### Author Topic: What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1  (Read 7626 times)

#### Daniel Krispin

• Guest ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2004, 04:16:57 am »
Alrighty now... Anti-protons? Those fall in the same category as positrons and all, don't they? Something to do with the arrangement of Quarks... charm and up and down and strange and all that weird physics that is wholly beyond me. Anyway, regarding the speed of light and all, I just feel inclined to point out that past history has rendered such absolute barriers meaningless. It has often been the case that our theories proclaim something "impossible", and only after the fact do we go "aha! Our equations were wrong!" Take the Doppler equation, for example. According to it, an object moving at the speed of sound compresses the waves in front of it to make a higher frequency. The problem is, according to the equation, this is infinite. People once thought that the sound barrier would cause infinite frequency, and destroy the vehicle. Of course, however, their equation was only too simplistic, and only applied for subsonic conditions. I think a very similar case might apply for the speed of light. And let us not forget that these theories are based, I have heard, on the supposition that the speed of light is a universal constant in a vacuum, throughout all time... which might not truly be the case. I have heard it said that there is a chance that light is actually slowing down over time. Anyway, I think that this so called light barrier may simply be an illusion dreamt up by simplistic (ironic, as I am sure they are a little complex) theories.
In regards to inertia and acceleration... actually, I don’t think that inertia quite governs the power needed. It seems odd to me at the moment, but inertia M=mv. The equation that would give required power would stem from F=ma, where a is the desired acceleration and m the mass of the object. Pardon me, that is a touch wrong. Let’s see... mass changes, so to keep a constant acceleration... all right, this is beyond me at the moment. But it would simply involve the integration of the time dependent variables, in this case it would likely be m, with respect to time, unless my wits fail me. m is f(v) ie. mass is a function of velocity; a, acceleration, is considered a constant, here, although I suppose it would affect the function that governs the mass. What is that damned equation again? Ai, whatever it may be, it has a v in it. Now, if acceleration is constant, that means that v=at. Thus we gain an equation that looks like so: F=f(at)a... where f(at) is whatever the equation for the mass at a given velocity is, with ‘at’ replacing (this assuming velcoity initial = 0.) Now, integrating this would be decidedly odd... BUT E=Fd, where d=vt, thus d=at^2. Combining these yields that E=f(at)*a*a*t^2...E=f(at)*a^2*t^2... shit, I’ve confused myself, and this is going nowhere. 1:00AM is not the time for engineering, I tell you. I probably couldn’t do this aright even at the best of times. But there should be a way of doing this. But I am quite sure that it is this F=ma that is to be used, along with perhaps E=Fd. That might actually be better. E=mad. If that can be put in terms of time, it might be possible to find the energy through integration. I think I messed myself up with trying to integrate the force, only finding that force, being time independent, would be somewhat meaningless to have summed up over a distance or time. Anyway... m=f(at) again. d=a*t^2 again. Alright, I’m confused again. I don’t think this will yield energy to integrate with respect to time; maybe just putting in a number for time would be effective. After all, E=mad, which is essentially what this is. d is usually used as an integral anyway, a difference from end to start. I suppose using time that way would be the same thing, too. Maybe a different approach... E=.5mv^2... kinetic energy. Maybe it will work better than looking at forces applied over time. m=f(at), v=at, therefore... hey, same thing. Well, what do you know. Maybe it does work. E=f(at)*a^2*t^2, where f(at) is the function that defines mass at a given velocity, with velocity replaced with ‘at’. The only thing that bothers me is that mass... I still feel as though it should be integrated with respect to time, somehow... isn’t this the point mass? The mass at a given velocity? I think what is needed is the average mass, actually. Sorry, I’m too tired to think through this now. Anybody else know how to do this? Hadriel?
One more note: I wonder, though... about the acceleration and all... could anti-gravity accelerate something sufficiently? Creating an artificial anti-gravity phenomena behind oneself could result in quite the acceleration. The problem is that gravity, of the five basic universal forces (electricity, magnetism, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity), not only is it the weakest, but it will be the last to be reconciled to the others (so far only three have been found to be related: electricity, magnetism, and weak nuclear.)
Oh, and as far as Balthesar goes... my opinion on him being an engineer is this... I'll quote me:
Second before him in years was a man of great worldly knowledge, named Balthesar in most lore. Kingly and tall, and marked with a great beard of white, he was held by those under him to be nearly king-like. But, as his two nearest friends, he did not care for glory overmuch. His chief love was in the making of things, and in the understanding of the truths that reside in and govern the world as it is seen to the senses. Little of the ways that pass under the watch of the sun was unknown to him, and with many devices he even looked far into the heavens as an astronomer, marking the movements of the stars and planets. In after years he would have been known as a man of science, but as yet in Zeal no such thing was known, and he it was that first gave birth to many of those ideals that were later re-learned by those knowledgeable men of the Hellenes (of whom Aristotle was chief.) He mastered the rules of the world, and knew the ways in which to turn them to his own ends, forging wondrous creations: a great flying machine, devices uncounted, and even the great time-ship called Epoch, used in the salvation of the world by the Great Hero, is accounted to his hand.

#### Leebot ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2004, 12:32:08 pm »
Quote from: Physio (Linguo's brother)

Where to start...?

F=dp/dt, where p=m*v
So, F=m*a + v*dm/dt
Solving for a gives a=(F - v*dm/dt)/m
Relativistic equations give m=m0/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
A lot of calculus and algebra gives
a=(F/m0)*(1 - (v/c)^2)^(3/2)

This means that with a given force pushing on an object, its acceleration is the expected F/m0 at low velocities, but as the velocity approaches c, the acceleration approaches 0. If you want to get into energy, the relativistic formula for kinetic energy of a particle is:

KE=m*c^2/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

At v=0, it simplifies to KE=m*c^2. At v=c, it becomes infinite.

Using antigravity wouldn't help much, as the most kinetic energy you could get would be determined by how much potential you're at, and you have to expend this amount of energy to get to that potential.

Oh, and on the fundamental forces. First of all, magnetism isn't one of them. If you really want to delve into it, magnetism doesn't really exist, its just a model used to predict the interactions between the electrostatic force and special relativity. So far, the electrostatic force, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces have all been unified into a Grand Unified Theory; gravity is still left out.[/quote]

#### Daniel Krispin

• Guest ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2004, 01:27:06 pm »
Thank you! That's what I was talking about. Man, I should know this sort of stuff. Well, the pure physics maybe not, but I'm a MecE, so the things pertaining of acceleration and force fall within my field of study. I didn't even remember that one could derive force from momentum, and the whole derivation...it makes sense, but it's frustrating, as I should have thought of that. It totally escaped me that one would need to account for the mass changing with velocity by the realization that the velocity is changing as well due to a constant acceleration over a time, and thus not going to zero in the derivation. I think that it's been far too long since I saw that momentum and force were so related, and we MecEs don't usually throw in correction for mass increase due to velocity (we like to keep things simple and round... a lot.) So we usually just use either p=mv or F=ma. Oh, well. At least it makes sense now, after confusing myself for half an hour in my last post; thanks for pointing this out. I suppose if that acceleration equation were switched around for force, it coudl then be integrated with respect to distance travelled to yield total energy required for a constant acceleration over a distance. Well, I suppose the equation would need to be put in terms of d first (ie. v=d/t; and a=d/(t^2); putting that in place and moving the F to the left yields... F=((d*m0)/(t^2))*((1-(d/(c*t))^2)^(3/2))^-1. Unless I miss my guess, one can now integrate this across any spacial distance, and putting in a time will yield the energy required to move that object across that distance in the given time (very handy, especially if you know what you want your average velocity to be. Say, 10,000m/s; and say d=1*10^6m; then t =100. A similar thing could be done with a=d/(t^2) if one knows desired acceleration.)
And as for GUT... I'm not really versed in that very well, but I was under the impression that it still eluded physicists, and that they were still attempting to reconcile the Strong Nuclear force with the first three; Gravity would then be the fifth to be reconciled for the Theory of Everything. And sure magnetism exists! Granted, it is simply another form of electricity (they being invertable through electromagnet coils or generators), ie. electromagnetism... but isn't that the point? They are called "5" forces, but the scientists attempt to reconcile them together and find equations that connect them. This was done, a hundred or so years ago, with electromagnetism. Since they've also done the same with the weak, making Electroweak, essentially turning those three into forms of a single force. Have they done so with the Strong as well, then? Because if so, that is a major jump. Only gravity would then remain, and we would have a single force that governs all this universe's physics.

#### Leebot ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2004, 02:04:18 pm »
Well, yeah, magnetism does exist, its just the combination of the electrostatic force with relativity. I'm pretty sure there is a GUT that connects in the strong nuclear force, but even I don't have the physics knowledge to explain it. A TOE still eludes us (What is it with physicists and bad puns? First it was p-branes (a favorite of Stephen Hawking), now we have GUT and TOE.).

The point I was trying to make with magnetism is that people generally talk about the four fundamental forces, as we can't unify these four without going into the realm of pure theory. Electricity and Magnetism, however, can be unified rather easily based on (as I said before) electrostatics and relativity, both of which are derived directly from imperical evidence.

A word of advice for any students taking a physics test: Whenever you're asked to prove something, just say that it's shown from imperical evidence.

Oh, and the equation for distance with constant acceleration is: d=x0 + v0*t + 1/2*a*t^2.

The integral equation is: ∫(∫a*dt)*dt
You need to use this to derive the relativistic equation for kinetic energy.

• Entity
• Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
• • Posts: 2778 ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2004, 05:31:35 pm »
Hmm, when I didn't know the answer, I would just say "Assume a spherical cow" based on a story our physics teacher told us. He's a cool guy, he even has an underground lab.

#### Daniel Krispin

• Guest ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2004, 12:00:46 am »
Quote from: Leebot
A word of advice for any students taking a physics test: Whenever you're asked to prove something, just say that it's shown from imperical evidence.

Yeah, well, that doesn't always work.
Quote from: Leebot

Oh, and the equation for distance with constant acceleration is: d=x0 + v0*t + 1/2*a*t^2.

The integral equation is: ∫(∫a*dt)*dt
You need to use this to derive the relativistic equation for kinetic energy.

Sorry, I'm not quite that well versed in relativity, or how it relates to magnetism and all. I'm a MecE, so more physical movements and the like are my field. That integral equation, for example: first integral yields v=a*t +A, and deriving that again yields d = .5a*t^2+At+B, where A and B are constants, denoting initial velocity and distance, respectively. That I know. But as for your final line... honestly... I'm not quite sure in what you mean by the relativistic equation for KE. I assume you mean that it's the one that changes with respect to velocity, ie. where mass is variable... but such things do not normally concern us MecEs.

#### Leebot ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2004, 01:25:09 am »
By "relativistic equation" I'm referencing KE=m*c^2/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) as opposed to the classical KE=1/2*m*v^2.

#### Daniel Krispin

• Guest ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2004, 01:29:19 am »
Relative to velocity, then. I understand. Thanks. ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2004, 01:49:48 am »
Ah!  Electrostatic force was the term I was searching for, not electromagnetism.

As far as everything else goes, it all makes a great deal of sense...and that terrifies me.  Being able to understand this stuff isn't something everyone does well, but Leebot's a hell of a lot better at explaining it than I am.  Of course, he's had more experience in doing so.

#### Leebot ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2004, 01:45:44 pm »
Quote from: Guardian_of_Ages
Relative to velocity, then. I understand. Thanks.

Actually, I meant "Relativistic" as in derived from Einstein's theory of relativity. There are, in essence, three "theories" of physics, used in different cases, each with its own equations.

Classical - Newtonian physics, used in everyday circumstances. (KE=1/2*m*v^2)

Relativistic - Einstein's relativity, used for cases with high velocities involved. (KE=m*c^2/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2).

Quantum - Quantum mechanics, used in microscopic cases. (KE=H^=p^/2m (The "^" meaning that it's an operator. If you're not a physics major, don't worry about this.))

#### Daniel Krispin

• Guest ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2004, 06:12:39 pm »
Nope, just an engineering student; the "classical" case is about all we deal with. We like to keep things simple. ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2004, 12:05:14 am »
Guardian knows better than a lot of people that anything I touch becomes ridiculously complex.  Accordingly, when I get into college I'm going to give the theoretical physics universe a giant kick in the ass.

#### Kuroikaze

• Earthbound (+15)
• • Posts: 28 ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2005, 05:49:04 am »
Well, if E=mc2 is what your using for time travel via the neo epoch, and inertial mass increases with speed, thus requiring more energy to move the object, the solution isn't in pouring more energy for a declining return of speed.

you need to remove inertia. If you do, there will be no resistance. If you can't remove it, lessen it.  As I understand it, inertia is the cause of particles colliding, if you used an energy field to seperate particles and reform them as the vessal moved, you could theoretically remove all inertial resistance.

I'm a physics newbie though, so I could be WAY off base.

#### DeweyisOverrated ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2005, 11:35:26 am »
The one problem with all this physics stuff (besides me not completly understanding those ridiculously complex problems) is that Chrono Trigger has a slightly different set of physics.  So, it must run on something completly different.

All the stuff applies fine going forward in time.  I've heard that it possible by doing things like going into a black hole, but that its impossible to go BACK in time.

#### Legend of the Past ##### What does the Epoch use as an energy and does it even need 1
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2005, 12:11:30 pm »
Travelling in the speed of light makes the illusion you travel through time. You're just moving so quickly, so what is, say, ten days to you, could be a few houndred years in "real" time. Therefore, it's no more travelling to the future then waking up in the morning.