How can we 'see' in supercruise? Any hints or official explanations whatsoever?

[evilquesadilla]

Sorry, I do need to work on my people' skills. I did not meant to call you dumb, only the conclusion you reached.

You are right about not being able to see something unless there's light, but that doesn't mean you won't see nothing in space -- you can still see the starfield around you, planets far away, comets reflecting light sources, a ship passing in front of a star very far away, etc. In practice, although vacuum has very little matter and density, it has a lot of radiation, and a part of it is in the visible spectrum. As such, we can never predict fully well what we will see in space, but we do know we will see something.

That's fine, It's better to just come out and admit I'm dumb right off the bat. I did make a pretty stupid post. This forum gets pretty aggressive sometimes, this is nothing compared to the things that other posters throw out on a regular basis. Anyway I knew the picture was a joke, I thought it was meant as a in deep space you can't see much joke as opposed to the sun burned away your retina joke.

 

[Monk]

No, energy does not possess a frequency attribute. Because we're talking about ENERGY here. Waves have both the frequency attribute and energy attribute. Not the other way around - you're putting the cart before the horse.

Next up: Shock waves are indeed narrowly defined as tangible particles travelling above the normal propagation speed of the medium. Light cannot have a shock wave as it is strictly limited to c as its upper speed limit.

Also: Strictly speaking, in a shock wave you don't get _one_ frequency, you get a multitude of them (which you can calculate through Fourier transformation).

Look, I'm just trying to have a reasoned conversation with you. The veiled snark is limiting my desire to continue.

I think we might just be coming from different disciplines because I cannot resolve energy without knowing its frequency. I can get a magnitude of energy but that doesn't describe the nature of it.

To talk about shockwaves in a more literal sense of faster moving particles catching up with slower ones, yes I concede that definition. However, other definitions DO involve changes in other physical properties. Density, is one property that you can use to describe a shock wave. In the sense I am trying to use, not in an attempt to get in a disagreement over it, we are talking about a low energy density, being replaced by a high energy density and then returning to a lower energy density over time.

I believe frequency is vitally important when describing energy because you can't tell anyone whether you have a gamma ray or an x ray without frequency. Remove frequency from that and what are even trying to observe? What do you think of when you separate energy from the frequency?

I really do want an honest conversation, I'm in no way trying to wave my credentials in anyone's face..I'm often wrong.

 

[Dogeh]

This is one of those threads that instantly cause me to quietly exclaim "Oh, my lord.." whilst dropping my forehead into my palm and shaking my head slightly.

This escalated quickly.

 

[Rhywden]

Look, I'm just trying to have a reasoned conversation with you. The veiled snark is limiting my desire to continue.

I think we might just be coming from different disciplines because I cannot resolve energy without knowing its frequency. I can get a magnitude of energy but that doesn't describe the nature of it.

To talk about shockwaves in a more literal sense of faster moving particles catching up with slower ones, yes I concede that definition. However, other definitions DO involve changes in other physical properties. Density, is one property that you can use to describe a shock wave. In the sense I am trying to use, not in an attempt to get in a disagreement over it, we are talking about a low energy density, being replaced by a high energy density and then returning to a lower energy density over time.

I believe frequency is vitally important when describing energy because you can't tell anyone whether you have a gamma ray or an x ray without frequency. Remove frequency from that and what are even trying to observe? What do you think of when you separate energy from the frequency?

I really do want an honest conversation, I'm in no way trying to wave my credentials in anyone's face..I'm often wrong.

Okay, let me descrive it in another way which describes why DCello is wrong.

A frequency describes how often a property changes in a regular manner. The amplitude of a wave, for example, changes regularly and thus has a frequency. An object on a spinning platter also passes the same point regularly and thus can also be described through an equation which uses frequencies.

The energy of a photon, however, is usually not fluctuating but rather constant and thus talking about "energy frequency" would involve energy transferrence from one type of energy into another on a regular basis. While one could say that EM waves transfer their energy from a magnetic field into an electric field and vice versa, this is usually not done due to a) the total energy being constant and b) the slight problem of explaining the difference between near field and far field.
Granted, one could indeed thus speak of a "energy frequency" but such a use of terms usually indicates a confusion as to what is described exactly. Furthermore, one would need to define it very narrowly to indicate that one means the relationship of the E and H field.

The general term "energy frequency" on its own would thusly only describe an oscillating energy, which is nonsense in this context. That is usually the problem: Terms are flung around without explanations of the sometimes very narrow field to which they apply. I hope it is now clearer why I object to this term.


Regarding shock waves: We have a term for "massive, sudden amounts of EM radiation" - it's called a "burst". You'll find shock waves in astrophysics, certainly, but those are used to describe the ejected particulate matter of novae, for example, something you'll note very much consists of actual matter. It's also in the name: "shock".

Regarding energy, frequency and gamma- / x-rays: When talking about photons, energy and frequency can be used interchangably. Thus we don't even _need_ an "energy frequency" - either one will do, because we can simply use E=h*f to convert one into the other.

By the way: Gamma rays and X-rays are one and the same - the distinction is usually drawn because x-rays stem from a machine and gamma rays are a product of radioactive decay. But they're both fundamentally the same thing: High energy photons. It's just that their source is different.

 

[Monk]

Awesome, thank you Rhywden

I see were our confusion crops up and it really is all about terminology. To more accurately portray what I'm saying, I should refer to the wave frequency of energy, rather than energy frequency. It makes total sense how the incorrect conflation occurs when terming it that way.

Okay, so I don't think any of us were talking about an oscillating magnitude or transfer of energy. Good!

Though, the distinction between gamma and x rays you've made is slightly misleading. They are just different frequencies of light, their source is irrelevant. Though, as you say, the nomenclature comes from the experiments/devices that produce them. X ray was called such because the discovering scientist used X for unknown radiation...the name stuck. Similar for gamma ray as it was a common result observed from gamma decay.

What was this thread about again?

 

[Rhywden]

Though, the distinction between gamma and x rays you've made is slightly misleading. They are just different frequencies of light, their source is irrelevant. Though, as you say, the nomenclature comes from the experiments/devices that produce them. X ray was called such because the discovering scientist used X for unknown radiation...the name stuck. Similar for gamma ray as it was a common result observed from gamma decay.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. X-rays and gamma rays are the exact same (okay, not exact, but there's a large overlap) part of the EM spectrum. Historically, they were indeed different due to the inability of early x-ray machines to achieve higher frequencies. Nowadays, there's not so much of a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray#General_characteristics
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/gamma.html#difference
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/nature.htm

In essence, you won't be able to distinguish between the two without knowing the source.

 

[OnePercent]

I'm sorry but you're wrong. X-rays and gamma rays are the exact same (okay, not exact, but there's a large overlap) part of the EM spectrum. Historically, they were indeed different due to the inability of early x-ray machines to achieve higher frequencies. Nowadays, there's not so much of a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray#General_characteristics
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/gamma.html#difference
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/nature.htm

In essence, you won't be able to distinguish between the two without knowing the source.

X-rays and Gamma Rays have clear distiction between them, LIke how we seperate Microwaves and radio waves or red and green light, They are still different and are used in many different applications.

You don't die from an X-ray when checking for broken bones, You would die if it was a 2.5 MeV gamma that blasted through your body.

 

[Monk]

Oh, weird. I had always put X-rays in an energy range below gamma, though in practice at the nuclear lab, we always just used the frequency as that conveyed alot more info. This image always comes to mind

Spoiler

I guess my view of these classifications would be considered, dated, but not really wrong.

 

[OnePercent]

Nevertheless, Gamma rays have clear distiction. Proof is our entire history of nuclear weapons proliferation and the measures taken.

A satellite for example can detect to the EXACT precision of a Gamma cascade given off of Uranium 233 state change just by being programmed with the knowledge of THAT specific wavelength which is ALWAYS given from THAT specific Nuclei.

 

[thorn-]

This thread is what "never getting laid" looks like.

 

[reese015]

This thread is what "never getting laid" looks like.

Actually I'm having elaborate conversations about this with my hot geeky girlfriend who I have exuberant amounts of sex with.

(I'm not even joking)

 

[Kigre]

Its actually driving him nuts.
Maybe you shouldnt play Games.

 

[reese015]

its actually driving him nuts.
Maybe you shouldnt play games.

You don't understand. I need to know how supercruise works.

edit: I typed that all in caps but it gets turned into lower case on this forum... that came across less funny as intended.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Then what is the reasoning behind having windows? It's a structural weakness.

Fighter pilot ego.

That, and you need visual for close range stuff.

 

[Masta Squidge]

Fighter pilot ego.

That, and you need visual for close range stuff.

There's absolutely zero need for windows.

You don't even need to be near the skin of the ship, the safest place in a combat ship is in the middle of it. Everything shown through the windows can be displayed on screens or through a Rift style hud.

 

[Doctor Axel]

Window union. They've got their sneaky, transparent hand in the till.

 

[Dogeh]

Actually I'm having elaborate conversations about this with my hot geeky girlfriend who I have exuberant amounts of sex with.

(I'm not even joking)

I don't even...

 

[DocStone]

Getting back on topic (and ignoring the slide-rule measuring contest ) this is how I explain to myself how I can "see" in supercruise:

In supercruise, my ship "jumps" from one position to another very quickly. These "jumps" happen at a frequency (yeah, I went there) of 200 times per second. Depending how far from a source of gravity I am, these jumps vary in distance, varying my speed. Think of everything outside of your ship as being like the screen of a 200Hz monitor - in reality the image is a series of snapshots of what you are supposed to see, but fired so fast that our brains see it as a fluid moving image, just like when you are seeing the game on your screen.

This is why you can't fire any weapons in supercruise, because once they leave your ship they cease to "jump" with you, and get left behind.

These "jumps" can only be done in the direction of the energy field produced in your engines, which is why turning isn't instantaneous and varies with your apparent "speed". So you "jump" then see, "jump" then see, "jump" then see. You are never actually moving, and that is why you cannot wipe out a planet in supercruise - when you get close enough to it you can no longer "jump" and stay at the last "jump" destination, with your speeds etc all relative to your entry point - when you entered supercruise at the star usually.

That's how I get around it, it's not rocket surgery, but it works for me.

 

[reese015]

Getting back on topic (and ignoring the slide-rule measuring contest ) this is how I explain to myself how I can "see" in supercruise:

In supercruise, my ship "jumps" from one position to another very quickly. These "jumps" happen at a frequency (yeah, I went there) of 200 times per second. Depending how far from a source of gravity I am, these jumps vary in distance, varying my speed. Think of everything outside of your ship as being like the screen of a 200Hz monitor - in reality the image is a series of snapshots of what you are supposed to see, but fired so fast that our brains see it as a fluid moving image, just like when you are seeing the game on your screen.

This is why you can't fire any weapons in supercruise, because once they leave your ship they cease to "jump" with you, and get left behind.

These "jumps" can only be done in the direction of the energy field produced in your engines, which is why turning isn't instantaneous and varies with your apparent "speed". So you "jump" then see, "jump" then see, "jump" then see. You are never actually moving, and that is why you cannot wipe out a planet in supercruise - when you get close enough to it you can no longer "jump" and stay at the last "jump" destination, with your speeds etc all relative to your entry point - when you entered supercruise at the star usually.

That's how I get around it, it's not rocket surgery, but it works for me.

That's a pretty awesome explanation too, I kinda like that. Also not so hard to figure out some supercruise-interdiction-tech&science for.

 

[Monk]

Actually, they did change this in 1.1 a bit.

The distance you can see in SC is determined by your current speed. I found this made bounty hunting a bit difficult in some cases. If your are circling for targets near a massive object or move towards a massive object while trying to chase a target that is beyond the massive object, you will often lose your target lock as you slow down to the point where they are out of your scanner range.

I'm not really sure of what to say about the science of it, but there really isn't any when it comes to super cruise (untested theories not included).

EDIT: Did this make it to release 1.1? I thought it was kinda off in implementation when i tried it during beta