StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Michael, you magnificent bastard.

This whole time he set up Lemuel to become the Heavenly equivilant of Abigor, huh? Except that unlike Abigor, Michael ends up in charge - or so he thinks.

I wonder if I'll ever forgive me.

Wow. Impressive chapter. Nice to see things pay off...and this is going to be interesting. So Michael is bringing the human army in? I didn't (quite) see that coming.

Typo, you confuse section Three and section six.

That's just as a quick reply and not as a criticism of the chapter.

Ace Pace wrote:Typo, you confuse section Three and section six. That's just as a quick reply and not as a criticism of the chapter.

Nice catch. Fixed.

Simon_Jester wrote:ANTIcarrot, I am very skeptical when people talk about technological capabilities "more advanced" than what we have today in some sense that can be done feasibly using old technology.

Then you are being overly skeptical. No one in the world today posses a supersonic passenger transport. Do you honestly believe that because we don't have any today, they couldn't have been built in the past? There's a hole in your arguement so large concord could fly through it. In fact you might even be able to trundle a Moon Rocket through it. (Are those examples good enough for you?) Your logic also seems to bares similarity to Arguement From Personal (Chronological?) Credulity. If I (we today) can't understand it, then neither can you (them yesterday)!

Consider the B-52 as a worked example. There has recently been a lot of back and forth in the USAF about whether its a good idea to replace its 8 old engines with 4 new engines. Imagine if this had been done ten years ago. Then people (ten years) in the past would have a B-52 that could fly further and faster than the one we actually have today; even though with todays engines we could do better still.

Technology is often a matter of politics and economics and imagination, as well as applications of science. It's what we choose to build, and what we can think of to build. Since human imagination is largely random, it is quite fair to concieve of alternative histories where great inventors had other great ideas. Or had the same great ideas, but in a different order, or with different funding. The US Space Shuttle is a monstrous white elephant. But if NASA had been given the required budget, and they hadn't be laboured with the USAF's insane mass/volume/cross-range requirements, they might have done the job properly by investigating any of other launch architectures which almost certainly would have worked better. Speaking of near misses, I'd also like to draw attention to projects like the german 1980s Stealth Fighter, 1940s german X-4 wire-guided missiles, and 1940s british M.52 supersonic jet. None of which got quite finished, but all of which were technically feasible and got damn close to beating the 'official' introduction date by a good ten or twenty years.

Liquid nitrogen cooled coper electromagnets were possible back then. Heavy water did exist. Basic knowledge of light element fusion existed in 1932. If someone had come up with the bright idea to put them all together in the right order, and found the funding, they almost certainly could have built a simple polywell far more powerful than the USN's current best. Because I'm sure you googled this subject extensively before throwing acccusations of foolishness about, you are of course quite aware that the experimental polywells (8 & 8.1 might be exceptions) are currrently being built on a shoestring budget, mostly using materials that have essentially remained unchanged since the 1930s. Whether or not that could have produced positive energy production is more uncertain, but I feel it is quite reasonable to believe they almost certainly could have built a functional polywell.

And because it's very easy to talk big about something no one really expects you to build. Like the Tesla death ray. So no, I would not give him money without a detailed description of how, exactly, his device works, with equations. Which he isn't going to be able to provide, because he never did learn the requisite material.

Well that's the difference. I'd be willing speak to him before he was able to comply with your requirements; and thus I'd get a six month lead on you in deciding if the idea was genius or crackpot. Worst outcome for me is losing half an hour. Worse for you is losing a multi billion dollar contract. I'm sure you're happy with that risk. I know I am with mine.

Goddamn, that was one intricate, overcomplicated plan. However, I'm pretty sure it will all come falling around Michael's ears. I see Lemuel ending up in command.

Stuart wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:Typo, you confuse section Three and section six. That's just as a quick reply and not as a criticism of the chapter.

Nice catch. Fixed.

what about this

Stuart wrote: The focussed trumpet blast from the assembled angelic assault group shattered the wall that surrounded the old temple that the League of Divine Justice used as its headquarters. The one I told them to use as their headquarters anway Michael thought to himself. He sensed the angels around him had already gathered their power and shaded his eyes as a blinding glare of the purest white light shone from them. Then, while the guards in the ruined temple were still disorientated by the trumpet blast and blinded by the glare, they stormed across the narrow gap and climbed the destroyed wall.

love the star wars reference. But still shit's got real. I also think michael will have a villainous breakdown of epic proportions

ANTIcarrot wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:ANTIcarrot, I am very skeptical when people talk about technological capabilities "more advanced" than what we have today in some sense that can be done feasibly using old technology.

Then you are being overly skeptical. No one in the world today posses a supersonic passenger transport. Do you honestly believe that because we don't have any today, they couldn't have been built in the past? There's a hole in your arguement so large concord could fly through it. In fact you might even be able to trundle a Moon Rocket through it. (Are those examples good enough for you?) Your logic also seems to bares similarity to Arguement From Personal (Chronological?) Credulity. If I (we today) can't understand it, then neither can you (them yesterday)!

Consider the B-52 as a worked example. There has recently been a lot of back and forth in the USAF about whether its a good idea to replace its 8 old engines with 4 new engines. Imagine if this had been done ten years ago. Then people (ten years) in the past would have a B-52 that could fly further and faster than the one we actually have today; even though with todays engines we could do better still.

Technology is often a matter of politics and economics and imagination, as well as applications of science. It's what we choose to build, and what we can think of to build. Since human imagination is largely random, it is quite fair to concieve of alternative histories where great inventors had other great ideas. Or had the same great ideas, but in a different order, or with different funding. The US Space Shuttle is a monstrous white elephant. But if NASA had been given the required budget, and they hadn't be laboured with the USAF's insane mass/volume/cross-range requirements, they might have done the job properly by investigating any of other launch architectures which almost certainly would have worked better. Speaking of near misses, I'd also like to draw attention to projects like the german 1980s Stealth Fighter, 1940s german X-4 wire-guided missiles, and 1940s british M.52 supersonic jet. None of which got quite finished, but all of which were technically feasible and got damn close to beating the 'official' introduction date by a good ten or twenty years.

Liquid nitrogen cooled coper electromagnets were possible back then. Heavy water did exist. Basic knowledge of light element fusion existed in 1932. If someone had come up with the bright idea to put them all together in the right order, and found the funding, they almost certainly could have built a simple polywell far more powerful than the USN's current best. Because I'm sure you googled this subject extensively before throwing acccusations of foolishness about, you are of course quite aware that the experimental polywells (8 & 8.1 might be exceptions) are currrently being built on a shoestring budget, mostly using materials that have essentially remained unchanged since the 1930s. Whether or not that could have produced positive energy production is more uncertain, but I feel it is quite reasonable to believe they almost certainly could have built a functional polywell.

And because it's very easy to talk big about something no one really expects you to build. Like the Tesla death ray. So no, I would not give him money without a detailed description of how, exactly, his device works, with equations. Which he isn't going to be able to provide, because he never did learn the requisite material.

Well that's the difference. I'd be willing speak to him before he was able to comply with your requirements; and thus I'd get a six month lead on you in deciding if the idea was genius or crackpot. Worst outcome for me is losing half an hour. Worse for you is losing a multi billion dollar contract. I'm sure you're happy with that risk. I know I am with mine.

How does any of the examples you point out refute his skepticism about technological capabilities "more advanced" than what we have today done with older technology? All your examples point out what could've been done, but not how well they'd be done. Could some things not to far back do things some stuff made later do? Yes. Do it as well or better? As efficiently (or better)? As cheaply (or better)? Doubtful, to use an understatement. Very doubtful.

One of your examples even proves the point. 8 of yesterdays engines might possibly be replaced by 4 new engines. Meaning those eight engines don't perform as well as the new ones. Which means they're most definitely not more advanced.

German 1980s stealth fighter? Modern analyses show that it would've been short-ranged, have poor flight characteristics, and still hvae bigger RCS than the F-22. and it would still have had 80s era flight electronics. Not more advanced. British M. 52 supersonic jet? Could have been on par with some older stuff. More advanced than today's stuff? No. And so on.

Your own argument also has many, many other things wrong with it. But as I'm about to go to bed, and other people on this board know more about military tech than me (and, I suspect, you), I'll let them have at it.

So it's all coming together for Michael-Lan . . . or so he thinks. Of course, he could theoretically walk away from this without any problems, as long as he can successfully present himself to the human forces as the person who can make their occupation of Heaven as safe, easy, and cheap as possible.

I would definitely be amused, though, if the rug got pulled out from under him. Not necessarily from someone figuring out his plan, either - but from a pure accident. What if he just happened to be at the Eternal Temple talking to Yahweh when they bomb it, or the like?

So, has the engame finally begun?

The Vortex Empire wrote:Goddamn, that was one intricate, overcomplicated plan. However, I'm pretty sure it will all come falling around Michael's ears. I see Lemuel ending up in command.

I certainly hope so. If Lemuel is as good an investigator as Michael credits him with being, he ought to come round once Maion is no longer in danger and he has the skeptical investigative acumen of human military authorities to help him. Lemuel might be blinded by his affection for his fuckbuddy, but human authorities will not be nearly so gullible, and Michael will have to survive the same kind of rigorous questioning that Abigor did in the Iraqi detainment center - except that Abigor was genuinely ignorant of human military power and had a sincere existential movement, rather than being a slinking tinpot schemer with a closet full of skeletons waiting to be kicked in.

Peptuck wrote:Michael, you magnificent bastard.

He is rather clever isn't he?
Stuart's not half bad either.
A great chapter!

I assume we'll catch up with Jesus next? Since he apparently needs to die for Michael's plan to work.

I love this chapter, I hate this cliffhanger.

Want to know the flag of the first aircraft to enter heaven?

From: Here

Good chapter Stuart!

ANTIcarrot wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:ANTIcarrot, I am very skeptical when people talk about technological capabilities "more advanced" than what we have today in some sense that can be done feasibly using old technology.

Then you are being overly skeptical. No one in the world today posses a supersonic passenger transport. Do you honestly believe that because we don't have any today, they couldn't have been built in the past?

Anti, don't be absurd.

It's one thing to talk about technological capabilities that existed in the past and do not now exist. It's another, much more tenuous, thing to talk about capability that did not exist, arguing that it "could have existed." Even though no one ever actually bothered to build it. Moon rockets are the former; fusion reactors are the latter.

When someone builds a working, worthwhile fusion reactor using technology available in the 1930s, or provides trustworthy blueprints for such, then I will know that such a thing could have been done. Just as I know that a Saturn V, or a large Mach 3 capable aircraft, could have been built in the 1960s: because it was built in the 1960s.

Until then, "polywell fusion reactors could have been built in the 1930s" is just another big claim about what might have been. Which deserves as much respect as it has backup. And since there are only a few people actually working on polywell fusion today and none of them have produced anything useful as a power source... that's not a lot of backup. Or respect.

Come back in five years with a working model, and then you may be sure I will take your claim seriously, and retract what I've said about the idea so far.

ANTIcarrot wrote:

And because it's very easy to talk big about something no one really expects you to build. Like the Tesla death ray. So no, I would not give him money without a detailed description of how, exactly, his device works, with equations. Which he isn't going to be able to provide, because he never did learn the requisite material.

Well that's the difference. I'd be willing speak to him before he was able to comply with your requirements; and thus I'd get a six month lead on you in deciding if the idea was genius or crackpot. Worst outcome for me is losing half an hour. Worse for you is losing a multi billion dollar contract. I'm sure you're happy with that risk. I know I am with mine.

Heh. I'd talk to Tesla, no problem. I just wouldn't give him money if he couldn't give me a convincing design concept.

Convincing design concepts require that the designer know the physical problems they're trying to engineer around. Say that someone comes to you saying "I want to build a rocket to fly to the Moon." If you hand them money, odds are you've lost it, because there are a lot of people who think they can build a moon rocket for every one who really can. So you ask them "The rocket equation says that your rocket can't carry enough fuel to reach the Moon and come back. What do you plan to do about it?" And that's the critical point, because if they reply with a bunch of handwaving, or show ignorance of the rocket equation, it's time to see if they bounce on their way out through the door.

You give them money ONLY if they are informed enough, and have given the matter enough thought, to suggest a solution like "We can build a multistage rocket, rather than try to propel the full mass of the booster all the way to the Moon!" Then maybe you fund them. But if they say "Somehow I'll find a way around it!" without specifying how, you politely ask them to come back in a few years when they've gotten a real engineering degree.

If someone comes to you and all they have is "I want to build a submacopter!" then they do not have enough to be worth paying to design it. The Tesla death ray was like this: He made some sketches, but nothing workable, and with no sign that he actually understood the physics that was getting in the way of doing his job.

This is a major problem with far-out technological concepts that never got off the back of the envelope stage. At that stage you can't tell between what would have worked and what wouldn't. And if there's no sign that the designer even bothered to consider the physics and engineering problems that could make the design fail... odds are, the design was doomed to fail.

Ooo...Michael-lan quotes Darth Vader. I always wanted to do that in my D&D games.

Perhaps Michael will arrive in time to tell Yahweh about the destruction of the Heavenly Host, the death of Jesus, the invasion of the human armies and that he is no longer fit to rule.
What if Yahweh kills Michael? He is still a powerful being.

Spekio wrote:Want to know the flag of the first aircraft to enter heaven?

From: Here

I liked Louise's one more.

Spekio wrote:I love this chapter, I hate this cliffhanger.

Want to know the flag of the first aircraft to enter heaven?

From: Here

Well, if we're going to have a plane with sunglasses wearing flameskull Union Flag, can we just swing for the fences and have Bruce Dickinson fly it?

Ilya Muromets wrote:How does any of the examples you point out refute his skepticism about technological capabilities "more advanced" than what we have today done with older technology?

That is not a complete sentence, and can be read in multiple ways. Specifically you are missing either the word 'do' or 'could' before the word 'have'.
1) Provide examples of past achievements than could not be bettered on 20/4/2010 with real existing technology (and thus no R&D budget). The Saturn V is an obvious example.
2) Provide examples of past achievements that could not be bettered with todays technology, infinite time, infinite funding, infinite political will, and a full knowledge of the origonal principle. Providing example for this would be rather tricky tending to ontologically impossible. (Though if you are truely assuming infinite time/money then I think you're also begging the question as well.) The best example that fits this criteria is probably the slightly uncertain status of Fermat's Last Theorom, and Fermat's hypothetical general proof.
3) Alternatively you can talk of individual projects, which exist to serve some purpose other than the massage the engineer's ego. In the real world you of course understand than words like 'advanced' and 'better' are meaningless without qualifacation. For the next few years, Ceasar will probably have a lot of manpower for his civil engineering projects but limited funding for Earth imports. In this situation, victorian engineering methods (or earlier) might be a better fit to his resources than modern Earth technology. In this situation a cast iron bridge could be said to be better than a steel suspension bridge (or even a carbon nanotube bridge!) because a real bridge is alway more useful and thus <wacky finger quotes> more advanced </wacky finger quotes> than one made out of paper, wishful thinking, and/or other materials that the customer cannot afford.

But in either case I think you're asking me to disprove something I never actually said.

Simon_Jester asserted with apparent absolute conviction that Tesla's death ray was bogus. He is almost certainly right. But it remains remotely possible that in his final years Tesla had one last great idea that he didn't write down and which no one else has duplicated yet. There are many times in history where knowledge has been lost and only rediscovered many centuries later. Damascus steel springs to mind. We can duplicate it's strength today, but the knowledge was lost for centuries. Are you asserting that it is absolutely impossible that dispite such losses happening countless times before, one isn't happening right now? It is unlikely in the extreme, yes. But I do not agree that such absolute disbelief is justified.

Simon_Jester wrote:Anti, don't be absurd. It's one thing to talk about technological capabilities that existed in the past and do not now exist. It's another, much more tenuous, thing to talk about capability that did not exist, arguing that it "could have existed." Even though no one ever actually bothered to build it. Moon rockets are the former; fusion reactors are the latter.

Oh but why not be absurd? It seems to be one of those conversations...

We seem to be disagreeing not so much about technology but philosophies for Alternative History. You seem happy to ask What If about (say) the SASSTO being built and actually working as advertised (even though it almost certainly wouldn't have IIRC) because that was a historical proposal. But it sounds like you would baulk at the idea of the French building it, because that is not an idea from recorded history. That seems a very tenuous distiction to me. (Sorry if I keep coming back to space based technologies. But that's what I know about.)

As I said, there is a big question mark hovering over the polywell. As far as I can tell, this is one area of science were we simply don't know. It'd be great if it works, but I suspect that even if it does, there will be problems that stop it from being as good as Bussard thought it would be. As to lack of progress... <shrug> That's the real world for you. Personally I'm waiting for the results for WB-7, WB-7.1, and WB-8, which are all still under Navy embargo. WB-8 will almost certainly provide enough evidence to confirm or deny the 7th power theory. If it does, great, and we've just made ITAR redundant. If not, it's a pity, and move on.

"I want to build a submacopter!"

Quite agree.

ANTIcarrot wrote:Simon_Jester asserted with apparent absolute conviction that Tesla's death ray was bogus. He is almost certainly right. But it remains remotely possible that in his final years Tesla had one last great idea that he didn't write down and which no one else has duplicated yet.

If it involves electricity, magnetism, and the death ray designs he actually patented, then no, no it is not possible. We know what the laws of electromagnetism are, and the Tesla Death Ray doesn't perform as advertised in a universe where they hold true. And we knew this back when Tesla proposed the idea, which is why the military (rightly) turned him down. Only trouble is, Tesla didn't know, or didn't care, what the laws of physics governing the phenomenon he was trying to exploit were.

He does not deserve funding simply for having an idea, regardless of his role in the early days of AC electrical engineering. Not if he can't articulate how or why it works... which is my point. He couldn't do it then, when people actually seriously looked into his proposal, and I see no reason to assume he can do it now.

Now, if he can, that's a different ball of wax. But I'm roughly as confident that he couldn't do it in this situation as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow, and for much the same reasons. So I don't take that possibility very seriously unless it comes up.

We seem to be disagreeing not so much about technology but philosophies for Alternative History. You seem happy to ask What If about (say) the SASSTO being built and actually working as advertised (even though it almost certainly wouldn't have IIRC) because that was a historical proposal. But it sounds like you would baulk at the idea of the French building it, because that is not an idea from recorded history. That seems a very tenuous distiction to me. (Sorry if I keep coming back to space based technologies. But that's what I know about.)

If the US can build something, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the French or the Russians could build it too. Those are technologically advanced nations; one might fail to duplicate another's project, but it would not be beyond the bounds of sanity for them to succeed.

Whereas for, say, Zimbabwe to build its own space shuttle... now that would be beyond the bounds of sanity. And Tesla's death ray is even less plausible than that, because it violates actual laws of physics, instead of the laws of economics.

Polywell reactors lie somewhere in between. They are not a proven technology on a useful scale. I'd love to see them work, but until I do I am not going to make confident statements about what it takes to make them work. And I don't think you should, either.

"I want to build a submacopter!"

Quite agree.

And yet, this is very much the situation with the Tesla death ray. Tesla never managed to answer the obvious questions about how his device could work, given that it seemingly ignores the laws of physics. Indeed, he may not have even realized that the questions needed to be asked; he wasn't very stable in his declining years.

I can actually imagine a working submacopter more easily than I can imagine a working Tesla death ray. A submacopter would probably stink to high heaven as both a submarine and a helicopter, but it might be able to propel itself underwater and fly in the air. Might. For all I know. Whereas I know a number of reasons that make me extremely skeptical that any EM weapon Tesla could possibly design would be able to do what he claimed.

Fucking spectacular. I want Michael to live-his chutzpah needs to be rewarded. He's approaching Colonel Tigh-levels of brass balls.

And, of course, if Lemuel is taking Maion to a medical facility on earth directly, that means humans are going to track the portal. And what is the FIRST place in heaven that humans are going to find?

Oh, we're not going to feel merciful after we find Belial's camp.

Wow.

Just.

Wow.

That portal had better open up to a hospital, civilian or military, otherwise things could go very, very wrong.

I'm betting it'll open at ground-level, and I doubt we'd shoot once we see an angel holding a mangled body.

JonB wrote:That portal had better open up to a hospital, civilian or military, otherwise things could go very, very wrong.

Things could still go very wrong if we decide to shoot first...