Deflector Shields-the reality (Officially off topic!)

Grammatical arguments, lady-of-the-night related slang words and cramming for finals!

Link

Very nice, an idea that sounds like it would work...against radiation, not Klingons.
383,028 views 153 replies
Reply #1 Top
Faraday Cage

Deflector Shield

Radiation Protection

Real Shield already been made back then in 1836.Although Faraday Cage wasn't build to block out Radiation but it DOES provide some protection on it own. From Wikipedia: Faraday cages are named after physicist Michael Faraday, who built one in 1836 and explained its operation.
Reply #2 Top
To a large degree, Faraday cages also shield the interior from external electromagnetic radiation if the conductor is thick enough and its meshes, if present, are significantly smaller than the radiation's wavelength.

unfortunately faraday didnt design this for space travel. its too bulky

and the plasma shield will be nice for short trips, but it wont be good for interstellar travel, radiation belts would blow away the ionized gas in a flash.

by then our shields will be better anyhow.

isnt physics just so freaking awesome though?
Reply #3 Top
How will it keep a constant supply of ionized gas and how does it detect incoming radiation to turn on the shield?
Reply #4 Top
the emag field keeps the ionized gasses in place, and I assume you turn it on whenever you know you are entering bad territory (in between earth and sun) or you just keep it on.
Reply #5 Top
isnt physics just so freaking awesome though?


Thats what I say to my science teacher, but still we do biology...
Reply #6 Top


unfortunately faraday didnt design this for space travel. its too bulky



So was computer, point to ENIAC Link, Harvard Mark I, Colossus Computer. See my point now? BTW you know that plastic that come with most electronic for computer stuff(not sold inside computer cage etc...) IS shipped IN a Faraday cage. Source of info: Antistatic Bag See how it can be used for space travel now?

It don't require bulky equipment to achieve the effect just either magnetic field traveling through metal or plastic strong enough to block radiation.
Reply #7 Top
antistatic vs. anti-radiation is big step.
and as small as the shield can be made, I garuntee that it will be ages before they make one seriously capable of protecting against radiation at a reasonable size

besides, computers were downsized due to a fundamental change in their format (vacuum tubes to silicon circuits). no such luck for the faraday cage, which works on one single principle and has a comparitively simple layout.
It don't require bulky equipment to achieve the effect just either magnetic field traveling through metal or plastic strong enough to block radiation.

(sarcasm warning)
oh god, you must be right. how could NASA's best engineers not think of this?
(sarcasm ended)
Reply #8 Top

From Wikipedia: Source Link

Impact on space travel

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion (the Starfish Prime test) and several satellites ceased operation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.

An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per year.[5]

Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax allegations have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. James Van Allen himself, now deceased (August 9, 2006), dismissed these ideas. In practice, Apollo astronauts who traveled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and would have received a harmless dose [6]. Nevertheless NASA said that they deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimize the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon would probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes.



NASA's best engineer already come up with ways to skirt the radiation AND keep circuit from being complete serviced fried fry.



which works on one single principle and has a comparitively simple layout.



Please explain your reason for this "narrow" comment because by your reason microwaving your favorite pizza would have kill everybody on the planet.


From Wikipedia: Source Link

Example applications

One example is a shielded cable, which has electromagnetic shielding in the form of a wire mesh surrounding an inner core conductor. The shielding impedes the escape of any signal from the core conductor, and also signals from being added to the core conductor. Some cables have two separate concentric screens, one connected at both ends, the other at one end only, to maximize shielding of both electromagnetic and electrostatic fields.

The door of a microwave oven has a screen built into the window. From the perspective of microwaves (with wavelengths of 12 cm) this screen finishes a Faraday cage formed by the oven's metal housing. Visible light, with wavelengths ranging between 400nm and 900nm, passes easily between the wires.

RF shielding is also used to prevent access to data stored on RFID chips embedded in various devices, such as biometric passports.



It take VERY little to block microwave, and I also seen articles that say a bag of rocks(grant have to be very thick) can allow space voyage to other planet. Rock without weight is practically non-bulky and easily anchor on the outer hull. If you want me to I can pull up several such articles.
Reply #9 Top
Please explain your reason for this "narrow" comment because by your reason microwaving your favorite pizza would have kill everybody on the planet.

so you're saying that the faraday cage, working on the principle of interupting wavelengths of static and radiation is as complex in construction as a computer?
who's the one with the narrow statement.
NASA's best engineer already come up with ways to skirt the radiation AND keep circuit from being complete serviced fried fry

the protection is good enough for durable computer circuits in benign regions
thats not good enough for space, space has radiation belts that will fry their way through any sort of protection we have (they would tear our ionosphere to assunder) and the protection is still not good enough to stop such effects as space aging in our astronauts.
and I also seen articles that say a bag of rocks(grant have to be very thick) can allow space voyage to other planet.

thats the issue of bulky
Rock without weight is practically non-bulky and easily anchor on the outer hull. If you want me to I can pull up several such articles.

bulk as weight isnt the issue. its bulk as mass and therefore inertia.
adding rocks would add immense amounts to the feul needs of a ship, to the point where it might not even be able to move at a sufficient acceleration.
It take VERY little to block microwave

micro waves to gamma waves, as of yet we haven't found a way to block all the dangerous emmissions, UV gamma micro infrared, they all have issues in their own different ways.
Reply #10 Top
lol i find it interesting that you guys are arguing the best ways to protect ppl in space when we have not even found a way to reasonably travel interstellar distances. just thought i would mention that.
Reply #11 Top
what would be the point in interstellar capacity if you got fried in the process?
Reply #12 Top
what would be the point in interstellar capacity if you got fried in the process?


I understand that it just seems to me that you method to get from point A to B before you start talking about how to protect yourself from everything in between. I don't say this to devalue the argument its just seems to me that in terms of interstellar travel the most pressing problem now is the travel part.
Reply #13 Top
I am saying you seem to miss the whole point of APPLYING Faraday effect with ANY material EVEN human skulls. For example concrete while NOT design to have Faraday effect, does block cellphone which does block wavelength of the cellular frequencies signal. I wasn't talking ABOUT the complex of construction of computer but rather the TREND of thing that eventually get smaller and do better than those before. And if you didn't notice yet I didn't said Faraday cage would directly/primary be used for travel. Perhaps a "light protection" shield inside the "heavy duty" shield. Like how a boat has door that automatic lock in case of a water leak in the hull, and just watch titanic for dramatic effects.



benign regions



Whoever said they was benign regions? Will be fired from the Mars NASA mission while the astronaut die from "benign solar flare". BTW there no such thing as space radiation belt, you may meant Van Allen belt which IS limit to strength around earth NOT beyond. Grant other planet has them but if you can get around one you should be fine getting around others. Took me a while to sort through your grammar to realize what you meant by ionosphere, grant they don't give 100 percent protection but what does? My point here is to have MORE than one protections and ISS don't use Ionosphere for protection. Space aging? Gasp an oxymoron space DON'T make people older time does. I think you meant Radiation poisoning from cosmic ray and Van Allen Belt.



Solar flares and associated Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) strongly influence our local space weather. They produce streams of highly energetic particles in the solar wind and the Earth's magnetosphere that can present radiation hazards to spacecraft and astronauts. The soft X-ray flux of X class flares increases the ionisation of the upper atmosphere, which can interfere with short-wave radio communication, and can increase the drag on low orbiting satellites, leading to orbital decay. Energetic particles in the magnetosphere contribute to the aurora borealis and aurora australis.

Solar flares release a cascade of high energy particles known as a proton storm. Protons can pass through the human body, doing biochemical damage. Most proton storms take two or more hours from the time of visual detection to reach Earth. A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured, taking only 15 minutes after observation to reach Earth, indicating a velocity of approximately one-third light speed.

The radiation risk posed by solar flares and CMEs is one of the major concerns in discussions of manned missions to Mars or to the moon. Some kind of physical or magnetic shielding would be required to protect the astronauts. Originally it was thought that astronauts would have two hours time to get into shelter, but based on the January 20 event, they may have as little as 15 minutes to do so.

Another different articles:
Once a vehicle leaves low earth orbit and the protection of Earth's magnetosphere, it enters the Van Allen radiation belt, a region of high radiation. Once through there the radiation drops to lower levels, with a constant background of high energy cosmic rays.


Haven't you heard of tight packaging? The kind that stick to whatever it is anchor to without slowing down either object? How do you think the ISS(ISS Look under ISS assembly sequence)keep itself together with duct tape? Notice that they build stuff around truss which would float off if it had inertia that is not the same as the whole object. Image a flat metal(truss and modules) floating on water with float balloon on 4 corner. The ISS is make up of about 8 floating metal which is link together by rope which keep the whole thing together.

I was talking about mass's inertia as weight because even ISS is being drag down a little by little grant most of it is from atmosphere drag, while to a lesser extent gravity. Space isn't mass less which meant you can't just press cruise control and autopilot and sleep for 12 months, For a object traveling between planets or stars they still have to deal with ANY form of inertia for example if a "micrometeorites" hit a spaceflight. They are nasty speeding horse that IS "everywhere". Even through they don't affect inertia much as other bigger ones.


Source Wikipedia:Source Link
While the tiny sizes of most micrometeoroids limits the damage incurred, the high velocity impacts will constantly degrade the outer casing of spacecraft in a manner analogous to sandblasting. Long term exposure can threaten the functionality of spacecraft systems.


Last few add: I notice you misspell fuel and among few grammar "the kind that make you go ugh what he meant?" types.
Reply #14 Top
Actually the travel form kinda been solve long ago just problem of being expensive. I am talking about the antimatter drive look it up. It can cut from 3 month on chemical fuel to merely 3 week travel time.
Reply #15 Top
Actually the travel form kinda been solve long ago just problem of being expensive. I am talking about the antimatter drive look it up. It can cut from 3 month on chemical fuel to merely 3 week travel time.


Yeah i know what your talking about they would be practical for interplanetary travel, however i was in reference in trying to reach objects outside our solar system. Even with anti-matter drive it would take to long.
Reply #17 Top
you may meant Van Allen belt

these are not the radiation belts I'm talking of, I'm talking about the sweeps of ionized gasses moving at comparititvley massive speeds
while the van allen belt is already a prevalent issue, it would pale in comparison to a ship that sailed through a cloud of ionized gasses moving several hundred thousand miles per hour.
that wouldnt be just a "I feel toasty" issue, you would probably ignite from the imparted energy. not to mention that nice little net doesnt stop hadronic particles which, while easy to stop when slower, would impart havoc on a ship at these speeds.
TREND of thing that eventually get smaller and do better than those before

unfortunately that TREND requires advances in science. material physics is reaching its climax, but there really isnt a way to shorten distances between atoms, which is what needs to be shortened.
Will be fired from the Mars NASA mission while the astronaut die from "benign solar flare".

a solar flare will be uncomfortable, it might blow a few circuits, and you might get a sunburn, but its not deadly. that is, unless you live in atlantis in the pegasus galaxy

additionally even astronauts at the moon are getting significant defense from our magnetosphere.
Space aging? Gasp an oxymoron space DON'T make people older time does. I think you meant Radiation poisoning from cosmic ray and Van Allen Belt

dont be an idiot, its a synonym.
and ISS don't use Ionosphere for protection

no, it uses our magnetosphere. thats what redirects the large hit of solar flares away from us.
for those who dont have the knowledge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere#Earth.27s_magnetosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere#The_Ionospheric_Layers
oh, my mistake. the ISS does have protection from the ionosphere!
look at its perigee and apogee, right within range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS
its not what we have down here, but its still significant defense.
I was talking about mass's inertia as weight because even ISS is being drag down a little by little grant most of it is from atmosphere drag, while to a lesser extent gravity

inertia is not weight, weight is a form of accelerational force, inertia is a property of matter that requires the input of energy to cause acceleration. mixing the two in your vocab is a grave mistake.
while its true that there are particles in interstellar space, its almost insignificant and will hardly affect speed in comparison to the actual speeds needed to move to get the relativistic benefits of near lightspeed.
Last few add: I notice you misspell fuel and among few grammar "the kind that make you go ugh what he meant?" types

its a forem, I can mace a fwe seplling rerrors.
Reply #18 Top

these are not the radiation belts I'm talking of, I'm talking about the sweeps of ionized gasses moving at comparititvley massive speeds
while the van allen belt is already a prevalent issue, it would pale in comparison to a ship that sailed through a cloud of ionized gasses moving several hundred thousand miles per hour.
that wouldnt be just a "I feel toasty" issue, you would probably ignite from the imparted energy. not to mention that nice little net doesnt stop hadronic particles which, while easy to stop when slower, would impart havoc on a ship at these speeds.


That make sense and I am not sure which kind of storm you meant. Is it CME, or Cosmic Radiation, orSpace Dust, or Plasma Physic? Hence I need to know which kind of ionized gas you are referring to, they all are known as ionized gas.


unfortunately that TREND requires advances in science. material physics is reaching its climax, but there really isnt a way to shorten distances between atoms, which is what needs to be shortened.


Eh, I heard of at least about 6 or 8 atom that isn't found in natural(thus has to be made by man as of now atom number 117 don't even exist) and thus isn't on the periodic table. Not to mention the possible under Quantum Mechanic and one of my favorite quantum theory is Quantum Entanglement. Grant it isn't a working law yet however this list show vary attempt to understand quantum of which is almost "uncharted territory". List of Experiments

Grant The moon has a magnetic shield but that don't meant they are safe from radiation at all. Hmm you meant to use Space and Age that are similar in meaning? BTW oxymoron meant a phrase that use 2 word that are contradiction in meaning while Synonym use words that has similar meaning. Space is basically a dimension that make up the physical part of "Reality". Aging is the damage/change of our body over passage of time. I don't see anything "similar/synonym" here do you? My point was that the ISS has protection of it own otherwise it would have fried up long time ago. I wasn't "mixing weight and inertia". True weight is cause by having mass which is pull down by gravity.
Wikipedia Inertia: Physics and mathematics appear to be less inclined to use the original concept of inertia as "a tendency to maintain momentum" and instead favor the mathematically useful definition of inertia as the measure of a body's resistance to changes in momentum or simply a body's inertial mass.
I used inertia in the sense that it is inherent resist to outside force not energy itself used up to push something. I guess you haven't fly at .35c yet. At that speed protection is a "must have or mission no go" kind of thing. Because even in the best case scenario cosmic dust will scratch the front starship to the point of having no mass itself. Think of it as being sand-blasted(in several fiction they solve this problem by having a massive "screen" of plasma which burn away the dust and other stuff before they even touch the hull, grant would require massive advance in plasma project technology).

Don't forget to misuse and misspell grammar as well.
Reply #19 Top
Hence I need to know which kind of ionized gas you are referring to, they all are known as ionized gas

background radiation is not a gas. its highly stretched out photons from the creation of the universe...
plasma physic is the study of ionic gas flow in such things as stars.
Coronal mass ejections either move to slow or are dispersed too quickly to be an issue.
I'm talking about Space dust in another solar system or galaxy, this stuff would tear through a ship because we are moving to quickly in comparison to one another.
Eh, I heard of at least about 6 or 8 atom that isn't found in natural(thus has to be made by man as of now atom number 117 don't even exist) and thus isn't on the periodic table. Not to mention the possible under Quantum Mechanic and one of my favorite quantum theory is Quantum Entanglement. Grant it isn't a working law yet however this list show vary attempt to understand quantum of which is almost "uncharted territory". List of Experiments

NONE of this brings atoms closer together, which if you looked at the principle behind the faraday cage, is what you need.
BTW oxymoron meant a phrase that use 2 word that are contradiction in meaning while Synonym use words that has similar meaning

no...
agh this is so easy to understand. space aging is a synonym for the detrimental effects that radiation causes! and even still 'space aging' is not an oxymoron.
I used inertia in the sense that it is inherent resist to outside force not energy itself used up to push something. I guess you haven't fly at .35c yet. At that speed protection is a "must have or mission no go" kind of thing. Because even in the best case scenario cosmic dust will scratch the front starship to the point of having no mass itself

something I said, lets see...
last post:
while the van allen belt is already a prevalent issue, it would pale in comparison to a ship that sailed through a cloud of ionized gasses moving several hundred thousand miles per hour.

see?
because you apparently missed it last time.
I wasn't "mixing weight and inertia". True weight is cause by having mass which is pull down by gravity.

you werent?
Rock without weight is practically non-bulky and easily anchor on the outer hull. If you want me to I can pull up several such articles.

seems to me like you were. something that does not retain its weight outside a significant gravitational field will keep its inertia, as inertia is not an interaction of forces, but a property of the matter itself (probably woven into the effects of spacetime, but I wont go all theoretical on this part).
Don't forget to misuse and misspell grammar as well.

if you cant defend your arguement, then give up. I hate when people degenerate like this.
Reply #20 Top
I agree there are space dust that can put ships in dangerous situation however CME don't dispersed too quickly FYI because it create solar flare which can kill humans. (look it up because CME can cause it but not alway cause it) As for space dust, there are ways around that as hyperspace or wormhole or any of the method that allow you to skip the space containing the space dust. There are propose way of either destroy them or make them harmless.

True atom can't be bring closer together by Faraday cage however there already are method of make atom being "higher density" than anything found previous.Absolute Zero Don't forget to pack up your
Neutronium Sun, which is real in neutron sun with density that is impossible under our current knowledge of material, on your way out please.

I google the Space aging and only one that come close to what you are talking about is Nasa on Space AND aging, the and should be enough to explain itself. You are the first guy to use the phrase "Space Aging".(grant it may be layman term for radiation but isn't a formal recognize phrase in the sense of discus, reason for thisSpace age) See why you shouldn't use "make-up" phrase as you please?

Apparently you missed that ionized gas require protection IS less than magnetic field because of how gas can't pierce a solid hull while magnetic field go through anything as they please such as radiation. How can you miss that part I will never know.

I weren't "mixing" to make a new synonym like you were and as for "property of the matter itself" apparently you was too tired to see that I used inherent to represent property of matter. I already address your point of weight and inertia being 2 separate force by saying that inertia is property of matter/mass. As for weight is act of gravity pulling on matter/mass to give it force in ADDITIONAL to inertia.

Me degenerate like this? You won a free bog comment with a side order of Harsh Mistress and several bitek equipment to augment your sense of perception.(hint: anything can exist as long you think of it)
Reply #21 Top
I agree there are space dust that can put ships in dangerous situation however CME don't dispersed too quickly FYI because it create solar flare which can kill humans

yes, if you have no protection. but fast moving CMEs (which are capable of breaking through the protection) are dispersed too quickly to be of effect to a shielded area. had to clarify that.
True atom can't be bring closer together by Faraday cage however there already are method of make atom being "higher density" than anything found previous.Absolute Zero Don't forget to pack up your
Neutronium Sun, which is real in neutron sun with density that is impossible under our current knowledge of material, on your way out please.

well of course, under massive gravitational influence THEN you can bring atoms closer together, but like you noted. not feasible for a faraday cage. especially if what you're doing is trying to keep the cage light.

first of all; absolute zero only has a major affect on GASSES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_equation). it doesnt affect metals.
second, absolute zero is IMPOSSIBLE to attain, if you payed attention in your science class.
finally a ship that is producing ANY sort of energy (second law of thermodynamics, entropy is always produced by irreversable reactions) then you are going to have difficulty maintaining any temperature near absolute zero.
I google the Space aging and only one that come close to what you are talking about is Nasa on Space AND aging, the and should be enough to explain itself. You are the first guy to use the phrase "Space Aging".(grant it may be layman term for radiation but isn't a formal recognize phrase in the sense of discus, reason for thisSpace age) See why you shouldn't use "make-up" phrase as you please?

let me guess, you were flooded with responses of "the SPACE age". I'm sorry that you didnt search deep enough, but the term is used, even if not formally

its not exactly an explanation, but its used in context. sucks the link doesnt work.
I dont make things up.
and for all of our sakes, dont just use wikipedia and google. it makes your argument seem almost transparent because its simply source-quotes.
Apparently you missed that ionized gas require protection IS less than magnetic field because of how gas can't pierce a solid hull while magnetic field go through anything as they please such as radiation. How can you miss that part I will never know.

besides not being english; this statement is wrong.
I just cant understand exactly what the heap of unorganized words means... so I cant attack it.

if you're saying that defense by magnetic shielding is better than solid shielding? well, it works for lightweight and slow particles, however if you have fast moving particles, hadrons or even hadrons without charge (neutrons) you have an issue unless there is a solid structure in between.
you was too tired to see that I used inherent to represent property of matter.

what I saw was you saying (if you were using weight as a synonym for inertia, which you claim) was that inertia dissapears in space.
...




WHAT???

no... thats not how inertia works.

see, you cannot be right here. if you were saying weight than you made a mistake in saying the "bulkiness" was a factor of weight, if you meant inertia then your claim that it dissapears in space is wrong.
which one was it?
As for weight is act of gravity pulling on matter/mass to give it force in ADDITIONAL to inertia.

weight is an unbalanced force acting upon a mass, fighting its inertia to stay in place.
Reply #22 Top
I never said CME itself would HIT anything solar flare would reread please before posting.

You sir didn't read on the second part again because neutronium(matter that has no proton or electron hence the name because Neutronium is make of PURE neutron and neutron take even less space than proton and electron because lack of positive or negative charge) need NO gravity at all. I didn't said it was impossible/infeasible to use denser matter to produce Faraday cage effect merely different than current method.

If gases itself can be bring "close" not absolute zero then it can absorb heat from solid as well thus effecting it. I check your link it is a radio program with broken link please relink if possible.

I am not source-quote at all just to make sense of your and post a counter argument like I just did. You may not make anything up the radar program did afaik. Official Source other than Wikipedia and Radar Program and etc... have no authority to make up a new phrase because it is relative new idea. (Nasa Official Link they are researching into it and don't know exactly what cause it thus has no known cause other than absent of gravity)

I was simple saying magnetic shield is too much for ionized gas compare to solid shield thus solid shield is better suit for ionized gas than magnetic shield. How you don't understand anything above Junior High School English is below me.

What you saw isn't what I meant. If you read the first sentence you will see that I wasn't using a synonym at all. I never use the word inertia for anything other than property of mass. I never said inertia or weight are the same or similar. The word additional meant directly separate non-interactive and thus don't have the same conditional of disappear. I agree weight is graviton acting upon a mass to pull it toward the source of graviton. Inertia is the inherent property of mass to resist any outside source of force. Don't ask where the name graviton come from. Gravity is different than inertia because we can't "detect" it yet, just observing the result of gravity acting on it. Whereas we just have to hit something with a fist to observe inertia even in absent of weight.
Reply #23 Top
I never said CME itself would HIT anything solar flare would reread please before posting

but CMEs ARE what hit things (the flow of CMEs anyhow). solar flares dont hit anything unless you are sitting in the suns corona, which is in general a bad idea.
You sir didn't read on the second part again because neutronium(matter that has no proton or electron hence the name because Neutronium is make of PURE neutron and neutron take even less space than proton and electron because lack of positive or negative charge) need NO gravity at all. I didn't said it was impossible/infeasible to use denser matter to produce Faraday cage effect merely different than current method.

1) do you have half a clue how much energy it would take to move your ship, even with a thin 1 neutron layer paint of this stuff.
2) "neutronium" would be highly unstable, it would decay in less than a trillionth of a second, even a microscopic amounts
3) it would be so gravitationally powerful that you would be sucked into a teaspoon of the stuff.
4) neutrons repel one another similar to the way in which electrons repel one another with the pauli exclusion principle. I know it said fermions, but neutrons have a similar repulsion. (this is why neutrons stars dont collapse until they reach a critical mass, the neutrons cannot physically be in each other's space while information passes between them)
5) the strong force from any one neutron would be sucking on all the neutrons around it, even if it were theoretically non-radioactive (which it is) the neutrons would clump into small, stable balls.
If gases itself can be bring "close" not absolute zero then it can absorb heat from solid as well thus effecting it

for the atoms to be close enough together as solids that would be rediculously cold, colder than liquid nitrogen.
I dont know of any gasses at those temperatures, even the most adamant of gasses turns into a fluid, fluid with odd properties, superfluids in fact. these superfluids have completely frictionless flow (cool, huh?)
anyway even if say you were to use an electron gas (lets ignore the fact taht this would charge your ship and draw in protons, which the electrons could never stop) pauli's exclusion principle keeps these electrons from getting close to one another, repelling each other at inclredible speeds, sometimes at nearly the speed of light. the last possible thing these electrons want to do is get close to cousin bill. simply put; there really isnt a way to get the atoms much closer together than they are already.
and even if there are supercold gasses that could become closer together (in all defiance of quantum mechanics), it would take insane amounts of materials and energy to keep it cooled, think of absolute zero like the speed of light, it takes more and more effort as you get closer to the real thing, but its not attainable.
I check your link it is a radio program with broken link please relink if possible.

ok, hope that works.
unless you mean the link inside the site, I dont know what happened to it.
but thats unimportant; the words space age are used in a context exactly as I intended to use them.
(Nasa Official Link they are researching into it and don't know exactly what cause it thus has no known cause other than absent of gravity)

they know exactly what causes it, our bodies require gravity to orient and work properly. without significant gravity many of the cells become lost and misdirected, additionally being in a cramped space without excercise doesnt help, also, almost forgot; higher, extended amounts of radiation exposure.
the result is that you're cells dont act like they're supposed to, and recieve mutations at an increased rate, the result is a sort of accelerated aging.
How you don't understand anything above Junior High School English is below me

I'm sorry I missed childspeak 101.
I was simple saying magnetic shield is too much for ionized gas compare to solid shield thus solid shield is better suit for ionized gas than magnetic shield

even this is hard to make sense out of... its jumbled.
anyway, my best translation
"magnetic shields are too powerful to be useful for ionized gasses, therefore the solid shield is better for repelling ionized gasses".
besides being logically contradicting, solids cannot stop ionized gasses, if you stop the protons and neutrons then you still have beta particles and gamma radiation to worry about. if you use magnetic shields you can deflect electrons and protons, however neutrons and gamma radiation continue.
but the true kicker here is that neither is powerful enough. magnetic fields that become powerful enough to exclude particles cause an autoionization of fluids in the body, which is theoretically dangerous. solids of enough effect are too heavy. our best options so far diminish risk, but don't stop it.
If you read the first sentence you will see that I wasn't using a synonym at all. I never use the word inertia for anything other than property of mass. I never said inertia or weight are the same or similar

even if you didnt say that inertia would disappear, you implied it. you said that rocks in space would lose their "bulkiness" and would be a non-factor in ship movement.
however ship movement has to do with inertia, not weight, so you were refering to inertia in context and weight in words. if you were talking about weight, then your entire sentance was out of the context of the debate and not even worth putting in. if you were refering to inertia, then the whole statement was wrong.
make up your mind, was it a pointless interjection, or a wrong but relevant interjection.
Gravity is different than inertia because we can't "detect" it yet, just observing the result of gravity acting on it. Whereas we just have to hit something with a fist to observe inertia even in absent of weight.

we cant detect anything without interacting with it, thats the difficulty.
we dont know a photon is there until we absorb it, we cant tell something has gravitational effect until we get pulled towards it (or see something else do the same thing). thats not the difference for gravity, gravity is different because
1) its a bitch that wont fit into quantum mechanics.
2) we dont know if/how it has a particle or how that particle works in QM.
3) gravity is inlaid as the bending of spacetime, while this may be a mathematical artifact, many physcisists believe it is an important factor inlaid into the structure of spacetime itself.
those are the differences for gravity, not that we cant detect it.

and even still, you cannot observe inertia. you can observe something resist change in location and movement, however you cannot actually observe inertia, as there isnt anything to obseve about it. its implications are visible and measurable, but it isn't.
Reply #24 Top
A solar flare is a violent explosion in the Sun's atmosphere with an energy equivalent to a billion megatons, traveling normally at about 1 million km per hour (about 0.05% the speed of light), though sometimes much faster. The flares have been known to affect the electro transmission of many earthly communication devices including computers, cell phones, pagers and automobiles. Solar flares take place in the solar corona and chromosphere, heating plasma to tens of millions of kelvins and accelerating the resulting electrons, protons and heavier ions to near the speed of light . They produce electromagnetic radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum at all wavelengths from long-wave radio to the shortest wavelength gamma rays. Most flares occur around sunspots, where intense magnetic fields emerge from the Sun's surface into the corona. The energy efficiency associated with solar flares may take several hours or even days to build up, but most flares take only a matter of minutes to release their energy.

I think enough has been said here. Notice the part earth communication device can be effect on earth, and I agree CME disperse too fast for that however solar flare is a electric storm travel AWAY from the sun.

Thus, neutron stars have densities of 8×10^13 to 2×10^15 g/cm³, about the density of an atomic nucleus.

That a trillion denser than atom and yet is stable in sun for more than a year.

From your pauli exclusion principle. This principle is significant, because it explains why matter occupies space exclusively for itself and does not allow other space material objects to pass through it, while at the same time allowing light and radiation to pass. It states that no two identical fermions may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.

All it said is there is repulse force it won't stop them from forming a stable stat of matter.

In physics, the zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may possess and is the energy of the ground state of the system. The concept of zero-point energy was proposed by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913, which they originally called "residual energy" or Nullpunktsenergie. All quantum mechanical systems have a zero point energy. The term arises commonly in reference to the ground state of the quantum harmonic oscillator and its null oscillations. In quantum field theory, it is a synonym for the vacuum energy, an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is taken to be the origin of the cosmological constant. Experimentally, the zero-point energy of the vacuum leads directly to the Casimir effect, and is directly observable in nanoscale devices.

In other word because vacuum has no thermal energy it exist in a natural form of NEAR not absolute zero. Because electron/proton/neutron is not full of energy they don't even attraction nor repulse which make it possible to have atom closer together than possible.

And yet that the only website to use space age in context of decoy of bone. People who don't use space age will be confuse by it's other context, the one of starting of space technology and spaceflight much like Information Age.

Humans adapt to spaceflight with fluid redistribution, altered cardiovascular function, disrupted visual/sensory/motor orientation, transient anemia, loss of muscle mass, and site-specific bone loss.

Notice the site-specific meaning it don't omni-effecting all of our bones. Do more research next time. All we know we evolve in earth's gravity, the problem is DNA here because it alway readopt especially to now stimuli. Since it is only few bone not the whole bone structure we can argue that it isn't gravity that causing it because gravity is one of the constant that is change when you go from planet side to space side.

childspeak 101, the formal name is English 1 but whatever. There are many level of English classes and What I use for this is basically High School English which is why I think you are having hard time understand let alone Elizabethan Era(better known as Shakespeare).

It is jumbled to only to you apparently. Not too powerful just too much aka spending too much when you can use something simpler to get the same effect.

Due to their tissue penetrating property, gamma rays/X-rays have a wide variety of medical uses such as in CT Scans and radiation therapy (see X-ray).

And yet we use shield for X-ray.

Didn't take me long to find out that neutron radiation is weaker than gamma so what we use for gamma is enough. We use metal about one feet thick which is NOT massive for x-ray because I took one before they had a Faraday cage metal wall, metal door that is easy to push and etc...

You nit I said bulkiness in the sense of starship inertia pushing the adjunct object much like grab a rope of a tailer and walk while you use your inertia to overcome the second object inertia. The same example, As you hold the rope you start to walk at first it is hard to pull because of inertia from non-move state when you overcome it. The object starting to convert non-move inertia into have a state of moving inertia thus never disappearing. BTW Sorry if any of the above didn't make sense just walk outside and play with a rock that is half of your weight will certainly make help understand if not completely.

Yes we can detect something without force it to interface with us. Guess you haven't heard of string theory yet.

Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.

Don't be confuse by the virtual because it is just a working theory for now. Notice it is possible to describe gravity in sense of quantum as graviton. All we have to do is to do an experimental that give proof of graviton. Grant that the hardest part the rest is just understand what is going on.

Although the photon is itself massless, it adds to the invariant mass of any system to which it belongs; this is true for every form of energy, as predicted by the special theory of relativity.

Notice although photon is massless but do add mass to anything thus allow us to detect them indirectly. One of the simplest way to detect photon is by using a crystal prism which will split the color white into all spectrum of colors which proof that photon exist because of the color having different frequencies.

It should be emphasized that 'inertia' is a scientific principle, and thus not quantifiable.

I agree that it is not "measurable", merely observed. Observe meant notice that it is either there/part of reality. Not the observe is measuring it. Much like observing that light from the sun hit something and create a contrast between shadow and bright, however can't "measure" how fast it is with just your eye.
Reply #25 Top
The flares have been known to affect the electro transmission of many earthly communication devices including computers, cell phones, pagers and automobiles

ever heard of the saying "its not the fall that kills you, its the sudden stop at the end"
thats what this means. nobody in the history of the US has ever been directly affected by a solar flare, its the coronal mass ejection from the flare that causes the disruption in electronics.
A solar flare is a violent explosion in the Sun's atmosphere with an energy equivalent to a billion megatons, traveling normally at about 1 million km per hour (about 0.05% the speed of light), though sometimes much faster. The flares have been known to affect the electro transmission of many earthly communication devices including computers, cell phones, pagers and automobiles. Solar flares take place in the solar corona and chromosphere, heating plasma to tens of millions of kelvins and accelerating the resulting electrons, protons and heavier ions to near the speed of light . They produce electromagnetic radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum at all wavelengths from long-wave radio to the shortest wavelength gamma rays. Most flares occur around sunspots, where intense magnetic fields emerge from the Sun's surface into the corona. The energy efficiency associated with solar flares may take several hours or even days to build up, but most flares take only a matter of minutes to release their energy

any kindergardner knows this. what is your point.
a flare is the sudden movement of massive parts of a star within its corona, the particles that emerge from the system are not part of the flare.
actually, the way the magnetic fields of the star twist and break before a flare are very interesting, it creates a collosal magnetic spiral that was originally attatched to a much larger, straited field. the charged particles fly up and around through a huge, bent tunnel of electromagnetic charge. its really interesting that something so simple macroscopically can be so complex on a smaller scale.
however, nobody on earth has ever been affected by a solar flare, not a one. just like nobody has ever died from falling.
Notice the part earth communication device can be effect on earth

quoting without noting? shame on you.
and like I said, its the CME accompanying the flare that causes the damage.
That a trillion denser than atom and yet is stable in sun for more than a year

no, a neutron star is one of the most unstable things we know of. what keeps if from flying apart (and sometimes causes it to fly apart) is gravity.
This principle is significant, because it explains why matter occupies space exclusively for itself and does not allow other space material objects to pass through it, while at the same time allowing light and radiation to pass. It states that no two identical fermions may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously

huh... this looks oddly like...
a quote! from WIKI!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
All it said is there is repulse force it won't stop them from forming a stable stat of matter

no, what it says is that no matter how hard you try to crunch atoms closer together, they wont go.
and while PEP applies only to fermions, the same principle works on protons and neutrons.
now, to quote from scientific american:
Because of the Pauli principle, the last thing in the world these particles want to do at low temperatures is condencse. In fact, they exhibit just the opposite tendancy. If you compress, say, a gas of electrons (note, its not exclusive), cooling it to a low temperature and shrinking the volume, the electrons are forced to begin to invade one another's space. But Pauli's principle forbids this, so they dart away from one another at speeds that approach that of light.

this is called degeneracy pressure. that pressure caused by PEP completely annihilates any chance of you creating a gas significantly more compact than a solid. it is simply not possible.
the reason neutron stars get around this is because protons are simply neutrons without electrons (well, being overly simplistic anyhow). protons and beta particles come together to create neutrons, the neutrons become compact et cetera et cetera.
In other word because vacuum has no thermal energy it exist in a natural form of NEAR not absolute zero. Because electron/proton/neutron is not full of energy they don't even attraction nor repulse which make it possible to have atom closer together than possible.

did you miss the part where this ruins your own arguement?
And yet that the only website to use space age in context of decoy of bone. People who don't use space age will be confuse by it's other context, the one of starting of space technology and spaceflight much like Information Age.

careful, scientists use it to.
Humans adapt to spaceflight with fluid redistribution, altered cardiovascular function, disrupted visual/sensory/motor orientation, transient anemia, loss of muscle mass, and site-specific bone loss

its not 'adaptation', our bodies become disoriented because they have been carved out to be functional in a gravitational field. flowers, for instance, cannot grow correctly outside a gravitational field, its not an "adaptation" for them to grow their roots upwards, its a dysfunction of being placed in space.
childspeak 101, the formal name is English 1 but whatever. There are many level of English classes and What I use for this is basically High School English which is why I think you are having hard time understand let alone Elizabethan Era(better known as Shakespeare).

well obviously you dont speak english.
It is jumbled to only to you apparently

you know, I dont understand your level of simple redundancy. you cant keep your facts or words straight, yet you persist. why?
Due to their tissue penetrating property, gamma rays/X-rays have a wide variety of medical uses such as in CT Scans and radiation therapy (see X-ray).

And yet we use shield for X-ray.

did you miss the part in life where they taught you that x-rays injure the body? maybe THATS why they use it to kill cancerous cells. I'm sure you never thought of that.
Didn't take me long to find out that neutron radiation is weaker than gamma so what we use for gamma is enough. We use metal about one feet thick which is NOT massive for x-ray because I took one before they had a Faraday cage metal wall, metal door that is easy to push and etc...

you seem to be missing the part where immediate damage is NOT the issue. its extended damage. nothing we have has both sufficient protection to keep out all increased level of radiation AND is light enough in space.
You nit I said bulkiness in the sense of starship inertia pushing the adjunct object much like grab a rope of a tailer and walk while you use your inertia to overcome the second object inertia

FIX the goddamn sentances. REREAD what you post. OR JUST LEARN ENGLISH
you have the option.
The same example, As you hold the rope you start to walk at first it is hard to pull because of inertia from non-move state when you overcome it. The object starting to convert non-move inertia into have a state of moving inertia thus never disappearing. BTW Sorry if any of the above didn't make sense just walk outside and play with a rock that is half of your weight will certainly make help understand if not completely.

there isnt such thing as 'non-move' inertia, its a question of related frames of referance.
and I'm sorry that you seem to not understand that your sentance on how inertia disappears in space is the issue, I'm completely aware of what inertia is.
let me bring this down to the simplest terms possible, maybe you'll understand;
you said weight dissapears in space, and for that reason space ships can hold big bags of rocks without affecting their movement.
yes, weight dissapears in space, but that has nothing to do with the movement of spaceships. if you meant inertia in saying weight, inertia does not dissapear in space.
just read the sentance!
Rock without weight is practically non-bulky and easily anchor on the outer hull. If you want me to I can pull up several such articles.

bags of rocks will indeed be an issue for a ship.
Yes we can detect something without force it to interface with us. Guess you haven't heard of string theory yet.

you couldnt be more wrong.
you need to measure something, in order to measure something you must have information, in order to have information you must have some interaction
you can measure and interact with gravity (for godsake, g, gravitational constant) same goes for photons, you dont know its there until you've interacted with it in some way. its physically impossible to detect something without having its emissions of one sort or another.
Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.

if you have been paying attention to any modern science at all you would know that unification of general relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics HAS NOT HAPPENED. for that reason gravitons are simply a single route in many different roads of theorey, there is no confirmation of it.
quantum mechanics tries to reconcile through gravitons, but general relativity describes gravity as the bending of spacetime. if we knew the answer then we would know if there are gravitons or not.
we dont know the answer.
Don't be confuse by the virtual because it is just a working theory for now

1) a working theory is the key word here. its got many flaws to it.
2) who would be confused?
I agree that it is not "measurable", merely observed

thats like saying you can "observe" pain. you can see how it affects someone, same way you can see inertia affects interactions, however you cannot 'observe' pain. its not a physical existance that can be observed, its a non-concrete idea that sums up laws of interactions.
Much like observing that light from the sun hit something and create a contrast between shadow and bright, however can't "measure" how fast it is with just your eye.

this comparison has nothing to do with inertia, a photon is a physical object. light is a physical object. its quantifiable and can be observed.
however contrast is an idea, you cannot observe contrast in the sense of "I see differences" what you see are two things that are non-alike, but you cannot actually SEE a 'difference in color' it is not a physical thing.
this summation will no doubt confuse you. I'm not refering to a difference in color as two different measurements that are compared, I'm describing that a difference is not something that can be observed directly, as it does not exist, but is rather created through comparison
inertia is the same, it cannot be observed as it doesn't exist. however by comparing what happens to something before and during kinetic energy transfer, principles of difference arise that are summated into one thing; an idea.