Timeline for Hiding a star cluster
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 3 at 15:51 | comment | added | Shayne | It would be really really easy to detect. Possibly from other galaxies away. Giant hardcore gamma ray emmitters stand out like a sore thumb. Your talking about colliding a hell of a lot of antimatter. You do it and you'd suddenly have every astronomy dish in the galaxy and possibly neighboring galaxies pointing your way wondering what the hell turned a star into monster sized gama ray source | |
| Mar 1 at 11:31 | comment | added | kutuzof | @Shayne Sure it wouldn't be perfect. But it's be much harder to detect. Combined with a solar engine so you can move unpredictably and you could plausibly hide pretty well | |
| Feb 29 at 7:17 | comment | added | Shayne | Even if you used a perfectly calibrated positron emmission you'd just get a gnarly burst of gamma rays. Physics refuses to let you just vanish things. | |
| Feb 28 at 15:13 | comment | added | kutuzof | @Shayne lol does it not also work like that? I have no idea it just seemed like a cool idea. | |
| Feb 21 at 14:01 | comment | added | Shayne | No it wouldnt send the energy back to the source, but cancelling out radiation is not the same thing as cancelling out audio. You'd just get more radiation. Newtons conservation laws dont break or bend for nobody I'm afraid, if you want to get rid of energy, you got to hide it somewhere | |
| Feb 19 at 15:36 | comment | added | MegatheriumMegafauna | I was under the impression that when mutual destructive interference occurs it would sent the energy back to its source, and so would break the machinenery in concern. | |
| Feb 19 at 9:12 | history | answered | kutuzof | CC BY-SA 4.0 |