It should be EXOTIC or NEGATIVE matter, not DARK matter

13»

Comments

  • Mr_EndarMr_Endar Join Date: 2016-03-05 Member: 213859Members
    Now I know how something as ignorant as Armageddon movie (1998) has come into existence.

    According to wikipedia dark matter is just as hypothetical as exotic matter.
    Dark matter has nothing to do with warp bubble, unlike the negative (exotic) matter, google Alcuberrie drive.

    When people say "exotic" matter they usually mean "negative" matter - matter with negative mass - that happens to be the stuff required to make a warp bubble.
    Because warp drives aren't known to exist outside the realm of fiction.
    Wrong, google Alcuberrie drive. It is a hypothetical device sure, but its not fantasy fiction.
  • dealwithitdogdealwithitdog Texas Join Date: 2016-06-09 Member: 218343Members
    edited July 2016
    Mr_Endar wrote: »
    Now I know how something as ignorant as Armageddon movie (1998) has come into existence.

    According to wikipedia dark matter is just as hypothetical as exotic matter.
    Dark matter has nothing to do with warp bubble, unlike the negative (exotic) matter, google Alcuberrie drive.

    When people say "exotic" matter they usually mean "negative" matter - matter with negative mass - that happens to be the stuff required to make a warp bubble.
    Because warp drives aren't known to exist outside the realm of fiction.
    Wrong, google Alcuberrie drive. It is a hypothetical device sure, but its not fantasy fiction.
    And who exactly says that the Aurora's drive is an Alcuberrie drive?
  • ThePassionateGamerThePassionateGamer Germany Join Date: 2016-06-07 Member: 218219Members
    I am astounded that this dicsussion has reached a heated state like this. I can see both "sides" (if you let me roughly break the posts in here down to two sides) have their points.

    Does not the word science-fiction alone imply that it is partly just fiction. Some real elements enriched by fictional speculation of what might be. That alone gives the authors of Subnauticas ingame lore all the freedom they need to call anything they implemented like they want.
    For the majority of all videogames I know realism stands behind gameplay/fun. Another point which at least in theory makes any discussion about why things are called like they are ingame kinda obsolete. But for the sake of this thread and for the sake of a good argument I'll continue it anyway. ;)

    @Mr_Endar You say (if I understood your point correctly) that the name "Dark Matter" is kinda just a placeholder for a large percentage of not yet explainable phenomenon we only noticed by gravitational distortions so far. Did I get that right?
    You said also that if we were ever able to detect Dark Matter and scientifically proof its existence it would no longer be called "Dark Matter". It would then be called "Exotic Matter" or "Negative Matter" if I remember your posts correctly.
    Isn't it a common practice to call new found "things" in science after the person who first found or theorized about it? For example like the Higgs particle (or God particle as some call it) they "found" with the particle accelerator at CERN. Which before was also only real in our theory. Nonetheless that particle may be around since the beginning of well everything?! It does not care if we already know about it. It just exists.

    So maybe they called it "Dark Matter" ingame because it runs with something we not yet really know or understand but today call "Dark Matter". Maybe a scientist named Smith will finally find and proof the existence of "Dark Matter" and maybe just maybe we'll have Smith Matter Reactors or Drives in the future. Who knows? What I want to say with this is give the gamedesigners a little bit of room for their creativity. By calling it after something we can't yet define otherwise even if it is just a kind of "placeholder" for it's real name if I may say so, it is not wrong doing so or is it?
  • GunslingerN7GunslingerN7 United States Join Date: 2015-10-19 Member: 208603Members
    Mr_Endar wrote: »
    It is a Game it is meant to entertain you. The game is Science Fiction
    For some peculiar reason they are not calling cats "dogs" in any game, Science Fiction or not.

    Yes, when somebody is calling cat a "dog", it bothers me.
    So here I am, asking to call the animal properly.

    What I didn't expected however is that somebody would insist calling cat a dog, because reasons.

    SKUnpp3.jpg
    This creature will always be called a cat or gato, no matter what technological achievements we will reach and what laws of physics we will discover.

    I think you missed the point of my post. Its a Game its Science Fiction (Emphasis on the Fiction ) If they want to say the engine is powered by Irradiated Unicorn Farts I dont care. These guys are game developers not Astrophysicists . They have better things to do than waste time checking to make sure their wording is correct in a Science FICTION GAME. No Game has ever been 100% realistic.
  • waterlubberwaterlubber Near an ocean Join Date: 2016-07-04 Member: 219589Members
    Just replace everything with "nuclear reactor".

    A fusion reactor would work fine for a starship that size.
  • ThePassionateGamerThePassionateGamer Germany Join Date: 2016-06-07 Member: 218219Members
    Just replace everything with "nuclear reactor".

    A fusion reactor would work fine for a starship that size.

    Nah...that would at least for me ruin the Sci-Fi factor a little bit. I expect to have futuristic reactors and engines and not something that (at least reactor wise) we will see in every modern country within the next 40-50 years.
    Not that I don't like Fusion reactors. I think they are a great step up from conventional nuclear reactors. I still hope that we will see a fusion reactor or a more sci-fi one ingame instead of the nuclear reactor.

    I just hate the thought of polluting the sea with nuclear waste and since we slowly become more and more conscient towards clean energy solutions my best guess would be that in a time of interstellar travel we would have access to some kind of highly efficient but clean energy.
  • dealwithitdogdealwithitdog Texas Join Date: 2016-06-09 Member: 218343Members
    Just replace everything with "nuclear reactor".

    A fusion reactor would work fine for a starship that size.

    Nah...that would at least for me ruin the Sci-Fi factor a little bit. I expect to have futuristic reactors and engines and not something that (at least reactor wise) we will see in every modern country within the next 40-50 years.
    Not that I don't like Fusion reactors. I think they are a great step up from conventional nuclear reactors. I still hope that we will see a fusion reactor or a more sci-fi one ingame instead of the nuclear reactor.

    I just hate the thought of polluting the sea with nuclear waste and since we slowly become more and more conscient towards clean energy solutions my best guess would be that in a time of interstellar travel we would have access to some kind of highly efficient but clean energy.

    The only byproduct of a fusion reactor is water.
  • ThePassionateGamerThePassionateGamer Germany Join Date: 2016-06-07 Member: 218219Members
    The only byproduct of a fusion reactor is water.

    I don't know where you got that information from because as far as I know that only applies to "normal" hydrogen when you burn it. For fusion reactors they plan to use a Deuterium-Tritium mix which both are also called heavy hydrogen. I am honest here. I don't know anymore where I read it but the heavy hydrogen does emit radiation and parts of the reactor get irradiated over time and have to be stored somewhere safe where the radiation can't escape. The half-life of Tritium is "only" 12.3years which is next to nothing compared to Plutonium. The nuclear waste byproduct could theoretically be party recycled "on site" and after "only" 50 years 90% of the waste reach safe levels again and can be handled safely. The remaining 10% have to be stored for around 100years. So even fusion is not free of nuclear waste. It just produces less waste with alot shorter half-life then Plutonium.

    Geez...sorry for all the science talk here...I can't help myself sometimes when I am fascinated by something I like to talk about it. ;)
  • dealwithitdogdealwithitdog Texas Join Date: 2016-06-09 Member: 218343Members
    The only byproduct of a fusion reactor is water.

    I don't know where you got that information from because as far as I know that only applies to "normal" hydrogen when you burn it. For fusion reactors they plan to use a Deuterium-Tritium mix which both are also called heavy hydrogen. I am honest here. I don't know anymore where I read it but the heavy hydrogen does emit radiation and parts of the reactor get irradiated over time and have to be stored somewhere safe where the radiation can't escape. The half-life of Tritium is "only" 12.3years which is next to nothing compared to Plutonium. The nuclear waste byproduct could theoretically be party recycled "on site" and after "only" 50 years 90% of the waste reach safe levels again and can be handled safely. The remaining 10% have to be stored for around 100years. So even fusion is not free of nuclear waste. It just produces less waste with alot shorter half-life then Plutonium.

    Geez...sorry for all the science talk here...I can't help myself sometimes when I am fascinated by something I like to talk about it. ;)

    well either way it would make sense because there is radiation everywhere when the ship blows
  • sayerulzsayerulz oregon Join Date: 2015-04-15 Member: 203493Members
    Hydrogen fusion reactors produce helium as a waste product, which is actually quite useful. Some components of the reactors can become dangerously radioactive after a long time of use, but it is FAR less waste that fission produces.
Sign In or Register to comment.