Curse

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 17, 2005, 10:17 PM // 22:17

Your field trip was probably to Lawrence Hall of Science.
Lawrence Berkeley Labs is nearby but on a different part of the hill. It's not open to the general public. Like all US Govt research facilities you need a govt. ID badge to get in. I still have mine somewhere, for sentimental reasons.

Guillaume De Sonoma · Aug 18, 2005, 05:29 AM // 05:29

Woah... You guys are smart

Arturo02 · Aug 18, 2005, 08:35 AM // 08:35

as long as this doesn't affect the Einstein-Rosen-Podowski Bridge, I am unconcerned.

Squizzard45 · Aug 18, 2005, 04:21 PM // 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

Your field trip was probably to Lawrence Hall of Science.
Lawrence Berkeley Labs is nearby but on a different part of the hill. It's not open to the general public. Like all US Govt research facilities you need a govt. ID badge to get in. I still have mine somewhere, for sentimental reasons.

Yeah you're right. I definitely remember not having to get in with a badge

. Still, very cool stuff there.

Darth Lamblike · Aug 18, 2005, 05:24 PM // 17:24

Actually, you are all incorrect. This is what would really happen:

The beam of light would cause greater conflagration upon the collision of the arcane conundrums that naturally occur because of the particle/wave properties of light. This, in effect, would lead to the continued withering of the light source such that only divine intervention would be able to continue the process. The process can then be reversed at any point, but only under perfect elemental attunement which of course would cause the flourish of many physicists due to the lucrative market that this would create. Unless it got nerfed. So there you have it, the definitive answer to the question.

Oh, and I am not a genius or top level physicist myself, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 18, 2005, 05:31 PM // 17:31

I have a dog.

Darth Lamblike · Aug 18, 2005, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

I have a dog.

Sadly, I do not.

Martyr of Divinity · Aug 18, 2005, 07:21 PM // 19:21

I like guinea pigs.

Anyway yea, I have discovered that the perfect mirrior is not entirely theoretical as stated/demonstrated here by MIT physicists

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/mirror.html

Their concept is similar in design as one I had late one night as I was trying to sleep. However, their applications are in no way similar to mine. I have spent over $1600 on physics (classical, quantum, hyper, newtonian etc) books over the past couple of months and am still determined to make my application work, thanks.

Bizarro_Jesus · Aug 18, 2005, 07:37 PM // 19:37

I believe Dr. Egon Spangler said it best: "Never cross the streams."

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 18, 2005, 07:44 PM // 19:44

Good for you! Go with your gut.

A word about dielectrics - which is a fancy name for the filling in a capacitor.
Even though it's called a "perfect mirror" it's applied as a relative term. The functional concept is a dramatic increase in efficiency - but not an infinite one. The edges of a dielectric is where you get your loss. The breakthrough is in the material used between electrode "plates" which might store visual frequencies of radiation.
But the ideal (i.e. perfectly efficient) version would require an infinitely large plate.

Still, it's an interesting device and concept. But, unfortunately, it's not relevant to your initial thesis.

Keep up the good work!

Sakora · Aug 19, 2005, 08:39 AM // 08:39

sounds pretty interesting, not being a science major i wouldnt be able to answer, then again, maybe not all theroies are to be answerd, you can spend a life time searching, only to find out in dissapointment.

I hope you find what your looking for hun