"Realism" in Space Combat Sims: A Tentative Opinion
Transit
>combat sims seem to harbor. There are often claims that sim X is more
>realistic than sim Y because X does not feature FTL travel, for
That's not a complaint I've ever seen. FTL is generally accepted as a
hand-waving way to get a decent story going. Nobody's tried to suggest that a
generation-ship game would be make for fun dogfights.
>example. There are a few factors that render this debate meaningless,
>IMHO.
>
>1. At this point in time, there has never been any known space combat.
>Thus there can hardly be "realistic" (or "unrealistic", for that
>matter) space combat sims since there is no known reality with which
>to compare them.
On the contrary. Known reality is very consistent with the laws of physics as
presently formulated. On the macroscopic, low-velocity scale of rocketships
and things within that order of magnitude, reality is extremely consistent with
Newton's Laws (which are the main thing people refer to when discussing realism
in space games; nobody really cares about time dilation as you approach
lightspeed, even though that has been experimentally verified).
Based on those laws, certain things can be deduced about how "real" space
combat would take place. If you care to throw out some of the fundamental
facts of which we are aware and build an internally consistent game based off
of that alternate set of principles, nobody's stopping you, and the result may
make for some fun situations. But it doesn't deserve to be called a "space
simulation" - because it isn't.
>2. Things like FTL travel are not necessarily "unrealistic". Even
>Stephen Hawking has speculated that FTL travel could be possible one
>day. Many things thought impossible yesterday are quite possible
>today. There is no way to predict beyond any reasonable doubt what the
>future -- especially the distant future -- will bring.
Again, FTL isn't something I (at least) have a problem with. My realism hangup
is on stuff I can observe far more directly.
Jumpgate, for example, has a "realistic Newtonian flight engine". I will grant
that JG's engine is far closer to "real" than most other high-profile games
have been. However, any engine where the fundamental assumption made is that
the vacuum of space is a fluid (complete with drag, resistance, etc.) is simply
not one that relates to this universe.
A game set in a universe with alternate laws of physics, that explores them and
takes advantage of them properly, could be great fun. But most games just try
to take shortcuts around the bits of physics they don't like, for no good
reason other than that they don't want to think their way past it.
>3. Since total "realism" is a meaningless concept when it comes to
>space sims, every developer should aim instead for a gameworld that is
>*internally consistent*.
No argument here ...
>The physics of *Star Trek* may be based upon
>often questionable speculations, but at least they are admirably
>consistent.
They are based on laughable delusions and are almost NEVER consistent. This is
the whole POINT behind technobabble; it lets the writers create whatever effect
they need to advance the plot point of the week without worrying about things
like logic and consistency. Have you watched Star Trek on a regular basis? I
used to lurk in some Trek newsgroups, until I noticed how many pretzel twists
the apologists would work themselves into trying to explain away the latest
technobabble so that it didn't blatantly contradict things said in a previous
half-dozen episodes.
(If you're talking about the physics in the computer games, I can't comment,
not having played any.)
milo
news:4fe89332.02050...@posting.google.com...
> I am amused by the obsession with "realism" that some fans of space
> combat sims seem to harbor. There are often claims that sim X is more
> realistic than sim Y because X does not feature FTL travel, for
> example. There are a few factors that render this debate meaningless,
> IMHO.
There are many more aspects to realism than flight physics.
We actually do know quite a lot about what space is like and
we have some experience traveling through it. We know how
big stars and planets really are. We know how they move
through orbits and rotate on their axes. We know a bit about
what space looks like and what kinds of phenomena can be
found there.
We know that there are certain physical laws that should remain
inviolate. For example, a space craft the size of a minivan probably
does not have room to contain several dozen missiles, four guns,
a fusion rocket engine and a pilot.
And there is more. We know from using real systems in our
daily lives what kinds of complexity can be found in them.
Based on real world sensor and computer systems of today,
we can imagine the kinds of complexity that would be involved
in the sensor and computer systems of tomorrow.
We know that lasers travel at the speed of light and therefore
it should not be necessary to "lead the target" when aiming one.
Finally there is the common sense realism of behavior. Ships
and fighters are presumably designed to carry out specific
tasks. Do those tasks make sense? Are the ships designed
to carry them out well? For example, if a hundred billion credit
carrier can be destroyed by a single ten million credit fighter
hiding in a blind spot and taping down the laser trigger, that
is unrealistic. Who would design such an expensive and
vulnerable warship?
So, I submit that your conclusion is incorrect. It is not meaning-
less to debate the realism of space combat sims. Furthermore,
I believe that by taking reality into consideration one can design
a more interesting, engaging, and enjoyable game.
This does not mean that a game designer can not bend or even
break some of the rules of physics as we know them today. A
game that is realistic but not fun is not a game at all, but an exer-
cise in mathematics.
It does mean that taking real world combat roles and behavior,
and real world astronomy into consideration can produce a game
that is deeper and richer than simply flying to Waypoint n, killing
x alien fighters, lathering, rinsing, and repeating.
--milo
http://www.starshatter.com
disgracelands
you fire you rockets/lasers/plasma disruptors and you hear them striking the
enemy ships shields. When ships explode you hear them going boom. When
something enters a stargate you hear the effect of the ship crossing the
event horizon. yada yada yada...
In all likelyhood you wouldn't hear any of this. It'd make for one hell of
a boring game though.
dis
"milo" <mi...@starshatter.com> wrote in message
news:%TUA8.25069$9c5.8...@news2.west.cox.net...
FLY135
"Brandon V. Orr" <brand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4fe89332.02050...@posting.google.com...
> I am amused by the obsession with "realism" that some fans of space
> combat sims seem to harbor. There are often claims that sim X is more
> realistic than sim Y because X does not feature FTL travel, for
> example.
When the correlation between realism and gameplay becomes an inverse
relationship gameplay wins out every time.
milo
> kes...@aol.com (Transit) wrote in message
news:<20020504020806...@mb-fr.aol.com>...
> >Nobody's tried to suggest that a
> > generation-ship game would be make for fun dogfights.
>
> Hopefully not.
No, of course not.
Although...
I have been thinking about a space trading type of game
with no FTL travel. Ships could travel at relativistic speeds,
say 0.999 c, between star systems. From the player
character's point of view, only a few days would pass on
the journey. But dozens of years may have gone by at the
destination. The idea was inspired by Pham Nuwen and the
Qeng Ho in Vernor Vinge's novels. The player would see the
rise and fall of governments and corporations on dozens of
worlds. With enough time spent in travel, whole civilizations
could arise and be wiped out.
I think it would be a really interesting game, with lots of
replay potential - different routes between systems would
mean that the player would arrive at drastically different
times and see different eras in the story. But I suspect
it would have a hard time finding an audience since so
few people really understand the Theory of Special Relativity.
--milo
http://www.starshatter.com
disgracelands
average gamer to understand. For what it's worth i think it sound like a
really interesting idea, might be a bit hard to actually implement though.
dis
"milo" <mi...@starshatter.com> wrote in message
news:CYYA8.27197$9c5.8...@news2.west.cox.net...
Transit
>with no FTL travel. Ships could travel at relativistic speeds,
>say 0.999 c, between star systems. From the player
>character's point of view, only a few days would pass on
>the journey. But dozens of years may have gone by at the
>destination. The idea was inspired by Pham Nuwen and the
>Qeng Ho in Vernor Vinge's novels. The player would see the
>rise and fall of governments and corporations on dozens of
>worlds. With enough time spent in travel, whole civilizations
>could arise and be wiped out.
>
>I think it would be a really interesting game, with lots of
>replay potential - different routes between systems would
>mean that the player would arrive at drastically different
>times and see different eras in the story. But I suspect
>it would have a hard time finding an audience since so
>few people really understand the Theory of Special Relativity.
You'd also have a pretty difficult time modeling the rise and fall of
civilizations properly, with enough detail to make it interesting, I think ...
though it's definitely an intriguing idea.
Karl CFF Frank
> Finally there is the common sense realism of behavior. Ships
> and fighters are presumably designed to carry out specific
> tasks. Do those tasks make sense? Are the ships designed
> to carry them out well? For example, if a hundred billion credit
> carrier can be destroyed by a single ten million credit fighter
> hiding in a blind spot and taping down the laser trigger, that
> is unrealistic. Who would design such an expensive and
> vulnerable warship?
Wouldn't it have been pretty much the same situation with WW2 Warships
and small little Torpedo Bombers?
--
This signature virus works on the honor system.
Please delete all the files on your hard disk, then forward
this message to everyone you know.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Karl CFF Frank
> I think the most unrealistic part of space sims is the sound.
> you fire you rockets/lasers/plasma disruptors and you hear them striking the
> enemy ships shields. When ships explode you hear them going boom. When
> something enters a stargate you hear the effect of the ship crossing the
> event horizon. yada yada yada...
> In all likelyhood you wouldn't hear any of this. It'd make for one hell of
> a boring game though.
Of course you can explain this by assuming that there isn't actually any
sound in space, but the noise is done by speakers in your cockpit. We
got force feedback devices today, so why not have audible feedback in
fighters. Every help in a war is good, isn't it?
Transit
>milo wrote:
>
>> Finally there is the common sense realism of behavior. Ships
>> and fighters are presumably designed to carry out specific
>> tasks. Do those tasks make sense? Are the ships designed
>> to carry them out well? For example, if a hundred billion credit
>> carrier can be destroyed by a single ten million credit fighter
>> hiding in a blind spot and taping down the laser trigger, that
>> is unrealistic. Who would design such an expensive and
>> vulnerable warship?
>
>Wouldn't it have been pretty much the same situation with WW2 Warships
>and small little Torpedo Bombers?
>
At Midway, the Japanese fought off something like a dozen waves of torpedo
bombers without losing a single ship. Then the dive bombers came at them
unexpectedly, and within five minutes three out of four Japanese carriers were
sinking.
It's not entirely unreasonable to assume that the previous waves of planes had
taken the edge off their defenses, and that if the Zeros had hit the dive
bombers on the way in the way they'd gone for the torpedo bombers, things might
have been different.
Naval ships don't have single critical weak points, and it's pretty hard for a
single plane to manage to take one out - as long as both ack and defensive
fighter support are active, the attacking pilots have a tough job on their
hands.
Ethel the Ardvaark
> 1. At this point in time, there has never been any known space combat.
> Thus there can hardly be "realistic" (or "unrealistic", for that
> matter) space combat sims since there is no known reality with which
> to compare them.
This does not take away from known facts about space. For example,
there isn't any atmosphere so things like drag don't exist. So any
game that uses drag in the flight model is unrealistic. Anybody ever
see the epsisode of Battlestar Galactica where Starbuck and Apollo
pulled "full flaps" when being chased by a Cylon so that they slowed
quickly allowing the Cylon to overshoot them?
> 2. Things like FTL travel are not necessarily "unrealistic". Even
> Stephen Hawking has speculated that FTL travel could be possible one
> day. Many things thought impossible yesterday are quite possible
> today. There is no way to predict beyond any reasonable doubt what the
> future -- especially the distant future -- will bring.
FTL does not appear to be a contentious point for realism. In any
case, there is some acceptance of impossible things in order for us to
actually have a game, and enjoy the gameplay. Acceptance of FTL is
generally one of those things.
> 3. Since total "realism" is a meaningless concept when it comes to
> space sims, every developer should aim instead for a gameworld that is
> *internally consistent*. The physics of *Star Trek* may be based upon
> often questionable speculations, but at least they are admirably
> consistent.
There is a devoted crew of Trekkoids who spend a lot of time picking
up inconsistencies in Trek. Even worse, there's a pile of them that
then go to great lengths to explain away the inconsistencies. Not
related to space combat, but why do Klingons have bumpy heads expect
in the original series.
Based on known scientific principles, there are certain things that we
can surmise about space combat. Anythign that grossly violates this
can be considered unrealistic. As for the ones that do not grossly
violate principles, then I agree we have no empirical evidence to
determine realism.
Ethel the Ardvaark
> I think the most unrealistic part of space sims is the sound.
>
> you fire you rockets/lasers/plasma disruptors and you hear them striking the
> enemy ships shields. When ships explode you hear them going boom. When
> something enters a stargate you hear the effect of the ship crossing the
> event horizon. yada yada yada...
>
> In all likelyhood you wouldn't hear any of this. It'd make for one hell of
> a boring game though.
It's your last line that is key. For entertainment and enjoyment
purposes, there are unrealistic elements that we will accept. Sound
is one of them. Theme music is another. My life doesn't play out
accompanied by theme music.
disgracelands
the original series."
It's supposed to be due to genetic experiments so that they could try to
pass for humans, presumably to infiltrate their instalations etc. At least
thats the best explanation i've come accross. In reality of course it was
just easier for them to use a bit of boot polish in the 60's instead of
prosthetic cornish pastries.
dis
"Ethel the Ardvaark" <postm...@beoutdoors.net> wrote in message
news:92ba3e7.02050...@posting.google.com...
Kegs
"disgracelands" <disgra...@omne.uk.net> wrote in message
news:1020704351.12191....@news.demon.co.uk...
> prosthetic cornish pastries.
>
> dis
>
>
Completely irrelevant, but its pasties not pastries, proper cornish people
are very touchy bout things like that.
Best description that I've yet come across of a Klingons forehead though :)
Karl CFF Frank
> "Not related to space combat, but why do Klingons have bumpy heads expect in
> the original series."
>
> It's supposed to be due to genetic experiments so that they could try to
> pass for humans, presumably to infiltrate their instalations etc. At least
> thats the best explanation i've come accross. In reality of course it was
> just easier for them to use a bit of boot polish in the 60's instead of
> prosthetic cornish pastries.
IIRC there was an episode of DS9 where they go back in time to TOS's
timeframe, namely the "Tribbles Episode".
In that episode they wonder why the Klingons look different and they
said something about a leap in evolution or something like that. But I
could remember wrong. It's been some time and I am no Trek fanat.
--
"Light travels faster than sound, this is probably
why someone looks bright until he opens his mouth."
Joker 305th
Joker 305th
"Karl CFF Frank" <Karl....@DELETEME.elsnet.at> wrote in message
news:3CD77C61...@DELETEME.elsnet.at...
Ethel the Ardvaark
> It's supposed to be due to genetic experiments so that they could try to
> pass for humans, presumably to infiltrate their instalations etc. At least
Trekkoids have come up with several fantastic explanations such as
genetic mutations, the non-bumpy Klingons were really slaves, etc.
> thats the best explanation i've come accross. In reality of course it was
> just easier for them to use a bit of boot polish in the 60's instead of
> prosthetic cornish pastries.
That is exactly the reason, but many Trekkoids live so deeply in the
Trek universe that they can't step out and say, Gene Roddenberry was
working on a cheap budget and could only afford shoe polish for
special effects make-up.
Ethical Mirth Gas
> I have been thinking about a space trading type of game
> with no FTL travel. Ships could travel at relativistic speeds,
> say 0.999 c, between star systems. From the player
> character's point of view, only a few days would pass on
> the journey. But dozens of years may have gone by at the
> destination. The idea was inspired by Pham Nuwen and the
> Qeng Ho in Vernor Vinge's novels. The player would see the
> rise and fall of governments and corporations on dozens of
> worlds. With enough time spent in travel, whole civilizations
> could arise and be wiped out.
Have you ever read Larry Niven's book _Protector_? It ends up with a
long, drawn out battle between slower-than-light ramscoop spaceships.
It's been a long time since I read it, so I can't vouch for how
realistic it is, but it impressed me at the time. You might try
asking in some of the SF groups about other novels that feature
realistic STL space battles for some ideas about how to make it
interesting.
I suspect the main feature of a "realistic" space combat game would be
that it would be a strategy game rather than an arcade game. Weapons
will probably be computer-aimed and have very long ranges, and the
gameplay will come from figuring out how to manage fuel and other
resources, and planning your routes carefully to get to the right
place at the right time. And trying to anticipate/extrapolate what's
going on elsewhere in the universe, since communicating with another
star system would only be a little faster than going there at .999 c.
The game might end up like one of trying to outguess what resources
your opponent is sending where. You show up at Rigel with a fleet of
30 ships and hope that your opponent sent fewer ships, but not too
many fewer, because that means he probably has enough to overwhelm the
other part of your fleet you sent to Sirius (which, if they are
completely wiped out you might never hear from, unless you wait in
Sirius long enough to get their last transmission or go to Sirius and
try to catch it en route).
Trying to make all this fun would be a challenge, but if you could
pull it off, it might be a whole new type of gameplay. (You'd
probably want options to speed up time, so that the player doesn't
have to twiddle his thumbs while in transit, but that wouldn't be the
same as FTL, because time would be passing...)
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
disgracelands
comms in a game wouldn't exactly be a huge leap. I think the only reason we
haven't bothered to build such a system at the moment is because the
furthest 2 points on earth still aren't very far away at lightspeed
velocities and it'd cost so damm much, maybe if we had a base on Mars or
something we would build one.
I think your spot on with the rest though. Combat would have virtually no
manouvering and it'd all be down to smart computer systems on missiles and
smart systems on counter measures, lasers could probably be used with great
effect but inevitabbly the battle would come down to who had planned the
best and managed to corner a smaller number of enemy vessles.
Just a thought but.. how would scanners work? Radar etc wouldn't work
becasue of the vaccum (would they?) and even if it did, you'd likely only
see the enemy about 3 seconds before you ran into each other.
dis
"Ethical Mirth Gas" <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:403a059a.02050...@posting.google.com...
FLY135
> Well we could probably pull off FTL communications at the moment so FTL
> comms in a game wouldn't exactly be a huge leap.
> Just a thought but.. how would scanners work? Radar etc wouldn't work
> becasue of the vaccum (would they?)
Boy you are a real wealth of knowledge.
Lance Art
<disgra...@omne.uk.net> wrote:
>Just a thought but.. how would scanners work? Radar etc wouldn't work
>becasue of the vaccum (would they?) and even if it did, you'd likely only
Gee, I wonder how the giant RADIO telescopes work...
disgracelands
presumably we would shield the emmissions given off by a spacecraft.
Besides, if it's travelling at near C it still leaves the problem of seeing
just before it passes us.
dis
"Lance Art" <l_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6icmdu0ipqc3tn2r3...@4ax.com...
Ethical Mirth Gas
> Just a thought but.. how would scanners work? Radar etc wouldn't work
> becasue of the vaccum (would they?) and even if it did, you'd likely only
> see the enemy about 3 seconds before you ran into each other.
You're right that normally the Vaccum of Space will suck up all the
radar particles before they can get back to the dish, but if you turn
your radar up to 11, the bag will get full and most of the radar
particles will be able to roll around freely.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Lance Art
<disgra...@omne.uk.net> wrote:
>Yeah but radio telescopes use a passive scanning method unlike radar and
>presumably we would shield the emmissions given off by a spacecraft.
>Besides, if it's travelling at near C it still leaves the problem of seeing
>just before it passes us.
I don't disagree there would be issues with using radar, but this is a
thread about realism in space combat and radar does travel through a
vacuum contrary to the supposition of the other poster.
stoic
<disgra...@omne.uk.net> wrote:
>Well we could probably pull off FTL communications at the moment so FTL
>comms in a game wouldn't exactly be a huge leap. I think the only reason we
>haven't bothered to build such a system at the moment is because the
>furthest 2 points on earth still aren't very far away at lightspeed
>velocities and it'd cost so damm much, maybe if we had a base on Mars or
>something we would build one.
Errr, no. Going FTL would require serious bending of space.
Beding space would require a huge gravity well (black hole) and/or a
huge amount of energy (the energy of many suns.) Neither of which is
practical.
>
>I think your spot on with the rest though. Combat would have virtually no
>manouvering and it'd all be down to smart computer systems on missiles and
>smart systems on counter measures, lasers could probably be used with great
>effect but inevitabbly the battle would come down to who had planned the
>best and managed to corner a smaller number of enemy vessles.
Detection would be difficult. If you can't detect them, your
weapons are useless.
As for cornering enemy vessels, you have to worry about
matching velocities (which means deep space intercepts are probably
not feasible) and how do your corner something in space? Space is too
big to corner anyone.
Space battles would probably only occur when the attacker
slows down enough to make an intercept feasible. When means the
attacker is trying to take or destroy a static objective (orbital
platform, moon base, etc.)
>
>Just a thought but.. how would scanners work? Radar etc wouldn't work
>becasue of the vaccum (would they?) and even if it did, you'd likely only
>see the enemy about 3 seconds before you ran into each other.
Radar and light are the same thing (electromagnetic
radiation.) Hopefully that answers your question.
>
disgracelands
this with photons but more commonly with quarks. These entwined particle
have a strange relationship in that what affect one instantly affect the
other. Basically we can use this to signal from one place to another
without actually sending any signal at all. FTL was perhaps a bad term,
instantaneous might have been better.
IF you knew where someone was you could surround them by placing a number of
ships so that the enemy could not outmanouver you, it's would take several
ships but it could be done assuming that your engines were of the same spec.
Not an easy task though.
I think the whole radar/sonar/no sound in space thing threw me a bit. So OK
radar works but there is still that 3 second warning thing. damm
dis
"stoic" <stoi...@attbroadband.com> wrote in message
news:3cdd302e...@netnews.attbi.com...
milo
> At the moment we can create entwined particles, i believe that we can do
> this with photons but more commonly with quarks. These entwined particle
> have a strange relationship in that what affect one instantly affect the
> other. Basically we can use this to signal from one place to another
> without actually sending any signal at all. FTL was perhaps a bad term,
> instantaneous might have been better.
Not correct. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pairs do exhibit the
instantaneous response that you mention (see Bell's Theorem).
However, they CAN NOT be used to send FTL signals in violation
of special relativity. Basically, quantum changes in one
particle are immediately balanced by the opposite changes
in the other particle of the pair, no matter how far apart the
two particles are in space.
Unfortunately, all of the quantum changes are fundamentally
random and unpredictable. They can not be controlled by a
"sender" wishing to transmit a message to a "receiver".
At present, there is no known way to either travel physically
or send any informative signal faster than light.
By the way, radar works fine in space. In fact, that is exactly
how the Apollo LEMs were able to determine their altitude
above the lunar surface. They used a radar altimeter not all
that different from the one in a modern aircraft.
--milo
http://www.starshatter.com
disgracelands
isolate the unpredictable nature of the entangled particles?
I know that to a certain extent we can already control it, many of the
various "teleporter" experiments have used these "spooky" entangled photons
and they have been succesfully entangled, broadcast over optical cable. The
only difference here is that we are storing billions of entangled particles
at great distances, changing them to produce a signal.
At the very least it it means that FTL comms *could be* possible in the
future.
My bad on the radar thing, seems i was way off base with that.
dis
"milo" <mi...@starshatter.com> wrote in message
news:HR%D8.78388$9c5.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
Christian Hennecke
wrote:
> I've seen FTL portrayed as a way to help the storyline *at the expense
> of realism*. It is sometimes suggested that FTL should be dropped if
> one wants "more realistic" gameplay. As I previously mentioned, there
> is a problem with this line of thought. FTL cannot be dismissed as
> "unrealistic" since no one truly knows what will be possible in the
> distant future.
Very much agreed. Today people *know* that FTL is not possible. Well,
not so long ago, people *knew* that the earth was flat.
--
Christian Hennecke
Christian Hennecke
wrote:
> Errr, no. Going FTL would require serious bending of space.
> Beding space would require a huge gravity well (black hole) and/or a
> huge amount of energy (the energy of many suns.) Neither of which is
> practical.
That reminds me of "2001 Nights" by Yukinobu Hoshino. An excellent
series of connected, mostly short stories in comic form. Therein they
use a captured, small black hole for FTL.
--
Christian Hennecke
Christian Hennecke
Ardvaark) wrote:
> There is a devoted crew of Trekkoids who spend a lot of time picking
> up inconsistencies in Trek. Even worse, there's a pile of them that
> then go to great lengths to explain away the inconsistencies. Not
> related to space combat, but why do Klingons have bumpy heads expect
> in the original series.
There is a DS9 episode where they go back in time and encounter Kirk and
Co. when they visit a space station. It's the well-known "Tribbles"
episode (are these furry thingies called that in English, too?). Anyway,
when asked why the Klingons look so different, Worf says something like
"Don't ask. We don't like to talk about it." and makes a "you've found
the thing we are ashamed of" face.
--
Christian Hennecke
Stephen Robertson
message news:M5pPxWuhdP3L-p...@ID-20623.user.dfncis.de...
> That reminds me of "2001 Nights" by Yukinobu Hoshino. An excellent
> series of connected, mostly short stories in comic form. Therein they
> use a captured, small black hole for FTL.
The premise behind many Sci-Fi stories involving Mini black holes have been
ruined, because the physicist Stephen Hawking proved that black holes
'evaporate' over time (unless of course you keep feeding them mass).
The smaller the back hole, the quicker they evaporate, so it's very
difficult to find a mini black hole (they've all evaporated by now), and
nearly impossible to keep a mini black hole alive (they evaporate too fast).
See this article on Hawking radiation:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html
Best regards,
-- Steve
Stephen Robertson
Senior Designer
Particle Systems
http://www.particle-systems.com
http://www.independencewar.com
http://www.edgeofchaos.net
Brad Martin
(Christian Hennecke) wrote:
That's slightly misleading. Whilst it's not possible to rule out some
as yet undiscovered physical law, or some application of a known law,
which would allow FTL, the flat earth analogy is flawed. People 'knew'
the earth was flat because they lacked knowledge about the world,
whereas today, physicists 'know' FTL is not possible because they have
knowledge of the laws which govern it.
brad
Kegs
"Brad Martin" <br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mfp7eu0ajpo1aikt9...@4ax.com...
Besides it was only us thick europeans that "knew" the earth was flat in the
islamic world, chine and meso america they knew damn well that the earth was
a sphere and that it went around the sun, not the other way around
Kegs
Lemming
Your conclusion that the analogy is flawed is itself flawed. People
*knew* the earth was flat because they could see it was flat; the
limit of their experiment and observation led them to that conclusion.
Similarly, science today "knows" that FTL travel is impossible,
because the limit of our experiment and observation leads us to that
conclusion.
--
Lemming
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrödinger's cat.
Brad Martin
I agree with you first point but disagree with your second.
When we are dealing with the speed of light, and Einstein's equation,
which tells us it would take infinite energy to reach it, we are no
longer dealing just with the current 'limit of our experiment and
observation'. No amount of experiment and observation will find a
loophole in E=mc², it's a fundamental law of the behaviour of our
universe. If it's wrong then all bets are off and I'm probably a small
piece of cheese.
brad
Lemming
>No amount of experiment and observation will find a
>loophole in E=mc², it's a fundamental law of the behaviour of our
>universe. If it's wrong then all bets are off and I'm probably a small
>piece of cheese.
Quite so. I recommend you visit your local library and check out last
week's New Scientist.
*smooch*
Brad Martin
<l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Brad Martin <br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>No amount of experiment and observation will find a
>>loophole in E=mc², it's a fundamental law of the behaviour of our
>>universe. If it's wrong then all bets are off and I'm probably a small
>>piece of cheese.
>
>Quite so. I recommend you visit your local library and check out last
>week's New Scientist.
>
>*smooch*
Oh bugger. You mean do some research and attempt to furnish my wild
claims with some facts?
I keep meaning to subscribe to NS and Nature, this could be the moment
to stop finding excuses not to.
I hate people like you.
*tongues*
brad
Lemming
>On Thu, 16 May 2002 20:44:20 +0100, Lemming
><l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Brad Martin <br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>No amount of experiment and observation will find a
>>>loophole in E=mc², it's a fundamental law of the behaviour of our
>>>universe. If it's wrong then all bets are off and I'm probably a small
>>>piece of cheese.
>>
>>Quite so. I recommend you visit your local library and check out last
>>week's New Scientist.
>>
>>*smooch*
>
>Oh bugger. You mean do some research and attempt to furnish my wild
>claims with some facts?
Hmm ... yeah, that is a bit extreme.
>I keep meaning to subscribe to NS and Nature, this could be the moment
>to stop finding excuses not to.
Subscribe? Naah - don't do that. I just buy magazines which have
nice pictures on the cover.
>I hate people like you.
Tell me more about your family.
>*tongues*
*staples*
Brad Martin
<l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Brad Martin <br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2002 20:44:20 +0100, Lemming
>><l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Brad Martin <br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No amount of experiment and observation will find a
>>>>loophole in E=mc², it's a fundamental law of the behaviour of our
>>>>universe. If it's wrong then all bets are off and I'm probably a small
>>>>piece of cheese.
>>>
>>>Quite so. I recommend you visit your local library and check out last
>>>week's New Scientist.
>>>
>>>*smooch*
>>
>>Oh bugger. You mean do some research and attempt to furnish my wild
>>claims with some facts?
>
>Hmm ... yeah, that is a bit extreme.
>
>>I keep meaning to subscribe to NS and Nature, this could be the moment
>>to stop finding excuses not to.
>
>Subscribe? Naah - don't do that. I just buy magazines which have
>nice pictures on the cover.
I can imagine.
>
>>I hate people like you.
>
>Tell me more about your family.
They all live in attics, and drive automatics.
>
>>*tongues*
>
>*staples*
Erm...
*dixons*
brad
Lemming
>On Thu, 16 May 2002 20:55:43 +0100, Lemming
><l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Brad Martin <br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 May 2002 20:44:20 +0100, Lemming
>>><l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Brad Martin <br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No amount of experiment and observation will find a
>>>>>loophole in E=mc², it's a fundamental law of the behaviour of our
>>>>>universe. If it's wrong then all bets are off and I'm probably a small
>>>>>piece of cheese.
>>>>
>>>>Quite so. I recommend you visit your local library and check out last
>>>>week's New Scientist.
>>>>
>>>>*smooch*
>>>
>>>Oh bugger. You mean do some research and attempt to furnish my wild
>>>claims with some facts?
>>
>>Hmm ... yeah, that is a bit extreme.
>>
>>>I keep meaning to subscribe to NS and Nature, this could be the moment
>>>to stop finding excuses not to.
>>
>>Subscribe? Naah - don't do that. I just buy magazines which have
>>nice pictures on the cover.
>
>I can imagine.
You have no idea. Really.
>>
>>>I hate people like you.
>>
>>Tell me more about your family.
>
>They all live in attics, and drive automatics.
They've moved up from coffins in basements then?
>>
>>>*tongues*
>>
>>*staples*
>
>Erm...
>
>*dixons*
*the blue light*
ji...@hgea.org
<br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Maybe my history is a bit confused but didn't Columbus believe that if
he sailed far West enough he would have found another route to the
East? That why's he thought the Native Americans were Indians because
he thought he reached India. Somehow, this is something I remembered,
so, if this Columbus believed as he did, then it wasn't because he
thought the world was flat. But then maybe I'm not going back in
history enough. Then there was also the one about some Viking
reaching the Americas a long time before that...
I agree with Lemming on the second point, only the limit of our
science leads us to believe that FTL travel is impossible. Many of
the things we take for granted today were considered impossible or in
the realms of science fiction a long time ago because that was the
limits of science back then.
Espen Berntsen
Of course we did :) Leif Erikson to be exact.
>I agree with Lemming on the second point, only the limit of our
>science leads us to believe that FTL travel is impossible. Many of
>the things we take for granted today were considered impossible or in
>the realms of science fiction a long time ago because that was the
>limits of science back then.
It is a given that we can travel faster than ligh, if for no other
reason than it would be immensly boring if we couldn't.
--
Name, the fame
ji...@hgea.org
That's as good a reason as any.
Brad Martin
I have to disagree once again jimmy. While your point about the limits
of science historically is obviously right, when we are talking about
relativity and the speed of light it's a different ball game.
Einsteins theory differs from most in that it isn't merely the latest
good guess we have, it has made transparent much that was previously
unexplainable. I know there are still problems with unifying quantum
theory with Einsteinian gravity, but when we speak about observation
and experiment, all the important results of these observations only
make sense in the context of Einsteins theory.
I suppose what I mean is, that if it is wrong about the impossibility
of FTL, then we have to throw out everything and start all over again,
and that would mean all the laws and advancements that we utilise
today. It's almost as if everything would just disappear in a puff of
smoke! It is becoming more likely that new thinking in stuff like
super-symmetery and M-Theory is the way forward, but even these
theories still operate within the framework of Einsteins theory, it's
as if we have to work them into it before they become sensible.
I'm hopeless at explaining this, but it would appear as if our
particular universe can *only* operate if it follows the conditions of
Einsteins restrictions on FTL. It's a bugger, but we're stuck with it!
brad
ji...@hgea.org
I'm not saying that Einstein's theories are incorrect. Please
remember that Einstein's theory is just that a theory. It may be the
best theory than anything else anyone has come up with but it doesn't
mean the universe resolves around it, so if it is proven wrong the
universe wouldn't just stop.
Einstein's theories are just over half a century old. You have to
remember in the past many of the theories that generations and whole
civilizations had taken for fact were later proven to be false. I'm
trying to remember the name of the Greek Philosopher/Physician and
whatever else he did that made so many theories/claims that for a time
were considered to be how things worked that only many many centuries
later many of the theories that he had forwarded did not hold true.
There have been many cases too where the early scientists had just
scratched the surface of the depth of knowledge that is now available
to us but given the resources they had back then it seemed impossible
that they could have been so accurate in a lot of their findings.
If we stick to believing Einstein's theories are the way the universe
works then you will remain stuck with it. The ideas of science is to
keep questioning and finding out how things really work. Much of the
progress that mankind has made in the past century can be directly
attributable to Einstein's theories. But, in time we will probably
exceed the limits of Einstein's theories where they no longer hold
true.
Lemming
>On Fri, 17 May 2002 20:30:13 +0100, Brad Martin
><br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
Yeah, what he said. You're just an old stick-in-the-mud, Brod Metrin.
Brad Martin
Hmm. At this point I have to say that the universe *does* revolve
around it.
>Einstein's theories are just over half a century old. You have to
>remember in the past many of the theories that generations and whole
>civilizations had taken for fact were later proven to be false. I'm
>trying to remember the name of the Greek Philosopher/Physician and
>whatever else he did that made so many theories/claims that for a time
>were considered to be how things worked that only many many centuries
>later many of the theories that he had forwarded did not hold true.
>There have been many cases too where the early scientists had just
>scratched the surface of the depth of knowledge that is now available
>to us but given the resources they had back then it seemed impossible
>that they could have been so accurate in a lot of their findings.
You're right of course when you talk of Aristotle, but Aristotle's
theories prevailed through an age in the west when to question
perceived knowledge was considered heretical. Aristotles dominance was
based very much on a christian interpretation of greek knowledge.
Augustine managed to synthesise Platonic forms (originally
incorporated by St Paul) and later, the gospels were interperated in
an Aristotelian tradition by the christian scholastics. The great
Islamic thinkers of 700 - 1400ad questioned, and expanded the
perceived Aristotelian themes improving greatly on accepted theories.
Once the knowledge of the great Arabic scientists, appropos of
Aristotle, reached European thinkers, then the enlightenment could
take hold. The rest we know.
Since then, physics has followed a pattern of fits and starts, with
many theories and counter theories competing for authenticity.
Ultimately leading to Planks observations, the Michelson Morley
experiments, and Einsteins unique interpretation of a gravitational
spacetime.
>
>If we stick to believing Einstein's theories are the way the universe
>works then you will remain stuck with it. The ideas of science is to
>keep questioning and finding out how things really work. Much of the
>progress that mankind has made in the past century can be directly
>attributable to Einstein's theories. But, in time we will probably
>exceed the limits of Einstein's theories where they no longer hold
>true.
Yes, science must question, but that does not mean that all theories
can be improved upon. To say that we may be 'stuck with' Einsteins
theory is to mis-interpret his discovery. Einsteins theory is not a
stop gap, it is not a bridge to the next scientific leap, rather, it
is an absolutely fundamental property of the universe we live in. Or
so it would appear. If, as you infer, Einsteins relativity is just
another layer to a deeper complexity, then that meta-theory would
necessarily have to include Einsteins equations, of which, sub FTL
travel is an unavoidable property. In order for a new theory to
supersede Einsteins famous equation, we would need to completely
re-evaluate our ideas of mass and energy, ideas that prove so
stunningly accurate that we may build the computer you are using, and,
using the most powerful radio telescopes, age distant quasars and
weigh binary neutron stars from billions of light years away.
GR is not yet complete, but to suggest that it is only a stepping
stone to something more science - fiction friendly is to completely
miss it's perfection at predicting, and proving, all our most
cherished scientific truths.
brad
milo
news:rn4beuo5naro6ci1k...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 20:30:13 +0100, Brad Martin
> <br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I have to disagree once again jimmy. While your point about the limits
> >of science historically is obviously right, when we are talking about
> >relativity and the speed of light it's a different ball game.
> >particular universe can *only* operate if it follows the conditions of
> >Einsteins restrictions on FTL. It's a bugger, but we're stuck with it!
>
> I'm not saying that Einstein's theories are incorrect. Please
> remember that Einstein's theory is just that a theory. It may be the
> best theory than anything else anyone has come up with but it doesn't
> mean the universe resolves around it, so if it is proven wrong the
> universe wouldn't just stop.
Perhaps it would help to clarify just what Einstein's Theory of
Special Relativity (SR) states. SR does *not* say that FTL
travel is impossible. SR predicts that as a massive object
accelerates, it will become more massive. It predicts that as
an observer accelerates, his or her perception of time will change
with respect to that of an observer in a rest frame. These
predictions have been upheld by scientific observation.
Unfortunately, SR also predicts that it would take an infinite
amount of energy to accelerate a massive object to a speed
greater than that of light in a vacuum. It also predicts that
any object or information signal moving faster than c would
be observed to go backwards in time by every sub-luminal
observer in the universe.
> Einstein's theories are just over half a century old. You have to
> remember in the past many of the theories that generations and whole
> civilizations had taken for fact were later proven to be false. I'm
> trying to remember the name of the Greek Philosopher/Physician and
> whatever else he did that made so many theories/claims that for a time
> were considered to be how things worked that only many many centuries
> later many of the theories that he had forwarded did not hold true.
This is a completely meaningless analogy. Those who followed
Aristotle's teachings did not use the scientific method. There were
very simple observations that anyone could have made at the time
that would have proved his notions of gravity to be incorrect. The
exact opposite situation is true of Einstein.
> If we stick to believing Einstein's theories are the way the universe
> works then you will remain stuck with it. The ideas of science is to
> keep questioning and finding out how things really work.
Sort of. The physical sciences are about developing models
(called "theories") that can accurately predict the behavior
of natural phenomena. When theories accurately predict
the outcome of an experiment, we feel that we can understand
"how things really work." The universe is as we observe it
to be. No one really knows why mathematial models are
such good predictors of physical behavior.
> Much of the
> progress that mankind has made in the past century can be directly
> attributable to Einstein's theories. But, in time we will probably
> exceed the limits of Einstein's theories where they no longer hold
> true.
There are very few observed phenomena which are not in
accordance with the Theories of Relativity. All of these odd
cases are related to the rather counterintuitve nature of
quantum mechanics. And QM agrees with SR regarding
the "impossibility" of FTL travel or signaling.
--milo
http://www.starshatter.com
disgracelands
ingnoring the fact that we know FTL travel exists. Entangled particles have
shared properties that react to changes in the other particle instantly,
this must involve some exchange of information, therefore some FTL travel on
the basest level does exist.
dis
"Brad Martin" <br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cdabeus4b0vao266u...@4ax.com...
Lemming
>Your argument is flawed if only for the fact that you all seem to be
>ingnoring the fact that we know FTL travel exists. Entangled particles have
>shared properties that react to changes in the other particle instantly,
>this must involve some exchange of information, therefore some FTL travel on
>the basest level does exist.
The reason why this is not the case has already been explained to you,
by milo, earlier in this thread.
The message id is: <HR%D8.78388$9c5.2...@news2.west.cox.net>
disgracelands
wasn't happening, his argument (if i got it right) was that we cannot make
use of the entangled relationship. I'm just going a bit further and saying
that it ins't inconcievable that we will be able to make use of it in some
manner in the future.
dis
"Lemming" <l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rm9ceu8vjb7bdg9hl...@4ax.com...
Lemming
>He didn't say that it wasn't possible or even argue that FTL communications
>wasn't happening, his argument (if i got it right) was that we cannot make
>use of the entangled relationship. I'm just going a bit further and saying
>that it ins't inconcievable that we will be able to make use of it in some
>manner in the future.
You are right. My mistake - I should have read your post more
carefully. Apologies.
disgracelands
dis
"Lemming" <l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:klmceuog21frpdmjp...@4ax.com...