Okay, since my Submerged Space submission died, I had to come up with a different way for the Clan to get around. So this is basically the Clan's version of a Wormhole drive.
Tunnel Drive
Tunnel Drive
-
If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
-
Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
[Hidden Sun Clan] - Tunnel Drive
- Thread starter Nashoba
- Start date
- Status
Zack
Inactive Member
Tech Wise:
Dark matter isn’t matter, it is a placeholder term to describe the unknown whatever that is creating the extra gravity we see in the universe but haven’t accounted for.
I am also unsure how a burst of Baryons is going to trigger anything, much less how you will be able to detect anything using tachyons which won’t exactly be scattering back towards where your ship is, especially if they are coming out the exit of a wormhole some lightyears away.
Gameplay wise:
Don’t we have a rule forbidding the creating of new FTL drives?
Why not just use a hyperspace drive? That way when the next round of FTL revisions comes, the people don’t have to create a separate thing for this too.
Dark matter isn’t matter, it is a placeholder term to describe the unknown whatever that is creating the extra gravity we see in the universe but haven’t accounted for.
I am also unsure how a burst of Baryons is going to trigger anything, much less how you will be able to detect anything using tachyons which won’t exactly be scattering back towards where your ship is, especially if they are coming out the exit of a wormhole some lightyears away.
Gameplay wise:
Don’t we have a rule forbidding the creating of new FTL drives?
Why not just use a hyperspace drive? That way when the next round of FTL revisions comes, the people don’t have to create a separate thing for this too.
Zack
Inactive Member
Found it, rule 9 of the submission rules. I'm also certain Wes said this specifically in some post somewhere, or at least it sounds familiar to me.
The Admins and Staff have the right to disapprove any technology that is redundant, or overpowered.
*
Any new dimensions or planes that are like hyperspace or subspace
*
Any new method of FTL travel
*
Self-replicating super battleships
*
Godlike beings
*
Some superweapons
The Admins and Staff have the right to disapprove any technology that is redundant, or overpowered.
*
Any new dimensions or planes that are like hyperspace or subspace
*
Any new method of FTL travel
*
Self-replicating super battleships
*
Godlike beings
*
Some superweapons
Soresu
Well-Known Member
Yes, and no where in there does it strictly state, "Forbidden". If Wes wishes to give his thumbs up on this, he can. If not, no biggie it is after all his call in regards to such a thing as this. So there is no use in continuing that line of discussion until Wes comes and gives his own thoughts on the subject of approvability of a new drive. Everything else is fair game.
Dark Matter is already an accepted concept in the SARP. See the link below.
Rule 9 is not a factor as this not a new form FTL.
This Tech is already technically cannon in the SARP.
Rift Generator
This submission is how the Hidden Sun Clan go about using Wormholes for travel. The intent is to make the tech a bit more controlled, and put a reasonable method for determining the exit point. The Freespacer page doesn't provide any of those kinds of details, this also sets limitations for the range of a single wormwhole generated.
Not sure where you are getting the idea that this has a detection application. The idea of using Tachyon particles to target the exit point is not a detection. It is basically using FTL particles to travel and create a path for the worm hole to follow. It does not provide sensor data about the exit point.
As for why not use hyperdrive, for the same reasons that the Hidden Sun Clan do not use CDD.
a) They have had FTL space travel for centuries,
b) they prefer to use their method as it is not something that the ships and people they attack use, and can easily detect.
Rule 9 is not a factor as this not a new form FTL.
This Tech is already technically cannon in the SARP.
Rift Generator
This submission is how the Hidden Sun Clan go about using Wormholes for travel. The intent is to make the tech a bit more controlled, and put a reasonable method for determining the exit point. The Freespacer page doesn't provide any of those kinds of details, this also sets limitations for the range of a single wormwhole generated.
Not sure where you are getting the idea that this has a detection application. The idea of using Tachyon particles to target the exit point is not a detection. It is basically using FTL particles to travel and create a path for the worm hole to follow. It does not provide sensor data about the exit point.
As for why not use hyperdrive, for the same reasons that the Hidden Sun Clan do not use CDD.
a) They have had FTL space travel for centuries,
b) they prefer to use their method as it is not something that the ships and people they attack use, and can easily detect.
Oh, and unlike the Freespacer Rift system, this complies with the Wormhole Properties rule. Which says ships travel though instantaeously to the people on board. But it takes a defined interval from the outside.
The Freespacer version does the opposite.
The Freespacer version does the opposite.
Zack
Inactive Member
If you want to claim rule 9 does not apply (even though we were supposed to be phasing out wormholes?) then you still have the issue of extremely bad tech. The spacer rift generator is intentionally vauge because the writer didn’t know how to explain/interact with wormholes and even then still gets a few things wrong (teapots, dark energy). Rift generators were also approved with the intention of them only being for Freespacers as they were supposed to be a special ‘low tech’ race.
For one, Dark matter is not something physical. You can’t create/use dark matter as it is just a placeholder term for something that we haven’t quite yet figured out IRL.
The Tachyon beam is all sorts of contradictory. You are using it to target the exit of the wormhole, by sending it through the wormhole, which for it to exit the wormhole the exit would have already had to have been formed. Once the tachyons ‘enter’ a wormhole they shouldn’t go anywhere but the wormhole. You have no way of ‘guiding’ a beam of tachyons anywhere much less the exit of a wormhole.
And of course baryon particles, things that have mass and gravity and such, would pull a wormhole closed, preventing it from opening. This is the exact opposite of the effect you have listed, destroying the wormhole and anything inside of it.
And of course blowing a giant hole in space/time is going to be extremely detectable. With today’s technology we would be able to detect an event like this thousands of light-years away.
So as far as plausibility is concerned, just about everything in the submission is wrong in some way UNLIKE the spacer article which is intentionally vague to avoid this errors. If you want to compare and contrast the two you could say this is a new spin on the spacer tech, but it gets everything wrong.
For one, Dark matter is not something physical. You can’t create/use dark matter as it is just a placeholder term for something that we haven’t quite yet figured out IRL.
The Tachyon beam is all sorts of contradictory. You are using it to target the exit of the wormhole, by sending it through the wormhole, which for it to exit the wormhole the exit would have already had to have been formed. Once the tachyons ‘enter’ a wormhole they shouldn’t go anywhere but the wormhole. You have no way of ‘guiding’ a beam of tachyons anywhere much less the exit of a wormhole.
And of course baryon particles, things that have mass and gravity and such, would pull a wormhole closed, preventing it from opening. This is the exact opposite of the effect you have listed, destroying the wormhole and anything inside of it.
And of course blowing a giant hole in space/time is going to be extremely detectable. With today’s technology we would be able to detect an event like this thousands of light-years away.
So as far as plausibility is concerned, just about everything in the submission is wrong in some way UNLIKE the spacer article which is intentionally vague to avoid this errors. If you want to compare and contrast the two you could say this is a new spin on the spacer tech, but it gets everything wrong.
Soresu
Well-Known Member
1: I never said it did not apply. I said new forms of drives were not strictly forbidden. But would be under review and scrutiny by both the Administration, and Moderators.
2:The submission was approved by Wes, I am sure he took the time to think it over and give some proper consideration. If he has second thoughts, then I am also sure he would/will be back in here.
3: Calling a person's submission "extremely bad tech" is insulting, and bad form. Please try and be a little more kind.
4: Some degree, however minor in terms of plausibility is valid. This is all fictional afterall, and we do bend real physical laws, and rules a bit in favor of a better rp environment and atmosphere, but do try to maintain a degree of balance between the two.
5:You're coming close to criticizing canon technology (Rift Generators). That's against the rules.
6:I can't really find one positive/constructive remark amidst this jumble of wrongs, bads, and physics speak. We're supposed to try and provide positive support and offer suggestions, not this.
7:Arguing with Administrators and Mods is also a bit frowned upon. I don't mind a healthy discussion, but if the issue is closed, it's closed for the time being.
8: It's late, goodnight. And I hope this matter can be resolved in a more positive/constructive/helpful light.
2:The submission was approved by Wes, I am sure he took the time to think it over and give some proper consideration. If he has second thoughts, then I am also sure he would/will be back in here.
3: Calling a person's submission "extremely bad tech" is insulting, and bad form. Please try and be a little more kind.
4: Some degree, however minor in terms of plausibility is valid. This is all fictional afterall, and we do bend real physical laws, and rules a bit in favor of a better rp environment and atmosphere, but do try to maintain a degree of balance between the two.
5:You're coming close to criticizing canon technology (Rift Generators). That's against the rules.
6:I can't really find one positive/constructive remark amidst this jumble of wrongs, bads, and physics speak. We're supposed to try and provide positive support and offer suggestions, not this.
7:Arguing with Administrators and Mods is also a bit frowned upon. I don't mind a healthy discussion, but if the issue is closed, it's closed for the time being.
8: It's late, goodnight. And I hope this matter can be resolved in a more positive/constructive/helpful light.
Uso,
I am going to respond to some of your comments:
And if we applied your logic, most of the tech in the SARP would go away. Tachyons for example are still "hypothetical subatomic particle that travels faster than the speed of light." But the SARP has sensors for them, and uses them for communications.
As for the tachyon beam component, you said
From my page:
Also the first sentence is pretty much the same method of wormhole creation that the Freespacers use. However the freespacer article as I said did not provide a method for determining the path of the wormhole. Now given how chaotic the Freespacers are, that's probably fine for them. Open a wormhole and we'll see where it goes.
As for the concept of the baryon particles, the baryon particles are to cause the gravitons, anti-gravitons and yes dark matter to collide causing a critical mass affect triggering the worm hole, which then follows the tachyon beam. Once again this is a plausible concept. Opening a wormhole there has to be a threshold event at which the wormhole occurs. And having a targeting method has to exist or else the The Gates tech becomes non-viable.
I am going to respond to some of your comments:
First, we are not talking IRL, we are talking SARP, and I can use it because its already in an approved tech. One which to quote you is a
And any tech concept that is approved can be used by other races.
And if we applied your logic, most of the tech in the SARP would go away. Tachyons for example are still "hypothetical subatomic particle that travels faster than the speed of light." But the SARP has sensors for them, and uses them for communications.
As for the tachyon beam component, you said
You completely misrepresented the purpose of the tachyon beam.
From my page:
Now if you actually read this you will see that the tachyon beam is fired prior to the formation of the wormhole. And as for the no way of guiding a beam of tachyons, existing tech in the Wiki says we do. I chose tachyons for the targeting beam because they are accepted by science as being particles that travel faster than light. I wanted a plausible way of aiming the wormhole to a given destination, but you can't due that with particles that travel STL because it would take years for them to arrive.
Also the first sentence is pretty much the same method of wormhole creation that the Freespacers use. However the freespacer article as I said did not provide a method for determining the path of the wormhole. Now given how chaotic the Freespacers are, that's probably fine for them. Open a wormhole and we'll see where it goes.
As for the concept of the baryon particles, the baryon particles are to cause the gravitons, anti-gravitons and yes dark matter to collide causing a critical mass affect triggering the worm hole, which then follows the tachyon beam. Once again this is a plausible concept. Opening a wormhole there has to be a threshold event at which the wormhole occurs. And having a targeting method has to exist or else the The Gates tech becomes non-viable.
Zack
Inactive Member
Like I said before, the spacers used dark matter wrong, and you are justifying using it wrong in this circumstance by quoting someone else that did it wrong. In the future this will just lead to more people doing things incorrectly.
And of course now you are saying the tachyons don’t enter the wormhole at all, which means they have no way of interacting with the wormhole. Tachyons as guidance in this method simply does not work because the tachyon beam would have no way of passing any useful information to the wormhole to trigger any kind of formation. There is also no way to guide a beam tachyons that is already moving in the wiki, only for creation and receiving of tachyons. Naturally it would be impossible to guide a beam of tachyons without having other ships along the path of the beam to redirect it, something that this submission lacks. Remember, a wormhole is folded space, and does not pass through the area between two points unlike a beam that does pass through the area between two points.
This is also not like the freespacer article. Again, the spacer article is vague on details of how so that errors are minimized unlike in this article. The spacer article did not describe the details of how the wormhole is guided because it is unnecessary for the submission.
As for your statement of that this is a plausible method, that is simply completely wrong. For one, you are using dark matter incorrectly as it is only a placeholder term for something that hasn’t been discovered, though it is a common mistake to assume it is matter. That then leads to the ‘creating a critical mass inside of a wormhole’ issue. Naturally the first question is a critical mass of what? Baryons will only be putting out more gravity the more they go inside of the wormhole. More gravity inside of the wormhole, the more it is pulled closed and dissipate it. It is generally estimated that if a wormhole were possible to make it would require about a planets worth of anti-gravity to hold open. This is the exact opposite of your system is using.
I would also like to point out that the ‘gates’ all require some sort of end gate to be the receiver. This is not like your system.
Note, I am not questioning tachyons or any other hypothetical item. I am questioning your use of them. Where science can agree that a tachyon, a wormhole, and matter behaves in a certain way, you are using them in the complete opposite way of how they should react and trying to pass it off as correct. Even under suspension of disbelief this system is incorrect and can be shown to not work under any circumstances.
The tech explanation needs to be removed from this article for this reason, it is simply wrong in regards to basic science and plausibility. This is unlike the spacer and gates articles which do meet a certain level of understanding of science and plausibility.
And of course now you are saying the tachyons don’t enter the wormhole at all, which means they have no way of interacting with the wormhole. Tachyons as guidance in this method simply does not work because the tachyon beam would have no way of passing any useful information to the wormhole to trigger any kind of formation. There is also no way to guide a beam tachyons that is already moving in the wiki, only for creation and receiving of tachyons. Naturally it would be impossible to guide a beam of tachyons without having other ships along the path of the beam to redirect it, something that this submission lacks. Remember, a wormhole is folded space, and does not pass through the area between two points unlike a beam that does pass through the area between two points.
This is also not like the freespacer article. Again, the spacer article is vague on details of how so that errors are minimized unlike in this article. The spacer article did not describe the details of how the wormhole is guided because it is unnecessary for the submission.
As for your statement of that this is a plausible method, that is simply completely wrong. For one, you are using dark matter incorrectly as it is only a placeholder term for something that hasn’t been discovered, though it is a common mistake to assume it is matter. That then leads to the ‘creating a critical mass inside of a wormhole’ issue. Naturally the first question is a critical mass of what? Baryons will only be putting out more gravity the more they go inside of the wormhole. More gravity inside of the wormhole, the more it is pulled closed and dissipate it. It is generally estimated that if a wormhole were possible to make it would require about a planets worth of anti-gravity to hold open. This is the exact opposite of your system is using.
I would also like to point out that the ‘gates’ all require some sort of end gate to be the receiver. This is not like your system.
Note, I am not questioning tachyons or any other hypothetical item. I am questioning your use of them. Where science can agree that a tachyon, a wormhole, and matter behaves in a certain way, you are using them in the complete opposite way of how they should react and trying to pass it off as correct. Even under suspension of disbelief this system is incorrect and can be shown to not work under any circumstances.
The tech explanation needs to be removed from this article for this reason, it is simply wrong in regards to basic science and plausibility. This is unlike the spacer and gates articles which do meet a certain level of understanding of science and plausibility.
Uso,
First, since as you already admitted no one knows the properties of dark matter. So therefore it is not possible to use it wrong, since no one can say what is right or wrong. Just because you do not like how something that is not defined in the real world is use, does not make it wrong. It just makes it something you don't like.
Second,
"And of course now you are saying the tachyons don’t enter the wormhole at all, which means they have no way of interacting with the wormhole."
No, I'm not NOW saying it, that has been part of the article since it was submitted. You misread the article in the past and are now accusing me of changing it.
Wormholes do not fold space, "In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is fundamentally a 'shortcut' through space and time." There are numerous theories as to what wormholes are, how they behave etc. None have been proven so each is equally valid.
First, since as you already admitted no one knows the properties of dark matter. So therefore it is not possible to use it wrong, since no one can say what is right or wrong. Just because you do not like how something that is not defined in the real world is use, does not make it wrong. It just makes it something you don't like.
Second,
"And of course now you are saying the tachyons don’t enter the wormhole at all, which means they have no way of interacting with the wormhole."
No, I'm not NOW saying it, that has been part of the article since it was submitted. You misread the article in the past and are now accusing me of changing it.
Wormholes do not fold space, "In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is fundamentally a 'shortcut' through space and time." There are numerous theories as to what wormholes are, how they behave etc. None have been proven so each is equally valid.
Zack
Inactive Member
Actually, you are wrong on both counts.
It is not that you are using the properties of dark matter wrong, it is that you are using the entire concept of dark matter incorrectly. It is not just the properties that you are getting wrong in this circumstance, you just don't understand what the term dark matter means. Dark matter could just be a mistake in calculations, which is something you can't fire out of a device like you do in this submission. So I can say with certainty that yes, you are indeed using it wrong.
Skip ahead to 32:30, Neil deGrasse explains it.
http://www.iheartchaos.com/content/neil ... heart-movi
As for your second point, you misunderstand how science works in general. There are mathmatical proofs for wormholes and the very definition of a wormhole in this circumstance is something that does not pass through the space between two points (a shortcut or 'wormhole' if you will, that is how we get the name after all). So yes, wormholes, by definition, are folds in space and also by definition don't pass through the space between two points. If it does not meet this description it is not a wormhole. Because of this the Tachyon beam (or a beam of any kind) is useless for targeting in the manner you described. This shows that the explanation for your device is wrong, even before we get to scientific theory, math proofs, or anything of the kind.
It is not that you are using the properties of dark matter wrong, it is that you are using the entire concept of dark matter incorrectly. It is not just the properties that you are getting wrong in this circumstance, you just don't understand what the term dark matter means. Dark matter could just be a mistake in calculations, which is something you can't fire out of a device like you do in this submission. So I can say with certainty that yes, you are indeed using it wrong.
Skip ahead to 32:30, Neil deGrasse explains it.
http://www.iheartchaos.com/content/neil ... heart-movi
As for your second point, you misunderstand how science works in general. There are mathmatical proofs for wormholes and the very definition of a wormhole in this circumstance is something that does not pass through the space between two points (a shortcut or 'wormhole' if you will, that is how we get the name after all). So yes, wormholes, by definition, are folds in space and also by definition don't pass through the space between two points. If it does not meet this description it is not a wormhole. Because of this the Tachyon beam (or a beam of any kind) is useless for targeting in the manner you described. This shows that the explanation for your device is wrong, even before we get to scientific theory, math proofs, or anything of the kind.
- Status
