Forums » Suggestions
Um, no, that isn't how physics works. When a new theory comes along and kicks the old theory in the nads, it still needs to behave approximately the same in the areas where the old theory was actually a valid approximation of reality. Yes, Newtonian physics breaks down at high speeds, but it very nearly works at the scale in which we live. Relativistic physics, when computed at the speed of a car on the freeway, yields a very similar answer to Newtonian physics. Same goes for Quantum physics.
It's likely that the current theories are wrong, but they work. We have plenty of tech designed around Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity that works just fine. Transistors and GPS satellites, for example. Nuclear reactors. Particle colliders. Etc. Any new theory that replaces them would have to still match up enough that the things we already know remain valid, because they are valid, or at least so incredibly close to valid as to make the difference negligible.
Thermodynamics is not something that is likely to be overthown. If you can create mass from nothing, you can create energy from nothing. If you can casually create significant amounts of mass in a simple, safe, and cheap manufacturing process, then you might as well start riding around on a space-unicorn because you're living in fairy land.
It's likely that the current theories are wrong, but they work. We have plenty of tech designed around Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity that works just fine. Transistors and GPS satellites, for example. Nuclear reactors. Particle colliders. Etc. Any new theory that replaces them would have to still match up enough that the things we already know remain valid, because they are valid, or at least so incredibly close to valid as to make the difference negligible.
Thermodynamics is not something that is likely to be overthown. If you can create mass from nothing, you can create energy from nothing. If you can casually create significant amounts of mass in a simple, safe, and cheap manufacturing process, then you might as well start riding around on a space-unicorn because you're living in fairy land.
I agree its not likely, but its possible. They could theoretically have accelerators taking things past the speed of light, and then all mass/energy sht becomes a bit fuzzy and where we obviously dont quite know all the laws.
We have zero evidence of any kind of superluminal tech other than warp technology, which doesn't actually cause you to move faster than light (just builds you a shortcut).
And I don't think you're thinking this through. The manufacturing happens inside a small station. If the materials are being accelerated to >c, it would have to be an incredibly fast acceleration followed by an incredibly fast deceleration, or they'd blow a hole through the side of the station and end up on the other end of the system. Accelerating that fast would put incredible stresses on everything involved, and accelerating that much mass would require an immense amount of energy (even assuming current science - which would stipulate the need for infinite energy - is incorrect). And then, as a result of all this, they manage to break the second law of thermodynamics and create mass from nothing. All in a seemingly cheap and trivial manufacturing process at some ghetto war-torn lab in greyspace.
I don't buy it. It would be easier to believe that they're converting energy into matter, despite the ridiculously stupid amount of energy that would require (still less than your FTL hull manufacturing hypothesis). And I won't buy that either until I see the station connected to a power source on the order of a planet-sized solar panel array.
And I don't think you're thinking this through. The manufacturing happens inside a small station. If the materials are being accelerated to >c, it would have to be an incredibly fast acceleration followed by an incredibly fast deceleration, or they'd blow a hole through the side of the station and end up on the other end of the system. Accelerating that fast would put incredible stresses on everything involved, and accelerating that much mass would require an immense amount of energy (even assuming current science - which would stipulate the need for infinite energy - is incorrect). And then, as a result of all this, they manage to break the second law of thermodynamics and create mass from nothing. All in a seemingly cheap and trivial manufacturing process at some ghetto war-torn lab in greyspace.
I don't buy it. It would be easier to believe that they're converting energy into matter, despite the ridiculously stupid amount of energy that would require (still less than your FTL hull manufacturing hypothesis). And I won't buy that either until I see the station connected to a power source on the order of a planet-sized solar panel array.
Everyone in this thread obviously needs to get laid. If it makes you feel better about leaving the sci-fi universe without your input for a few crucial seconds, ask her to wear a cylon helmet (will also solve some other problems).
The net gain comes from energy that is used during the refining process which breaks down the molecules and allows them to gain additional electrons and/or to bind to other chemicals during the reformation.
One example off the top of my head is hydrocarbon cracking which yields a net gain of about 35 percent in overall volume.
Steel alloys can also enjoy a small gain in mass as well as a loss in volume during the smelting process.
You should also consider that the materials we are providing might not be all used directly in the construction - sometimes such demands include materials needed to trade to obtain the actual materials used.(ie - helio traded for a much larger amount of Aquean) There is also the matter of shipping materials required to protect the item during transport which may in fact be returned by other ships.
One example off the top of my head is hydrocarbon cracking which yields a net gain of about 35 percent in overall volume.
Steel alloys can also enjoy a small gain in mass as well as a loss in volume during the smelting process.
You should also consider that the materials we are providing might not be all used directly in the construction - sometimes such demands include materials needed to trade to obtain the actual materials used.(ie - helio traded for a much larger amount of Aquean) There is also the matter of shipping materials required to protect the item during transport which may in fact be returned by other ships.
New suggestion thread:
Add a Linear Accelerator station! dock on one end to deliver your 208cu of cargo, then have to fly 50km to the other side to receive your completed product!
The whole FCP/FFSS conspiracy is akin to the hotdog/bun packaging scam: you get 8 dogs in a pack, but only 6 buns, so you actually need to buy 3 packs of dogs and 4 packs of buns...
I'm not sure what that has to do with manufacturing in vo, but now I'm hungry.
Add a Linear Accelerator station! dock on one end to deliver your 208cu of cargo, then have to fly 50km to the other side to receive your completed product!
The whole FCP/FFSS conspiracy is akin to the hotdog/bun packaging scam: you get 8 dogs in a pack, but only 6 buns, so you actually need to buy 3 packs of dogs and 4 packs of buns...
I'm not sure what that has to do with manufacturing in vo, but now I'm hungry.
Hydrocarbon cracking doesn't result in a net-gain of mass. Air is one of it's feedstocks, and in the vacuum of space, you'd have to deliver that too. The whole energy/mass conversion doesn't make sense either. If you can synthesize 2/3 of the mass of the thing by converting (free?) energy into matter, then why not just synthesize the whole damn thing?
Yeah, didn't say energy->mass conversion did make sense. I was using that as an example to demonstrate how much less sense magic-FTL-mass-creation made.