Sign in or 

|
DavidB1111 |
80. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 11:46 AM EST
| Post edited: Feb 19 2009, 11:47 AM EST
"Aerogel is not an alloy.I agree. Sorry, IvyMike, while you do have a point, I dare say it's a swing and a miss. Also, while I have no idea what a General Product Giant molecule thingy is, this show takes place in the immedate future, 2027 or so, and now, not 345,451 AD. :) Dyson spheres much? Seriously, I don't think we're going to get the point across here, Ivy, it's a fictional show, but they still can't swim, thereby telling us their density is much higher than water, etc, etc. Bottom line, you can't fight the laws of physics, even for this show. Also, like I said earlier, not an alloy, therefor not an example of awesome technological breakthrough. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
IvyMike |
81. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 2:12 PM EST
Oh for God's sake, I don't know why I even bother. When did I say aerogel is an "awesome technological breakthrough"? Or that it is an alloy? Or that the endoskeletons are made of it? Or that it is super strong?Lack imagination much? "Bottom line, you can't fight the laws of physics, even for this show." It's a show about freakin' TIME TRAVEL!!! Do you find this valuable? |
|
Caesis |
82. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 2:16 PM EST
""Bottom line, you can't fight the laws of physics, even for this show." It's a show about freakin' TIME TRAVEL!!!"Time travel IS possible. I read somplace ... time slows down after you go lightspeed. At a certain point, it will hit 0. Then the negative numbers. It's just that nothing manmade can travel lightspeed, let alone the lightspeed squared or somethin that we'd need to time travel :P 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
GregTheVirus |
83. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 2:44 PM EST
"Time travel IS possible.There is endless evidence that manmade contraptions are not the only ones bound by light speed. Special Relativity 101 (see "Causality") - the speed of light is the limit for all matter in the universe, and only light can travel the speed of light; which is constant in all reference frames. Yes, time slows down as you travel faster. But, as you approach the speed of light you get heavier. Subatomic particles (the electron, for example) are sometimes omitted from nuclei of radioactive isotopes that, upon conversion from potential to kinetic energy, would yield a speed faster than that of light. However, this does NOT happen. The particles bend, releasing energy in the form of light, in order to travel at a speed less than that of light. This is the blue radiation emitted by some reactors, and serves as a prime example that, even by nature's standard, light is THE limit. It is theoretically possible to travel back through time. It would require one of two things: traveling faster than the speed of light (impossible), or a significant bend in the space time continuum (such as is found near black holes). Do you find this valuable? |
|
IvyMike |
84. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 3:20 PM EST
"<snip>It is theoretically possible to travel back through time. It would require one of two things: traveling faster than the speed of light (impossible), or a significant bend in the space time continuum (such as is found near black holes)."Yes, another theoretical "possibility" is a Tipler cylinder, an infinitely long massive rotating cylinder that creates a frame-dragging effect. Not exactly achievable with today's technology. I don't understand why some people (not you Greg) are happy to accept that a super-intelligent entity that can invent time travel and liquid metal that can think, but not that it could invent a material that weight-for-weight is very much stronger than anything in existence today. Do you find this valuable? |
|
CuthbertAllgood |
85. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 3:36 PM EST
"Time travel IS possible.This is a interpretation of Lorentz' equation of transformation of time. You forgot to add that for the observer on the spaceship the time doesn't change, it slows down for the observers in another place, that's the reason why it is called "relativity". Oh, for the record, I read Einstein's paper of special relativity when I was 17. Anyway, it seems that we scared the Turk...now he thinks that his fans are a bunch of engineers and physicists looking for holes in the show! :D 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
CuthbertAllgood |
86. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 3:40 PM EST
"Yes, another theoretical "possibility" is a Tipler cylinder, an infinitely long massive rotating cylinder that creates a frame-dragging effect. Not exactly achievable with today's technology.Super intelligent entities can't change the laws of Physics. Ask Stephen Hawkings. Do you find this valuable? |
|
IvyMike |
87. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 3:44 PM EST
"<snip> Anyway, it seems that we scared the Turk...now he thinks that his fans are a bunch of engineers and physicists looking for holes in the show! :D"TheTurk is good enough to pop in to various forums every now and then to contribute little insights or to correct minor misinterpretations, but he has better things to do than get involved in stupid nit-picking arguments. Do you find this valuable? |
|
CuthbertAllgood |
88. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 3:45 PM EST
"TheTurk is good enough to pop in to various forums every now and then to contribute little insights or to correct minor misinterpretations, but he has better things to do than get involved in stupid nit-picking arguments."While you have time, I see. Anyway, that was a humouristic remark, but humour is out there, it seems. Do you find this valuable? |
|
GregTheVirus |
89. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 3:59 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 19 2009, 4:01 PM EST
"This is a interpretation of Lorentz' equation of transformation of time.lol when did the Turk say that? I don't think we're trying to poke holes in the show! I think we just like these types of conversations (I know I like addressing these issues). To me, it's the exact opposite of attacking the show. I like taking ideas from the show, dissecting them, the science fiction, and apply real life rules of the universe to try and make sense of it. It makes for really good thought experiments (that's how I see it). I hope the Turk doesn't view these analysis's as criticism. One thing I've found out, the fans on this board, on average, are clearly more educated than what's found elsewhere. Partially attributed to that is one of the reasons why this board is popular, TSCC provokes thought. If anything, these types of things should be viewed by the writers as a compliment (we're pretty actively engaged). And their solution to any argument we have is exceedingly simple - it IS fiction, lol. 200 years ago, the whole notion of a machine like a computer was science fiction, unfathomable, but here we are, on a forum. Questioning everything, including what may be seen as impossible (fictional) is all part of the human element, and is a big reason why we, as a species, are where we are. Do you find this valuable? |
|
CuthbertAllgood |
90. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 4:05 PM EST
"lol when did the Turk say that?I agree, the Turk should be happy to have interesting viewers that discuss other topics besides stalking Glau and fantasizing about how to kill Riley. Usually sci-fi fans are more educated that fans of other series, for instance soaps, and it makes sense, but that's also the reason why sci-fi is not a genre for everybody. Another board with interesting people is skiffy, the fans of Battlestar Galactica are some of the most obsessed people in sci-fi I've ever met. Do you find this valuable? |
|
DavidB1111 |
91. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 4:07 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 19 2009, 4:10 PM EST
"Oh for God's sake, I don't know why I even bother. When did I say aerogel is an "awesome technological breakthrough"? Or that it is an alloy? Or that the endoskeletons are made of it? Or that it is super strong?Sigh, as Cuthburt said. Super intelligent entities can't change the laws of Physics. Ask Stephen Hawkings. So there. Also, Time TRAVEL Doesn't need the speed of light to be destroyed. Thank you. Why can't you accept the fact that Terminators can't swim? I mean, really now, you're killing me here. That's what most of this argument is over. You apparently want to argue an already set in cannon point? Or do you wish to argue about their density? :) Seriously, what is it that we both seem to hate each other over here? The fact that you and Cuthburt actually agreed on something on the last page should tell you that we're all on the same pge. also, keep in mind, somethings go over my head. Subtle nuances and all that. Also, my imagination trumps yours. :) Trust me, if we were to compare what our imaginations could come up with, you'd lose. Asperger's Syndrome can be a gift sometimes. Also, again, time travel is much more likely then creating a super alloy that would make Spider silk look weak. :) Which pound for pound is the strongest material on the Earth. Well, picking up and holding heavy objects at least. Now, please tell me, what your problem now is? Or do you like to argue for arguments sake? :) Do you find this valuable? |
|
IvyMike |
92. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 4:25 PM EST
"Sigh, as Cuthburt said. Super intelligent entities can't change the laws of Physics. Ask Stephen Hawkings.When did I say Terminators can swim? I'm not the one arguing for the sake of it, putting words into other people's mouths. Do you find this valuable? |
|
DavidB1111 |
93. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 4:30 PM EST
Well sorry, my bad. I got a little confused here. You know, it's easy if you don't tell me exactly what point you're trying to make? Seriously, just tell me what your point is, and then I'll remember it. I just want to know what you're wanting to talk/argue/debate about? That's it. Keep in mind, somethings go over my head. You literally can't treat me like any other person online. That won't end well. And I apologize for getting you all confused but I assure you, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Do you find this valuable? |
|
IvyMike |
94. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 4:49 PM EST
"Well sorry, my bad. I got a little confused here. You know, it's easy if you don't tell me exactly what point you're trying to make?Ok... Two points: 1) TheTurk has said the Terminators don't weigh 600lbs, but that they are around 10-20% heavier than a human of the same size. Since humans have near neutral buoyancy, a Terminator of the same size (therefore volume) has a higher average density and will not float. Certainly there are things in the show (and the movies) that suggest the Terminators are much heavier, so the canon is not strictly consistent - but we'll just have to put that down to artistic license. 2) The endoskeleton is made of "hyperalloy", a fictional material that is very strong and heat resistant, and although possibly slightly heavier (denser) than us meatbags is still considerably lighter than solid metal. The manufacture of hyperalloy requires coltan in some quantity, that doesn't mean the endoskeleton is solid metal or a conventional alloy. "Coltan" is really a macguffin, used to propel the storyline (Heavy Metal, Good Wound). I dunno, perhaps the endoskeletons are hollow, or porous (or hollow and porous), whatever - it doesn't matter. Hyperalloy appears to have properties that are impossible given today's knowledge of materials science, but so does the mimetic poly-alloy of the 1000 series. It's just fiction, not an MIT thesis, nobody is "right" or "wrong". Do you find this valuable? |
|
X4-940 |
95. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 4:55 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 19 2009, 4:56 PM EST
I would realy love to see a episode, where you could see how cameron was built or maybe just a promo. Like in this trailer of Terminator 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlLCqVKwWJk
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
DavidB1111 |
96. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 5:00 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 19 2009, 5:01 PM EST
"Ok... Two points:Good points! OKay, here's what I think. I disagree that it's a super light and strong alloy per se. Also, what is solid metal? Lead? Steel? Iron? Aluminum? They are still quite denser than you and me. And more heavier. Everything else I agree with. Although porous would be a bad thing. OH, yeah, Calcium, which is in the human skeleton, is a metal. :) Do you find this valuable? |
|
IvyMike |
97. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 5:13 PM EST
"Good points!Well I still don't follow you. If you don't think it is a super light and strong alloy, what do you think it is? By solid metal, I mean, you know, solid, in metallic form - not hollow or porous or in chemical combination (as opposed to alloyed). The endoskeleton is shiny, that doesn't mean it is entirely solid metal, or necessearily even in metallic form - it may just have a metallic coating or shell. Porous is not a bad thing for lightness and strength - our bones are porous. Do you find this valuable? |
|
CuthbertAllgood |
98. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 5:26 PM EST
"Ok... Two points:And my points are: 1)The Turk is wrong. Doesn't matter what he says, his extimations are not scientifically correct. 2)The hyperalloy they are talking is Ti based for their own admission, therefore its density should variate in the specs of Ti alloys we know. BTW Coltan is much denser than Titanium and larger is its percentage in the melt heavier is the alloy. I agree that it's a plot device to accept how it is. Do you find this valuable? |
|
CuthbertAllgood |
99. RE: A weighty problem
Feb 19 2009, 5:28 PM EST
"Well I still don't follow you. If you don't think it is a super light and strong alloy, what do you think it is?Metal is metal, if it's porous, it's a flaw, that usually happens when in the melt there is some gas. When the metal is cooling, the gas becomes vapourus and therefore you have porosity like in some prototypes we were developing at work. Of course, the knuckles of cast iron that were porous failed, and we had to complain to the supplier. Just to say. Do you find this valuable? |