User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Creative Endeavors »

Writing a short story; info about naval rank structure and particle physics?


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Writing a short story; info about naval rank structure and particle physics?
Page 3 of 4 Previous 1 2 [3] 4  Next Thread Tools
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2009-06-26, 15:40

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post
Nope - no stresses, because it's not a propulsion, as in application of force against the surrounding space and matter. It creates a warp bubble around the ship, and then moves the bubble sort of *around* space.
That only goes so far. If it was true Scotty would never tell Kirk while the were trying to get to Warp 11 they could rip the ship apart, and they wouldn't have put the camera and set on tilt tables to simulate extreme vibrations and momentum shifts at extreme warp. This is merely another instance of holes in the fake physics.
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2009-06-26, 15:48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post
Let me try this again.

Reflective = great laser defense.

Reflective = makes venting heat that much harder because it eliminates simple radiative cooling due to also reflecting internal heat back in. Which, as you recall, was the second topic in that post chain. Both were being discussed.

And I see that here you missed the point I was trying to make, so let me try that again too:



The polished layer is how thick again? A few atoms. Is there a junction between that polished layer of atoms and the rest of the substrate? Yes. If you were to split that layer off of the substrate, what would the back side of it look like? *Polished*. There's no such thing as a one-way reflector without violating the laws of physics, ie, the second one. Look up "Maxwell's Demon".



One-way sunglasses and mirrors are still reflective in two directions, equally. The trick is that they are only partially reflective, and one side has a hell of a lot more light hitting it than the other. 60% of sunlight being bounced back at you is blinding, 60% of the light on the inside surface is nominal. The 40% being transmitted from the outside is enough to see because of the photon density - the 40% being transmitted from the inside is swamped by the external reflexivity. Same reflection both ways.

The layer of material that is doing the reflection is extremely thin - and the backside of that thin layer is just as reflective as the front, since reflectivity is a property of the atomic arrangement. If the atoms are arranged such that they reflect one way, they will reflect on the other side as well.

You are correct that can have materials that are frequency-specific reflective, and if you could create one that was IR-transparent, but weapon-reflective, that would work - up until the point that you're around a source of IR, such as a star, nuclear blast, or heck, when your opponent realizes they can just cook you with an IR laser. Or, of course, the weapon frequency changes, and you're hosed... oh HEY - Kraetos, there's a hard sf detail for you - doppler shifted weapon blasts no longer being reflected by armor plating because it's too frequency-specific. This indicates that broad-spectrum reflectivity is needed.

Go back and read sebatlh's post before mine, the one I responded to - two topics were being discussed, I simply highlighted an interaction between them.

Edit: *lol* sebatlh, you beat me to it.

All right. I have now sunk to the depths. I have to quote the Wikipedia article because I cannot use my real sources, but it may have something to do with combat vehicle survivability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_mirror. Note the history of that page, I have never been anywhere near it editing-wise and the last update was in April 2008, so I haven't "cooked the books" as I have seen folks do on other forums.

Now can we just get on with it. I'm not making this shit up.
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2009-06-26, 15:49

Gotta love Dramascience. Insert technobabble here: "The creation and destruction of the warp bubble requires use of the inertial dampeners as the internal spatial frame of reference disengages and reengages with the surrounding space-time fabric." "The stresses related to warp travel beyond nominal engine capacity are due to mechanical stresses within the equipment, and the ability for the equipment to maintain a homogenous warp field - exceeding those capacities will result in physical effects emanating from the warp coils into the surrounding ship structure."

Blah blah blah...
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2009-06-26, 15:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki View Post
That only goes so far. If it was true Scotty would never tell Kirk while the were trying to get to Warp 11 they could rip the ship apart, and they wouldn't have put the camera and set on tilt tables to simulate extreme vibrations and momentum shifts at extreme warp. This is merely another instance of holes in the fake physics.
Not to be a flip-flop but I can see it explained as the warp bubble deteriorating and thus subjecting the ship to the usual stress of moving though space fast.

But now I know why I had that image of warp drive acting as a propellant because of those scenes, so it plays back into your point WRT holes.

Edit: What do you know, Kickaha the molasses beat me to it!
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2009-06-26, 15:54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki View Post
All right. I have now sunk to the depths. I have to quote the Wikipedia article because I cannot use my real sources, but it may have something to do with combat vehicle survivability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_mirror. Note the history of that page, I have never been anywhere near it editing-wise and the last update was in April 2008, so I haven't "cooked the books" as I have seen folks do on other forums.

Now can we just get on with it. I'm not making this shit up.
I know you're not. And I did agree that a single mirror can reflect one frequency and pass another.

But it can not reflect a single frequency from one side, and pass it from the other. You can't make a one-way mirror for the same given frequency without some serious juggling of QM effects that aren't likely to scale to the macroscopic.

And that limitation can be easily taken advantage of in a battle situation... you'd have to guard against (reflect) pretty much any reasonable energy level weapon, and even low-frequency weapons could simply be made *big* enough. I mean, IR is pretty low power, but a nuke has a heck of a lot of it.

Here, I'll join you in the depths so you're not lonely...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror#...ypes_of_mirror

"One-way mirrors work by overwhelming dim transmitted light with bright reflected light. A true one-way mirror that actually allows light to be transmitted in one direction only without requiring external energy is not possible as it violates the second law of thermodynamics: if we place a cold object on the transmitting side and a hot one on the blocked side, radiant energy would be transferred from the cold to the hot object."
  quote
billybobsky
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
 
2009-06-26, 16:21

See here first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubie...ve#cite_note-7

There was a more full throated qm rebuttal recently but I haven't the time to re-look it up...
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2009-06-26, 22:33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post
I know you're not. And I did agree that a single mirror can reflect one frequency and pass another.

But it can not reflect a single frequency from one side, and pass it from the other. You can't make a one-way mirror for the same given frequency without some serious juggling of QM effects that aren't likely to scale to the macroscopic.

And that limitation can be easily taken advantage of in a battle situation... you'd have to guard against (reflect) pretty much any reasonable energy level weapon, and even low-frequency weapons could simply be made *big* enough. I mean, IR is pretty low power, but a nuke has a heck of a lot of it.

Here, I'll join you in the depths so you're not lonely...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror#...ypes_of_mirror

"One-way mirrors work by overwhelming dim transmitted light with bright reflected light. A true one-way mirror that actually allows light to be transmitted in one direction only without requiring external energy is not possible as it violates the second law of thermodynamics: if we place a cold object on the transmitting side and a hot one on the blocked side, radiant energy would be transferred from the cold to the hot object."
I haven't been talking about violating the second law of thermodynamics. We prevent light from going in, who cares if we prevent interior light from going out? We want to let the heat out, and it goes via far infrared, almost entirely unmolested (you only pay the price of having a minimal surface area for radiating). And these mirrors are effecive against the entire visible spectrum + near IR + near UV if you want them to be. It is just layered appropriately when deposition is done, very handy for what they are used for already. That shuts down lasers, but it does nothing for other spectrums of EM weapons. That's what we need "shields" for!

I may be a little sloppy with the terminology at times, I'm not a physicist. I am merely a modeling and simulation pogue trying to get the physicists and engineers play nicely in simulations. Big cross-domain simulations. And to prove to them my stuff is worthwhile we have to show that it works, which means coding a bit into too many of their domains -- which are too many for me to grok deeply. I know what works and why, but I wouldn't want to teach the physics specifics because the limitations are where I just don't have all the time to get to. (I also used to be a consumer of the tech, it was very useful when you might need to be where you aren't particularly wanted, or sending packages where they are needed.)

Brin's uplift books dealt with these issues too. Sundiver had the cooling/propulsor laser as well as the last book in the series Heaven's Reach. That one also had a peculiar flavor of very effective shield that had a nasty side effect of heating up when hit by a different sort of weapon, and the refrigerant laser was again used to save the day.

Last edited by Enki : 2009-06-26 at 22:52.
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2009-07-06, 18:26

A similar thread popped up in gaming reddit and this link was offered:

Atomic Rockets

This is pretty much the be all, end all information resource for sci-fi authors. In fact, there is more information here than any sci-fi fan could ever want.

Enjoy

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2009-07-07, 06:53

I don't know if anyone here caught Ron Moore/Michael Taylor (Assorted Star Trek, BSG) and Peter Berg's (The Kingdom, Hancock, Dune 2010) Virtuality the other night (I didn't either...I watched it on Hulu) but the starship they were traveling in used an Orion drive...something I hadn't even thought of since I was a kid. It was a pretty neat implementation of the "pusher plate" too. Worth a watch on Hulu if you get a chance.

So it goes.
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2009-07-07, 14:55

Cool thread, and I'm both late to spot it and a bit fuzzy from meds to offer too much help at teh moment, but thought I'd throw in a couple of points.

Re: mirrors

Xray lasers (while impractical in atmosphere) are never fully blocked by mirrors (and only partly successful at high angles of incidence anyway)

Ditto neutron/cosmic ray weapons... don't necessarily need to kill the ship... if you can ghost the crew inside you've potentially got the UFP Coffin/RadiationSickness driftin the spaceways afterwards and maybe threat negated.

Re: particle accel

LHC@CERN is pushing Hadrons close to .9999c (or will be when it comes back online), so even 'current' tech is well over .9c with subatomic particles.

Railguns (wikipedia salt grains req'd) notes 2008 testing at 2.5km/s... again, presumably in atmosphere and with materials challenges in durability of components

Youtube even has footage of prior tests

All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2009-07-07, 19:19

And these weapons are why "spacehmens" will use Really Big Magnets
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2009-07-21, 20:03

Minor bumpage for questions about navigation.

Actually, I suppose it's one big question: how does navigation work? What's the difference between a heading and a bearing? What other terminology should I be aware of?

How would one navigate in space? Would you navigate relative to the nearest star? Would spacefaring civilizations set arbitrary celestial points (i.e. the celestial sphere) and then use them as reference? Would you do it relative to your ship?

Would it be situational? i.e. in battle, one navigates relative to the ships position, but elsewhere, one navigates relative to a star or the galaxy?

(sidenote: I've written six chapters so far This is unquestionably the longest thing I've ever written and I don't even think I'm halfway through. If anyone is maybe interested in a sample, PM me )

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
Anonymous Coward
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2009-07-21, 23:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Minor bumpage for questions about navigation.

Actually, I suppose it's one big question: how does navigation work? What's the difference between a heading and a bearing? What other terminology should I be aware of?

How would one navigate in space? Would you navigate relative to the nearest star? Would spacefaring civilizations set arbitrary celestial points (i.e. the celestial sphere) and then use them as reference? Would you do it relative to your ship?

Would it be situational? i.e. in battle, one navigates relative to the ships position, but elsewhere, one navigates relative to a star or the galaxy?
I should really look these things up before answering, but anyway:

I believe the heading is the absolute compass direction in which you are going.
I believe the bearing is the relative compass direction to a target.

I would guess you can come up with a system that makes sense and not be tied to terrestrial navigation since ships and submarines don't really worry about 3D. (For maneuvering, submarines make reference to a clinometer and maintain an angle to the horizontal, "degrees down bubble" or "degrees up bubble" where a zero bubble is horizontal. For weapons control, it's more point-and-shoot, and then steer to allow the weapon's sensors to acquire the target.) I'm sure a pilot will come along with some better suggestions.

I doubt if you want to change your frame of reference during battle. I'd want to keep the navigation the same and keep track of targets relative to your own heading.
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2009-07-22, 02:09

Astrogation

Memory-Alpha distinguishes the terms as follows:

Quote:
Bearing is a description of the direction of a space vessel in relation to another object, such as a planet, star, starbase or other object in relation to the forward direction of travel and is usually accompanied by a distance measurement. An object on a bearing of 090 mark 270 is to the starboard and below the vessel; an object bearing 300 mark 10 is located to the port side of the vessel and above the current plane of travel.
Quote:
Heading is an expression of the direction a space vessel is traveling in relation to the center of the galaxy. It is composed of two numbers: an azimuth (horizontal) value and an elevation (vertical) value, separated by the designator "mark". For example, a heading of 180 mark 0 would be a course heading to the outer rim of the galaxy, but on the same elevation as the center of the galaxy.
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2009-07-24, 12:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousuburb View Post
Memory-Alpha distinguishes the terms as follows:

Quote:
Heading is an expression of the direction a space vessel is traveling in relation to the center of the galaxy. It is composed of two numbers: an azimuth (horizontal) value and an elevation (vertical) value, separated by the designator "mark". For example, a heading of 180 mark 0 would be a course heading to the outer rim of the galaxy, but on the same elevation as the center of the galaxy.
Too bad that doesn't work! The center of the galaxy is a point and wherever you are you can always travel towards it, so there would be an infinite number of Zero bearings! All pointing in.

If that was changed to zero heading is coincident with the Galactic center's direction of travel when projected onto the mean galactic disk then you have an absolute direction vector with which to work and compare against.


Bearing and mark are really just the angular components from a 3D polar coordinate system based on the ships own origin. When you add range you have a fully specified local polar coordinate. For galactic nav you can do the same thing using the above vector as the 0,0,0 for galactic center. None of this is exotic, current weapons systems already use the an appropriately constructed Earth-centric variation of these conventions.
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2009-08-04, 17:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki View Post
Too bad that doesn't work! The center of the galaxy is a point and wherever you are you can always travel towards it, so there would be an infinite number of Zero bearings! All pointing in.
But only one zero if you're referencing the galactic center against the direction the ship is traveling. Right? If you draw a straight line to the center of the galaxy from your ship, if the line is perfectly perpendicular to the ships course, then the ships azimuth is 90 degrees. If you're traveling flat on the galactic plane, then your heading is 090 mark 000.

Bumping because I have a new question about protocol: a senior officer will usually refer to a junior officer by "mister," not his rank. What if the junior officer is a woman?

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
Bryson
Rocket Surgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Canadark
 
2009-08-04, 18:27

Miss.

Reference:

Although that implies that Mister or Miss is just for cadets, not all junior officers.
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2009-08-04, 19:20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryson View Post
Miss.

Reference:

Although that implies that Mister or Miss is just for cadets, not all junior officers.
Howsabout a female lieutenant? Lieutenant? Mr.? Miss?
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2009-08-09, 22:53

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
But only one zero if you're referencing the galactic center against the direction the ship is traveling. Right? If you draw a straight line to the center of the galaxy from your ship, if the line is perfectly perpendicular to the ships course, then the ships azimuth is 90 degrees. If you're traveling flat on the galactic plane, then your heading is 090 mark 000.
Unless I totally misunderstand you, no. This only describes a set of relative relationships, of which there are an infinite number of identical relative relationships if we drove around a circular orbit around the galactic center.

You need some vector which is fixed in the galaxy regardless of what the ship is doing. Say a vector from Galactic Center through Betelgeuse. Now you have a "fixed" relationship. Notice it isn't static, just fixed, which means we can compute all the relative motions of everything, even though Betelgeuse is moving too. But we would always use GC-> Betelgeuse as 0 0 0 in a 3D polar coordinate system. I doubt Betelgeuse would actually be a good choice, it's just an example.

Quote:
Bumping because I have a new question about protocol: a senior officer will usually refer to a junior officer by "mister," not his rank. What if the junior officer is a woman?
Whatever protocol is, what actually gets used tends to be personality dependent. Semi-formally, most tend to use the Rank; Informally first name.

F*ck-wit, imbecile and moron, amongst others, were reserved terms for moments surrounding a certain class of "learning opportunities".
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2009-08-10, 08:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki View Post
Unless I totally misunderstand you, no. This only describes a set of relative relationships, of which there are an infinite number of identical relative relationships if we drove around a circular orbit around the galactic center.
I've been thinking about this and yes, I see what the problem is now. So, a space-faring civilization would probably draw a line from the galactic center through their home system and call that direction the "galactic" or "celestial" north.

Would that work? You would need more than just north, east, south and west, though, because of the z-axis. (Yay! Time to make up cool sounding sci-fi terms! Any suggestions?)

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2009-08-10, 08:33

This thread is so over my head. I'm so glad I write fantasy, where you get to more or less make up all the rules, and the only things you have to worry about are things like "Is it okay for a being of infinite darkness to wear no pants?"

And is okay to find that hot?

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Enki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2009-08-10, 22:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
I've been thinking about this and yes, I see what the problem is now. So, a space-faring civilization would probably draw a line from the galactic center through their home system and call that direction the "galactic" or "celestial" north.

Would that work? You would need more than just north, east, south and west, though, because of the z-axis. (Yay! Time to make up cool sounding sci-fi terms! Any suggestions?)
That would work fine. The coordinates could be X, Y, Z, but that is actually a bit overcomplicated for a radially dispersed system. The Polar coordinates I mentioned measure the angle counter-clockwise from the Home Vector "horizontally", then the distance from Galactic Center, then the angle perpendicular to the home vector angle "vertically". You can swap the last two coordinates just as easily. With that type of system there isn't any mucking about with negative values.
  quote
murbot
Hoonigan
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
 
2009-08-10, 22:55

Here's some good advice for your writing, bro.

Sci-Fi Writer Attributes Everything Mysterious To 'Quantum Flux'

Very helpful if you have some weird shit going on that's hard to explain.

  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2009-08-10, 23:02

Wow, murbot, that really clarifies the earth-shattering question of whether to call a female lieutenant "Miss".


"We have to call her Miss because of you know, quantum flux..."

  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2009-08-11, 15:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki View Post
That would work fine. The coordinates could be X, Y, Z, but that is actually a bit overcomplicated for a radially dispersed system. The Polar coordinates I mentioned measure the angle counter-clockwise from the Home Vector "horizontally", then the distance from Galactic Center, then the angle perpendicular to the home vector angle "vertically". You can swap the last two coordinates just as easily. With that type of system there isn't any mucking about with negative values.
Unless I'm not getting what your saying exactly (entirely possible), wouldn't a third coordinate be needed to measure "vertical?"

Let's say we have GC > Sol as our home vector, then any perpendicular angle starting at GC as our vertical vector. Wouldn't we need some sort of reference as to what angle vertical starts at? I could either be 1000 parsecs above or beneath Sol and I'd still have the same coordinates wrt to the horizontal and vertical vectors if I didn't have some other coordinate telling me I was over or under our system.

Does that make sense?

Basically we need another horizontal marker intersecting the Sol/GC point at a 90 degree angle.

I doubt we could use the galactic disk as a value, since the absolute edge/center of that probably couldn't be defined (and wouldn't work anyways if we wanted our system to be a 0 data point), so what could be used? Ideally it'd be something "fixed" like the GC, but since that's impossible, would something like Earth's orbit be a decent marker? Neptune's? The Kuiper belt?

I don't know. I'm wondering.

So it goes.
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2009-08-11, 16:10

Most of those orbits aren't circular, so aphelion and perihelion might vary by a significant enough amount to make precision in-system jumps dicey.

And the Kuiper belt is a huge smudge of a torus extending millions of miles, not a single orbit, so what reference do you pick?

All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2009-08-11, 16:43

I knew the planetary orbits would probably be off enough to not be entirely useful, but I didn't know enough about the Kuiper belt to know it wasn't some nice, thin ring of objects ala Saturn's rings that could be reasonably averaged to a center*, so I guess that's out of the question too.

But, exactly, what do you pick?


*though, in thinking about it now, I should have at least assumed that.

So it goes.
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2009-08-11, 17:57

Our first extrasolar probes... Pioneer 10 and 11 had rudimentary plaques indicating who built them and where we were by representing the distance from Galactic centre and 14 known pulsars (frequency identified in binary). The mini solar system map is integrated zoom.

The radiating lines at left represents the positions of 14 pulsars, a cosmic source of radio energy, arranged to indicate our sun as the home star of our civilization. The "1-" symbols at the ends of the lines are binary numbers that represent the frequencies of these pulsars at the time of launch of Pioneer F relative of that to the hydrogen atom shown at the upper left with a "1" unity symbol. The hydrogen atom is thus used as a "universal clock," and the regular decrease in the frequencies of the pulsars will enable another civilization to determine the time that has elapsed since Pioneer F was launched.
One of the wiki links is 'how to read the pulsar map on the plaques', but I'm not sure if it will help you.

The Golden Records we put on Voyager 1 and 2 contained the same pulsar map plus playback instructions for audio and images (minus the naked humans that allegedly drew complaints).
NASA's Voyager Golden Record page (quite old) has a Flash site linked which is a pretty cool set of samples from the record. Similar sites exist.

Carl Sagan led the design team for both, with the pulsar map credited to Frank Drake.

Click images for NASA image pages with >2k versions.

All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2009-08-11, 18:14

Is it strange that they didn't include the asteroid belt in there? I wonder if that was something they discussed.

Anyways, it's a shame that they dropped the shaved-apes picto. Now we're all gonna get zapped when we wave hello, because they'll take it as an aggressive gesture. THANK YOU religious zealots, once again, for constantly fucking up our planet.

So it goes.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2009-08-11, 21:07



While I'm certainly not trying to defend religious zealots, I'm not sure they're to blame for the human portraits being removed from the Golden Record. You have to remember that additional information had to be included on the record to explain how to make it work - there really might not have been room (and the record contains images of people, as well, albeit only in silhouette). The rudimentary diagram of our solar system was removed, as well.

I find the instructions fascinating - it's really interesting to think about how we have to explain things like distances and measurements to a completely different species. I get that they're both more of a ceremonial thing, but it's still cool.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 3 of 4 Previous 1 2 [3] 4  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quantum Physics and Teleportation.. scratt AppleOutsider 56 2009-01-28 11:41
HDD file structure corrupted dmegatool Genius Bar 7 2008-04-28 13:03
physics project? evan AppleOutsider 9 2007-04-11 22:28
Archimedes by Particle Accelerator curiousuburb AppleOutsider 1 2005-05-24 15:32
Christmas Physics 709 AppleOutsider 10 2004-12-23 19:12


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova