Please Mongoose Fix the Vehicle Handbook

[ottarrus]

Then think about energy transfer and you will understand.
Your music box analogy would only work if radio somehow broke the laws of physics.

I understand energy transfer, but that doesn't change the basic truth that we don't know the underlying science behind gravitics. My pointis that we can describe what we would like it to do, we can guess at what **might** create that effect but beyond just detecting a gravity field we have no frame of reference on how it can be done.
Gravitics may as well be 'warp drive'... it's buzzword whoopee-tech.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

This is one of those side projects I have been working on. I really like the idea of smoothing out the transition between Slots and Spaces and dTons. Basically <1ton uses Slots, <10 tons uses Spaces, and >10 tons uses dTons.

I also like the idea of making large vehicles (100 dton sandcrawlers or submarines or atmospheric grav aircraft carriers) that are compatible with High Guard.

I was hoping to make it a JTAS article

 

[Sigtrygg]

What's wrong with cubic metres and kilograms?

Or cubic feet and pounds. Anything but abstract units that don't mesh.

If 1dt = 10 spaces, 1space = 10 slots, and 1 slot is the base abstract unit then fair enough (or any other conversion number you want to suggest)

But variable, it's about such and such conversions...1dt is sometimes 10 spaces, sometimes 5, while the space is usually 4 slots, sometimes 10π/3 then its all worse than useless. And yes I just made those numbers up for the rant

 

[MasterGwydion]

And if it has the ability the crew should not use it.

Because the combat rules in Traveller are so "written in generalities" that My take on 3D combat and the use of turrets, bays, etc, is that the pilot of the craft simply rotates the craft around the front-rear axis and tada! 360 degree firing arcs in all directions. That is merely My narrative description of the rules, since from a rules standpoint, there is absolutely no difference in how it is described. In space combat arcs really aren't a thing, so that has been My workaround, but it works perfectly well with gunships in an atmosphere as well.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Then think about energy transfer and you will understand.
Your music box analogy would only work if radio somehow broke the laws of physics.

Everything that We do not understand breaks the laws of physics as We understand them.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Correct. but there is an awful lot we do understand, can explain, use to make predictions that are correct, and engineer technology.

Without looking can you cite three things we know that will break the laws of physics as we understand them? There are also things that we do not know, and I can think of at least one thing we can never know.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Correct. but there is an awful lot we do understand, can explain, use to make predictions that are correct, and engineer technology.

Without looking can you cite three things we know that will break the laws of physics as we understand them? There are also things that we do not know, and I can think of at least one thing we can never know.

Time Travel, Negative Mass, and knowing the exact position of a subatomic particle through observation. Next snarky question?

 

[Geir]

Without looking can you cite three things we know that will break the laws of physics as we understand them? There are also things that we do not know, and I can think of at least one thing we can never know.

How about Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and the prevalence of matter over antimatter... so essentially the entire universe can't be explained by the laws of physics as we understand them. But you know, it's only science.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Time Travel, Negative Mass, and knowing the exact position of a subatomic particle through observation. Next snarky question?

It wasn't meant to be snarky.
Time travel - you are assuming its is possible, what evidence do you have?
Hegative mass is something we do understand but can not engineer, it doesn't break laws.
Define exact position - we can measure the position very precisely, or the momentum very precisly, and both with grat accuracy, but not both at the same time.

I was thinking of life after death.

 

[Sigtrygg]

How about Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and the prevalence of matter over antimatter... so essentially the entire universe can't be explained by the laws of physics as we understand them. But you know, it's only science.

We have proposed laws that describe observations using dark energy and dark matter, what we don't know is if those two things actually exist. At the moment they are articles of faith rather than physical laws as such. They are dogma, much like string "theory". Their actual discovery will not break the laws of physics, they are both needed to explain the current observations and hypotheses.
The matter antimatter imbalance is one again an observation, there are many ideas, but no consensus.

The main issues with modern physics are:
general relativity - explaining the odd things that don't fit the theory
standard model - explaining the odd things that don't fir the theory.
QFT is very successful, but can not be the end of the story, in the same way that General Relativity is very succesful but can not be the end of it either.
And it's not just getting those two to talk to each other, more and more heretics are starting to suggest the unthinkable.

During the 1800s physics was fixated with fluids, during the 1900s it became particles. Today its particles and fields - the old saying if I have a hammer every problem is a nail. The other problem is overreliance on computer modelling. Remember garbage in garbage out? if out algorithms and input data are hammers...

So no, I was not trying to be snarky I like to discuss these things.

 

[MasterGwydion]

It wasn't meant to be snarky.
Time travel - you are assuming its is possible, what evidence do you have?
Hegative mass is something we do understand but can not engineer, it doesn't break laws.
Define exact position - we can measure the position very precisely, or the momentum very precisly, and both with grat accuracy, but not both at the same time.

I was thinking of life after death.

I assume that everything is possible, We just don't know how to do any of it yet, or possibly ever.

By negative mass, I meant mass that produces a negative gravity. I apologize for not being more clear.

Until We find a way to measure something without altering it, it breaks the laws of physics as they are currently theorized.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Have you looked into Wolfram physics or Eric Weinstein's geometric unity theory amongst others? Unless physicists go beyond current dogma new physics is unlikely.
Dark matter - let's find a dark matter particle. Why? Because particles...
What if we start calling it what it is, dark gravity and think beyond particles and quantum fields?

 

[Geir]

My snarkyness was just to point out that we have a Standard Model of Physics, which explains (for particles and forces at least) what we understand about what we can observe, but doesn't explain most of what we actually observe... and of course provides no insight on the parts of the universe that we can't observe. I get a bit of a laugh at scientists who say stuff is not scientifically possible - they are correct, but they're staying very narrowly in their lane. Even for stuff that we do understand, science requires repeatability (and falsifiability) and sometimes even that is not practical. Not to mention observability.

We are like ants crawling on the surface of a microchip and realizing it is a warm 'rock', but with no understanding of, or perhaps no capacity to understand, what is happening beneath the surface.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I agree completely, and I do not consider your comment snarky in the slightest, or MasterGwydion, and as I said I intended no snark.
TL8 or 9 or 10 physics is unknowable to us, but we have observations that out current theories... struggle with.

What we do postulate though is that any more "accurate" physics must be able to reduce to general relativity, standard model, thermodynamics, Newton's laws etc.

After all, what is consciousness and what happens after death remain a mystery.

 

[Geir]

But back to the point of the thread, with Fusion+ so clearly described in the Starship Operators Manual, we really ought to fix Fusion as an option in the Vehicle Handbook. Maybe even add it as an option (like RTGs on steroids) to the Robot Handbook.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Once the djinn is out of the bottle...

by introducing fusion+ in SOM requires fusion+ in every other product, after that you will have to revisit wafer tech.

 

[IanBruntlett]

Once the djinn is out of the bottle...

by introducing fusion+ in SOM requires fusion+ in every other product, after that you will have to revisit wafer tech.

Is Fusion+ specific to SOM? I'll only get it when it's out in physical form.

 

[Geir]

I snuck Fusion+ into the 2023 Central Supply Catalogue too, but it needs to be spread back into the rest of the line. What it does tell me (indirectly) is that a fusion power plant in HighGuard has no minimum size (as in 1 dton) - it never says that anywhere, but I sort of assumed it.

 

[Condottiere]

Also, fuel tankage has been reduced drastically.

In terms of High Guard, you still need to squeeze out a power point to validate a (spacecraft) power plant.

 

[tytalan]

This is one of those side projects I have been working on. I really like the idea of smoothing out the transition between Slots and Spaces and dTons. Basically <1ton uses Slots, <10 tons uses Spaces, and >10 tons uses dTons.

I also like the idea of making large vehicles (100 dton sandcrawlers or submarines or atmospheric grav aircraft carriers) that are compatible with High Guard.

I was hoping to make it a JTAS article

The basic is there it’s only done on a different scale 1 Ton = 4 spaces = 256 slots now it’s not an even progression but it does work. Changing it to 1 ton = 10 spaces = 100 slots would require a complete rewrite of both Robots and High Guard which I don’t think is necessary