I spent 7 years in the army. Yes the focus is on following the manual(s) for standard tasks. And we have a LOT of manuals.

Kind of like the ISO 9000 stuff in the civilian world.

But if they are any good then they should be documenting HOW they're doing their job. And following those same procedures every time.

Part of the job is the expectation that you will be replaced. And the job will still need to be done, in the same way, by the next guy.

NOT following the manual means that the next guy will need time to come up to speed on how you did it. And the unit might not have that time.

Look, I explained it more than once including how energy is conserved. I can't do more than I have. You have to figure out for yourself.

No. You've claimed that it will happen. That's all you've done.

The Laws of Thermodynamics say that the energy has to go somewhere.

Moving the molecules further apart in space does not reduce the energy of the molecules. Without convection/conduction the molecules can only radiate that energy to lose it.

That's physics.

There is no energy lost from expansion of a relatively dense, higher temperature plume of gas into a vacuum.

There is energy lost if the molecules drop below the background radiation level in a few seconds. That is what you are claiming.

Where did that energy go?

The Laws of Thermodynamics say that the energy has to go somewhere.

Physics.

I'm more concerned that Facebook didn't have a process in place to monitor for OBVIOUS abuses.

1. Hundreds of complaints filed.

2. From a single account.

3. In a defined time period.

4. All the victims shared a common trait.

#1 & #2 should have been red flags over and Over and OVER and OVER. How many complaints does the average user file? Why wasn't this flagged with that person hit 2x the average? 5x? 10x? 20x? 50x? 100x?

Appeals to physics don't work when you are wrong as is the case here.

There is no "appeal" here. I'm showing you how the Laws of Thermodynamics show that you are wrong.

The energy has to go somewhere.

You cannot explain where the energy goes. So you just keep repeating that it goes away.

Two rocks that are 1,000 K at 1 meter apart do not cool to 500 K because they move 2 meters apart.

That is physics.

You don't understand what temperature is.

Not only do I understand what temperature is, I also understand how it is different than heat. And how each is measured.

Which is why I keep pointing out to you that two rocks that are 1,000 K at 1 meter apart do not cool to 500 K because they move 2 meters apart.

And that is what you are claiming.

1) Stealth is not perfect invisibility or undetectability.

Only on Earth. In space it is because in space there is line of sight to everything.

2) Everything is detectable with sufficient resources thrown at the problem. Even the presence of a "horizon" doesn't change that.

You are wrong. The presence of the horizon means that non-perfect stealth works on Earth. But not in space.

3) It is not actually that easy to detect things before they get close enough to cause you problems in a military sense.

The instruments available today can detect the background radiation of the universe. That is around 3 K. And it can do that at billions and billion of kilometers. Unless you are claiming FTL or reactionless drives then you are wrong.

4) Examples given of the supposed ease of detecting stealthed objects are terrible and there's a lot of ignorance of physics and routine tactics of stealth.

So your definition of "stealth" is "invisible to people who are blind". That is not stealth. That is blindness.

5) If you're going to appeal to physics as the basis of your argument, you need to get the physics right.

The Laws of Thermodynamics show that you are wrong. The energy has to go somewhere. Two rocks that are 1,000 K at 1 meter apart do not cool to 500 K because they move 2 meters apart.

You can claim that the exhaust will cool down to below the background radiation level of the universe within seconds but you cannot explain how that would happen.

The Laws of Thermodynamics say that the energy has to go somewhere.

Physics.

Again learn what a strawman is. It's when you exaggerate an opponent's position in order to win an argument.

That's right. And pointing out that the Laws of Thermodynamics contradict you is not the same as exaggerating your position.

It's physics.

A shitty analogy since the surface area of the rocks doesn't change measurably by moving two meters apart.

What analogy? That is what you are claiming.

A gas plume has vastly different thermodynamic properties than a pair of rocks.

And what do you think a "gas plume" is composed of?

Two atoms that are 1,000 K at 1 meter apart do not cool to 500 K because they move 2 meters apart.

Two rocks that are 1,000 K at 1 meter apart do not cool to 500 K because they move 2 meters apart.

That's basic physics. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

They would be the most resilient. But they'd also be expensive.

I THINK that TFA was looking to minimize cost. Which could be why their diagram does not seem to show ANY redundant links.

In fact, I don't understand what their diagram is showing. Unless it is ancient 10base5 with vampire taps. Otherwise why are the 6 main "arms" continuing after the first connection? That doesn't look like a router diagram. Maybe it is a series of switches (or hubs) linked off of each other in a really badly designed cascaded configuration.

And there's the straw man again.

Again, learn what a straw man is. Explaining that the Laws of Thermodynamics contradict you is not a straw man.

I guess you need to learn some physics before we continue this discussion. It's 4x the volume BTW.

Two rocks that are 1,000 K at 1 meter apart do not cool to 500 K because they move 2 meters apart.

Learn what a straw man is and learn what the Laws of Thermodynamics are.

We aren't getting anywhere due to this bizarre, irrelevant, and incorrect insistence on your part. The Earth-side counterpart doesn't depend on horizons to employ stealth technologies.

You might want to do some research on how the STEALTH BOMBER works. Because that is exactly how it works.

Physics.

Once again, your insistence on perfect undetectability is the huge straw man that you keep using in this thread.

Again, learn what a straw man is.

In space, you have line of sight to everything. Therefore, the radiation given off by your ship is detectable.

That's the First Law of Thermodynamics.

I guess a few seconds is a bit less than a day.

You are now claiming that the exhaust will radiate all of its heat (down to 3 K) in a few seconds? In space?

I believe the correlation in velocity is linear to distance traveled, so at this point, our temperature has dropped from 3000K to 30K not including at all radiation to space.

Okay, the problem is that you are confusing DISTANCE with HEAT.

Because the exhaust is taking up 2x the volume does not mean that the exhaust is 2x cooler.

Take two rocks at 1,000 K each at a distance of 1 meter. Move them 2 meters apart. They do not become 500 K.

Again, its the First Law of Thermodynamics.

By this mechanism, it is possible to actually achieve, temporarily, lower temperatures than cosmic background, assuming you started with a dense enough monoatomic exhaust stream to resist the pressure of the Solar wind.

You don't know what the background radiation is, do you? No. See the above point with 1,000 K rocks.

Radiation being the usual third way here that heat can be transferred to a heat sink.

And you are still wrong about the heat sink. Radiation radiates away from the hot object.

The heat sink has no way to draw radiation from the object FASTER.

Physics. Specifically, the Laws of Thermodynamics.

You do. I don't (nor does the rest of the world). Please come up with a real argument rather than this fallacy.

Funny how you put in "the rest of the world" there. Because, as I pointed out, stealth only works the way you claim when there is an horizon to hide behind.

Once you take away the horizon, you lose stealth because your exhaust cannot be hidden.

It's the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Physics.

A planet doesn't make you undetectable.

Yes it does.

After all, I can just send a sensor around to get line of sight and now, you're detected.

And in space, everything is line of sight.

As I have pointed out again and again.

Also, your heat radiation above stops being radiated only when something intercepts it.

Which is your proposal for a shield. And I've explained why that would not work.

But a planet would. But you've just said that a planet would not.

That means there's no real limit in any direction that is black sky. Even I get that.

Then I have gotten one fact through to you.

Interception of radiation by intervening bodies is not how I propose to get stealth in space.

Yes you have. That is the shield you kept claiming would work.

That cools the gas off quickly right there. Meanwhile the increased surface area of the exhaust plume radiates heat out more efficiently.

So you are claiming that rocket exhaust will cool to background radiation levels in less than a day.

When it took the rest of the universe billions and billions of years to cool that much.

It's a near point source which is dumping heat to a 3K heat sink while there's no outer edge to the universe to dump heat.

No it is NOT!

A heat sink works by convection/conduction cooling. There is nothing in space to transfer the heat to. All the heat must be radiated away.

Again, it is physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask

Here's another example of the straw man.

You're claiming that the Laws of Thermodynamics are straw men.

Physics shows that you are wrong.

Sure, you can't make a detectable object perfectly undetectable by definition.

You can when there is a planet between you. That is why stealth works on Earth.

That is why stealth fails in space.

It's about being much harder to detect so that various militarily-useful activities can be conducted such as sneaking up on some target and shooting it.

Light travels at over a million kilometers an hour. Which means that anyone you are sneaking up on will have hours of advance warning.

There is no such thing as a perfect detector - among other things it would need infinite area both to observe perfectly and to store the infinite amount of information it received.

Who said it had to be perfect? I'm pointing out that your exhaust will be radiating heat in all directions. Over billions of kilometers. Maybe trillions of kilometers.

And that light will be travelling at a million kilometers an hour.

And I already explained how rocket exhaust can cool that fast.

No you have not. You just keep repeating that it will.

The universe has been cooling for billions and billions of years.

Why would the exhaust cool to that same temperature in a day?

The Laws of Thermodynamics say you are wrong.

It's physics.

There is a lot of ugly misogyny in games.

Yes there is. And in society as a whole. And it isn't just misogyny.

If you're a woman gamer, and you don't respond to certain male gamers they way they want you to, you will get death threats, rape threats and doxxing.

I wish that someone with better gaming skills than me would do a few tests. As such:

Create an account with a female name and avatar. Play some games. Record the reactions.

Create an account that appears to be African American. Play some games. Record the reactions.

Create an account that appears to be LGBT. Play some games. Record the reactions.

Create an account that appears to be Jewish. Play some games. Record the reactions.

Create an account that appears to be Muslim. Play some games. Record the reactions.

Create an account that appears to be a teenage male. Play some games. Record the reactions.

I'd say that you'd find an amazing amount of hatred for each of those categories. Not because there really is that degree of specific hatred. But because the people losing are trying to hurt the victor with whatever insults they think might work.

The fact that most games are written and told from an adolescent male point of view does not help. It creates a sort of greasy milieu where it's easy to believe that any behavior toward a woman is acceptable.

While I believe that that is a MAJOR factor I think it is also an unconscious strategy on the part of the less competent gamers.

If a woman beats you at that game and you call her a whore and she leaves and never comes back then that is one less player who is better than you.

In my experience, no one bothers with directed insults at someone who is a worse player or who agrees with your opinions.

So, IMO, there is no solution in the larger context. But there are ways to mitigate it in the specific category of playing games. And the easiest to implement would be to restrict messages until a player has sufficient investment in a system to behave themselves.

I also hope that, someday, someone will come up with a variation of the Bechdel test to demonstrate how women are depicted in games. If the woman can be replaced with a bowling ball then there is a problem with the writing.

My daughter was kidnapped and is going to be auctioned into sexual slavery! I must kill all the peoples.
vs.
My bowling ball was stolen and is going to be auctioned on eBay. I must kill all the peoples.

Such as portraying stealth as perfect invisibility? Yes, that's a straw man.

Learn what a straw man is.

The whole point of this is that there is no horizon to hide behind in space so stealth does not exist because there is no way to be undetectable.

You are claiming that the exhaust will cool to background radiation levels. That is, the temperature of the rest of the universe that has been cooling for billions and billions of years. You cannot explain how it will cool that fast.

So then you say that it doesn't have to be perfect, as long as everyone is blind. That's not stealth. That's blindness. You aren't invisible because a blind person cannot see you.

It's physics.

The Laws of Thermodynamics.

Going from 3,000 K to 3K is also cooling.

And you still have not explained how that is going to happen before the exhaust passes beyond the shielding.

You just keep repeating that it will.

How visible? You're chasing a straw man here.

First off, you don't know what a "straw man" is.

Secondly, visible in that it is radiating at a higher temperature than the background radiation. As I've said many times.

I'm not interested in perfect invisibility, I'm interested in "stealth", making a vehicle hard enough to detect that it can sneak up on a target and get within range of making a useful attack.

Which is impossible in space because there is no horizon to hide behind.

It's the First law of thermodynamics. You keep ignoring it.

Physics.

The assumption here is that the exhaust is in the form of a gas.

Okay.

Once it passes through the constriction of the rocket nozzle, it expands (the effect is to turn thermal random motion of the particles of the exhaust into directed velocity).

Explain how "it expands" does not equate to expanding beyond the boundary of the shielding.

After leaving the bell, there are no more restrictions to expansion of the gas aside from the small amount of matter in space.

Again, explain how "it expands" does not equate to expanding beyond the boundary of the shielding.

And how it cools to background radiation levels BEFORE "it expands" hits the shield boundary.

Because THAT is the issue you've been skipping.

And again, so what?

Because "stealth" probably does not include "dying of old age 200 years before getting out of your own back yard".

Then use physics to make that argument not assertions that I brought up Voyager.

I already have. But you keep skipping over it. I just did it again at the beginning of this post.

Here it is again:
PHYSICS says that the exhaust will expand. Eventually the exhaust cloud will be larger than the area covered by the "shield". At which time the exhaust will be visible.

You claim that the exhaust will cool to the same level as the background radiation before that. Yet you do not explain HOW it will cool that much.

You keep confusing "cool" with "background radiation". Going from 3,000 K to 2,000 K is "cooling". But 2,000 K is not the same as "background radiation".

Stealth isn't perfect. It would be relatively hard against large, sensitive detectors.

Then it is not "stealth".

You are not "invisible" if you depend upon the enemy being blind.