[quote]Study your law again, Biggles. The second Law of Thermodynamics states only that heat energy will seek its lowest energy state unmolested . That last part is very important. Heat gets pushed uphill as the most basic technology today. Your goddam refridgerator does this, but I guess your lab doesn't have one. Silicon can do it too, to a much lesser extent. <sp
[quote who="Bobucles" reply="2" id="1933776"] "We know that we cannot hide thermal radiation, so cloaking devices are out of the question." I'd like to point out that this isn't exactly true. Objects release thermal energy based on their temperature. The only requirement for stifiling thermal output is to forcibly make the radiating surface VERY VERY cold. Modern technology can already push thermal energy up
We can discuss future technology based on what we know right now. Right now, we know that we cannot travel faster than light, thus limiting any future war to solar space. We also know that lasers, missiles, and kinetic projectiles are feasible, all three of which make armor obsolete and the first of which makes maneuverability obsolete. We know th
[quote who="Yamota" reply="9" id="1930232"] Quoting Bigglesworth_XIII, reply 21 Nuclear warfare is frequently overestimated. It could damage cities, but it could not kill everything on Earth. Take my word for it; I've worked intimately with nuclear we
[quote]Second, ships in space would be heavily armored[/quote] [quote]IN space a second type of shield is already developed, plasmashield. By using a weak eletromagnetic field and releasing gas(only a few kilograms btw) into it you can create a shield of matter which extends thousands of kilomters around a craft. This is enough to damage any fast moving targets that enter it(not stop them just damaing anything like lenses and computer chips inside) And to dis
[quote]There you go, as long as fighters can do something they will still be around. Fighters will be the cheapest space vehicle with weapons, unless some one can think of something else. They are able to be built easily, quickly and in large numbers.[/quote] I disagree. Why would you use space fighters when you can use something less expensive but twice as powerful? If you really want the ultimate space weapon, build giant robots. Listen, not only do giant robots ha
I sincerely feel like a fool. I was under the impression that this debate was intended for the setting of reality. If we are discussing a fantasy future, then yes, there will be space fighters. Because they're cool. I suppose we'll also have giant robots and lightsabers. Thus, I concede the point. -Dr. B
[quote]Besides, unlimited resources and war are paradoxal; who the hell would wage war if they already have everything? It defeats the point of discussing future war.[/quote] Why, then, do people invent theoretical space fighting machines? Most of the resources available in space are available in abundance, and there is certainly no lack for room. You people don't realize that, do you. The only thing in our solar system worth fighting over is Earth, and that happen
[quote]Even if [space fighters] have to loop around they can come in from behind and atleast damage those targets.[/quote] [quote]As for the pirates, i think they can make it.[/quote] [quote]A fighter probably could be built in hours in times of war if the service was being really pushed on. its more likiely that it will take about a day.[/quote] [quote]I am thinking that fighters will be the foot soldier of space.[/quote] I see. -Dr. B
[quote]Question, What Exactly are you basing anything you say on? I don't need a giant list of refrences but just a general idea; How do you know about nuclear weapons, Where is your technical knowlege coming from, Where did you missile theory come from?[/quote] My knowledge of nukes comes from working for the NNSA, but my personal background is largely irrelevant. There's no point in discussing credentials in what is a completely anonymous conversation. [quote]DR. B&nbs
[quote]Your overlooking one major advance. The atomic bomb has been around for 50 odd years now, and has had the potential to remove all life from the planet, and so far, no-one has pushed the button.[/quote] Nuclear warfare is frequently overestimated. It could damage cities, but it could not kill everything on Earth. Take my word for it; I've worked intimately with nuclear weapons and I know what they can and cannot do. [quote]Current fighter planes work well eno
[quote]Well, if you try launching your missiles from a planet, or even a moon, they'll be wasting energy just to get into space. I'd suggest the use of heavily armored orbital missile platform things, maybe using coilguns as launchers, and with other stations nearby loaded with laser & shrapnel-based point-defenses and verious other countermeasures. They don't have to move much, so Delta-V is a non-issue.[/quote] Agreed. Further note about missiles: I should elaborate on w
Just so we're clear, exactly how many missiles do you think it would take to destroy a spaceship? Space warfare is ballistic warfare. We're both using rockets; my rockets are simply much, much cheaper. Also faster. And, if I want them to be, invisible. You can't make your spaceships faster, cheaper, or invisible if your lugging around a bucket full of passengers. Don't mistake my point. I'm not advocating the use of ballistic war
[quote]You might have a Doctorate and a basic understanding of science, but you clearly lack a basic understanding of warfare and tactics.[/quote] There's little point in turning this into a reference on myself. What I do and do not know I will leave you to glean from what I say. [quote]onless your goal is to just obliterate everything else besides your self, at some point your going to need to invest in ground forces and transports, and the ships to defend those while t
Space fighters ceased to be a practical combat vehicle with the invention of the self-guided missile. Whatever you can put inside a space fighter, I can put inside a space missile. This scales up as far as you want it to go. space battleship big space battleship space deathstar You can quibble over details until you're blue in the face, but anything you use to insta-destroy my s
Normal 0 My formal education in politics began and ended with my freshman year of undergraduate university study. Admittedly, I have neither the time nor resources to diversify my qualifications so far as to include economics or government. While I am not personally effected by financial crises, recessions, depressions, or
[quote]Btw, when WW3 occurs (everybody against China and North Korea), China will be wiped out by a all the western nations, removing the 6000 year old nation, and all the commies.[/quote] War provides exponentially diminishing returns with the development of high-investment infrastructure and civilian globalization. There is a non-negligible probability that there will never be a WWIII. Forget what you've heard about men being violent bastards. Men are greedy bastar
[quote]Does that mean if I calculate the world is flat I can experimentally verify it to fifteen decimal places?[/quote] You can try. [quote]The original argument is that you are move at such speed that you go from the sun to the earth in an instant. Thus when you arrive on earth, you will arrive in time to still see the light from the sun when you were there, thus you can see yourselve in the sun while you are in earth.[/quote] The original argument, and in fact,
[quote]Lol, you are no scientist. A real scientist would know, do not depend on math, use your imagination, imagination is better than math. There a high probability (thats right, probability) that the mathematical equations are incomplete and also a higher probability that any assumptions we make to establish and solve the equations will lead to a wrong answer.[/quote] I use good math. This is bad math: [quote]Light takes 8 minutes to move from sun to earth.&
[quote]If I am in Earth (or any other place) now standing still, then suddenly I move to Mars at a FTL speed, will I arrive in Mars before I left Earth? Will I see myself on Earth while I'm in Mars?[/quote] To some observers (but not yourself), you will arrive at Mars before you leave Earth. Unless some frames of reference are "special", the person observing you as arriving at Mars before you leave Earth will be factually accurate in their observation. Nor will they be res
For the sake of argument, I'm going to back away from saying that FTL travel is impossible, and instead remind everyone that chronological continuity does not exist in a FTL universe. If you are comfortable with going back in time, than by all means, believe in your dilithium crystal burning, warp-drive toting, phaser firing starships. If you believe that you can have FTL travel, relativity, and continuity all in the same universe, then you apparently aren't a physicist. I
[quote who="MRDred" reply="6" id="1857750"]I feel my inner nerd awaken.[/quote] Inner nerds deserve a proper edcuation in science. Don't wake up your inner nerd just to have it spout nonsense. [quote who="Jedmonds24" reply="5" id="1857472"]Would it be easier, possible to build an "Ark" style ship?[/quote] No. The proportions here are prohibitively impractical. I can think of about twenty reasons why this wouldn't work, but the simplest and most
