a constant pace, while matter moves at a different pace relative to the influence of dilation upon it. So while a fast traveling person might see the universe aging quicker, this is only an illusion from their frame of reference; in reality, the actions of the matter within them are being slowed by the property of time dilation, and reality is still moving at the same pace it has always moved.
Okay, so all mass suffers some time dilation. Betelgeuse has been suffering some slowing of time for billions of years, i.e., it hasn't experienced as much time, i.e. it's younger, it's in the past. You may argue that it's in the present, but everything on it or affected by it is as though it's in the past, but IMO the difference between 'there's a universal clock but we can't see it and everything acts as though there are relative clocks' and 'there are relative clocks, and things pass through time at different rates' is just labels. Betelgeuse is "in the past", whether literally or effectively.
Quote:
Never said that Earth time is objective time. I said that dilation can be accounted for, and that means that calendars don't suddenly become irrelevant when you begin traversing space at difference references. Just because our current time reference is relative does not mean that all time references must be relative. Do not move the goal posts.
The point is that, if in "objective time" (or earth time or whatever metric you care to measure by) it's 2am, and here on the ground it's 6am: 1) Yes, I can adjust for that without any problem 2) It's not super relevant. It's 6am here whether the universal clock says 2am or not. Which is what I keep coming back to. I can accept the concept of an "objective universal clock", but my issue is always that it still doesn't change anything. If Betelgeuse is suffering time dilation compared to Earth or compared to Universal Clock, it's "in the past".
Quote:
Again, no. Just because the matter within Betelgeuse has a different decay and interaction rate than the matter on Earth does [i]not[/i] mean that reality itself is moving differently there.
If my metabolism and all of my thought processes and all chemical and nuclear processes and all other processes of matter are working slower there, what is the *functional* difference between 'all processes are running slower' and 'reality is moving differently'?
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 06:58
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Okay, I guess I understand, but the end result is you have something that is untestable, and doesn't apply to anything (since if it's a thing, it's matter). So even if you're right, I fail to see how it could be relevant (except perhaps to establish a limit on how far we can travel into the future).
Actually, it's very testable, by a very obvious means. Two entangled pairs are separated and brought to two different observation areas with an atomic clock. One observation area (along with the particle and atomic clock) is sped up to a point where dilation is noticeable (I would recommend, as I referenced earlier, to try it at .5c). Then observers test both particles to see how their spin states react to being in dilation. If my theory holds sound, then either particle's spin will be adjusted by the effects of dilation on the other; the one traveling at .5c will be quickened by its entangled pair that is still traversing at a lower speed, or the one that is effectively stationary will be slowed by dilation at the other entangled pair. Or a mixture of both. If any of these things happens and it is observed, then causality is safe. If the pairs stay entangled and they act at the same pace (we observe the same particle motions at both ends at identical times), then we have effectively shifted one particle into the past, and causality can be violated. Easily tested. Well, easy in the context of being a testable concept. We'd still need to get an entangled particle into space and accelerate it to half the speed of light and observe it without breaking the entanglement.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Okay, so all mass suffers some time dilation. Betelgeuse has been suffering some slowing of time for billions of years, i.e., it hasn't experienced as much time, i.e. it's younger, it's in the past. You may argue that it's in the present, but everything on it or affected by it is as though it's in the past, but IMO the difference between 'there's a universal clock but we can't see it and everything acts as though there are relative clocks' and 'there are relative clocks, and things pass through time at different rates' is just labels. Betelgeuse is "in the past", whether literally or effectively.
The difference becomes important when we start talking about causality. Time being a universal constant on a broader scale dictates that time travel is completely impossible, so long as we never find the means to exceed the speed of light though any span of spacetime. It also says that any shortcut we might find (quantum communication, quantum tunneling) is feasible without causing time travel.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
The point is that, if in "objective time" (or earth time or whatever metric you care to measure by) it's 2am, and here on the ground it's 6am: 1) Yes, I can adjust for that without any problem 2) It's not super relevant. It's 6am here whether the universal clock says 2am or not. Which is what I keep coming back to. I can accept the concept of an "objective universal clock", but my issue is always that it still doesn't change anything. If Betelgeuse is suffering time dilation compared to Earth or compared to Universal Clock, it's "in the past".
Then the past as you refer to it is purely relative. There is an important distinction that is relevant, especially if space travel becomes a common thing for the human race. Trying to maintain a constant calendar and clock fixed to a single frame of reference would be crucial to a society in space.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
If my metabolism and all of my thought processes and all chemical and nuclear processes and all other processes of matter are working slower there, what is the *functional* difference between 'all processes are running slower' and 'reality is moving differently'?
Causality, my friend. Causality.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 11:54
Prophet710 Prophet710's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Even with all of this, I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around Causality. Edit: Perhaps I'm just a peasant.
—
"And yet, across the gulf of space, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this Earth with envious eyes. And slowly, and surely, they drew their plans against us."
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 12:16
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Prophet710 wrote:
Even with all of this, I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around Causality. Edit: Perhaps I'm just a peasant.
No you aren't. Causality is a bitch. It is an issue that scientists have been arguing and debating for damn near a century already. And modern science has done nothing to clear it up. Quantum mechanics and the like aren't as easily understood as Newtonian Physics and the Earth sciences. They aren't very instinctive or innate, and they aren't really observable via our natural senses. That makes understanding them significantly harder than understanding other concepts.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 13:16
NewAgeOfPower NewAgeOfPower's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
NewAgePower -- whether you're right or not, you're being awfully rude. Humility applies to yourself as well.
I am personally an Arrogant Asshole.
—
As mind to body, so soul to spirit. As death to the mortal man, so failure to the immortal. Such is the price of all ambition.
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 14:13
Geonis Geonis's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Prophet710 wrote:
Even with all of this, I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around Causality. Edit: Perhaps I'm just a peasant.
Don't be so hard on yourself, the crux of the issue is as such. "The notion of causality that appears in many different physical theories is hard to interpret in ordinary language." Source As hard to understand it might be, it is equally hard to explain. I would love to add more to the conversation as it stands, however Decivre is doing quite the job, far better than I could. Either way, a terribly interesting read.
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 17:58
King Shere King Shere's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Suppose the duality (particle/wave) of light is another logical fallacy, instead light is only particles; the wave behaviour is due to a interaction with a medium in a even lower layer. Somewhat similar as a person observing wave movements of Sea Sparkle + scoping some of the sea sparkle up in a filter -but failing to recognize or catch the underlying medium (water) that had carried them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctiluca_miliaris For light that medium could perhaps consist of quantum foam and the "dilation particles". Intentionally avoiding a overused & taboo term for such a layer. --
—
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/tc_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/exh_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/argo_userbar.jpg[/img] [i]"To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."[/i] Plutarch
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 20:13
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
King Shere wrote:
Suppose the duality (particle/wave) of light is another logical fallacy, instead light is only particles; the wave behaviour is due to a interaction with a medium in a even lower layer. Somewhat similar as a person observing wave movements of Sea Sparkle + scoping some of the sea sparkle up in a filter -but failing to recognize or catch the underlying medium (water) that had carried them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctiluca_miliaris For light that medium could perhaps consist of quantum foam and the "dilation particles". Intentionally avoiding a overused & taboo term for such a layer. --
One thing that's always interested me is that we've observed a number of particles exhibiting wave-like behavior: electrons, neutrinos, and plenty more. Here's something I've hypothesized… what if what we call a "wave" is merely a state of particles, akin to how "solid" and "liquid" are states of matter? The standard particle form may very well be a state as well. To that end, every particle might exist in both particle and wave form, and things that we currently know as only being waves might have a particle form. It might have interesting repercussions on the nature of quantum physics.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 19:48
Anarhista Anarhista's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
My, my, you have been busy these days! It has been quite a interesting reading. Since nobody commented it I don't know if 'time paradox' I mentioned before is not paradox at all or I could use this as explanation of ETI genocidal behavior: If culture/entity is able to build wormhole networks its territory would spread over many, many light years of space AND time. So if this civilization encounters another culture and welcomes it by allowing to use its wormhole networks they (new civ.) might find out on farther systems (forward in time) that they all died out and reconstructing signals figure out exactly how this happened. After that they would change the past (relatively speaking ;)
—
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.
Top
Thu, 2012-07-19 20:03
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Anarhista wrote:
My, my, you have been busy these days! It has been quite a interesting reading. Since nobody commented it I don't know if 'time paradox' I mentioned before is not paradox at all or I could use this as explanation of ETI genocidal behavior: If culture/entity is able to build wormhole networks its territory would spread over many, many light years of space AND time. So if this civilization encounters another culture and welcomes it by allowing to use its wormhole networks they (new civ.) might find out on farther systems (forward in time) that they all died out and reconstructing signals figure out exactly how this happened. After that they would change the past (relatively speaking ;)
I guess it really depends on if it is going forward or backward and juts how big an era it covers. If a network covers a 300 ly sphere, then you are not gonna have much an issue. It really would only become a huge issue when you cover and any race that could be large enough to cover such a mass area is unlikely to be so easily killed off. Also something like the ETI would be million , if not billions of years old. It would have spread across the galaxy at times when even in its future earth had no life at all. That is assuming the most one could travel forward is the width of the galaxy. Now where that could come into play is a younger race, who did not have a fall event, going forward enough in time where they had died out because of a fall like event. Although to me even that would be damned hard to travel that far forward without having a massively large network. Then again, you can't travel back in time other then the last point, so not much you can find out or do about it. Its not an event I could see happening all that easily or at all.
Top
Fri, 2012-07-20 05:53
Anarhista Anarhista's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I guess it really depends on if it is going forward or backward and juts how big an era it covers. If a network covers a 300 ly sphere, then you are not gonna have much an issue. It really would only become a huge issue when you cover and any race that could be large enough to cover such a mass area is unlikely to be so easily killed off. Also something like the ETI would be million , if not billions of years old. It would have spread across the galaxy at times when even in its future earth had no life at all. That is assuming the most one could travel forward is the width of the galaxy. Now where that could come into play is a younger race, who did not have a fall event, going forward enough in time where they had died out because of a fall like event. Although to me even that would be damned hard to travel that far forward without having a massively large network. Then again, you can't travel back in time other then the last point, so not much you can find out or do about it. Its not an event I could see happening all that easily or at all.
Aren't you contradicting yourself: with ETI old million or billion of years its gate network would also span over millions of light years in size so it is not small star cluster. I also stated that this civilization (pre-ETI or beneficial, starting ETI) is friendly and allow the use of gates to new race so the race only have to reach the gates (assuming they are not on their home planet/moon). Of course, if someone is smart/competent enough to build gates it would predict such... predicament ;) so it doesn't happen at all.
—
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.
Top
Fri, 2012-07-20 06:32
Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Sorry, can't keep up with the rest of the thread.
King Shere wrote:
Suppose the duality (particle/wave) of light is another logical fallacy, instead light is only particles; the wave behaviour is due to a interaction with a medium in a even lower layer.
This is roughly what "hidden variable theories" try to do in quantum mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory Unfortunately it turns out that any hidden variable theory consistent with our observations has to be about as bizarre as quantum mechanics - they have to be profoundly nonlocal, with the underlying layer "conspiring" in fairly complex ways to make everything work. Scott Aaronson has some nice explanations in his lecture notes http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html where he also points out that the fairly popular Bohm theory seems to run into real problems with qubits.
—
Extropian
Top
Fri, 2012-07-20 12:42
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Re: Faster then Light methods.
Anarhista wrote:
Aren't you contradicting yourself: with ETI old million or billion of years its gate network would also span over millions of light years in size so it is not small star cluster. I also stated that this civilization (pre-ETI or beneficial, starting ETI) is friendly and allow the use of gates to new race so the race only have to reach the gates (assuming they are not on their home planet/moon). Of course, if someone is smart/competent enough to build gates it would predict such... predicament ;) so it doesn't happen at all.
I am not following, the galaxy itself is one is roughly a hundred and twenty thousand lightyears wide. How could its gate networks then go father into the future then the size of the galaxies light cone? The gates may have been around millions of years, but that does not mean they see millions of years forward or backward, at most extreme you get a hundred thousand years and that is if, you put gates across the whole galaxy, a process itself that takes millions of years. By the time the ETI had gated the most outlaying of its network, the area with the most time difference it was already massively colonized. I could see a younger race who stumbled onto the network having something of an issue, not likely but maybe. But not the race that created such a powerful network.
Top
Tue, 2012-07-24 08:32
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
Ok here is the final version
Ok here is the final version of the FTL I shall be using. Much thanks for the input and the fun thread. Stars are linked on a quantum level. Such links can be seen as strings, connecting one star to those near it. This linking alone does not allow FTL travel, but does leave a way to allow it. By building a structure called a quantum gate, mass amounts of power can be focused though the structure that allow the formation of a short lived wormhole. [b]The gates:[/b] At a point outside of a stars gravity a gate system can be constructed. This point varies by star type, but is often three or more AU's "above" or "below" a star. Such a point allows a craft to reach any point within the system at roughly similar travel times. A gate takes a massive amount of power and often has two or more reactors to force a connection. The gates are often a hexagonal structural, a kilometer wide built around a few reactors and surrounded by solar panels. The current limits in gate placement and range have been seen to be a technological limit. Other non-human gate-systems have been observed to have both longer and shorter jumps and distances from stars then human gates. [b]Gate travel:[/b] As of yet, a gate is always constructed at the “edge” of a stars gravity. Making the first part of gate travel a days or weeks long journey to the gate point. Once there a series of commands are given the gate, often by gate control stations near by that force open a gateway. Such gateways connect to nearby stars and only stay open roughly half an hour, often less.As of yet the limit on which a gate can be opened is a star within then lightyears or the gate. Travel is one way,singles may pass though an open gateway, but objects can not without a gate. A ship keeps its position and velocity traveling through a gate, and the travel time is instantaneous, like walking though a door. Without a beacon or another gate to lock onto, gate travel becomes tricky. Opening a gateway is not an problem, but travel is erratic, often leading to damage and a random location. Often ships are damaged or destroyed by unguided gate travel. For this reason exploration is often handled by harded drones, who place beacons at the arrival point. Other drones arrive to explore the system and if found to be worth it gates are constructed by a third set of drones. [b]Other structures[/b] A gate is often not allow at or near a systems gate-point. Grates are sometimes grouped with other gates nearby in more often traveled systems. Gate control and maintenance stations as well as refueling stations and habits are not uncommon near gate-points. Broadcast stations are often found near points as well. These stations receive and transmit egos into and out of a system. It is among the fastest travel method, even if it is a costly one.
Top
Wed, 2012-07-25 05:36
Decivre Decivre's picture
I like it. Reminds me of
I like it. Reminds me of games I love that use gate travel, like Freelancer and Freespace, or Space Empires IV. Plus the fact that they require minimal gravitational influence reminds me of FTL technologies from Battletech. Might you plan to do something where areas which have reduced gravity (certain Lagrange points) might allow for smaller temporary gates?
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Fri, 2012-07-27 16:46
Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture
I own battlespace and a few
I own battlespace and a few others. Yesterday I pulled them out and looked over the charts, which I will mostly likely use as a base. I had though of using area's such as Pirate points, which makes it even harsher to blind jump. What I have in mind is a beacon system which one could send on a drone and it would allow you to lock onto a system. However without a gate just which of the system points you exit from would be random. 7 out of 10 you end up in the upper or lower points, but sometimes you might end up in a less safe inner system point. Of coarse you could not jump out without a gate in system anyhow. I am also toying with the idea of massive "scout" ships. Ones big enough and constructed in such a way they could force a open point. They would mostly be drone carries and could construct or mark systems for gate construction. But would allow exploration without having to build a gate in every system.
Top

Pages