posted
"I think the problem Letsalope and PsyLiam are having is the concept of subspace and actual velocity versus perceived velocity. Letsalope is concentrating on the velocity of a starship within its subspace bubble, and PsyLiam on its velocity without. Again, inside the bubble, a ship doesn't travel faster than the speed of light. Outside, it does. Or seems to. Correct me if I'm wrong or being too pretentious."
No, that's fine. But that's not my problem. My problem is that's Letsalope is constantly saying that "ships do not travel faster than the speed of light. AT ALL". Wheras your explanation is that they don't in their own bubble, but to the rest of the universe, they are travelling faster than the speed of light. Which is why almost everyone says that "The ships in Star Trek travel faster than the speed of light".
It's like driving a car. If someone asks me how fast I'm going down the motorway, I don't say "well, actually I'm sitting still, so I'm not moving at all." While in comparison to other people in the car, i'd be sitting still, to the rest of the world, I'd be going at (say) 70mph. So I'd say "I'm doing 70mph."
And I'm slightly confused by sentences like:
"warp 2 is (say) 8 times the speed of light,no it's 8 times faster than light can travel(light speed)."
Because that looks suspiciously like:
Warp 2 isn't 8 times the speed of light, but it's 8 times faster than light speed. Sorry, I need more explanation.
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
psyliam, may be it was a little confusing, but here goes again.what i mean't to say was when you said that warp 2 was 8 times the speed of light, i mean't to say that it was 8 times further than light can travel as a speed.
and to daniel,i think it appears to the outside observer to warp travel that you are going faster than light,but infact you still are not,just traveling a greater distance.
posted
"and to daniel,i think it appears to the outside observer to warp travel that you are going faster than light,but infact you still are not,just traveling a greater distance."
what the hell does that mean? i think that i am able to decipher it linguistically, but it makes no sense. buddy, if you are travelling a greater distance than another object in a certain amount of time, then you are going faster than that other object. just out of curiousity, have you seen an episode of star trek where they use the warp drive, letsalope? damn.
--jacob
------------------ what are we supposed to use, man, harsh language!?
posted
Well, certain thing seems to have grown more confusing and others cleared up. Er, I think I'll sort of step out of this one.
About Lord Kelvin though. If this is the guy they named the Kelvin scale after, then perhaps he did have something to say on the subject, although I haven't a clue what it was.
In the Kelvin Scale, absolute zero, (the temperature at which all particle motion stops), is approximately 273.15 K. At this temperature, the electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom would cease to do so, and fall into the nucleus. The would atom effectively collapse. If we are talking about this occuring on a large scale, say 10 grams of a substance, the theory is that matter would contract on itself until it created an intense gravity well and possibly a black hole.
That is why all particles HAVE to be in motion. Otherwise we'd be dead right now. Or a series of black holes.
This being the case, one wonders why scientists persist on trying to get another billionth of a degree closer to absolute zero.
posted
Well attempts have also been made to nullify gravity, and some have been more succesful than others. Could a nullifying field keep those particles from molesting eachother? Hypothetically, of course.
posted
I was about to say that gravity was independant of motion, but I would be wrong. So instead I shall say that gravity is dependant upon mass, and mass increases with velocity but it doesn't vanish when something is standing still.
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that cooling things down to just a few shades of absolute zero is not going to destroy the universe. Of course, I've been wrong about that sort of thing before.
posted
Er, on the Kelvin scale, absolute zero is not 273.15 K. It's 0 K. It is, however, -273.15 degrees C. Sorry.
Anyway, isn't giving him credit for the KELVIN scale a bit much? All he did was find out what absolute zero was, and then adapt the Celsius scale. They are exactly the same, just 273.15 degrees apart.
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
Then you're in the majority, yes, as the most recent evidence suggests that the universe is not only going to continue expanding forever, but that the rate of expansion is actually increasing?
posted
'Course, who the heck knows what happens to a 3-D universe that's the edge of an expanding 4-D hypersphere? Heck, who knows what happens to the hypersphere itself? We could pop like a balloon, for all we know.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
Printer-friendly view of this topic
