Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

cloaking deviceFollow

QuoteReply
#1 May 09 2006 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Kelvyquayo
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1766219,00.html wrote:
The cloaking device relies on recently discovered materials used to make superlenses that make light behave in a highly unusual way. Instead of having a positive refractive index - the property which makes light bend as it passes through a prism or water - the materials have a negative refractive index, which effectively makes light travel backwards. It's light, but not as we know it.

Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.



Well, it doesn't use a quantum singularity like the Romulans use... but none the less... another exploitation of science that seems to have some potential.

and we need some fresh topic around here.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#2 May 09 2006 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Jawbox
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
I put on my cloak and superlenses.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#3 May 09 2006 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1593364440228
Scholar
***
1,974 posts
God if I had one of these I would be so rich. And could have all the sex i wanted and noone would ever know.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#4 May 09 2006 at 9:38 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591813324889
Scholar
***
1,254 posts
Quote:
And could have all the sex i wanted and noone would ever know.

Thats 'cause your ***** is tiny.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#5 May 09 2006 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Kelvyquayo
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
have all the sex i wanted and noone would ever know.


Smiley: laugh

That's incredible.


and remember, sex is meaningless unless you're crying during it!
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#6 May 09 2006 at 9:45 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1701044194859
Guru
*****
12,735 posts
Buttercuup wrote:
God if I had one of these I would be so rich. And could have all the sex i wanted and noone would ever know.


Wow.

Just.

Wow.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#7 May 09 2006 at 10:19 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1717978557855
Scholar
**
874 posts
Buttercuup wrote:
God if I had one of these I would be so rich. And could have all the sex i wanted and noone would ever know.



Hey, hero. They call that rape in civilized countries.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#8 May 09 2006 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1616977010829
View User Forum
Sage
*****
13,880 posts
Quote:
God if I had one of these I would be so rich. And could have all the sex i wanted and noone would ever know.


<insert comment here so my post is a carbon copy of the past 3 posts>
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#9 May 09 2006 at 10:25 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591813324889
Scholar
***
1,254 posts
Quote:
copy of the past 3 posts

I'm already invisible! Wewt!
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#10 May 09 2006 at 11:36 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1717978557855
Scholar
**
874 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:
Quote:
God if I had one of these I would be so rich. And could have all the sex i wanted and noone would ever know.


<insert comment here so my post is a carbon copy of the past 3 posts>


<Is pharming too>
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#11 May 09 2006 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1663546654528
Sage
***
3,118 posts
Quote:
it doesn't use a quantum singularity like the Romulans use
I bet that pisses you off doesn't it Kelv?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#12 May 09 2006 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Kelvyquayo
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Jacobsdeception the Sly wrote:
Quote:
it doesn't use a quantum singularity like the Romulans use
I bet that pisses you off doesn't it Kelv?


Eh, The Romulan cloaking device leaves much to be desired in the fault-tolerant department. The singularity is artificial, so one quantum/spacial fluxuation and next thing you know you have a full blown temporal anamoly on your hands.

That and there's the risk of beings from other space/time continuii mistaking it for a natural habitat and laying thier damn eggs in it, causeing all sorts of space/time distortions.Smiley: mad
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#13 May 09 2006 at 2:51 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1622420402685
Scholar
*****
19,369 posts
Wait, did you say Romulans?

LOL All this time I thought it said Romans.



And you guys are all Greeks!
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#14 May 09 2006 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591812056891
Scholar
***
3,101 posts
Buttercuup wrote:
God if I had one of these I would be so rich. And could have all the sex i wanted and noone would ever know.


Man, you must be an ugly motherfuc[red][/red]ker to get more pooossaaay when invisible than visible.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#15 May 09 2006 at 3:03 PM Rating: Good
Kelvyquayo
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
he's married. 'nuff said.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#16 May 09 2006 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
Nobby
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
What have the Romulans ever done for us?

Bwian wrote:
Romulani Ite Domus


Centuwion wrote:
The Romulans, they go the 'ouse?
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#17 May 09 2006 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592338551681
View User Forum
Scholar
***
2,016 posts
Buttercuup wrote:
God if I had one of these I would be so rich. And could have all the sex i wanted and noone would ever know.


Careful with that.

One day Superman was flying along, feeling kind of horny. He had a busy day ahead of him, but he just had to satisfy his urge. So he decided to fly over to Wonder Woman's apartment to see what she was doing. As he got closer he could see Wonder Woman sunbathing in her roof-top garden, and to his suprise, she was totally nude.

Superman thought "This is great! I'll just zip right in there, do my business, and before she knows it, I'll be gone." So, Superman blasts in, right on top of Wonder Woman, does the deed at lightning speed, and is gone in a flash. Wonder Woman, not quite knowing what hit her said "WHOA! What was that?" and the Invisible Man replied. "I don't know, but my *** sure is sore!"
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#18 May 10 2006 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591863751171
**
877 posts
Two problems with this:

Kelvyquayo wrote:
Instead of having a positive refractive index - the property which makes light bend as it passes through a prism or water - the materials have a negative refractive index, which effectively makes light travel backwards.


The index of refraction is defined as: (n = v / c), whereas n is the index of refraction, v is the velocity of light within a medium, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
c = ~2.998 * 10^8 m/s.
This said, the only way n could be negative is if v were negative. v, however, is defined as being in the direction of light- therefore, it can not be negative. The index of refraction, hence, can be not be negative.

Kelvyquayo wrote:
Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.


This property is known as "destructive interference", and it's rather common. However, this would not make an object invisible- it'd just make it black, in much the same way perfectly black paint would.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#19 May 10 2006 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1690762604546
Sage
*****
16,160 posts
Nevermind. I thought you were talking about my ********.

Totem
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#20 May 11 2006 at 8:19 PM Rating: Good
Kelvyquayo
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
The index of refraction is defined as: (n = v / c), whereas n is the index of refraction, v is the velocity of light within a medium, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
c = ~2.998 * 10^8 m/s.
This said, the only way n could be negative is if v were negative. v, however, is defined as being in the direction of light- therefore, it can not be negative. The index of refraction, hence, can be not be negative.

That calculation does not include the forumulation of light going through a prism or a lense. Therefore, although your statement may be true; it is not relevant without additional variables.


This property is known as "destructive interference", and it's rather common. However, this would not make an object invisible- it'd just make it black, in much the same way perfectly black paint would.

so.. you wouldn't be able to see it. That sounds like invisible to me.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#21 May 11 2006 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591863751171
**
877 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
The index of refraction is defined as: (n = v / c), whereas n is the index of refraction, v is the velocity of light within a medium, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
c = ~2.998 * 10^8 m/s.
This said, the only way n could be negative is if v were negative. v, however, is defined as being in the direction of light- therefore, it can not be negative. The index of refraction, hence, can be not be negative.

That calculation does not include the forumulation of light going through a prism or a lense. Therefore, although your statement may be true; it is not relevant without additional variables.


This is including a prism or a lense.

Kelvyquayo wrote:
This property is known as "destructive interference", and it's rather common. However, this would not make an object invisible- it'd just make it black, in much the same way perfectly black paint would.

so.. you wouldn't be able to see it. That sounds like invisible to me.


Invisible means "can not be seen". Even the color black, the absense of light, is being seen. Invisible is to not have an effect on light, to be see-through without refraction.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#22 May 11 2006 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
Kelvyquayo
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Well, maybe you should give Graeme Milton at Utah University and Nicolae-Alexandru Nicorovici at Sydney University of Technology a call and tell them that they're wasting their time.Smiley: tongue
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#23 May 11 2006 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591817147184
***
1,100 posts
Whew! Now I can conk Chavs on the back of the head without them knowing a thing!
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#24 May 11 2006 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591863751171
**
877 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Well, maybe you should give Graeme Milton at Utah University and Nicolae-Alexandru Nicorovici at Sydney University of Technology a call and tell them that they're wasting their time.Smiley: tongue


What you have here is a case of a reporter misreporting the facts. They may well be doing something interesting, but the words used in the report are incorrect for the reasons stated above.

In Science, never take things on authority. If want truth based on authority, take up religion.

Edit: You know, this was too assuming. Perhaps the reporter did his job and reported a fellow who truly is wasting his time. While I can't claim to know what was supposed to be done or/and reported, this is misinformation.

Edited, Thu May 11 22:25:45 2006 by ReofblMobile
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#25 May 11 2006 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Kelvyquayo
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Why do you hate God?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#26 May 11 2006 at 9:36 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591863751171
**
877 posts
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
▲ Page top
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 296 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (296)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC