Starstruck69
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Starstruck69
-
-
Speed of light is generally thought of as a constant by physicists (in a vacuum of course). The most extreme environment that we know of is black holes where things get really crazy. There are many different theories of what happens beyond the event horizon by respected scientists but nobody actually knows for sure. Of course we can't measure or observe anything beyond the event horizon but without getting bogged down in crazy complex mathematics it might be worth looking at Hawkins radiation and of course einsteins work on relativity. They aren't overly complex just skip the geometrics part of relativity.
Also a proffessor called Leonard Susskind (Stamford University) discusses this in great depth and has some really great theories on the matter. Especially Einstein Rosen Bridges i found fascinating. You can watch his lectures on you tube.
-
If only we could play god.. The problem is that the reason the forces are there in the first place is because of the arrangement of such systems and matter and their interactions together.
For example we have the earth and its gravity field. If we remove a proportion of the earth, we remove a proportion of the gravity field too. And so on and so forth. It wouldn't be there to be used in an another way. Conservation of energy...
I guess thats physics for you.
Interesting post though:)
-
Life would be very tough out there.
And i'm not even going to go into maintenance, repair, breakdowns.
If something breaks your waiting a very long time for replacements.
But who knows what discoveries might await us below the surface.
Would it not be more feasable to expand from inner ss to outer ss placing infrastructure along the way ?
-
I am interested to know what your views are on 5G technology? This thread could very well be a rabbit hole so no politics please ladies and gents. Just your opinions ideally supported by facts. Thanks
I wait in interest..
-
34 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:
Also that means that their astronomers can absorb some human ideas of that historical period, watch their practical implementation in real time, analyze mistakes, and try that in their homeworld.
Better they would watch Eurovision...Haha i wonder what their analysts would make of this?
ok were invading:)
-
If they have sufficient technology to decipher the message then the human race has a very serious problem..
Think about the crap that has gone out over the airwaves in the past century. For example,
Eurovision song contest:(
we are all doomed.
-
I like a happy ending. Good job Carl i'm glad it all worked out for you:)
-
1 hour ago, KerBlitz Kerman said:
First you appear benevolent, make them like and appreciate you. Then you orchestrate something to say wipe out their food on exchange for the farmland. They can no longer grow crops, which you grow for them. They can't afford to attack you, so you gradually hire humans to go to the stars with you. Bam they get enslaved. Then you take over military centers and Gov't centers, orchestrate some news which while true leads them to not trust each other. This way you're not fighting several alliances, rather large amounts of individuals. Then you take over population centers and control the WORLD!!!
As aforementioned on this thread, give them say a vaccine, when it's really a temporary cure not a disease prevention device but make it so we literally can't duplicate it. This means we have to have them, but hate them.
Edit: Remove engineered virus from humans removed from homeworld and say inject them with a explosive device (which you implant in an area of the heart/brain to make it unremovable) so they can't run away. Also sterilize all who make it offworld
Edit 2: **** I'm out of 'reactions'.
Edited 1 hour ago by KerBlitz Kerman
Sterilization might be a bit harsh.. But i guess don't want the little blighters breeding off world heh...
-
The problem with truth is that it can be subjective. What may be true to subject A may not be true to subject B. We can see this in science, physics and such if we look back historically at how science, information has and can evolve. Lots of people in this world are it has to be said cold hard liers and may so do it for personal gain etc. There is no getting away from this fact.
There is of course also the situation where the truth is hidden from us and without intentially lieing sometimes mistruths are passed down generations from parents to children, teachers to pupils and so forth. Totally unintentional they believe it is the truth..
Truth is sometimes overated.
-
46 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:
The fictional aliens I tweaked in this case to be harmonic with observable facts. Nothing more or less. That is what they support, accept,and provide.
The result is in their society that they never lie, and never jump to conclusions.
This effects commerce, politics, and what views they have on religion.
Commerce: They won't share false advertising. They do target individuals rather than groups with ads though, as privacy of personal info is not private to commerce unless one pays a large sum. They will go to great lengths. Even having agents marry people to get them to support their company. One out of ten people actually works undercover as an agent of commerce. Privacy advocates on Earth would cringe at how much personal info companies collect legally.
Politics: No more lies. They will omit saying stuff at times though. So to get a full view one would need to hear words of from both opposers and supporters, as neither lie.
Religion: They lack the massive religious past Earth has. Given that all life they have observed comes from life, they conclude so did they. Yet it does not go further than that. They do display a high curiosity about it with any race that does have such a background though. Occasionally individuals convert, although this is rare.
Individuals tend to speak in an objective manner, unless one asks their opinion and they give it. In fact, they do have theories about things, but they are not allowed to be actively promoted to the public, but the public can still access such information.
EDIT: fixed
This sounds like the blueprint for a great story. Sort of George Orwell themes in there
We could include a role for my dog a kind of '1984' vs 'Animal farm' spin off:))
-
8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:
That said, there are an unlimited amount of ideals you could pick that they could bring upon us.
Such as truth. No more lies and deception among humans will be tolerated, as they do not tolerate it. Needless to say... such a takeover would not go peacefully.
Very true. We automatically think an alien intervention would bring negatives, but maybe as you suggest positives can come through too...
If we did away with lies i know for one my dog would be most pleased. She gets blamed for a whole host of things:) Bless her
-
Its tiny.. Aero tests i presume but not sure tbh
-
If its a game your talking about then maybe consider the AI will not let stupid humans make stupid decisions. (In your code of course)
The distance you would have to decelerate from said planet is well, astronomical in real life. Its quite pointless to discuss in depth physics here to be honest because real life, physical world doesn't make great games. There would be a lot of down time staring at stars....
I like simulators though but i am in the minority. Probably not on this forum..:)
If you can use Newton laws which is pretty simple tbh. You wont go far wrong for what feels right. It will still be demanding though some coders here might advise you the best way..
Obviously on real life, interstellar travel at speed of c requires you to consider GR and SR. I think this may break your computer and the benefits will not be worth it.
I wrote a program in python regarding planet/comet collision using only Newtons eq. The pc didn't like it one bit..... but python is probably not the best and my field doesn't require me to code a great deal.
-
You know what despite its obvious flaws it was a great piece of engineering for the time, quite remarkable for sure. Now iconic. I for one will miss it...
-
Target communication networks, power grid, food and water supplies, moral. When everybody has had enough negotiate. Repeat untill task is resolved.
Of course all done in the name of democracy. We shall call this 'liberation'
Job done.
Pretty much the current blueprint for war in the 20 th century really..
-
7 hours ago, DDE said:
Oh, these guys again!
A problem not yet covered is that they plan to instantly go from “vacuum” to “high Mach at sea level”.
That’s not particularly survivable.
Its gonna get hot!!!!
-
On 6/21/2019 at 10:14 PM, Cunjo Carl said:
It does though!
Because of einstein's mass-energy equivalence, any form of energy storage actually has mass. It's pretty paradoxical but when you solve for mass-energy equivalence as you say, despite the photon being massless the Isp of a photon rocket is exactly equivalent to a normal rocket shooting reaction mass out at the speed of light.
Mass-energy equivalence applies to all forms of stored energy from radioisotopes to batteries to chemical propellants. For a fun case-and-point, let's consider a photon rocket that operates by burning and holding onto 1kg of methalox, collecting the energy and using it to shoot photons out the back. What we'll find is our rocket becomes lighter by a tiny mass 'm', and our rocket gains a momentum of m*c. Again, this is the same mass efficiency as what we'd get from a normal rocket with an Isp of c/g0.
Getting started, 1kg of burning methane will look like:
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O + 16.7MJ of heat
Assuming by magic we collect all the energy, the products of the above reaction will be lighter than the reactants by 16.7MJ/c^2 (1.9E-10kg) because of the mass energy equivalence. I think that's amazing! The chemical reaction actually changes the total mass, despite no particles ever leaving the system. Moving on to the next step, launching the collected energy out the back of the rocket as photons will provide us a momentum of:
Momentum Gained = Energy Used / c
.056 kg*m/s = 16.7MJ / c
.056 kg*m/s = 1.9E-10kg*c (alternatively)And finally, we notice that our rocket has lost 1.9E-10kg of mass, and gained 1.9E-10kg * c of momentum! (.056 kg*m/s = 1.9E-10kg*c) Like we claimed at the start despite the photon being massless the photon rocket has the same mass efficiency as a normal rocket with an exhaust velocity of c (or an Isp of c/g0) . Crazy stuff, right?
I love these fun problems and a good post. Apart from the obvious thermo losses i really like this. Carbon dioxide for the plants, water for us and the plants and very approximate 16.7MJ of energy for the propulsion. Great post:)
-
Your on dangerous ground here because a photon cannot go any faster unless you go against Einsteins GR and SR, regardless of your relative position.
-
If it is consistantly out of calibration (thinking linear) then yes you may be able to salvage the work. It depends on instrumentation really. A statistician will help with the maths but how the instrument operates is something they won't know about and is crucial. You can't 'polish a turd 'so you may be better biting the bullet and starting again.
If you find a consistant pattern of error then your in luck. In my experience it doesn't work like that and your data will always have a ? next to it.
Suck it up and start again..
Edit:
Just a thought, if you contact the manufacturer of the instrument and have a chat with their technical engineers they may throw you a life line..
Be honest with them and you will get the answer you need. Their is no shame in admitting your mistake and holding your hands up. As hard as this to do sometimes its the best option. You don't want to be that guy who fudges data...
I have been on both sides of this and honesty is the best policy here.
-
Does anybody have a link to published calculation used by NASA for the lunar landings? The reason i ask is i am interested to see how they calculated it and whether they used GR. I suspect not as i doubt it was relevant for this short trip. I have found lots of stuff on google but nothing official from NASA.
-
7 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:
Yea I need to look into this more to get it. You could not really be weightless in a harrier jet however I mean it hovered and it did not overcome gravity. If you could get the jet to power at the exact rate of gravity you could most likely do it. You could also have a range to create a virtual but not real artificial environment. If your slightly over you drift downward and if your slightly under you drift upward. Alternate between the two and it most likely not impossible.
Precisely that yes. The craft will be in a state of flux and constant adjustment is required. I could think of a few ways round this but current technology limits us to be this precise.
The maths adds up though and is relatively straight forward to calculate, no pun intended.
Its a bit like trying to catch the horse after it has bolted the stable, even superfast computation cannot predict the future..
If we take a proactive and not a reactive approach, then maybe we could pick a point in spacetime and mathematically calculate exactly what we need from there. However again i think the precision required from our propulsion engineering will restrict the accuracy we need here and we hit a technological barrier.
It can be done on paper though so i would not be at all surprised to see this in the future.
Edit:
A russian scientist by the name of Evgeny Podkletnov wrote a few papers on this in the early 90's, if i can dig them out i will post them up for you.
From memory his work involved a spinning disk and a superconductor. The basis of his study was that a spinning mass can rotate spacetime around it, relativity allows this to happen and we could if we wanted demonstrate it mathematically with GR. It might be worth starting here..
Bear in mind though i am not sure what is peer reviewed here. I know some of his papers are, not sure if this covers all of the content in the videos. I like to watch videos like this but the paper is the key to truly understanding it. In my opinion of course, others may disagree.
-
On 6/16/2019 at 9:18 AM, Cheif Operations Director said:
I should know more than I do to answer this but just an idea
What if you have gravity pulling at x m/s toward a thing
Could'nt you pull it at x m/s the other direction
Effectivley x m/s - xm/x = 0
Add:
I was stating that outside of the OPs post
Effectively this is a sort of inverse of Newtons law of attraction and i see your point here. All mass will be effected by gravity and the pull of such force is related to the mass and distance between them.
Mathematically you have a good point but unfortunately Einsteins Special and General relativity (GR)is a tad more complicated when applying to the real world. GR supercedes Newtons work when we talk about gravity.
of course the point you made can be seen in aircraft such as the harrier, that hovers by pushing equally the opposite vector to the pull of gravity and as such v=0m/s. (in theory). In laymans terms we calculate F and apply an equal force to neutralise.
If only it was that simple. See below.
GR:
As we can see from GR the left side talks about the geometric position and the right side the energy/mass relationship. If we took this into account i would think it will be very difficult to know just exactly how much we have to thrust to neutralise the gravitational effect. It would be a best guess and very approximated to be honest because we need to keep feeding one side to get an answer out of the other. Also this of course presumes we are working in a vaccuum so no drag, friction etc is accounted for here. There are 10 usable equations above that we can substitute in to find what we need. For example, the effect of gravity on say the x axis, or on the y axis, z axis etc etc. It gets tediously complicated, but doable.
As for antimatter/fuel ratio i have absolutely no idea. If somebody calculates though i would be very interested to see it.
-
I would image the escape velocity would have to be reached extremely quickly. Can you imagine the G's you would have to cope with at the initial period after launch..
-
Just to be clear when i say 'light' i don't just mean in the visible spectrum.
'Hawking radiation' is in the upper region of the scale below.
Do we know why it is predominantly this region?
Because of einstein's mass-energy equivalence, any form of energy storage actually has mass. It's pretty paradoxical but when you solve for mass-energy equivalence as you say, despite the photon being massless the Isp of a photon rocket is exactly equivalent to a normal rocket shooting reaction mass out at the speed of light.
If we could manipulate the 4 Fundamental Forces What Could We Do?
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted · Edited by Starstruck69
By the way another point that is really interesting (to me anyway) is quantum entanglement. Fascinating subject that does require a good level of physics to understand. However here is the interesting bit. Currently it is generally accepted that light travels at a constant speed and nothing can travel faster in our known universe. Well it seems quantumly entangled particles can flip their polarities instantly, regardless of distance. You flip one the other flips too. Instantaneously!!
If you think about that for a second that means it happens quicker than the speed of c! Which according to current physics is not possible but this experiment has been repeated numerous times with the same outcome.
Leonard Susskind goes into this in great depth in his lectures.
I highly recommend watching them if your physics/maths is a decent level.