Author Topic: [Untitled] Tech (Read 7636 times)

Queen Bright · « **on:** April 13, 2010, 08:55:56 AM »

Ships will come later, as I'm really going to have to do research for those. For now....

Torsion Field Vortex Generator -
I guess this would be what the ship runs? I honestly don't know the names, just the workings. This is largely based in Torsion Field physics. You're going to either have to research yourself (have fun.) Or trust me. I know enough to use them, but not all the math crap. I'll provide the basics under this. The Generator however, uses Torsion Field's to create two vortexes back to back, giving a self sustained energy source, providing free energy from the vacuum of space its self.

Torsion Fields -
Coming in 3 different field types of E, S, G (Electric, Spin, and Gravity.) Torsion Fields are separate and distinct from classical Electric, Magnetic, and Gravity fields. Generators for these fields can be shielded against electromagnetic fields and the torsion field still manifest itself through such shielding. Torsion field emanations can travel at velocities at least as high as 109C (one billion times the speed of light.) Torsion fields can interact with laser beams (change frequency); affect biological processes; are generated by melting or solidifying some materials; affect quartz crystals; affect some electronic components; can favorably change some beverages; and have been noted to affect gravity as a type of anti-gravity. Other than Generators, Torsion Fields, are the quantum spin of empty space; the large-scale coherent effects of the spin of the particles in the virtual sea. (THIS IS NOT A REQUEST, GO RESEARCH IT THEY EXIST. IT'S JUST GIVING YOU THE INFO SO I DON'T GET CALLED OUT ON GODMODDING.)

Torsion Field Generator -
Unlike the Torsion Field Vortex Generator, this one creates artificial Torsion Waves, instead of from the Vacuum. By melting and solidifying materials (junk.) Used to power weapons,(coming later,) by using the E type Torsion Field. Different materials generating different fields.

Torsion fields have also been experimented with to manipulate space/time. Theory being that you could time travel and allow faster than light travel... But you probably won't let me go that far. Right?

K2 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 13, 2010, 05:14:43 PM »

FTL Transportation is fine.

Approved.

Nisorin · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2010, 07:28:15 PM »

FTL transportation is actually pretty much required, to be honest. Without it, you're not going to be able to get places very quickly. But, time travel denied.

Vortex generator approved, though I'd think it may be a dangerous power source. Field generator approved as well.

@Pokemon Master Red · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:11:03 PM »

Sorry to burst yer bubble, Hik. First paragraph from Wikipedia:

Quote from: Wiki

Torsion field, also called axion field, spin field, spinor field, and microlepton field is a pseudoscientific[1] concept loosely based on Einstein-Cartan theory and some variant solutions of Maxwell's equations.[2] The torsion field concept was conceived in the Soviet Union by a group of physicists in the 1980s. The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov,[3] began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies, but was disbanded in 1991 when their research was exposed as a fraud and an embezzlement of State funding,[2] only to emerge again as a private enterprise; The International Institute for Theoretical and Applied Physics and later called UVITOR.[4].

Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field

Here's another source as to it being fake: http://www.khurak.net/torsion-field-physics-004457/
And a third outright stating its untrue: http://www.skeptik.net/mirror/professor/tffraud.htm

Plus...It can 'favorably change some beverages'. Hm. Didn't know the forces of physics were hard at work improving soft drinks.

Not doing this to insult you or anything, just saying that I looked it up, and this is what I found.

Queen Bright · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:17:10 PM »

There's more than one theory on it. I used a lot more sources than just Wiki and those two.
And it exists as a possible theory. Hell, everything in tech requests is possible theory. None of it "actually," exists.

@Pokemon Master Red · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:18:04 PM »

Im still looking around. Those are just the ones I found...Perhaps you'd care to share yours?

Queen Bright · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:19:16 PM »

Quote from: Pokemon Master Red on April 13, 2010, 08:18:04 PM

Im still looking around. Those are just the ones I found...Perhaps you'd care to share yours?

Read the edit.
Also, I didn't save the links. But if I have to, I'll refind the crap.

@Pokemon Master Red · « **Reply #7 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:34:05 PM »

All Im saying is, from what I've found, it isn't a accepted theory; sure, all of the tech stuff exists as possible theories. But unless they are proven or at the least widely accepted by the scientific community, they'd still need to be applied for. And as it stands, I've found a few sites saying they are psudeo-science.
The concept itself would be outdated, anyways; the latest I've seen about these are still only from 2001. You'd think they'd do a bit of research into it if it were credible...
Also, a lot of the sites Im getting say the researchers themselves are known(by now, at least) embezzlers, so...All Im asking is to have your sources, so that I may have something substantial to compare mine to.

Queen Bright · « **Reply #8 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:41:00 PM »

Quote from: Pokemon Master Red on April 13, 2010, 08:34:05 PM

All Im saying is, from what I've found, it isn't a accepted theory; sure, all of the tech stuff exists as possible theories. But unless they are proven or at the least widely accepted by the scientific community, they'd still need to be applied for. And as it stands, I've found a few sites saying they are psudeo-science.
The concept itself would be outdated, anyways; the latest I've seen about these are still only from 2001. You'd think they'd do a bit of research into it if it were credible...
Also, a lot of the sites Im getting say the researchers themselves are known(by now, at least) embezzlers, so...All Im asking is to have your sources, so that I may have something substantial to compare mine to.

For what? Get it unapproved? I first saw it on a documentary yesterday on 2012 (Lame, I know.) To prove their crap about what happens in 2012, they mentioned Torsion Fields, and Torsion Field Physics. Looked it up, and found all of that in my first post, and then some. Tried to figure how I could use it on SP.
In the documentary they did say that it's not proven to skeptics, but that their Torsion Field detectors have picked up such things. The documentary was on Scifi, can't remember the name, sorry.

@Pokemon Master Red · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:52:52 PM »

Not at all to get it unapproved, but if it doesn't exist, it will still have to be approved by the admins here. Im merely saying that it should be confirmed(and thus have the sites backing it presented) on-site before you claim that you know it is true, else you'll spark a little bit of skepticism as to its validity, especially if its a obscure subject.
I'll give it some more research, dont worry. Im merely saying that the things I've seen so far aren't promising.
But really, having favorable changes on some beverages? ...That...Uhh...Doesn't sound like something scientific...

Queen Bright · « **Reply #10 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:58:38 PM »

Quote from: Pokemon Master Red on April 13, 2010, 08:52:52 PM

Not at all to get it unapproved, but if it doesn't exist, it will still have to be approved by the admins here. Im merely saying that it should be confirmed(and thus have the sites backing it presented) on-site before you claim that you know it is true, else you'll spark a little bit of skepticism as to its validity, especially if its a obscure subject.
I'll give it some more research, dont worry. Im merely saying that the things I've seen so far aren't promising.
But really, having favorable changes on some beverages? ...That...Uhh...Doesn't sound like something scientific...

That part was on a site. How it fits into it, I dunno. I was just quoting almost everything I found.
But here's some.
http://www.twm.co.nz/Torsion_Fox.htm
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1996/subtle.html
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/tors/
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/1-2/benford.html
http://www.raven1.net/russtran.htm

Enjoy. Hope you can read fast.

@Pokemon Master Red · « **Reply #11 on:** April 13, 2010, 09:40:47 PM »

Alright, this'll take a while(Im on the DSI), but as for that last one, I can already tell you that it *probably* isn't credible. I've only skimmed and scanned, but from what I can tell, that persons doing translations of russian books. Russia, however, has already proclaimed their disbelief in the theory, so these books likely come from the embezzlers who proposed the theory, which is known BECAUSE of the fact that it was discreditted to be psudeo-science. Again, only probably, and I'll still give it a look. Buuuut if the literature being translated was from those embezzlers, well, then the source isn't a good one.

...Alright, Hik, I thought you were saying these were different theories? These all list the same original proponents...Akimov and Shin-whatever-the-rest-of-his-name-is-which-I-cant-remember, the same two embezzlers who were discreditted by the Russian science community for their scheme...They weren't scientists. Its all fake, as accoarding to our current understanding of science...I ain't saying dont use it, but you've gotta apply for it first...

Queen Bright · « **Reply #12 on:** April 13, 2010, 11:21:56 PM »

Quote from: Pokemon Master Red on April 13, 2010, 09:40:47 PM

...Alright, Hik, I thought you were saying these were different theories? These all list the same original proponents...Akimov and Shin-whatever-the-rest-of-his-name-is-which-I-cant-remember, the same two embezzlers who were discreditted by the Russian science community for their scheme...They weren't scientists. Its all fake, as accoarding to our current understanding of science...I ain't saying dont use it, but you've gotta apply for it first...

Did you even read on in the wiki article? It's fake to certain people. Even the US is starting to face the truth of it. It's a theory, just as all the qunatum is. No one proves string theory, we still use it on SP. No one has proved Quantum Mechanics, we're using it. MOST ALL OF THE DAMN STUFF IS THEORY.

Nisorin · « **Reply #13 on:** April 13, 2010, 11:24:07 PM »

Regardless of this, I am still approving the technology. Whether it's actually 'real' is irrelevant, as this is SP, not the real world, and thus there is a good deal of leeway as far as whether a theory is proven or not.

@Pokemon Master Red · « **Reply #14 on:** April 14, 2010, 01:12:44 AM »

The wiki article also says about one of the contridictions in the theory itself-It states that no matter nor energy is used, yet it also apparently uses nuetrinos-which have both mass and energy.

True, but string theory and quatnem mechanics are more commonly accepted to be true. This, however...Isn't, as far as I know. I am merely calling it a theory because of the fact that I am unsure...I am using these sources to allow you to know that it isn't very widely accepted. However, a theory needs actual research and tested hypotheses...From many sources I've read, this is lacking in tests, meaning it may be a hypothesis, or even a complete fabrication used to trick governments as a few sources claim.

Truth is a strong word for something that has yet to be widely accepted, Hik...

Quite frankly, the I dont care what the US thinks. The current leader thinks that getting rid of the nukes we have stockpiled will encourage other nations to do the same. Yeeeeaaaahhh...Uhhhh...Im gonna buy me a bunker for in the event another nation realizes we've just started smashing our own defenses...

Its not so much a matter of 'its not real, so dont use it' as a matter of 'its a highly controversial topic, so I'd rather it be approved itself before usage'. I actually would like to see what Hik comes up with this. Because of the fact that a lot of people do not believe in the validity of it, I would also merely like to see it approved in the same way as any other Tech would.

Queen Bright · « **Reply #15 on:** April 14, 2010, 01:34:58 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1BZ2SHk_9M
2:56
There's more, but I have to find the part.

Edit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVlIKgbsDDM
3:17

@Pokemon Master Red · « **Reply #16 on:** April 14, 2010, 01:49:28 AM »

I really hate the disabilities of the DSi...
Im not even going to try watching the video, because I know it wont work on this thing, the closest thing to a video that works on this is a .GIF, so...Yeah. I cant use the computer right now, either. Parental controls that log you off at certain times and dont let you log in until another time. -__-

Text would be best, if thats acceptable.

Also...Im not sure how this got into a full blawn discussion. o.o My fault, most likely; I get carried away on discussions, eh heh. All I was trying to point out was that it wasn't widely accepted, so it should just get the standard two approvals in itself before use, since the way you posted at first made it sound like it was a physical law rather than possible theory.

If it were my intentions to have a discussion about it, I'd probably be for, myself...After all, if this is real, thats awesome. FTL Internet and Mars Rover driving FTW!

Queen Bright · « **Reply #17 on:** April 14, 2010, 01:52:12 AM »

Quote from: Pokemon Master Red on April 14, 2010, 01:49:28 AM

I really hate the disabilities of the DSi...
Im not even going to try watching the video, because I know it wont work on this thing, the closest thing to a video that works on this is a .GIF, so...Yeah. I cant use the computer right now, either. Parental controls that log you off at certain times and dont let you log in until another time. -__-

Text would be best, if thats acceptable.

Also...Im not sure how this got into a full blawn discussion. o.o My fault, most likely; I get carried away on discussions, eh heh. All I was trying to point out was that it wasn't widely accepted, so it should just get the standard two approvals in itself before use, since the way you posted at first made it sound like it was a physical law rather than possible theory.

If it were my intentions to have a discussion about it, I'd probably be for, myself...After all, if this is real, thats awesome. FTL Internet and Mars Rover driving FTW!

I can't type what it says, would take forever. However, it did get two approvals.

@Pokemon Master Red · « **Reply #18 on:** April 14, 2010, 01:57:36 AM »

That was the tech itself; Nisorin has expressed interest in approving the theory, but considering you had made it sound like a pure fact, it would still need one more. K2 hasn't been back yet.

Well, if thats the case, then I have no method of viewing the Youtube Video 'till tomarrow. Whats about it thats impossible to type?

Queen Bright · « **Reply #19 on:** April 14, 2010, 01:58:50 AM »

Quote from: Pokemon Master Red on April 14, 2010, 01:57:36 AM

That was the tech itself; Nisorin has expressed interest in approving the theory, but considering you had made it sound like a pure fact, it would still need one more. K2 hasn't been back yet.

Well, if thats the case, then I have no method of viewing the Youtube Video 'till tomarrow. Whats about it thats impossible to type?

Laziness? Usually I wouldn't mind doing something to prove it. But typing half a video? Oh come on.

@Pokemon Master Red · « **Reply #20 on:** April 14, 2010, 02:04:26 AM »

Eh. ...Wait, you scoured the web just to prove a point, yet you wont even get the highlights of the video?
[/dibvoice]

Orph · « **Reply #21 on:** April 14, 2010, 04:20:40 PM »

Approved, technology does not have to be an accepted theory to be proposed, only a theory that makes enough sense that it can be used.

Queen Bright · « **Reply #22 on:** April 16, 2010, 12:36:21 AM »

Element Extractor:A weapon to extract periodic elements. So whichever element you set it to extract, it will extract it. An example Nisorin did to better understand it, when I was telling him was, Table Salt. Set it to Sodium, and it will extract the Sodium while leaving the rest together (Or if it was unstable, the Salt would then fall apart, depending on your chemistry.) This is both hand-held and Ship use. Hand-held can only be set to extract one element. Ship use can extract more. There are 3 ways it will extract. 1. By absorber beam. 2. Nanomachine filled missiles. 3. Vortex (Basically like a large vacuum that sucks the elements to it.

Element Splitter: Like the Element Extractor, it does pretty much the same thing and can be both ship or hand-held. Except the ES splits the elements off, or apart from each other instead of extracting them for later use. This one works in 2 ways. 2. Beams, 3. Field Emitter (Whatever is in the radius of the field will be stripped by the designated elements.)

Element Scanner: Sends out a ray or beacon to scan something of its elements and give a reading of what elements it's made of.

Element Manipulator: Sends out elements through beam, missile, or emitter. Can be set to more than one.

Nisorin · « **Reply #23 on:** April 16, 2010, 12:55:48 AM »

Does the manipulator bond the elements to the target?

Queen Bright · « **Reply #24 on:** April 16, 2010, 12:57:46 AM »

Quote from: Nisorin on April 16, 2010, 12:55:48 AM

Does the manipulator bond the elements to the target?

Yeah! That's the word I was looking for. Dammit..can't believe I forgot it.