shields

[SavageAncient]

I was wondering...shields as seen in Stargate (and other scifi shows like star trek etc. ), is it actually possible in real life? are they possible to create?

[immhotep]

i think this is one for owen!

[JanusAncient]

Wouldn't you only need a generator capable of producing an energy field?

[_Owen_]

Hi everyone, sorry I haven't posted in so long, I have been on vacation since Tuesday.

Yes, believe it or not, there are several ways to create an energy force field of some kind. A popular way is to project energy particles towards an area, for example, if you wanted to create a forcefield in your hall, wherever that may be, if you project higly concentrated energy particles, within, let's say, a door frame, then the energy would be so highly concentrated that you would not be able to pass through it, with that much energy it is very probable that you could get electricuted as well, but that is only if you used electrical energy. Basically what you need to create a force field is, in escence, a field, that forces. The field would need to act basically as a wall, it would sense the force and respond by replying with an equal or greater force in the opposite direction. Once you master that technology you will be able to modulate that generator of the field to reply with an equal or greater amount of kinetic energy, whether you want the forcefield to stop matter and energy or shoot it backwards.

Basically what you need to create a forcefield is a high concentration of energy.

Another way that would not be a force field, per se, but would acomplish the same goal, is a tractor beam. Instead of a field you have a tractor beam generator, possibly with multiple output ports (to generate more than one tractor beam), sensors on this device would detect the movement of matter and energy towards a specified location of locations, then create a tractor beam to stop it or fire it backwards.

In fact, a tractor beam could use many of the same concepts as a forcefield, it could project large concetrations of energy to a specified area, it would have to be a moveable mass of particles, but in escence it would be a force field, that was altering the location of the specified matter or energy.

The fact is that there are still many things that we cannot accomplish, nor understand, otherwise, we could have created a tractor beam or forcefield, so it is possible that there are other ways to accomplish the goal of a stable forcefield, but they are in no way, imposible.

Owen Macri

[Wandering Tamer]

Hi everyone, sorry I haven't posted in so long, I have been on vacation since Tuesday.

Yes, believe it or not, there are several ways to create an energy force field of some kind. A popular way is to project energy particles towards an area, for example, if you wanted to create a forcefield in your hall, wherever that may be, if you project higly concentrated energy particles, within, let's say, a door frame, then the energy would be so highly concentrated that you would not be able to pass through it, with that much energy it is very probable that you could get electricuted as well, but that is only if you used electrical energy. Basically what you need to create a force field is, in escence, a field, that forces. The field would need to act basically as a wall, it would sense the force and respond by replying with an equal or greater force in the opposite direction. Once you master that technology you will be able to modulate that generator of the field to reply with an equal or greater amount of kinetic energy, whether you want the forcefield to stop matter and energy or shoot it backwards.

Basically what you need to create a forcefield is a high concentration of energy.

Another way that would not be a force field, per se, but would acomplish the same goal, is a tractor beam. Instead of a field you have a tractor beam generator, possibly with multiple output ports (to generate more than one tractor beam), sensors on this device would detect the movement of matter and energy towards a specified location of locations, then create a tractor beam to stop it or fire it backwards.

In fact, a tractor beam could use many of the same concepts as a forcefield, it could project large concetrations of energy to a specified area, it would have to be a moveable mass of particles, but in escence it would be a force field, that was altering the location of the specified matter or energy.

The fact is that there are still many things that we cannot accomplish, nor understand, otherwise, we could have created a tractor beam or forcefield, so it is possible that there are other ways to accomplish the goal of a stable forcefield, but they are in no way, imposible.

Owen Macri

Right. And, believe it or not, the reason we can touch objects is a basic principle of force fields. Most of space is empty, everyone on this site should know this. But I mean, literally, the chair you're currently sitting on, the floor, the computer, everything: most of that is space. Relative to their size, atoms have massive gaps between them. And, if you look close enough, you're not really sitting on your chair, the force you're exherting on the chair, it's being equally pushed back on you.

If I remember correctly, it's the electrical feilds that atoms carry, or what ever that name was, that repells you. So, everything has it's own "force feild" so to speak. These feilds don't do much for a bullet, obviously, but that's because we're talking about a small feild. If you make it a billion times strong <though I don't know where you'd get the power> it might just work the was sheild technology in Science Fiction works.

Someone once told me, everything that nature can do, technology can, we just haven't figured out how for many things. and vice versa. matter and energy are transposed all the time, matter and antimatter collide and are mutually destroyed all the time, the sun uses nuclear fission, and objects have small personal force feilds. some of these man can do <nuclear bomb> others we can't yet. What i'm saying is, yes, eventually, we should be able to have personal sheilds.

[_Owen_]

Nice post, pretty much all of it is correct. Except one small detail, the Sun uses nuclear fusion, not fission, you probably just mixed up the words.

Sorry to go off topic, but speaking of matter-antimatter mutual anhillation, something that Einstein said came to me. He said, in the begining of the universe one billion of antimater and one billion and one of matter were created, when the mutual anhilation was complete we were left with one of matter, that is our universe.

Owen Macri

[Lord §okar]

Force fields are possible and do exist, except under the true definition of the term. Gravity and electromagnetism are force fields; the magnitude of the force decreases withe the square of the distance between the two objects.

Shields, such as the ones you see on stargate etc., are perfectly fictional.

Yes, believe it or not, there are several ways to create an energy force field of some kind. A popular way is to project energy particles towards an area, for example, if you wanted to create a forcefield in your hall, wherever that may be, if you project higly concentrated energy particles, within, let's say, a door frame, then the energy would be so highly concentrated that you would not be able to pass through it,
What kind of "energy particles" are we talking about?

The field would need to act basically as a wall, it would sense the force and respond by replying with an equal or greater force in the opposite direction. Once you master that technology you will be able to modulate that generator of the field to reply with an equal or greater amount of kinetic energy, whether you want the forcefield to stop matter and energy or shoot it backwards.
There's the rub, a shield wall can't be made. No force has localized effects that can be confined to a planar surface, much less one that actually responds actively to momentum directed at it without separate sensory equipment and a CPU. Furthermore, how is the field going to stop energy; uncharged massless particles? A wall of energy will incinerate physical objects directed at it, not stop them dead or propel them away again. Firstly because the shield particles impart momentum along their motion vector, not parallel to the horizon and secondly because their energy is far greater than their momentum.

Another way that would not be a force field, per se, but would acomplish the same goal, is a tractor beam. Instead of a field you have a tractor beam generator, possibly with multiple output ports (to generate more than one tractor beam), sensors on this device would detect the movement of matter and energy towards a specified location of locations, then create a tractor beam to stop it or fire it backwards.

In fact, a tractor beam could use many of the same concepts as a forcefield, it could project large concetrations of energy to a specified area, it would have to be a moveable mass of particles, but in escence it would be a force field, that was altering the location of the specified matter or energy.
Tractor beams are also unfathomable.

[_Owen_]

You, do have points and I would like to be able to answer all of your questions but truthfully, I can't. This is because there is so much that we do not know about everything, but I will try to answer.

What kind of "energy particles" are we talking about?

The type of energy particles would definetly have to be a type which we have not discovered, so the forcefield doesn't incinerate you when you touch it, however, that unfortunatly hasn't been discovered, and may not exist.

As for tractor beams, a concentrated artificial gravity field would accomplish the objective of a tractor beam.

Owen Macri

[Lord §okar]

The type of energy particles would definetly have to be a type which we have not discovered, so the forcefield doesn't incinerate you when you touch it,
When you said "Yes, believe it or not, there are several ways to create an energy force field of some kind" you meant it in a purely fictional sense?

As for tractor beams, a concentrated artificial gravity field would accomplish the objective of a tractor beam.
Gravity emanates from a point radially rather than a beam.

[_Owen_]

Well, half and half. Allthough yes, currently we cannot create shields, which I stated, and currently we aren't even close to coming up with a way to create a shield, theoretically, it is possible, and fictionally it is most definetly possible. So, I meant it in a theoretical sense, but I guess you could consture it as fictional, allthough that was not my intention. I appoligize, I should have been clearer, I was speaking hypothetically, and theoretically.

Gravity could still act as a tractor beam, even if it wasn't a traditional beam. As well, theoretically, if you could dampen gravity, or re direct it(theoretically) you could create a beam.

Owen Macri

[Supreme Thor]

A lot of matter and energy particles would have to be put into a shield. I guess the amount would really depend on the area and density of the shield (and the chance that, as Owen said, it doesn't incinerate anything that touches it). If you had, say, a space the size of the dome in Antarctica ("Rising"), you would probably need the power equivalent of an A-bomb.

As for the tractor beam, I think first, (if we used artificial gravity) we'd figure out how to create a gravity field, rather than centering the gravity at a certain point. Something like the gravity of a planet. Our solar system is basically a giant trampoline, so to speak. The entire plane (if you can imagine it) is one flat surface (looking at this sort of 2D-wise), while the planets and sun create sort of a bowl of gravity (thus, the "orbit" of a planet). Now, this "bowl" depends on the density of matter that's creating it. If we could somehow center this matter into one single line, then theoretically, yes, we could create a tractor beam. But as I said, our first step would be to create a gravity field, as it's slightly easier to create one center of gravity in space, rather than trying to force a single line.

[_Owen_]

Actually, I believe a shield of that magnitude would take significantly more power than that of an atomic bomb.

Owen Macri