Questions about ships in extendet PR

Forum For Privateer Remake

Postby OnyxPaladin » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:56 pm

chuck_starchaser wrote:Let me guess you've read this in Popular Science. Ever since I was a kid, Popular Science (and Popular Mechanics) have been putting out a continuous stream of sensationalist crap, none of which has ever materialized.


Untrue, they had detailed articles about the SR-71 about thirty years before it was declassified. Popsci also had a detailed article about the X-35 (might not be an experimental craft anymore) about 30 years before any other media seemed to know the name.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
For every ounce of courage, every drope of hope..
A gallon of blood paid in advance...
OnyxPaladin
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
 
Posts: 133
Topics: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:46 pm

Share On:

Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter Share on Digg Digg

Postby Miramor » Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:09 pm

Sad to say those are exceptions to the rule. I wouldn't know about Popular Mechanics, but I've never seen Popular Science fail to fall for the Moller skycar crap at regular intervals...
Miramor
ISO Party Member
ISO Party Member
 
Posts: 410
Topics: 61
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:15 pm

Postby Dilloh » Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:02 am

Sometimes organisms evolve by simplifying themselves
Like we're loosing hair for we do not need a fur any longer. Makes shaving more simple.

Let's agree WC is full of weird pseudo-science and we will never be able to explain everything with science... but fiction...
User avatar
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
 
Posts: 1149
Topics: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:56 am
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Postby zeo1234 » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:48 am

That's true but it's not all psuedo science.

Dilloh wrote:[I don't think it is that easy. If it was, we'd already have a spaceship, consisting of 50 docked spaceshuttles, capable of doing warp 0.5.


Wrong analogy, we don't have warp technology but we do have plasma technology.

So really isn't any more difficult than making smaller and faster computers, it'll take time and money but it can be done.


Dilloh wrote:I'm not looking for an explanation, I'm looking for a way how to tell the engine to damage the ship while using the cloak. Besides that, radiation is nonsense unless the ordinary reactor produces the radiation and stock shield generators provide the extra effort of shielding the cockpit from this menace.


It's an alternative and anything that can cloak a ship can easily be using enough energy to generate EM radiation like X-Rays or Gamma Rays that can be higher than normal levels and coming from the shields themselves would means there was nothing but hull armor protecting the pilot.

Alternatively couldn't you link the cloak to say the ship getting hit by weapon fire? So the engine treats it like the ship is getting hit?

Like maybe phase damage?


Miramor wrote:Sad to say those are exceptions to the rule. I wouldn't know about Popular Mechanics, but I've never seen Popular Science fail to fall for the Moller skycar crap at regular intervals...


Actually it's not that bad, the skycar was just bad marketing.

And most of what they show is actual technology like their product page near the beginning.

And they do show old articles to show what ideas made it and what didn't.

Never mind it doesn't invalidate the technology, only the application.

Like really they can make rocket belts so we could all fly, it just wouldn't be practical or safe.

Like two guys who built their own rocket belts are already building fuel versions that can operate for over 20 minutes versus the about 30 seconds the tradiational rocket belts could fly.

And the Guy who the skycar article was on is actually building them, I don't think they will sell but the technology is there even if unpractical.

chuck_starchaser wrote:What's an "energy field"?


Long story short, All matter and energy are made up of vibrating energy called stringlets and just like magnetic fields the stringlets that make up matter interact with fields that repell or attract each other and this gives us the illusion of solidness.

Though even before string theory we knew this as even atoms don't really physcially interact as they are ruled by polarity and how many electrons they have in orbit, etc.

So even at that scale we can see matter is mostly empty space.


And how is the re-arranging accomplished?


For Star Trek the transporter turns the source material into raw energy and then projects the molecular pattern which it then just basically fills with energy to make it real.

Basically the same way the transporters normally work except the pattern that the object is turned into would be different from the source.

For real world replicators, they basically put the whole factory into a single device. Like using a ink jet printer to fabricate circuit boards or lasers with phase change materials to create 3D objects straight from the computers.

Microwaves are just simple energy transfer causing molecules to vibrate but depending on the materials you use then microwave or laser can alter the physical state of a given material which can then be used to form objects.

The object in turn can then be sent through the normal prototyping process to finallize the final object for manufacturing but the system by which this is done is being simplified enough that you can actually make some devices in a device that can fit inside a normal room.

Basically a factory in a box.

You'd be surprised at what they are working on already. So replicators aren't that far fetch, it's basically just automating the manufacturing process into a single device after all.

They already commerialized such devices for making custom drinks for example. Since all it really has to do is mix liquids and ingredients.

And limited rapid prototyping equipment such as with 3D printers.

Or even a custom scent machine which can make sents by mixing chemicals on the fly whenever needed as is being applied to VR technology to make it more real.


Note: I'm talking about what can really be made so don't get lost in the need to do it Star Trek style. Like the old saying goes there is more than one way to skin a cat. So there is also more than one way to create a replicator.

Just because one version is fiction doesn't invalidate the concept.


Pure speculation. This is the 50 million dollar question in exobiology.


No, just the math of probability, a guy already made the math formula for calculting the probability and when taken with the size of the universe and the numbers of stars came out to quite overwhelming numbers.

We have already discovered on our own planet that life can exist in places we thought life could not exist.

Salt, acid, cianide, boiling temperatures, all we have found life.

The raw materials for life actually come from space so the seeds for life exist everywhere.

And we already confirmed that other stars do have planets and at least one was discovered in an Earth like orbit.

So the probabilities shows it's pretty ovewhelming that we aren't alone in this universe.

Course some people will never be satisfied until they meet said alien life and even then there are people who will still deny it just like there are people who deny we ever landed on the moon.


Not even necessarily so. Evolution is mere adaptation to survive. The adaptations can go up or down in the scale of complexity. Sometimes organisms evolve by simplifying themselves, and shedding like 90% of their genetic material all at once.


That's only in terms of conservation of energy, but so long as resources aren't limited and conditions of the planet are constantly changing over time then life will always evolve to more complex forms.

How else do you think we, or any of the other complex life forms, evolved when life started with little more than primordial ooze.

And there have been plenty of mass extinctions in our planet's history too.

De-evolution only occurs when resources become low and there is nothing to challenge the life.

But mutations occur all the time and adapting is only a part of evolutionary process.

New life is evolving all the time just as some die out. It's just part of how life works.

Even for us, new DNA that effects the brain has turned up in our genetic gene pool at about the same time we developed agriculture and again just a few thousand years ago as we again introduced new ways of thinking.

So even though we are surviving just fine we are still evolving.

For example, take our own DNA, it's not nearly as large as we had thought but that's because it is more complex in its interaction than we had thought possible.

So evolution is not just merely adapting to survive, it's a steady trend to forming ever more complex life forms. After all, life is change and evolution is part of life.

It's really just a matter of time.


We've only got one case study, --our own planet--; and that's not enough to extrapolate. You may be right or you may be wrong; but either way, you're jumping to conclusions.


We got our planet, we got Mars, Venus, Europa, comets, meteors, and we have the spectral analysis of other stars and the makeup of interstallar gases and materials. All of which allows extrapolation.

We even got the fact there were competing branches of homo sapiens before we came out on top to show more than one intelligent species were developing here before we took over.

Also intelligences is matter of a genetic arms race for many species.

So much so that you can take virtually any predator and you will find that it is smarter than its prey virtually every single time.

Again showing it is only a matter of time, as each species tries to become smarter than the other over time this will eventually lead to a sentient species like us.

And really, even counting only Earth like planets and not other forms of life that could evolve from other chemical reactions, still leaves trillions of worlds that life as we know it could evolve on.

Really, there are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on a typical beach. And in each galaxy there can be millions to billions of stars.

Even if only a tiny fraction of that produces the same conditions as on Earth still makes it far more than just jumping to conclusions.

It's actually harder to believe that there isn't life out there.

Really, when taking the age of Earth into account we evolved in a very short time period.


Let me guess you've read this in Popular Science.


Actually from NASA and from DARPA, they make their own announcements whenever they make breakthroughs.

Never mind the fact NASA is hardly the only ones developing plasma shield technology.

In fact NASA was primarily working on plasma sail technology and only recently got into plasma shield technology to help shield astronauts, such as for the proposed Mars mission.

But this stuff isn't in the theoretical stage anymore, they have already proven the principles with actual prototypes.

The only problem is making the equipment small enough and provide it with enough power to be practical.

Which is no different from present laser weapon research.

Like the presently available mobile lasers capable of knocking out missiles take something the size of a C130 plane to house them.

It doesn't mean laser weapons are magictech, just that we are a long way from miniturizing it to more practical sizes.

But even guns started with cannons and computers were once huge monstrousities that required team of technicians just to program it by rewiring the whole damn thing.


Besides plasma technology has been in development for decades. Can you really be surprised they are actually making progress?


Just radiation; not micrometeorites.


Actually the shield can be used to deflect just about anything.

Radiation would of course be easier and require less power.


It's just a matter of having enough power and plasma concentration, it can even be used to deflect lasers, particle beams, and masers.

One of the biggest breakthroughs to date was using cold plasma versus hot, which eliminates the heat problem and the system is completely scalable.

This is really just a matter of physics, we already know it's possible. We're just in the process of perfecting the technology.

One of the nice things about plasma is it's EM properties, so not only can you use an EM field to shape and contain the plasma but the plasma itself can be used to help extend the EM field, something we discovered in plasma sail R&D, so it doesn't require a lot of power to set up the plasma shield.

It just takes a lot of power to concentrate the field enough to compress the plasma and enough energy into the system to set the plasma at high enough frequencies to deflect more than just radiation.

For more immediate examples, the military is ready to come out with plasma stun grenades by 2009 and are already testing the prototypes.

The device basically consists of a high energy pulse laser that will first generate the plasma and then a shockwave to spread the plasma.

Creating a lot of noise and light to stun anyone within the effected area.

And for defending against RPG's and bullets the same technology will be later applied to an early plasma shield system that will generate lots of such pulses as the stun grenade produces that will cause shockwave after shockwave of plasma pulses to radiate out for over a hundred feet and cause anything incoming to go off course and crash before reaching the intended target.

In fact the Russians are developing a similar system using lasers to create plasma in the atmosphere that can knock aircrafts and missiles out of the air.

But eventually we will develope a powerful enough plasma shield system to act like what we imagine an energy shield would be capable of.

Another interesting application is developing plasma shield vortex to seperate liquids from air, etc.

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP05/Event/34938


So using a plasma shield to trap air for an invisible air lock is feasable as well.


What kind of power? What kind of weapons?


For one thing plasma is basically an ionized gase and is the 4th state of matter.

So has both the physical aspect of having a fast moving field of ionized particles and the EM effect going for it.

And we're talking power, as in how much energy we can pump into the system from a given power source.

We actually use lasers and such methods to create plasma with these devices. There's nothing magical about it.

And continuously firing lasers require a continuous power source. So use your imagination. Like say a high voltage power generating system!

Really, you ask "power" like it would require something exotic?

They just need to produce high enough frequencies to create a plasma shield powerful enough to deflect even light.

When finally perfected the plasma shield can even be used to cloak an object.

There are at least 5 teams of pear reviewed scientist around the world working on just the cloak aspect of bending light around an object.

Though as stated with the plasma grenade example they are going to use simplier methods for the time being to actually shield objects against physical attacks.


There's no such thing as "energy fields". That's a term borrowed from would-be sci-fi writers who don't have the first clue in the sciences.


It may have started that way but it's really just a generic term descibing the use of energy, that is not being conducted through wires or other physical methods, over a given area. And I was using it to describe what they were doing.

Such as the energy fields around power lines, etc. You know EM fields!

EM is energy, ergo energy fields!

Never mind all matter is also energy, so there are other types of energy fields.

You really only have to read up on string theory and quantum mechanics to realize there are energy fields all around us and that we ourselves are also made up of such fields.

Really, anything that applies energy over a given area can be considered an energy field or flowing patterns of energy if you prefer.

And the field only has to effect a medium for it to effect light and unless you haven't figured it out plasma is a MEDIUM.

Adjusting it's frequency effects how it interacts with EM and even light.



Got a link?


Here's one, other papers also reported on it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ate106.xml


I don't even understand this statement.


What's to understand? They got machines that can create physical objects from whatever you design on the computer.

Such as this example, http://www.redeyerpm.com/RapidPrototypi ... GgodwF9PMA

And they are already working on more advance types that can do even more.

If you're talking about printers that print in 3D, that's not rocket science; just a matter of getting some powder to stick together and stuff. It lends no credibility whatsoever to remote chemical synthesis.


I was using it as an example that we are already developing replicators.

We don't have the technology to manipulate matter on the molecular scale yet but we are developing it.

Such as with nanites, etc. We can already do this to a limited scale with lasers.

We may never get matter to energy conversions but we can move around atoms and eventually we'll be able to do it under large enough scale to have our own replicators.

Which all goes to whether we can consider replicators magic tech or just something that will be in the future.


Completely untrue.


No, it's true, for something to be science fiction it has to hold at least a resemblance to science. Otherwise it's just fantasy and can't even be called sci-fi.

It doesn't mean they can't mix in fantasy, just that they use elements from science.

Like all the weapons are based on technology we are already developing.

Like lasers, plasma, gauss, railguns.

And of course we already have missiles and computers.

Of course most writers don't go out of there way to be completely accurate but that's to be expected since they aren't all scientists.

But that doesn't mean it's a total fantasy.

They are just taking known things and putting them into a fantasy environment, which is why it is called fiction. Ergo Science Fiction!

Also let's not confuse the limitation of the game system with the WC universe. Since with every game release they did try to make things more realistic over time.

Remember they didn't have physics engine cards or SLI graphics when Privateer was made.

Even the latest games still don't fully follow real world physics but they get closer every generation of technology that comes out.

So a lot of what they put into the game was determined by what was practical to put into the game at the time.

The VG port of the game is similar because it uses the original game as the model.

But VG itself supports more realistic environments.


Everything is not magitech; just what is.


For what isn't magictech we have Lasers, thrusters, rockets, missiles, computers, plasma, gauss and railguns, list goes on and on.

What is magictech is the gate system, steltek, etc.

Helps to know what is possible before you just label it all magictech.
User avatar
zeo1234
Mercenary
Mercenary
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Postby Dilloh » Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:17 am

Basically the same way the transporters normally work except the pattern that the object is turned into would be different from the source.
Just wanted to add here, there was a success two years ago. In Vienna, a handful of scientists managed to move the attributes of one iron atom to another. I don't have the link anymore, though.
User avatar
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
 
Posts: 1149
Topics: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:56 am
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Postby zeo1234 » Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:16 pm

http://www.biophysica.com/quantum.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 10926.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3811785.stm

Yeah, they were using quantum entanglement.

It holds a lot of promise but they're still a long way off from making it practical and there are still a lot of unknown factors as to whether we can ever use for anything more than quantum computing/cryptography.
User avatar
zeo1234
Mercenary
Mercenary
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Postby chuck_starchaser » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:38 am

Nothing like an ultra-long post where every sentence is either meaningless or a blatant falacy... I just don't have the time to deal with so much crap.
If you're interested in science, then STUDY science, rather than read cheap magazines and repeat stuff out of context, and using terms without knowing what they mean.
User avatar
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 8014
Topics: 195
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:03 pm
Location: Montreal

Postby Halleck » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:06 am

Image
User avatar
Halleck
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1832
Topics: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: State of Denial

Postby loki1950 » Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:24 am

String Theory is just a bunch of knots ATM :lol: no one has found the right sword to cut through this particular Gordian knot :wink: yet.

Enjoy the Choice :)
my box::HP Envy i5-6400 @2Q70GHzx4 8 Gb ram/1 Tb(Win10 64)/3 Tb Mint 18/GTX745 4Gb acer S243HL K222HQL
Q8200/Asus P5QDLX/8 Gb ram/WD 2Tb 2-500 G HD/GF GT640 2Gb Mint 17.3 64 bit Win 10 32 bit acer and DELL E6400 4GB ram/100 GB HD Mint 17.3 6
User avatar
loki1950
The Shepherd
 
Posts: 5708
Topics: 51
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 1:37 pm
Location: Ottawa

Postby zeo1234 » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:14 pm

String Theory is not something anyone can just jump into, even the scientist working on it can only work on parts of it at a time. And yes, as you've described a theory for everything has yet to be worked out.

But experimental data does show they are on the right track and it is becoming apparent that the universe is stranger than we could have possibly imagined.


chuck_starchaser wrote:Nothing like an ultra-long post where every sentence is either meaningless or a blatant falacy... I just don't have the time to deal with so much crap.
If you're interested in science, then STUDY science, rather than read cheap magazines and repeat stuff out of context, and using terms without knowing what they mean.


Sorry but there was no falacies, everything I stated was valid whether you like it or not.

It is you who have mistaken what such terms as energy field mean.

Energy: a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work



Field: a region or space in which a given effect (as magnetism) exists



So to spell it out for you "energy field" is a generic term for any and all types of energy fields.

One of the fundamentals of science, Such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, is that everything breaks down to energy. Even matter with the famous E=MC^2 formula.

An energy field could be magnetic, electromagnetic, quantum, gravity, electrical, etc.

An example of its use in engineering for example turns up in examples such as
Electrostatic energy field power generating system
or
Electromagnetic energy field[b]


For the later this is because there are many forms of Electromagnetic energy, so the generic term of ENERGY is used to cover them all.


So you're confusing the fact that it's a generic term, and that science fiction writers over use it because they avoid being specific as much as possible, with whether it was a valid term or not.


It is in fact a valid term and real scientist have used it, whenever they are being non-specific or are trying to explain something like Negative Energy, etc.

Off the top of my head I know Michio Kaku, yes I've read his books, for example uses the term for such examples as when explaining the possible forces behind inflation theory of the Universe.

And studying science also means studying the math they use. And the math and the data gathered so far suggests exactly what I said.

Never mind I said I got some of the info directly from NASA and DARPA and not the magazines you were referring to.

Or the fact the term "Energy Field" is also a blanket term for the Field of Energy generating resources as scientist search for renewable energy, etc. Such as in different [b]energy fields (Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA))

So I have no idea where you got it in your head that only science fiction writers use the term.

Yes it's generic and vague but it's perfectly valid to use the term when you're either not being specific or implying, like I was, that there was more than one way to get the desired effect.

And everything else I said was just as valid.

So you want to ignore what the actual scientist doing the actual research say that's you're problem but don't pretend it's not science because you don't like what they are saying.
Last edited by zeo1234 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zeo1234
Mercenary
Mercenary
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Postby chuck_starchaser » Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:11 pm

Yeah, maybe you forgot the context in which YOU used the term "energy fields". Basically saying that "matter is not really matter but tiny energy fields", as if you were saying something so profound... We don't even know what matter an energy are; we only know how they relate and/or transform into one another in some contexts. So now, what could possibly be the point of stating that "unknown A is NOT unknown A but really IS unknown B"; --of someone saying "energy is not really energy; it IS matter"?, or its exact opposite, for that matter...? Just meaningless dribble, which you now've accepted was "vague", thank you! So salt up a water-tight statement like "Yin IS Yang", with a bit of vagueness, and now the whole becomes a solid argument to back up the plausibility of hamburger steak synthesis...

I read a couple of Micchio Kaku's books, ages ago, and I had more respect for his style, until I saw the results of it this week.
User avatar
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 8014
Topics: 195
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:03 pm
Location: Montreal

Postby zeo1234 » Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:32 pm

I'm perfectly aware of the context I used it and the point of String Theory and all the other advance scientific research is to try to understand what matter and energy really is.

If you don't understand advance science topics like String Theory then just say so.

And no it's not meaningless dribble, you show your ignorance on the subject by saying that!

It is a fact that according to string theory that matter is just a form of interacting energy fields.

It doesn't matter what form energy takes since the word is describing what it does, not what it is.

Every form of matter and energy is separated in String Theory by just the vibrational pattern of stringlets.


This is the failure in your logic, energy field is describing an action. Energy effecting an area.

It could be Electromagnetic, it could be electrical, it could be quantum, etc.

What they all have in common is they are types of energy (elements of nature that perform work through energy interaction).

This is not spirital terms like ying or yang anymore than other science terms like strong and weak nuclear forces are spiritual.

Even without string theory we know atoms are made up of subatomic particles and the particles themselves are made of even smaller elements.

String Theory just shows it goes even deeper.


Sorry but you're criticizing science and then in the very next breath demand we study actual science.


Fact is you were wrong that energy field is only a term used by fiction writers and you got nothing but your opinion to back your other statements.

Btw, Dr. Michio Kaku is one of the world's leading theoretical physicist, tenured professor, and co-creator of string field theory.

So he has a hell of a lot more going for him than just style. The man is as well respected in his field as Stephen Hawkings is in his.
User avatar
zeo1234
Mercenary
Mercenary
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Postby chuck_starchaser » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:48 am

zeo1234 wrote:I'm perfectly aware of the context I used it and the point of String Theory and all the other advance scientific research is to try to understand what matter and energy really is.

So why do you presume to have all the answers, then? Like "matter is just energy... yada yada". Have you published your new theory? Or are you posting it here because you ran out of toner?

If you don't understand advance science topics like String Theory then just say so.

Geezas, and how exactly do you define "understanding" of something that's not quite even a theory yet, and which lacks a full model by a long shot? String Theoriest can't even agree as to the number of dimensions of space, ranging from just 4 to 23, and one can't even keep up with all the new subtheories coming up... What of it is one to "understand", and how much? No, don't tell me; I don't think I'd understand your definition.

And no it's not meaningless dribble, you show your ignorance on the subject by saying that!

LOL. I think "ignorance", in the asception of the term that carries the very negative connotations you seem to intend for it, is better described as people believing that they know when they don't, rather than a mere objective lack of information; which description describes you to a tee.

It is a fact that according to string theory that matter is just a form of interacting energy fields.

ROTFLMAO
That .... is a fact !
This keeps getting better and better...

It doesn't matter what form energy takes since the word is describing what it does, not what it is.

Which word is that? The word "string"? FYI, "strings" are a bit passe these days, we've moved on to "branes", like years ago already, FYI.

Every form of matter and energy is separated in String Theory by just the vibrational pattern of stringlets.

Which string theory? There's just so many of them I lose count. Never heard of "stringlets", though; you got me there. Would that perchance be a term used in some of the string theories to mean those brane-to-brane strings, as opposed to the looped ones? I thought the brane+string mix theories were a bit caput, though, hadn't heard one mentioned in a long time.

This is the failure in your logic, energy field is describing an action. Energy effecting an area.

I fail to see the failure in my logic, since I don't follow the logic of your sentence. But to say that my logic is failing, would seem to imply that I'm reaching wrong conclusions from correct premises, no?; but that contradicts your earlier statements to the effect of my being "ignorant", which would appear to claim that my premises are wrong.
So, which is it?
Or are you saying that my premises are wrong, but that through my faulty logic I'm reaching the right conclusions?

It could be Electromagnetic, it could be electrical, it could be quantum, etc.

Sorry, I think I missed an important point; what was it that could be anything?

What they all have in common is they are types of energy (elements of nature that perform work through energy interaction).

Now, they are types of energy that perform work through energy interaction.
Yes, that's so profound it should be carved in stone for the benefit of future generations. :D

This is not spirital terms like ying or yang anymore than other science terms like strong and weak nuclear forces are spiritual.

Oh, damn! I thought they were, and here I was on the verge of samadhi.

Even without string theory we know atoms are made up of subatomic particles and the particles themselves are made of even smaller elements.

Now you confuse me :-( You told me that matter was made of energy fields, and I believed you; and now you're telling me matter is made of matter?!?!
But I'm sure it is my ignorance and the failure of my logic...

String Theory just shows it goes even deeper.

How can a theo... er... a hypothesis that has never been proven through experiment "SHOW" something?
My logic is failing again... Or was it my premises?

Sorry but you're criticizing science and then in the very next breath demand we study actual science.

ROTFLMAO
I've been criticizing Science?
I thought I was criticizing a disgusting charlatan that tries to usurp the credibility of Science for the sake of personal pretense.

Fact is you were wrong that energy field is only a term used by fiction writers and you got nothing but your opinion to back your other statements.

Opinions is what we all have, my friend; but some opinions are better than others. The best opinion ever uttered was probably "I only know that I know nothing", which is usually the opinion of serious people in the field of science. They don't go around game development boards saying that A is not A but really B, and C IS D, or any such stupidities. They know what they know, and they know what they don't.

Btw, Dr. Michio Kaku is one of the world's leading theoretical physicist, tenured professor, and co-creator of string field theory.

Great way to close the fountain of wisdom your post has been: With a by-the book falacy: Appeal to Authority...
Are you sure about "string field theory"?

So he has a hell of a lot more going for him than just style. The man is as well respected in his field as Stephen Hawkings is in his.

Hahaha, clever gambit, but no score: I was quite careful to ONLY speak about his style, NOT his credentials. You can try and put words in my mouth until you're blue in the face, and it won't work.

Now, on a more cheerful subject, for those who may care, the good news is a little item in this month's issue of Scientific American, about the apparent discovery of a fourth flavor of neutrinos that had been predicted by String Theory (or one of them, anyways :)). If this pans out, it will be the first empirical confirmation for (a) "String Theory". Cross your phalanges, lab rats :D
User avatar
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 8014
Topics: 195
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:03 pm
Location: Montreal

Postby Halleck » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:22 am

Now, on a more cheerful subject, for those who may care, the good news is a little item in this month's issue of Scientific American, about the apparent discovery of a fourth flavor of neutrinos that had been predicted by String Theory (or one of them, anyways :)). If this pans out, it will be the first empirical confirmation for (a) "String Theory". Cross your phalanges, lab rats :D


If there was a neutrino flavor of the month club, I'd join.

But I have to say that I prefer quark flavors (Isopsin, Strangeness, Charm, Top, Bottom).

I admit readily I have no idea what these signify but they are certainly fun to say.

As for the argument: just please try to keep things civil.
User avatar
Halleck
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1832
Topics: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: State of Denial

Postby zeo1234 » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:03 pm

They signify the building blocks of everything in the universe.

Going backwards there are atoms, which are made up subatomic particles, which are in turn are made up elements like quarks, leptons and bosons, which in turn are made up of quanta of energy.

Determining what particles exist will determine which model of the universe the many theories predict are the correct one for our universe.


chuck_starchaser wrote:So why do you presume to have all the answers, then? Like "matter is just energy... yada yada". Have you published your new theory? Or are you posting it here because you ran out of toner?


It's not my theory, it's what the scientists are telling us with everything from Relativity on up.


Geezas, and how exactly do you define "understanding" of something that's not quite even a theory yet, and which lacks a full model by a long shot? String Theoriest can't even agree as to the number of dimensions of space, ranging from just 4 to 23, and one can't even keep up with all the new subtheories coming up... What of it is one to "understand", and how much? No, don't tell me; I don't think I'd understand your definition.


Yes the theory still has to be worked out, like I also said they still have to make a theory for everything to work together but there are things that are consistant through all the theories. Like the view of the universe represented through stringlets, etc is the same for all versions of the theory.

It's just how they interact that is being hammered out.


LOL. I think "ignorance", in the asception of the term that carries the very negative connotations you seem to intend for it, is better described as people believing that they know when they don't, rather than a mere objective lack of information; which description describes you to a tee.


No, just you because you're the one putting out stuff that isn't true and assuming what others say are false simply because you disagree but have shown nothing to back up your opinion, so the falacy is yours.


ROTFLMAO
That .... is a fact !
This keeps getting better and better...


And yet another example of you assuming to know more than the scientists and the decades of research and experiment data that backs it up.

So laugh all you want, it's not helping your case.


Which word is that? The word "string"? FYI, "strings" are a bit passe these days, we've moved on to "branes", like years ago already, FYI.


And you're being obtuse, I was obviously referring to your interpretation of the word "energy" to show how it is valid to say "energy fields".

And yes, I know branes and all the theories related to it like the alternate theory to the big bang involving branes for the cyclic view of the universe, etc.

And the difference between string and branes is that branes can represent higher dimensional objects, and thus represent N number of dimensions, while string originally referred to just 1, and of course there are different types of branes throughout the many theories, FYI.


Which string theory? There's just so many of them I lose count.


Doesn't matter, they are all based on the same principle, they just differ in the number of dimensions it works with and how they interact.

Theories with more dimensions just seek an easier way to unify the forces of nature. Since in part string theory also seeks to explain how the universe was created and during the big bang all the forces of nature were one. And adding dimensions makes the math easier but brings up other problems. So it's a balancing act to get the right combination. But all the theories are based around the same principles.


Never heard of "stringlets", though; you got me there.


Reference to the way strings are viewed in the universe, I.E> why we don't see the other dimensions is because the extra dimensions have curved up into tiny stringlets that are too small to be seen but still effect the fundamental laws of nature.

Though branes are now used to help view the big picture, stringlets are still used to describe the universe we live in since the higher dimensions are explained as having collapsed shortly after the big bang to explain where they went.

This is also why scientist are looking at super colliders to help prove the theory going by the idea that if they can mimic the conditions of the big bang then they can unify the forces of nature and cause the hidden dimensions to briefly reveal themselves before they again collapse into stringlets.

Though the different theories don't agree on how much energy it would take or exactly how big or small the stringlets are.


So, which is it?
Or are you saying that my premises are wrong, but that through my faulty logic I'm reaching the right conclusions?


Again, faulty logic, both your premises and conclusion were wrong.

You tried to imply the use of the term "energy fields" was a meaningless phrase that only sci-fi writers used.

This premise was shown to be wrong by the fact real scientist do use the term and it does have meaning as a description of an action with given variables.

The fault in your logic was to both assume that since it wasn't a specific term that it could not be used and that since it is popular among sci-fi writers that it is made up term.


Sorry, I think I missed an important point; what was it that could be anything?


Energy, which can be anything that can have an effect on something else

Again being obtuse, I was pointing out the grammatical validity of saying "Energy Fields" by showing the meanings of both Energy and Fields and what they mean together in a sentence.


Now you confuse me :-( You told me that matter was made of energy fields, and I believed you; and now you're telling me matter is made of matter?!?!


Well for one thing your sarcastic remarks can only be taken as that you don't believe me and second no, I'm still showing matter is basically just a form of energy. Showing that even before string theory this was already considered a valid interpretation.


How can a theo... er... a hypothesis that has never been proven through experiment "SHOW" something?


Point of fact, when ever a theory predicts an experimental outcome and the experiment matches the prediction then it is no longer completely unproven. And thanks to super colliders much of string theory has been born out.

We're just still debating which of the theories most matches the experimental data and trying to figure out how it all works together so we can merge the different theories together into a single theory for everything.


I've been criticizing Science?
I thought I was criticizing a disgusting charlatan that tries to usurp the credibility of Science for the sake of personal pretense.


Nope, just another of your erroneous assumptions.

Not to mention picking and choosing your sources is a bit hypocritical of you.

You denounce all science magazines and then point to one. :roll:


Great way to close the fountain of wisdom your post has been: With a by-the book falacy: Appeal to Authority...


Sorry but I believe in logic and reasoning, your falacy is your assumptions and beliefs are your sole reasoning.

Never mind it was an example to directly show the falacy of your logic when you said real scientist don't use such terms as "Energy Fields"

Are you sure about "string field theory"?


I'm sure if nothing else it is a building block to our understanding of the universe just like all the theories that proceeded it.

Just like Newtonian physics, they don't represent the absolute truth of the universe but they work well enough for the day to day stuff and pointed us in the right direction for further advancement in our understanding of the universe.

Newtonian physics aren't wrong, just not complete.

Similarly string theory is pointing out aspects of our universe that will help us build upon our understanding.

You yourself have just pointed to an example with that latest discovery that gives further credibility to String Theory.

String Theory may not be complete but it is already expanding our understanding of the Universe.


Hahaha, clever gambit, but no score: I was quite careful to ONLY speak about his style, NOT his credentials. You can try and put words in my mouth until you're blue in the face, and it won't work.


Wrong, when you added
, until I saw the results of it this week.


You directly implied an invalidity to not only his style but his work.

It's a matter of context, he's a physicist who regularly helps spread the understanding of advance physics. So when you implied a negative to how he does this then you are in fact implying there is something wrong with what he is saying.

Never mind he is hardly the only scientist to ever use the phrase, "Energy Fields".

Since one of your premises was that it would not be a term real scientist use, then the fact that they do proves you conclusion wrong.

ROTFLMAO
That .... is a fact !
This keeps getting better and better...


If that is truly your opinion then I'm sure when standing next to a nuclear bomb about to go off you would argue that matter isn't energy and thus you have nothing to fear from the nuke. :roll:

Never mind Relativity shows all visible matter and energy in the universe is "Positive Energy", which does mean that matter is a form of energy.
:roll:
User avatar
zeo1234
Mercenary
Mercenary
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Postby chuck_starchaser » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:29 pm

zeo1234 wrote:You denounce all science magazines and then ...


That's it. When someone resorts to lying in order to win an argument they can't possibly win, to me they've proven the complete worhlessness of their souls; and it's game over. Blatant lying is something that in my own forums I would never tolerate, but luckily for you, I'm not an admin of this one.

Bye.
User avatar
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 8014
Topics: 195
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:03 pm
Location: Montreal

Postby OnyxPaladin » Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:58 pm

Oh good, for a moment i thought either dilloh was going to stop the argument or i'd have to ask the two of you to stop.

As a personal opinion..string theory has no worth to me. Also why the BLOODY hell do so many "scientists" have to work of the big bang assumption?!
For every ounce of courage, every drope of hope..
A gallon of blood paid in advance...
OnyxPaladin
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
 
Posts: 133
Topics: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:46 pm

Postby zeo1234 » Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:46 pm

Because OnyxPaladin, it's vital to understand how everything started before you can understand why things are the way they are now.

Fundamental factors such as why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate all have to be answered.

And even the littlest of revelations can have major impact on our level of understanding of the universe.

Which goes with the old adage of Knowledge = Power.

Einstein's e=mc^2 being the most obvious example as it brought us into the nuclear age.

Quantum entanglement for example could play a major role in developing room temperature super conductors.

Further understanding of how atoms interact, such as the Casimir Effect has led to discovering how to reverse it, which in turn will allows us to reduce or eliminate friction normally caused by the Casimir Effect and for larger application let some people live the dream of riding hover boards.

Our understanding of science is intristically linked to our level of technology. So the more we understand the more we can do.

Understand?


chuck_starchaser wrote:
zeo1234 wrote:You denounce all science magazines and then ...


That's it. When someone resorts to lying in order to win an argument they can't possibly win, to me they've proven the complete worhlessness of their souls; and it's game over. Blatant lying is something that in my own forums I would never tolerate, but luckily for you, I'm not an admin of this one.

Bye.


Sorry but you did say,
chuck_starchaser wrote:If you're interested in science, then STUDY science, rather than read cheap magazines and repeat stuff out of context, and using terms without knowing what they mean.


After already saying,
chuck_starchaser wrote:Let me guess you've read this in Popular Science. Ever since I was a kid, Popular Science (and Popular Mechanics) have been putting out a continuous stream of sensationalist crap, none of which has ever materialized. And every article they try to back it up with NASA this or DARPA that... research. In truth, NASA will fund all kinds of crazy research, their philosophy being that among all the crazy ideas there might be a gem hiding. But to say that NASA is investigating something is as meaningless a statement as you can get, by the same token.


Which clearly states you have criticized popular science and technology magazines, which Scientific America is also one, FYI since it is a magazine for laymen and is not one of the peer reviewed science journals.

Yet you point to an article in Scientific America. Contradicting your own advice.


And you did say,
chuck_starchaser wrote:There's no such thing as "energy fields". That's a term borrowed from would-be sci-fi writers who don't have the first clue in the sciences. The term doesn't exist in physics, and is entirely meaningless; so, wherever you read that, know that they are pulling that out of a dark place. There are no fields of any kind known to bend light, except gravity, and only indirectly, by deforming space, rather than by excerting a force on the photons.


Which I have shown is clearly wrong.

So unless you are denouncing your own words then nothing I have said is a lie.

And for your information I'm an Admin of my own forum as well and I don't lie.

Never mind the fact I have no reason to. Everything I have said can be backed up.

You have made many erroneous assumption about me throughout this debate and have done nothing but attack me in a vain attempt to discredit my disputal of your assertions.


So don't think for a moment you have the slightest right to call me a liar. Look into your own soul before critizing others erroneously.


For everyone else, check out sources like http://journals.aip.org/ if you want to really get to understand science and technology.

Or the science universities themselves, which do a surprising amount of research like this, http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/ ... omets.html


Or check out one of the many science and technology based forums online , like http://www.scienceforums.net/ , which have people ranging from novices to actual scientist all sharing and discussing ideas.

You can even pick the brains of some like Dr. Michio Kaku, http://www.mkaku.org/radio/index.html , who has his own radio show every week that takes live calls from listeners and answers science questions live on radio. Or just listen in as nearly every time someone in a field of science would have really interesting discussions with him.
User avatar
zeo1234
Mercenary
Mercenary
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Postby Dilloh » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:54 am

Onyx wrote:Oh good, for a moment i thought either dilloh was going to stop the argument or i'd have to ask the two of you to stop.
I'm no longer moderator around here, so I can only ask:

Anyone read the topic headline of this thread?
User avatar
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
 
Posts: 1149
Topics: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:56 am
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Postby micheal_andreas_stahl » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:13 am

Well this is Sci-fi. We can basicly do whatever we like.
"The bullets come out of the slim end, mate!"

Sniper after dominating another Sniper
Team Fortress 2
User avatar
micheal_andreas_stahl
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
 
Posts: 1030
Topics: 47
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:02 am
Location: Gemini, Troy, Helen

Postby zeo1234 » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:06 am

Dilloh wrote:
Onyx wrote:Oh good, for a moment i thought either dilloh was going to stop the argument or i'd have to ask the two of you to stop.
I'm no longer moderator around here, so I can only ask:

Anyone read the topic headline of this thread?


Yeah, speaking of which, going back to the cloak issue, I've been checking around but can't find anyway to modify the Cloak to cause damage without adding that feature to the VS code.

Though do you really want to go that far?

The cloak already deactivates shields, prevents weapons fire, and can put additional strain on energy reserves. Which altogether makes you helpless if anyone figures a way to detect you like setting an ambush at a jump point and firing the moment they see the jump flash and with your shields down it means major damage.

And even if you turn cloak off and re-activate your shields you still have to wait for them to power up to full strength.

Though I think you can adjust how much you are cloaked so maybe have it the cloak is not 100% for added danger?
# <Cloak .../> - (optional) Specifies the ships cloak device

* missing - if 1, then no cloak is here. also missing in absence of optional tag
* cloakmin - minimum percentage of cloakedness
* cloakglass - boolean whether or not effect 2 is used
* cloakrate - time per second to cloak in decimal per second
* cloakenergy - how much energy this takes in 100kJ


You can also maybe adjust how fast the cloak works to make the transition time an additional danger.

Or maybe configure it so that once the ship is equipped with the cloak, it has no Shields?
User avatar
zeo1234
Mercenary
Mercenary
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Postby Dilloh » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:56 am

Though do you really want to go that far?
We need a disadvantage for users of a pre-wc3 cloak, otherwised we have a canonity problem.
The cloak already deactivates shields, prevents weapons fire, and can put additional strain on energy reserves.
Yes, it does, but it also does in WC3. We want to have the cloak before wc3, so it needs to be in an earlier state, see?
Though I think you can adjust how much you are cloaked
This is a visual effect only. Your cloak can give you an effect of 1% and the AI is still blind.
You can also maybe adjust how fast the cloak works to make the transition time an additional danger.
I already worked this out, it seems to be another visual effect only.
Or maybe configure it so that once the ship is equipped with the cloak, it has no Shields?
I've decided, as long as we don't find a real solution for that, the cloak will be available in the prototype only. No software. Any other Fireblade you'll buy or tractor in will be an edition w/o cloak. The storyline will explain the rest.
User avatar
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
 
Posts: 1149
Topics: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:56 am
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Postby zeo1234 » Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:49 pm

That makes sense, just make two versions of the same ship, how about the cloak ship has no shields?

Can say the system has to be hardwired to do the cloak so player is totally reliant on armor, with or without the cloak on?

Maybe even have it that it can only be equipped with missiles?
User avatar
zeo1234
Mercenary
Mercenary
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Postby Dilloh » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:14 am

That makes sense, just make two versions of the same ship, how about the cloak ship has no shields?
I guess no player would use it then. As you stated before, most scifi resources state that the cloak effect is created by a modulation of the shield generation. My thoughts here is that the cloak is still in its baby shoes, and my engineer found a way to modulate a type 1 shield generator.
Maybe even have it that it can only be equipped with missiles?
Look, I like ideas like those, the problem is that players usually wnat to do something with their ship, and if we had an unshielded ship that only can fire missiles and cloak sometimes, I wouldn't even launch with such a death trap. I'd prefer to keep it the state it is in DSE, with the exception that only Burrows can buy the prototype.
User avatar
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
 
Posts: 1149
Topics: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:56 am
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Postby zeo1234 » Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:23 am

Okay, no problem, I completely understand but I for one don't mind the challenge and prototypes generally should have something wrong with them. So maybe take a poll?

Course we could always default back to it's a stolen Kilrathi cloak, since they pretty much had it first anyway in WCU.

The engineer could have been one of the first to try to backwards engineer it with limited success.

Maybe link it to story arc events and have it that it starts out buggy but then they just slap in the stolen original Kilrathi cloak black market style. :twisted: ?

Would still fit with only one ship being equipped with it and helps fit it into the WCU time line, IMO.
User avatar
zeo1234
Mercenary
Mercenary
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:04 pm


PreviousNext

Return to Privateer Remake

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron