|
Post by stevebowers on Sept 20, 2017 10:51:27 GMT
. No. Travelling radially away from H at sub-light speeds can only get you to A, which is safe. However if you then turn round and come back you can get to F, which is forbidden. This is usually imagined as a second wormhole, but just turning round with the original hole would do. According to Matt Visser, you would create either a storm of virtual particles when you cross the 45-degree light cone surface, or a Cauchy horizon, thus preserving causality.
|
|
|
Post by Argopeilacos on Sept 20, 2017 14:40:23 GMT
No. Traveling radially away from H at sub-light speeds can only get you to A, which is safe. That is a contradiction as far as I understand. Leaving H's light cone is the definition of FTL travel (spacelike interval, no causality link between this region and H without FTL).
|
|
|
Post by Stevebowers on Sept 20, 2017 16:49:17 GMT
Well, you do have a FTL link (the wormhole itself). This links the two locations instantaneously (actually it takes a day or two to pass through a traversable wormhole in OA, but that is because of its size). But you are linked to a distant region which is too far away to cause causality problems. It is only if you bring a second wormhole back that you can make contact with the origin via real space, thus making a loop. So long as you stay outside the light cone of the origin you are okay.
|
|
|
Post by Argopeilacos on Sept 20, 2017 16:54:51 GMT
I think I figured my issue: I was assuming the far mouth time didn't stay in sync with H. It makes sense for the link to be spacelike while the towing is timelike.
|
|
|
Post by Stevebowers on Sept 20, 2017 17:46:52 GMT
Yes, the page I linked to doesn't make that very clear. I may rewrite it at some point, unless someone else gets there first.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Sept 21, 2017 15:31:31 GMT
The OA Planet Pack 1 is out! This pack contains... 104 Tauri - New Earth Delta Pavonis - All known natural objects H'tat'sa'thoss - To'ul'h Prime Iota Piscium - All known natural objects Lambda Aurigae - New Gaia JD 788901101 - All known natural objects Texture file also includes: HD 3823 - All known objects
|
|
|
Post by tukuro on Sept 25, 2017 15:59:22 GMT
The Astronomer What settings are you using for the skybox? It looks a lot better this way. Are you using custom shaders?
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Sept 25, 2017 16:33:37 GMT
The Astronomer What settings are you using for the skybox? It looks a lot better this way. Are you using custom shaders? Skybox: yours Setting: I disabled the diffraction spikes
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 28, 2017 22:09:15 GMT
Looks like a delightful project Cosmogator! Once I run out of stuff to do with the vanilla game, yours will definitely be a package I'll take a look at.
Since there are some wormhole folks participating here, question: I was under the impression that (as more or less state) the creation of a wormhole is more or less completely "tenable" in terms of physics theory. However, the quantity of power necessary to create the 'exotic matter' (perhaps not the exact technical term) that is required to "open" the wormhole is something absurd as in, all the power produced by the Milky Way Galaxy in the last 100 years, or something along those lines?
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Oct 29, 2017 3:12:33 GMT
Looks like a delightful project Cosmogator! Once I run out of stuff to do with the vanilla game, yours will definitely be a package I'll take a look at. Since there are some wormhole folks participating here, question: I was under the impression that (as more or less state) the creation of a wormhole is more or less completely "tenable" in terms of physics theory. However, the quantity of power necessary to create the 'exotic matter' (perhaps not the exact technical term) that is required to "open" the wormhole is something absurd as in, all the power produced by the Milky Way Galaxy in the last 100 years, or something along those lines? That sounds like... You need a more efficient way to produce exotic matter. If you want even more planets, please consider checking out my Celestial Body Storage.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 29, 2017 6:52:30 GMT
Well the beauty of science fiction is that it is fiction so it doesn't have to be non-fiction There is no such thing as "hard" science fiction, only soft and less soft
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 29, 2017 6:56:56 GMT
Well the beauty of science fiction is that it is fiction so it doesn't have to be non-fiction There is no such thing as "hard" science fiction, only soft and less soft It depends how you define "soft" and "hard" sci-fi.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Oct 29, 2017 7:35:02 GMT
Well the beauty of science fiction is that it is fiction so it doesn't have to be non-fiction There is no such thing as "hard" science fiction, only soft and less soft It depends how you define "soft" and "hard" sci-fi. Exactly. Also, there is no clear boundary between soft and hard SF. It’s a sliding scale. But there is definitely hard SF.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 30, 2017 2:20:20 GMT
Just out of curiousity, what would you say is the hardest of hard sci-fi?
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Oct 30, 2017 4:50:44 GMT
Just out of curiousity, what would you say is the hardest of hard sci-fi? Real life
|
|