FTl or Stargates

DeathByTheSword · January 12, 2003, 12:09

well a lot of ideas has been flung around but i would like to know what everyone wants. very simple do you support a FTL engine idea for travel or anykind of 'stargate' for travel in Space.

please let me know so that we can maybe finally choose between the two

Vultur · January 12, 2003, 12:32

It would be possible have both: FTL travel will require: very advanced tech level, and energy, but allow to move where you want spending some "time" (like Star-Trek)
Stargates require an immense quantity of material and time to be built, and can be controlled by someone (so it's possible to build a Stargate to make someone pay the tiket...), but don't require "time".

DeathByTheSword · January 12, 2003, 13:39

you can be right but (i believe) we need one main type of transport between the stars

Leland · January 12, 2003, 13:46

I don't see why you can't have both. They're different enough not to be redundant, and having both as alternatives migth make the game world richer. But if I had to choose one over the other I'd pick stargates for the simple reason that FTL is just a quicker version of STL.

Kuciwalker · January 12, 2003, 14:41

I agree with Leland.

Michiel · January 12, 2003, 14:52

So do I.

Jeremy Buloch · January 12, 2003, 16:55

Yes, having both transport system would make the game more realistic and would be more interesting.

Sidenote: When we make the transport systems we need to have the corect type of civilization that goes with what all physicists have agreed upon. Also The Stargate thingy would be better to be developed by a different alien because the Humans wouldn't be at the corect level. Lets keep it realistic folks.

-J.B.-

Leland · January 12, 2003, 22:50

I don't think stargates are realistic at any level of development, which is why I don't see a big problem with having humans invent it at some point on their own...

Jeremy Buloch · January 12, 2003, 23:09

If the Humans were to invent the stargates they would need to be of a type III civilization. In order to be a type III civilization the Humans would need to be able to harnest the entire energy output of a small black hole. So therefore it would be un-realistic to do what you say. A more apropriate action would be:
Have the aliens build the Stargate (Black Hole).
-J.B.-

Leland · January 12, 2003, 23:44

The thing is, type III civilization is by definition one that harnesses the power of the whole galaxy, and since there obviously isn't one in existence in the game world (otherwise, how do you explain the smaller species? Where do they get their energy, if the super-duper type III civ already uses the energies of the whole galaxy?) stargates are unrealistic no matter what way you look at it.

So, in order to be realistic, you'd have to skip stargates AND all other forms of FTL travel. But that is boring (well, actually I'd prefer a game with just one planet...), so you compromise realism in favour of fun technology.

vovan · January 12, 2003, 23:53

I might be wrong here, but I have the impression that stargates are from the same opera as the antimatter drive. Both can be achieved by TypeIII civs. And I thought we more or less established that since those will be too far-fetched for the scope we are dealing with, we would skip them. Therefore, I second Leland's thoughts on the matter.

Mark123jansen · January 13, 2003, 04:14

what if the stargates are already there? like in the series. maybe they were built by some extinct alien race wich was type III?

targon · January 13, 2003, 04:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark123jansen
...some extinct alien race wich was type III?

How you can imagine extinct type III? It's like extinct galaxy or extinct space/time.

Jeremy Buloch · January 13, 2003, 05:16

Quote:

what if the stargates are already there? like in the series. maybe they were built by some extinct alien race wich was type III?

Sounds interesting yet I disagree.

Quote:

How you can imagine extinct type III? It's like extinct galaxy or extinct space/time.

True the only threat would be the galaxy dieing itself. Unless they were at war.
That could be the answer your looking for.
Read this:
"By definition, an advanced civilization must grow faster than the frequency of life-threatening catastrophes. Since large meteor and comet impacts take place once every few thousand years, a Type I civilization must master space travel to deflect space debris within that time frame, which should not be much of a problem. Ice ages may take place on a time scale of tens of thousands of years, so a Type I civilization must learn to modify the weather within that time frame.

Artificial and internal catastrophes must also be negotiated. But the problem of global pollution is only a mortal threat for a Type 0 civilization; a Type I civilization has lived for several millennia as a planetary civilization, necessarily achieving ecological planetary balance. Internal problems like wars do pose a serious recurring threat, but they have thousands of years in which to solve racial, national, and sectarian conflicts.

Eventually, after several thousand years, a Type I civilization will exhaust the power of a planet, and will derive their energy by consuming the entire output of their suns energy, or roughly a billion trillion trillion ergs per second.

Perhaps the only serious threat to a Type II civilization would be a nearby supernova explosion, whose sudden eruption could scorch their planet in a withering blast of X-rays, killing all life forms. Thus, perhaps the most interesting civilization is a Type III civilization, for it is truly immortal. They have exhausted the power of a single star, and have reached for other star systems. No natural catastrophe known to science is capable of destroying a Type III civilization.

Faced with a neighboring supernova, it would have several alternatives, such as altering the evolution of dying red giant star which is about to explode, or leaving this particular star system and terraforming a nearby planetary system.

However, there are roadblocks to an emerging Type III civilization. Eventually, it bumps up against another iron law of physics, the theory of relativity. Dyson estimates that this may delay the transition to a Type III civilization by perhaps millions of years.

But even with the light barrier, there are a number of ways of expanding at near-light velocities. For example, the ultimate measure of a rockets capability is measured by something called "specific impulse" (defined as the product of the thrust and the duration, measured in units of seconds). Chemical rockets can attain specific impulses of several hundred to several thousand seconds. Ion engines can attain specific impulses of tens of thousands of seconds. But to attain near-light speed velocity, one has to achieve specific impulse of about 30 million seconds, which is far beyond our current capability, but not that of a Type III civilization. A variety of propulsion systems would be available for sub-light speed probes (such as ram-jet fusion engines, photonic engines, etc.)"
-J.B.-

targon · January 13, 2003, 05:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Buloch
...No natural catastrophe known to science is capable of destroying a Type III civilization...

Natural, and known to our science. What 19th century scientist would say about nuclear plant meltdown? But Type III is so old, big and ugly

, so they must somehow counter all these stuff by definition.
BTW, J.B. it's lots of crossposting here

Jeremy Buloch · January 13, 2003, 06:06

Yes it is alot of crossposting. lol

The definitions are theories, yes. But its the only working theory that all physicists have agreed upon.
-J.B.-

Blake · January 14, 2003, 05:58

I think we have both.
FTL travel is just normal travel speeded up. Trip times are just shorter. No terribly special mechanics. No special code.
Stargate travel is important, critical, for gameplay. We can also do fun stuff like linking the economies of planets with stargates, so resources at any world with a stargate may be spent at any other world with a stargate. Implications for reducing micromanagment should be obvious.

Stargates shouldn't exactly be a free lunch. In stars! they had distance/mass limitations, trying to send a too large ship too far damaged the ship, and possibly destroyed it. Such limitations may be a good idea.

Jeremy Buloch · January 14, 2003, 10:07

Yeah I agree that the stargate will need to have some limitations such as that. Also the Radiation would be extreme so they would need to compensate for that.

Would this Stargate be an artificial Black hole?
Since we have never seen Black holes then we dont know exactly if they can be a wormhole but its possible. Or shall I say Theoretical.
-J.B.-

Leland · January 14, 2003, 12:05

I think the tech is going to be "magic" anyway. Artificial black holes are currently pretty much the only even theoretically possible way to do it (as far as I know), so that seems like the most sensible explanation. As for restrictions, I like the following:

1) A stargate connects exactly two points in space to each other. No "dialing".
2) You have to build the two gates in same place, then haul the other one to where-ever you want to use it.

Kuciwalker · January 14, 2003, 19:30

Black holes - NO

This leaves GLARING inconsistencies in the game, such as why can't you destroy stars then, etc.

1) yes
2) no. You should be able to build them in different locations and THEN "link" them.

Jeremy Buloch · January 14, 2003, 20:41

Theoreticaly a Stargate is a Black hole, is it not?
Now when we explain the tech to the user we would need to say something about how it is made and no one knows except for the black hole theory. So therefore if you can come up with a better Idea then please do so but in the meantime thats the only working idea.
-J.B.-

Straybow · January 15, 2003, 01:21

I vote JB can stuff his "Type I/II/III civilizations" up his "Type 0 civilization," if you get what I mean.

Seriously, though, in Babylon 5 hyperspace requires either a big, expensive engine or a stargate. Or David Weber's Honor Harrington novels with both jump lanes (stargates) and hyperdimensional travel. The jump lanes are explained as phenomena related to hyperdimensions.

Leland · January 15, 2003, 02:57

Q: Why can't wormhole technology be used to destroy stars?
A: Maybe the black holes used are too light to actually hold themselves together, but are kept "alive" artificially. So when you turn the machine off, the hole simply evaporates/explodes as Hawking radiation. Sending this thing to a star would just break the containing machinery before it can suck enough material to hold it in.

About wormholes being built in the same place, the rationale for this would be to prevent player from joining opposite ends of his empire just with a snap of fingers. Thus, wormholes would be like roads that allow you to travel faster between premade routes (which would require some planning), but not teleport to anyplace you want.

Vultur · January 15, 2003, 13:18

Ok, we want both method. But what rules to FTL travel?
We can consider many different ideas, from a simple "we are totaly ignoring all physics we know" to a strange quasi-realistic model of Space-Curvature.
Here a little list of possibilities, feel free to add your ones:

The Universe for Dummies
You can accelarate as you want, go where you want, no limitations, no relativity rules, no Einstein/Plank/Hawkings...

Aasimov's Universe
You can decide to "jump into the hyperspace". You cannot go exactly where you want, there is a sort of "indetermination" that is proportional to the distance: Xd=Xs+Sx+Rx*Distance and Yd=Ys+Sy+Ry*Distance, where Xs,Ys is the source point, Xd,Yd the destination point, Sx,Sy the direction desired and Rx,Ry two random numbers.
This problem will force you to do many little jump and to recalculate the course, and this require time...

Worm Holes
You can go through the worm holes, and reach any speed you want, the problem is to control the worm hole itself...

Space-Curvature
Your ship can curve the Space-Time and "reduce" the distance that join two points. Can be VERY difficult if we want to look the physic rules...

Kuciwalker · January 15, 2003, 19:35

Here's an explanation for the stargates:

They generate an EXTREMELY POWERFUL electromagnetic field, using two generators "pulsing" on a slight offset, that creates a "non-relativistic space" and accelerates the ship to an almost infinite velocity. The ship cannot interact with anything until it comes out of this space, which can only be done by another stargate centered EXACTLY on its flight path and oriented in the opposite direction from the launching gate. The ship, due to its almost infinite velocity, comes out at essentially the same instant. A stargate is two-way - the stargate can launch or recieve ships.

I don't think that there are any (logical) inconsistancies in my explanation - it may not actually work, but it is internally consistant. For example, these aren't used to launch projectiles at the enemy because the object can't come out except through a recieving stargate.

Jeremy Buloch · January 15, 2003, 20:33

I suggest that you guys read some books called:

"Beyond Einstein" - The cosmic quest for the theory of the universe

and...

"Hyperspace" - A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps and the Tenth Dimension

It will help people to understand the different theories and is written for the laymen. It contains comprehensive information that is a must for any young physicist or person that is interested. For you to fully understand physics then you should read some of those books so that you can get an idea of the different theories. I myself have ordered them and recently got "Beyond Einstein" You can go to www.Amazon.com for low prices up to $10 US dollars for each book. You can also visit www.mkaku.org to see some articles written by one of the leading pioneers in theoretical physics.
-J.B.-

targon · January 16, 2003, 03:51

J. B.: Yeah! Pulp fiction returns!

skywalker: what did you mean as EXTREMELY POWERFUL field: "vacuum discharge" or gravity collapse?

Leland · January 16, 2003, 05:11

I've read "Hyperspace", and second JB's recommendation. It's an interesting book.

targon · January 16, 2003, 06:05

I've surfed mr. Kaku's site and think it has somewhat... bad taste? bad habits? can't say more descriptive, but his style is fairly different from the most scientists I know, it's way too public-oriented. Usualy leading scientists tend to write books for other scientists rather to fall back to PR. Having enough PR talents, you may cheat non-professionals by a broad range of ways, obtain great "fame" and still did nothing. I'm very sceptical to any scientist giving UFO properties as the evidence, BTW.

Leland · January 16, 2003, 07:39

UFO properties? Care to elaborate?