View Single Post
Old 08-26-2015, 09:46 AM   #30
Mailanka's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: [Spaceships] Heat Signature, Cloaking Device, and Stealth Hull

Originally Posted by safisher View Post
It might surprise you to note that a) I have taken a physics course, b) I have read all of the Atomic Rockets arguments, ad nauseum, c) that I clearly understand the laws, as we now understand it, which prohibit the rather simplified issue as described by "there ain't no stealth in space."
I believe you.

My purpose on the forums here is not to debate you about the laws of physics; I couldn't care less about what you think about the subject.
Then focus on your purpose.

My purpose is simply to remind the others posting and reading here that hard physics blowhards existed in the 1890s, and were not to happy when Einstein upended their apple carts. Of course 100% stealth in space viewed from all angles at all times is TL^.
Then we are in agreement.

But there's a lot we don't know about the universe and we are on the cusp, perhaps, of some incredible re-interpretations. This is after all, the point of scientific research. That's why TL^ exists in GURPS.
Quite right.

But really, we can already nip away at a total prohibition of stealth with discussions of disguise, drifting without engine power, emitting in one direction away from the enemy, using heat sinks such as ice, etc. Those are "stealth tactics" even if they have very very limited utility in certain very specific circumstances. I say all of this not because I think I have a clue as to how all of this will work out in the future, but rather as someone who has studied the philosophy and history of science, e.g., Kuhn and Popper. Your insistence that I must explain my tentative assertions to satisfy your demands, is well, predictable, and comical.
I'm glad I amuse you. But more to the point, you're not really arguing anything at all, as far as I can tell. In fact, it's not clear to me what you're doing at all, other that tut-tutting us for saying that stealth in space is impossible without putting an asterisk of "As far as we know," hurling insults at users of Atomic Rockets, and complaining that I'm patronizing you.

You don't disagree that stealth in space is TL^, or that it's effectively impossible with current understandings of technology. You don't disagree that the various minor tactics that maybe sort of might kind of work are extremely limited and usually impractical for all the reasons someone on Atomic Rockets might cite. And when asked to clarify your position, you refuse to explain, calling such requests "comical" and note your impressive resume (to prove, I presume, why you are above such questions)?

So what are you trying to do? What are the point of your posts? If you're not arguing against our point, what point are you trying to make?
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars.
If you want to support me, check out my Patreon!
Mailanka is offline   Reply With Quote