Oh, dear God. What an unholy can of worms have you opened, Divals?

Quote

Originally posted by Commander Arashi:
**Anyone care to work causality violation into an EVN plug-in?

**

I'll see what I can do... No promises, but, I'd like to think I'm a halfway decent SF writer... And I'm fairly up on current physics theories, esp. superstring and M theories. Besides, if they don't work, I can just make a new one of my own...

Quote

Originally posted by what_is_the_matrix:
**Oh, and if I remember correctly, string theory is supposed to indicate like 20 dimensions.

Matrix

**

Uhm, actually, it's 7 spatial dimensions above our own four (to repeat QT, three spatial, one temporal). However, these seven are curled up into a tiny sphere with a diameter the size of the Planck length (10 ^ -33 cm). That's easy enough to grasp, right? True. The tricky part lies in figuring out how that thing, which borders on the maximum size for it to disappear in the quantum foam, can contact every single point in the Universe (over 20 billion lightyears across, so far), simultaneously. It's kinda like trying to lick your elbow; our poor little pee-brains can't handle it.

Quote

Originally posted by what_is_the_matrix:
**The May 2001 issue of Popular Science had an article on various theoretical methods of hyperlight propulsion. All of the theories of interstellar travel require stuff to happen by "undiscovered means," but it's interesting nonetheless.

The first is an "Induction Sail" which is propelled somewhat passively by concentrating interstellar radiation on one side of a sail, causing a differential of "radiation pressure" that propels the ship. Of course, the device that concentrates radiation is undiscovered.

The second is a "Differential Sail" which is more passive than the Induction Sail. It absorbs interstellar radiation on the leading side of the sail and reflects it on the trailing side. The collisions of radiation on the trailing propel the ship. Of course, I'm not a physics major, but even if radiation were absorbed on one side of the sail, wouldn't it counteract the collisions on the opposite side?

The third in the passive propulsion series is the "Diode Sail." This seems the most plausible to me, but what do I know. Basically, it acts as a one way mirror to radiation. Radiation approaching from behind is reflected, but radiation from the front passes through. Of course, all three of these sail ships depend on that space has a lot of background radiation.

**

My dear Matrix, you have just succeeded in describing one of the favorites of SF authors, the Solar Sail. The 'Induction Sail' is a highly polished aluminum radio antenna (the kind you see outside of a TV station, but more along the size of Arecaibo(sp?) in South America). Except here, instead of the thing suspended in the middle being a receiver, it's a very very very powerful laser. Several variations on this theme have been tested by NASA. None have panned out so far. The 'Differential Sail' is a traditional solar sail. A highly polished, incredibly thin sheet of aluminum whose leading face is painted a flat black. Of course, the paint would have to be as close to true black (completely nonreflective) as possible. And no, absorbtion is not the same as reflection. With reflection, some of the energy in the photon is imparted to the sail (which itself is attached to the starship) as the photon bounces off. With absorbtion, the photon simply stops dead. The 'Diode Sail' is the same as the 'Differential Sail', except it uses a one-way mirror instead of a mirror whose reverse side is painted black.
Their 'Bias Drive' is similar to warp drive. Project an incredible gravitonic field just in front of the ship. Just make sure that the grav field stays in front of the ship, or else said ship becomes a miniature nebula. Kinda like sticking a carrot on a stick, and holding it out in front of a horse. The ship falls towards its destination. Move the grav field, change the direction in which the ship is moving.
'Disjunction Drive' may rely on the theoretical particles of either the Weak Nuclear Force, or the Strong Nuclear Force, I can't remember which. Point being, you take two particles. These two particles are connected by this force, which only strengthens exonentially with distance. Put one particle on board your ship. Chuck the other one at your destination near or at the speed of light. Your ship promptly follows.

rmx256, only one problem. One fellow, a Russian emigré scientist now living in Finland, named Eugene Podkletnov, has claimed to have reduced gravitonic effects by as much as 2%. (BTW the name for the particle is 'Graviton') Don't quote me on the exact amount, but it's admittedly pretty small. Okay, more like tiny. But the guy's done it. A lot of people have ridiculed him, but he's got a believer here. The facts fit together, and it just plain sounds right. If he's lying, sue me. I dare ya.

Skyfox, tachyons are nice, but nobody's ever even been able to see one for a tiny fraction of a second. Besides that, they're only used in theories to explain things that can't be explained otherwise, and they've been out of use in modern astrophysics for a while. I admit, they're cool, but I'm not too terribly sure they actually exist. Sorry.

Colours, you are quite correct about something going wrong with those electromagnetic fields holding the black hole in. Actually, a good idea for a weapon is to take a substance, anything from hydrogen to neutronium, stuff it in the nose end of a rocket, and then shoot said rocket off at nearly the speed of light towards a star or some other big thing that you want to go away. As the speed of the missile increases, so does the mass of the 'warhead'. When it reaches a critical mass, the entire thing collapses into a small black hole. Now, normally, due to Hawking Radiation, this black hole would dissipate well inside of a second. However, if it's close enough to something big, like a planet or a star... And besides, if you're desperate enough for artificial gravity that you're willing to put a tiny black hole on your ship, just spin the damned thing.

Impatiently awaiting your replies. Have a good week.

------------------
“You’re only given a little spark of madness. You mustn’t lose it.”
-- Robin Williams

Quote

Originally posted by spacecowboy:
Oh, dear God. What an unholy can of worms have you opened, Divals?;)
**
Bwahahahahaha!

Now, normally, due to Hawking Radiation, this black hole would dissipate well inside of a second. However, if it's close enough to something big, like a planet or a star... And besides, if you're desperate enough for artificial gravity that you're willing to put a tiny black hole on your ship, just spin the damned thing.
**

What if you don't feel like it? Besides, a black hole can also provide power for the ship, a la Mission Earth (Voltarian Government City's power is created by a small black hole). When you say hawking radiation, is that the same hawking as the hawking drive in Hyperion?

I've decided that in TSG, most of the older ships were unable to fully regulate the black hole's gravitic pull, and had to be suspended 'below' the ship in order not to squish the crew. This could also open up the possibility for built-in tractor beams on every ship... One problem I'm still thinking of is that when a ship gets blown up, the black hole will stay, and since a whole LOT of ships get blown up in both TSG and TGC, that'd make for a whole cat-load of black holes scattered throughout the universe, and whenever a ship was destroyed no other ships could come near that spot... hm.

Divals

------------------
"Silly rabbit, Kicks are for trids!" - ME
(url="http://"mailto:micahg@microserve.net")mailto:micahg@microserve.net(/url)micahg@microserve.net

I do very much like that thought of black holes left wandering about after a fleet engagement...kinda the future version of unexploded munitions.

As I understand it, Hawking Radiation is simply a description (rather, a theory from Stephen Hawking of "A Brief History of Time" fame) of how a black hole is actually capable of radiating energy.

The actual mechanism involves virtual particles; matched pairs of particles that come into existance then combine again into nothing. Since they are in pairs negative and positive there is no net energy change, therefore no violation of conservation of energy. Except when you add a black hole to the mix. A pair is "created," the black hole eats one of the pair, and the other is forced to change from "virtual" to being a real particle of known mass energy. The black hole, in the mean time, has digested negative mass energy and thus shrinks a little. To the outside observer it looks as if the black hole spat out a particle.

The smaller the black hole, the faster it evaporates. Which unfortunately puts the kibosh on quantum black holes. Pity, as there were some lovely stories, particularly by Larry Niven, featuring subminiature black holes...

On the topic of having dangerous material in your ship...in Stephen Baxter's "Anti-Ice" the Victorian Age discovers antimatter. It was found in the arctic, in a stable matrix of superconducting material. The book features "anti-ice" powered trains, zeppellins, even a steam-driven rocket that makes a foolhardy journey to the Moon. The only problem with anti-ice, see, is that if it gets any warmer than that nice sub-arctic chill, it does all those things antimatter is so good at...

------------------
"I know the stranger's name."
Turandot

(quote)Originally posted by spacecowboy:
My dear Matrix... (/quote)

Am I that close to you, honey? Just kidding.

(quote) **
And no, absorbtion is not the same as reflection. With reflection, some of the energy in the photon is imparted to the sail (which itself is attached to the starship) as the photon bounces off. With absorbtion, the photon simply stops dead. The 'Diode Sail' is the same as the 'Differential Sail', except it uses a one-way mirror instead of a mirror whose reverse side is painted black.(/quote)**

Yes, but if we say that photons have mass and when they rebound off the sail, they impart some sort of kinetic energy on the sail, then wouldn't the photons being absorbed by the sail also impart the same kinetic energy on the opposite side of the sail, negating the force applied by the first photon (the sail goes nowhere)?

(/B)(/QUOTE)

Matrix

------------------
"Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."

Quote

Originally posted by what_is_the_matrix:
**Um, oops. Read my above reply. Oh, and if I remember correctly, string theory is supposed to indicate like 20 dimensions.

For those of you who are interested, check out http://superstringtheory.com/ . It isn't as good as the book I read (I can't remember the title, and the library's closed right now. If any of you really want to know the title, I can go and check it out tomorrow).

Matrix

Matrix

**

I was referring to a method which has real physics behind it, and acheives the same effect. I was not implying that Roddenberry was an astrophysical genius. The astrophysicist who worked out the mathematics and theory behind the space-fold technique to which you referred said that he was inspired by "Warp Drive" and so set out trying to find a method to make it work. You are operating from outdated information if you still place stock in string theory. Read "Universe in a Nutshell" by Hawking, it gives a fairly simplified explanation of M Theory, which is superstring theory's successor. The above explanation of hyperspatial "drive" was taken directly from the M Theory explanation of hyperspace, and the concept of "branes". In essence, strings only a single member of a family of objects called branes. In the new classification, strings are 1 branes, or Unidimensional Branes. If I recall correctly, branes stop at a finite dimensional number, however I can't remember the exact value.

Quote

Also posted by out dear, dear friend what_is_the_matrix:
Yes, but if we say that photons have mass and when they rebound off the sail, they impart some sort of kinetic energy on the sail, then wouldn't the photons being absorbed by the sail also impart the same kinetic energy on the opposite side of the sail, negating the force applied by the first photon (the sail goes nowhere)?

Well, I'm nit-picky on this, so I have to correct you. Photons do not have any mass whatsoever. Luckily for proponents of solar sails, they do have momentum. Their momentum is proportional to their wavelength and amplitude, however, I am too lazy to look up the equation. As for the problems with the differential sail, no. When rebounding off of a highly reflective surface, the photon imparts its energy in a straight line, however, if absorbed the photon's energy is incorporated into the particles of the sail, and so its energy is directed to changing the energy level of an electron, or some other task which doesn't impact the overall momentum of the sail.
------------------
Pretty much, Apple and Dell are the only ones in this industry making money. They make it by being Wal-Mart. We make it by innovation.
-Steve Jobs

(This message has been edited by Quantum Transcendence (edited 08-13-2002).)

Looking at all of this makes me think about how badly I want to go back to college...

------------------
Drinking causes hangovers.
I will uphold Ma'at.
Shemsu Hor.

Just a random observation...

If you could travel through a 5th dimension (as suggested in one of the posts), then in theory you could "come out" on any space-time point. But if you were traveling thorough time (being the 4th dimension, and you're theoretically traveling through the 5th), them would time exist to you while you were traveling? If you were traveling through time, then it would be impossible to have true time-dialation. Because you would, without time existing relative to you, arrive instantly at your destination.

And, if it is difficult for most people to truly concieve this 5-dimensional state, and nearly impossible to truly visiualize it (if it's possible at all), then how would we ever navigate a ship (or anything) through the 5th dimension?

Sorry if I'm just pointlessly babbleing.

And, Matrix, I really don't see what's so wrong with being a geek. Geeks are responsible for many great things in this world.

------------------
Cuz I'm a 21st Century Digital Boy
I don't know the Monty Python but I've got a lotta toys
My daddy is a Renegade, his name is Hellcat Helian
Wait a second...

Quote

Originally posted by Divals the Conqueror:
**
Also, an Idea For Artificial Gravity:

A small (pinpoint-sized) black hole is captured in a seamless box which is molecularly condensed so that it cannot be condensed further (and thus dragged into the black hole). It is then fastened on the bottom of the ship. Would this work, assuming again that the technology was good enough to capture and hold a black hole? Or perhaps just a very, very dense chunk of the aforementioned metal that would generate it's own gravity field strong enough to use for artificial gravity?
**

I don't know if someone's said this already, but...

Since inside a blackhole matter can be compressed to a point of singularity, it wouldn't be possible to have a box of matter that couldn't be compressed any further (as a point of singularity has zero mass, it would be impossible to make a box out of singularity points).

Your second suggestion might be possible. But if it was, imagine the sheer amount of resources it would take. You would probably need to use something similar to nuteron-star-matter (I forget it's name). Nuteron Stars are formed when a super-giant star collapses on itself forcefully enough to create a super-nova, but not forcefully enough to create a blackhole. Instead, virtually all the matter that composed that super-giant star is packed into a big ball of atom-less nuterons. Nuteron stars have, as a very rough figure, an average of diameter of 16 km. So the amount of matter necessairy to create even a small chunck of that stuff would be dizzying.

I can't guarentee that the second part of this is %100 accurate, but that's how I remember it.

------------------
Cuz I'm a 21st Century Digital Boy
I don't know the Monty Python but I've got a lotta toys
My daddy is a Renegade, his name is Hellcat Helian
Wait a second...

Just to insert a fast comment on the tachyons since I have to leave about five minutes ago:

Tachyons are a fairly simple conclusion to draw from the theory of relativity. If you plug a negative mass into the equations you will always get a speed greater than the speed of light. If you plug in a mass of zero you will always get THE speed of light. This is why massless particles always travel at the speed of light and why tachyons always travel faster than it. Unfortunately we have never observed any particles with negative mass, not even on the scale of quarks or leptons. So while they may work within the theory, they might not exist at all.

------------------
"Deep in the fundamental heart of Mind and Universe, there is a Reason."-Slartibartfast
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/russell_quintero/.Pictures/home.html")Russell's Homepage!(/url)
Russell for President 2020!

Quote

Originally posted by Commander Arashi:
**
I do very much like that thought of black holes left wandering about after a fleet engagement...kinda the future version of unexploded munitions.
**

Planet-type subship, with only one weapon, a very powerful explosive device with a range of 0, power of 32767, prox and explode rad of 0.

Quote

Originaly posted by Commander Arashi:
**
The only problem with anti-ice, see, is that if it gets any warmer than that nice sub-arctic chill, it does all those things antimatter is so good at...
**

Like destroying the entire known Universe by creating enough energy to rip a hole in the space-time continuum...

Quote

Originally posted by what_is_the_matrix:
**
Am I that close to you, honey? Just kidding.
**

You'd d*** well better be kidding!

Quote

Originally posted by Quantum Transcendence:
**
Well, I'm nit-picky on this, so I have to correct you...
**

Thanks, QT, for saving me the trouble of having to ask you to bail me out.

Quote

Originally posted by rmx256:
**
Looking at all of this makes me think about how badly I want to go back to college...
**

Ah, yes. Fall semester itinerary (sp?): orientation... first day of classes... dropping the classes you can't stand and don't have to take... mid-terms... scraping by in the classes you hate and scoring straight As in the few you don't... finals week... commiserating/celebrating about your finals scores with illegal booze...

I'm already there, mi amigo.

Quote

Originally posted by 21st Century Digital Boy:
**
Just a random observation...

If you could travel through a 5th dimension (as suggested in one of the posts), then in theory you could "come out" on any space-time point. But if you were traveling thorough time (being the 4th dimension, and you're theoretically traveling through the 5th), them would time exist to you while you were traveling? If you were traveling through time, then it would be impossible to have true time-dialation. Because you would, without time existing relative to you, arrive instantly at your destination.

And, if it is difficult for most people to truly concieve this 5-dimensional state, and nearly impossible to truly visiualize it (if it's possible at all), then how would we ever navigate a ship (or anything) through the 5th dimension?

Sorry if I'm just pointlessly babbleing.

And, Matrix, I really don't see what's so wrong with being a geek. Geeks are responsible for many great things in this world.
**

::drum roll, please:: And the answers are... Yes. Traveling through hyperspace, you can emerge at any point in space or time. So, with a little tweaking in your garage, you can turn any ship's HyperDrive into a time machine. Which opens a world of possibilities for you EV plugcrafters... A Universe where man traveled into his own past to bring space travel to the time of Christ... Quite an interesting concept. Rome and Carthage duke it out on the Moon... No. There would be no time dilation. So no time would pass for either you or the rest of the Universe while you were in Hyperspace. That's just something that Matt threw into EV to let mission writers have plausible deadlines for their missions. As to navigation, you wouldn't use a human to navigate. A computer is perfectly capable of handling the equations of 5+ dimensions. Why do you think all SF ships have NavComps? No, you're not just pointlessly babbling. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a geek. We're all geeks to some degree, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote

Originally posted by 21st Century Digital Boy:
**
I don't know if someone's said this already, but...

Since inside a blackhole matter can be compressed to a point of singularity, it wouldn't be possible to have a box of matter that couldn't be compressed any further (as a point of singularity has zero mass, it would be impossible to make a box out of singularity points).

Your second suggestion might be possible. But if it was, imagine the sheer amount of resources it would take. You would probably need to use something similar to nuteron-star-matter (I forget it's name). Nuteron Stars are formed when a super-giant star collapses on itself forcefully enough to create a super-nova, but not forcefully enough to create a blackhole. Instead, virtually all the matter that composed that super-giant star is packed into a big ball of atom-less nuterons. Nuteron stars have, as a very rough figure, an average of diameter of 16 km. So the amount of matter necessairy to create even a small chunck of that stuff would be dizzying.

I can't guarentee that the second part of this is %100 accurate, but that's how I remember it.
**

No, nobody'd already said it. Incorrect. A singularity does have mass, elsewise it wouldn't have gravity. Remember, mass and gravity are one and the same. Where there is one, there is the other. And don't say that you can have gravity w/o mass, but with acceleration. Acceleration simply simulates gravity, it is not the same. Now, of course, it would be impossible to make a box out of singularities, because their dimensions are exactly zero. And yes, neutron star matter would be incredibly hard to make. And one teaspoon's volume of the stuff weighs over one ton. And, since it's past the critical mass for fusion reactions, I wouldn't really want too much of the stuff on my ship anyway. Just create some new device that creates gravity. There's more and more evidence that it's possible.

And just a quick hint, Digital Boy, try not to double-post (posting twice back-to-back). If you think of something else, edit your old post, don't make a new one. You're one of the lucky few people on the EV boards with karma. And I don't think that you wanna lose it.

------------------
“You’re only given a little spark of madness. You mustn’t lose it.”
-- Robin Williams

Quote

Originally posted by spacecowboy:
You'd d* well better be kidding!**

Ha ha.. Yea. It's just that you started with "My dear..." and (at that time), I thought that sounded so funny that I just couldn't resist.

Quote

**
And, Matrix, I really don't see what's so wrong with being a geek. Geeks are responsible for many great things in this world.**

I thought I took out that quote cuz it didn't make much sense. Guess I didn't.

Matrix

------------------
"Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."

(This message has been edited by what_is_the_matrix (edited 08-14-2002).)

Quote

Originally posted by 21st Century Digital Boy:
**Just a random observation...

If you could travel through a 5th dimension (as suggested in one of the posts), then in theory you could "come out" on any space-time point. But if you were traveling thorough time (being the 4th dimension, and you're theoretically traveling through the 5th), them would time exist to you while you were traveling? If you were traveling through time, then it would be impossible to have true time-dialation. Because you would, without time existing relative to you, arrive instantly at your destination.

And, if it is difficult for most people to truly concieve this 5-dimensional state, and nearly impossible to truly visiualize it (if it's possible at all), then how would we ever navigate a ship (or anything) through the 5th dimension?

Sorry if I'm just pointlessly babbleing.

And, Matrix, I really don't see what's so wrong with being a geek. Geeks are responsible for many great things in this world.

**

Another point about navigating in other dimensions:

You would not actually be travelling in five dimensions. As you move out of one of our dimensions and into another, you would leave one of our dimensions. You would occupy only two spatial dimensions, then one, then you would completly vanish. So you wouldnt need to be capable of visualizing it, especially if the computer does the calculations for where to pull you out so you end up in the right spot in our dimensions.

(edit)And while you may make the transition instantly you have to take into the account the time necessary to move you out of "real-space" and to calculate entry and exit points for hyperspace.
------------------
"Deep in the fundamental heart of Mind and Universe, there is a Reason."-Slartibartfast
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/russell_quintero/.Pictures/home.html")Russell's Homepage!(/url)
Russell for President 2020!

(This message has been edited by Russell Quintero (edited 08-14-2002).)

FWIK you wouldn't loose spatial dimensions when you went into 'hyperspace' or 'up' into the fifth dimension. Just because you go up wouldn't mean that one of your other dimensions would stip existing. It would be more like all of your dimensions would seem to dissapear, though they are still there, just 'up' from our normal perception, like how you can have something on a table and something above the table, eh? A ship capable of going into 'hyperspace' would just kind of dissapear, only to reappear where it chose-there would be no reason for acceleration, FTL, etc; just the actual hyperdrive mechanism. You'd only need speed if you were 'warping or folding', when speed would be more a simulation or metaphor of relative travel velocity, as it is space doing all of the movement and not the ship.

------------------
Drinking causes hangovers.
I will uphold Ma'at.
Shemsu Hor.

Quote

Originally posted by rmx256:
**You'd only need speed if you were 'warping or folding', when speed would be more a simulation or metaphor of relative travel velocity, as it is space doing all of the movement and not the ship.
**

I might have missed something from an earlier post, but why would space be moving and not the ship? For our three spacial dimensions, we're talking about three planes that are at 90 degree angles from each other. If you move on one axis, you still remain stationary on the other two axes. We know how to move in three dimensions, but how can we (now I might confuse myself in this because it's extremely hard to "visualize") move through the fourth, or fifth, or n dimensions so we can go from one point in (I'm going to refer to the three dimensions we are used to collectively as the "third" dimension) the third dimension to another in less time? If we consider time as being the fourth dimension, then I think I can see how it's possible. You somehow stop your movement in time, and then translate in the third dimension, and then bring yourself back into normal causality. Of course, the question is how do you stop time, and what effects might it have on the crew of the ship? Obviously, to outside observers, the ship would disappear from one location and instantly appear in another, but what would the crew feel? Would they feel as if they're instantly transported also, because likewise they're not moving through time? If that were the case, then how would they be able to translate themselves, because they feel as if it's instantaneous, and thus wouldn't be able to manipulate controls, and navigational computers wouldn't work either because as with human crew, the translation would be instantaneous and the electrons wouldn't move at all in the time it takes to go somewhere. Of course, if you visualize space and time on two axes, then you could suppose that a vehicle's movement through time and space is a sloped line (neither vertical, nor horizontal). Then, you could probably (with some sort of time altering device) have a slow translation on the time axis and a superfast translation on the spacial axis. Traveling to your destination, and then going back in time while remaining stationary on the spacial plane is possible, but you'd end up with two of your ship in space.

If time is not the fourth dimension, we have a different problem. You could go into a different dimension, but that's not going to get you where you want to go any faster. Think about it. If I pick a pen up from my desk and set it down in a different location, it'd still move in the third dimension, and would actually have to move faster because it's also moving in the fourth dimension, and would still undergo the rigors of time.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts that I hope are explained, because those points are kinda niggling at me right now.

Matrix

------------------
"Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."

This thread is the embodiement of geeks and nerds in this region of the world. The geekness level is so pure, so untouched that if a prep were forced to read this thread than he would be forever change as a human being intellectually and later physically.

------------------
Passion rules Reason.

Quote

Originally posted by rmx256:
**FWIK you wouldn't loose spatial dimensions when you went into 'hyperspace' or 'up' into the fifth dimension. Just because you go up wouldn't mean that one of your other dimensions would stip existing. It would be more like all of your dimensions would seem to dissapear, though they are still there, just 'up' from our normal perception, like how you can have something on a table and something above the table, eh? A ship capable of going into 'hyperspace' would just kind of dissapear, only to reappear where it chose-there would be no reason for acceleration, FTL, etc; just the actual hyperdrive mechanism. You'd only need speed if you were 'warping or folding', when speed would be more a simulation or metaphor of relative travel velocity, as it is space doing all of the movement and not the ship.

**

You would have to vanish in the way I described because you are a three dimensional object, not a 6 dimensional one. It works if you consider a 2d plane, moving from being in the XY to the XZ. It would initially not appear in the Z, but then it woulds and at that point it would vanish from the Y. It would work the same for a 3d object moving out of our dimensions, it would slip to 2d, then 1d, then vanish from all angles.

As for the idea of how you could travel faster than in normal space, this is due to the fact that theoretically the other dimensions are curled up into a tiny little ball that is somehow in contact with every point in "real space." So if you could make the move from our 3 to three of them you could then retransition to any other point in space. In other words, the scale is different, so moving a centimeter would cover the same ground as moving a light year. There would be no need to exit the fourth dimension and so time would continue, but you could arrive before the light you left arrives. This is all assuming that a number of assumptions are true, namely that 1)you can make the move and 2)you wouldnt get crushed trying to cram yourself into one of those dimensions (that there is actual space there that simply isnt manifested in our "reality" in the same way that it can touch every point in space).

------------------
"Deep in the fundamental heart of Mind and Universe, there is a Reason."-Slartibartfast
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/russell_quintero/.Pictures/home.html")Russell's Homepage!(/url)
Russell for President 2020!

Quote

Originally posted by Russell Quintero:
You would have to vanish in the way I described because you are a three dimensional object...

Not true. If we were truly three-dimensional, we would only exist in a single point of time (the 4th dimension). Since we exist over a period of time, then we are at least 4-dimensional.

I don't know if we could have more dimensions than that or not. I'm only an amature geek.

------------------
Cuz I'm a 21st Century Digital Boy
I don't know the Monty Python but I've got a lotta toys
My daddy is a Renegade, his name is Hellcat Helian
Wait a second...

Quote

Originally posted by spacecowboy:
**Their 'Bias Drive' is similar to warp drive. Project an incredible gravitonic field just in front of the ship. Just make sure that the grav field stays in front of the ship, or else said ship becomes a miniature nebula. Kinda like sticking a carrot on a stick, and holding it out in front of a horse. The ship falls towards its destination. Move the grav field, change the direction in which the ship is moving.
**

This method wouldn't work, e=mc(2) still applies in this case since the ship is trying to propel itself.

Just because tachyons haven't been seen doesn't mean they don't exist. Nearly every theory on this page have to do with one radical untested particle or dimension. Besides, the human race will never truly attain a method of faster then light travel.

------------------
"English needs to be fixed!!" -My dad

Quote

Originally posted by Skyfox:
**This method wouldn't work, e=mc(2) still applies in this case since the ship is trying to propel itself.

**

From what I understand about the idea it relies on compressing space in front of the ship and expanding it behind the ship, possibly through the use of gravity generation. As space shrank in front of the ship and grew behind it, the ship would essentially surf on a space wave. Since the immediate surroundings would surf with it, the ship would be stationary, but the space around the ship would be moving. Supposedly this could allow FTL.

------------------
"Deep in the fundamental heart of Mind and Universe, there is a Reason."-Slartibartfast
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/russell_quintero/.Pictures/home.html")Russell's Homepage!(/url)
Russell for President 2020!

Quote

Originally posted by 21st Century Digital Boy:
**Not true. If we were truly three-dimensional, we would only exist in a single point of time (the 4th dimension). Since we exist over a period of time, then we are at least 4-dimensional.

I don't know if we could have more dimensions than that or not. I'm only an amature geek.

**

You misunderstood me. I was refering to our spatial existance, not our temporal. As I said above, you would stay in the 4th dimension to preserve your causality, ie to allow you to choose when to leave the other dimensions and return here. So you would only need to utilize three dimensions besides the ones we use, as you would not "leave time." And if we were three dimensional we would not exist in time at all, not even as a point. This is the same as how a plane can exist in the XY while having no representation in the Z, not even as a point. As four dimensional creatures we exist as a series of points through time.

------------------
"Deep in the fundamental heart of Mind and Universe, there is a Reason."-Slartibartfast
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/russell_quintero/.Pictures/home.html")Russell's Homepage!(/url)
Russell for President 2020!