231 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

Dino Might, on 09 April 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

I really hope you don't think gravity behaves differently when you step off the surface of the earth. Gmm/r^2 is universal.
So are the other things we have been talking about. A hydrogen-1 atom here will be the same as a hydrogen-1 atom on the planet Supra-Gambi-Platon 57625.

This dismissal of things we have proven mathematically and demonstrated scientifically astounds me. We aren't pretending to go to Never Never Land where you can fly if you believe hard enough. We are pretending to go to other real places where the fundamental laws of the universe exist and behave the same way.

[/font][/color]

Seriously? A tanks worst enemy is an aircraft. Show me an infantry platoon as effective at killing tanks as an A-10C.

Your cruise missile has guidance systems and control surfaces, so the 5.5 meter radius over 100s of miles calculated in a ballistic sense is not a correct or useful assessment of accuracy. You cannot compare a cruise missile to a purely ballistic round or a beam of photons, which have no ability to alter their trajectory (self-correct) in flight. Your fundamental misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts and resulting oversimplification of anything engineering is borderline obscene when you come on here trumpeting everyone else's supposed ignorance.

Wrong, gravity is impacted by density.

Consider a neutron star the size of the earth would have gravity so strong that everything in our solar system would have been pulled into the orbit of such a spatial body.

Then you have singularities that have gravitational fields so strong that venturing beyond the event horizon of such objects is to be forever banished into the depths of whatever lies beyond. Whether you believe that to be a white hole, or a terminal singularity is up to you, but that does not change the fact that gravity behaves weirdly all the time. That is why M theory is the pursuit of a unified theory of gravity. Even einstein could not explain gravity in every instance, and had 2 separate theories that do not comingle about how gravity behaves. Both were proved accurate for specific cases and were the best "guesses" humanity has made to this point; however, that does not preclude them proving that gravity is far from completely predictable, or even uniform in nature.

Edited by Gyrok, 09 April 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[Metus regem]

KraftySOT, on 09 April 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

Id like to point out, that throught history, infantry, and other tanks, have destroyed far more tanks than aircraft.

Aircraft dont really destroy tanks, they do today, in the middle of open terrain, with a huge technological differential between the two opposing forces...

But at the height of airpower, you stopped tanks with aircraft, by bombing bridges, rail heads, supply depots, roads, and trucks. A tank with no fuel, is a tank that is nothing more than a pillbox. In the age of maneuver warfare, a pillbox might as well not even exist.

Even today, youll find more smoking T-72s on a battlefield, killed by RPGs.

Tanks do one thing. Break through lines. Thats it. If you have no lines. You dont need tanks. Infantry have no problem dealing with tanks, they have a problem dealing with Schwerpunkts. Combined arms focal points at a single weak point in a line. Thats what a tank does.

That's kind of what I was getting at, with my post, infantry with Anti-armour weapons make a mess out of tanks/IFV's, and they are doubly effective in a city or congested area.

Tanks and Aircraft have one thing in common, they cannot hold ground, only boots can do that.

[Hotthedd]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

In all seriousness here. A Light Mech at optimal SPL range, even running full out, that couldn't put a dime-sized hole on the Rear CT of an Assault Mech, due to CoF Maths, would be a very valid reason to not/never include it.

No. It would be a good reason for bad pilots to never use one. You know, pilots who think the job of a light is to be the top damage dealer/battlefield killer.

I get that the current gameplay encourages this, and that is another problem altogether.

[Joseph Mallan]

Metus regem, on 09 April 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

That's kind of what I was getting at, with my post, infantry with Anti-armour weapons make a mess out of tanks/IFV's, and they are doubly effective in a city or congested area.

Tanks and Aircraft have one thing in common, they cannot hold ground, only boots can do that.

I would like to point out that in military terms "Boots" are your least experienced troops. Now whether they can hold ground properly depends on teh salt of teh attacking force.

[Metus regem]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

I would like to point out that in military terms "Boots" are your least experienced troops. Now whether they can hold ground properly depends on teh salt of teh attacking force.

True, very true.

In my experience, by the time the main force was done with them, they attacking force wasn't in grate shape... well their armour sure wasn't....

[Dino Might]

Gyrok, on 09 April 2015 - 10:23 AM, said:

Wrong, gravity is impacted by density.

Consider a neutron star the size of the earth would have gravity so strong that everything in our solar system would have been pulled into the orbit of such a spatial body.

Then you have singularities that have gravitational fields so strong that venturing beyond the event horizon of such objects is to be forever banished into the depths of whatever lies beyond. Whether you believe that to be a white hole, or a terminal singularity is up to you, but that does not change the fact that gravity behaves weirdly all the time. That is why M theory is the pursuit of a unified theory of gravity. Even einstein could not explain gravity in every instance, and had 2 separate theories that do not comingle about how gravity behaves. Both were proved accurate for specific cases and were the best "guesses" humanity has made to this point; however, that does not preclude them proving that gravity is far from completely predictable, or even uniform in nature.

If you are outside the event horizon for any body, no matter how dense, you will have a force between you and it given by Gmm/r^2. Show me where I'm wrong. Pretending that when we go to some corner of the IS that gravity will no longer be Gmm/r^2 is stupidly arbitrary and has no basis in reality.

Do you know how large the event horizon is for these super dense structures? Look at the Great Annihilator, or other suspected large scale superdense entities. We are far outside their event horizons, and until you want to play around in the plank lengths of distance, we're not going to be working in that regime. So my theory of gravity that got Sputnik in orbit and people to the moon and rovers to Mars is it. It's not going to change no matter what planet I go to in the IS.

For those who can't understand what I am saying, try the following:

"Black hole event horizons are widely misunderstood. Common, although erroneous, is the notion that black holes “vacuum up” material in their neighborhood, where in fact they are no more capable of “seeking out” material to consume than any other gravitational attractor. As with any mass in the universe, matter must come within its gravitational scope for the possibility to exist of capture or consolidation with any other mass. Equally common is the idea that matter can be observed “falling into” a black hole. This is not possible. Astronomers can only detect accretion disks around black holes, where material moves with such speed that friction creates high-energy radiation which can be detected. (Similarly, some matter from these accretion disks is forced out along the axes of spin of the black hole, creating visible jets when these streams interact with matter such as interstellar gas or when they happen to be aimed directly at earth.) Further, a distant observer will never actually see it cross the horizon. Instead, while approaching it, it will seem to go ever more slowly, while any light it emits will be further and further redshifted."

"The description of event horizons given by general relativity is thought to be incomplete. When the conditions under which event horizons occur are modeled using a more comprehensive picture of the way the universe works, that includes both relativity and quantum mechanics, event horizons are expected to have properties that are different from those predicted using general relativity alone.
At present, it is expected that the primary impact of quantum effects is for event horizons to possess a temperature and so emit radiation. For black holes, this manifests as Hawking radiation, and the larger question of how the black hole possesses a temperature is part of the topic of black hole thermodynamics. For accelerating particles, this manifests as the Unruh effect, which causes space around the particle to appear to be filled with matter and radiation.

A complete description of event horizons is expected to, at minimum, require a theory of quantum gravity. One such candidate theory is M-theory. Another such candidate theory is loop quantum gravity."

The notion that macro behaviors all of a sudden change (and do so radically) when we refine our understanding of the quantum underpinnings is ridiculous

by the way no matter how dense an object is, if I am 10m from its center and i am totally outside of it, then it will have a gravitational pull equal to Gmm/(10^2) - doesn't matter if it's an apple, or a black hole with the mass of an apple.


Additional material and reference:

"[color=black]Gravity and quantum mechanics[/color][color=#252525]
Main articles: Graviton and Quantum gravity[/color]
[color=#252525]
In the decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.^[18] It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that 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.^[19][20] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,^[18] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required."[/color]


http://en.wikipedia....i/Planck_length

Edited by Dino Might, 09 April 2015 - 11:01 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

What you seem to want is

10 to point X
10 to point Y
10 to point Z
10 to point A

Nope what I want is more like this:

4 PPCs = 24 damage to location X and 8 damage to both adjacent locations Y and Z.

I want PPCs to do ~1/3 splash damage to adjacent sections. All PPCs should work how Clan ERPPCs work. Then we can remove ghost heat limits on PPCs.

Likewise all autocannons should burst fire like clan autocannons. We can remove ghost heat limits on autocannons then too.

Gauss also needs to be addressed either by making it do splash damage like PPCs or lowering its overall damage to ~10 but allowing a percentage of the damage to pierce through armor and damage internal structure directly (maybe 1-2 damage would bypass the armor, but would be capable of getting through armor crits).

I want to facilitate the removal of ghost heat by reducing pinpoint damage and making weapons spread damage around more evenly. And this would be extraordinarily easy to implement since all of these mechanics already exist within the game (except for the armor piercing gauss).

Edited by Khobai, 10 April 2015 - 11:06 AM.

[Gyrok]

Dino Might, on 09 April 2015 - 10:48 AM, said:

If you are outside the event horizon for any body, no matter how dense, you will have a force between you and it given by Gmm/r^2. Show me where I'm wrong. Pretending that when we go to some corner of the IS that gravity will no longer be Gmm/r^2 is stupidly arbitrary and has no basis in reality.

Do you know how large the event horizon is for these super dense structures? Look at the Great Annihilator, or other suspected large scale superdense entities. We are far outside their event horizons, and until you want to play around in the plank lengths of distance, we're not going to be working in that regime. So my theory of gravity that got Sputnik in orbit and people to the moon and rovers to Mars is it. It's not going to change no matter what planet I go to in the IS.

For those who can't understand what I am saying, try the following:

"Black hole event horizons are widely misunderstood. Common, although erroneous, is the notion that black holes “vacuum up” material in their neighborhood, where in fact they are no more capable of “seeking out” material to consume than any other gravitational attractor. As with any mass in the universe, matter must come within its gravitational scope for the possibility to exist of capture or consolidation with any other mass. Equally common is the idea that matter can be observed “falling into” a black hole. This is not possible. Astronomers can only detect accretion disks around black holes, where material moves with such speed that friction creates high-energy radiation which can be detected. (Similarly, some matter from these accretion disks is forced out along the axes of spin of the black hole, creating visible jets when these streams interact with matter such as interstellar gas or when they happen to be aimed directly at earth.) Further, a distant observer will never actually see it cross the horizon. Instead, while approaching it, it will seem to go ever more slowly, while any light it emits will be further and further redshifted."

"The description of event horizons given by general relativity is thought to be incomplete. When the conditions under which event horizons occur are modeled using a more comprehensive picture of the way the universe works, that includes both relativity and quantum mechanics, event horizons are expected to have properties that are different from those predicted using general relativity alone.
At present, it is expected that the primary impact of quantum effects is for event horizons to possess a temperature and so emit radiation. For black holes, this manifests as Hawking radiation, and the larger question of how the black hole possesses a temperature is part of the topic of black hole thermodynamics. For accelerating particles, this manifests as the Unruh effect, which causes space around the particle to appear to be filled with matter and radiation.

A complete description of event horizons is expected to, at minimum, require a theory of quantum gravity. One such candidate theory is M-theory. Another such candidate theory is loop quantum gravity."

The notion that macro behaviors all of a sudden change (and do so radically) when we refine our understanding of the quantum underpinnings is ridiculous

by the way no matter how dense an object is, if I am 10m from its center and i am totally outside of it, then it will have a gravitational pull equal to Gmm/(10^2) - doesn't matter if it's an apple, or a black hole with the mass of an apple.


Additional material and reference:

"[color=black]Gravity and quantum mechanics[/color][color=#252525]
Main articles: Graviton and Quantum gravity[/color]
[color=#252525]
In the decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.^[18] It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that 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.^[19][20] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,^[18] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required."[/color]


http://en.wikipedia....i/Planck_length

Except that those objects, because of their tremendous densities have more gravitational pull naturally even outside their event horizons.

Also, a neutron star has no event horizon beyond a regular gravitational mass, except that the range for low orbit is considerably farther from the mass than a less dense body.

The issue that creates stems into an issue that follows along hawkings models for gravitational pull with density having direct causality on the path of an object traveling in a near space path.

If you want to get into planck lengths we can talk about quantum gravity, however, my point still stands: gravity often behaves oddly.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gyrok, on 10 April 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

Except that those objects, because of their tremendous densities have more gravitational pull naturally even outside their event horizons.

Also, a neutron star has no event horizon beyond a regular gravitational mass, except that the range for low orbit is considerably farther from the mass than a less dense body.

The issue that creates stems into an issue that follows along hawkings models for gravitational pull with density having direct causality on the path of an object traveling in a near space path.

If you want to get into planck lengths we can talk about quantum gravity, however, my point still stands: gravity often behaves oddly.

This is why I like CBT discussion. we start talking about Alpha Strikes and end up Talking Quantum Physics!

[Dino Might]

Gyrok, on 10 April 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

Except that those objects, because of their tremendous densities have more gravitational pull naturally even outside their event horizons.

Also, a neutron star has no event horizon beyond a regular gravitational mass, except that the range for low orbit is considerably farther from the mass than a less dense body.

The issue that creates stems into an issue that follows along hawkings models for gravitational pull with density having direct causality on the path of an object traveling in a near space path.

If you want to get into planck lengths we can talk about quantum gravity, however, my point still stands: gravity often behaves oddly.

Interesting - can you give me a source on how a superdense object will exhibit gravitational force different from Gmm/r^2 outside the event horizon? I have me some learning to do. My understanding of the Hawking's model as it differs from general relativity for appreciable distances from an object seems to be lacking.

And Joe, isn't it obvious that all this is just leading up to a gravity gun request to PGI?

Edited by Dino Might, 10 April 2015 - 11:22 AM.

[Mystere]

Gyrok, on 09 April 2015 - 10:23 AM, said:

Wrong, gravity is impacted by density.

Consider a neutron star the size of the earth would have gravity so strong that everything in our solar system would have been pulled into the orbit of such a spatial body ...

But which is a pointless discussion within the context of BattleTech/Mechwarrior.

I don't know much of the novels. So, is there any instance/story/book you know of in which Mechs fought on some neutron star or close to an event horizon? If not, let us stick to the Physics that actually matters.

Dino Might, on 10 April 2015 - 11:21 AM, said:

And Joe, isn't it obvious that all this is just leading up to a gravity gun request to PGI?

Why have a gravity gun when when this one is much much cooler?

Edited by Mystere, 10 April 2015 - 01:20 PM.

[Gyrok]

Dino Might, on 10 April 2015 - 11:21 AM, said:

Interesting - can you give me a source on how a superdense object will exhibit gravitational force different from Gmm/r^2 outside the event horizon? I have me some learning to do. My understanding of the Hawking's model as it differs from general relativity for appreciable distances from an object seems to be lacking.

And Joe, isn't it obvious that all this is just leading up to a gravity gun request to PGI?

Hawking's models accommodate for dark matter and dark energy, which creates a unique set of problems on a completely tangential topic.

Of all the things physics takes as accepted baselines, gravity is easily the most questioned, and even now, there are models that show slight differentiation over multiple scenarios that should produce the same results. Which leads to your oversimplified formulas used as a baseline for all basic practical models, though physics has gone through some rapidly evolving changes in the nature of the relationship of gravity in formulas. The more we think we know about gravity, the less it seems we really have figured out.