FTL weapons
M...@psuvm.bitnet
1) If the ship is going FTL, then everything inside it is going FTL, too,
right? Like, in a plane or car, everything inside is going the same
speed as the vehicle. So, if the ship is travelling X, and a torpedo
is fired at speed v, then the speed of the torpedo upon leaving the
ship is X + v. This makes sense.
2) I was read an SF book about FTL travel and they made an interesting
remark. Now, travel approaches a limit, C (speed of light). That is,
The curve approaches C but never hits it. Well, this guy suggested
that the limits on the other side work the same way. Like if you are
travelling faster than light, you can slow down almost too, but not
to C. Same limit, other side. (The only exception is the thrust
from one side of C to the other.) In fact, this author went on to
say that he thought travel *at* C would be therefore impossible.
Well, that's our opinion. What's yours? We'd like to know.
-------
"I always lie ... and I'm always right."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, The Church of the SubGenius
Michael S. Weiss
The Pennsylvania State University
M...@PSUVM.BITNET
<* The opinions expressed by me do not reflect those held *>
<* by my school nor those of my employer. (If I had one.) *>
Eric Cotton
> remark. Now, travel approaches a limit, C (speed of light). That is,
> The curve approaches C but never hits it. Well, this guy suggested
> that the limits on the other side work the same way. Like if you are
> travelling faster than light, you can slow down almost too, but not
> to C. Same limit, other side. (The only exception is the thrust
> from one side of C to the other.) In fact, this author went on to
> say that he thought travel *at* C would be therefore impossible.
>
> Well, that's our opinion. What's yours? We'd like to know.
> -------
>
> "I always lie ... and I'm always right."
> -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, The Church of the SubGenius
>
> Michael S. Weiss
> The Pennsylvania State University
> M...@PSUVM.BITNET
>
> <* The opinions expressed by me do not reflect those held *>
> <* by my school nor those of my employer. (If I had one.) *>
>
I think what you read in a SF book is actually a real theory, that of
the nature of tachyons.
Eric Cotton
Commodore
"My hovercraft is full of eels!"
Chris Ambler
(and for that matter, all) that travel FTL (phasers are at C) are not
in our space! Take a look at the explanation of 'warp' speed. The ship
projects a shell of 'otherspace' around it so as to slip into an alternate
space (known, again, as 'otherspace'). When one fires a torpedo, it, too,
is in 'otherspace'. A common tactic for evading a torpedo (I know this
because I am in the porting stage of an advanced starship simulator) is
to drop out of otherspace when you see it coming. It then, goes 'right
through you' (actually, this is a paradox, but it sounds good to describe
it this way). In 'otherspace', C is a different value. I could attempt
to explain further, but it's dinnertime in the old cafe...(DORM FOOD SUCKS),
see net.jokes (you know you're in college when...)
|-Spock! (Christopher J. Ambler, University of California, Riverside)|
| ...ucbvax!ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!spock |
| -"Captain, I see no reason to bother Starfleet..." |
Gavin Bell
It seems to me a big problem with faster-than-light weapons is not making
them go faster than light (if the enterprise can do it, why not them?),
but how do you _see_ what you are trying to hit? Weapons couldn't use
regular electromagnetic waves to guide them-- they would overtake these
waves. I suppose that, if you can hurl ships through space faster than
light, then it wouldn't be too tough to scan at faster than faster than
light, but....
Another question: How fast did the transporters move objects? Was it
instantaneous, or just very fast? I have heard that the TransWarp
technology introduced in the last Star Trek flick uses some form of
advanced transporter technology to transport the ship across space.
Any comments? Seems like a good idea...
-Gavin Bell
(aka Fred Bear-- Fred Bear has no hair! SCARE Fred Bear!)
608...@pucc.bitnet
Andy Toy
>Gentlemen! The issue here is *NOT* FTL!!! The weapons used by the Feds
>(and for that matter, all) that travel FTL (phasers are at C) are not
>in our space!
BTW, can the Enterprise fire phasers while travelling at warp speeds?
Also, is it correct that phasers can't be fired while the deflector
shields are up. I seem to recall quite a few episodes where the
phasers can't be fired because the shields are up (I don't know why
they didn't use photon torpedoes instead). Are there any other major
limitations to phasers?
> Take a look at the explanation of 'warp' speed. The ship
>projects a shell of 'otherspace' around it so as to slip into an alternate
>space (known, again, as 'otherspace'). When one fires a torpedo, it, too,
>is in 'otherspace'. A common tactic for evading a torpedo (I know this
>because I am in the porting stage of an advanced starship simulator) is
>to drop out of otherspace when you see it coming. It then, goes 'right
>through you' (actually, this is a paradox, but it sounds good to describe
>it this way). In 'otherspace', C is a different value...
I don't recall this tactic ever being used by any ships in Star Trek.
Is this space that you call 'otherspace' also known as 'subspace' as
mentioned it the series? What are your references of the above?
Particularly the torpedo scenario and the "c is a different value" bits.
>|-Spock! (Christopher J. Ambler, University of California, Riverside)|
--
Andy Toy, Mapping Analysis and Design Group (MAD),
Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1 (519) 885-1211 x6592
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| UUCP: ...!watmath!watdcsu!atoy BITNET: atoy at watdcsu |
# CSNET: atoy%wat...@waterloo.csnet CDN: at...@dcsu.waterloo.cdn #
| ARPA: atoy%watdcsu%waterlo...@csnet-relay.arpa |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Lacefield
(Flame on)
I really find it hard to believe (and quite hilarious, frankly) that there are
folks out there who ACTUALLY THINK they can explain UNexplainables in Star
Trek or, for that matter, any other sci-fi adventure. Don't you people realize
that these all come from someone's IMAGINATION?? Let's take Star Trek as an
example. I LOVE the show and the movies. But I am not about to presume to
explain how photons, phasers, propulsion systems and the like function, what
they can/can't/should_be_able_to/should_NOT_be_able_to do, etc., especially
when nobody living now could POSSIBLY understand the technology that would have
evolved that far (23rd century) into the future (assuming that it grows at
the present rate of doubling every 2-3 years).
(Flame off)
I do think these discussions are interesting, but I hope that everybody out
there doesn't really BELIEVE all this stuff.
Greg Lacefield :->
...!tektronix!gregl
M...@psuvma.bitnet
>Ok, I can't resist adding a few musings on Faster Than Light Stuff:
>
>It seems to me a big problem with faster-than-light weapons is not making
>them go faster than light (if the enterprise can do it, why not them?),
>but how do you _see_ what you are trying to hit? Weapons couldn't use
>regular electromagnetic waves to guide them-- they would overtake these
>waves. I suppose that, if you can hurl ships through space faster than
>light, then it wouldn't be too tough to scan at faster than faster than
>light, but....
"aimed" by the Enterprise. After firing, they're just blind projectiles.
As for guided weapons, e.g. plasma torpedoes, I'd guess they use a primitive
form of starship sensors-- which can certainly scan at FTL.
Anyone else have additional/conflicting info?
-------
------------------
James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE |
The Pennsylvania State University | FOR RENT |
UUCP Path: ihnp4!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq | Call 555-1723 |
------------------
"I am pleased to see we have differences. May we together become
greater than the sum of both of us."
-- Surak of Vulcan
Steve Miller
> > that there are
> > folks out there who ACTUALLY THINK they can explain UNexplainables in Star
> > Trek or, for that matter, any other sci-fi adventure.
>
> there doesn't really BELIEVE all this stuff.
Someone in net.tv.drwho (Mark Modig?) once made the point that explaining
unexplainables in the context of a fictional universe in order to maintain
consistency is a characteristic of the true fan. It's a kind of puzzle: How
do I reconcile last week's story with this week's, in a fashion consistent
with the underlying premises of the series? If you can find a convincing
answer, it helps to maintain the suspension of disbelief that series sf
requires. Also, it lets you feel like you have some interaction with
the series, as opposed to being merely the passive observer. Further,
it is good mental exercise. Remember the sf author advisors in _Footfall_ ?
-Steve Miller ihnp4!bambi!steve