Black Holes

posted on June 3rd, 2009, 7:05 pm

With a Black Hole you need only one Dom Bugship to destroy any Ship, poor Borg, loosing an expensive cube against a small Bug  .

posted on June 3rd, 2009, 8:42 pm

And we aren't sure how extensive the size of the event horizon is, just like earths exo sphere.

Well the sice of a black hole, or more precisly the radius of the event horizon is given by:

r = 2 G M / c²

G ... gravitational constant
c ... lightspeed
M ... mass of the collapsed object

This is valid for the schwarzschild-metric only. This means the black hole has no charge and no angular momentum.

With a Black Hole you need only one Dom Bugship to destroy any Ship, poor Borg, loosing an expensive cube against a small Bug  .

When the velocity of the object after being hit is smaller than the escape velocity at the momentary radius, and the engines do not recover fast enough, this is true. But not necessarily the case, e.g. if the vesel is fast enough and you hit it from behind.

I beliece it will be difficult to implement this into FO, but some simplifications may be possible.

posted on June 3rd, 2009, 9:29 pm

I meant the Armada2-Physik, where the black hole pulled all ships with deactivated/destroyed engines and destroyed them, so you could ram a cube and deactivate his engines, so the cube goes into the hole.

posted on June 3rd, 2009, 9:46 pm

I believe this is a little too simplyfied for an advanced game as fleetops. I once proposed a zoning-model for black holes. I'll try to look it up.

posted on June 5th, 2009, 1:59 pm

Well the sice of a black hole, or more precisly the radius of the event horizon is given by:

r = 2 G M / c²

G ... gravitational constant
c ... lightspeed
M ... mass of the collapsed object

This is valid for the schwarzschild-metric only. This means the black hole has no charge and no angular momentum.

Guys! It is a hole in the space time continuum! There is no definite mathematical equation for a black hole because there are too many variables in the properties! Besides, I think that a mobile but slow black hole is realistic, because there have been spotted what appeared to be moving black holes! So we could have it go on a certain path, but very, very slowly. Like 1hr it moved a 10th fo a MGS (map grid square). This way it looks stationary to the casual eye but it actually moves! And for those unforutnate guys that built stations in its path, those guys will lose them!  So there can be a stationary or a mobile, but the mobile ones would be small! So, Don't build where one is headed... if you know where it is headed!
[move]:D [/move]

posted on June 5th, 2009, 2:06 pm

*facepalm* It is not a hole in the space-time continuum, and what the heck does this mean anyway

There is no definite mathematical equation for a black hole because there are too many variables in the properties

. It may be time for you to check out your local bookstore (or wikipedia article), no offense, as the physics of these objects are far from unknown.
...and of course Black Holes are mobile . Ever seen two galaxies collide (well, wait a few hundred million years, and you can witness our very own local collision)? There happen to be some very cool models of quasars knocking eachother around.

posted on June 6th, 2009, 6:06 am

1. Black holes can be described as holes in the spacetime continuum. It's not a popular, nor useful terminology, but it's perfectly valid with our current understanding. In Einsteinian physics mass is described as 'bending' spacetime, the cause of gravity. A black hole is so dense that it bends spacetime to an infinite curvature, in laymens terms, a hole.

2. The physics of black holes are...interesting. We know a lot about them, certainly enough that we can describe their effects on the universe, but saying that we have a definate mathematical equation describing them is absurd. Singularities are too small for Einsteinian physics to adequately describe (the entire reason we have Quantum physics is because Relatively breaks down at very short distances) and Black Holes are too large for Quantum physics to describe. We're still looking for a universal theory (string being the most popular right now) and until we have something that can describe gravitational effects at very small distance and larger ones we won't have a definite equation for a black hole, just a bunch of different ones describing different aspects. Pedantic? Perhaps, but a lot of modern physics is looking for something that can describe a black hole completely in one theory.

3. Yeah, black holes are no less mobile than any other gathering of matter. That's one of the popular misconceptions, along with black holes having more gravity than what created them and people's lack of understanding/acceptance of time dilation effects from black holes.

Modeling a true black hole would be difficult. If it was made to have enough gravity to pull in disabled ships within a moderate radius then anything on the map without an engine (asteroids and the like) should be moving towards it at accelerating speeds. That's one of the things that always bugged me about armada, one of the maps had a black hole whose gravity well (the area it pulled ships without engines in) extended right out to an asteroid field...how were those asteroids resisting what disabled ships could not? I don't really see how they could fit in Fleet Ops personally, a realistic cosmological black hole would have enough gravitational force to affect an entire fleet ops size map, unless there are maps which are bigger than star systems. A cosmological black hole is formed from a star with >20 stellar masses (that's 20x the mass of our sun, so 20x the gravitational pull of our sun. How you could fit one of those (and that's a lowball estimate for minimum required mass btw) on a fleet ops map and not have everything but ships sucked into it is beyond me,

posted on June 6th, 2009, 1:57 pm

Agreed more or less; I just didn't wish to have it implied that we know nothing about a blackhole's effects on our universe and that we have no models 

However, what Mimesot described (and what was responded to) was the radius of the Event Horizon, which can be described in pretty definite terms (with some assumptions... non rotations and uniform sphere...grrr... getting complicated already)