 September 19, 2011 - 4:53am | The problem is this: there are any number of particles out there that travel at speeds of a significant portion of the speed of light. There are stars and galaxies moving at incredible speeds. If void speed is a phenominum of physics then why don't all these thing enter void space? Someone recently posted that void speed is a hard speed limit but I don't think it should be. I think that we should simply incorporate a device into the game that activates a field that allows the ship to enter void speed at 1%C, and the real phenominum is the effects of this field at 1%C. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 September 19, 2011 - 5:40am | I agree. In my campaign it is the Isler drive that allows FTL, the requirement of traveling 1% lux is the minimum speed required to give the jump predictable direction.
Otherwise the ship could end up any where. This adds an extra element to play,in that an "emergency jump" can be used to elude an adversary , however the likelihood of crashing into a star or other massive body is increased exponentially. Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The world is changed by unreasonable men. Edwin Louis Cole |
 September 19, 2011 - 5:43am | I agree, but as written in the canon rules, it is a hard speed limit: If you exceed 1% light speed, you enter the void. Of course that begs the question 1%c relative to what? Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
September 19, 2011 - 8:15am | I agree, but as written in the canon rules, it is a hard speed limit: If you exceed 1% light speed, you enter the void. Of course that begs the question 1%c relative to what?
Exactly what I was alluding to- the solar system is in motion as well as the galaxy and these things are not travelling at less then void speed. They have mass same as a space ship so why aren't they entering void space? So I think we should rethink the hard and fast speed limit and just hand wave a field generator or similar device that permits void travel once 1%C is reached. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
September 19, 2011 - 8:48am | Actually, those motions (solar system around the galaxy, galaxy through space, planets around the sun) are much much less than 1% c. Orbital speed of the sun around the galactic center is about 250 m/s = 0.000083% c. But the point is still valid. There are small massive particles out there (cosmic rays) moving at ~99+% c. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 September 19, 2011 - 5:07pm | My model of void entry is based upon mechanical manipulation of gravity. Once you could slip gravity, speed would not be an issue. So by accident it was discovered that the same mechanical devices that allowed a ship to make the movements demonstrated in Knight Hawks allow the ship to slip into the void. They have gravity technology, but its too primitive to be manipulated by machines small enough to fit under a floor board. Basically, they produce a gravity field that surrounds the ship for improved maneuvering. It essentially fools the gravity attempting to pull on the ship into reacting as if the ship were traveling at a right angle to the gravity. As the ship increases speed, the effect improves until it finally breaks free of gravity entirely. Within that field, you are technically outside of space, time and gravity, essentially inside your own little universe. Unfortunately, the same effect produces a complete and total blackness around the ship as it is now physically divorced from the universe until the ship is turned around and slowed. I came up with it after my study on gravity completed. This is based upon the theory of gravity as an entropic force. (The only gravitational model to have [recent] physical proof that it may be true and which I am thoroughly convinced is the base assumption that will lead to the truth.) Of course, I fudged the machinery that allows it, as I have no idea how such machinery would work. But hey, it's hundreds of years in the future and how am I supposed to know what they'll have?  I'm mostly done with the gravity-tech timeline, but it's on the back burner at the moment.Oh, I almost forgot the finer point. I went further into Bekenstein's contribution of the dimensionless aspect, translating it into what I see as a "null particle" (A point without mass or structure) which exists due to the maxim that nature abhors a vacuum. We exist because it exists, which explains the theory about how all things both exist and don't exist. So you could say we're here, but not here because of a non-particle, Dawkins refers to as the God particle. Time and space both take place because of those particles in motion. Once one started, they all started, if "started" is the right word. Once a motion took place by its coming into being, the singularity leading to the big bang was inevitable. Birth of the multiverse. The machine mentioned above manipulates those null particles, rather than gravity per se. It's complicated, but gravity is as a direct result of the null particles, but the null particles aren't gravity until acting in a uniform way as acted upon by the chaos of the null particles around them. Order is born from chaos. It's the movement of null particles that creates more null particles in their wake, similar to the birth of turmoil from an object moving through water. Thus mass is being continuously born from nothing (or from null particles if you must have an object to focus on), which is why the universe will expand forever and its mass will continue to increase. Mass, from this angle, is an illusion created by the interaction of the null particles (apparent gravity). Thus the assumption that mass cannot be born from nothing is incorrect due to a limited observable range of physics. Gravity is the wake of objects in motion within a universal ocean of null particles now in the form of quarks, atoms, molecules, astral bodies and the space in between. (That was just a summary without mentioning all the preons, mesons and so-ons) View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
 September 22, 2011 - 2:13am | From Iggy: My idea goes like this: The larger the mass the larger the transmission strength needed to bridge the mass into the void. The higher the speed of the mass the lower the transmission strength needed to bridge the mass into the void. Thus it would take an infinite power transmission to bridge a stationary mass into the void. Also an infinitely small mass requires near zero transmission power. Maybe this is where all those subatomic particles are coming from and going too in our particle accelerator experiments. Because I like the sci-fi elements behind this thought... and I have nothing else to add [atm]. well I could mention that all our observations of an 11 dimensional universe are based on processing 2 dimensional data of 3 dimensional manipulation. Or put another way, we are limited by our inclusion from seeing the whole the way it really is. Additionally, everything we do sense of the universe is an echo of an event that already happened and filtered into a smaller low-res format. ... and our man-made obsevational tools are not really any better within the larger scope of the universe. A box drawn on grid-paper, a hypersphere drawn in a CAD... the gravity-wave of a a sigularity's birth emulated in an equation and described in poetry. Oh humans!!  We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".~ anymoose, somewhere on the net... so... if you square a square it becomes a cube... if you square a cube does it become an octoid? |
