How are junction fees paid and collected

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I don't think so because the acceleration rates would change. If the speed of light is 62x higher than what it was, it would allow us to accelerate for longer to reach speeds that would otherwise be superluminal and thus violate Relativity, but it wouldn't change the amount of energy required apply that delta-v.

tlb wrote:Yes, I see nothing wrong with that. Wedges can supply tremendous accelerations and the limit has always been particle shielding, not energy budget. Sails in a gravity wave do orders of magnitude better and eliminate the need to even worry about energy.

Agreed energy is not the problem, for wedges. But power is: to accelerate an equivalent of 62x with the same mass and achieve 62x the end velocity, you need 62² x the energy in the same amount of time, therefore 62² = 3844 times the power.

I was going to post that a neat explanation for this would be that mass decreases as one transitions up, such that the rest mass energy E = mc² remains the same. Or, rather, the more complete form of E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² (where p is the momentum). If we keep E the same, ignore the rest mass, but increase c to 62x its previous value, then the momentum must have decreased by 62x. Then, if the velocity changed up by 62x, then the mass must have decreased by 62². The same calculation can come from a simple kinetic energy formula of E = ½ mv²: if the velocity is 62x what it was before, then mass must be 62² less so the energy is the same. This would allow rockets and anything else powered by known things to still work in hyperspace, but achieving the effects we know or expect to be true.

Note Newton would like to have a word: if the mass of two bodies is 62² less and they're still at the same distance, then the attractive force between the two would be 62⁴ less, so everything would just fly apart, starting with electrons around their nuclei. To keep both Newton and Coulomb happy, we'd have to adjust the universal gravitational constant too, probably a few others alongside, like the permittivity of vacuum.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I don't think so because the acceleration rates would change. If the speed of light is 62x higher than what it was, it would allow us to accelerate for longer to reach speeds that would otherwise be superluminal and thus violate Relativity, but it wouldn't change the amount of energy required apply that delta-v.

tlb wrote:Yes, I see nothing wrong with that. Wedges can supply tremendous accelerations and the limit has always been particle shielding, not energy budget. Sails in a gravity wave do orders of magnitude better and eliminate the need to even worry about energy.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Agreed energy is not the problem, for wedges. But power is: to accelerate an equivalent of 62x with the same mass and achieve 62x the end velocity, you need 62² x the energy in the same amount of time, therefore 62² = 3844 times the power.

Again, the limiting factor in acceleration is not the power, but the compensator. So under wedge power, it may well take more than 60 times as long to get to the limiting velocity. Under sails, the compensator is also dramatically improved, so there is not a problem there.

PS: This does cause me to wonder if something has been missed in the writing, because particle density is said to be higher (I believe) in hyper space. Which ought to mean that the limiting velocity should be less in hyperspace, just in terms of km/s, not even getting into fractional c speeds.

tlb wrote:Yes, I see nothing wrong with that. Wedges can supply tremendous accelerations and the limit has always been particle shielding, not energy budget. Sails in a gravity wave do orders of magnitude better and eliminate the need to even worry about energy.

Slightly less that one order of magnitude better

Short Victorious War wrote:a ship under Warshawski sail can pull almost ten times the acceleration it could under impeller drive

-- and that's purely because the 'wave lets the compensator work better.

tlb wrote:PS: This does cause me to wonder if something has been missed in the writing, because particle density is said to be higher (I believe) in hyper space. Which ought to mean that the limiting velocity should be less in hyperspace, just in terms of km/s, not even getting into fractional c speeds.

Which is another reason to think that subsequently higher hyper bands don't have higher speeds of light, just shorter distances. (From the outside the speed of light looks faster because light is moving over shorter distances -- and FTL signals are moving in that hyperspace, along it's hyper wall, so they somehow go shorter distances while still being detectable from the lower band. Now that's some Grade-A handwavium )

That removes the apparent paradox you bring up -- whereas if actual speed of light within each higher band was actually higher then 0.5c in the Delta bands would be a lot more KPS than 0.5c in the Beta bands (about 2.8x more) and it wouldn't make any sense to suddenly gain increased particle screening just because you went up a band.

Also, the text explicitly says the distances are shorter; so there's also that word of the author

On Basilisk Station wrote:Hyper space itself was best considered as a compressed dimension which corresponded on a point-by-point basis to normal-space but placed those points in much closer congruity and so "shortened" the distance between them. In fact, there were multiple "bands," or associated but discrete dimensions, of hyper space. The "higher" the band, the shorter the distance between points in normal-space, the greater the apparent velocity of ships traveling through it . . . and the higher the cumulative energy cost to enter it.

tlb wrote:PS: This does cause me to wonder if something has been missed in the writing, because particle density is said to be higher (I believe) in hyper space. Which ought to mean that the limiting velocity should be less in hyperspace, just in terms of km/s, not even getting into fractional c speeds.

Jonathan_S wrote:Which is another reason to think that subsequently higher hyper bands don't have higher speeds of light, just shorter distances. (From the outside the speed of light looks faster because light is moving over shorter distances -- and FTL signals are moving in that hyperspace, along it's hyper wall, so they somehow go shorter distances while still being detectable from the lower band. Now that's some Grade-A handwavium )

That removes the apparent paradox you bring up -- whereas if actual speed of light within each higher band was actually higher then 0.5c in the Delta bands would be a lot more KPS than 0.5c in the Beta bands (about 2.8x more) and it wouldn't make any sense to suddenly gain increased particle screening just because you went up a band.

Also, the text explicitly says the distances are shorter; so there's also that word of the author

On Basilisk Station wrote:Hyper space itself was best considered as a compressed dimension which corresponded on a point-by-point basis to normal-space but placed those points in much closer congruity and so "shortened" the distance between them. In fact, there were multiple "bands," or associated but discrete dimensions, of hyper space. The "higher" the band, the shorter the distance between points in normal-space, the greater the apparent velocity of ships traveling through it . . . and the higher the cumulative energy cost to enter it.

Thank you for the text, but I do not see how that solves the problem. If the points are one-to-one, then your transition from a given point in any band (assuming you are motionless) just takes you to the same point in each lower band and then into normal space. So if you travel a light-day in the Delta band and stop, when you transition to normal space you will still be just a light-day away from where you started.

The only way I can see this working is that each point in a hyperspace band corresponds to a point in normal space, but not every point in normal space has a matching point in hyperspace and the missing points result in travel in hyperspace being faster. If I move 10 points ahead in the Alpha Band, then I end at a point that corresponds to the one is about 600 points ahead in normal space. The hyper-generator has to fix any anomalies in the transition.

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Also, the text explicitly says the distances are shorter; so there's also that word of the author

On Basilisk Station wrote:Hyper space itself was best considered as a compressed dimension which corresponded on a point-by-point basis to normal-space but placed those points in much closer congruity and so "shortened" the distance between them. In fact, there were multiple "bands," or associated but discrete dimensions, of hyper space. The "higher" the band, the shorter the distance between points in normal-space, the greater the apparent velocity of ships traveling through it . . . and the higher the cumulative energy cost to enter it.

Thank you for the text, but I do not see how that solves the problem. If the points are one-to-one, then your transition from a given point in any band (assuming you are motionless) just takes you to the same point in each lower band and then into normal space. So if you travel a light-day in the Delta band and stop, when you transition to normal space you will still be just a light-day away from where you started.

The only way I can see this working is that each point in a hyperspace band corresponds to a point in normal space, but not every point in normal space has a matching point in hyperspace and the missing points result in travel in hyperspace being faster. If I move 10 points ahead in the Alpha Band, then I end at a point that corresponds to the one is about 600 points ahead in normal space. The hyper-generator has to fix any anomalies in the transition.

I think he was trying to say that all the points exist it's just (somehow) distances between them aren't conserved.

That you could somehow envision a slice of the hyperspace bands as a pyramid -- as you go higher it gets narrower. Except through the magic of authorial fiat somehow there's exactly as many points at the tippy top as there were at the wide base many layer below. And yet that (again via fiat) means that there are more point per km in a higher band; so when you move at the same speed you've moved more point.
Meaning when you slide back down the pyramid you angle out and find yourself much further along than you'd have been if you moved that distance without first magically moving up where it's narrower.



But even so, the hyper generator seems to indeed be fixing anomalies -- as distances between ships in a convoy do NOT seem to be subject to the same expansion and compression of distance that movement through hyperspace is. (If their distances was similarly affected they'd need to spread their formation out before hypering up; and would arrive ridiculously scattered)

So is some ways hyperspace in these books isn't entirely logically -- merely a plot device that works in fairly consistent (if not always logically self-consistent) ways to give up the stories RFC wants to tell.

tlb wrote:The only way I can see this working is that each point in a hyperspace band corresponds to a point in normal space, but not every point in normal space has a matching point in hyperspace and the missing points result in travel in hyperspace being faster. If I move 10 points ahead in the Alpha Band, then I end at a point that corresponds to the one is about 600 points ahead in normal space. The hyper-generator has to fix any anomalies in the transition.

Jonathan_S wrote:I think he was trying to say that all the points exist it's just (somehow) distances between them aren't conserved.

That you could somehow envision a slice of the hyperspace bands as a pyramid -- as you go higher it gets narrower. Except through the magic of authorial fiat somehow there's exactly as many points at the tippy top as there were at the wide base many layer below. And yet that (again via fiat) means that there are more point per km in a higher band; so when you move at the same speed you've moved more point.
Meaning when you slide back down the pyramid you angle out and find yourself much further along than you'd have been if you moved that distance without first magically moving up where it's narrower.


But even so, the hyper generator seems to indeed be fixing anomalies -- as distances between ships in a convoy do NOT seem to be subject to the same expansion and compression of distance that movement through hyperspace is. (If their distances was similarly affected they'd need to spread their formation out before hypering up; and would arrive ridiculously scattered)

So is some ways hyperspace in these books isn't entirely logically -- merely a plot device that works in fairly consistent (if not always logically self-consistent) ways to give up the stories RFC wants to tell.

But if the points are just squeezed together, that will also happen to the ship and any ruler we use for measuring distance. Yes; it is plot device, but there is no other reason for the speed of light to measure differently in a way that becomes apparent when transitioning back to normal space.

However if we say that the speed of light is a measure of the number of points that light travels past in an instant, then only having the correspondence of points go from hyperspace band to normal space, it really could be constant (in a way to satisfy ThinksMarkedly) in each of the bands and normal space. So the same amount of power to get to a certain fraction of the speed of light would be needed in normal space and each of the bands.

Jonathan_S wrote:Also, the text explicitly says the distances are shorter; so there's also that word of the author

On Basilisk Station wrote:Hyper space itself was best considered as a compressed dimension which corresponded on a point-by-point basis to normal-space but placed those points in much closer congruity and so "shortened" the distance between them. In fact, there were multiple "bands," or associated but discrete dimensions, of hyper space. The "higher" the band, the shorter the distance between points in normal-space, the greater the apparent velocity of ships traveling through it . . . and the higher the cumulative energy cost to enter it.

The way I digest that is the same as it seems most sci-fi authors do. For instance, Star Trek uses its warp nacelles to warp or bend space. So much so that that world now contends that Warp speeds above Warp 8? are damaging to spacetime. So they only use those speeds in emergency conditions.

But it all conforms to the Einstein-Rosen bridge construct that theorizes a folded spacetime causing shorter distances between two points. The more bend, squeeze or warp, the shorter the distance between two points.

That particular passage of RFC’s is solely responsible for me thinking that WH’s might also conform to Einsteinian Space; a notion that all of you dispel. Yet, that particular passage, at least, does support an Einsteinian construct.

Jonathan_S wrote:Also, the text explicitly says the distances are shorter; so there's also that word of the author

On Basilisk Station wrote:Hyper space itself was best considered as a compressed dimension which corresponded on a point-by-point basis to normal-space but placed those points in much closer congruity and so "shortened" the distance between them. In fact, there were multiple "bands," or associated but discrete dimensions, of hyper space. The "higher" the band, the shorter the distance between points in normal-space, the greater the apparent velocity of ships traveling through it . . . and the higher the cumulative energy cost to enter it.

penny wrote:The way I digest that is the same as it seems most sci-fi authors do. For instance, Star Trek uses its warp nacelles to warp or bend space. So much so that that world now contends that Warp speeds above Warp 8? are damaging to spacetime. So they only use those speeds in emergency conditions.

But it all conforms to the Einstein-Rosen bridge construct that theorizes a folded spacetime causing shorter distances between two points. The more bend, squeeze or warp, the shorter the distance between two points.

That particular passage of RFC’s is solely responsible for me thinking that WH’s might also conform to Einsteinian Space; a notion that all of you dispel. Yet, that particular passage, at least, does support an Einsteinian construct.

The text does not say that a wedge bends normal space in that particular way when moving around within the hyper-limit, so why do you think that it bends space to make points closer together within a hyperspace band? The text is saying that the points are already squeezed together in a hyperspace band before any engine begins it job. The bending that a wedge supplies is not to make the space ahead shorten distance, instead it is to push the ship. Note that a sail does not even do that, it causes the gravity wave to push the ship.

As I understand the concept you like; if you put two dots far apart on a piece of paper, then you can bend the paper so the dots touch. This might seem to explain a wormhole, but since the author has never supported that idea, it is unlikely to catch on with most Honorverse fans. But it does NOT explain motion in either normal space nor a hyperspace band with either wedge or sail (and definitely NOT with the spider drive).

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Also, the text explicitly says the distances are shorter; so there's also that word of the author

On Basilisk Station wrote:Hyper space itself was best considered as a compressed dimension which corresponded on a point-by-point basis to normal-space but placed those points in much closer congruity and so "shortened" the distance between them. In fact, there were multiple "bands," or associated but discrete dimensions, of hyper space. The "higher" the band, the shorter the distance between points in normal-space, the greater the apparent velocity of ships traveling through it . . . and the higher the cumulative energy cost to enter it.

penny wrote:The way I digest that is the same as it seems most sci-fi authors do. For instance, Star Trek uses its warp nacelles to warp or bend space. So much so that that world now contends that Warp speeds above Warp 8? are damaging to spacetime. So they only use those speeds in emergency conditions.

But it all conforms to the Einstein-Rosen bridge construct that theorizes a folded spacetime causing shorter distances between two points. The more bend, squeeze or warp, the shorter the distance between two points.

That particular passage of RFC’s is solely responsible for me thinking that WH’s might also conform to Einsteinian Space; a notion that all of you dispel. Yet, that particular passage, at least, does support an Einsteinian construct.

The text does not say that a wedge bends normal space in that particular way when moving around within the hyper-limit, so why do you think that it bends space to make points closer together within a hyperspace band? The text is saying that the points are already squeezed together in a hyperspace band before any engine begins it job. The bending that a wedge supplies is not to make the space ahead shorten distance, instead it is to push the ship. Note that a sail does not even do that, it causes the gravity wave to push the ship.

As I understand the concept you like; if you put two dots far apart on a piece of paper, then you can bend the paper so the dots touch. This might seem to explain a wormhole, but since the author has never supported that idea, it is unlikely to catch on with most Honorverse fans. But it does NOT explain motion in either normal space nor a hyperspace band with either wedge or sail (and definitely NOT with the spider drive).

As my niece is fond of saying "In other words, don't bring verbs vowels and consonants to a semantics fight?"