Olothontor! To War!

[IVhorseman]

That's like saying "Man will never fly." Or "The sound barrier cannot be broken." No serious scientist ever said these things.

they totally did. they were WRONG, but they said em.

but i thought it was disproven that objects from different dimensions could transfer over from one dimension to another? they cease to exist in the same manner in different dimensions!

here, i'll set up a little thought-experiment: draw two points on a piece of paper. point A and point B, and make em about 5" or so apart. to get from point A to B, you need to travel 5" at least, in a straight line. since this is theoretically two-dimensional space (although technically the graphite makes a 3 dimensional protrusion, but let's forget about it for now. we're limiting ourselves to the second dimension. ANYWAYS, in second dimensional space, the shortest distance is 5", and our speed is capped at the speed of light (let's just say it's 1" per second for now), meaning that it can't possibly take less than 5 seconds to get from A to B.

but whuh-oh! three dimensions! let's make a "dimensional jump" (or at least simulate one). fold the paper over so that points A and B are touching. in third dimensional space, they are right next to eachother, while in second dimensional space, they're still 5" away. at an inch a second, you can go from A to B instantaneously, right? WRONG. your objects are still in the second dimension, and something trapped in the two dimensional world (dimensions of length and width) would STILL have to travel the distance in 3rd dimensional space. regardless of how little distance this is, the distance is still along the Z axis, whereas 2nd dimensional travel is limited to X and Y.

[Theblackdog]

I love how this started out as a wargame and ended as a discussion about FTL travel.

Anyway, in answer to that little thought experiment, the folding-paper analogy isn't quite perfect. If you were a 2-dimensional being on part of the paper that was touching the fold, assuming that the fold was perfect, you would be in two places at once -- or more precisely, two places would be the same place at once.

This is all moot as I don't really know how wormhole physics works. The Alcubierre drive seems like the way to go.

[Boomer]

That's like saying "Man will never fly." Or "The sound barrier cannot be broken." No serious scientist ever said these things.

they totally did. they were WRONG, but they said em.

but i thought it was disproven that objects from different dimensions could transfer over from one dimension to another? they cease to exist in the same manner in different dimensions!

here, i'll set up a little thought-experiment: draw two points on a piece of paper. point A and point B, and make em about 5" or so apart. to get from point A to B, you need to travel 5" at least, in a straight line. since this is theoretically two-dimensional space (although technically the graphite makes a 3 dimensional protrusion, but let's forget about it for now. we're limiting ourselves to the second dimension. ANYWAYS, in second dimensional space, the shortest distance is 5", and our speed is capped at the speed of light (let's just say it's 1" per second for now), meaning that it can't possibly take less than 5 seconds to get from A to B.

but whuh-oh! three dimensions! let's make a "dimensional jump" (or at least simulate one). fold the paper over so that points A and B are touching. in third dimensional space, they are right next to eachother, while in second dimensional space, they're still 5" away. at an inch a second, you can go from A to B instantaneously, right? WRONG. your objects are still in the second dimension, and something trapped in the two dimensional world (dimensions of length and width) would STILL have to travel the distance in 3rd dimensional space. regardless of how little distance this is, the distance is still along the Z axis, whereas 2nd dimensional travel is limited to X and Y.

Black Dog is right, that is not a perfect example. You chose the limits on those objects. There is no experiment yet to prove a 3 dimensional object is incapable of moving across dimensions other then the native 3 it is comprised of or the 4-8 it is interacting with at present through gravity, time, radiation, and whatever else your chosen theoretical model of the universe posits as a dimensional function.

If there was proof against this, where is it? If a serious scientist ever said flight and breaking the sound barrier were impossible, who was he? There is a reason why no one can answer those questions.

[IVhorseman]

Anyway, in answer to that little thought experiment, the folding-paper analogy isn't quite perfect. If you were a 2-dimensional being on part of the paper that was touching the fold, assuming that the fold was perfect, you would be in two places at once -- or more precisely, two places would be the same place at once.

incorrect! this is three dimensions we're dealing with, buddy. paper has thickness. folding them over so that they touch puts them NEXT to eachother, but there's still a very very small distance between them.

and yes, by definition, a 2d object is limited to it's two dimensions. if it cannot expand it's volume into a third dimension, then it cannot travel in said third dimension.

[Boomer]

Anyway, in answer to that little thought experiment, the folding-paper analogy isn't quite perfect. If you were a 2-dimensional being on part of the paper that was touching the fold, assuming that the fold was perfect, you would be in two places at once -- or more precisely, two places would be the same place at once.

incorrect! this is three dimensions we're dealing with, buddy. paper has thickness. folding them over so that they touch puts them NEXT to eachother, but there's still a very very small distance between them.

and yes, by definition, a 2d object is limited to it's two dimensions. if it cannot expand it's volume into a third dimension, then it cannot travel in said third dimension.

...no you're just being silly.

[feuer_faust]

Since when was science about what you cannot do? Time was, it was all about finding out what we can do, or could do!

I think the key here is the Brikwars attitude, of all things. Just because we're presented with one base set of rules, doesn't mean that we are confined to that set of rules (although we may be told otherwise by the less imaginitive). Why only work within the base framework, when instead we can find ways around and through it?

Come on, science people, kick it in to gear!

[Boomer]

...Gods I hate math... alright, I'll get back to you on those problems. And I'll be quick about it this time!

...

[piltogg]

I wonder if it will be possible in the future to create mater..... irelevent but you guy's are still on topic after 4 pages sooooooooo

[IVhorseman]

create matter? from energy, yes. very inefficiently, but yes.

if there was an efficient way to make matter (as in, not e=mc^2), or just to flat out create matter from nothing, then it'd completely violate the rules of thermodynamics.

[Rody]

creating matter seems stupid with the massive energies involved and all, what I would really like to see is something that can create and/or uncreate space.

[Bleep]

Create space? Here comes symbolic logic again:

All space is an infinite object
All infinite objects are vacuum filled and created
.: Therefore, creating space requires merely removing the air permanently from a small space.

Simple as 1, 2, 3. Space is not created in the sense that by creation you make something. Space is the absence of something.

[Rody]

I meant to expand/contract space,
like say you had a one dimensional line with points a and b they can move on this line, and are currently 6" apart, but you decide to mess with it and add 2" of space to it, the points a and b have not moved locally, but now there suddenly is 8" between the two.

like that.

[Bleep]

The points have moved locally though, unless you delve into quantum mechanics and string theory. Even though space is infinite, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no space differentiation between two points.

Say we have two points in space, one near Mars and one near Jupiter. If you add 1 mile of space between them, then they are one mile farther apart.

Everything else past them is one mile apart as well because you have scooted the two points away from one another and the objects have changed relative to them.

[IVhorseman]

not if you're bending space-time.

[Rody]

that was what I was refering to, yes.