Out of Pod Experience

Amazing thread!

Here's a question for you.

Eve ships all seem to be jet powered (not sure what they run off, as they dont need refulling). Remembering that I am a plumber by trade and not any sort of science guru, I would assume that the ships move in accordance with one of Newtons laws "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". Now, in a car in real life, the wind resistance and rolling resistance rises at a greater rate then your speed increase, which means every vehicle will have a top speed. But a space ship has no wind or rolling resistance so theoretically, to my little mind at least, should be able to accelerate for as long as its fuel last.

Is this right, and if so, can some one please explain why my ruppy tops out at 370m/s?

Thank You!

lol religion lol
of course if we can prove there are other universes maybe we can just migrate heheh



HA! yes indeedydoody! I know a lot of you will really not like me saying this but i really REALLY want to work with CCP at some point in my career. imagine what this game would be with realistic space physics! imagine being able to literally flip-a-***** in your rifter, end over end, and charge at your enemy upside down. imagine a living galaxy, where the planets are not just stationary and there is true strategic benefits to capturing a system at different times in the year because the gates move! directionally dependent targeting effects as a result of solar winds!

there is so much physics that could be added to the game. SO so much!

on the up side though, CCP DID include red and blue shifting :3 ever notice how when you are in warp space ahead of you is tinted red and space behind you is tinted blue? that's a "real" effect!

this depends entirely on the nature of the shell. the firing mechanism in most guns is entirely mechanical, while the reloading mechanism is usually done by harnessing the back pressure created from the combustion of the round. it's not unlikely though that a spaceship would have a reloading mechanism similar to that of, say, a battleship, where the rounds are reloaded through completely mechanical processes.

this means that the only issue we need to tackle is the combustible component of the round itself. if the round was designed SPECIFICALLY to fire in a vacuum it's completely feasible that the charge was designed to combust with some other, more energetic gas, and that the charge and gas are sealed behind the bullet against the vacuum.

an even better idea would probably be to just use gas pressurized charges. screw gun powder, we're in space! we can shoot bullets with compressed air! the net force applied to the bullet will be dependent on the difference in pressure between the charge and the environment. since we are in a vacuum we can get this difference to be VERY large :3

maybe minmatar guns are just giant airsoft pistols lol

As much as I have tried, I cannot believe that we came from a speck of dust that suddenly exploded into what is known as the Universe. How can that explain Renoir, Yeats, Dickens, Picasso, Monet, Aristotle , Puccini. I could go on and on.

there's nothing to "believe", we have evidence. PHYSICAL evidence. not a book or a notion or an idea or a philosophy. we have a picture, a photograph, a measurement, and a theory. whether or not you can come to terms with the reality of your own existence is no problem of mine.

as i stated earlier in this thread, science doesn't really answer "why" in a non-superficial sense. and we're ok with that because, guess what, we're working on it heheh

as for creative geniuses, i can't see any other way they COULD have come to be

Actually, you can fire a gun in space wish Gun Powder alone.

Ah, thank you for answering that question, Tasdkiel.

I was also wondering, there was also a hypothesis from a book about the universe that I read saying that the expansion rate of the universe that could stay even. Meaning that the universe would expand... but at the same time not, because gravity would rein it back in. What would happen if that hypothesis was correct?

And on the subject of Heat Death... I'm guessing that such an event will be the case so many years in the future we will run out of zeroes to measure that number. How long would Heat Death, the Big Rip, and the collapse of the universe into another Big Bang take?

Thank you for answering in advance.

another good question!

on the topic of dark matter in stars, i honestly don't know. if there is i haven't heard anything about it. we know very little about the properties of dark matter and we know a great deal about stellar evolution, so i would doubt that such a theory, if it exists, would bring much new physics to the table.

as for the rest: we have very rigorous mathematics and evidence that supports the universality of physical laws. now, i'm not saying that the physical nature of the universe hasn't changed with time: it has! but these changes fall within the current laws. furthermore, the changes occurred everywhere in the universe simultaneously, so it is unlikely for there to be pocket universes or chimera regions with different laws.

the core of the evidence for this comes from Noether's Theorem, which states that (in summary) "where there is symmetry, there is an associated conserved quantity". the current laws of physics all point towards the fact that space-time is both homogeneous and isotropic. this means the universe doesn't care "where/when" you are (homogeneous) nor does it care which way you are going (isotropic). some examples: you do an experiment at point A and then you repeat it at point B (where everything is the same except for the location) and you get the same results. this means the result is symmetric under translation and this results in, from the mathematics, conservation of momentum. temporal symmetry is the same thing but with time and results in conservation of energy. (as a side note: in quantum mechanics, all wavefunctions carry a complex phase value, which has no effect on the outcome of calculations. i have been told that this corresponds to conservation of charge but i haven't proven it to myself yet).

we have made very precise measurements of conservation of momentum and energy and they allow us to make very accurate predictions, so we conclude that, yes, the universe in indeed homogeneous and isotropic.