Rasori

Swansont, you can say the "Yes, we have," part and because of your backing (in that one example) you can say "No, it won't," but you can't really say "No, it isn't." We've just yet to discover how or completely prove that it's impossible (which is near if not completely impossible to do seeing as there are so many possibilities (absurd as they are) that may allow for FTL travel. We do have good backing for your statement, but it is still Einstein's THEORY and thus could be, one day, disproven.

I admitted that that was unlikely too, Tycho (did you not read my post? It was the last line). If a big ship wants to go fast, it needs more room for engines and thus more room for fuel and even more room for more technicians to keep the added engines working. Then you need more room for life support and food (assuming you're using humans and not robotic labor as these technicians) and things keep piling on. Now then, if you're going to build this larger ship that'll end up having more surface area, well, don't we have to defend this surface area? More weapons. More mass. So yes, you can get a fast big ship, but it's extremely expensive and, due to inertia, isn't very practical for accelerating or stopping (making it very hard for it to manuever so it's easier to hit, even at massive ranges). As for that conclusion, Tycho, if you understood my post (which I don't blame you for not, it was a bit confusing) then you'd see where I based it. Hitting a target would be nigh impossible for ships at the ranges we're suggesting because of all the possible places it could be. So the obvious replacement for guessing is placing a middleman to tell us of the target's maneuvers ahead of time. That's all fine and dandy, but transmissions can't (for the time being) travel faster than the speed of light, either. So you need to wait to receive the transmission to act on it, and then it's still another 10 minutes from then until you can see how badly you missed your target. So the middleman concept is out. Because information can't travel faster than the speed of light, there's no way space combat will ever happen unless we're talking about even smaller ranges than I originally said. You'd need to practically be in orbit around the same planetary object. Probably not much further away than the two outer reaches of the orbit of our moon. Understand now?

That's the point with space technology. We just seperate the different countries to different planets and asteroids and we won't have to worry about it (end sarcasm) In all honesty, though, WE are definitely ready for advanced space technology. It's the political leaders with their heads in the sand/up their arses that aren't ready for it. GO INDEPENDENT SPACE FLIGHT!!!!!

Because if a capital ship is fast it has to be even bigger. I suppose it's a bigger range than I thought, but I got the impression that you were talking about impossibly huge numbers. It's not all that important, really, if you can get transmissions from middlemen to tell you where to shoot. A targeting computer in a fighter wouldn't need to be all that complex to calculate where the ship could be. Of course, then you double the time because radio waves only travel the speed of light... So basically, what it comes down to, is that space combat is never going to happen. I find that highly unlikely.

I want it safe enough to not kill/hurt me and keep the wind tunnel in-tact. Sorry, too safe?

Think, once again, about the size of the ship we're talking about here. Lots of mass = lots of inertia = extremely hard to change speed/course in 10 minutes. If you're trying to target a smaller ship, maybe a cruiser or something, you're talking about it being hard to target. BUT- a convoy can only go as fast as its slowest ship, which will be the heavy capitals, which will be slow enough that it won't take too many lasers to hit it. Also remember the size of the ship- not only is it slow, but it's a big target. Sure, if you aim at the bridge, it won't be there in 10 minutes. But if you just aim at the SHIP, there's a pretty good chance you'll hit it.

Oh, one other thing! I nearly forgot. Wind tunnels tend to use smoke to show air travel patterns. I could use smoke both to make sure that my wind isn't turbulent and to see the air currents. So, does anyone have suggestions for a safe and at least semi-controllable smoke releaser (or smoke bomb, your choice lol).

I plan to build a miniature wind tunnel, a lot like the Wright Brothers' used in 1901. I have stabilization (of model and air currents) all set up, I just have one problem- I have no devices to measure lift or drag. The site I went to (don't have a link, but if you just google up "wright brothers wind tunnel" you'll find it) mentioned that they used old hack saw blades and other things lying aroung to make their devices. My assumption was that they used a spring that was calibrated so that each increment would equal a notch on the hack saw blade. I want to look into making instruments that could do this or just find out what modern-day equivalents we have that will work. As for my assumption, basically I assumed that the lift device was on the bottom. They had a little marker that pointed where the spring was, and a string that connected to a hook in the bottom of the model (or some other connector). When lift was created, the model would rise and pull the spring up as well. And for drag, I assumed the same thing, except the device was on its side. I'm sure that's a MUCH too simplistic point of view and I'm almost positive it's not at all true, but if it's somewhat possible (I know there are spring scales that could probably be used a similar way) then please inform me

Tycho, no one said it outright, but when you're talking about having to adjust your aim for the speed of light (and how your data is incorrect) you're talking about a big distance. From the distance of a couple of planets, yeah, the data will be incorrect, but it will be pretty damn simple to correct at that range. You won't need hundreds of lasers to shoot in the possible areas it could be, because at that range there aren't nearly as many possibilities, especially if you know the capabilities of the ship (does it have maneuvering jets? How fast can it stop/reverse? etc). The distance from Mercury's orbit to Mars's orbit is 9.8 light minutes. Given the scale of the ships we're talking about targeting (in order to be able to hold fuel, engines, weapons, life support, computers, and crew at the least), the possibilities of its placement are pretty damn few. And I still think 9.8 light minutes is too long for fighters (missile defense and possibly capital attack) to really make for refueling/rearming.

YT's method, just under 2 mins pen + paper. And according to the calculator it even came out right

Ah, once I'm working I'll be making money. I'd gladly go to work over school (for now )

Space isn't a perfect vaccuum (as I'm told time and again). If it were, where would the gases that made the sun have come from? There are still pockets of hydrogen floating around (and probably other stuff, too). What if you were to use a vaccuum created by man, though? Is it not theoretically possible to pump the air out of a building (that's completely airtight) completely? Granted, you'll have to make a support structure capable of withstanding the atmospheric pressure, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be too hard...

Errr.... how do we know that the Egyptian and Mayan calendars end at the year 2012? At least in the Mayan's case, Jesus was completely unknown up until the time the Spanish came by and killed them all, so they couldn't relate it to 2012 A.D. And as for the Egyptians telling them, the Egyptians didn't know about Jesus until well into the Roman era. If the Egyptians were seen sailing out to see, I think someone would follow them and exploration would've started then, rather than the 1400s.

JaKiri, they're both parts of special relativity, but special relativity was thought up by Eintstein (well, relativity was, but I dunno the differences, so I assumed). That means that it wasn't originally part of special relativity, it was part of the way things worked.

If inertia increases as you get closer to C, then is it just coincedence that C is the boundary that we can't reach, or what? Makes even those unreligious people like me wonder if there was a plan in this, since the significant figures happen to be equal.

NOT well done, but I think you'll get the gist. Lines to the circle on bottom diagram = elastic band to a nail. The other axle is on the other side, I forgot this in my post. The elastic band doesn't need to go around, just make sure it'll wind up The lines on the wheel are elastic bands. That's what I had used to make the 'treads'. Of course, my car needed them because my wheels were only cardboard. With a better choice of wheels you can probably get a lot better traction. I personally found it better to wind each axle up by hand, but make sure you're turning the wheel the right way. If you're not sure, just roll it backwards a bunch of times. Also, a note: this will result in a car that is on an angle, because one wheel has to be above the chassis and another below. Just in case you couldn't visualize it (since my drawing doesn't make that clear) I thought I'd tell you.

Indeed, Xom, but an order of 1000 out of 6 billion should only be kinda tall. You know, a tall order about as tall as the Petronas Towers...

My town's only claim to fame is that it's town green was used as a kennel for runaway cows until about 40 years ago. But I am about 20 minutes from Yale University, so there're a bunch of idiotic presidents and presidential candidates that came this way just because it'd look good when running.

I did this once. I made it four-wheel drive (the front axle's band goes to a point on the opposite side of the car than the rear axle's band so it rotates the same way. Use as many elastic bands as you can (all the same length or very close, so you don't have to only partially wind one of the bands). Use the same number on both axles so they don't overpower each other. Then just wind up until you can't anymore without breaking them, and let loose You might also consider using something to give the wheels 'treads'. This'll increase friction and thus traction, so more of your power will go to use moving the car rather than spinning the tires. Just don't cover the entire wheel, because this could bring you back to square one (depending, of course, on the material)

Na, that won't be a problem. They'll just pick a thousand smart people, or at least people with common sense , clone them, and destroy everyone else. Just hopefully the guy picking the people knows that people like Dubya aren't smart nor do they have common sense JUST because they went to a good college... Not that I preferred Kerry...

In a mixed-up world where 1 is actually a variable = to 1.5

He could put an audio recorder in there and turn the phone's volume up. Or, if it's a picture phone, just send a picture

Just out of curiousity, which "random feces" would you be talking about?

Methane and Hydrogen were just what came to mind But thanks, Ophiolite and Tycho, for explaining that to me.

Helicopters rarely land anywhere but in an airfield, and most often it's a friendly airfield. If there's a mine in the airfield, well, they need to upgrade the field's defenses. And for submarines surfacing, that'd be Air-to-Surface missiles, not TOWs. Also, you have to look at it as intended target: intended target for a landmine? Tanks. So you defend the tanks from the landmine. You aren't going to defend an F-16 from a submarine's torpedo. It's common sense. Also, look at this: Tanks have armor for bullet defense, reactive armor for missiles, composite armor for explosives. Now, I don't know about you, but I think pretty much anything that can take out a tank is defended against. Does it up the price? Yes. But it SAVES the tank. Buying 1 $65 million tank is better than buying 3 $40 million tanks last the same amount of time. So cost vs. benefit, it's better to pay for the defenses. The same goes (or will go) with the shields this thread is supposed to be discussing.