If your going to come in here and judge me solely on my speech patterns and spelling mistakes, or going to feel all high and mighty by making others feel stupid, you may as well leave now. I was recently disscussing the thought of cloaking(i can remeber how to spell cloak right now...is that right?)devices on spacecraft and i came up with a semi-plausible(bad spelling also)theroy. if you exited all the atoms on the outer hull or even the entire ship to light speed without actually traveling at lightspeed wouldn't the ship become invisible, at least until light caught ip with it? or would you have to exite them to faster than light speed to make them invisable. now i feel like wang mu in Xenocide when jane is asking her for her take on all the complicated science that she can hardly grasp, you see i have yet to take a phyics class so i dont know all the complications of phyics(which i dont think is how you spell that either). that is my hypothosis on the matter of light speed cloaking. please comment but try not to ruin most of the book for me. (only just getting to the end of Xenocide)
i also opened this thread for basic disscussion of light speed properties so feel free to post you hypothosi(...i think...) on this subject.
[ January 14, 2006, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Descolada Survivor ]
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
Damnit I knew i shouldnt have posted this so late last night now noe ones gonna see it
Posted by Oliver Dale (Member # 8398) on :
Problem 1 (of I don't know how many): Unless you can figure out something that Einstein couldn't, there is no way to accelerate an atom to light speed (let alone faster than). However, I encourage you to figure out a way to do so. Not only will you get the Nobel prize, but my undying admiration (which, I'm sure we can all agree, trumps anything you could get in Stockholm).
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Descolada, part of Einsteins theory of relativity is that no object can accelerate to the speed of light without its mass becoming infinite. But as far as your theory goes, perhaps a stationary object such as a space station could create such a field and maintain it then it would bend the light around it and become invisable to the naked eye.
...I need to rest my fingers...
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
-smacks forehead- i totally for goet about the theroy of reletivity!!! ok so if youu could super heat the entire ship to the point that it becomes more than molten while still heating the crew also at the same rate as the ship without damaging them,(if thats possible) if you could do that it would then maybe just maybe there matter would become infinate, but would that mean you could warp to anywhere in space or time even instantly? more later my rides here -Descoloda
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Descolada, you need to remember that speed only creates heat when matter is present, so in the vacuum of space perhaps the vessel would not become superheated as long as there is no other matter than the substance you are using to create the field.
Perhaps you could incase the vessel in some sort of protective barrier?
Posted by Oliver Dale (Member # 8398) on :
Surely you've got to be kidding. I mean, surely.
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
hmmm..maybe but the shell would go lightspeed and become invislble but it wouldnt cloak the ship just the shell
Posted by HectorVictor (Member # 9003) on :
Yes, as a physics buff, I can say that both your original hypothesis and the second one would both be impossible. According to the equation, m = m0 /((1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2)), where c is the speed of light, m0 is the mass when the object is at rest, and v is the velocity of the object. As you can see, as the velocity increases, the fraction v^2/c^2 approaches one, and then the denominator approaches 0, meaning the mass approaches infinity.
Therefore, according to the equation F=ma, if the mass approaches infinity, so does the force required to accelerate that mass even the tiniest bit. And there is simply not infinite energy at anyone's disposal, no matter how big the universe.
As to the second theory about heat, you must first know that the temperature of an object is the average kinetic energy of all the molecules combined. Kinetic Energy is defined as E = 1/2 * mv^2, meaning that the total energy depends on both the mass and velocity. Therefore, as the average energy (or temperature) increases, so does the velocity. As showed above, as the velocity increases, so does the mass, meaning that for the subsequent increment in velocity, even more energy is required. As the velocity increases to approach that of the speed of light, the mass will approach infinity, just as shown previously. Therefore, as the mass approaches infinity, so does the energy required to increase the temperature, leading to the inability to heat that matter any further.
[ January 12, 2006, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: HectorVictor ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
About time with some1 with worser grammar then me on the 'rack.
Good job though, science gets to crummied up with half aborted attempted and "no doitisms" to actually get stuff done sometimes if you know what I mean.
Though i should note that this is generally a thread best meant for the other side of the wall, so generally make sure to keep OSC work related stuff in it somewhere (not that you didnt I noticed the Wang comment). Just sayin'
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Good job though, science gets to crummied up with half aborted attempted and "no doitisms" to actually get stuff done sometimes
Yeah, because acclerating a ship's hull to beyond the speed of light in order to cloak it is applied engineering. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not quite what I meant, just that this is kinda a concept that would require more then 80 words to explain sadly.
Posted by HectorVictor (Member # 9003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Not quite what I meant, just that this is kinda a concept that would require more then 80 words to explain sadly.
Hence my 251 word, 1212 character (w/o spaces), 19 line post, heh. I love Microsoft Word's word counter
BTW Descolada Survivor, you spelled both cloak and plausible right, the two words you questioned yourself about, but at the same time spelled theory wrong, an irony in that you spelled that wrong after just worrying about spelling a different word wrong. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Descolada, you need to remember that speed only creates heat when matter is present, so in the vacuum of space perhaps the vessel would not become superheated as long as there is no other matter than the substance you are using to create the field.
Strictly speaking, this is false provided that the ship's hull is made of electrically charged matter. When a charge accelerates it radiates energy in the form of light waves. This is called synchrotron radiation. So in speeding up the ship's surface atoms you would cause them to give off a large amount of light. Not a very good cloaking device!
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
quote:Originally posted by HectorVictor: Yes, as a physics buff, I can say that both your original hypothesis and the second one would both be impossible. According to the equation, m = m0 /((1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2)), where c is the speed of light, m0 is the mass when the object is at rest, and v is the velocity of the object. As you can see, as the velocity increases, the fraction v^2/c^2 approaches one, and then the denominator approaches 0, meaning the mass approaches infinity.
Therefore, according to the equation F=ma, if the mass approaches infinity, so does the force required to accelerate that mass even the tiniest bit. And there is simply not infinite energy at anyone's disposal, no matter how big the universe.
As to the second theory about heat, you must first know that the temperature of an object is the average kinetic energy of all the molecules combined. Kinetic Energy is defined as E = 1/2 * mv^2, meaning that the total energy depends on both the mass and velocity. Therefore, as the average energy (or temperature) increases, so does the velocity. As showed above, as the velocity increases, so does the mass, meaning that for the subsequent increment in velocity, even more energy is required. As the velocity increases to approach that of the speed of light, the mass will approach infinity, just as shown previously. Therefore, as the mass approaches infinity, so does the energy required to increase the temperature, leading to the inability to heat that matter any further.
I dont even know what half of that ment, Stop making me feel like Wang-mu!!!!
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Descolada, you need to remember that speed only creates heat when matter is present, so in the vacuum of space perhaps the vessel would not become superheated as long as there is no other matter than the substance you are using to create the field.
Strictly speaking, this is false provided that the ship's hull is made of electrically charged matter. When a charge accelerates it radiates energy in the form of light waves. This is called synchrotron radiation. So in speeding up the ship's surface atoms you would cause them to give off a large amount of light. Not a very good cloaking device!
Well see you could just totally blind the enemy Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
Ok new theory! Dark matter should it really exist could be used in some way. Like say the ship projected a magnetic field that would draw the dark matter to it thus making the ship blend with the darkness of space, the only time this would not work, (if its plausible) is when the ship passed in front of a star that the obsever was looking at. Also the hull would have to be electricly charged....right? You know to keep the darkmatter from leaving the ships hull, and to turn off the cloak you would turn off the power that is electricly charging the hull, Oh and once the hull is covered the field would be switched off so your not constantly gathering dark matter. Ok feel free to bash this one to bits too.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Descolada Survivor: Ok new theory! Dark matter should it really exist could be used in some way. Like say the ship projected a magnetic field that would draw the dark matter to it thus making the ship blend with the darkness of space, the only time this would not work, (if its plausible) is when the ship passed in front of a star that the obsever was looking at. Also the hull would have to be electricly charged....right? You know to keep the darkmatter from leaving the ships hull, and to turn off the cloak you would turn off the power that is electricly charging the hull, Oh and once the hull is covered the field would be switched off so your not constantly gathering dark matter. Ok feel free to bash this one to bits too.
*Sigh*
OK, let's humor you and stipulate that:
1.) Dark matter is uniformly distributed throughout space & thus available for use.
2.) Dark matter comes in bits small enough to fit on the ship's hull.
3.) Dark matter is actually, literally dark.
4.) Dark matter is magnetic, in order to be affected by your proposed magnetic field.
Now, having made all of these assumptions, what stealthy advantage would a ship coated with dark matter have over a ship that is simply painted flat black?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Descolada, maybe we should just let Hector :winks: take over this topic and educate us about how stupid and ignorent we are. But then again maybe he is just angry that you thought to question the possability of such technology before he did. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually, I'ld think it would just be better to paint a ship black with DRADUS absorbing paint. Hiding heat would be harder depending on the propulsion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Dark matter should it really exist could be used in some way. Like say the ship projected a magnetic field that would draw the dark matter to it thus making the ship blend with the darkness of space
*laugh* You know, this is really cute. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:perhaps a stationary object such as a space station could create such a field and maintain it then it would bend the light around it and become invisable to the naked eye.
Hmmm...I kinda like this idea...perhaps something that has enough mass that its gravity bends the light behind it, much like a star bends the light passing it, enough that the light behind it curves all the way to the other side so that the original object isn't even seen. Of course, there are many problems with this idea that render it both impractical and unlikely, but I figured I'd mention it considering some of the other ideas posted here.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dark matter is considered "dark" because it doesn't seem to react with anything, which makes it nearly impossible (and currently definitely impossible) to view directly (we can only infer it due to gravitational effects).
Therefore, trying to attract it to a ship would fail, since it is highly resistant to forces of attraction/repulsion.
-Bok
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
so your saying.....its somewhat plausible and painting a ship flat black would be good but you'd have to find the exact tone of black that is "space" or you would still stick out like a sore thumb
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
I love the fact that i am so ingnorant but i keep comming up with heinous ideas that make all of you think so you can disprove my theories like i said before please post your own theories, id love to not be the one disproved for a change
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
another idea could be a hull thats set up so its like a chamleion(spelling-cringe-). BTW does anyone know how chamleion does that, i think they take in their surrounding and there blood vessels change pressure to change colors to match the background
Posted by BlueBambue (Member # 8656) on :
a chameleon doestn't change color to blend in with its surroundings. It changes color when it is frightened or has some other strong emotion.
Posted by MrMojoDriver (Member # 8852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Descolada Survivor: -smacks forehead- i totally for goet about the theroy of reletivity!!! ok so if youu could super heat the entire ship to the point that it becomes more than molten while still heating the crew also at the same rate as the ship without damaging them,(if thats possible) if you could do that it would then maybe just maybe there matter would become infinate, but would that mean you could warp to anywhere in space or time even instantly? more later my rides here -Descoloda
Your "theory" has more holes than swiss cheese.
one example, traveling at the speed of light does NOT mean instantaneous travel, light moves at a finite speed.
and what the hell does heating matter have to do with vectors? Plasma has nothing to do with causing locomotion, even less to do with traveling at the speed of light.
I suggest you pic up some books on physics or atleast some really good sci-fi cause you could not be more off...
Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
also the speed of light is constant within any frame of reffernce. I don't know why you think light would have to "catch up" to a ship traveling at a relitivistic speed.
Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
the only way i could see a cloaking device is if the hull were made of a hyper conductive substance that could conduct light particles impacting one side directly to the other side. rendering the ship transparent.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Your "theory" has more holes than swiss cheese.
one example, traveling at the speed of light does NOT mean instantaneous travel, light moves at a finite speed.
and what the hell does heating matter have to do with vectors? Plasma has nothing to do with causing locomotion, even less to do with traveling at the speed of light.
I suggest you pic up some books on physics or atleast some really good sci-fi cause you could not be more off...
Well, that's one way to refute his theory.
...or you could politely suggest a good book or webpage that explains some of the basic principles of modern physics.
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrMojoDriver:
quote:Originally posted by Descolada Survivor: -smacks forehead- i totally for goet about the theroy of reletivity!!! ok so if youu could super heat the entire ship to the point that it becomes more than molten while still heating the crew also at the same rate as the ship without damaging them,(if thats possible) if you could do that it would then maybe just maybe there matter would become infinate, but would that mean you could warp to anywhere in space or time even instantly? more later my rides here -Descoloda
Your "theory" has more holes than swiss cheese.
one example, traveling at the speed of light does NOT mean instantaneous travel, light moves at a finite speed.
and what the hell does heating matter have to do with vectors? Plasma has nothing to do with causing locomotion, even less to do with traveling at the speed of light.
I suggest you pic up some books on physics or atleast some really good sci-fi cause you could not be more off...
Im only a freshman in highschool, go away, just because i dont fully understand the theory of reletivity, or phyics dosent mean Im an idiot
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
DS, don't worry about him. He's just trying to be funny or clever or both.
Posted by HectorVictor (Member # 9003) on :
DS, it's good that you are using your brain and your curiosity to develop such theses. Some people are just overly arrogant and simply care about proving their superiority over their newly created "underlings." Let me just tell you that I am not one of those people. I am a junior in high school and have read many articles in Discover magazine and some short books about relativity, and thus I understand it to its peak. The reason I post here is to help advance the knowledge of aspiring young physicists like yourself who are eager for knowledge.
With that said, here is a theory of my own about string theory (assuming that it is true) that attempts to explain gravity:
There are two types of strings: space strings and matter strings. There is a force that attracts matter and space strings to each other. So, if matter exists in a certain spot, the space strings around it are attracted, so as they condense towards the matter, the area around the matter is less dense of strings, because the strings that were right next to the matter become part of the matter. Try to envision this kind of like when you might have a bedsheet spread taut on a flat bed and you start to ball up the sheet in the middle, causing the other sides to move. The only difference here is that in my theory, the corners of the "sheet" would be attatched to the corners of the bed, causing the sheet to stretch instead of simply move. As a result, space is less dense around matter, causing matter to seemingly accelerate as it moves through less space in the same amount of time. The distribution of the space strings has to do with the distance away from the object, in a direct proportion to the inverse of that distance squared (just like the equation for gravity).
I hope someone has the visual capabilities to picture that, otherwise I posted that for nothing Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
Thanks for that Hektor.
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
-Holds "physics for dummies" high above he head in triumph- Ha! Just picked this and a few other things up at the book store so I can stop feeling so stupid...I hope. anyway yeah I got that and the "How To Write Science Fiction & Fantasy" by OSC, and it was weird becuase I just picked up a random book off the shelf and it happened to be by OSC and it happened to be a book I could use, it was like some kind of Omen
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
There are real world wrap around projection type cloaks in the works now. Basically the object cloaked shows a picture of whatever is behind it in all dirrections. Very simple really but probably detectable in several simple ways, such as sonar, infra-red and radio wave emission.
The hardest thing to understand from outside science is that it is not magic. You cannot just do anything you want, (like RA Salvatore writting a Star Wars Novel)
One idea you have not thrown out is to somehow coat a ship with the material from a neutron star, it is dense enough that local gravity might bend light around the hull, much would depend on the shape of course. I know of no reason why such matter should decay even if spread very thin.
It would be interesting to know what physical properties small quantities of it have, surely neutron stars have collided with such speed as to shatter each other and send pieces every which way...
Should be a way to figure how much of it is in our solar system and what impact it might have as a catalyst for fusion or as the core of planets... Hmmm
BC
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Descolada Survivor: Im only a freshman in highschool, go away, just because i dont fully understand the theory of reletivity, or phyics dosent mean Im an idiot.
It is not physics that is causing people to treat you as though you were slightly retarded, but rather your language. You know how someone can look quite normal until they open their mouth and begin to talk baby language? On the Internet you cannot be judged by your looks. And you, comrade, talk like a four-year-old. If you want to be treated as an intellectual equal, the first step is to show enough respect to proofread your posts. Why should we bother to decode your highly idiosyncratic code when there are plenty of literate, informed posters on this board?
quote:One idea you have not thrown out is to somehow coat a ship with the material from a neutron star, it is dense enough that local gravity might bend light around the hull, much would depend on the shape of course. I know of no reason why such matter should decay even if spread very thin.
Um, no. The reason being, once you take it out of the neutron star, it does not retain its density. You are perhaps thinking of that oft-quoted statistic, 'a teaspoonful would weight X million tons'; well, it's wrong. A teaspoonful would not have sufficient gravity by itself to remain together; the degenerate particles would instantly fly apart to their more normal separation distance.
A neutron star is a balancing act between opposing pressures : Gravity inwards, and Pauli degeneracy pressure outwards. Remove the gravity, and boom - you have a very rapidly expanding cloud of gas.
quote:I hope someone has the visual capabilities to picture that, otherwise I posted that for nothing.
You posted it for nothing in any case, because you did not include any math. So it is totally meaningless in terms of describing string physics. Also, when you do develop the math, be careful not to contradict general relativity.
quote:ok so if youu could super heat the entire ship to the point that it becomes more than molten while still heating the crew also at the same rate as the ship without damaging them,(if thats possible) if you could do that it would then maybe just maybe there matter would become infinate
Well, ok, in principle you can punch energy into a ship until its energy density becomes arbitrarily high, which is what is usually meant by 'infinite'. At that point, you have created a black hole, which promptly collapses under its own weight. This is not the same as warping to anywhere you want to be.
Also, you have got the causation seriously backwards, here. Trying to accelerate up to lightspeed requires infinite energy. That is not the same as saying infinite energy accelerates you to lightspeed.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Once overcome why would the force return? or what stronger short range force might exist to help it retain cohesion and structure? after all the local gravitational force must be very high as well in any sample. How much more is it on the star itself? I think I need to see the forces modeled before I assume that it just flies apart into neutron particles if fractured.
BC
[ January 14, 2006, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Descolada Survivor: Im only a freshman in highschool, go away, just because i dont fully understand the theory of reletivity, or phyics dosent mean Im an idiot.
It is not physics that is causing people to treat you as though you were slightly retarded, but rather your language. You know how someone can look quite normal until they open their mouth and begin to talk baby language? On the Internet you cannot be judged by your looks. And you, comrade, talk like a four-year-old.
Have you ever spoken to a four-year-old?Go talk to one and tell me a I speak in exactly the same speech and word patterns. Please do, because I'd love to know that I speak exactly the same way as my brother. Have you ever heard a four-year-old use the word "physics" or "Hypothosis"? I sure as hell haven't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Hypothesis." Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I used them when I was four, but hey... Maybe you just need one of those grammer and spelling checker thingamabobs, it is kind of a local standard here unlike most of the web where you have to decipher letters in place of words and such. Half the reason I stay is because most of the people here are at least literate. I have pretty poor spelling myself and can feel your pain, but it is an easy fix and will back the dogs off you so you can stay and maybe learn a thing or two. God knows most of the people here are as dull as mud despite being bright enough to spell and talk good.
BC
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Hypothesis."
Ok now your trying to piss me off
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Descolada Survivor: Have you ever spoken to a four-year-old? Go talk to one and tell me a I speak in exactly the same speech and word patterns. Please do, because I'd love to know that I speak exactly the same way as my brother. Have you ever heard a four-year-old use the word "physics" or "Hypothosis"? I sure as hell haven't.
Now, that's much better already. Thank you.
It would perhaps have been more accurate to say 'you type like a four-year-old talks'. That is, fast, unceasingly, never stopping to think, and completely unconcerned with whether your listener understands your message, or has to concentrate to understand what you refer to.
I chose four years because that is the age when people develop a model of otherness; that is, when they first come to understand that others do not automatically have the same information as themselves. So a three-year old will go 'coo' in the expectation that her mother will understand 'cookie', and become frustrated when her mother asks for an explanation. Or, in your case, you typed almost completely without grammar or punctuation, because you assumed that others would decode the resulting garbage as easily as you do while composing it. (Or possibly you just didn't care whether others could understand you; that would be rude rather than ignorant, so I assume the latter.)
quote:Once overcome why would the force return?
Consider a spring. Compress it. You have 'overcome' the force that was holding it in the previous position, yes? Does it return when you let go? Pauli exclusion is exactly similar.
quote:Or what stronger short range force might exist to help it retain cohesion and structure?
If we are sticking to known forces, there is strong, weak, and electromagnetic. Of these the strong force is the strongest, hence the name. And the strong force is just not enough to hold together nuclei of more than 300 or so nucleons; it's been tried. You get elements with half-lives on the order of milliseconds, if that.
quote:after all the local gravitational force must be very high as well in any sample.
Indeed they must not. A ton of degenerate matter may only occupy a pinhead or so, but it still masses exactly a ton. You should note that only stars above a certain mass become neutron stars; that's because you require a certain critical amount before the Pauli pressure can be overcome.
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
The fact that I dont think out every single aspect of all my writing is dew in part to the fact that I am merely commenting on a subject that intrests me, not thinking that anyone would care that much to read every single part of my speech and figure out where I went wrong with spelling and grammar only to turn around and use it to make an assumtion about my intelligence. And the fact that most of my comments are quickly typed while the teacher is not looking, therefore I have almost no time to edit and think about every single part of my comment. So please continue ridaculing my writing style and how I type if it makes you feel more intelligent for doing so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, I can feel my IQ draining out just looking at your posts.
quote:not thinking that anyone would care that much to read every single part of my speech
Quite right. This being so, I believe I shall take my leave of this conversation.
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Actually, I can feel my IQ draining out just looking at your posts.
quote:not thinking that anyone would care that much to read every single part of my speech
Quite right. This being so, I believe I shall take my leave of this conversation.
What a dick
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Relax, KOM calls me a Hoi2 playing newb all the time, he posts very interesting subject matter and I completely like your ideas for it shows a certain amount of thought, whether or not they're ocrrect is irrelevent its the thought and effort that counts.
Also I have generally bad spelling and grammar.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The thing to remember about cloaking devices is that they are fooling sensors, not reality. Know the nature of the sensor and you know to fool it.
Basically, ever act of "stealth" is managing the size of the signature that the vessel presents to the things that detect it. If the sensors look for heat, you make the vessel look the same temperature as the background. If they detect visible light, you project the background to the front of the ship. If they detect magnetic disturbances, you create a field that cancels the distortion from the ship moving through the existing background field.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I got ticked at the petty attacks on a freshman high school student whom I happen to respect greatly after reading his theories, they are very insightful and extremely valid. A theory is there for the singular purpose of being disproven and as such, NO ONE should attach the one who provides the theory. I have to ask all of ye who stated that “I am better than you because I type better than you“, were you posturing the potential uses of dark matter and molecular acceleration in the field of visual and physical phenomena at that age? I didn’t think so. I am currently a Junior in High School and taking an AP Physics class and I believe that his initial theory is accurate to a degree. I think he is asking whether one could "coat" an object with a material that sensors using the visible spectrum as a base could not detect. And the answer is yes, you could. His dark matter theory is also insightful, with a connection. Due to the fact that we do not currently know the qualitative reaction of dark matter to physical manipulation I will assume it acts like latex paint. You paint on the dark matter and you have the perfectly cloaked object. You would be able to "see" it because it would only block out all stimuli, and not reproduce all of the light or heat behind it (think black speck on white shirt, the black does not reflect light, so you notice the void made by lack of contrast on the reflective shirt.) but it would be similar in concept to the stealth bomber. The stealth bomber works by not reflecting any of the radar waves back at the receiving station, and since dark matter does not reflect anything, it would be perfect for anti-tracking coating. So it is in fact logical. His initial theory that you could alter the molecules is also relatively accurate, in concept. If you could somehow alter the molecular particles so that they did not reflect the light, heat, whatever, back at the sensor you would have an effective cloaking device.
I will now attack and berate those who attacked and berated him.
King of Men- I don’t know your age or skill level but you are acting like an absolute child, his typing manner has nothing to do with his intelligence and if you don’t have the patience to analyze his work then why should anyone else listen to your inane bull hocky? You are a person who I would classify as having a high PDI level, as ascertained by strategist Geert Hofsteede. This would indicate that you feel you are “better” than others, and you have the “my way, or the highway” outlook. Your way is not the only way, your grammar is not perfect grammar, you are in deed as well as in fact, faulty. Ah yes, the neutron star hypothesis, you are assuming that the neutron star’s material will not retain density away from that gravity, its composition may cause it to retain that. Not to mention the light speed-infinite energy causal analysis. If you have infinite energy, all of the particles will be moving with infinite motion and thus, speed, I.e. atleast light speed. So don’t attack anyone else based on your own subjective views, it is pathetic. So should I act as if you are slightly retarded? Your understanding of Descolada’s overall message was.
Mr Mojo Driver- No need to attack him, and plasma does indeed cause locomotion. (seeing as its one of the most active high-energy things you will ever hear of.)
Here are some of my questions. (not attacks) HectorVictor- I indeed respect your views and actions and I do understand what you posted but that may be due to the fact that I am a High School Junior taking (probably) the same classes. I think you may want to simplify it however.
Irregardless- A ship coated with dark matter could not be tracked by any device on earth. The only way it could be tracked would be at light speed by tracking the disappearance of stars and other radiation behind the ship. (Note: I am using light speed due to the fact that light is the most easily detectable wavelength.)
And my theory in response to Hector, I think you theory is very accurate and I will think about it in depth, I herein offer my own theory. Dark energy, which theoretically exists every where is constantly active, with particles pushing every which way. When a mass exists, the particles hit it from all sides, and it does not move. When another mass is introduced, the number of particles between the two masses is less, because as the particles are bouncing off the masses the particles which would have continued through space and caused x mass to maintain stability are deflected by y mass, so x mass moves in the direction of y mass. I do not think I explained this well but feel free to email me at gecko_9999@yahoo.com if you would like further explanation. I think that this is similar to your theory, especially if you simply replace dark energy with the strings.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
And on a less academic note.
you are a dumb jerk King of Men.
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
You RunningBear are the savior of noobs, thank you for saying that, because that guy was being a total jackass(KoM).
Posted by HectorVictor (Member # 9003) on :
First off, thank you RunningBear for your opinion on King of Men. There is no reason for someone to act the way that he did, bashing others to try to establish his "dominance" over those trying to learn a bit about something. If you bash people all the time, and scare them all off with your "superior" knowledge, what good are you doing for the scientific community? Science is about the spread of information and knowledge, and by inhibiting that, you can not call yourself a proponent of what you preach, as you are contradicting the very concept of it in the first place.
Secondly, to RunningBear: I may be mistaken, but doesn't some infrared light get transmitted through dark matter? If not, wouldn't we have huge discrepancies in the galaxies that we observe, portions being blocked out because of our inability to penetrate the dark matter that is said to make up something like 80% of the universe?
In response to your theory, I do enjoy that one much more; I think Occam's Razor should definitely prevail in this argument. The only reason I made things so complicated by using all the relativistic equations when explaining about Descolada's theories is because I was hoping to have pleased people like KoM who are out for nothing but proving people wrong to establish their own self-confidence. At the same time though, I was hoping to "pull an Einstein" and try to make it so anyone could understand.
I guess I was a little too mathematically arrogant, myself.
Posted by HectorVictor (Member # 9003) on :
Oh, and the spacecraft Stardust, which took samples of the comet Wild 2 and other regions of space, will enter Earth's atmosphere in about 1 hour and 15 minutes, and will touch down in 1 hour and 30 minutes. It will be the fastest manmade object to enter Earth's atmosphere, going 46,440 km/hr. It has traveled over 4.5 billion kilometers (2.88 billion miles). To compare the Earth orbits the sun at about 150 million kilometers (or about 93 million miles).
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
Jeebus, I wonder if it will be on tv, but i highly doubt it
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Thank you for the responses, and I believe that the reason the existence of dark matter was originally thought of was due to the fact that discrepancies were being observed. I may be wrong, but I have read that several astronomers working amidst several telescopes were noticing parts of the universe that were "blocked out" by something. my physics teacher has told me that the reason dark matter is not taught is because it absorbs everything, and as such, we cannot detect it. we can only tell that we cannot see portions of the galaxy and universe. That is not exactly clear... I will have to do some research on dark matter and reply again.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:we can only tell that we cannot see portions of the galaxy and universe.
No. Basically, the idea behind dark matter is this: the universe is not behaving the way it should behave if it had as much mass as we can see and if we correctly understand the laws of motion.
Ergo, either there's a lot of mass out there which we can't see -- called "dark matter" because we can't see it -- or we don't correctly understand the laws of motion.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:There is no reason for someone to act the way that he did, bashing others to try to establish his "dominance" over those trying to learn a bit about something.
It's not about dominance. It's about consideration for others. We've had this argument here about a dozen times -- that is, whether or not policing someone's grammar and punctuation is in poor taste. Some people feel it's not of your business how someone else writes, and some feel that to post something that's riddled with holes, misspellings, and broken grammar is rude and inconsiderate.
KoM was just trying to clue you in to the fact that, whether you like it or not, you are judged by how you write. We have posters here who started posting at age 11 or 12, but because they could string together a lucid thought and have it be legible and relatively error-free no one knew how old they were. So he's advising you (and I think it's advice you should take under consideration, instead of reacting emotionally and lashing out) to show everyone that you believe in and respect your ideas enough to present them in a cogent fashion. No one is shunning you or making fun of you for being a poor speller. But when you frantically type out ideas as fast as they come into your head and submit them before you have a chance to glance over them, don't be surprised when others glance over them just as quickly and decide it's easier to not respond than to try and decipher your posts.
Having big ideas is a great talent, so don't let people just shoot them down. Learn enough to check for yourself whether or not they're possible. Learn the math behind the concepts you're using, and then you'll have something really valuable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But one should not to have to be berrated for pour spelling, this is not a college thesis this is just a social forum! The theory behind the words is more important then the words themselves. KoM could've asked more politely or used smilies in the swiss cheese comment.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As it happens, I did not say anything about swiss cheese, though admittedly I fully agree with comrade Mojo.
Blayne, consider things this way : If you went to a party, and your speech was so careless and slurred that it took hard work to understand what you were saying, would people listen to you? Or would they go off and find someone else to talk to, who wouldn't give them an instant headache? Comrade Descolada is certainly at liberty to write however he wants. But if he wants other people to read his posts, then he should stick to grammatical, well-written English.
quote: If you bash people all the time, and scare them all off with your "superior" knowledge, what good are you doing for the scientific community? Science is about the spread of information and knowledge, and by inhibiting that, you can not call yourself a proponent of what you preach, as you are contradicting the very concept of it in the first place.
I disagree. Science is not about ideas; any New Age mystic can have ideas. Science is about being extremely, even obsessively, critical of new ideas. That is why it works. A good scientist does not give praise for coming up with an idea; he says "Hang on, what are you going to do about X, Y, and Z?" And if the ideas man does not have a good answer, at the very least of the form "Well, it might not work, but I think we could try methods A, B and C", then that idea is, and should be, ignored. It is for this reason that we give so much respect to successful scientists : Not because they come up with ideas, but because they have ideas that can survive the scrutiny of the harshest critics in the world. Science is, and should be, a battlefield : It is quite intentionally a praise-free zone. We want the harshest possible attacks on new ideas, so that only the best possible ideas survive.
Now, one of the best ways of attacking an idea is to compare it to those that have already withstood this environment for a while. If you do not have a good answer for 'your idea contradicts general relativity' - or Heisenberg's uncertainty, or Maxwell's equations, or whatever - then you are dismissed, and quite rightly so, as ignorant. That's not to say that there couldn't be an answer. There are plenty of people out there who are looking for holes in all the theories I mentioned. But they search for experimental evidence, or holes in the mathematics; and they are able to give good reasons for thinking there might be such holes, or they do not get funded. But people who go about saying things like 'duh, I completely forgot about special relativity' - let's just say, this is not a good way to get taken seriously.
quote:his typing manner has nothing to do with his intelligence
I did not say it did. I said it was causing him to be treated as slightly retarded.
quote:Ah yes, the neutron star hypothesis, you are assuming that the neutron star’s material will not retain density away from that gravity, its composition may cause it to retain that.
Well, in principle, yes. In actual fact, no. There's nothing special about degenerate matter except that it is very highly compressed, to the point where nucleon boundaries are not sharply defined. This means that you can essentially treat the neutron star as a single, very large, nucleus. Since we know that the maximum size of nuclei held together only by the strong force is somewhere in the region of 300 nucleons, we know what would happen if the gravitational field were removed : The nucleons would spring apart. This is not speculation, we've seen it happen when we compress a sub-critical mass of nucleons to degenerate densities.
quote:If you have infinite energy, all of the particles will be moving with infinite motion and thus, speed, I.e. atleast light speed.
Disregarding things like Cherenkov radiation, production of W and Z bosons in collisions, and formation of quark-gluon plasma, this is true to some reasonable approximation. However, thermal motion is by definition random; just because your individual particles are going every which way rather fast, doesn't mean your starship as a whole is moving.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: I am currently a Junior in High School and taking an AP Physics class and I believe that his initial theory is accurate to a degree.
I'd demand a refund.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But one should not to have to be berrated for pour spelling
Please tell me this was deliberate. Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
quote:Blayne, consider things this way : If you went to a party, and your speech was so careless and slurred that it took hard work to understand what you were saying, would people listen to you? Or would they go off and find someone else to talk to, who wouldn't give them an instant headache? Comrade Descolada is certainly at liberty to write however he wants. But if he wants other people to read his posts, then he should stick to grammatical, well-written English.
So now I have become like Miro, who no one listens to becuase his speech is to slow and hard to understand, which means the only way I can get anyone to listen to me will be to have someone else talk for me, or never talk at all, because I have felt like Miro sometimes, wanting to tell someone my theories but not wanting to be ridiculed for thinking. Is this the way society has become, the idiots ridicule you for thinking and the genius' you for not thinking enough, why cant there be a happy medium where people are patient enough with people not to make fun of them for tripping over the keys on the keyboard, or missing a letter, and where you dont get made the end of a joke by people of less intelligence. I guess what im trying to say is, why cant there be a place were people of above avarage to avarage intelligence go where they are safe from both sides?
quote:But people who go about saying things like 'duh, I completely forgot about special relativity' - let's just say, this is not a good way to get taken seriously
When I posted that I had no idea everone would think of me as an idiot becuase I forgot about one thing that contradicts my whole theory, I never thought this place was so uptight about grammar. So I posted something like that because I had a sort of epiphany. And base your whole assumtion of my intelligence on that single comment, or on my typeing in general then you are the ignorant one.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I guess what im trying to say is, why cant there be a place were people of above avarage to avarage intelligence go where they are safe from both sides?
I'm actually pretty sure that you're of above-average intelligence. I just think you're a bit lazy. (For example, it's spelled "average.") If you're asking where people of above-average intelligence and a little laziness can go to feel safe from everyone else, I think that's called the Internet. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So now I have become like Miro, who no one listens to becuase his speech is to slow and hard to understand,
Yes. But unlike Miro, you have a choice in the matter. So as an appeal for sympathy, this fails rather completely.
quote:When I posted that I had no idea everone would think of me as an idiot becuase I forgot about one thing that contradicts my whole theory,
I was referring to this in the context of what science is, rather than the discussion of whether or not you are an idiot, which I have never said nor believed. Although, quite frankly, you are not improving the first impression I had of you.
quote:I never thought this place was so uptight about grammar.
And now you know, and you are still not posting like an adult. Nor have you explained to me why I should make a special effort to read your posts, when everybody else's posts are not only written in good English, but also much more interesting, in that they are not full of adolescent whining and self-justification.
Of course, I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Irregardless, his argument was accurate, although misplaced. I am not saying that accelerating particles will cause them to become invisible, what I am saying is that if you can cause the particles to avoid the light (as stated in his argument) they will not release light, rendering them invisible.
King Of Men, have scientists succesfully been able to compress matter to the level of a neutron star? I am asking as an honest question.
I happen to disagree with you on the matter of science, anyone can disprove a given theory, but not everyone can come up with one. new theories are what propel science forward. and while you must be critical of all, you must also extract the bit of truth from it as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Really? Let's see you disprove general relativity, then.
As for the neutron star bit, yes, though only a few nuclei at a time.
Posted by HectorVictor (Member # 9003) on :
Descolada, a simple fix to this woukld be to simply type your posts into a word document, realize any spelling or grammatical errors that you may have made, and learn from those mistakes. That is the only way you will gain repsect in any community, whether it is an online one, a scientific one, or a combination of the two, as this one is.
All you would have to do is press ctrl+a, ctrl+c, switch to this page and press ctrl+v.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am not convinced that would help, actually. Word processors won't catch things like missing words or homonyms, and certainly can't reduce a stream of consciousness to proper paragraphs. Consider, for example, this shining example of the wordsmith's art :
quote: Is this the way society has become, the idiots ridicule you for thinking and the genius' you for not thinking enough, why cant there be a happy medium where people are patient enough with people not to make fun of them for tripping over the keys on the keyboard, or missing a letter, and where you dont get made the end of a joke by people of less intelligence.
A word processor would presumably catch "cant" and "dont" and insert apostrophes. It might or might not remove the apostrophe from "the genius' you" - after all, there could easily be a you belonging to a genius; it is grammatically quite correct, it just doesn't make sense. No word processor ever foaled could guess that the author's actual intention was "the geniuses ridicule you". Nor are they smart enough to see that this should actually be several sentences; at the very least, the initial "Is this the way" should be split off with a question mark, and "idiots ridicule" through to "thinking enough" should be a sentence of its own. And again, "the end of a joke" is grammatically sound, it just doesn't make sense. Perhaps "the butt of a joke" was meant? I mean, that would be a moderately amusing pun, perhaps, except that comrade Descolada's posts are so full of ill-chosen words that a well-chosen one doesn't stand out.
On the other hand, there has been a bit of improvement in capitalisation and punctuation. I mean, the sentences are still too long, but at least there are actual sentences. There might yet be a Hatracker in the man.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Descolada, whilst calling someone new to a forum or the internet a noob can often be extremely amusing, calling yourself one doesn't achieve much except for us to find the person a noob for even longer than we would otherwise. Not that I think you are one *cough* Noob! *cough*
Anyway, in your first posts you were continually commenting about your spelling. So why the:
quote:Originally posted by Descolada Survivor:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Hypothesis."
Ok now your trying to piss me off
?????
You picked up OSC's How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy and proclaimed it an omen so you obviously aspire to write science fiction and/or fantasy. This is a forum run by that very guy that tries to uphold a standard that about 90% of the forums on the internet can't manage no matter how much they try. I'm sure I speak for all of hatrack that spelling and typing to the best of your ability would be greatly appreciated here.
It's great that as just a high school freshman you're already interested in such advanced physics, and even better, in reading. Borrow all the books you can on all the subjects you can and learn all you can. You have an advantage over all the people who aspire to just be average in life (and that's a lot) - untamable curiosity. You have nothing to worry about. Welcome to hatrack.
Also, please try not to curse here on hatrack.
[ January 16, 2006, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
King Of Men, I apologize for calling you a jerk, I dont feel it was it was appropriate, and I was not thinking straight about social interaction at the time. Can we stop the attacks for a while because this stuff really is fascinating to me. Do you know where they compacted the matter to neutron star level? I would love tor read more on the subject.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Please tell me this was deliberate. [Smile]
hehehe hell ya, poor, not pour. I almost did it accidentilly then I realzed, "wait thats how the english spell it!" But i kept it out of humor.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Irregardless, his argument was accurate
And now I have to thump RunningBear, because I'm apparently playing GrammarNazi on this thread. "Irregardless," man? Is there a better example of a meaningless word on the planet? Seriously. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: King Of Men, I apologize for calling you a jerk, I dont feel it was it was appropriate, and I was not thinking straight about social interaction at the time. Can we stop the attacks for a while because this stuff really is fascinating to me. Do you know where they compacted the matter to neutron star level? I would love tor read more on the subject.
Well, that's not what they were trying for, you understand; rather, it happens automatically in any particle accelerator with high energies and using large nuclei. So the lead-lead collisions in the LEP at CERN, for example, gave densities much higher than any neutron star; in the new Large Hadron Collider that's being built, it may even be possible to reach black-hole densities. (In which ase, we had better hope that Stephen Hawking's theory on how black holes evaporate is correct, otherwise we're all in deep, deep trouble.) The LEP people claimed to have seen formation of quark-gluon plasma, which is to say, densities approaching those of 10^-15 seconds after the Big Bang; you could Google for that and see the actual numbers for the density. (Also I may have remembered the time after the Big Bang wrong, there are any number of interesting phases that occur in that first second.)
Tom, I do think 'Irregardless' was intended as an address to the poster of that name, rather than an actual word. So it's not his fault. Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
It was intended as such,
I had the feeling it may have been at CERN, but I was not sure of the conditions in which they formed the particles. I will have to research in greater depth.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
They smash them is what they do, smash them good!
If you're going to research this don't bother looking to the CERN website, reading science textbooks, etc. Just read Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. He made a whole story about CERN's particle physics laboratory (an exaggeration of the dangers of antimatter). It's great; way better than the Da Vinci Code!
Posted by Descolada Survivor (Member # 9019) on :
Wow if you guys thought I was bad read what my cousin had to say on the matter of grammar- "I wasn't not brought up in no good grammar either" he dosent even have to try, it just comes naturally
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
KoM mybe you should calm down and view this discussion as a thought provoking forum instead of one entierly based on the true reality of science. All forums pertaining such discussions when viewed through your eyes seem to be insignificant. So give this forum a chance and stop acting as if you have a Phd. in Physics alright?
And Bear I believe that the theory of Dark Matter was first put forward by Einstein when he realized that matter must have an equal opposite in order for the universe to function as he observed it, but I am not possative on this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let me reiterate: Dark Matter is not antimatter. It is not matter's "equal opposite." It is at the moment a hypothetical nonreactive mass that fixes a few equations.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Ahhh, aha... I still don't get it. But I'm guessing from your tone that what I said was wrong? If so, then my bad. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: KoM mybe you should calm down and view this discussion as a thought provoking forum instead of one entierly based on the true reality of science. All forums pertaining such discussions when viewed through your eyes seem to be insignificant. So give this forum a chance and stop acting as if you have a Phd. in Physics alright?
Well, not a PhD, true. But I do have a Master's degree in physics. And I expect to graduate with a PhD within the next three years.
What was your point, again?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: "Irregardless," man? Is there a better example of a meaningless word on the planet?
Tom, I think he may have been responding to a poster with that SN.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I knew a rivka in high school, are you in or from New Mexico?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
No. She's the other rivka.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Oh well, I can hope can't I.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
KOM, what career are you currently pursuing? I am interested in physics and as such am looking for colleges and career paths.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: No. She's the other rivka.
*snort* Yes, that's right. There's just two of us.
. . . in the room at the moment. All the other rivkas have gone to sleep. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm doing my PhD in particle physics at the University of Cincinnati, but am stationed at SLAC (in California) to be close to the data. (And the detector. You can transfer data anywhere, but actual hands-on detector work has to be done on-site; it's very annoying.) I'm currently looking at measuring a variable called r_b^*; knowing the value of this will help us in determining the value of gamma, the third angle of the unitarity triangle. It is, unfortunately, not quite clear whether we have enough data to measure r_b^* the way we want; there is a lot of background. Ask me again in a month, I may be pursuing a different thesis topic.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Have you ever spoken to a four-year-old?Go talk to one and tell me a I speak in exactly the same speech and word patterns. Please do, because I'd love to know that I speak exactly the same way as my brother. Have you ever heard a four-year-old use the word "physics" or "Hypothosis"? I sure as hell haven't.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
You RunningBear are the savior of noobs, thank you for saying that, because that guy was being a total jackass(KoM).
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Noob! *cough*![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
he dosent even have to try, it just comes naturally
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)