Particle beams

Tenshinai wrote:

Major reason I get impatient with people who go on and on about some specific story element that's got their dander up. I've never seen any SFF story worth reading that looked better than 60-70% plausible anyway - often because I was too ignorant of the points where it fell flat on it's face to know that they weren't all that plausible. Which is why I run the numbers, have my chuckle, and move on.

Yeah, that´s why it´s science FICTION rather than science, contemporary drama/action or something.

We can go on and on forever comparing how things would or could not work based on current knowledge, and it could easily be that some or most of it is effectively made useless by someone figuring out some kind of physics "cheat" tomorrow.




#####

With all respect, 99,9% of lightspeed aren't as far away from 100% of lightspeed to make serious difference in tactical sence.

I believe the point was that you´re not getting 99.9%. Frankly i doubt you can realistically get 90%.

Look how far we've come in the last 75 years technology wise. My Mom grew up in an era when going to the moon was science fiction and she watched it happen live on the TV. Also look at old T.V. shows like ST;TOS look at the communicator and then look at your cellphone or the black clipboard and your iPad ThinkPad Kindle etc and tell me their not alike.

saber964 wrote:...Also look at old T.V. shows like ST;TOS look at the communicator and then look at your cellphone or the black clipboard and your iPad ThinkPad Kindle etc and tell me their not alike.

The similarity of the original "Motorola Flip Phone" and the Star Trek Communicator was deliberate because the designers were Trekkies.

Most scientists and technicians working on "futuristic" tech -- like flying cars, light-sabers, and laser weapons -- are SFF fans trying to make some SFF author's handwavium into real science.

Weird Harold wrote:

saber964 wrote:...Also look at old T.V. shows like ST;TOS look at the communicator and then look at your cellphone or the black clipboard and your iPad ThinkPad Kindle etc and tell me their not alike.

The similarity of the original "Motorola Flip Phone" and the Star Trek Communicator was deliberate because the designers were Trekkies.

Most scientists and technicians working on "futuristic" tech -- like flying cars, light-sabers, and laser weapons -- are SFF fans trying to make some SFF author's handwavium into real science.

It is that very old adage at play, "Born in the mind of man, made in the lab of man."

Or the more common "If you can think of it, we can build it," eventually.

The one I like is "If you have an itch, we will scratch it."

or

"Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life."


And to add to the nostalgic pot, Maxwell Smart's shoe phone vs
the very first mobile phone.

Look how far we've come in the last 75 years technology wise.

Sadly, i also keep remembering how much further we COULD be if we seriously TRIED.

That really annoys me.

Tenshinai wrote:

Look how far we've come in the last 75 years technology wise.

Sadly, i also keep remembering how much further we COULD be if we seriously TRIED.

That really annoys me.

You've got the Mouthful Award! I concur.

Same here. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. A collective mind wasted is a felonious crime against nature. Nature's crime is being privy to the felony. Mother's crime is bearing the fool.

kzt wrote:I think it's pretty clear that the implications of e=1/2m*v^2 didn't hit David until after book 4 was submitted.

Possibly.

However,I would submit we see a certain consistency all the same.

The thing is, sidewalls (and the particle and radiation screening that fill the rest of the volume between ship and sidewall) aren't "hard" energy shields, but gravitational fields.

Slow moving particles, such as missiles and even plasma torpedoes get torn apart and deflected from their course. That will not require additional energy or effort.

Particles traveling at light speed, such as photons,are fast enough to get through with only minor deflection/dispersion. Thus a nuclear weapon that generates a lot of gamma radiation that is carefully focussed can penetrate a sidewall.


Of course, whether gravity can really be focussed so precisely in that way is another question entirely. They've managed it in the fictional Honorverse though, and that's all that's important.

cthia wrote:
And to add to the nostalgic pot, Maxwell Smart's shoe phone vs
the very first mobile phone.

It's too late at night to check now, but did Napoleon Solo "Open Channel D" before Smart made his first shoe call?

Fox2! wrote:

cthia wrote:
And to add to the nostalgic pot, Maxwell Smart's shoe phone vs
the very first mobile phone.

It's too late at night to check now, but did Napoleon Solo "Open Channel D" before Smart made his first shoe call?

It's never too late for Wiki. "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." premiered in 1964, "Get Smart" in 1965.

Fox2! wrote:

Fox2! wrote:
It's too late at night to check now, but did Napoleon Solo "Open Channel D" before Smart made his first shoe call?

It's never too late for Wiki. "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." premiered in 1964, "Get Smart" in 1965.

Don't forget Dick Tracey's wrist radio in 1946.

Theemile wrote:
Don't forget Dick Tracey's wrist radio in 1946.

While similar in function, radio =/= phone.