Prototype

[archimage_a]

No, lining something with magnets does not divert charged particles because there's both minus and plus poles all over the place, the way the magnetosphere works to protect us from the solar wind is by having just one of each in the middle of nowhere, thus pulling the particles there.

I am entirely lost as to that comment.

 

The Magnetosphere works by repelling charged particles...Not by attracting them...we would be screwed if the magnetosphere attracted charged particles.

It is true that the Magnetosphere accumulates SOME of the particles that hits it, and that those particles eventually find their way to the North or South Magnetic Pole, but the actual amount is negligable.

It is also irrelevant, since the magnetic field, as described, is uniformly positive or negative. (Or, to be more precise, only one side of the magnetic field comes into contact with the solar wind.)

 

Also Magnetic Confinement in Fusion Reactors rely on you be wrong...As to the various particle accelerators...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_confinement_fusion

 

But yeah, you are right that if you stuck 20 magnets on something, with no order, then yeah, they have no effect...or an unpredictable effect, they would still have an effect.

 

However, since they were aligned in the diagram that argument doesn't apply...It would be a simple matter to extend the line of magnets into a sphere, or whatever shape we decide for the new ship.

 

I do agree, as stated before, that it would not deflect fast moving charged particles but it would deflect slow moving charged particles...

 

 

Edit:

What Retech Said.

[Earth]

This is getting rediculous. I can't follow this ammount of argument combined with science. Seriously.

[The_Mather1]

Confinement and shielding are two vastly different prospects. When confining something you are aware of its position and it isn't currently hurdling towards you. Also magnetic confinement uses electromagnetism, not static magnets.

If you want to protect the ship from any kind of radiation that it can currently not shield itself against, static magnets are not the way to go, they wont do squat.

[archimage_a]

Sigh, I agree Earth, but Mather won't accept anything that isn't scientifically proved...unless it helps his argument in which case it becomes magically true.

 

Confinement and shielding are two vastly different prospects. When confining something you are aware of its position and it isn't currently hurdling towards you

What a load of crap.

If you are trying to confine something you know, roughly, where it is, and usually it is hurtling directly towards the magnet at speeds far in excess of the speed that the solar wind travels...

Near Speed of Light (299,792 km/s) verses Solar Wind (145,000 km/s) about half that speed.

As such 'knowing where it is' provides no help what so ever.

 

Also magnetic confinement uses electromagnetism, not static magnets

Sigh. And the Earth? Pretty impressive if the Earth is surrounded by an Electric Field that no one has thus far detected.

 

If you want to protect the ship from any kind of radiation that it can currently not shield itself against, static magnets are not the way to go, they wont do squat.

Based on what science...exactly?

That Positively Charged Particles are only affected by Positively charged Electromagnetic Fields, except when the Field is generated by a planet, in which case it magically affects it anyway?

 

I really don't get where your scientific validation is coming from other than 'ELECTROMAGNETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

 

I mean it has even been shown, through numerous experiments, that magnets alone can alter the paths of charged particles:

If we pass a current down a wire between the poles of a magnet, the wire will move at right angles to both the magnetic field and the current. Similarly, if we fired a beam of electrons into the magnetic field the electrons would move.

 

And your view on that is what?

'I, the great Mather, find it impossible that simple magnets could effect anything, in the face of any and all evidence provided. All magnets must be electrically powered or they have no effect at all.'

 

I am quite impressed that you have the cheek to call my game unscientific...this game has lurched from psudoscience to psudoscience and hasn't even paid lip service to basic scientific concepts.

[Earth]

Really I don't think this works. If we're 100 years in the future we'll be advanced beyond the technology we currently have. There's every chance that something will crop up in the next few years or decades that will totally blow science out of the water or change something radically. We can't assume that everything is static in science. Hell science is supposed to be moving forward.

[Alg]

Really I don't think this works. If we're 100 years in the future we'll be advanced beyond the technology we currently have. There's every chance that something will crop up in the next few years or decades that will totally blow science out of the water or change something radically. We can't assume that everything is static in science. Hell science is supposed to be moving forward.

One reason that science fiction uses pseudoscience/soft science. :razz:

[Earth]

Bingo., What Alg said, entirely and truely.

[Retech]

So that would make simple science solutions to complex problems even more plausible?

 

Year 2020: Someone discovers fundamental theorem of Quantum Mechanics

Year 2021: Application to real-world problems

Year 2030: A class is created with those as two important chapters

Year 2050: Every decent high-schooler can now arrange the magnets to solve the problem. Problem is now known as trivial

Onwards: People wonder how the stupid people of the past couldn't figure it out, and live their lives in smug superiority

[Earth]

Well it would make more sense seeing as we have no idea if that'll happen. And.. Honestly, a future based game without pseudo science is kind of an oxymoron.

[archimage_a]

So that would make simple science solutions to complex problems even more plausible?

 

Year 2020: Someone discovers fundamental theorem of Quantum Mechanics

Year 2021: Application to real-world problems

Year 2030: A class is created with those as two important chapters

Year 2050: Every decent high-schooler can now arrange the magnets to solve the problem. Problem is now known as trivial

Onwards: People wonder how the stupid people of the past couldn't figure it out, and live their lives in smug superiority

 

Year 2020: Someone discovers some fundermental concept

Year 2030: A company recognises the genius

Year 2035: The company begins selling the product

Onwards: People buy/replicate the product.

 

The problem is that the Matharian timeline doesn't have any progress at all...except the Magic Hall Thrusters. (Which isn't even psudeoscience, it is just really really really bad science)

Technological progress even shrinks, with lasers becoming less powerful and aerodynamics being almost throughly ignored.

[The_Mather1]

Sigh, I agree Earth, but Mather won't accept anything that isn't scientifically proved...unless it helps his argument in which case it becomes magically true.

 

Confinement and shielding are two vastly different prospects. When confining something you are aware of its position and it isn't currently hurdling towards you

What a load of crap.

If you are trying to confine something you know, roughly, where it is, and usually it is hurtling directly towards the magnet at speeds far in excess of the speed that the solar wind travels...

Near Speed of Light (299,792 km/s) verses Solar Wind (145,000 km/s) about half that speed.

As such 'knowing where it is' provides no help what so ever.

 

Also magnetic confinement uses electromagnetism, not static magnets

Sigh. And the Earth? Pretty impressive if the Earth is surrounded by an Electric Field that no one has thus far detected.

 

If you want to protect the ship from any kind of radiation that it can currently not shield itself against, static magnets are not the way to go, they wont do squat.

Based on what science...exactly?

That Positively Charged Particles are only affected by Positively charged Electromagnetic Fields, except when the Field is generated by a planet, in which case it magically affects it anyway?

 

I really don't get where your scientific validation is coming from other than 'ELECTROMAGNETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

 

I mean it has even been shown, through numerous experiments, that magnets alone can alter the paths of charged particles:

If we pass a current down a wire between the poles of a magnet, the wire will move at right angles to both the magnetic field and the current. Similarly, if we fired a beam of electrons into the magnetic field the electrons would move.

 

And your view on that is what?

'I, the great Mather, find it impossible that simple magnets could effect anything, in the face of any and all evidence provided. All magnets must be electrically powered or they have no effect at all.'

 

I am quite impressed that you have the cheek to call my game unscientific...this game has lurched from psudoscience to psudoscience and hasn't even paid lip service to basic scientific concepts.

Oh really, let me repeat to you what has been said so far, in generic terms:

You: "Would [ambiguously simple principle] work to [do this]?"

Me: "No, but [traditional method] would."

You: "Yes it would, because [more specified principle]"

Me: "No it wouldn't, [similar principle] does because it's [impossible to replicate property], but that does not mean [general of original principle] does."

You: "Yes it does, because it's proved that [more advanced principle] does."

Me: "It won't help. And [more advanced principle] uses [universally applicable principle], not [original principle]."

You: "So you're saying [similar principle] doesn't work? Also if you're so fond of [universally applicable principle, why don't you marry it? And because you [personal attack] say it, [basis of original principle] doesn't do anything. And you claim [strict game with no new principles whatsoever] is better than [game where every principle was replaced] in terms of scientifical accuracy?"

 

I suggest you open your eyes and ears, you're pulling this bullshit far out of line. You're [bleep]ing resorting to personal attacks to back up pointless accusations in order to put strength behind your arguments for a lost cause. For [bleep]s sake, that makes about as much sense as beating up the police because your appeal for a small fine was denied.

[archimage_a]

You: You: "Would [ambiguously simple principle] work to [do this]?"

Me: "No, but [traditional method] would."

You: "Yes it would, because [more specified principle]"

Me: "No it wouldn't, [similar principle] does because it's [impossible to replicate property], but that does not mean [general of original principle] does."

You: "Yes it does, because it's proved that [more advanced principle] does."

Me: "It won't help. And [more advanced principle] uses [universally applicable principle], not [original principle]."

You: "So you're saying [similar principle] doesn't work? Also if you're so fond of [universally applicable principle, why don't you marry it? And because you [personal attack] say it, [basis of original principle] doesn't do anything. And you claim [strict game with no new principles whatsoever] is better than [game where every principle was replaced] in terms of scientifical accuracy?"

 

Me: Would a string exert a force on a car if you pulled it?

You: No, the string would exert absolutely no force at all on the car. But what you could do it put an engine in the car and then it would move.

Me: Hmmm, that doesn't sound right, and I didn't really want to move the car...Doesn't a suspension bridge work a series of steel cables exerting a force?

You: No, string is not the same as steel cabling is made of steel which means it can exert a force, but string cannot because it is string.

Me: Doesn't that seem unneccessarily arbitrary? I thought you said that this game was not going to be arbitrary?

You: Oh, I see, you have resorted to personal attacks because your argument is so weak that it cannot withstand any scrutiny at all.

 

Also, if we actually look at the two first posts:

You: You: "Would [ambiguously simple principle] work to [do this]?"

Me: "No, but [traditional method] would."

 

The overall hope is to place a series of extremely high power magnets in the outer hull, (or mounted just outside the outer hull) followed by a series of less high power magnets inside that, creating a powerful magnetic field outside the ship, without creating a similar powerful magnetic field inside the ship and ripping the water out of everyone's face/killing the CIU.

 

To block out radiation without taking such extremely high-tech solutions that would only mildly improve the situation, I suggest you look into high-density plating, since while a Faraday cage may be of little help, a lead or gold plating would fix the problem without a new one arising.

We can see that you did not answer the question at all.

'Can I create a magnetic field outside the ship without killing everyone inside the ship?'

'No, but lead blocks radiation.'

 

You are acting like the GM equivilant of the Microsoft Office Paperclip...

'Can I fix it so that when I press the Insert key it doesn't turn on overwrite?'

'If you press the Insert key you can turn overwrite on/off.'

 

 

I am perfectly happy to admit that there are holes in the underlying theory...I pretty much said as much in the very first post in relation to this idea that this is a new field for me, so this would be a learning experience.

Instead of providing a learning experience you didn't provide any links, you didn't work to explain any of the concepts...you said 'See Newton's Law' and when I asked which law you ignored it...

As stated above you ignored the questions that were asked and tried to force your own solution to a problem you imagined I was trying to solve.

 

 

What I was expecting was that I could use a set of magnets to collect very small amounts of interstellar hydrogen and helium, which would then coalesce around the ship, held in place (subject to some loses) by the magnetic field (and not further ionised by the electric field of an electromagnet, which would generate especially large amounts of heat).

 

Thusly a thin (later developed in thickness) envelope of gas surrounds the ship, which would produce a semi-obsuring mist to protect against laser strikes, and deflecting small meteors and, maybe, some slow moving projectiles, through the cumulative effect of semi-organised gases flowing around an magnetic field.

 

Once a small test craft, run by a computer, had subsequently been built it would be a matter of finding out if it was possible to use the 'shield' without subjecting the crew to extreme heat as the solar wind caused a gradual ionisation of the 'shield'.

 

However you decided I was trying to fashion a planet sized magnetic field out of 5 store bought magnets through some elaborate method where by you say 'Yes, Magnets have an effect' and I go 'AH HA! NOW I BUY FIVE MAGNETS FROM THE STORE AND USE THEM AS A MAGNETOSPHERE' and you, by some unexplained means, are forced to say 'Oh woe is me, Archi's argument is irrefutable, it is true that I said that Magnets have an effect, and now he is wrecking my game using only five store brought magnets.'

 

As a result the entire 'discussion' got bogged down in a pointless argument relating to the magnetosphere, whereas if you had actually answered the questions asked and acted like a GM it would have been very straightforwards:

 

Player: 'Can I create a magnetic field outside the ship without killing everyone inside the ship?'

GM: 'Well, if the magnetic field was far enough away from the crew then the Inverse Square Law would mean that you could do it' or 'Well, the magnetic field could be manipulated to provide areas of living space within the ship' or 'I am afraid I can't really see how you would produce a powerful enough magnetic field outside the ship without killing everyone inside the ship, therefore the magnetic field would be limited to such and such an amount.'

Player: 'Hmmm, ok. So if we say that the magnetic field is such and such at the hull level, and it follows the Inverse Square Law, then it would exert such and such a force on the solar wind. Correct?'

GM: 'Yes, that seems to be correct' or 'No, thats not correct, it would be such and such, and here is why' or 'Yes, that seem to be correct, but have you considered that the Solar Wind is made up of Hydrogen, Helium and other, heavier elements, moving at different speeds, and example of which would be such and such?'

Player: 'Hmmm, thats a good point...' or 'Ok, I am only really looking to trap helium and hydrogen, so I will ignore the other elements for the time being. So if they are moving at such and such a speed, generally, then they should have a force of such and such. As such the field would have such and such effect on the particles. Correct?'

GM: 'That seems reasonable' or 'Ah, but you have forgotten such and such.'

Player: 'Oh right' or 'Ok, so the field needs to be more powerful/the field is powerful enough/the field is too powerful.'

[The_Mather1]

First off, as has been evident for god knows how long, your knowledge of how electromagnets work would at a good day be describable as abysmal, an electromagnetic field, constitutes of a coil giving of photon emissions from the electrons of the current passing through it, an electric field works by one point having a greater ionic charge than another and the, being separated by a non-conductive material.

 

Secondly, if you would just describe what you intend something to do rather than something that has an infinitesimal chance of happening as a bi-effect of the intended event, there's a greater chance of it actually being accepted as plausible. Still no, though, as a magnet capable of holding in place the barely charged plasma of space would also be capable of imploding the ship.

 

 

In less annoying news; session is on.

/join Prototype

 

Session's off.

[Earth]

To say this has gotten ridiculous is to repeat myself. To say it's out of hand is an understatement. I'm out, for good. This has gotten.. Well.. Stupid. Incredibly so. I can't see this working out at all. I'm sorry Mather, but this isn't the right kind of game for that tavern as far as you've been portraying it.

[The_Mather1]

Why, because Archi can't take a "no"?

What have I done other than repeat that statement over and over in hopes of him realizing I have final say?

[Earth]

Exactly that, Mather. You have the final say in the technology levels 100 years in the future. And you're basing them squarely in modern day understanding. I can't see that working, and himself you two are like politicians with how you argue. It's not a game, it's a debate room now. And I don't want to deal with that.

[Ieyfura]

Alright guys. I'm going to have to ask you to stop all the arguing. A majority of the thread has been nothing but bickering back and forth. It is Mather's game, what he says goes. If you really disagree with him that much, it's as simple as just not playing, but he is the GM and that makes his authority within the game absolute no matter how much you may or may not like it.

[archimage_a]

I am gonna follow Iey's advice/orders, and not attempt to argue with your comments.

 

I will point out that the idea was barely formed when I asked the fundermental question...as I stated in the inital point.

And I am gonna say thanks for finally answering a question that I asked, its a shame that the amount of effort required to get you to answer it was probably greater than if I had just spent a few hours reading a text book, then writing out the equations.

 

But yeah.

I am out.

Hope the game works out.

 

Edit: I am also gonna say this.

For persistantly providing no information, acting like a hypocrit and, effectively parodying a roleplaying game, you are forever banned from my games. Against the advice of everyone in the Tavern I tried to give you a chance and through every stage you proved your critics right.

Edited April 18, 2012 by archimage_a

[The_Mather1]

Because suddenly being strict in terms of scientific plausibility and providing all the information that's requested equals being a hypocrite, especially when the person accusing me of such has his games strictly abhors to random rules and used several pages to finally mention that what he was getting at was in fact not what was logical to assume at first. If I didn't know any better I'd say accusing me of hypocracy is the real hypocritical act here... oh, wait, that's because it is.

You know what's even worse hypocracy than that? How you often accuse me of being too nitpicking and being off the charts incorrect when I describe technology which I don't only know how works, but where the fundamental science behind it is actually my field of education. Yet here you are, explaining in unnecessary detail the construction of a giant, flying, robotic city that utilizes a by far untamed force as a means of levitation.

 

You may not notice it yourself, but the way you behave yourself is pretty much similar to a parody of your worst description of me, except taken way out of line.

Everything you have ever said about me can as easily be applied to you, increased by a factor of ten.

[archimage_a]

Everything you have ever said about me can as easily be applied to you, increased by a factor of ten.

 

You might want to edit that to just refer to insults...and if you wanted to be accurate you might want to say 'Except the 'You are a terrible GM' comments'

 

In the first place I have said, on a fair few occassions that I respect your intellect in certain things. Similarly I have paid other compliments that was probably not your intention to return ten fold to me.

 

In the second place...I think we can agree that my days as a GM have generally been marked as 'good'.

 

 

 

Apart from that...Four things:

1) I enjoy engineering mind puzzles, learning about new concepts, and fitting stuff together in my mind...typically based off of other things...For instance me reading several papers (Through the Uni database) which concerned the effects of electrostatic fields on passing particles, notably that they entered an increased state of excitation over time, caused me to think 'Maybe only using Magnetic Fields would be better'...Of course given that I have been writing 3 essays over the past week, as well as running a game and bouncing ideas around on Mum's Assignment (typically 4 hour sessions, every other day), I don't really have the time to work out what the Density Flux is equal to, or to, basically, work through the puzzle with my typical style.

 

2) Macro-Engineering is not something I overly trust the Tavern with, ever since someone decreed that 2 Billion Dollars was enough to build an Underwater City, over a kilometer in diameter, and I had to show that it wasn't enough to cover a 1 kilometer diameter dome in plywood, let alone nano-tubing. Similarly, anything with a technological bent I don't overly trust the Tavern with since it has been suggested that a Mass Accelerator could be used to fire astronauts into space, when actually the G-Forces involved would turn them to liquid. On top of that it has already been demonstrated that Ion Thrusters are not the miracle technology they are thought to be. All of which causes me to put very little stock in what the Tavern argues because it is, innevitably, based on some form of TV science.

 

3) I am slightly confused by your post. I am not sure if you are refering to me as having a game that 'strictly abhors to random rules and used several pages to finally mention that what he was getting at was in fact not what was logical to assume at first'

 

I am kinda drawn to say that you meant adhere, rather than abhors...Though even there there are problems...

In the first (Abhors) case, it is true that I did not allow people to spontanously break the rules were possible. But I did allow people a great deal of leeway with the rules.

In the second case (adheres)...It is very true that I did provide only very vague guidelines in the vast majority of cases, allowing people to come up with their own interpretations...On the other hand there were a core set of rules that were followed and only rarely (Typically because I forgot something) deviated from them. Of course it may seem otherwise since people got one answer with one question, and a different answer with another question...Typically because they asked something different. 'Is this not blue?' Yes 'Is this red?' No.

 

The second phrase...Not entirely sure. In the game I very rarely 'got at' anything because I was playing a neutral character with no real concern for anything(in my game). If you are refering to my general behaviour rather than my in game behaviour then I would probably agree with you...Though it largely runs counter to your other point that I write large posts that are unneccessarily long.

On the other hand I have said, on many occassions, you should not assume I am 'getting at' anything beyond what was actually written. This would fit both of your catagories. For instance I draw together a strand of argument formed out of a dozen or so posts, which stretch over a dozen pages and people, for some reason (Possibly because my plans often place me in the best possible position), assume that that was my plan all along...At the same time when I write an unneccessarily long post it means that I am getting at something, but am not sure what I am 'getting at' at the beginning, thus it takes a long time to get there.

 

Of course there are problems there since I am typically playing against someone else, and don't publish my long winded plan for them to see. The only exception is when Doom betrayed me so she could come third in a game rather than first(A brilliant plan...), but as a general rule it holds.

 

 

4)

I guess this is kind of my only 'argue with you' point, for which I am sorry to Ieyfura and will try to keep this as non-hostile as possible.

Simply put, I am playing your game to the best of my abilities. I am using my understanding of science to argue with the GM, as it advises me to do in the inital post.

 

If you see that as a 'parody' of you, then I would suggest you question the structure of your game (Since I broke no rules...I didn't even infringe on any of the rules*)...and perhaps your behaviour in other people's games (Since you clearly believe my behaviour is '10 times' more annoying than your own, implicitly stating that you are annoying.)

 

Not entirely sure what else I can add to that point.

 

*If I was Iey I would take this as an indication that:

http://forum.tip.it/topic/281101-falador-tavern-rules-guidelines/

Is clearly worthless and there should be, as has been stated on numerous occassions, a codex of rules which are opt-out (ie You follow the rule unless the Mod/GM says it doesn't apply).

Probably a good idea not to call it a Codex of Rules, since the Admin get hissy that 'What if users think that means you are allowed to ignore the forum rules!' Probably something like Codex of Roleplaying...or something.

[Retech]

I do declare that we can sustainably expand the Amazon and return to 0% unemployment by sending the unemployed with special training to pick fruits and forage from the Amazon.

 

In addition, the corpses of the incompetent will nourish the already rich soils and also help cultivate a new group of expert foresters that can be drafted as special soldiers in the Brazilian army.

[Leiana]

Everyone, please just stop.

 

All ya have to do is just adapt to how a gm thinks and not try to argue with the gm due to an opinion of how things should work. Oh, and also don't piss off the GM.

[Leiana]

Session today? I'm gonna be late or going AFK cuz I HAZ work.