GH Technology: The Babble Behind It

[xpace]

Quoting: Burzmali

The length of time it would take for a significant amount of Iron to sublimate off of a space ship is far longer than the ship is likely to be in service.  Look at all the asteroids lying around, they have been in existence for billions of years without boiling away to nothing.

You are right that it takes a long time. But my argument was the fact that metal can sublimate at all in space is evidence of how intense the vacuum of space is. If metal can evaporate, then how easy would it be to 100% contain an atmosphere with nothing more than an electromagnetic field or a very primitive force field.

While on the subject of sublimation, I think it's a potential problem of long-term space habitation worth considering. And, yes, it does depend on how long a colony, station, ship, or mecha is in service. But some of these, particularly colonies and stations, are probably expected to stay in service for decades. Either way, sublimation might necessitate maintenance more frequently than if the same vehicle or structure was located on a planet's surface.

I just knew someone would bring up asteroids as a counter argument. It's true that asteroids have been around for a long, long time without boiling away. And it's true they're mostly iron and nickel (such as found in the core of most planets). But these facts alone are not proof that they haven't reduced in size due to sublimation. For that matter, how do we know for certain when the asteroid belt was formed? An old theory goes that it was formed at the same time as the Solar System. But another theory, one I think is much more plausible, holds that it was at one time another planet which was ripped apart somehow - most likely due to a huge impact or being next door to the incredibly intense gravity of Jupiter. (Everyone's seen Star Wars IV: A New Hope... right?) And this event could have happened a few billion years ago or it might have been only a few tens, or hundreds of thousands of years.

Also, remember that many asteroids are huge in size. A couple are almost large enough to be considered a planet(oid). It would take a very, very long time for all of them to sublimate away. But what about the hull of your average space station, ship, or mecha? I'm thinking most of these would only be a few inches thick - or less. And perhaps some of the inner workings, such as engine components and the nuclear core, would have to be exposed to the vacuum of space and thus sublimate away without the protection of a pressurized hull. You don't think 100% of the components of the Space Shuttle, Skylab, or the MIR were pressurized, do you? Just look at the unpressurized elements of the International Space Station. That doesn't even include some basic, sometimes delicate, components such as the solar panels.

Quoting: Burzmali

I think the basic complaint is that the existence of commonly available gravity manipulating devices (or devices that can simulate the effects of gravity without the side effects of electromagnetics et al) throws a monkey wrench in other assumptions.

I agree, this could be a problem.

Quoting: Burzmali

why have spinners? Cylinders aren't a very effective use of space.

True. But even with a gravity simulation device, such a device demands a large and constant source of power. Even provided by nearly limitless nuclear reactors, it might demand a larger reactor than normal. On the other hand, a spinner merely has to be spun in motion and an occasional push added to maintain the motion. That's very energy efficient. Also, it's probably much cheaper and simpler than installing gravity generators everywhere. And it's old technology. That means older colonies, before the advent of KPG systems, would have to use centrifugal forces to simulate gravity.

Quoting: Burzmali

why bother with sealing stations?  Gravity can hold air down as well as people.

Good point. But I suspect some obstacle might prevent such a system from being practical. For one thing, wouldn't atmospheric pressure taper off according to nearness to the source of gravity? If so, I think a gravity system for holding an atmosphere would require miles of volume before it is allowed exposure to space. And then there's things like solar wind which could easily blow the atmosphere away without some sort of wall.

Quoting: Burzmali

why use engines?  Gravity drives negate the need for propulsion mass, and can give you effectively unrestricted acceleration.

I mentioned before that if anti-gravity propulsion were available in GearHead (a huge if), it should be extremely bulky, inefficient, and super expensive because it would be new technology. But then, since Mr. Hewitt explained that his KPG system is not true gravity technology but a reasonable facsimile, this is no longer an issue.

[Burzmali]

Quoting: Snakebit STI

As stated above, redundancy. Also, wouldn't you need to exceed a certain station radius for a given force of sim-grav? Spinning itself wouldn't work well on the air unless there were some mechanism to stir it around (e.g. giant spokes in the station). I am unconvinced that friction with the surfaces of the station alone would get the air to spin as well. Related: wouldn't it be quite windy?

The air would take time to get up to speed, but once it did it would be fine and no one would notice.  If the spinner was large enough to have weather it would make for an interesting show, I'm sure.

Quoting: Snakebit STI

Gravity drives require mass to pull you towards or push you away from? Otherwise it would be like trying to drive a sailboat by mounting a giant fan to the deck and pointing it at the sails. Also, there is no unrestricted acceleration? You can accelerate indefinitely (friction, thermodynamics, and what not) if you just spin in a circle, but rate cannot increase without bound (if the speed of light really is a maximum)

If you can create a device that generates a force resembling gravity, you can mount it on the front of a ship and it call accelerate as long as it is turned on.  The device pulls the ship, and the ship pushes the device.  Normally this doesn't work so well because any object massive enough to pull a ship along can't be pushed by it as well, but if the device's effective gravity was higher than it's mass's gravity, it would work.

Also, aiming a fan at a sail will work, though not as well as aiming the fan backwards.  Momentum is maintained, and in such a system the air propelled by the fan will strike the sail and rebound back passed the fan and off the back of the ship.  To balance momentum, the ship moves forward.  I saw a great demostration of this in college with a toy car that propelled itself by launching ping pong balls off a plank mounted on the hood causing them to rebound back over the launcher.

[Snakebit STI]

Citations needed here.
Xpace: I think you are confusing changes in epigenome with changes in genome. A change in which sequences of DNA are read is not a change in the DNA itself and is different from mutation. I think I even saw the same PBS program. IIRC the changes were to the epigenomes of the population: NOT changes to genetic code. Psychological factors and such do causes changes to epigenome, but not genome. If you are suggesting otherwise, I'd like you to cite your source.

Let's see... if you take an inductor and mount a ferrous slug inside it (off center) with a perfect insulator, place the contraption at rest on a frictionless surface, and run current through the inductor, would it move? Actually, I'm starting to think that it would...
[edit]I so have to try this... probably would work best with superconducting wire in a vacuum on a very very very smooth surface, though... The sheer inefficiency would make it rather hard to do in one's garage. And dangerous.
I do disagree with you about air in a spinning space station being (relatively) still, though. The reason that I think the rotational velocity wouldn't reach that of the station is the presence of high altitude winds on earth. The air would 'prefer' to not be spinning in a circle (as that requires acceleration which requires force). In a closed station it would be milder, though (more surfaces for the air to contact), and on second thought some wind is a good thing.
[edit]I guess what I'm trying to say is that the spinning of a station wouldn't be great for keeping air in and it would be quite windy if you just had a disc shape (like the halos in Halo, but smaller).

[Burzmali]

It's all about diameter, the larger the diameter the easier it is to hold the air, and the slower that it has to turn.  A station designed to hold a few hundred people would certainly need to be fully sealed, but a colony for a few hundred thousand would be a different matter.  While none of the existing spinners have the need to do so now, all things considered, were it not for gravity mimicking technology, it might be worth it for Earth or Luna.

In your example, I doubt the system would move, conservation of momentum would not be maintained.

[Joseph Hewitt]

Quoting: Burzmali

why have spinners? Cylinders aren't a very effective use of space.

why bother with sealing stations? Gravity can hold air down as well as people.

why use engines? Gravity drives negate the need for propulsion mass, and can give you effectively unrestricted acceleration.

1) Space is cheap. Centripedal force may be more cost-effective for simulating gravity in a large area.

2) If you have a whole lot of air, and even then there'll be loss.

3) Because as mentioned, KP isn't a reactionless force. This does bring up the interesting point that as long as there's nothing within the pulse field it's not doing any work (other than whatever work is needed to maintain the field, inefficiency, etc).

Quoting: xpace

I've always thought of that particular phrase as a sarcastic (if a bit graphic) way of saying that one is simply pulling a rabbit out of one's hat to explain something away.

The point being, no matter what explanation we choose, we are pulling a monkey from the proverbial arse. We are deep in the territory of post-hoc rationalization- there's an effect we want, so we are mangling science to get to that point.

Quoting: xpace

Sorry to hear that. I for one would probably have enjoyed it as I like nerdy explanations.

The sibling asks why people need simgrav in the asteroid colonies. The father gives a mostly correct explanation for how spinner colonies work, then claims that on Earth people are held down by the weight of air pressing down on them. Bjorn clears that up socratically. The sibling then asks how simgrav works and no-one is able to explain.

[Snakebit STI]

How does simgrav work?
How does gravity work?

I can only speak for myself, but I think trying to rationalize the effect we want with the smallest number of assumptions/fallacies is fun.

[edit]I was thinking of conservation of energy, but forgot momentum :facepalm: Still, if it wouldn't work with an electromagnetic field, why would it work with a gravitational field?

[Frumple]

Quoting: xpace

So, you're saying that you won't even allow enough room for debate? Then, you are saying that the evidence to support your conclusion is absolute?

I should probably remember to clarify things better the next time I say something like I did, heh.

No, I'm not particularly saying something like that, and apologies, of course, if it sounded like it. What I was saying is that the debate's been held by substantial (enough for me) numbers of people who are considerably better at debate than (more than likely) either of us (unless you happen to be either a master rhetorician and/or scientist of evolutionary biology, the student of a combination of the two being whom, as my teacher, I was lucky enough to get the general thrust of the information from.).

I'm just parroting what the best of the best (or at least the good of the credible) are saying, once filtered through the mouth of fairly discerning teacher I had, who himself had direct interaction with said best of the best.  

Mind you, the general gist of it's still pretty spot on, insofar as things go, and insofar as there's a spot to be on as the subject goes, and of course, considering I'm not a person who has direct contact with the field of study. Still, if you want a terribly distilled version of what the folks doing th'work of things are saying, that was one of 'em. Also ye' gods at the grammar mangling.

---

In any case, insofar as practiced studies into biological change goes, actual genetic change just isn't something you see substantial, species wide shift, on animals with a generational turnover as long as humans, in a period of time measured in mere years; even decades and centuries are largely laughable, and you're probably not going to see anything worth actually noticing until you get into the millennium. (Again with the grammar, oi.) Humans are terrible experimental (read: observable) subjects in relation to genetic change.

---

And... where was I actually going with this? Bugger all if I know, honestly, the thread's been fairly massively derailed (I think, anyway. Though maybe constructively? It'd be nice.). Wish I could add something to the whole vacuum and gravity thing, but neither material science (vacuum stripping) or gravitational manipulation (Do we still not really have a good idea of what the blazes gravity is? Last time I paid attention we were stuck on the 'what it does' without any clue as to the rest of it.) are things I've had much interaction with.

---

Tentative google an wiki'in's coming up empty on something, though; anyone seen-in-passing information on median (not mean, aka average) statistics on human populations? With the ever increasing disparity of means between various populations, I keep getting this nagging voice (whoever taught me hyper-basic statistics information/data gathering?) in the back of my head saying that that information'd be a lot more telling than the averaging of the available data.

tl;dr version? There is none, ahahahahahahaha! *coughs* Sorry, aheh.

[Joseph Hewitt]

Quoting: Snakebit STI

I can only speak for myself, but I think trying to rationalize the effect we want with the smallest number of assumptions/fallacies is fun.

Yeah, it's fun, I'm just tired and headachey. How about that then- given the details of how this technology works in-universe, who can come up with a plausible-sounding explanation?

Other technologies that could use an explanation:
- The small fusion engines used by mecha
- The cold fusion used by biotech creatures
- The "phase effect", a poorly defined ability to mess around with spacetime, currently used in phase beam weapons and to be used in FTL travel (pocket universe type).
- The biofac, able to create an exact duplicate of a living creature, as seen in the GH1 episode "Mars Needs Clones".
- The mind-copying and altering alterations that Aegis Overlord made to the device, also from "Mars Needs Clones" and to be featured in the GH2 core story if Aegis is the enemy faction.

What else?

[xpace]

Quoting: Snakebit STI

I propose that when we get to questions of 'is it even possible to use this much energy?'  at some point we say "fusion reactors lalalala-can't-hear-you" if it will make things otherwise vastly simpler.

I'm tempted to make the same assumptions myself sometimes. But then I think of how engineers might think and I'm convinced that they'd try to dream up new ways to consume the gigawatts of "extra" power should it become available some day. If nothing else, I think they'd make devices less efficient just to be able to make them slightly cheaper.

Quoting: Snakebit STI

Quoting: xpace
"It's called "anti-gravity". ^_^"

I wanted to start with something we know exists (know is such a strong word in science ^^; before moving onto stuff that may or may not exist.

Fair enough. We do know that the KPG exists in the GearHead universe because Mr. Hewitt says it does. But it's still a work of (albeit, imaginative) fiction. I was trying to point out that anti-gravity as a plot device is well established in sci-fi and has been around a long while. And while I assume most people, included readers here, consider anti-gravity technology to be nothing but fiction, I believe the science behind it has already been discovered (hence my earlier comment on experiments where they decreased the mass of an object). I'd try to quote a reference or something, but I was taught about this years ago in high school science class and... I'm feeling lazy.

Quoting: Snakebit STI

Quoting: xpace
Umm... would you volunteer for such gene therapy? I know I wouldn't.

So? That has no relevance. This is hundreds of years into a fictional post apocalyptic future. Cultures change.

OK... I'll admit: It was irrelevant. You have an excellent point.

(Side Note: Anyone remember that episode of the Outer Limits where a probe from the future was sent back to present day Earth just to retrieve good genetic specimens because in the future everyone died from a disease susceptibility due to constant DNA tampering? Skeletons of humans with wings were found which demonstrated how open they became to Frankensteining themselves.)

Quoting: Snakebit STI

lulz, WE have some technology beyond what's present in the Star Trek universe. Hell, in 200 years computers might be making all of our decisions and robots might be doing all of our work. If biological humans are even still around.

Another good point. We really don't know what the future holds, do we?

However, my point is that, generally speaking, technology in GearHead should not be expected to be on par with or surpass that which is generally available in Star Trek. (Though, admittedly, making broad generalizations is not very scientific.) The current GearHead universe (either GH1 or GH2) is still in a pre-interstellar travel phase. I was trying to compare other's ideas of using a force field to contain an atmosphere on a space station - without any walls - with the highly advanced force field technology of Star Trek. By this, I hoped to make it clear that the idea did not fit into the GearHead universe very well.

Quoting: Snakebit STI

Quoting: xpace
"Sorry, but I just don't follow your logic. How does applying a simulation of gravity by way of electromagnetic force means that it works relative to surface area? I'm confused...
And, it does not sound very healthy to shoot particles at people 24-hours a day."

I'm trying to disprove a generator that only acts on the tops of things as a good (not to mention possible) way of simulating gravity.

I must have misunderstood, then. Somehow, I interpreted that as you supporting the idea and trying to explain how it could work.

Quoting: Snakebit STI

If KPGs only act on outer surfaces, then I am assuming that it is electromagnetic interaction at work (clearly not gravity or a nuclear force). If only outer surfaces (upwards facing) are effected, then larger the surface area, the more it must be effected by a KPG. Essentially, a KPG would be like a powerful fan.

Good points. I also interpreted the concept as "blowing" in a sort of fan-effect, but created through the use of electric charges. But I had a lot of trouble trying to rationalize it in any way. If anything, it reminded me of the poor science found in old Flash Gordon type sci-fi or an Edgar Rice Borroughs novel.

Quoting: Snakebit STI

Air locks are nice redundant engineering because there are two doors? Also, they keep air in whether power is on or not (unlike artificial gravity)?

I think we, again, had a failure at communication. When I wrote that I thought you were a proponent of having a station or colony with an atmosphere held in place entirely by a force field (or something similar) - that is, without any walls (or perhaps walls, but no ceiling). I was trying to understand how having air locks could be considered redundant when the primary means of retaining an atmosphere (and also exiting and entering the facility) would be through force fields. I was trying to make the point that in a "house" with a semi-permeable membrane, but no physical walls, how can adding physical doors - without adding physical walls - be considered redundant?

Quoting: Snakebit STI

Are you thinking your comments through at this point or just trying shoot down everyone's thoughts/ideas?

Admittedly, my first comments on this page were posted really late at night (or early morning), so perhaps I was not as clear-headed as possible. However, I was itching for a good debate on rationalizing away desired sci-fi effects. Unfortunately, some might (mistakenly) construe this as a personal attack.

Russian scientists have observed differences between cockroaches conceived in space and their terrestrial counterparts. The space-conceived cockroaches grew more quickly, and also grew up to be faster and tougher.

So... Still no comment from anyone on my suggestion that monster cockroaches in low-G might be a good and logical encounter for personal scale combat in GH2? :-D

Quoting: Snakebit STI

Xpace: I think you are confusing changes in epigenome with changes in genome. A change in which sequences of DNA are read is not a change in the DNA itself and is different from mutation. I think I even saw the same PBS program.

I think we did. And you are right about the changes to the epigenome vs. changes to the genome. Perhaps I didn't explain well, but I was trying to convey something along those lines when I talked about said PBS program. I just couldn't remember the proper scientific terms.

Quoting: Snakebit STI

IIRC the changes were to the epigenomes of the population: NOT changes to genetic code. Psychological factors and such do causes changes to epigenome, but not genome. If you are suggesting otherwise, I'd like you to cite your source.

Perhaps you are right. My recollections of the details are not clear. But, however foggy the details are, I seem to recall that psychological factors (or perhaps "physio-psychological") such as meditation can even sometimes induce alterations to the genome, albeit very minor ones. But, as you say, citations are needed. However, I have to put that off for another time as I'm not up to it ATM.

Quoting: Snakebit STI

I can only speak for myself, but I think trying to rationalize the effect we want with the smallest number of assumptions/fallacies is fun.

Yes! I agree entirely! ^_^

[Snakebit STI]

Quoting: Joseph Hewitt

Other technologies that could use an explanation:

... uh, "computers thought this stuff up and haven't managed to properly explain it to us yet." This is the most realistic explanation I can come up with, except for the mind copying (really really sensitive MRI type device + extensive knowledge of how the human brain works). 200 years in the future (or maybe even 100, or 50... seriously...) we might have nano factories that can assemble, say, a shiny new laptop for you using pure elements as the materials. Or another- slightly smaller- nano factory, but if cold fusion is physically impossible now, it will still be impossible later :/. Of course, you can only prove that something is possible (truly prove) by doing it. You can never really know what is impossible. For instance, is it impossible for your computer to quantum tunnel its way down to the Earth's core? My fairly uneducated guess is that the probability is physically impossible to represent, but finite and greater than 0.</offtopic>

As for monster cockroaches, we've avoided rats so far, so why start throwing the cliche fodder in now? </offtopicforreals>

[Frumple]

Cockroaches are one thing; instead, let us have oversized space mantises (mantes?). I would fear that so much more. Plus they could fill high-end DOOM MONSTER level SF:0 (or even greater. Kaijumantisaiee) encounters. But why stop there!? SPACE SPIDERS OHGODWHY. Or perhaps bees. Aren't Venusian Space Bees like, some kind of staple of the earlier generations of science fiction? Why aren't the Venusians producing legions of terrible space monsters again?

Most insects can be made horrible and lovecraftian just by adding SPACE in front and jacking up the size scale so it's measured in stories rather than centi(mili)meters; otherworldly intelligence, a hatred of all things human, and a blatent disreguard of whatever that law of physics that prevents that upscaling optional.

---
To ride with your off-topic, nothing that is not innately contradictory (it is both A and Not A simultaneously) is actually impossible, in certain scenarios.

All things are theoretically possible, some just less plausible than others... assuming infinite or near infinite possibilty, which probably assumes either infinite time (oscillating universe is go!) or matter (alternate universes a-gogo!).

In a finite universe (heat-death, oh dear), however, not all things would be possible (in the given example, sooner or later all kinetic potentiality would bleed out, leaving further events more or less impossible, barring something that would make physicians and sane people pull their hair out and scream -- not that they'd be alive at that point to do it.).

000

Whee. I'd probably figure on something involve digitalization (Copy the current state to code, feed code into machine, press repeat, maniacal cackling optional(?) -- and hey, free AI frame to boot.) for the biofacs, depending on how exact the copy is. Maybe some kind of (watch me violate any understanding of physics, ahahahaha.) quantum duplication?

Actually, that does kind of make me wonder; is there any packets of post-singularity* humanity running around doing strange things in the GH world?

*Short form of one theory; Data processing (or storage, or something or another) doubles every X period of time on some sort of curve thingy. Eventually (we're getting bloody close) 'curve' becomes 'straight vertical line' and presumably advances in computation and related fields begins to progress so quickly it outstrips the baseline human's ability to keep up, letting all kinds of strange (and perhaps wonderful and/or horrible, depending on your point of view) things begin to happen. Yes, I'm kinda' (terribly) sleepy right now.

[Joseph Hewitt]

Quoting: xpace

And while I assume most people, included readers here, consider anti-gravity technology to be nothing but fiction, I believe the science behind it has already been discovered (hence my earlier comment on experiments where they decreased the mass of an object).

No. "Anti-gravity" does refer to a scientific concept, but it's not the same as the science fiction idea of being able to manipulate gravity at will; plus, there are some very good reasons to think that anti-gravity (as described by physicists) can't happen in reality (or at least, this universe). Experiments which claim to show an anti-gravity effect have been difficult to replicate, suggesting that any perceived effects are due to error rather than an actual physical property.

Edit: This seems like an appropriate link:
http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/02/the_p hysics_of_the_death_star.php

[Snakebit STI]

Quoting: Frumple

SPACE SPIDERS OHGODWHY.

Space bacteriophages.
Okay, so there pretty much needs to be a side quest that involves a mad scientist type ("I'm not mad, everyone else is!") cranking out giant, physically impossible space abominations. And maybe you can get a cool pet out of it (talking space spider that makes passive aggressive threats when you talk to it??)

But yeah, in the rather near future humans probably won't have any part in the design of new computer hardware. We make a computer that designs a computer that designs a computer, etc. At some point we're going to run out of things to do with the processing power, because your every day laptop will fold up pocket size, yet have a screen with a higher dpi than your eyes' resolving power and a faster refresh rate than you could possibly see... Assuming battery and circuitry efficiency gets a lot better, otherwise you'd be melting plastic with the cpu(s)...

[SharkD]

Quoting: Snakebit STI

Space bacteriophages.

Yep. Microscopic organisms scaled to interplanetary levels are way creepier than spiders.