Opinion on Relativistic Weapons

Whoo boy, I love finding dead threads.

>>33255816
People always talk about how they're such uber weapons, but I've never been clear on how they're supposed to move at near light speed without impacting anything between them and their target.

Seems easy enough to just fire a cloud of small objects at them, especially if they have a significant run-up period.

>>33256009
Well, something moving that fast would ignore most obstacles. It would require significant mass to actually stop.

Now in theory science, going long-distance in deep space could have the potential large enough mass to stop it. But at a certain point, it really won't stop without an object comparable to a planet.

And yes firing a cloud is a good idea for total annihilation. However for precise targeting.....

>>33255816
fuck off to project rho little buddy.....(so funny amirite)
puns

>>33256229
I've been to Project rho already.

Though I'm surprised people actually know about it. Seems a little obscure.

Also, I was being sarcastic about ze pun.....
But that's ok!

You're being sarcastic too!

>>33256229
>>33256281
WTF is Project rho?

>>33256336

A website devoted to improving the scientific accuracy of speculative fiction.

>>33256090
When I talk about firing a cloud, I'm talking about to intercept the projectile. The energy of that impact would be imparted on the projectile before it reaches its target. Wouldn't that resultant explosion be likely to knock the projectile off course and/or fragment it into a large cloud rather than a solid projectile?

Assuming the projectile requires a long period of propulsion to accelerate to relativistic speeds it seems like a defending force would have time to detect that and launch interceptors. It's not like it could maneuver around them, after all.

>>33256009
>>33256090
>>33256281
>>33256397
>reddit spacing and excl points
fuck off kid, you write like a drooling mongoloid

>>33256397
At relativistic speeds the sheer energy wave from an object moving that fast having atoms fuse with its surface would be essentially unstoppable without a magnetic field or a giant mass to block it

File: is-diz-bait.jpg (7KB, 329x329px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 329x329px

>>33256450

>>33256454

Graviton beam emitter?

>>33256491
But then you get into how easy it is launch relativistic projectiles. Maybe, if one was really advanced, they could get a graviton beam emitter out, but building multiple to block off huge amounts of them being fired could become unviable.

However, if calculated veeeeeery carefully, one could knock the object off course with high explosives (i.e nukes) in theory

Of course, me own thread quickly leads off to another question about /k/ in general.

How often does /k/ discuss more theoretical weapons? Everything seems to be modern-day military, yet I feel there would be some big arguments on the viability, power, and possibility of theoretical or experimental weapons.

>>33256373
why? I only read sci-fi for the spess tits and sexual frustration.

>>33256704
Ses the guy on /k/

>>33256540
>However, if calculated veeeeeery carefully, one could knock the object off course with high explosives (i.e nukes) in theory

and how is a finite energy expenditure supposed to alter the velocity of something with infinite energy?

>>33256719
and literally every literate thirteen year old human male ever.

>>33256740
Not velocity.
Course.
This is all in theory though. Don't quote me on this.

>>33256540
>>33256740
beside the fact that high explosives =/= thermonuclear weapons.

>>33256772
Well regular TnT ain't doing what I'm describing, that's for sure.

>>33256767
velocity IS "course" you illiterate mongoloid!

velocity is always two things, a rate and a vector. in middle school English, a speed and direction. if you change either, you have changed velocity. if you change velocity you have accelerated the mass. even if you slowed it down.

you CAN NOT accelerate a mass with infinite energy using anything OTHER THAN INFINITE ENERGY!!!

>>33256814
neither are nuclear weapons, nor your grammar skills.

>>33256815
WAIT

So to stop relativistic projectile I shoot relativistic projectiles back?
(how much energy would be released if two relativistic projectiles collided.....hm)
>>33256830
Yeah, I get that. Thanks for the advice anon! Out of curosity, you got any ideas?

>>33256850
don't launch anything at relativistic speeds.

ever.

as soon as you do, it will be seen by aliens whom are more advanced than you. when they realize that you now pose an unacceptable threat, they will spam you with relativistic weapons preemptively.

>>33256906
God damn it.
Damn kitty litter being weaponized by every alien.

>>33256906

And we'll have no way of knowing that it's coming. We'll just stop existing.

>>33256991
>>33256906

So, the real lesson here is just to make sure that you're the first guy to obtain relativistic weapons.

>>33257067
Or never acquire it, thus never becoming a target.

File: MPEG2_Jan30_000433_0.jpg (121KB, 1920x1088px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1920x1088px

Not building a strategic orbital linear gun to destroy city or outpost without the aftermath of radation