Jump to content

Bej Kerman

Members
  • Posts

    2,030
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,466 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

5,256 profile views
  1. Speed of light is always c; speed of light in a medium is different. Apologies if it came off that way. Trust me, that is not what I meant to do.
  2. That's good Implying that a vessel only takes damage if there are wobbly attachments? This is a prime example of a non-sequitur; damage caused by an RCS block hitting the vessel at extreme speeds will happen regardless of how wobbly the attachments are but the assumption is made that it must mean rockets will still be wobbly in KSP 2. I agree, this was a fun read. But then again, some bad apples will find a way to generate negativity over these tidbits.
  3. 1. You aren't giving a balanced solution to your problem. You literally are asking for an OP engine which shouldn't be available in the early game. The entire point of the Nerv is that you sacrifice TWR for efficiency - if your ship has a very very low TWR, well, that's just space travel, folks. 2. Read MechBFP's reply.
  4. I might have the misunderstanding here, but by the way I read your interpretation, it completely eliminates the existence of something like Cherenkov radiation, which we know to be a real thing. How so? Oh, I see. Gargamel thought Ckv Radiation happens when something goes faster than c, which isn't right because relativity explicitly says nothing with positive mass goes faster than c. Although, this just confuses me further because it implies they thought I forbid travel faster than c in my comment even though FTL travel has been forbidden by relativity for as long as relativity has been a thing.
  5. I'm not sure who said speed is relative, because speed isn't relative; space and time are relative. Speed is relative to the fabric of spacetime - you can't move through spacetime faster than light regardless of anything else that happens to be laying around in spacetime. That's just my understanding, though.
  6. People could send an aircraft into space and skip on the atmosphere. Isn't that a good thing?
  7. Wdym at the wrong time? The relativistic jets don't necessarily stop.
  8. We know that everything was very close together. In the earliest moments, they were so close together that particles could jump from one place in the universe to another in a quantum probabilistic manner. I believe the amount of time during which this was possible is one Planck time. It was very short, but as a result there are pieces of you that could have just as easily been transported to the other side of the universe. We do not yet have a theory adequate for explaining what happened that close to the Big Bang.
  9. I'll do you one better Everything Star Trek in the 21st century sounds like it was written by a third grader whose brain has not yet developed reasonable thinking beyond punching people who disagree with them. (bonus: explains why the bridge crew fights so much. So much for the crew being mature people worthy of being in the military.)
  10. How so? We don't know what happened in the first few instants of the Universe.
  11. The Big Bang did not happen from a "little point", it happened everywhere. 2D beings on the surface of that balloon cannot determine a point on that balloon that everything is expanding from because that point does not exist in their two dimensional world - as far as they are concerned, and as far as their two dimensional physics is concerned, the balloon's big bang happened everywhere. The fabric of spacetime itself can be considered an absolute reference frame - a photon barely on the event horizon of a black hole barely has any velocity if its position is calculated using a distant static point as a reference frame, but it does move at the speed of light through spacetime. Gravity can be measured in the single digit Gs on some very large black holes because while the gravity isn't strong at the event horizon, spacetime itself is moving inwards near the speed of light because it has had so much time to accelerate.
  12. It's either high TWR or high impulse. You shouldn't get a choice with early game engines.
  13. The picture isn't showing you two engines, it's showing you one engine; But, if you were looking at this, this can just mean they rebalanced the old NERV. There's no conceivable reason to make the original KSP 1 NERV 2x bigger for KSP 2.
×
×
  • Create New...