Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests

Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by fallsfromtrees   » Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:19 pm

fallsfromtrees
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:51 am
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Daryl wrote:Come on you folks, I expected an immediate response.
Combining the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with the reality of an infinite universe, whatever can happen will. Robert Heinlein covered this in "Friday".
Somewhere in this infinite cosmos there is a Honor Harrington fighting the good fight with Nimitz on her shoulder.

Actually I think it was "The Number of the Beast" not Friday that RAH discussed multiple universes
========================

The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln
Top
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by Fox2!   » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:42 pm

Fox2!
Commodore

Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:34 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

fallsfromtrees wrote:
Daryl wrote:Come on you folks, I expected an immediate response.
Combining the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with the reality of an infinite universe, whatever can happen will. Robert Heinlein covered this in "Friday".
Somewhere in this infinite cosmos there is a Honor Harrington fighting the good fight with Nimitz on her shoulder.

Actually I think it was "The Number of the Beast" not Friday that RAH discussed multiple universes


And expanded on in The Cat who Walked Through Walls and To Sail Beyond the Sunset.
Top
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by tlb   » Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:16 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4441
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Daryl wrote:Come on you folks, I expected an immediate response.
Combining the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with the reality of an infinite universe, whatever can happen will. Robert Heinlein covered this in "Friday".
Somewhere in this infinite cosmos there is a Honor Harrington fighting the good fight with Nimitz on her shoulder.

fallsfromtrees wrote:Actually I think it was "The Number of the Beast" not Friday that RAH discussed multiple universes

Fox2! wrote:And expanded on in The Cat who Walked Through Walls and To Sail Beyond the Sunset.

If the physics of the Honorverse is not compatible with our universe (can contra-gravity and compensators exist in ours?), then I do not expect to find them in some part of our possibly infinite universe. The multiverse has been invoked to explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but it is not clear how convincing it is as anything more than a philosophical concept.

I am content to find Honor and Nimitz in RFC's books, even if those books might be imperfect.
Top
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by justdave   » Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:01 pm

justdave
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:10 pm

fallsfromtrees wrote:
Daryl wrote:Come on you folks, I expected an immediate response.
Combining the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with the reality of an infinite universe, whatever can happen will. Robert Heinlein covered this in "Friday".
Somewhere in this infinite cosmos there is a Honor Harrington fighting the good fight with Nimitz on her shoulder.

Actually I think it was "The Number of the Beast" not Friday that RAH discussed multiple universes


and then there is the Mad Wizard’s epic on how Safehold won’t end, lol
Top
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by TheMadPenguin   » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:19 pm

TheMadPenguin

If the physics of the Honorverse is not compatible with our universe (can contra-gravity and compensators exist in ours?), then I do not expect to find them in some part of our possibly infinite universe.


This assumes that "universal constants" are in fact universal and constant, and that the physics of wedges and compensators can't exist "there" if they can't exist here. Also I'm not sure we're sure that compensators, grav wedges and drives CAN'T exist here.

I'm hopeful that TWTSNBN can't exist here.
Top
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by tlb   » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:43 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4441
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

If the physics of the Honorverse is not compatible with our universe (can contra-gravity and compensators exist in ours?), then I do not expect to find them in some part of our possibly infinite universe.

TheMadPenguin wrote:This assumes that "universal constants" are in fact universal and constant, and that the physics of wedges and compensators can't exist "there" if they can't exist here. Also I'm not sure we're sure that compensators, grav wedges and drives CAN'T exist here.

I'm hopeful that TWTSNBN can't exist here.

I see no reason nor evidence that universal constants should not be constant. However I never assumed that contra-gravity and compensators CAN NOT exist here; instead I said essentially that if and only if the Honorverse physics were to be compatible with our universe then Daryl's suggestion would have some chance of holding true (phrasing it as a positive instead of a negative conditional statement).

That could be generalized to the "constants" not being universal in the following way: if and only if the Honorverse physics were to be compatible with some region of our universe then Daryl's suggestion would have some chance of holding true.
Top
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by Daryl   » Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:13 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3562
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

For me the core difference is the free energy. Anyone who understands just how much energy is needed to accelerate a large rocket into orbit, must wonder at how to accelerate a 6MT SD at 450 gravities indefinitely. Basically a perpetual motion machine. The maths and physics are handled beautifully in the series, and these mechanics are essential to the plot.
Keep in mind that our world would be unimaginable to someone born 200 years ago, with electricity, flight and much more.
I love the series, and can well imagine still rereading it in a retirement village in 20 years time.
Top
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by tlb   » Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:37 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4441
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Daryl wrote:For me the core difference is the free energy. Anyone who understands just how much energy is needed to accelerate a large rocket into orbit, must wonder at how to accelerate a 6MT SD at 450 gravities indefinitely. Basically a perpetual motion machine. The maths and physics are handled beautifully in the series, and these mechanics are essential to the plot.

I take your point about the energy needed, but is it indefinitely? I thought that all the ships accelerated to some limiting velocity set by particle density. Also I have some vague recollection that the transition to hyperspace was limited to less than some maximum velocity?
Top
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by Theemile   » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:29 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

tlb wrote:
Daryl wrote:For me the core difference is the free energy. Anyone who understands just how much energy is needed to accelerate a large rocket into orbit, must wonder at how to accelerate a 6MT SD at 450 gravities indefinitely. Basically a perpetual motion machine. The maths and physics are handled beautifully in the series, and these mechanics are essential to the plot.

I take your point about the energy needed, but is it indefinitely? I thought that all the ships accelerated to some limiting velocity set by particle density. Also I have some vague recollection that the transition to hyperspace was limited to less than some maximum velocity?


The distance between the Hyperlimit and the goldilocks zone in most systems is such that the maximum speed limit is never hit. The only time the limit is probably hit for most voyages is in Hyper, where ships can spend weeks, as long as conditions don't require ships to change band or jump into a Grav wave.

Still the thought of the energy required for ~20 hours of travel from the hyperlimit to the system planet by a 8 MT SD traveling at 450Gs of accel is insane. (2.5e18 N - just to explain the motion)
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Incongruencies in the books (yet I still love them)
Post by tlb   » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:05 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4441
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Daryl wrote:For me the core difference is the free energy. Anyone who understands just how much energy is needed to accelerate a large rocket into orbit, must wonder at how to accelerate a 6MT SD at 450 gravities indefinitely. Basically a perpetual motion machine. The maths and physics are handled beautifully in the series, and these mechanics are essential to the plot.

tlb wrote:I take your point about the energy needed, but is it indefinitely? I thought that all the ships accelerated to some limiting velocity set by particle density. Also I have some vague recollection that the transition to hyperspace was limited to less than some maximum velocity?

Theemile wrote:The distance between the Hyperlimit and the goldilocks zone in most systems is such that the maximum speed limit is never hit. The only time the limit is probably hit for most voyages is in Hyper, where ships can spend weeks, as long as conditions don't require ships to change band or jump into a Grav wave.

Still the thought of the energy required for ~20 hours of travel from the hyperlimit to the system planet by a 8 MT SD traveling at 450Gs of accel is insane. (2.5e18 N - just to explain the motion)

I found the information that I had remembered in The Universe of Honor Harrington by RFC in More Than Honor:
Since .3 c (approx. 89,907.6 km./sec.) was the maximum velocity at which an "upward" translation into hyper-space could be made, the maximum initial velocity in hyper-space was .024 c (or 7,192.6 km./sec.). Making translation at speeds as high as .3 c was a rough experience and not particularly safe. The loss rate at .3 c was over 10%; dropping translation velocity to .23 c virtually eliminated ship losses in initial translation, and, since the difference in initial hyper velocity was less than 1,700 KPS, most captains routinely made translation at the lower speed. Even today, only military commanders in emergency conditions will make upward translation at .3 c. There is no safe upper speed on "downward" translations. That is, a ship may translate from hyper-space to normal-space at any hyper-space velocity without risking destruction. (Which is not to say that the crews enjoy the experience or that it does not impose enormous wear and tear on hyper generators.) Further, translation from one hyper band to a higher band (see below) may be made at any velocity up to and including .6 c. No vessel may exceed .6 c in hyper (.8 in normal-space) because radiation and particle shields cannot protect them or their passengers at higher velocities.
Top

Return to Honorverse