Ender's Game (spoilers)

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

AHem: I responded to that post. A 'Shield' Is a physical object, like a whipple shield, or armor. to avoid confusion, I will say 'energy shield' when that is what I mean (or force field when merited).

At relativistic velocities, an armoured shield would be about as effective as a giant latex condom around the ship as far as anti-impactor protection would go.

Do you know what a whipple shield is? it allows these deadly relativistic impactors to safely expend their energy away from the ship. If nothing else, just boosting a big metal plate in your line of travel will prevent many of the woes of interstellar dust at relativistic speeds.

The 'most accurate maps' are un-necessary for travel

Utter bullshit.

...when an optically generated map is far from erroneous. I don't understand how the ability to determine whether any given star is of X, Y, or Z type is of relevance when all you need for reasonable interstellar navigation is about three reference points and a heading, the more the merrier of course, but with umpteen gazillion visible phenomena, one hardly needs to venture into radio interferometry to generate a suitable number of references.

The grand-mal stupidity of fanboys never ceases to amaze me. You actually imagine that floating an argument for not having the most detailed information you can get with the most precise tools that can be utilised is going to win you points?

Try spotting a black hole with an optical telescope sometime, nitwit. Running into one of those during your spaceflight across interstellar distances just might be bad.

Ooh, okay: Hey what is that big glowing swirling mass of hot dust? Why it must be the fucking accretion disk of a black fucking hole, which would be that little black spot in the middle! wow that was difficult, now you spot me a black whole with only radio astronomy techniques hmm.
And if as you argue,t hey didn't have radio technology, then Optical astronomy would be the most accurate system they had available, and it is one far from being insufficient for interstellar navigation.

Also, it is noted that the Second Invasion was managed in such a way that the queen ship was noticeably (albeit to a small fraction of people) directing the battle, leading to the conclusion that that is where the sensing equipment is located.

A "conclusion" which still remains unsupported by any actual evidence from the book. Exactly what part of the definition of "evidence" eludes your grasp, anyway?

well the facts hmm? Mazer and Ender were both able to discern the queen's ship from the way in which the Bugger fleet reacted to the HUman fleet during the second invasion. If other ships in the fleet were equipped with the same sensor technology available on the Queen's ship in order to expand the Queen's knowledge of the battle space that feat would have been impossible; the Queen would have had an equal view from all ships and the fleets reactions would have taken place accordingly, no single 'control point' could have been discerned.

Now you prove that they could have discerned which ship the queen was in if all of the ships had the same sensing technology (in this case, none still leaves the queen with an equal awareness off all ships as she sees out of the drones eyes as if they were her own.)

Having such equipment on multiple ships would certainly provide a clearer picture of the battle. But it would also require more expensive ships and that the Queen's attention be divided amongst the various views available in order to make use of them.

"More expensive ships", Gracie? Just how much more "expensive" than the costs of actually building a large invasion fleet in the first fucking place which is going to be on a decades-long flight between star systems?

Eh cost was a reachy point any way, I'll surrender that one.

Just like a Creationist or a Trektard you are: don't alter theory in the face (or lack) of fact, alter fact to suit theory.

Alter fact to suit theory? Can you point out one 'altered' fact please I'd like to knowbecasue I'm tryng not to do any such thing, and if I inadvertantly am, I'd like a less general statement preferably referencing specific facts that have been altered.[/i]

[Patrick Degan]

At relativistic velocities, an armoured shield would be about as effective as a giant latex condom around the ship as far as anti-impactor protection would go.

Do you know what a whipple shield is? it allows these deadly relativistic impactors to safely expend their energy away from the ship. If nothing else, just boosting a big metal plate in your line of travel will prevent many of the woes of interstellar dust at relativistic speeds.

A whipple-shield is designed to protect craft from dust and debris encountered at orbital velocities, you brain-damaged sack of crap. It will do exactly jack-shit against anything coming in at an appreciable percentage of c.

Try spotting a black hole with an optical telescope sometime, nitwit. Running into one of those during your spaceflight across interstellar distances just might be bad.

Ooh, okay: Hey what is that big glowing swirling mass of hot dust? Why it must be the fucking accretion disk of a black fucking hole, which would be that little black spot in the middle! wow that was difficult, now you spot me a black whole with only radio astronomy techniques hmm.

Got news for you, asshole: black holes are exactly detected with radioastronomy and X-ray source detectors. That's how the first black holes were spotted and it's how the presence of suspected black holes at certain stars are confirmed.

And if as you argue,t hey didn't have radio technology, then Optical astronomy would be the most accurate system they had available, and it is one far from being insufficient for interstellar navigation.

Insane babble.

Also, it is noted that the Second Invasion was managed in such a way that the queen ship was noticeably (albeit to a small fraction of people) directing the battle, leading to the conclusion that that is where the sensing equipment is located.

A "conclusion" which still remains unsupported by any actual evidence from the book. Exactly what part of the definition of "evidence" eludes your grasp, anyway?

well the facts hmm? Mazer and Ender were both able to discern the queen's ship from the way in which the Bugger fleet reacted to the HUman fleet during the second invasion. If other ships in the fleet were equipped with the same sensor technology available on the Queen's ship in order to expand the Queen's knowledge of the battle space that feat would have been impossible; the Queen would have had an equal view from all ships and the fleets reactions would have taken place accordingly, no single 'control point' could have been discerned.

Hate to break this to you, moron, but simply regurgitating your same argument which tries to fill in a gap in the information with your belief about what "must" be there is NOT evidence. Try producing an actual passage from the book which supports your case or just kindly shut the fuck up already.

you prove that they could have discerned which ship the queen was in if all of the ships had the same sensing technology (in this case, none still leaves the queen with an equal awareness off all ships as she sees out of the drones eyes as if they were her own.)

Burden of Proof Fallacy: it's not on me to do your homework for you. Particulary as YOU are the one making claims about things not supported by any actual evidence from the goddamned book.

Having such equipment on multiple ships would certainly provide a clearer picture of the battle. But it would also require more expensive ships and that the Queen's attention be divided amongst the various views available in order to make use of them.

"More expensive ships", Gracie? Just how much more "expensive" than the costs of actually building a large invasion fleet in the first fucking place which is going to be on a decades-long flight between star systems?

Eh cost was a reachy point any way, I'll surrender that one.

Get used to doing that.

Just like a Creationist or a Trektard you are: don't alter theory in the face (or lack) of fact, alter fact to suit theory.

Alter fact to suit theory? Can you point out one 'altered' fact please I'd like to knowbecasue I'm tryng not to do any such thing, and if I inadvertantly am, I'd like a less general statement preferably referencing specific facts that have been altered.[/i]

For a start, your continuing unsupported claim that the Queen's ship must have all the electronic-based sensors on board which amounts to nothing more than you filling in a hole in the evidence with your belief, along with your truly laughable attempts to argue that optical astronomy is "enough" to navigate interstellar distances by to try to handwave away a major logical defect in the premise of the novel.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

You keep saying that X fact is wrong, or Y fact is unsupported, but you haven't shown me any proof. Why is optical astronomy insuffieicent for interstellar navigation? Rather than just throwing out a "Thats bullshit" lets see some justification, lets see some numbers. I say all you need to do is take a sighting on three stars and go, thats simple astronomy there. provided you know the actual positions of these stars, as long as they're in view you will always be able to tell where you are, what more do you need to navigate?

And a Whipple shield could easily be adapted to relativistic projectiles. To increase the strength, just increase the gap and thickness. Any object with an arbitrary mass and velocity can be defeated by suitable thickness of armor, A whipple shield reduces the needed thickness by providing a gap so when the shield is hit, the shockwaves don't hit the ship.
On the other hand, I think you will find yourself having a hard time missing a piece of anything while moving at relativistic velocities.
A ship moving at say, 75%c (about 225000km/s) is oh 75m in diameter (a little less than the width of a Carrier)
This hypothetical ship has a lateral acceleration capability of around 3 Gs.
to avoid a point object in its path, it will have to detect this object 285,750 kilometers out (it takes the ship approx 1.27 seconds to move 37.5 meters with 3Gs of acceleration) This bodes ill for your ship surviving anything it discovers while traveling relativistically if avoidance is its only defense.


P. 188
Mazer is showing the video of the second invasion to Ender:

Ender began to see the way that all the movements focused on, radiated from a center point. The center point shifeted, but it was obvious, after he looked long enough, that the eyes of the fleet, the I of the fleet, the perspective from which all decisions were being made, was one particular ship.

Tell me again that, even though the entire battle from the Buggers side is being fought from the Perspective of one particular ship, that ship has no more sensing equipment than any other in the fleet.

And finally, Shields in enderverse:
P. 191
Mazer is explainign the Little Doctor and the Buggers weaponry/defenses to Ender

"We learned a lot from them in the First Invasion, but they also learned from us-how to set up the Ecstatic Shield, for instance."
"The little doctor penetrates the shield?"
"As if it weren't there. You can't see through the shield to aim and focus the beams, but since the genertor of the Ecstatic Shield is always in the exact center, it isn't hard to figure it out."

[Patrick Degan]

You keep saying that X fact is wrong, or Y fact is unsupported, but you haven't shown me any proof. Why is optical astronomy insuffieicent for interstellar navigation? Rather than just throwing out a "Thats bullshit" lets see some justification, lets see some numbers. I say all you need to do is take a sighting on three stars and go, thats simple astronomy there. provided you know the actual positions of these stars, as long as they're in view you will always be able to tell where you are, what more do you need to navigate?

I HAVE SHOWN IT, YOU DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT --multiple times, and have quoted Orson Scott Card directly to reinforce the point. I have also pointed out just why "sighting three stars" doesn't give you information on hazards which optical telescopes can't register and have cited evidentiary supports for that point as well. You are now down to outright lying and repetition: which in these parts is known as the Wall of Ignorance Tactic and very much frowned upon here.

And a Whipple shield could easily be adapted to relativistic projectiles. To increase the strength, just increase the gap and thickness. Any object with an arbitrary mass and velocity can be defeated by suitable thickness of armor, A whipple shield reduces the needed thickness by providing a gap so when the shield is hit, the shockwaves don't hit the ship.

Pulled that one right out of your ass, didn't you? It takes a real imbecile to try to argue that any material can be "adapted" to withstand an impactor hitting at a velocity of several thousands of kilometres per second; which is how relativistic velocities are measured. There is no known material in nature which can withstand such stress. It doesn't matter how thick your armour is or what material you've got in front of it; at velocities of 30,000 kps (roughly .10c and even lower than that by an order of magnitude), any object will simply punch through whatever is in its path.

On the other hand, I think you will find yourself having a hard time missing a piece of anything while moving at relativistic velocities.
A ship moving at say, 75%c (about 225000km/s) is oh 75m in diameter (a little less than the width of a Carrier)
This hypothetical ship has a lateral acceleration capability of around 3 Gs.
to avoid a point object in its path, it will have to detect this object 285,750 kilometers out (it takes the ship approx 1.27 seconds to move 37.5 meters with 3Gs of acceleration) This bodes ill for your ship surviving anything it discovers while traveling relativistically if avoidance is its only defense.

That, moron, is why you'd need radar to detect objects ahead of your path. And the mathematics of the problem also involve moving the ship's whole mass and not just a simplistic calculation of speed and distance.

P. 188
Mazer is showing the video of the second invasion to Ender:
Ender began to see the way that all the movements focused on, radiated from a center point. The center point shifeted, but it was obvious, after he looked long enough, that the eyes of the fleet, the I of the fleet, the perspective from which all decisions were being made, was one particular ship

Tell me again that, even though the entire battle from the Buggers side is being fought from the Perspective of one particular ship, that ship has no more sensing equipment than any other in the fleet.

The sad thing is that you actually imagine you've made a point.

Just where in that quote does it say "the Queen's ship was equipped with electronic sensors"? Where in the book are any such devices found in any Bugger ship? Kindly produce a passage in which Graf's statements about the Buggers' total lack of any device to transmit or receive signals "of any kind" is contradicted. Do you actually have the intellectual honesty to attempt it or concede the point if you fail to do so, or are we going to have to repeatedly argue the same fucking non-point ad-infinitum? The issue is not whether the Queen was controlling her entire fleet from her ship but the mechanism by which this control was managed.

And finally, Shields in enderverse:
P. 191
Mazer is explainign the Little Doctor and the Buggers weaponry/defenses to Ender
"We learned a lot from them in the First Invasion, but they also learned from us-how to set up the Ecstatic Shield, for instance."
"The little doctor penetrates the shield?"
"As if it weren't there. You can't see through the shield to aim and focus the beams, but since the genertor of the Ecstatic Shield is always in the exact center, it isn't hard to figure it out."

Sorry, this demonstrates what, exactly? Very little is given in the book about just what the "Ecstatic Shield" does and the use to which it's put. Being mentioned in the context of a discussion on weaponry, best guess is some sort of antimissile defence or a stealth device. Exactly what point do you believe you're making with this little Red Herring of yours?

[skotos]

And finally, Shields in enderverse:
P. 191
Mazer is explainign the Little Doctor and the Buggers weaponry/defenses to Ender
"We learned a lot from them in the First Invasion, but they also learned from us-how to set up the Ecstatic Shield, for instance."
"The little doctor penetrates the shield?"
"As if it weren't there. You can't see through the shield to aim and focus the beams, but since the genertor of the Ecstatic Shield is always in the exact center, it isn't hard to figure it out."

Sorry, this demonstrates what, exactly? Very little is given in the book about just what the "Ecstatic Shield" does and the use to which it's put. Being mentioned in the context of a discussion on weaponry, best guess is some sort of antimissile defence or a stealth device. Exactly what point do you believe you're making with this little Red Herring of yours?

The quote shows quite clearly that the Ecstatic Shield is neither an anti-missile device nor a stealth device. We know that it blocks EM radiation, because you can't see through it. The fact that Mazer states categorically that you can't see through it shows that it blocks all EM that humans are capable of emitting, which means it blocks lasers, etc. We know that it is not a dedicated anti-missile defense, first, because it is also a laser defense, and second, because Ender specifically asks if the Little Doctor (which is not a missile) can penetrate it, proving that the general expectation is that things which are not missiles cannot penetrate the shield. It is quite clearly a "shield" in the sci-fi sense, which means that it blocks shit, whether they be energy weapons, kinetic weapons, or missiles. If it did not block stuff in general, then Ender would not have asked if it blocked the Little Doctor.

We know that it is not a stealth device, because Ender is asking if the Little Doctor can penetrate the shield. If it was a stealth device, he would be asking "can the Little Doctor help me find shielded ships?". Further, Mazer tells Ender that the ships can be targeted based on the location of the shield, and he says that this is not difficult, showing that the shield is easily located. If the shield can be routinely located, it cannot be a stealth device.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

I can see this is goign to be a Long one. Consider yourself lucky (No, I'm not even going to bother explaining that, and it definately doesn't mean what you think it does.)

You keep saying that X fact is wrong, or Y fact is unsupported, but you haven't shown me any proof. Why is optical astronomy insuffieicent for interstellar navigation? Rather than just throwing out a "Thats bullshit" lets see some justification, lets see some numbers. I say all you need to do is take a sighting on three stars and go, thats simple astronomy there. provided you know the actual positions of these stars, as long as they're in view you will always be able to tell where you are, what more do you need to navigate?

I HAVE SHOWN IT, YOU DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT --multiple times, and have quoted Orson Scott Card directly to reinforce the point. I have also pointed out just why "sighting three stars" doesn't give you information on hazards which optical telescopes can't register and have cited evidentiary supports for that point as well. You are now down to outright lying and repetition: which in these parts is known as the Wall of Ignorance Tactic and very much frowned upon here.

really? I'm down to repition eh? well, I suppose once back some posts ago you refrenced som lit on radio interferometry, but you still won't say why it is absolutely necesary from pure navigational perspective. Keep tossing out that it allows you to spot shit in your way, but as I'm about to point out (again) its ability to do that is of negligible importance at relativistic speeds.

And a Whipple shield could easily be adapted to relativistic projectiles. To increase the strength, just increase the gap and thickness. Any object with an arbitrary mass and velocity can be defeated by suitable thickness of armor, A whipple shield reduces the needed thickness by providing a gap so when the shield is hit, the shockwaves don't hit the ship.

Pulled that one right out of your ass, didn't you? It takes a real imbecile to try to argue that any material can be "adapted" to withstand an impactor hitting at a velocity of several thousands of kilometres per second; which is how relativistic velocities are measured. There is no known material in nature which can withstand such stress. It doesn't matter how thick your armour is or what material you've got in front of it; at velocities of 30,000 kps (roughly .10c and even lower than that by an order of magnitude), any object will simply punch through whatever is in its path.

Whipple Shield: n: a type of hypervelocity impact shield used to protect manned and unmanned spacecraft from collisions with small particles whose velocities are measured in kilometers per second. Whipple shields place spacings between several layers of shielding. This improves the shielding to mass ratio, critical for spaceflight components, but also increases the thickness of the spacecraft walls, which is not ideal for fitting spacecraft into launch vehicle fairings. The advantage of spacing out thinner shields over a single thick shield is that the initial wall shock can melt the incoming particle (depending on its speed) and molten bits of the particle strike a wider area of the subsequent walls reducing the pressure.

I fail to see any adaptation of actual materials being needed here. Now, using completely different materials (and more of them) I can see working, but in the end, your going to seize on the 'velocities measured in kilometers per second' part and not let go, even though replacing say, aluminum alloy in a whipple shield with say, Tungsten Steel alloy would improve its resistance greatly (with an admitted increase in mass, which is non-optimal, but better than being a smear)

On the other hand, I think you will find yourself having a hard time missing a piece of anything while moving at relativistic velocities.
A ship moving at say, 75%c (about 225000km/s) is oh 75m in diameter (a little less than the width of a Carrier)
This hypothetical ship has a lateral acceleration capability of around 3 Gs.
to avoid a point object in its path, it will have to detect this object 285,750 kilometers out (it takes the ship approx 1.27 seconds to move 37.5 meters with 3Gs of acceleration) This bodes ill for your ship surviving anything it discovers while traveling relativistically if avoidance is its only defense.

That, moron, is why you'd need radar to detect objects ahead of your path. And the mathematics of the problem also involve moving the ship's whole mass and not just a simplistic calculation of speed and distance.

So, you've got a radar that can detect things too small to be seen with a telescope at ranges we have yet to detect things that can be seen with a telescope using radar? And response time? And the fact that Enderverse ships travel at around 299760km/s (quite a bit more than my previous assumption, based on the time dilation effects mention on p. 217) which pushes the threshhold of detection out even further (380695.2 km to be exact) and that doesn't even count the fact that at this speed, your radar transmissions are travelling barely ahead of your ship. And you still need to actually respond, just taking time to say 'collision ahead' is going to get you real dead real fast. And an Automatic evasion system is going to do as much harm as good, if anything comes at you off center (as it more than likely will) you're just as likely to automate yourself closer to dead on to the obstacle as you are to avoid it, and even a spooky fast computer that can calculate its way out of that problem fast enough to not kill you will still be wasting reaction mass on false alarms. And we still haven't dealt with all that pesky inertia and the fact that you're maneuvering thrusters don't instantaneuosly activate and all of a sudden you're accelerating at three Gs. And when it breaks down what are you going to do?

P. 188
Mazer is showing the video of the second invasion to Ender:
Ender began to see the way that all the movements focused on, radiated from a center point. The center point shifeted, but it was obvious, after he looked long enough, that the eyes of the fleet, the I of the fleet, the perspective from which all decisions were being made, was one particular ship

Tell me again that, even though the entire battle from the Buggers side is being fought from the Perspective of one particular ship, that ship has no more sensing equipment than any other in the fleet.

The sad thing is that you actually imagine you've made a point.

Just where in that quote does it say "the Queen's ship was equipped with electronic sensors"? Where in the book are any such devices found in any Bugger ship? Kindly produce a passage in which Graf's statements about the Buggers' total lack of any device to transmit or receive signals "of any kind" is contradicted. Do you actually have the intellectual honesty to attempt it or concede the point if you fail to do so, or are we going to have to repeatedly argue the same fucking non-point ad-infinitum? The issue is not whether the Queen was controlling her entire fleet from her ship but the mechanism by which this control was managed.

Well, let's take a look at this, you don't want to see the underlying assumptions or at least understand why they're there, thats okay, I'll explain, I'm in a good mood right now so here it goes:
The Queen sees everything her drones sees. For all practical purposses her drones are her, anything they see, she sees.
The Queen is directing the battle
The queen sees what each and every one of her drones sees of the battle.
If then, there is no exceptional sensing equipment on the queens ship, the Queen's ship has no exceptional view of its own. The Queen then only sees what the drones see of the battle (Hang on, I'm getting there)
If the queen's ship has no exceptional viewpoint of the battle (which could only be provided by extra sensors, given that we know its position itself was in no way exceptional) Then why is the battle being directed fromt he viewpoint of the queens ship? Every drone is a part of the Queen's direct neural network unless her ship has exceptional sensors, then her viewpoint encompasses every ship in the fleet. Instead, we see that the fleets actions are being directed from a single viewpoint, not a viewpoint extending equally from all ships, but a viewpoint extending from one ship.
Since the Queen's personal viewpoint consists equally of all her drones viewpoints, this single viewpoint must offer some advantages over the others.

And finally, Shields in enderverse:
P. 191
Mazer is explainign the Little Doctor and the Buggers weaponry/defenses to Ender
"We learned a lot from them in the First Invasion, but they also learned from us-how to set up the Ecstatic Shield, for instance."
"The little doctor penetrates the shield?"
"As if it weren't there. You can't see through the shield to aim and focus the beams, but since the genertor of the Ecstatic Shield is always in the exact center, it isn't hard to figure it out."

Sorry, this demonstrates what, exactly? Very little is given in the book about just what the "Ecstatic Shield" does and the use to which it's put. Being mentioned in the context of a discussion on weaponry, best guess is some sort of antimissile defence or a stealth device. Exactly what point do you believe you're making with this little Red Herring of yours?

Wow, read the thread please, I'm not even talking to you here, I mentioned that energy shields existed in the enderverse in a previous post and someone else wanted the reference. Don't assume everything in this thread has something to do with you.

[Patrick Degan]

I can see this is goign to be a Long one. Consider yourself lucky (No, I'm not even going to bother explaining that, and it definately doesn't mean what you think it does.)

Arrogant little shit, aren't you? This should be amusing.

I'm down to repition eh? well, I suppose once back some posts ago you refrenced som lit on radio interferometry, but you still won't say why it is absolutely necesary from pure navigational perspective. Keep tossing out that it allows you to spot shit in your way, but as I'm about to point out (again) its ability to do that is of negligible importance at relativistic speeds.

Uh uh, asswipe, you're not getting away with that one. The fact that radioastronomy does a far better job of spotting hazards such as black holes than optical telescopes are capable of demonstrates its utility in terms of space navigation. The fact that radar can spot small objects which optical telescopes are insufficient to track demonstrates its superiority in that area as well. That you are incapable of comprehending either of these points is your problem.

Whipple Shield: n: a type of hypervelocity impact shield used to protect manned and unmanned spacecraft from collisions with small particles whose velocities are measured in kilometers per second. Whipple shields place spacings between several layers of shielding. This improves the shielding to mass ratio, critical for spaceflight components, but also increases the thickness of the spacecraft walls, which is not ideal for fitting spacecraft into launch vehicle fairings. The advantage of spacing out thinner shields over a single thick shield is that the initial wall shock can melt the incoming particle (depending on its speed) and molten bits of the particle strike a wider area of the subsequent walls reducing the pressure.

I fail to see any adaptation of actual materials being needed here. Now, using completely different materials (and more of them) I can see working, but in the end, your going to seize on the 'velocities measured in kilometers per second' part and not let go, even though replacing say, aluminum alloy in a whipple shield with say, Tungsten Steel alloy would improve its resistance greatly (with an admitted increase in mass, which is non-optimal, but better than being a smear)

Unlike you, I can read that passage and actually comprehend its meaning. I also understand that whipple shields only ever have had to deal with objects traveling at orbital velocities measured in tens or at most a couple of hundred kilometres per second. The term "hypervelocity" in strict scientific parlance refers to those velocities as compared to the fastest velocities which any Earthbound vehicle is capable of, dimwit. Relativistic velocities measuring in the several thousands of kilometres represent a whole order of magnitude difference in impact energy, which no material in nature is going to be able to withstand much less an armoured shield perhaps a metre or several in thickness.

So, you've got a radar that can detect things too small to be seen with a telescope at ranges we have yet to detect things that can be seen with a telescope using radar?

Radar uses radar, dimwit. Whole different system. And it was radiotelescopes and X-ray source detectors which first found things like black holes which were never spotted with optical telescopes, dimwit.

And response time? And the fact that Enderverse ships travel at around 299760km/s (quite a bit more than my previous assumption, based on the time dilation effects mention on p. 217 which pushes the threshhold of detection out even further (380695.2 km to be exact) and that doesn't even count the fact that at this speed, your radar transmissions are travelling barely ahead of your ship. And you still need to actually respond, just taking time to say 'collision ahead' is going to get you real dead real fast. And an Automatic evasion system is going to do as much harm as good, if anything comes at you off center (as it more than likely will) you're just as likely to automate yourself closer to dead on to the obstacle as you are to avoid it, and even a spooky fast computer that can calculate its way out of that problem fast enough to not kill you will still be wasting reaction mass on false alarms. And we still haven't dealt with all that pesky inertia and the fact that you're maneuvering thrusters don't instantaneuosly activate and all of a sudden you're accelerating at three Gs. And when it breaks down what are you going to do?

Are you quite finished, "Mr. Physics"?

A) the ship is coasting, not accelerating.

B) a radar signal will still be outracing the vessel even at high relativistic velocity, being that it propagates at c.

C) any oncoming obstacle large enough to register on radar is likely to be a singular object; free space isn't very dense with large impactors.

D) the range-limitation on the ship's radar is dictated solely by distance attenuation in open space.

E) detection in ranges of light-minutes is not unfeasible.

Your little panic scenario is not at all the inevitable end to such a situation occuring. Any body that can be picked up within a range of 5 to 8 light minutes can be avoided.

Well, let's take a look at this, you don't want to see the underlying assumptions or at least understand why they're there, thats okay, I'll explain, I'm in a good mood right now so here it goes:
The Queen sees everything her drones sees. For all practical purposses her drones are her, anything they see, she sees.
The Queen is directing the battle
The queen sees what each and every one of her drones sees of the battle.
If then, there is no exceptional sensing equipment on the queens ship, the Queen's ship has no exceptional view of its own. The Queen then only sees what the drones see of the battle (Hang on, I'm getting there)
If the queen's ship has no exceptional viewpoint of the battle (which could only be provided by extra sensors, given that we know its position itself was in no way exceptional) Then why is the battle being directed fromt he viewpoint of the queens ship? Every drone is a part of the Queen's direct neural network unless her ship has exceptional sensors, then her viewpoint encompasses every ship in the fleet. Instead, we see that the fleets actions are being directed from a single viewpoint, not a viewpoint extending equally from all ships, but a viewpoint extending from one ship.
Since the Queen's personal viewpoint consists equally of all her drones viewpoints, this single viewpoint must offer some advantages over the others.

It always seems that the weaker the argument, the more long-winded the bullshit screen gets to mask that weakness. You think that restating your premises in ever longer verbiage proves the point. Unfortunately, we're still confronted with one sailent fact:

THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE FUCKING BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THE BUGGERS HAVING RADIO-BASED INSTRUMENTS OF ANY KIND. Indeed, the Earth authorities had extensive tapes of a Bugger boarding action against a tug because the Buggers never even suspected that their actions were being recorded because they had not even conceived that there was any such equipment on that ship in the first place --which ties in with Graff's entire conversation with Ender about the Buggers lacking equipment to transmit or receive signals "of any kind".

I don't know how much plainer the evidence of the actual book has to be made to you.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

I can see this is goign to be a Long one. Consider yourself lucky (No, I'm not even going to bother explaining that, and it definately doesn't mean what you think it does.)

Arrogant little shit, aren't you? This should be amusing.

I went and told you it didn't mean what you thought it meant, and you went and assumed it did anyway. Why does everything in this thread suddenly revolve around you?

I'm down to repition eh? well, I suppose once back some posts ago you refrenced som lit on radio interferometry, but you still won't say why it is absolutely necesary from pure navigational perspective. Keep tossing out that it allows you to spot shit in your way, but as I'm about to point out (again) its ability to do that is of negligible importance at relativistic speeds.

Uh uh, asswipe, you're not getting away with that one. The fact that radioastronomy does a far better job of spotting hazards such as black holes than optical telescopes are capable of demonstrates its utility in terms of space navigation. The fact that radar can spot small objects which optical telescopes are insufficient to track demonstrates its superiority in that area as well. That you are incapable of comprehending either of these points is your problem.

Okay, so what you're saying is that in terms of pure navigation, Radio Telescopy is more better becasue it can detect obstacles better. Okay, I can buy that, as long as its not inconceivable to you that a race could physically navigate from star A to star B using only optical astronomy (navigation!=accident avoidance). I'll get into the limitations of Radar below.

Whipple Shield: n: a type of hypervelocity impact shield used to protect manned and unmanned spacecraft from collisions with small particles whose velocities are measured in kilometers per second. Whipple shields place spacings between several layers of shielding. This improves the shielding to mass ratio, critical for spaceflight components, but also increases the thickness of the spacecraft walls, which is not ideal for fitting spacecraft into launch vehicle fairings. The advantage of spacing out thinner shields over a single thick shield is that the initial wall shock can melt the incoming particle (depending on its speed) and molten bits of the particle strike a wider area of the subsequent walls reducing the pressure.

I fail to see any adaptation of actual materials being needed here. Now, using completely different materials (and more of them) I can see working, but in the end, your going to seize on the 'velocities measured in kilometers per second' part and not let go, even though replacing say, aluminum alloy in a whipple shield with say, Tungsten Steel alloy would improve its resistance greatly (with an admitted increase in mass, which is non-optimal, but better than being a smear)

Unlike you, I can read that passage and actually comprehend its meaning. I also understand that whipple shields only ever have had to deal with objects traveling at orbital velocities measured in tens or at most a couple of hundred kilometres per second. The term "hypervelocity" in strict scientific parlance refers to those velocities as compared to the fastest velocities which any Earthbound vehicle is capable of, dimwit. Relativistic velocities measuring in the several thousands of kilometres represent a whole order of magnitude difference in impact energy, which no material in nature is going to be able to withstand much less an armoured shield perhaps a metre or several in thickness.

Why limit yourself? Only a meter in thickness? Tank armour is thicker than that and it doesn't even include an 'air gap' (or other suitable gap) let alone many. All you're doing is enforcing meaningless limitations.
Any way at relativistic speeds, any random pice of garbage you're going to run intp is probably going to vaporise on contact, as long as that energy is expended away from the pressure hull we're good.

So, you've got a radar that can detect things too small to be seen with a telescope at ranges we have yet to detect things that can be seen with a telescope using radar?

Radar uses radar, dimwit. Whole different system. And it was radiotelescopes and X-ray source detectors which first found things like black holes which were never spotted with optical telescopes, dimwit.

that was phrased poorly and I apologize. What I meant to say is that as yet, objects too small to be seen on telescope have yet to be detected at any reasonable range with radar.

And response time? And the fact that Enderverse ships travel at around 299760km/s (quite a bit more than my previous assumption, based on the time dilation effects mention on p. 217 which pushes the threshhold of detection out even further (380695.2 km to be exact) and that doesn't even count the fact that at this speed, your radar transmissions are travelling barely ahead of your ship. And you still need to actually respond, just taking time to say 'collision ahead' is going to get you real dead real fast. And an Automatic evasion system is going to do as much harm as good, if anything comes at you off center (as it more than likely will) you're just as likely to automate yourself closer to dead on to the obstacle as you are to avoid it, and even a spooky fast computer that can calculate its way out of that problem fast enough to not kill you will still be wasting reaction mass on false alarms. And we still haven't dealt with all that pesky inertia and the fact that you're maneuvering thrusters don't instantaneuosly activate and all of a sudden you're accelerating at three Gs. And when it breaks down what are you going to do?

Are you quite finished, "Mr. Physics"?

A) the ship is coasting, not accelerating.

B) a radar signal will still be outracing the vessel even at high relativistic velocity, being that it propagates at c.

C) any oncoming obstacle large enough to register on radar is likely to be a singular object; free space isn't very dense with large impactors.

D) the range-limitation on the ship's radar is dictated solely by distance attenuation in open space.

E) detection in ranges of light-minutes is not unfeasible.

Your little panic scenario is not at all the inevitable end to such a situation occuring. Any body that can be picked up within a range of 5 to 8 light minutes can be avoided.

you say Mr. Physics like its a bad thing.

A)It's speed is still 99%C

B)Yea? But still barely. You can detect something light minutes out, if it's big enough, radar isn't some magical infinite resolution imaging device that can see a bit of trash 10mm in diameter at any arbitrary range. And, by the time the wave reflects back to you, you'll be almost there yourself.

C) I'm curious to know what exactly you think qualifies as an object not large enough to be seen optically, but still large enough to be seen with radar and how much of space is littered with objects on that scale, espescially as tecnology increases are rapidly closing that gap, both methods are limited by wavelength in terms of maximum theoretical resolution, and the wavelength of light is always going to be smaller than the wavelengths of any arbitrary radar set.

D) Never disputed, but for any arbitrary increase in detection range, you need an equivalent upgrade in signal strength and reception

E) It depends on the size of the object in question, and its make up, there are quite a few substances that don't naturally reflect radar.

Any body that can be picked up 8 light minutes out is likely large enough to be spotted optically only a little later (4 or 5 light minutes rather than 8 perhaps).
Having radar is definately an advantage, but its not the end-all be-all. I find it entirely pluasible that radar is not absolutely necesary for relativistic interstellar travel.

Well, let's take a look at this, you don't want to see the underlying assumptions or at least understand why they're there, thats okay, I'll explain, I'm in a good mood right now so here it goes:
The Queen sees everything her drones sees. For all practical purposses her drones are her, anything they see, she sees.
The Queen is directing the battle
The queen sees what each and every one of her drones sees of the battle.
If then, there is no exceptional sensing equipment on the queens ship, the Queen's ship has no exceptional view of its own. The Queen then only sees what the drones see of the battle (Hang on, I'm getting there)
If the queen's ship has no exceptional viewpoint of the battle (which could only be provided by extra sensors, given that we know its position itself was in no way exceptional) Then why is the battle being directed fromt he viewpoint of the queens ship? Every drone is a part of the Queen's direct neural network unless her ship has exceptional sensors, then her viewpoint encompasses every ship in the fleet. Instead, we see that the fleets actions are being directed from a single viewpoint, not a viewpoint extending equally from all ships, but a viewpoint extending from one ship.
Since the Queen's personal viewpoint consists equally of all her drones viewpoints, this single viewpoint must offer some advantages over the others.

It always seems that the weaker the argument, the more long-winded the bullshit screen gets to mask that weakness. You think that restating your premises in ever longer verbiage proves the point. Unfortunately, we're still confronted with one sailent fact:

THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE FUCKING BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THE BUGGERS HAVING RADIO-BASED INSTRUMENTS OF ANY KIND. Indeed, the Earth authorities had extensive tapes of a Bugger boarding action against a tug because the Buggers never even suspected that their actions were being recorded because they had not even conceived that there was any such equipment on that ship in the first place --which ties in with Graff's entire conversation with Ender about the Buggers lacking equipment to transmit or receive signals "of any kind".

I don't know how much plainer the evidence of the actual book has to be made to you.

Sorry about the verbaeity there (Though really, that has no real bearing on the validity and is a bit of a red herring itself) But it was a little late and I repeated myself a bit.
Anyway, since you didn't quite understand what I was trying to get at there, Let me re-explain it (yet again):
The Queen's ship is fundamentally different from the other ships in the fleet, this has nothing to do with the Queen's physical presence on the ship becasue she is physically present on all of the ships due to the nature of the Bugger hive mind. If it isn't fundamentally different because of the presence of the Queen, and it isn't fundamentally different because it is carrying some form of exceptional (relative to the rest of the Bugger Fleet) equipment, then what makes it fundamentally different? You're big on shooting down the claim that the Queen's ship is carrying electronic sensors based solely upon the fact that no Bugger ship has yielded such electronics, not even considering the fact that a Queen's ship has never been examined by the Humans, and no ship has been examined by Graf personally. And while it's a bit of a reach, it's possible that Graf's saying that no transmission/reception equipment of any kind had been found could easily have been an over-simplification of the fact that no communications equipment had been found, after all, to a Human unfamiliar with the technology of a race that doesn't need communications equipment, a bit of hyperbolization is understandable in terms of driving home the differences between our two races, espescially when to most people, communications technology if fundamentally different from technologies like radar. We know that not to be true, but we can't assume Graf knows this as well, espescially not in an age where Radio is not being used for ship-to ship communications anyway, the Ansible is, and in terms of technology, that is fundamentally different from radio.

Now, if the Author hisownself had come right out and in some bit of exposition had said: "The Bugger ships have no means of transmitting or recieving signals of any kind" then that would be the final argument you seem to believe poor ole' Col. Graf's little exposition on the fundamental differences between Buggers and Humans to young Ender to be. But The Author in all his wisdom, did not say any such thing.

And, the Buggers DID concieve of the equipment existing, thats why they killed the humans, they thought the humans themselves were simply extrusions of some 'Queen' somewhere. once again we are at radio for communication != radio for Radar /radio astronomy.

[Vendetta]

I went and told you it didn't mean what you thought it meant, and you went and assumed it did anyway. Why does everything in this thread suddenly revolve around you?

SDNet debate is inherently confrontational. If you say something that sounds confrontational, have the decency to mean it. If you don't mean it, don't say it.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

oh I meant it, just not the way it looks (which is why I put the 'no this does not mean what you think it means' disclaimer on it) Nobody here knows me well enough to understand why I was compelled to slap it up there even if I did explain it, so I'm not going to, and it still doesn't mean what you think it does.

Anyway: Ghetto edit on my post, I said that any debris in the range where it can be spotted by Radar but not Optically would just vape on contact with a ship moving 99%C On reflection, this is incorrect, but any actual penetration will still be minimal, whatever's floating out that deep in interstellar space is not a RKV, it is not in any designed as a penetrator, it will not penetrate too much that a heavy duty Whipple shield couldn't deal with it.

[GunDoctor]

Ok, as much as you two screaming at eachother is entertaining, let's look at this from an "in universe" perspective.

A) Bugs don't have radio, or anything that emits or recieves signals of any kind.

ergo

B) Bugs don't have radar, or radio telescopes, or any of that shit.

C) Bugs have invaded the solar system twice.

ergo

D) Bugs CAN navigate using some combination of whatever's left to them; Optics, Telepathy (maybe remote vewing, hey?), sheer numbers and luck.

E) From what WE understand about natural philosophy, the above is absurd.

F) Maybe the bugs know something we don't, hey?

G) In the end, Enders Game was a great MilSciFi short story and a middling hippy dippy novel.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

Except that A)&B) are not conclusively established, all Patty has for evidence is that Graf once said, while explaining the fundamental differences between Buggers and Humans, that no device for transmitting or receiving a signal of any kind had been found. Seeing as the Humans never got hold of a Queen ship, and that Graf may have been hyperbolizing (or even simply refrencing only communication devices, unaware on some level that radar/radio astronomy rely on transmission/reception of signals as well) in order to drive home a point.

Otherwise, I totally agree, but if it wasn't for arguing totally useless/meaningless information, then why else would I be here?

[Vendetta]

oh I meant it, just not the way it looks (which is why I put the 'no this does not mean what you think it means' disclaimer on it) Nobody here knows me well enough to understand why I was compelled to slap it up there even if I did explain it, so I'm not going to, and it still doesn't mean what you think it does.

So, you felt compelled to post something which can easily be taken as inflammatory, for which the only non-inflammatory meaning is squirrelled away in your own head? And you thout that was a good idea yes?

Anyway: Ghetto edit on my post, I said that any debris in the range where it can be spotted by Radar but not Optically would just vape on contact with a ship moving 99%C On reflection, this is incorrect, but any actual penetration will still be minimal, whatever's floating out that deep in interstellar space is not a RKV, it is not in any designed as a penetrator, it will not penetrate too much that a heavy duty Whipple shield couldn't deal with it.

It's still going to dump a vast amount of energy into the object that hits it. Energy that will not go away. At 99% of c the kinetic energy transferred to the ship would be 441 megatons for a measly one kilogram space pebble. Sure, the object itself would be gone, but it would still transfer that amount of energy to the ship that hit it.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

Hey, I hung a disclaimer on it, and I might not have felt it was an intelligent thing to do, but it was something I was compelled to do.

Any way, this is why you use a whipple shiled or other device for keeping the unpleasantness away from your pressure hull, such as boosting an armour plate ahead of you, or even just scattering dust ahead of you, at 99%c it doesn't take much to vape an object thats just floating there.

[Patrick Degan]

Okay, so what you're saying is that in terms of pure navigation, Radio Telescopy is more better becasue it can detect obstacles better. Okay, I can buy that, as long as its not inconceivable to you that a race could physically navigate from star A to star B using only optical astronomy (navigation!=accident avoidance). I'll get into the limitations of Radar below.

Doesn't matter what the limitations of radar may be, the fact remains that it is still a far superior system than pure optical sighting which can resolve far smaller objects than any visual telescope is capable of registering.

Why limit yourself? Only a meter in thickness? Tank armour is thicker than that and it doesn't even include an 'air gap' (or other suitable gap) let alone many. All you're doing is enforcing meaningless limitations.
Any way at relativistic speeds, any random pice of garbage you're going to run intp is probably going to vaporise on contact, as long as that energy is expended away from the pressure hull we're good.

Ever hear of the concept of "mass penalty"?. Thought not.

And no, the energy will not be simply "expended away". To put it another way, any object massing even a half-kilogram is going to impart the equivalent energy of an atomic bomb on impact with any object in its path assuming it doesn't simply punch through the barrier as if it weren't there at all.

What I meant to say is that as yet, objects too small to be seen on telescope have yet to be detected at any reasonable range with radar.

This sort of stupidity gives me a headache. This has been covered and you still persist in claiming that radar is incapable of resolving objects which cannot be spotted with a fucking optical telescope. I grow tired of your Wall of Ignorance tactics.

Even today, the Aricebo radio telescope can be employed to spot asteroidal objects a few tens of metres across from several times the Earth/Moon distance. In open space and with multiphasic array radars, the resolution of very small objects in ranges of millions of kilometres will be quite feasible.
Source

you say Mr. Physics like its a bad thing.

No, stupid, I am mocking your delusions of competence.

You can detect something light minutes out, if it's big enough, radar isn't some magical infinite resolution imaging device that can see a bit of trash 10mm in diameter at any arbitrary range. And, by the time the wave reflects back to you, you'll be almost there yourself.

The present capabilities of the Aricebo and Goldstone arrays show that you're full of shit where this subject is concerned.

I'm curious to know what exactly you think qualifies as an object not large enough to be seen optically, but still large enough to be seen with radar and how much of space is littered with objects on that scale, espescially as tecnology increases are rapidly closing that gap, both methods are limited by wavelength in terms of maximum theoretical resolution, and the wavelength of light is always going to be smaller than the wavelengths of any arbitrary radar set.

The objects measuring tens of metres across which present-day technology is perfectly capable of resolving at ranges of millions of kilometres where optical telescopes would utterly fail. I think you really should consider slinking off this battlefield while you still have some shread of dignity left to you.

Never disputed, but for any arbitrary increase in detection range, you need an equivalent upgrade in signal strength and reception

You mean like what is presently being done with upgrades to Aricebo and the deployment of satellite radar?

It depends on the size of the object in question, and its make up, there are quite a few substances that don't naturally reflect radar.

Oh really? Stealth asteroids and meteroids? I wasn't aware that God was out there sheathing nickel-iron bodies with graphite coatings.

Any body that can be picked up 8 light minutes out is likely large enough to be spotted optically only a little later (4 or 5 light minutes rather than 8 perhaps).

Aricebo continues to make a fool of you.

Having radar is definately an advantage, but its not the end-all be-all.

Compared to much poorer visible light-gathering telescopes, it certainly is.

I find it entirely pluasible that radar is not absolutely necesary for relativistic interstellar travel.

That's because you're a moron.

It always seems that the weaker the argument, the more long-winded the bullshit screen gets to mask that weakness. You think that restating your premises in ever longer verbiage proves the point. Unfortunately, we're still confronted with one sailent fact:

THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE FUCKING BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THE BUGGERS HAVING RADIO-BASED INSTRUMENTS OF ANY KIND. Indeed, the Earth authorities had extensive tapes of a Bugger boarding action against a tug because the Buggers never even suspected that their actions were being recorded because they had not even conceived that there was any such equipment on that ship in the first place --which ties in with Graff's entire conversation with Ender about the Buggers lacking equipment to transmit or receive signals "of any kind".

I don't know how much plainer the evidence of the actual book has to be made to you.

Sorry about the verbaeity there (Though really, that has no real bearing on the validity and is a bit of a red herring itself) But it was a little late and I repeated myself a bit.

No, you're not sorry at all, as your sixth reiteration of the same fucking non-argument makes plain:

Anyway, since you didn't quite understand what I was trying to get at there, Let me re-explain it (yet again):
The Queen's ship is fundamentally different from the other ships in the fleet, this has nothing to do with the Queen's physical presence on the ship becasue she is physically present on all of the ships due to the nature of the Bugger hive mind. If it isn't fundamentally different because of the presence of the Queen, and it isn't fundamentally different because it is carrying some form of exceptional (relative to the rest of the Bugger Fleet) equipment, then what makes it fundamentally different? You're big on shooting down the claim that the Queen's ship is carrying electronic sensors based solely upon the fact that no Bugger ship has yielded such electronics, not even considering the fact that a Queen's ship has never been examined by the Humans, and no ship has been examined by Graf personally. And while it's a bit of a reach, it's possible that Graf's saying that no transmission/reception equipment of any kind had been found could easily have been an over-simplification of the fact that no communications equipment had been found, after all, to a Human unfamiliar with the technology of a race that doesn't need communications equipment, a bit of hyperbolization is understandable in terms of driving home the differences between our two races, espescially when to most people, communications technology if fundamentally different from technologies like radar. We know that not to be true, but we can't assume Graf knows this as well, espescially not in an age where Radio is not being used for ship-to ship communications anyway, the Ansible is, and in terms of technology, that is fundamentally different from radio.

Now, if the Author hisownself had come right out and in some bit of exposition had said: "The Bugger ships have no means of transmitting or recieving signals of any kind" then that would be the final argument you seem to believe poor ole' Col. Graf's little exposition on the fundamental differences between Buggers and Humans to young Ender to be. But The Author in all his wisdom, did not say any such thing.

Orson Scott Card said EXACTLY that, you endlessly dissembling pile of human offal. He says it in the goddamned book. He says nothing to contradict or nuance Col. Graff's statements. Indeed, the point is reinforced by Mazar Rackham himself:

"The tug transmitted its videos, including the buggers boarding and slaughtering the entire crew. It kept right on transmitting through the entire bugger examination of the boat. Not until they dismantled the entire tug did the transmissions stop. That was their blindness --they never had to transmit anything by machine, and so with the crew dead, it never occured to them that anybody could be watching."

You are now down to outright lying to try to win this argument through sheer exhaustion.

And, the Buggers DID concieve of the equipment existing, thats why they killed the humans, they thought the humans themselves were simply extrusions of some 'Queen' somewhere. once again we are at radio for communication != radio for Radar /radio astronomy.

Mazar Rackham says you're a liar and an idiot.

[GunDoctor]

Except that A)&B) are not conclusively established, all Patty has for evidence is that Graf once said, while explaining the fundamental differences between Buggers and Humans, that no device for transmitting or receiving a signal of any kind had been found. Seeing as the Humans never got hold of a Queen ship, and that Graf may have been hyperbolizing (or even simply refrencing only communication devices, unaware on some level that radar/radio astronomy rely on transmission/reception of signals as well) in order to drive home a point.

Otherwise, I totally agree, but if it wasn't for arguing totally useless/meaningless information, then why else would I be here?

Sigh!

Look, just step back for second. Take a look at the chain of logic.

IT DOESN"T FUCKING MATTER!

The FACTS in universe say the Bugs get there, and kill people. So they can get there. Then the Author, through statements of in Universe experts (high ranking Naval Oficers, who should know), tells us the Bugs don't use EM signals. We looked, the gear ain't there.

So, they get their some other way! How, how the hell do we know? The author doesn't tell us, presumably because it doesn't matter to his story. Now the idea, out of universe, of the Bugs doing this without EM tech is fairly laughable, but this is a science Fiction book, so there we are. Back to Orson Scott Card being a better writer of short stories than novels. Deal.

Furthermore, for all we, as outside observers, know, is that TP is just one aspect of the Bug hive mind thingy. It just might posses capabilities that are comparable to radio telescopes and radar. Again, that's a shot in the dark, because we don't anything about how the Bugs get here, just that they do. It's equally possable that they threw so many ships at us that some of them had to make it. Again, we just don't know, and since the Bugs get hit with planetary RAID at the end of the first book, and good ridance, it doesn't even matter in universe, totally not a problem any more.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

This is a bit of a warning, a disclaimer if you will, or perhaps a spoiler tag if you so please. Patrick Degan, You have mistaken and ignored practically everything I've written, your only arguments to date that I haven't responded to reasonably are that all I'm doing is repeating information you never bothered to understand in the first place.
You have repeatedly insulted me and have refsed to acknowledge the context behind any quote you've used from the book. If you plan to continue these actions, I am going to ask you nicely to not even read the rest of this post, instead, post another response to the collection of my previous posts, Nothing really new is presented here, I have only rephrased everything, tried to add a little more perspective, and have tried to match the verbaeity of your curses. If you choose this course, I will consider the matter closed, you can be the winner if you like because I no longer give a shit.
This shouldn't be considered an ultimatum, or any such thing, it is instead, a denoument, this is the last thing I wrote for this post and I feel that it is the falling action that follows the climax.

I have considered that this is strikingly similar to circumstances which recently resulted in my ejection from another board and that some penalty may be assessed for this post against a senator, and I accept that, this is entirely my fault, this is a wonderful board and I hope you realise that, perhaps I do not belong here I don't know. Good Night, and Good Luck.


Oh god, It's late, and here I am again, when will I learn?

I see you put great faith in your Arcibo argument. I wonder how you plan on installing it on a space ship though, and how that ship is going to travel at 99% the speed of light with all of these deadly object that apparently dot the universe in exceptional numbers.
Any idea what a radar with an actual, sane space faring radius can see? I'll tell you its not as good Arecibo, not by a long shot.

And any way, its a Big universe, if we've got a statistically signifigant number of ten+meter objects floating around out there, chances are that some of them will be made up of predominantly non radar reflective materials. It doesn't mean they're common, but it only takes one to ruin your whole day.

And so shielding: You really think any kind of mass limit is really applicable here? These people are zooming around space at 99.9% the speed of light in space ships that have artificial gravity and ecstatic shields, if absolutely nothing else, boost an armor plate or a shit-ton of dust to relatvistic speeds just ahead of your ship, as long as the energy being rleased in not near your pressure hull, who gives a flying fuck, shockwaves don't propagate in vacuum.


And now,

Now I'm a little angry. Less angry than you, but still, this doesn't happen often, I am genuinely offended by your arguments, This isn't the bullshit "oh noes, your argument is too long therefore it is crap' shit, or the 'oh noes, you made fun of me and my ideas, your an idiot' crap. so try and pay a little more attention here, I'm going to repeat myself again, but since you don't actually have a fucking clue what was being said, I hope you try and understand and respond intelligently this time.

"Thats Bullshit" or 'Thats insane Babble' or "You are down to X to try and prove yourargument now" (Though really, I like this, I'm always repeating the same tired arguments, and I always manage to find a new low for you) or finally, making bizarre claims about what I've said ('adapting materials' indeed! Piffle!)
These do not a reasoned argument make.
A QUEEN SHIP HAS NEVER BEEN EXAMINED, NOT ONLY THAT, GRAF IS NOT AN EXPERT, HE IS A MILITARY OFFICER WHO UNTIL RECENTLY WAS IN CHARGE OF A TRAINING SCHOOL FOR YOUNG BOYS

And, the one fucking point that you have been unable to understand since the fucking begining of this senseless fucking argument:

RADIO USED FOR COMMUNICATION IS NOT THE FUCKING SAME AS RADAR OR FUCKING RADIO TELEMETRY
Thats right asshole, the buggers are incapable of conceiving of radio used for communication, but don't even strain your incompetent little thinky bits into for one femptosecond believing that means they are as totally ignorant of the Electromagnetic spectrum as you are of story-telling techniques such as hyperboly expressed by a character and what actually constitutes a logical argument (oh yes, the Buggers cannot conceive of radio communication, And, this one charcter who is not an expert in the story and is probably hyperbolizing anyway said that the ships that have to date been examined did not posses any equipment for recieving or transmitting signals, therefore they are totally ignorant of the radio spectrum as a science, and all of their ships, including ones that have not been studued by scientists are as completely devoid of these technologies as the ones that were captured, I can see perfectly how that argument utterly fails to flow logically)

And even if, for one instant we believe that Graf and Mazer are anything but retired (or soon to be retired) military officers trying to drive home a point and accept this as the literal word of the Author hisownself. Then we still have to fucking acount for the ignorant shitbags that constitute his audience. Who the fuck do you think mr. Card wrote his books to? A couple of guys who know every bit of science he puts forth and can shoot it too pieces because they bothered to actually understand their physics classes, or the great teeming millions who wouldn't know E=MC^2 if you slapped them with it and who happen to buy books to enjoy them rather than disect them. With this audience in mind, do you think he would have scored more points by saying: 'They have no means of sending or receiving signals of anykind, except some kinds which are fundamentally different fromt hese others because they constitue a means of detecton rather than communication' or the words he actually did right, and which sold some fuck-you number of copies to the ignorant teeming masses


If you want to leave the teemers out of this, thats fine by me, but you still have to account for what in universe expertise the people your'e quoting actually have on the matter, and the circumstances under which these things were said.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

Ahem, Not all of that post was meant to be entered, The preview and submit functions are reversed on this board and int his late hour, I hit the wrong one. The text in blue does not in any way shape form or fashion represent my feelings, beliefs or current state of mind, these words were simply something I found amusing to have written and were going to be deleted from the final edition of the above post.

If it is at all possible to have those words stricken, and it please you to do so, I ask that you please would. Thank You.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

ahem, again I apologise, I meant the preview and submit functions are reveresed from other boards I frequent. The hour is late and my brain is just about pudding.

[Vendetta]

I see you put great faith in your Arcibo argument. I wonder how you plan on installing it on a space ship though, and how that ship is going to travel at 99% the speed of light with all of these deadly object that apparently dot the universe in exceptional numbers.
Any idea what a radar with an actual, sane space faring radius can see? I'll tell you its not as good Arecibo, not by a long shot.

Welcome to the concept of interferometry. Yes, a single radar on a single ship wouldn't see a whole lot. But if you have one on all the ships in the fleet. Which the buggers don't, as noted. You can mix the signals through interferometry to get a much more powerful radar. This is how real radar arrays work.

And any way, its a Big universe, if we've got a statistically signifigant number of ten+meter objects floating around out there, chances are that some of them will be made up of predominantly non radar reflective materials.

For a number of very sound physical reasons, including the nature of nuclear fission/fusion and the distribution of elements throughout the universe, the predominant constitution of anything in the universe will be iron, granite, or ice. Most radar absorbant materials are not naturally physically ocurring, being as they are predominantly carbons and polymers, which usually come from biochemical processes, not physical ones.

And so shielding: You really think any kind of mass limit is really applicable here? These people are zooming around space at 99.9% the speed of light in space ships that have artificial gravity and ecstatic shields, if absolutely nothing else, boost an armor plate or a shit-ton of dust to relatvistic speeds just ahead of your ship, as long as the energy being rleased in not near your pressure hull, who gives a flying fuck, shockwaves don't propagate in vacuum.

Evidence that the buggers did this?

And even if, for one instant we believe that Graf and Mazer are anything but retired (or soon to be retired) military officers trying to drive home a point and accept this as the literal word of the Author hisownself. Then we still have to fucking acount for the ignorant shitbags that constitute his audience. Who the fuck do you think mr. Card wrote his books to? A couple of guys who know every bit of science he puts forth and can shoot it too pieces because they bothered to actually understand their physics classes, or the great teeming millions who wouldn't know E=MC^2 if you slapped them with it and who happen to buy books to enjoy them rather than disect them. With this audience in mind, do you think he would have scored more points by saying: 'They have no means of sending or receiving signals of anykind, except some kinds which are fundamentally different fromt hese others because they constitue a means of detecton rather than communication' or the words he actually did right, and which sold some fuck-you number of copies to the ignorant teeming masses

You're arguing authorial intent here. Unless you're going to claim that you can read Card's mind and prove that this is exactly what he meant, you're just making shit up to try and cover for the fact that the text itself flatly contradicts your position. Bugger ships do not have any form of transmission or reception equipment, which, no matter the difference between radio and radar implementations, is still an absolute requirement. Radar absolutely requires an EM signal transmitter and reciever. And as you so cleverly pointed out, it would require them spread across the fleet, so that you could compensate for the small size of individual radars using fleet-wide interferometry.

The only person who's mounted a sensible defence of the book yet is GunDoctor, who points out that since the buggers patently did get to Earth, twice, they must have some means of navigation. It's conceivable that they use optical interferometry from the leading fleet edge, with the queen ship safely at the back, and simply accept attrition among drones from hazards that optical telescopes could not detect. As a telepathic hive, they would have little trouble with optical interferometry, as they are used to receiving multiple sensory inputs at once.

[Molyneux]

I see you put great faith in your Arcibo argument. I wonder how you plan on installing it on a space ship though, and how that ship is going to travel at 99% the speed of light with all of these deadly object that apparently dot the universe in exceptional numbers.
Any idea what a radar with an actual, sane space faring radius can see? I'll tell you its not as good Arecibo, not by a long shot.

Welcome to the concept of interferometry. Yes, a single radar on a single ship wouldn't see a whole lot. But if you have one on all the ships in the fleet. Which the buggers don't, as noted. You can mix the signals through interferometry to get a much more powerful radar. This is how real radar arrays work.

This brings to mind the "Very Dangerous Array" from Schlock Mercenary. Same principle?

[Patrick Degan]

This is a bit of a warning, a disclaimer if you will, or perhaps a spoiler tag if you so please. Patrick Degan, You have mistaken and ignored practically everything I've written, your only arguments to date that I haven't responded to reasonably are that all I'm doing is repeating information you never bothered to understand in the first place.

Lie. Not your first one in this thread and almost certainly will not be your last.

You have repeatedly insulted me and have refsed to acknowledge the context behind any quote you've used from the book. If you plan to continue these actions, I am going to ask you nicely to not even read the rest of this post, instead, post another response to the collection of my previous posts, Nothing really new is presented here, I have only rephrased everything, tried to add a little more perspective, and have tried to match the verbaeity of your curses. If you choose this course, I will consider the matter closed, you can be the winner if you like because I no longer give a shit.

Utter bullshit. Context has very plainly been addressed. The problem you're having is that it as well as the salient facts of the matter don't support your position no matter how much you really really really really really really really really really want to believe it does.

This shouldn't be considered an ultimatum, or any such thing, it is instead, a denoument, this is the last thing I wrote for this post and I feel that it is the falling action that follows the climax.

Oh, this should be good...

I see you put great faith in your Arcibo argument.

I put "great faith" in it because the Arecibo array's capabilities have been demonstrated definitively.

I wonder how you plan on installing it on a space ship though, and how that ship is going to travel at 99% the speed of light with all of these deadly object that apparently dot the universe in exceptional numbers.
Any idea what a radar with an actual, sane space faring radius can see? I'll tell you its not as good Arecibo, not by a long shot.

Multiplatform interferomety (addressed earlier) is one answer to your supposed objection. Multiphasic array radars are the other. Really, you make this far more compilcated that it actually is.

And any way, its a Big universe, if we've got a statistically signifigant number of ten+meter objects floating around out there, chances are that some of them will be made up of predominantly non radar reflective materials. It doesn't mean they're common, but it only takes one to ruin your whole day.

Also addressed by someone more knowledgable on the subject that you pretend at. Nickel-iron and granite bodies are the most common constituents of asteroidal objects. Non-reflective coatings must be artifically produced and are therefore not to be found as the constituents of asteroidal objects.

And so shielding: You really think any kind of mass limit is really applicable here? These people are zooming around space at 99.9% the speed of light in space ships that have artificial gravity and ecstatic shields, if absolutely nothing else, boost an armor plate or a shit-ton of dust to relatvistic speeds just ahead of your ship, as long as the energy being rleased in not near your pressure hull, who gives a flying fuck, shockwaves don't propagate in vacuum.

Since when does artificial gravity and high velocity erase mass/fuel consumption issues, asswipe? Those are fundamental to any consideration of spacecraft engineering.

{BTW, as an aside, you tried to argue, or infer, in an earlier post that boosting a ship up to .99c represented some sort of super-advanced capability. It isn't: potentially any space vehicle can attain a velocity of .99c: the only real requirement is that it can carry the requisite amount of fuel to do so (or can be boosted by way of laser-thrust from a planetside emitter).}

And no, shockwaves do not propagate in vacuum. Nobody was arguing that they did, nitwit. Radiation does, however, and so does debris.

Now I'm a little angry. Less angry than you, but still, this doesn't happen often, I am genuinely offended by your arguments,

Gee, that might disturb my sleep for seconds.

This isn't the bullshit "oh noes, your argument is too long therefore it is crap' shit, or the 'oh noes, you made fun of me and my ideas, your an idiot' crap. so try and pay a little more attention here, I'm going to repeat myself again, but since you don't actually have a fucking clue what was being said, I hope you try and understand and respond intelligently this time.

Style-over-Substance Fallacy. And coming from a person who's yet to frame an intelligent argument to start with, quite comical.

"Thats Bullshit" or 'Thats insane Babble' or "You are down to X to try and prove yourargument now" (Though really, I like this, I'm always repeating the same tired arguments, and I always manage to find a new low for you) or finally, making bizarre claims about what I've said ('adapting materials' indeed! Piffle!)
These do not a reasoned argument make.

Neither does your handwaving, outright denial of inconvenient evidence, your numerous logical fallacies, nor your outright dishonesty. And this martyr routine of yours is getting tedious.

A QUEEN SHIP HAS NEVER BEEN EXAMINED, NOT ONLY THAT, GRAF IS NOT AN EXPERT, HE IS A MILITARY OFFICER WHO UNTIL RECENTLY WAS IN CHARGE OF A TRAINING SCHOOL FOR YOUNG BOYS

Then you will kindly produce the evidence from the book which contradicts one statement of Col. Graff's regarding the Buggers' lack of radio equipment of any sort.

And, the one fucking point that you have been unable to understand since the fucking begining of this senseless fucking argument:

RADIO USED FOR COMMUNICATION IS NOT THE FUCKING SAME AS RADAR OR FUCKING RADIO TELEMETRY
Thats right asshole, the buggers are incapable of conceiving of radio used for communication, but don't even strain your incompetent little thinky bits into for one femptosecond believing that means they are as totally ignorant of the Electromagnetic spectrum as you are of story-telling techniques such as hyperboly expressed by a character and what actually constitutes a logical argument (oh yes, the Buggers cannot conceive of radio communication, And, this one charcter who is not an expert in the story and is probably hyperbolizing anyway said that the ships that have to date been examined did not posses any equipment for recieving or transmitting signals, therefore they are totally ignorant of the radio spectrum as a science, and all of their ships, including ones that have not been studued by scientists are as completely devoid of these technologies as the ones that were captured, I can see perfectly how that argument utterly fails to flow logically)

Your dishonest strawmandering of my arguments do not lend yours credence no matter how much you wish they did. Radio communication and radar are not the "same", but are based on the same engineering and physical principles, and if the earlier one has not even been investigated or developed, the other one will not manifest itself. Get the idea, asswipe?

And you can take your "Col. Graff is not an expert" red herring and shove it up your ass. Whether you like it or not, Graff's statements, as well as Mazar Fucking Rackham's, constitute the only facts presented in the book on the matter. Doesn't suit you? Too goddamned bad. Produce evidence which disproves Graff and Rackham, or concede. That's the only honest, valid approach you have open to you.

And even if, for one instant we believe that Graf and Mazer are anything but retired (or soon to be retired) military officers trying to drive home a point and accept this as the literal word of the Author hisownself. Then we still have to fucking acount for the ignorant shitbags that constitute his audience. Who the fuck do you think mr. Card wrote his books to? A couple of guys who know every bit of science he puts forth and can shoot it too pieces because they bothered to actually understand their physics classes, or the great teeming millions who wouldn't know E=MC^2 if you slapped them with it and who happen to buy books to enjoy them rather than disect them. With this audience in mind, do you think he would have scored more points by saying: 'They have no means of sending or receiving signals of anykind, except some kinds which are fundamentally different fromt hese others because they constitue a means of detecton rather than communication' or the words he actually did right, and which sold some fuck-you number of copies to the ignorant teeming masses

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy. Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

If you want to leave the teemers out of this, thats fine by me, but you still have to account for what in universe expertise the people your'e quoting actually have on the matter, and the circumstances under which these things were said.

We have to do no such thing. We accept their statements on the "best evidence" principle since there is nothing anywhere else in the book to contradict them. Trying to invoke the ghost of authorial intent changes nothing.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

so when you say Arecibo and then go on to babble about multi-platform interferometry. Perhaps you haven't considered the VLA which is pretty much what you're talking about? Maybe because it's maximum resolution is .05 arcseconds, or about 92.2831206 meters at the minimum necesary detection range (okay, exactly 92.2831206 meters). try detecting your obstacles with that, espescially at 8 light minutes, while compensating for relativistic distortion of the array (and signals between elements) as well as the variable dispersment of the ships, all dificulties any distributed sensing network based on a fleet of relativistic starships would suffer.
And then explain how countless starships in Enderverse make solo treks at relativstic speeds if the only way they could survive the interstellar medium is through a distributed radio interferometry rig.

There are plenty of up-armoring ideas that lack this kind of complexity for these feeble returns, A crazy Whipple shield is one, thrusting an armour plate ahead of you is another. Hell, tossing out sufficient quantities of dust out front of your fleet would probably work well enough.



And anyway, I'll give you evidence that contradict Graf's claims as soon as you give me evidence that he knew what the hell he was talking about.
Basically, you are quoting a man who is relying on second hand information without having personally witnessed the evidense and without the experience to understand that evidence even were he to have witnessed it, when no expert has been able to even verify the claim is true of all Bugger ships. You may call that irrefutable evidence, I call it bullshit.

Just because I say that Human embryo's have souls because X expert told me so doesn't make it true, espescially since I am qualified neither in the study of Souls nor Embryos, and because I have never myself seen the evidence, and finally, because souls have never been detected or proven to exist.

[Patrick Degan]

so when you say Arecibo and then go on to babble about multi-platform interferometry. Perhaps you haven't considered the VLA which is pretty much what you're talking about? Maybe because it's maximum resolution is .05 arcseconds, or about 92.2831206 meters at the minimum necesary detection range (okay, exactly 92.2831206 meters). try detecting your obstacles with that, espescially at 8 light minutes, while compensating for relativistic distortion of the array (and signals between elements) as well as the variable dispersment of the ships, all dificulties any distributed sensing network based on a fleet of relativistic starships would suffer.
And then explain how countless starships in Enderverse make solo treks at relativstic speeds if the only way they could survive the interstellar medium is through a distributed radio interferometry rig.

Awwww.... Too bad that NASA are already making a fool of you by launching satellite-based PAR units for detailed radar observation of distant galactic phenomena.

One example

Really, slink off this battlefield while you still have a shred of your dignity left to you.

There are plenty of up-armoring ideas that lack this kind of complexity for these feeble returns, A crazy Whipple shield is one, thrusting an armour plate ahead of you is another. Hell, tossing out sufficient quantities of dust out front of your fleet would probably work well enough.

Up-armouring against penetration by a 1g-1kg impactor moving at high relativistic velocities? You're on drugs. Either that or you're now just down to desperately pulling more and more things out of your ass to avoid conceeding.

And anyway, I'll give you evidence that contradict Graf's claims as soon as you give me evidence that he knew what the hell he was talking about. Basically, you are quoting a man who is relying on second hand information without having personally witnessed the evidense and without the experience to understand that evidence even were he to have witnessed it, when no expert has been able to even verify the claim is true of all Bugger ships. You may call that irrefutable evidence, I call it bullshit.

No, I'm the only one here entitled to call bullshit —you have yet to produce ONE single statement or passage from the book which contradicts the only evidence we've got: Graff's statements and Rackham's. I grow tired of your endless evasions. I grow tired of your Appeals to Ignorance. I grow tired of your refusal to meet the basic Burden of Proof to support your position.

Just because I say that Human embryo's have souls because X expert told me so doesn't make it true, espescially since I am qualified neither in the study of Souls nor Embryos, and because I have never myself seen the evidence, and finally, because souls have never been detected or proven to exist.

Nice little Red Herring which solves nothing, liar. Now, either produce the evidence which supports your position or concede.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

oh come on, Graf and Rakhams quotes are nto evidense in any sense of the word, they have no expertise and are only reporting incomplete second hand information, if that constitutes proof to you then I've got a bridge in Arizona I want to sell you cheap.

I haven't finished looking through your link to the ASM yet, but so far I see numbers like 'one degree FHWM, and august 1995 as being a projected launch date being tossed about and I'm not encouraged as to either its currency or its relevancy to this topic. I'm sure you could find a less obscure site with more immediately available information if you really tried hmm? But like I said, I haven't finished looking through it yet so I'll get back to you when and if I find anything that might support your claims.