Jump to content

p1t1o

Members
  • Posts

    2,869
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by p1t1o

  1. p1t1o

    Shower thoughts

    Batman isnt the word for a Bat-like man, (although of course he is somewhat bat-like) he is a unique thing with its own name "Batman". There isnt another Batman and if you created one, he wouldnt be Batman, he'd be something else with another name (Like "Ultimate BAtman" "Batman Alpha" or anything, but there would never be two "Batmen" - well not at the same time at least), because you would always be able to say, "Theres this guy, and theres Batman" and you'd always know which one is Bruce wayne, because he's Batman. And if someone were to liken himself to bats somehow or whatever, or dress up like Batman and call himself Batman, you'd always be right to say "You're not Batman", but you could say "You ARE a Bat-Man!". Questionable whether or not Batman even *is* a Bat-Man, since he doesnt actually have any powers or mutations, bats are just his symbol. Same with Superman. Technically, every Kryptonian has identical properties to Supe, but none of them are "Supermen". There is only one Superman, he isnt a "Super-man" he is Superman. (I mean, it *is* kinda overlooked that this kindhearted soul, this gentle god who tortures himself over hurting a fly and who would sacrifice his very soul for humanity, got up one day and decided that the name the world should know him as, that he calls himself and that other people should refer to him as, should be: ABOVEANDBETTERTHANALLHUMANS) Of coure, Superman IS a Super-man, if you take that to mean that many of his abilities are superior to man's, which of course they are. But Superman is his name, a noun, and not his type or category. Spider-Man implies that if someone else were bitten by a radioactive spider and acquired the same properties, then you would also become a Spider-Man - which is arguably true, and not something common to Superman or Batman. Thus Peter Parker considers his monicer, not a name, but an adjective. His catchphrase "Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man" also implies the existence of Spider-Men allocated to other neighborhoods - or at least it allows the implication. Its probably just his youthfully optimistic/humorous way of talking, but the idea is there. And now we have the "Spider Verse" which is literally full of Spider People. Captain America is a more obvious superhero name, he is the USA literally in soldier form, the country itself given rank. "Captain America" implies that "America" is his superhero last name, his full name presumably being "Captain United States of America". Strangely this implies the existence of higher ranking officers who arent America, although for some reason that never comes up. He-Man is just a mess Im not even going to try. Man-Man? Masculine-Man? A man with all of the powers of a human male? wat? My name is TypesTooFastTooMuch and this has been my TED Talk.
  2. p1t1o

    Shower thoughts

    Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely ***************************************** What if. Predators evolved from facehuggers. Like a bunch of eggs left on a planet for a long time without any suitable hosts. Just look at that face. Also the hunting for sport thing, instinctive. Thats it, thats all I got.
  3. Maybe it's not formal evidence, but if causality violations were happening commonplace, I believe we'd see many more things that didn't make sense. And with so many physicists et al looking pretty closely at so many things, wouldn't it be likely that we'd notice? Which may only relegate causal violations to "rare but possible" like "forbidden" transitions seen in physics (eg: how lasers work) but I think if they were common, we'd see it. Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is a pretty strong indicator when so much effort is spent on observation. The fact that the scientific method exists does support a causal universe. If acausality were truly discovered, we'd have to come up with a very, very good explanation as to why so many things appear causal in spite of that. Now none of that is proof, but it shows that just because it is hard to prove something doesn't exist, it would still take extraordinary evidence to prove it did, or even to suspect it.
  4. Do we have any handle on how many satellites could be destroyed in this way before we run a strong risk of a runaway Kessler? Closer to 10 or 100 or 1000? Or is it an unknown? Seems to me that specifically targetting and depleting an observation or navigation constellation would be quite difficult, especially if there are spares available for rapid launch. But a random turkey shoot until space is denied to all might be easier to achieve. Makes it a "MAD" arms race between superpowers mirroring the cold war and thus a fairly familiar thing, countries going through the motions.
  5. F117's design was highly limited by computattional techniques and lack of raw processing power. Once computers were good enough, curved, more aerodynamic designs were possible. There are internal structural features (such as the famous "re-entrant triangles") but you won't find an f117 under the skin of a b2 or f35. Stealth capability and radar signiture tracks very well with technological progress, essentially, newer aircraft are better at it. Hence f35 more stealthy than f22. Stealth always a trade-off, f22 or 35 could easily be made more stealthy, but at cost of speed, range,anouverability etc etc
  6. Question: How thick/thin a shell of neutronium would be required to stop 6Gy of radiation?
  7. What exactly is the resolution limit of the average human retina? Like minimum arc length discernible. Assuming sufficient contrast.
  8. I mean, any missile can be detonated on the launchpad for a range of 0m, or rolled down a hill for a range of several tens of metres, but more realistically: There are ways to manage the energy provided by a solid booster, and methods to shut them off before total burn-out have been devised, but as it happens, minimum range of an ICBM is decided largely by structural integrity. Google "depressed trajectory". This is a tactic whereby a submarine would park close to the target and launch its SLBMs on a shallow trajectory, reducing flight time to very low (for ICBMs) values. This allows various tactical options, as you could imagine for short time-of-flight weapons. Decapitation strikes for example, or the more extreme "pop off nukes in a steady stream over their ICBM fields to prevent their launch (or nuking the silos again and again to guarantee destruction of very hard targets) until you have nuked their entire country into dust", as well as simply reducing the time for defences to react - especially as this type of trajectory also makes them largely immune to exo-atmospheric intercept and vastly reduces the time available for endo-atmospheric interception. The problem here is that ICBMs are designed for maximum range with maximum payload, and thus are designed to withstand the forces of that kind of flight - ie: suborbital ballistic flight through vacuum with a short boost phase and minimal atmospheric flight. Shorter ranges require the weapon to fly for much longer through the atmosphere and are also required to perform much harder (for an ICBM) manouvres. This means that the weapon must be strong enough to resist increased atmospheric heating and drag in the boost as well as stronger transverse aerodynamic forces. The more robust the weapon, the shallower trajectory it can fly, and thus the shorter range it can be reliably targetted. Thus, minimum range is largely decided by structural integrity. Further reading: http://www.scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs03gronlund.pdf
  9. Reminds me of "Brazil" by Terry Gilliam - a dark, dystopic, high-technology future where the main enemy is...poor adminsitration.
  10. @sevenperforce Oof. No other way to put it. Hang in there bud, we're all rooting for you, whatever happens.
  11. T4 is one of my faves, with the nose up its lines are unlike anything else. And I especially like how the windscreen, with the nose down, looks like it was ripped straight from a Diesel train locomotive. Very Russian.
  12. Went on a skydiving training thing once - didnt end up doing a jump because of weather , but I did learn one thing - skydivers make quite a lot of noise. At one point were were able to watch from the ground as a group did a freefall jump, and we could see them fall from the plane. As they fell, you could hear a quite prominent "tearing" noise that was the noise they made as the moved through the air. Funny the things you think (or that movies make you think) are quiet. Bows, for example (as in bow-and-arrow) make quite a loud noise when shot too - like plucking an enormous guitar string. The well-known Ju87 Stuka famously had sirens installed on the aircraft itself, so that it made a noise whilst on its attack dive, the so-called "Jericho-Trompete", which is a very recognisable sound from WWII movies. This has led to another movie-trope where any diving aircraft in any context would make an ascending siren-like wail.
  13. I had some of those chocolate covered giant ants. They werent very nice. Not in a gross way, just it was like eating a small ball of those shards of popcorn-kernel-skin that get stuck in your teeth, that tasted like soil.
  14. Im not sure exactly, but I imagine it is to do with various gas-dynamic and thermal issues with flushing cryogenic gases through hot metal parts, in variable external pressure conditions, with turbopumps that have just been in some quite horrific conditions. I think engines have to be specifically designed to be re-startable (and even then its not as easy as on/off/on/off). Parts are designed to be used under certain conditions, like temperatures, pressures and mechanical stresses - and a steady-state is much easier to withstand than a variable state. The answer may be as simple as it was not designed to be reusable because it was not required and to save weight. Only after some very extensive refurbishing, and only for a few flights per engine.
  15. It's take me a while to type out a full treatment, but here are some hints that helped me understand, maybe it'll unfold something in your head: The key is the values of potential and kinetic energy of the ship(total), the fuel and the exhaust. And that the Oberth effect does not involve any extra energy from any source.
  16. My opinion on "unpopular": "Unpopular" is a word that should mean "not like a lollipop" That is my unpopular opinion.
  17. @Snark Is there any way that you could moderate the entire internet please? Maybe a massive cloning operation?
  18. Been watching "Dark" recently?
  19. If we are only talking interplanetary, why mention FTL/warp? Even good old cold-war orion has great interplanetary performance, your AM catalysed version would simply be the "sports" version which would have better performance. Yes possibly the best theoretical performance for in-system use. With, however, the large caveat of there being no known way of producing or storing any usable amount of AM. If you are considering human interstellar travel at all, the low exhaust velocity and Isp essentially kills all fission-based ideas, even fusion is lukewarm at best. This is one of my favorite theoretical papers on interstellar travel (AM beam-core), well worth reading cover to cover: https://web.archive.org/web/20060601234257/http://www.aiaa.org/Participate/Uploads/2003-4676.pdf Spoiler alert: interstellar travel is super-hard, even with the most exotic and optimistic hypothetical propulsion methods barring fictional FTL/warp drives.
  20. Well since she came back from her first trip hyperintelligent and completely impervious to human weapons, it was our only option. I mean, they dont teach that part, but its clear to me from context alone.
  21. You think that the cats havent already created a superior civilisation? Think about how the lives of most house cats are. They *do* have remotely controlled semi-autonomous intermediates - us. They have trained us to *want* to do everything for them, feel genuine achievement when we do so and we think its all our idea. Even right now some of you are thinking "Yeah except MY cat". You have been well trained and your line will produce many high quality caretakers - and you probably will train your offspring to like and take care of cats. "lol! Cats dont have industry!" - No? What keeps a housecat warm? Electricity and power stations - and they didnt even have to build them or run them. And what, exactly, is a catfood factory, if it isnt technology with the sole purpose of providing cats with free food for life? "Our" industry? There are people whose entire careers revolve around creating instruments which make it easier for humans to open catfood containers. "But we put animals in zoos!" - uh-huh, ever seen a housecat in a zoo? Isnt that idea unthinkable? "Ok, but we could easily conquer them." - ok, go ahead, contemplate hurting a cat, strong mental block there isnt there? If there is a person without the mental block on hurting cats, we label them "sociopaths" or "sadists" and ostracise them from community, or else isolate them in healthcare (keeps them away from cats) And I write all this still with the genuine desire to one day provide a comfortable home to a nice cat, without any thought of reward. Its uncontrollable and I sincerely have no idea where it comes from other than "Cats are so cute and fluffy and if one came over for a snuggle without me prompting it, I would just melt from joy." I want to write something more about civilisations and our place in them but really all I can think about now is how cute cats are.
  22. Well....obviously lol I will presume you mean "Space exploration is critical to our future" Which I actually agree with. Just that "our future" is longer than the next 50 years and we as an imperfect species have a lot of work to do before we can "run" as it were. You can compare budgets until the cows come home, but the return on investment compared to earthbound enterprise is still small. Given the passage of some period of time, our opinions would match very closely I think (given reasoned debate over which ideas are executed). But to me, that interim period is important, and quite long. (note that in my previously stated opinion I did make allowances for certain necessary and socio-economically important space operations) But I only wanted to address that our positions might only seem diametrically opposed due to a temporal difference, rather than an ideological one, Im not prepared (literally, I would need a lot of paperwork to robustly back it up) to start an exchange, I dont think that the spirit of the thread Peace!
  23. Yeah I probably learned that at some point. Its what you get if you just collapse down everything I typed. Man I had a hard time remembering the trig thou, I had to get a pen+paper and draw diagrams again lol! (I am a bit starved of science in my job you might be able to tell)
  24. Yup. If ignoring air resistance it is very simple, you dont even need Newtons laws of motion. Dont need the mass either. Angle and speed of impact will be the exact inverse of angle and speed of launch. Adn without air resistance, the only force acting on the projectile is gravity. First seperate the trajectory into horizontal and vertical components. So at 15deg from horizontal and 150m/s, the vertical component is (150*Sin15)=approx 38.8m/s and the horizontal component is (150*Cos15)=approx 144.9m/s Somebody should check that math, my trigonometry is VERY hazy. But we can use the numbers as examples anyway and sanity-check them along the way. The vertical component figure gives you time of flight - how long until 1g deceleration brings the vertical velocity to zero - which would be at max altitude reached. Double that (to include the fall back to earth) to get the ToF. So lets just set 1g to 10m/s2 just for ease. ToF is therefore (38.8/10)*2= 7.76s (sounds about right) The the horizontal distance travelled is simply the horizontal velocity component multiplied by ToF. 144.9 * 7.76 = 1124.4m Which seems like a pretty sane answer, so I reckon my trig was right I hope.... Without air resistance, simple 2-body trajectories are quite trivial once you're familiar (and if you can get a handle on trigonometry lol) Naturally, this is an ideal scenario. There are obviously many complications for real-world examples. Like if the projectile goes high enough that the force of gravity felt by the projectile changes. Or if you want to take into account curvature of the earth (this example assumes an infinite flat plain, which give very accurate answers for most human-scale questions).And if you do include air resistance, the complexity rises very dramatically. Etc. Related reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion
  25. The new hotness is "Jaff". Jammed-Chaff. Modern ECM suites use phased array anntennae which give excellent control over where the signal beam goes. You point a tight (as tight as these things go, you know, physics) beam in a favourable direction (ie: behind you, where your chaff is going) and eject chaff into it. Naturally, care is taken not to point this beam directly at a known enemy sensor (unless of course you want to jam it conventionally.) Now the ECM broadcast is not coming from your exact location, helping (nothing is absolute in this game of arms-races) to spoof Home-on-Jam-capable weapons and your chaff is shining like a star, increasing its conventional effectiveness. It also serves to somewhat offset the rapid deceleration of the chaff (since its reflected ECM can obscure its velocity/range to a sensor.) Much of this has been enabled quite recently (last couple of decades) due to advances in processing power, beam agility and shaping. A simplistic explanation but that is where the tactics are going. **** During last-ditch encounters, chaff and flares are often ejected together because you never really know what has been fired at you (there are some surprising long-ranged IR guided missiles today and medium-long-range radar guided missiles are handy even in a short range scrap as they have a TON of kinetic energy for manoeuvre and are FAST). Launches at longer ranges are more problematic as it is rarely possible to even detect the launch. There are such things as Missile Launch Warning Systems but they are not perfect, in fact quite limited and can be prone to false-positives. But you might, say, employ a "camoflage" scheme if flying within range of known sensors, ie: when in such and such an area, ejecting a chaff every 10 seconds or so, just to screw thigs up and make it harder to resolve you and elongate engagement times, as a precaution. There are exception to all this and the avionics can help by automating a lot, but really, if you are down to using chaff or flares to save your aircraft or having to actually *dodge*, you are in deep doo-doo already. Clean pair of pants at a minimum. Modern aircraft are geared towards avoiding being there in that situation first place, in BVR or a dogfight, by using energy management and large and small scale manouvre and tactics, as their primary defence, everything else is a thin film of prayer. I mean, we are talking about a type of combat which is *exceedingly rare* these days, and it has *never* occurred between any pair of cutting edge (say jets designed post-1990) modern jets outside of training. Much of this is theoretical.
×
×
  • Create New...