PDA

View Full Version : Could a ship travel ftl



NotAllowedToNameAnything.Ever.
May 14th, 2005, 08:24 PM
could a ship really travel faster then the speed of light. I have never really belived in the whole sppeed of light barriar, I think of it as something like what humans used to think about the sound barrier. However I am not sure that humans could ever survive the accelerations at these speeds. Unfortunally the concepts of artifcial dampiners or deffently out of or reach by modern standerds. Theretically I don't think there even possable.

_Owen_
May 14th, 2005, 08:45 PM
No, no matter in the universe can travel faster than or at the speed of light.

It would take all of the energy in the universe and then some to propell any matter that fast. At that speed matter would gain infinite mass therfore infinite gravity, therefore "sucking" everything in the universe into it. Which would effectivly destroy the universe.

Nice try, with the comparison between light and sound, it is a reasonable assumption when not having any previous kowledge on the subject, unfortunatly there is a scientific law that prevents matter from ever traveling faster than light. Expect some positive reputation soon, I can't give any right now because I have given to much in the last 24 hours, but when I can give more, that post will be getting it!

Owen Macri

Darth Buddha
May 14th, 2005, 09:08 PM
No, no matter in the universe can travel faster than or at the speed of light.
According to our best physics now, that is.

Einstinian physics will be replaced one day just as Newtonian physics was superseded by Einstein.

There are more things in heaven and earth... consider the coupling of particles that allows reactions with one particle to influence the other faster than "speed of light" propagation of effects would allow.

So don't be so sure our current scientific knowledge is accurate, because the only SURE statement is that our understanding is far from complete.

_Owen_
May 14th, 2005, 09:15 PM
That is true, yet even though Newtonian physics was replaced his laws still remained, perhaps this will be one of the stronger points of physics. However I am not excluding the possibility that it will al be proven false, however at present, by our scientific knowledge no matter in the universe can travel at or fast that the speed of light.

Owen Macri

Schrodinger's Cat
May 14th, 2005, 10:36 PM
Yes and No. It depends on the point of reference used.

If my theory is correct, then, as the number of dimentions that a photon travels through increases, then the speed that a photon travels at increases.

In other words, you can't go faster than the speed of light, but, instead, the speed of light would, from our point of view, appear to increase, as the photon travels deeper into hyperspace.

_Owen_
May 15th, 2005, 04:50 AM
There have been theories on how exactly hyperspace works, weather the speed of light is increased, weather shorter distances equal larger ones. But to break it down, in THIS universe, not hyperspace, not subspace, no matter can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light.

Owen Macri

Seastallion
May 15th, 2005, 05:43 AM
A ship would never travel faster than light in 'normal' space. The laws of physics prevent it from happening. That doesn't mean you can't 'bend' the rules and find a loop-hole though... :D

The two biggest 'loophole' ideas are Warp drive (space itself can travel faster than light... :p ...so your sort of cheating... :D ), and the other is Hyperspace. (open up a tear in the 'fabric' of 'normal' space, and enter into an extra-dimensional realm to bypass normal space to get to your destination quicker) That is really basic... I won't go further into it, because it is beyond the topic we're currently discussing. So, the answer is no, and yes.

No, a ship can't travel faster than light (in the normal sense), ever. Yes, a ship can 'cheat' to get to a destination faster than light could travel there. Owen is right about the infinite mass, infinite fuel... it is a viscious cycle that doesn't end. You want the ship to go faster, so you need more fuel, but that makes the ship heavier, and the faster you go the heavier the ship and fuel get. So then you need more fuel, but the ship gets heavier, so you need more fuel, so the ship gets heavier, so you need more fuel...etc. etc. etc.

*whew* Blagh..! The laws of physics state that nothing can accelerate faster than the speed of light. However, there is NO rule that something can't already be traveling faster than light. They even have a name... :p The theoretical particles are known as Tachyons. (Tachy is greek, basically meaning really fast) Just as it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object or particle faster than light, it would also take infinite energy to slow tachyons down below the speed of light. However, as of right now, Tachyons are theoretical only. Actually... the only other thing that can move faster than light... is space itself. (the warp drive thing... :p ) The universe, (at least at the beginning) was expanding faster than light, and it is still expanding. In fact the rate of expansion is actually increasing, but scientist don't know why. :)

:eek:

Crazedwraith
May 15th, 2005, 06:08 AM
tachions can travel faster than light but thats about it.

Seastallion
May 15th, 2005, 06:16 AM
tachions can travel (http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=Travel) faster than light but thats about it.

uh... yeah. I said that. :confused:

:eek:

_Owen_
May 15th, 2005, 12:35 PM
Nice post Seastallion, those were my basic points but I didn't have enough time to type all of it.

Owen Macri

Avatar28
May 15th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Well, technically that's not QUITE true. Things CAN travel faster than light. We see it all the time. Have you ever heard of something called cherenkov radiation. It's caused when particles exceed the speed of light in a medium.

What is true is that nothing is believed to be able to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum; it slows down drastically when passing through a medium such as air or glass or anything else. In fact, they recently managed to almost freeze light to the point that I believe it would be possible to WALK faster. Actually, I stand corrected. I just looked for a link and they stopped the light dead in it's tracks then let it go again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1124540.stm

Anyways, point being that you have to be more specific in your terminology. But generally, the only way to go FTL is to sidestep the speed barrier, whether via hyperspace, wormholes, warp, whatever.

Darth Buddha
May 15th, 2005, 04:36 PM
That is true, yet even though Newtonian physics was replaced his laws still remained, perhaps this will be one of the stronger points of physics. However I am not excluding the possibility that it will al be proven false, however at present, by our scientific knowledge no matter in the universe can travel at or fast that the speed of light.

Owen Macri
Good post. Really good post. I'm sincerely impressed!

Yep. However an excellent example of the EXCEPTIONS to Newtonian physic include the duality of particle and wave, and the shooting of charged particles that DON'T have enough energy to penetrate an electromagnatic field. By Newtonian physics, NO particles should get through, but thanks to the exceptions created by Quantum Mechanics, a few will.

Newtonian and Einstinian Physics will always describe the grand sweeps, but there may be loopholes we don't yet anticipate.

_Owen_
May 15th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Thank you very much Darth Buddha.

You have a point, it is very possible that there are aspects of our current physics that could be undermined by theories in the future.

That is true, Avatar28, I should be more specific.

A ship can not exceed 299 792 458 m / s in normal space.

About the light, that is really cool, I knew that light could be slowed down, however I had no idea anyone tried to slow it down to the point of stopping.

Owen Macri

NotAllowedToNameAnything.Ever.
May 15th, 2005, 08:04 PM
What laws say that something nothing can travel faster and who wrote them. The theroy of realitvity dosen't count. If it did it would be the law of realitvity.

_Owen_
May 15th, 2005, 08:22 PM
Sorry but it was Einstiens theory of realtivity. It satates the formula, that basically says the faster matter goes the greater its' mass gets, and if it reaches the speed of light it will gain infinite mass, infinite gravity, and time will stop. Even though the theories of relativity are theories, the this point is one of the more solid points of einstiens thoery.

Owen Macri

NotAllowedToNameAnything.Ever.
May 15th, 2005, 09:15 PM
yes but what has been done to prove it?

Darth Buddha
May 15th, 2005, 09:38 PM
yes but what has been done to prove it?
Predictions about certain celestial events and behaviors were made, such as the deviations of the orbit of Mercury from Newtonian ideals, the existence of black holes, etc., and then they were checked. The theory predicted the events (supermassive gravitational bodies effects on other bodies, not the actual "black hole" which cannot of course be observed). The observations SUPPORT the theory. Scientific theories can never be PROVEN, only supported or invalidated.

NotAllowedToNameAnything.Ever.
May 15th, 2005, 10:38 PM
What exactlly was observed though?

its just that though, a therory. its like saying dinosaurs and man didn't live at the same time, but some scentist have found proff that they did. I am just saying that most of or current thoughts about space travel or based on something that can't really be proven. The only proff I have ever really read of was that on really fast jet airplanes some atomic clocks have been a little slow. Not even noticable to a human. That's not enough proff to me to say that there is an ultimate speed barrier.

Seastallion
May 16th, 2005, 02:44 AM
What exactlly was observed though?

its just that though, a therory. its like saying dinosaurs and man didn't live at the same time, but some scentist have found proff that they did. I am just saying that most of or current thoughts about space travel (http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=Travel) or based on something that can't really be proven. The only proff I have ever really read of was that on really fast jet airplanes some atomic clocks have been a little slow. Not even noticable to a human. That's not enough proff to me to say that there is an ultimate speed barrier.

As Darth Buddha was trying to tell you... no theorem can entirely be 'proven', but they are supported by observations of certain phenomenon. He then went on to list a few. Black Holes, being one of them. PROOF, is difficult to come by... because science is like a great tapestry, if you 'unprove' one part it could unravel a whole section within science. However, we can make reasonable assumptions based on a body of observations, and their results. If it keeps happening over, and over again it eventually gets made into a law. Sort of like the sun rises every morning... it hasn't failed to happen in billions of years... at least as far as anyone know... :p ;)

:eek:

Heaven
May 16th, 2005, 12:16 PM
yes but what has been done to prove it?

physicists have been accelerating subatomic particles in particle accelerators to speeds more than 99 percent the speed of light for years now and it seems the speed of light in a vacuum (c) constant holds.

_Owen_
May 16th, 2005, 12:54 PM
physicists have been accelerating subatomic particles in particle accelerators to speeds more than 99 percent the speed of light for years now and it seems the speed of light in a vacuum (c) constant holds.
The speed of light in a vacum only is only constant until it passes through an object, this will cause it to slow down, even in a vacum.

Owen Macri

NotAllowedToNameAnything.Ever.
May 16th, 2005, 05:48 PM
yes but black holes or even less understood.

As far as subatomic particales, I always wondered about tachyons. The catch is that they can't be seen because they travel faster then light. you would have to slow them down to actually see them.

I am sorry if I am being a pian in the miktah by by nature i am more of a mechanic. In mechanics the same rules that apply to a small object apply to a large one.

That and I like to think way outside the box.

_Owen_
May 16th, 2005, 05:54 PM
That and I like to think way outside the box.

Join the club!

Owen Macri

SG1TOM
May 16th, 2005, 06:15 PM
I wouldn't put much stock in the current state of physics, as we all know, theories are just that, and one need only look to the past to see all kinds of theories that have been debunked. To say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light would do injustice to ones intelligence, knowing that in coming years, that statement might be viewed as juvenile and patently wrong. The statement should read: According to current physics theory, no matter can travel faster than the speed of light. But this is a great discussion!

Seastallion
May 16th, 2005, 06:49 PM
I wouldn't put much stock in the current state of physics, as we all know, theories are just that, and one need only look to the past to see all kinds of theories that have been debunked. To say nothing can travel (http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=Travel) faster than the speed of light would do injustice to ones intelligence, knowing that in coming years, that statement might be viewed as juvenile and patently wrong. The statement should read: According to current physics theory, no matter can travel (http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=Travel) faster than the speed of light. But this is a great discussion!

Maybe... but if we don't base our discussions on what we know is true based on imperical data, then our conversation would just be mindless dribble. It is all very well to say that something may come along to disprove a certain theory, or unmake a given law... but until it does, we can't dismiss said theories or laws. Our most advanced sciences are based on tried and true principles... to simply say they don't matter, makes any conversation in this particular form on Gateworld an entirely moot point. ;)

:eek:

Darth Buddha
May 16th, 2005, 07:14 PM
What exactlly was observed though?
What was done was that certain deviations were PREDICTED, the effects of supermassive bodies was PREDICTED, and then they looked where such evidence would be found if the theory was true.


its just that though, a therory. its like saying dinosaurs and man didn't live at the same time, but some scentist have found proff that they did.
Yep. Creationists have manufactured such "evidence" that has been released, but never subject to peer review, time after time.

The difference is peer review, and peer replication of results. Dino and man? Nope. Relativistic deviations from Newtonian Physics? Yep.


I am just saying that most of or current thoughts about space travel or based on something that can't really be proven
One more time. NO THEORY IS EVER PROVEN. Gravity isn't "PROVEN". You drop a rock, it falls, but that doesn't mean that eventually it may not (in fact, with quantum theory, eventually the rock will do something entirely different... it might "tunnel" and appear on the surface of Mars!).

Theories are supported by making predictions that are evaluated by observation or by experiment. They are disproven when sufficient contrary evidence accrues.

So far, there is no evidence to invalidate the Theory of Relativity. It organizes a LOT of data (like atomic theory organizes a lot of data.. leading to the A-Bomb). I suggest you do some reading on the topic, because until you do, you won't see WHY the theory is useful in making predictions, in guiding research, and in organizing all available observations.


The only proff I have ever really read of was that on really fast jet airplanes some atomic clocks have been a little slow. Not even noticable to a human. That's not enough proff to me to say that there is an ultimate speed barrier.
You REALLY need to do some reading. The kind of reading that neither I nor anybody else here is going to be able to spoonfeed you in a few posts.

So you can either accept the interpretatinos of those who (obviously) have gone further in their physics education than you have, or you can do the reading on your own, or you can pull a "flat earth" or "intelligent design" and just choose to stick with a more primitive view of the science. I don't mean that as an insult. Personally, I hope you do the reading and come back to tell us about what you find!

_Owen_
May 16th, 2005, 07:43 PM
As far as we know gravity is proven, it is considered a law, "The Universal Law of Gravitation." It states that any object has gravity and will attract every other object. This is stated in Sir Issac Newtons equation Fg=Gm1m2/r^2. For the moment this is a Law, qunatum theory is just that, theory, but I got your point.

Owen Macri

Darth Buddha
May 16th, 2005, 07:46 PM
As far as we know gravity is proven, it is considered a law, "The Universal Law of Gravitation." It states that any object has gravity and will attract every other object. This is stated in Sir Issac Newtons equation Fg=Gm1m2/r^2. For the moment this is a Law, qunatum theory is just that, theory, but I got your point.

Owen Macri
Glad we re talking turkey. From an empirical standpoint, even the "Law" is not proven. Proof is not possible within the scientific context... which is tough for non-scientists to follow, and even fledgling scientists.

Consider the behavior of gravity outside the heliosphere is in question due to some anomalous behavior of the Pioneer probe (not travelling the speed it is supposed to)... the Law may yet be subject to revisions, or perhaps replacement with a new theory that will make the deviations not an adjustment, but in fact something predicted and in the math!

Or perhaps the accellaration of galaxies away from each other (gap energy) will fall out of a new theory that makes gravity just a minor representation of something else.... lot's of possibilities. Doubt any of my suggestions will be true... but I'll bet that given we don't even know how gravity is mediated for sure, that things will change sometime in the future, assuming we last that long!

_Owen_
May 16th, 2005, 08:31 PM
That is a good point, and I agree, laws will be changed. However as far as we know The Law of Universal Gravitation is true. I am not disputing that it could be cahnged.

Owen Macri

Nurgle
May 19th, 2005, 11:42 AM
This topic puts me in mind of that story about the four blind men touching an elephant and coming up with different theories on what it is (a snake, a tree blah blah blah).

BTW, the "light barrier" HAS been broken. Granted, the "object" travelling 300 times the speed of light was infact light (a pulsed laser), and it happened to travel backwards in time (!), but still, it is possible.

BBC news article

_Owen_
May 19th, 2005, 12:59 PM
There were loopholes in Einsteins' theory, as it says in the article that you quoted, the scientists do not believe that this violates Einsteins theories.

Either way, matter can not pass the speed of light, which is more the focus of this thread.

Owen Macri

Avatar28
May 21st, 2005, 01:35 PM
In simple terms, a law describes an observation of something that occurs in the natural world while a theory attempts to describe how/why something occurs.

A law is an observable fact, like Newton's laws of motion. This happens. A theory would try to explain WHY Newton's laws happen.

That said, Einstein's theory of relativity will likely have to some day be altered, but by and large has been proven valid. But like Newton's laws have since been clarified and exanded upon by Einstein and others, so too will Quantum/String/other theories expand and clarify Einstein's laws but will probably never completely invalidate them.

As for what I mean, for most purposes, classical Newtonian physics are quite sufficient for most work (including interplanetary spaceflights), even though Einsteinian physics can describe things in more detail (they're also much more complex and don't make a significant difference until you get to extremes of speed and mass).

_Owen_
May 21st, 2005, 02:52 PM
Those are good points, however Einsteins' Theories will not be altered, other theories will replace them, only Einstien could change his theories, I somehow don't think that that is going to happen. Sorry to nitpick.

Owen Macri

SeaBee
May 21st, 2005, 05:00 PM
As long as E=MC^2 holds true to a ship, then that ship will never travel faster than light. The only way to exceed the speed with a mass of any significant use beyond science reserch is to alter either the properties of the space the ship travels through, or the properties of the ship itself. E.E. "Doc" Smith used a field generated around a craft which negated the mass and inertia, allowing speeds far in excess of light with only a small powerplant. The down side of this was that when the field was switched off the ship immediately regained any movement it had prior to the field's activation, causing the ship to lurch off in a different direction.
With other shows, such as SG-1, Andromeda, Farscape, etc. the ship is forced into a "sub-space" or "hyper-space" where, magically, the theory doesn't apply.

But as for real ships in real space, then the most that can be expected is maybe 10% of light, driven by a nuclear powered plasma drive, before the energy requirements exceed the ships capacity to generate it.

As an aside, I saw a programme about the future of spaceflight recently, that had a prototype plasma drive featured in it. It is only a static model at the moment, but produced hundreds of times more thrust than a conventional rocket motor of a similar size.

Avatar28
May 21st, 2005, 07:34 PM
As long as E=MC^2 holds true to a ship, then that ship will never travel faster than light. The only way to exceed the speed with a mass of any significant use beyond science reserch is to alter either the properties of the space the ship travels through, or the properties of the ship itself. E.E. "Doc" Smith used a field generated around a craft which negated the mass and inertia, allowing speeds far in excess of light with only a small powerplant. The down side of this was that when the field was switched off the ship immediately regained any movement it had prior to the field's activation, causing the ship to lurch off in a different direction.
With other shows, such as SG-1, Andromeda, Farscape, etc. the ship is forced into a "sub-space" or "hyper-space" where, magically, the theory doesn't apply.

But as for real ships in real space, then the most that can be expected is maybe 10% of light, driven by a nuclear powered plasma drive, before the energy requirements exceed the ships capacity to generate it.


Relativistic effects really aren't noticable at 10% of c. Time dilation doesn't begin to occur much at all until about .4 c and increases parabolically from there so that around .7c you have approximately a factory of 2 time dilation (meaning that for every minute on your ship, two occurs to a "stationary" outside observer). That said, the ACTUAL mass of your space craft doesn't really increase, only it's APPARENT mass.

lethalfang
May 22nd, 2005, 07:06 PM
As far as we know gravity is proven, it is considered a law, "The Universal Law of Gravitation." It states that any object has gravity and will attract every other object. This is stated in Sir Issac Newtons equation Fg=Gm1m2/r^2. For the moment this is a Law, qunatum theory is just that, theory, but I got your point.

Owen Macri
The difference between law and theory is that, a so-called "law" is a conclusion based on numerous empirical observations. It generates conclusions based on past observations, but it does not attempt to explain the phemonema. Take Newton's law of gravity, for instance, the equation reigns true in every instance we know, so we regard that as a law. Einstein paints a different picture of the nature of gravity, but the Newton's law is still valid because the equation still works amazingly well.
A theory, on the other hand, is an attempt to explain the observation. It can be regarded as a true scientific theory, if predictions based on the theory are observed. Take Einstein's theory of relativity for instance. He pictured a universe where space can be curved in order to explain some phemonema. There are important consequences of his theory, such as time dilation for objects near gravity or traveling near speed of light. Both of these predictions are later observed, and it is a very good theory.
The theory of relativty does not explain everything. Most likely, it is a large scale limit of a so-called "theory of everything." As Newton's laws are adequate for most everyday life, Einstein's laws are and will be adequate for most things. A more complete theory, however, is likely needed to explain the origin of the universe and things like expansion of the universe, dark matters, etc.

Darth Buddha
May 22nd, 2005, 07:25 PM
Great post, lethalfang.

As a philosopher of science, I've never liked the usage of the word "Law" as it is applied to science. The name is misleading in the colloquial sense of the word. It in closer to a postulate in geometry than anything else... Newton's Postulate of Gravity would convey the EXACT sense that Law does not.

Jarnin
May 22nd, 2005, 08:18 PM
Could a ship travel ftl?
Alcubierre Drive, AKA Warp Drive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)

Darth Buddha
May 22nd, 2005, 08:24 PM
Alcubierre Drive, AKA Warp Drive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)
COOL!

Probably not possible, but fun to think about!

_Owen_
May 23rd, 2005, 05:50 PM
That does pretty much explain the concept of Warp Drive, it is not the best article I have read but it does explain it in simple terms, nice post.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
May 23rd, 2005, 08:22 PM
What exactlly was observed though?

The only proff I have ever really read of was that on really fast jet airplanes some atomic clocks have been a little slow. Not even noticable to a human. That's not enough proff to me to say that there is an ultimate speed barrier.

The most direct evidence for special relativity comes from particle accelerators (aka atom smashers): accelerate charged particles using powerful magnetic field.
The difference in power between the early version and the newest ones are enormous. The relativistic effect between them are also enormous: radioactive decay slows down drastically. The mass increases drastically. The kinetic energy (due to increasing mass) are so much more powerful that they can break up atoms into more fundamental subatomic particles.
The velocity, however, lingers around 0.9999999999 the speed of light.

Here is the amazing part. Einstein predicted all these (cosmic speed limit, time dilation, mass increase, etc), way before anyone attempted to do experiments like that.

_Owen_
May 24th, 2005, 01:42 PM
That is the amazing part, he could do this because he wasn't even a scientist he was a mathematician that used math to ddiscover new aspects of science.

But basically by our knowledge matter can not travel faster than the speed of light.

Owen Macri

Jarnin
May 24th, 2005, 01:46 PM
Here is the amazing part. Einstein predicted all these (cosmic speed limit, time dilation, mass increase, etc), way before anyone attempted to do experiments like that.
That's the entire basis of scientific theory; it's not amazing, it's a requirement.

Theories are supposed to make predictions of future events. If they don't then they're not theories.

_Owen_
May 24th, 2005, 01:48 PM
Good point.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
May 24th, 2005, 02:28 PM
That's an amazing theory.
At the end of the 19th century, men thought we knew everything about physics, and only details are left to be discovered.
Einstein's theory changed our view of the universe.

_Owen_
May 24th, 2005, 02:35 PM
And still yet there are undiscovered aspects of science of which we have not scratched the surface, that we don't know even exist.

Owen Macri

Jarnin
May 24th, 2005, 02:54 PM
You know what's really amazing? Owen Macri's signature has added 773 kilobytes to this thread. If he replies a couple more times (more than likely :D) he'll have added more than a megabyte of signature to the thread.

Have a heart; disable your sig after posting the first time. The dial up users will be thankful ;)

_Owen_
May 24th, 2005, 03:05 PM
Lol, have I posted that many times! My signature is only 48.32 kilobytes. I appoligize to anyone who this has inconveinienced. Do you mean that it has added 773 kilobytes to the thread or to the forum?

I am sorry, I don't know how to disable it after posting for the first time.

Since we are on the subject of signatures, I thought that I would mention blingaway. blingaway was the one who made my signature possible, I thought some recognition was deserved.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
May 24th, 2005, 04:43 PM
Do not be worried. Since it is the same picture in Owen's signature, your computer will only have to download it *once," even though it *displays* multiple times.

_Owen_
May 24th, 2005, 04:50 PM
Thank you, that is good, I didn't want it to be slowing down peoples' computers, I know that gets very annoying.

Owen Macri

pleed
May 25th, 2005, 06:52 PM
In Season 2 (i think) of SG1, Anubis' ship is travelling to earh about 40X the speed of light, Sam says so herself.
In Reality, if you travel faster than light, you are theoretically going back in time.

_Owen_
May 25th, 2005, 07:14 PM
I think you mean Klorels' Ship, and I believe that she said 100 X the speed of light. There is no evidence to support that you would go back in time, you are making a huge assumption. Technically, they were not traveling 100X the speed of light, (actualy they were traveling much faster but that is not the point) they were traveling the equivilent of 100X the speed of light. To find speed you can use the distance traveled and the time it takes to travel that distance, because they were traveling in hyperspace, which allows you to travel a significantly greater distance depending on what layer you are in, in a shorter amount of time, while still travel at sublight speeds, to travel that large a distance in that short a time in normal space they would need to be going incredibly faster that the speed of light, which they weren't doing at all.

Owen Macri

VirtualCLD
May 26th, 2005, 08:29 AM
That's the entire basis of scientific theory; it's not amazing, it's a requirement.

Theories are supposed to make predictions of future events. If they don't then they're not theories.

I think the conspet of the term "theory" has gotten a little distorted. In the scientific and mathematical realm, a theory is a fairly solid concept, proven over emperically and quallitavely over time. While they are never a 100% garaunteee, theories are as close to the term "law" as one may ever get. If someone comes up with an idea of how to bend space and time, for example, then it's not really a theory, it's just a hypothesis. Only after years of mathematical proofs and emperical data gathering that supports said proofs, does the idea become a theory. Even then, as I said earlier, it's not 100% perfect, but it's a good solid start.

lethalfang
May 26th, 2005, 12:55 PM
I think the conspet of the term "theory" has gotten a little distorted. In the scientific and mathematical realm, a theory is a fairly solid concept, proven over emperically and quallitavely over time. While they are never a 100% garaunteee, theories are as close to the term "law" as one may ever get. If someone comes up with an idea of how to bend space and time, for example, then it's not really a theory, it's just a hypothesis. Only after years of mathematical proofs and emperical data gathering that supports said proofs, does the idea become a theory. Even then, as I said earlier, it's not 100% perfect, but it's a good solid start.
You are absolutely correct on all counts.
However, even in scientific communities, the term "theory" is not always used with such rigor.

_Owen_
May 26th, 2005, 12:57 PM
I think we are going a bit off topic.

Owen Macri

SeaBee
June 1st, 2005, 04:40 AM
I think the conspet of the term "theory" has gotten a little distorted. In the scientific and mathematical realm, a theory is a fairly solid concept, proven over emperically and quallitavely over time. While they are never a 100% garaunteee, theories are as close to the term "law" as one may ever get. If someone comes up with an idea of how to bend space and time, for example, then it's not really a theory, it's just a hypothesis. Only after years of mathematical proofs and emperical data gathering that supports said proofs, does the idea become a theory. Even then, as I said earlier, it's not 100% perfect, but it's a good solid start.
A theory can never be guaranteed by its nature. Until someone invents a means of proving that e=mc^2 then Einstein's theory will remain a theory. Only when a theory is proved by a repeatable experiment does it become a law.

_Owen_
June 1st, 2005, 03:13 PM
Just a little off topic, lol, but I agree. Back on topic, no a ship can't travel faster than the speed of light, as far as we know.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
June 1st, 2005, 06:05 PM
A theory can never be guaranteed by its nature. Until someone invents a means of proving that e=mc^2 then Einstein's theory will remain a theory. Only when a theory is proved by a repeatable experiment does it become a law.
That is not correct.
Theory and laws in scientific terms have entirely different meanings.
E=mc^2, for instance, indeed has been *repeatedly* observed in experiments. One such observation is, in fact, matter and anti-matter annihilation of single particles. Therefore, along with numerous other experimental observations, the theory of relativity is regarded as a true scientific theory.
A law, despite its common definition, is not definite in scientific terms. A law, in scientific terms, is simply a empirical observation. In fact, we KNOW certain laws in science will break down under many circumstances, but we may STILL call it a law. Two common examples are the Boyle's Law and Beer-Lambert Law.
Boyle's Law states that the product of pressure and volume of a gas is a constant. In fact, we KNOW the law is not exact. This law is absolutely true only for "ideal gas," and is only an approximation for real gas.
Beer-Lambert Law states that the concentration of a substance is directly proportional to the absorbance. We KNOW this statement is true only at low-enough concentrations.

_Owen_
June 1st, 2005, 06:13 PM
Another one is Murphys Law, that isn't even a Law, I don't know why people call it that, just by typing this post and not having my computer go up in flames I am defying Murphys... whatever, it isn't a law it isn't a theory it's a joke basically. Lol, that was soooooooooo off topic. Sorry.

Owen Macri