edmantgoog
init high just high
in wonder what the taurians, salerians, krogans, batrians, asari and especially the elcor think about us
Possibly at some sort of competition between the SA military and the turians have the turians commenting on whate the SA are showing off?Thought about writing a snippet where members of the Turian leadership discuss the intelligence about Shepard's inventions, but I can't really seem to find a good spot to start.
Actually, this is about the right time for the two governments to be starting the process that ended with the Normandy. In the next year or two at the latest. The negotiations for that sort of thing won't go fast and without a genius like Revy merging the two design philosophies would take years. And then years more to actually build the ship.Possibly at some sort of competition between the SA military and the turians have the turians commenting on whate the SA are showing off?
No. There is no difference between falling towards the horizon and having the horizon expanding to cover you. That's what the "relativity" in "general relativity" means.I'm not so sure about this. There's a big difference between just falling in and already being there. Let's say that at t=0 (observer's clock) the radius of the event horizon is R=R0. ME field is applied, the radius becomes R=R1<R0. A probe is place at the orbit of the black hole at R=R2, where R1<R2<R0. At t=t1 mass effect field is dissipated. At t=t2>t1 the event horizon's radius is R=R0 again. Now, the question: from the outside observer's viewpoint, what's the coordinate of the probe?
Furthermore, mass effect might allow for "cavity creation" within black holes, where the space around the probe is altered by it so the radius of the event horizon is lowered (and thus the probe is "outside" the black hole) but the probe itself is deep inside the hole that the event horizon completely closes above it.
Yeah, negative current isn't the same as negatively charged particle flux, but, really, particle fluxes makes far more sense. Otherwise accumulation of static charge... Doesn't really make sense.Also recall that a negative current isn't the same as a current made of negatively charged particles, it's a current going the opposite direction of a positively charged current. Using electrons in processes like these is near-infinitely easier than getting a hold of positrons or sending heavy ions (even protons are 2000 times the mass of an electron) through your circuits.
Yeah, my derp, sorry about that.No. There is no difference between falling towards the horizon and having the horizon expanding to cover you. That's what the "relativity" in "general relativity" means.
What about creating a cavity inside the black hole? Let's say that the initial radius of the event horizon is Rh0. Under effects of ME field it's smaller and is Rh1. We then place a probe at the orbit with the radius of R0; Rh1<R0<Rh0. The probe itself generates a localized mass effect field (similar to the externally generated one) affecting a spherical area of space with the radius of R1. Rh1<R0-R1<R0<R0+R1<Rh0. We then cancel the externally generated field. The probe would be "inside" the outer event horizon, but outside of black hole due to the localized mass effect field. Would it not?An outside observer would see the probe in the same location at all times, but as the horizon approaches it, the signal would be more and more red-shifted, and corresponding to longer and longer times between each bits of information being sent.
They could in principle turn the ME field back on when the frequency has dropped enough (say to 1/day), letting them retrieve the probe again.
From the point of view of the probe this would correspond to the horizon expanding towards them, and then pulling back just before actually hitting them. Except that an infalling obsever never notices the horizon... So I'm not entirely sure about how much of this they would notice.
You're assuming that there aren't any side effects to directly manipulating one of the fundamental forces of the universe. Frankly, creating a static charge seems like we're getting off light compared to what happens when you mess with the strong nuclear force.Yeah, negative current isn't the same as negatively charged particle flux, but, really, particle fluxes makes far more sense. Otherwise accumulation of static charge... Doesn't really make sense.
It's not that we are getting off light, it's that... How does eezo decide what is a negative and what is a positive current and what is the sign of the accumulated static charge?You're assuming that there aren't any side effects to directly manipulating one of the fundamental forces of the universe. Frankly, creating a static charge seems like we're getting off light compared to what happens when you mess with the strong nuclear force.
Well,Not that it makes a lot of difference but nearly my entire vote is missing despite tallying at points with others.
Counts as a vote and it only counts that last one you make.Added
[X] Hire 5 new Security Teams now to protect the building site from unwanted 'additions' as well as getting them trained up in preparation for the sites going online.
--[X] See if we can hire any of the Biotics upgrading from the L2 for our security teams
to [ ] Plan Seeding Greatness
In its own reference frame, yes, but we don't care about that. From the outside, the horizon never crosses the probe. It takes an infinite amount of time for anything to fall into a black hole.What about creating a cavity inside the black hole? Let's say that the initial radius of the event horizon is Rh0. Under effects of ME field it's smaller and is Rh1. We then place a probe at the orbit with the radius of R0; Rh1<R0<Rh0. The probe itself generates a localized mass effect field (similar to the externally generated one) affecting a spherical area of space with the radius of R1. Rh1<R0-R1<R0<R0+R1<Rh0. We then cancel the externally generated field. The probe would be "inside" the outer event horizon, but outside of black hole due to the localized mass effect field. Would it not?
Yes, it has to, otherwise it coudn't make ftl travel possible.Oh, and question to @Esbilon do you think that eezo would affect C in E=MC^2, as well as M? Also in other formulas. I am trying to calc a stealth system proposal based on hiding in background microwave radiation via mass-effect created redshift.
But it wouldn't cross the probe in either frame of reference. It'll bend around the probe's mass effect field. Hence "cavity".In its own reference frame, yes, but we don't care about that. From the outside, the horizon never crosses the probe. It takes an infinite amount of time for anything to fall into a black hole.
Nothing about the Magi implant was decided, we're not even talking about distributing it yet. And the Alliance will want to do some tests of their own before it's cleared for mass distribution. No one outside of Paragon Industries or Alliance labs will be able to get hands on these for probably a year or so.Disappointing that the 'At cost' upgrade for L2's didn't make the cut.
I am pretty sure it should have made it.... I remember voting for it as well (I hopeDisappointing that the 'At cost' upgrade for L2's didn't make the cut.
My point is that the light coming from the probe and connecting to the outside observer would still be infinitely time-dilated. To the outside observer, the probe would never look to be inside the horizon.But it wouldn't cross the probe in either frame of reference. It'll bend around the probe's mass effect field. Hence "cavity".
not sure if it is my phone, but why doedn't the winning research have dice next to it?
I am on it. And Yog isn't the biggest distraction, Alchemical Solutions just updated as wellWell, looks like Esbilon can get to updating, provided he can tear himself away from Yog and their discussion about science.![]()