|
Related Topics:
| Deliberate amnesia? - Hey gang, I'm trying to figure out how to represent (in 3ed, if possible, but I can backdate a 4ed mechanic if a case of amnesia where the character has and erased his own past from his memory. It's a TL 3 society..
TEMPLATE: Tough Mer ( as in... Mermaid Duuh!)GURPS - TEMPLATE: Tough Mer (Mermaid) All 11 or above cost 60 points ((Mer genetic weeding is done by GREAT WHITE SHARKS, & cost 10 points,DR 5 scales cost 25 (no they are NOT turtle shell I just checked),
A Song Of Ice And Fire's Dire Wolves template - As per subject, I'm trying to build a Dire Wolf PC for a campaign in the setting of A Song Of Ice And Fire, the popular book by Martin. I'll build this racial template, but since I've not a great knowledge of the book series, I'd ask help from you in..
Time Travel, [Gurps: p. 45]: time radio & time tv - In Time Travel [Gurps, p. 45] for time radio & time tv can be model @ 50 C2 PL or Power Level for time radio, while be @ 100 C2 PL for time tv: the 100 C2 PL is @ D20 or maximum D20 character @ 20 C1 DP which is 733 points @ 733 C3 DP or Default Psych
superb eyesight and ranged attacks - Hi! How would you reflect the effects of good eyesight on ranged attacks? i have not found something like the opposite of the "Bad Acute Vision is not So the next option would be talents. Perhaps for a skill..
|
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 552
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:38 am
Post subject: Illusion of C
Archived from groups: rec>games>frp>gurps (more info?)
|
|
|
Reading thru another thread, a thought occurred to me.
Someone said that accellerating at 8 G for 1000 hours you'd hit the
speed of light. Well no, thought I, you wouldn't, you'd merely approach
C, actually reaching it would be impossible as we currently understand
physics.
But then I thought thats only true when you compare notes with the
people on the planet you left behind, as far as people on the ship is
concerned, time dilation would make them think they were travelling at
light speed. In fact, they could think they were travelling faster than
light.
If it takes 4.3 years for light to travel from star A to star B, and you
get in a ship and appear to live thru 4.3 years and arrive at your
destination, then it seems to you that you traveled at light speed. If
it feels like it took 2.15 years then you feel like you traveled at
twice the speed of light. When you make the return trip (another 4.3
years your time, or 2.15 at twice the speed of light) and the people you
left behind are 10 years older than you(note I did NOT do the math here,
could be 20 years for all I know), you are seeing the effects of relativity.
So what occurred to me is, there should be a term for the speed that
feels like light speed.
How about Tach (like Mach, and short for Tachyon, although of course it
isn't really FTL at all)
At low speeds, your speed as compared to C would be pretty much the same
as your Tach speed, but at higher speeds, Tach would just approach C.
If this term is useful, what are
Tach .5
Tach 1
Tach 1.5
Tach 2
Tach 3
Tach 5
Tach 10
Tach 20
Tach 50
High Tach speeds are needed if you want voyages that take place in age
of sail continent to continent speeds; months or weeks rather than
years. So it would be handy to know the speeds, in terms of C, of
various Tach levels, in order to calculate how much time is passing in
the "not moving fast relative to each other" universe.
Of course this doesn't matter in a universe with real FTL or warp or
jump drives, and in its own way is just as fictional, as the energy and
mass needed to accelerate to these speeds requires Unobtanium as a
fuel... but its still interesting in that it requires handwaving at a
different set of physical laws than those ignored in the FTL
interstellar settings.
Lance |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 14, 2006
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:31:42 -0600, Jefferson
<Jeff_Wilson63.DeleteThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Lance Berg wrote:
>
>> But then I thought thats only true when you compare notes with the
>> people on the planet you left behind, as far as people on the ship is
>> concerned, time dilation would make them think they were travelling at
>> light speed. In fact, they could think they were travelling faster than
>> light.
>
>Nope. What happens from their perspective is that as they speed
>up the distance they need to cover shrinks.
Of course that's the exact sensation I have when I start going faster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 552
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Jefferson wrote:
> Lance Berg wrote:
>
>> But then I thought thats only true when you compare notes with the
>> people on the planet you left behind, as far as people on the ship is
>> concerned, time dilation would make them think they were travelling at
>> light speed. In fact, they could think they were travelling faster
>> than light.
>
>
> Nope. What happens from their perspective is that as they speed up the
> distance they need to cover shrinks.
>
>> If it takes 4.3 years for light to travel from star A to star B, and
>> you get in a ship and appear to live thru 4.3 years and arrive at your
>> destination, then it seems to you that you traveled at light speed.
>> If it feels like it took 2.15 years then you feel like you traveled at
>> twice the speed of light.
>
>
> No. It feels like you covered half the distance.
>
How are those not synonymous?
If I have to travel five miles, and I walk it at one mile an hour, I get
there in five hours. If I walk it at two miles an hour, you -could- say
that it feels like I'm walking half as far, or that it feels like I'm
walking twice as fast. But I'd pick the latter, because thats how I'm
used to thinking of such things.
Walking 2 miles an hour for 5 miles = walking 1 mile an hour for 2.5
miles (effort aside)
Either way I get to my destination in half the time.
Similarly, from the perspective of someone travelling in that Tach
starship, going from Sol to Proxima Centuari in 4.3 years, then
returning in 2.15 years, I'd be tempted to say the return trip was twice
as fast, rather than that somehow my stardrive had moved Sol and P.Cent.
closer together.
None of which addresses my question, which is what fraction of C do each
of the two trips really represent?
Lance >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 31, 2006
Posts: 55
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Lance Berg <emporer RemoveThis @dejazzd.com> writes:
> Jefferson wrote:
> >> If it takes 4.3 years for light to travel from star A to star B,
> >> and you get in a ship and appear to live thru 4.3 years and arrive
> >> at your destination, then it seems to you that you traveled at
> >> light speed. If it feels like it took 2.15 years then you feel
> >> like you traveled at twice the speed of light.
> >
> > No. It feels like you covered half the distance.
>
> How are those not synonymous?
>
> If I have to travel five miles, and I walk it at one mile an hour, I
> get there in five hours.
And your perception is that you travelled five miles.
> If I walk it at two miles an hour, you -could- say that it feels
> like I'm walking half as far
No, that would not describe your perception. Your perception is that
of covering the same distance faster.
> Either way I get to my destination in half the time.
And either way, your perception of the distance (if you're actually
looking around you) doesn't change.
As you approach 'c', though, the *perceived distance* between objects
changes. The distance in the direction of travel visibly reduces.
Your apparent acceleration reduces the closer you get to 'c', but the
universe itself appears to compress in the direction of your travel.
--
\ "First things first, but not necessarily in that order." -- |
`\ The Doctor, _Doctor Who_ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 14, 2006
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:48:46 +1000, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>Lance Berg <emporer.TakeThisOut@dejazzd.com> writes:
>
>> Jefferson wrote:
>> >> If it takes 4.3 years for light to travel from star A to star B,
>> >> and you get in a ship and appear to live thru 4.3 years and arrive
>> >> at your destination, then it seems to you that you traveled at
>> >> light speed. If it feels like it took 2.15 years then you feel
>> >> like you traveled at twice the speed of light.
>> >
>> > No. It feels like you covered half the distance.
>>
>> How are those not synonymous?
>>
>> If I have to travel five miles, and I walk it at one mile an hour, I
>> get there in five hours.
>
>And your perception is that you travelled five miles.
>
>> If I walk it at two miles an hour, you -could- say that it feels
>> like I'm walking half as far
>
>No, that would not describe your perception. Your perception is that
>of covering the same distance faster.
>
>> Either way I get to my destination in half the time.
>
>And either way, your perception of the distance (if you're actually
>looking around you) doesn't change.
>
>As you approach 'c', though, the *perceived distance* between objects
>changes. The distance in the direction of travel visibly reduces.
>Your apparent acceleration reduces the closer you get to 'c', but the
>universe itself appears to compress in the direction of your travel. >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 14, 2006
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:48:46 +1000, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>Lance Berg <emporer.TakeThisOut@dejazzd.com> writes:
>
>> Jefferson wrote:
>> >> If it takes 4.3 years for light to travel from star A to star B,
>> >> and you get in a ship and appear to live thru 4.3 years and arrive
>> >> at your destination, then it seems to you that you traveled at
>> >> light speed. If it feels like it took 2.15 years then you feel
>> >> like you traveled at twice the speed of light.
>> >
>> > No. It feels like you covered half the distance.
>>
>> How are those not synonymous?
>>
>> If I have to travel five miles, and I walk it at one mile an hour, I
>> get there in five hours.
>
>And your perception is that you travelled five miles.
>
>> If I walk it at two miles an hour, you -could- say that it feels
>> like I'm walking half as far
>
>No, that would not describe your perception. Your perception is that
>of covering the same distance faster.
Only because he has nearby points of reference by which to estimate
speed. If there are no points of reference apart from your
destination then there's no perceived difference between a shorter
distance and a faster transit time. >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 552
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:46 am
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Jefferson wrote:
> Lance Berg wrote:
>
>> Jefferson wrote:
>>
>>> Lance Berg wrote:
>>>
>>>> But then I thought thats only true when you compare notes with the
>>>> people on the planet you left behind, as far as people on the ship
>>>> is concerned, time dilation would make them think they were
>>>> travelling at light speed. In fact, they could think they were
>>>> travelling faster than light.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. What happens from their perspective is that as they speed up
>>> the distance they need to cover shrinks.
>>>
>>>> If it takes 4.3 years for light to travel from star A to star B, and
>>>> you get in a ship and appear to live thru 4.3 years and arrive at
>>>> your destination, then it seems to you that you traveled at light
>>>> speed. If it feels like it took 2.15 years then you feel like you
>>>> traveled at twice the speed of light.
>>>
>>>
>>> No. It feels like you covered half the distance.
>>
>>
>> How are those not synonymous?
>
>
> Because you can't perceive or measure time slowing down. You can
> measure distance. The speed of light remains constant to all
> measurements. By saying that time changes you imply that the frame
> where time isn't changing is somehow more valid than the one where it
> does. By saying that the distance changes you confront stick to what
> you can observe.
>
Imagine that I'm locked in a box with no viewports. You keep me in
there for 4.3 years, or you keep me in there for 2.15 years, each time
when you open the box, I'm at my destination. Now you -could- try and
convince me that we traveled less distance the second time, but since I
traveled from A to B and back from B to A, I'm going to suggest that it
seems to me we made the trip in half the time coming home.
I know, from a physics standpoint, there might be valid reasons for
saying it the other way. But from a "common sense" standpoint, I don't
think there's any actual advantage to trying to change the apparant size
of the universe instead of just assuming we're going "twice as fast"
I also know that its not really twice as fast, and when I arrive home
the people there are not going to agree that only 6.45 years have passed.
What interests me is, how much time will they think passed? Whats the
relationship between a trip that takes, my time, 4.3 years to cover a
4.3 light year distance, and the time someone standing on Earth
percieves passing?
I'm also ignoring, for the sake of this question, accelleration and
decelleration; that can be worked out later, assume for the sake of
arguement that we reach a given velocity quickly, then coast for the
majority of the trip, and decellerate quickly again at the end of the trip. >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 552
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:58 am
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Ben Finney wrote:
> Lance Berg <emporer.TakeThisOut@dejazzd.com> writes:
>
>
>>Jefferson wrote:
>>
>>>>If it takes 4.3 years for light to travel from star A to star B,
>>>>and you get in a ship and appear to live thru 4.3 years and arrive
>>>>at your destination, then it seems to you that you traveled at
>>>>light speed. If it feels like it took 2.15 years then you feel
>>>>like you traveled at twice the speed of light.
>>>
>>>No. It feels like you covered half the distance.
>>
>>How are those not synonymous?
>>
>>If I have to travel five miles, and I walk it at one mile an hour, I
>>get there in five hours.
>
>
> And your perception is that you travelled five miles.
>
Imagine I'm locked in a sealed box. The only way I "know" I traveled 5
miles is that when you let me out of the box at the end, I'm at a
location which is five miles distant from my start. I might have
traveled 10 miles in a huge arc, at 2 miles an hour. Or maybe you moved
my destination to me, and the box just sat there. But to me, I start
here, I end there, five miles. And my clock says 5 hours passed.
Illusion is, I traveled 5 miles per hour.
>
>>If I walk it at two miles an hour, you -could- say that it feels
>>like I'm walking half as far
>
>
> No, that would not describe your perception. Your perception is that
> of covering the same distance faster.
>
Both seem the same to me, barring observation of nearby landmarks or air
rushing past my head or something. Distance from start to finish, over
time from start to finish.
>
>>Either way I get to my destination in half the time.
>
>
> And either way, your perception of the distance (if you're actually
> looking around you) doesn't change.
>
> As you approach 'c', though, the *perceived distance* between objects
> changes. The distance in the direction of travel visibly reduces.
> Your apparent acceleration reduces the closer you get to 'c', but the
> universe itself appears to compress in the direction of your travel.
>
Only while I'm actually travelling. Since I'm going to decellerate back
to "stationary" (or in other words, to match speed with my destination)
each time, when we get out of the ship, the universe isn't going to be
looking compressed. I'm Here, Earth is "waaaay over there" 4.3 LY away.
And when I return to Earth, Proxima Centuri is 4.3 LY away. Ipso
facto, it looks like I traveled 8.6 LY. And since I only lived thru
6.45 years, it seems to me I traveled 8.6LY in 6.45 years... at the
"speed of light" out, and at "twice the speed of light" back.
Since the people on earth are going to disagree with me about how long
the trip took, I think it would be handy to know how much that
disagreement is going to be.
Lance >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 14, 2006
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 07 Sep 2006 15:29:05 GMT, raven DeleteThis @westnet.poe.com wrote:
>Lance Berg <emporer DeleteThis @dejazzd.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> Imagine I'm locked in a sealed box. The only way I "know" I traveled 5
>> miles is that when you let me out of the box at the end, I'm at a
>> location which is five miles distant from my start. I might have
>> traveled 10 miles in a huge arc, at 2 miles an hour. Or maybe you moved
>> my destination to me, and the box just sat there. But to me, I start
>> here, I end there, five miles. And my clock says 5 hours passed.
>> Illusion is, I traveled 5 miles per hour.
>
>Nope, even in a sealed box, you know how fast you're going becuase you can
>measure time and acceleration,
Can you? From your perspective the amount of acceleration you are
doing doesn't decrease as you experience dilation, does it? >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 14, 2006
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 07 Sep 2006 17:46:11 GMT, raven.RemoveThis@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>David Johnston <rgorman.RemoveThis@block.net> wrote:
>> On 07 Sep 2006 15:29:05 GMT, raven.RemoveThis@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> >Lance Berg <emporer.RemoveThis@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >> Imagine I'm locked in a sealed box. The only way I "know" I traveled 5
>> >> miles is that when you let me out of the box at the end, I'm at a
>> >> location which is five miles distant from my start. I might have
>> >> traveled 10 miles in a huge arc, at 2 miles an hour. Or maybe you moved
>> >> my destination to me, and the box just sat there. But to me, I start
>> >> here, I end there, five miles. And my clock says 5 hours passed.
>> >> Illusion is, I traveled 5 miles per hour.
>> >
>> >Nope, even in a sealed box, you know how fast you're going becuase you can
>> >measure time and acceleration,
>
>> Can you? From your perspective the amount of acceleration you are
>> doing doesn't decrease as you experience dilation, does it?
>
>You can sertanly measure acceleration: A mass on a spring will do nicely.
But such a mass will not show that your acceleration is decreasing.
>Time can be measured with a clock.
But such a clock will not demonstrate that your "time" is slowing down
with respect to other inertial frameworks. >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 552
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Jefferson wrote:
> Lance Berg wrote:
>
>> Imagine that I'm locked in a box with no viewports. You keep me in
>> there for 4.3 years, or you keep me in there for 2.15 years, each time
>> when you open the box, I'm at my destination.
>
>
> How do you know what path you took? How do you know you traveled at
> all? Why is your perspective in the box better than the perspective of
> the person carrying the box?
>
> Certainly you can claim whatever you want. The fact remains that a
> traveler can measure the change in distance and can't measure a change
> in time.
>
Its simple. Here, there = distance. Time = time. Assuming that the
distance changed while I wasn't looking and the time didnt doesn't make
any more sense than that the time changed and the distance didn't.
Since I percieve neither a change in distance nor time, I think the
third option, which is that I traveled faster than light, is a perfectly
plausible explaination for what I percieve.
Yes, when I return home, people are going to disagree with me, and they
can try and convince me that either distance changed or that my sense of
time passing changed, and thats fine, in fact I won't be surprised, as
the travel liner will have posted the "percieved" and "real" times on my
ticket. I might even take the journey deliberately as a way to travel
"into the future" (it would have to be a lot faster than Tach 1 for me
to bother)
But I'm still going to feel like I went from A to B and back in the
amount of time that I felt passing.
Lance >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 14, 2006
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 07 Sep 2006 19:19:56 GMT, raven.TakeThisOut@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>David Johnston <rgorman.TakeThisOut@block.net> wrote:
>> On 07 Sep 2006 17:46:11 GMT, raven.TakeThisOut@westnet.poe.com wrote:
><snip>
>> >> Can you? From your perspective the amount of acceleration you are
>> >> doing doesn't decrease as you experience dilation, does it?
>> >
>> >You can certanly measure acceleration: A mass on a spring will do
>> >nicely.
>
>> But such a mass will not show that your acceleration is decreasing.
>
>Right, beucause for you it won't be.
>
>> >Time can be measured with a clock.
>
>> But such a clock will not demonstrate that your "time" is slowing down
>> with respect to other inertial frameworks.
>
>No, that clock will tell you _your_ time, the "correct" time.
Thus, what he was talking about, the illusion, and he used the word
"illusion" advisedly, that you are covering a given distance in less
time than the world around, and are therefore going faster than you
really are. Why you are talking about the reality and insisting on
explaining something that everyone involved already understands, when
the word "illusion" is right in the subject heading escapes me.
To answer the original question, the word which would be used for the
distortion of the time to get to a destination would be something like
"warp factor" except Star Trek poisoned that well. >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 552
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
raven DeleteThis @westnet.poe.com wrote:
> David Johnston <rgorman DeleteThis @block.net> wrote:
>
>>On 07 Sep 2006 19:19:56 GMT, raven DeleteThis @westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>No, that clock will tell you _your_ time, the "correct" time.
>
>
>>Thus, what he was talking about, the illusion, and he used the word
>>"illusion" advisedly, that you are covering a given distance in less
>>time than the world around, and are therefore going faster than you
>>really are. Why you are talking about the reality and insisting on
>>explaining something that everyone involved already understands, when
>>the word "illusion" is right in the subject heading escapes me.
>
>
> Beucase the illusory speed effect isn't particularly usefull or relvant.
> Travelling at this supposed illusory speed of light, it doesn't take 4.3
> years to get to proxima as measured by a ground based observer.
>
I think its very relevant. In particular, if -you- have to sit in a
box, even a nicely appointed comfortable box, for weeks, months, years
at at time, you'll want to know how long it feels like.
At the same time, you're going to want to know , assuming you plan on
coming home, just how much time the people on the ground are going to
think you were gone; is your rent going to be overdue? Are your savings
bonds have going to matured? Is your teenaged niece going to be old
enough to be your mother? At high "tach" (illusory speed) you might
experience weeks and yet
It takes 4.3 years as measured by the ship based observer, and my
question is, how long DOES it take for the ground based observer? Print
both pieces of information right on the ticket to the passenger liner.
>
>>To answer the original question, the word which would be used for the
>>distortion of the time to get to a destination would be something like
>>"warp factor" except Star Trek poisoned that well.
>
>
> Warp factor wouldn't really do the trick, as there's no "warp" happening.
> You could go with "Lorentz distortion factor" or even fizzbin, but to make
> such a thing relevant to a game would require more handwaving. That's why
> a bit of real physics was brought to the discussion by myself and others:
> to educate the OP about whats actually happeneing so that they'll have
> some idea of what they want to break for the story purposes.
If you don't like Tach, then LDF might work, or heck, Fizzbin. I don't
see where you need handwaving to make it relevant though. Assuming, for
the sake of arguement, that you're in a universe which lacks real
FTL/Jump drives, but which has drives capable of "relativistic" speeds,
then this is going to come up.
Look at the Forever War, for just one example of the question being
raised in fiction.
Lance
>
>
> John >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 14, 2006
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 07 Sep 2006 19:43:22 GMT, raven.RemoveThis@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>David Johnston <rgorman.RemoveThis@block.net> wrote:
>> On 07 Sep 2006 19:19:56 GMT, raven.RemoveThis@westnet.poe.com wrote:
><snip>
>> >No, that clock will tell you _your_ time, the "correct" time.
>
>> Thus, what he was talking about, the illusion, and he used the word
>> "illusion" advisedly, that you are covering a given distance in less
>> time than the world around, and are therefore going faster than you
>> really are. Why you are talking about the reality and insisting on
>> explaining something that everyone involved already understands, when
>> the word "illusion" is right in the subject heading escapes me.
>
>Beucase the illusory speed effect isn't particularly usefull or relvant.
>Travelling at this supposed illusory speed of light, it doesn't take 4.3
>years to get to proxima as measured by a ground based observer.
>
>> To answer the original question, the word which would be used for the
>> distortion of the time to get to a destination would be something like
>> "warp factor" except Star Trek poisoned that well.
>
>Warp factor wouldn't really do the trick, as there's no "warp" happening.
>You could go with "Lorentz distortion factor"
The difference betwen "warp" and "distort" being?
or even fizzbin, but to make
>such a thing relevant to a game would require more handwaving.
No, it wouldn't. It's important for hypothetical people to know the
difference between their rate of time passage and the rate of time
passage back at the point they'll be returning to, if in fact they are
significantly different. If people could really do that then they'd
need a way to talk about the ratio.
>
>John >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 552
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Illusion of C [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
David Johnston wrote:
> No, it wouldn't. It's important for hypothetical people to know the
> difference between their rate of time passage and the rate of time
> passage back at the point they'll be returning to, if in fact they are
> significantly different. If people could really do that then they'd
> need a way to talk about the ratio.
You put that much more succinctly than I did. >> Stay informed about: Illusion of C |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
