RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I hate to point out an error, but:
Actually 2S-S = (2 - 1) + (4 - 2) + (8 - 4) + (16 - 8) +(32 - 16)..., which reduces to 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16, which equals S, since 2S-S = S.
Of course there's an error in the "proof," X-1 isn't really greater than X.
All I did was match up the terms differently than you did, and got a different answer, which is really the true problem with treating infinity like a number. Your version along with mine shows that somehow this sum violates associativity.
A sound striker who tried to make me take damage from math would have a tough time of it :) This stuff is fun.
To get back to actual Starfinder stuff, what prevents a group from going a few hundred light years away from where Golarion used to be, and using a (possibly magical) high powered telescope to watch what happened when it disappeared? The light from that event and before is still out there presumably...
FTL travel lets creative players do weird stuff with causality so I hope some of that is addressed.
To get back to actual Starfinder stuff, what prevents a group from going a few hundred light years away from where Golarion used to be, and using a (possibly magical) high powered telescope to watch what happened when it disappeared? The light from that event and before is still out there presumably...
FTL travel lets creative players do weird stuff with causality so I hope some of that is addressed.
I'd assume that they'd most likely see some form of cosmic static during that 'timeframe' when viewed from those distances.
Wah wah wahwah wah wahwaha waaaaaah
You brought math into this!
Think bigger, think 'splodey-er... launch the Infinity Ball at Ryric!
Or, observers watching from slightly different vantage points see completely different events, thus leading to even more confusion.
Infinity is just a theoretical abstraction, anyway. It's a signpost that something went seriously wrong in a calculation. For example, let's consider a singularity. Stars rotate, and are subject to the law of Conservation of angular momentum. This means that when you reduce a star's radius by half, it's rate of spin doubles.
So, what happens when the star becomes a singularity? Its radius becomes zero. What happens when you divide a quantity by zero? You get infinity.
This brings up an interesting point. An arbitrary point on the surface of a singularity would have an infinite velocity. But then, a point on a sphere with a radius of zero is itself a theoretical abstraction.
The point singularity is formed by a collapsing star that's not rotating.
A rotating collapsar forms a singularity in the shape of a ring of zero thickness. Most stars rotate, therefore most black holes formed from collapsars will also have a rotation and be ring-shaped.
The point singularity is formed by a collapsing star that's not rotating.A rotating collapsar forms a singularity in the shape of a ring of zero thickness. Most stars rotate, therefore most black holes formed from collapsars will also have a rotation and be ring-shaped.
What about a star that has a rotation that's a slight bit of a degree off -- not enough to shear, mind -- such that the ultimate result is a spheroid configuration rather than a ring?
As far as I know, all the star material goes into the ring (or the torus, if you will) and all information about the star is lost except for the eleven values conserved according to the No-Hair Theorem. Are you asking if a star could collapse into anything but a perfect 2D circle or a zero-D point?
As far as I know, all the star material goes into the ring (or the torus, if you will) and all information about the star is lost except for the eleven values conserved according to the No-Hair Theorem. Are you asking if a star could collapse into anything but a perfect circle or a zero-D point?
That's more math than I know. But for some reason the idea of 'just one plane' of material just started bugging me, for some reason?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love that this thread has become a big physics discussion! And as a liberal arts major who hasn't taken a math class in 15 years, I'm *really* glad that we made this science fantasy rather than science fiction, so that I can answer any questions with:
**waves hands**
Gods.
:D
Your Gods won't save you when I hotwire a life boat and turn it into an improvised relativistic planet cracker.
Yes, this is actually a thing. See Friends Don't Let Friends Use Reactionless Drives In Their Universes..
Actually, if you want the science part of your science fantasy to have a small degree of authenticity, take a skim through some of the stuff on that site. You might get some ideas, and you might pick out some hilariously exploitable flaws in your setting technology before Starfinder goes to print.
So THAT's what happens to all the 'missing' Gods!
They become the drives for interstellar craft!
...shudder...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, what's the source material for this? I've read the book written by Kip Thorne, but it was several years ago. I may have read that, but then forgot it. *sigh* Growing old sucks.
The point singularity is formed by a collapsing star that's not rotating.
A rotating collapsar forms a singularity in the shape of a ring of zero thickness. Most stars rotate, therefore most black holes formed from collapsars will also have a rotation and be ring-shaped.
One could cite Wikipedia but that is somewhat bad form, so I found these too:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103232/how-can-a-singularity-in- a-black-hole-rotate-if-its-just-a-point
http://www.gothosenterprises.com/black_holes/rotating_black_hole.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4w0y59/so_i_read_that_rotating _black_holes_have_ring/d6330iw/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One could cite Wikipedia but that is somewhat bad form, so I found these too:
http://www.gothosenterprises.com/black_holes/rotating_black_hole.html
Linkified for your convenience.
One thing I don't understand (maybe I'll find it in the above links when I manage to get through them) is why a spinning singularity would form a ring instead of a disk, and if it did form a ring, why the ring wouldn't break up into multiple point singularities orbiting each other. Edit: Now read these pages, and in the first one, somebody even asks this question, but I didn't find an answer.
What if the Drift is really... the Domains of Dread?
*mind blown*
On another note, I'm really enjoying the previews I'm seeing so far, but just wish it weren't so far away until Starfinder's release! :(
|
I always envisioned the Prime Material Plan to be not unlike a mass of "foam" where each bubble was it's own universe with it's own physics. Some of the bubbles would be endless voids, others vast heat dead expanses. Some harbored no sentient life while others had a bounty of sentient species. All of this was The Prime and if you could witness it on a long enough timescale you'd see the bubbles pop into and out of existence as entire realities were born and died.
I swear I've had this conversation on these boards before but in regards to the forms that Lovecraftian entities would take. The idea was that Yog-Sothoth was the foam and could not exist within a bubble but would ultimately subsume the bubbles back into itself. An endless cycle of creation and destruction with no net gain nor loss.
SM
We have no biographical information about Navasi, correct?
I am wondering whether her hair color might provide a clue. If her hair is naturally purple and not dyed that color, then she is most likely not of Golarion origin. Maybe she is Akitonian?