How In Hell Oxium Is Lighter Then Air? Is This Even Possible?

[derclaw]

Yes, and if this material were to 'redirect' gravitons, that would mean that the component particles would be capable of doing this. If you have a particle that is acted upon by a graviton that responds by shunting it off in a different direction, chances are that graviton will likely then hit another particle in the alloy. Now you have an alloy which has a constantly shifting internal force of gravity. You're going to tell me something like that can remain structural integrity? The only way this would work is if the alloy in question were one particle thick and would increasingly risk breaking itself apart the more it became parallel to the force of gravity.

I like where its going. So refreshing to have such thread here. 

Well if we asume that Oxium "lighter then air" is not from its ultra low density but rather from gravity shifting properties and from the look of New Osprey it seems like exactly this can be case the - amalgama of Oxium on top (or inside) of regular Osprey with more heavy weaponry and armor since Oxium allows its propulsion engines to lift more.

Edited January 30, 2014 by derclaw

[Ced23Ric]

Why is the colour red, red?

Why is air breathable?

Why does a battery have a positive terminal and a negative terminal?

Why can't we have electrons have a $ charge and a ! charge along with a + or - charge?

Because that's how things work, child.

Furthermore, it's a game. Balance is an issue.

 

Red is a wavelength that is perceived. Since all light emissions of the visible spectrum are just shades of strength in luminescence and reinterpreted as a mixture of colour (RGB, alpha channels, the jazz), red is just a word. We applied the term to a certain wavelength of visible light. It would still register the same if we called it dog, car or Jabberwocky.

 

Air is breathable to us, as we adapted through evolution to the point where oxygen is used to help us generate the energy to elevate amino-di-phospahte to amino-tri-phosphate, which releases energy as it breaks down to amino-di-phosphate again when we think/move/digest etc.. There are organisms which cannot breathe oxygen, and when plants started producing oxygen, it initially worked as a toxin, killing off the previous fauna, unless it adapted to the increase in oxygen concentration. The question should be: "Why can we breathe oxygen?"

 

Battery terminals are a logic consequence of a delta of potential, by forcibly keeping electrons from evening out the charges of their surrounding, turning one node overly negative, and the other overly positive - in comparison to a relaxed environment.

 

The + / - are just symbols. Any symbol works. It has been decided as a standard, just as we have decided on standards in our various languages. these standards make communication possible, by having the same sign/sound/gesture mean the same between two different people.

 

What is your point?

PS: Oxium is not a balance issue. Oxium extends the already copious amounts of grind. That's it. You keep using words you seemingly have not fully mastered or processed. Where's the balance between source ("DE") and sink ("player") that needs to be maintained by adding more grind, i.e., raising the tension between two states? There is no benefit or requirement to it, other than stretching thin content thinner.

[Celseus]

I like where its going. So refreshing to have such thread here. 

Well if we asume that Oxium "lighter then air" is not from its ultra low density but rather from gravity shifting properties and from the look of New Osprey it seems like exactly this can be case the - amalgama of Oxium on top (or inside) of regular Osprey with more heavy weaponry and armor since Oxium allows its propulsion engines to lift more.

 

 

Well, my sentiments are similar to yours. But the post you quoted was insisting that what you said was not possible, because the author thinks gravity is what keeps matter solid instead of being in a plasma state. But he's wrong.

[[DE]Momaw]

 Oxium is really just seeming some deus ex stuff to create a reason birdframe can happen now but couldn't earlier.

 

If it turns out to be a fun frame, that's all we really need to know about it. :D

[Celseus]

Red is a wavelength that is perceived. Since all light emissions of the visible spectrum are just shades of strength in luminescence and reinterpreted as a mixture of colour (RGB, alpha channels, the jazz), red is just a word. We applied the term to a certain wavelength of visible light. It would still register the same if we called it dog, car or Jabberwocky.

 

Air is breathable to us, as we adapted through evolution to the point where oxygen is used to help us generate the energy to elevate amino-di-phospahte to amino-tri-phosphate, which releases energy as it breaks down to amino-di-phosphate again when we think/move/digest etc.. There are organisms which cannot breathe oxygen, and when plants started producing oxygen, it initially worked as a toxin, killing off the previous fauna, unless it adapted to the increase in oxygen concentration. The question should be: "Why can we breathe oxygen?"

 

Battery terminals are a logic consequence of a delta of potential, by forcibly keeping electrons from evening out the charges of their surrounding, turning one node overly negative, and the other overly positive - in comparison to a relaxed environment.

 

The + / - are just symbols. Any symbol works. It has been decided as a standard, just as we have decided on standards in our various languages. these standards make communication possible, by having the same sign/sound/gesture mean the same between two different people.

 

What is your point?

PS: Oxium is not a balance issue. Oxium extends the already copious amounts of grind. That's it. You keep using words you seemingly have not fully mastered or processed. Where's the balance between source ("DE") and sink ("player") that needs to be maintained by adding more grind, i.e., raising the tension between two states? There is no benefit or requirement to it, other than stretching thin content thinner.

 

 

I think while you attempted to discredit the post, you just made it even stronger. You just explained, redundantly, how "This is just how things are, deal with it."  which was EXACTLY my intent when telling him that. Albeit in a long winded manner.

 

Thumbs up for wikipedia. Thumbs down for not understanding rhetorical questions.

 

Also, oxygen as a toxin to kill off previous fauna? No, they used carbon-dioxide as a reource and oxygen is it's byproduct. Oxygen supports 90% of multicelled organisms on this planet, the minute amount of oxygen plants produce each day aren't going to kill things that are going to munch on them. At least, not drastically enough to reason the way you did. We live in environmental symbiosis with plants, we produce carbon-dioxide and plants produce oxygen. We are not here because we simply avoided the "oxygen genocide" that the plants in your imagination attempted to do.

 

We, multicelled organisms, are bigger threats to plantlife than any anaerobic organism is capable of. If the plants evolved to produce oxygen as a weapon against it's predators, as you say, then wouldn't they have been better off producing ...I don't know, ARSENIC instead? Geez. *facepalm* I know that would have helped them alot better.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Celseus

[bodyshk]

While games do need explanations, they don't need to be scientifically accurate. Basically: it doesn't have to be real. However, yes, it would've been nice to receive a little more info in this material

[KONAir]

You are all missing the point, keep the suspension of disbelief of "lighter then air alloy", it is possible, because the writer says so. Probability of it is non-sequitur. I belivie Corpus making sucidie drones out of this precious, super userful alloy is...

 

...much, much more of a saddenning lack of creativity.

[Ced23Ric]

the author thinks gravity is what keeps matter solid instead of being in a plasma state. But he's wrong.

 

Gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the more obscure strong and weak nuclear forces are what hold atoms together. As a result of their cohesion and simple rules of physics ("Where there is one body, there cannot be another." and "One body cannot be in two places.") which obstructs movement, complex shapes built from singular entities emerge, which then are subjected to gravitiy as a whole, and given responsiveness to electromagnets of high enough magnitude, to electromagnetic forces. The strong/weak nuclear forces in turn uphold the individual atomic structure.

 

Where has Earthworm_Jim claimed gravity to be the sole responsibility for that? You are making the assumption, because he is challenging the statement of shunting gravitrons. You misunderstand, probably willingly.

 

I think while you attempted to discredit the post, you just made it even stronger. You just explained, redundantly, how "This is just how things are, deal with it."  which was EXACTLY my intent when telling him that. Albeit in a long winded manner. Thumbs up for wikipedia. Thumbs down for not understanding rhetorical questions.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to do, but you ... seem to be under the effect of personal realiy distortion and predispostion. Not only is "that's how it is" probably the least scientific, elucidated response to the existence of, well, anything, but that is also plain wrong. Things are a certain way because of a series of consequences, which can be traced back to how they interact with elements of the chain that produces their "sensory existence"*. Also, I ... would not know why I'd use Wikipedia for any of those trivial statements. Keep your thumbs to yourself, they seem pretty ill-used to me.

 

[size=2]* As in, what you can observe, exists, proven through observation. The tools used to observe help determine the nature of a "thing".[/size]

[Earthworm_Jim]

I think you misunderstand how matter stays together, you think matter stays together by each atom having it's own gravity pull which holds it close to other atoms. That's funny, and wrong.

 

Redirection of gravitons will have no effect on the elementary structural integrity of matter.

 

And I think you misunderstand how gravity works, you think gravity acts only on the whole of a material and not its component particles. That's funny, and wrong.

 

You see I can make base, overgeneralized assumptions about other people instead of actual meaningful discussion that includes evidence to support the point I am making too, but that doesn't really do any favors for anyone now does it?

 

Just because particles are held together by weak interaction, strong interaction, and electromagnetism in addition to gravitation, does not mean you can just knock one entirely out of flux and expect everything to be hunky dory. Gravitation may be the weakest of the four forces at the subatomic particle level, and your theory might work fine outside the gravity well of any cosmic body. Problem is, that isn't the case. You are completely ignoring the fact the force of gravity increases the larger the masses in play are. A single particle still has an accelleration of 9.8 m/s^2 on Earth.

 

Even if this material were to redirect that force just as you say and not shear itself apart in the process, that means it would simply accelerate 9.8 m/s^2 in a different direction. Meaning the moment it was mined out of Eris, it would have flung itself straight into space.

 

I would appreciate it if you would not make base, overgeneralized assumptions about other people. Thanks.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Earthworm_Jim

[derclaw]

Well, my sentiments are similar to yours. But the post you quoted was insisting that what you said was not possible, because the author thinks gravity is what keeps matter solid instead of being in a plasma state. But he's wrong.

I dont know physics to such extent of arguing about how gravitons altering substance should be made into battle droids.

Something tells me that Oxium cannot exist in our realm, but theorycrafting is fun enough.

 

p\s I posted just after your post so I didint see it.

[Celseus]

 

Even if this material were to redirect that force just as you say and not shear itself apart in the process, that means it would simply accelerate 9.8 m/s^2 in a different direction. Meaning the moment it was mined out of Eris, it would have flung itself straight into space.

 

I would appreciate it if you would not make base, overgeneralized assumptions about other people. Thanks.

 

 

Well, since you have retracted your opinion that this new alloy would simply shear itself into particles after I explained to why why that wouldn't happen since gravitons are not the basis for the state of matter. Now you want to change your reason to how this alloy was even mined?, to the basis of your argument?

 

Simple, alloys are usually made (synthetic) not mined.

 

They are combined from other mined materials, which I pressume, prior to treatment will not have this graviton redirecting property yet. Hence, why Tenno are taking it from ospreys instead of picking a pickaxe and slugging away at rocks.

 

Also, even if IT IS MINED, do you think gravity repelling materials are going to stop the Corpus from making use of it? Throw a net, put a bucket over the mineshaft, 1 million ways to catch it. The coorporation which develops one of the leading energy based technology in the warframe universe (setting aside the orokin) can surely come up with some ingenious contraption to mining lighter-than-air alloys.

 

Let me ask, would you like to continue with this conversation in PM? I feel like this is detracting further and further from the thread's original message everytime I have to tell you "No."

Edited January 30, 2014 by Celseus

[Wiegraf]

I gotta say, it's pretty amazing for once that a debate on the forums about the philosophical and scientific implications of an alloy with a density lower than air does not in fact include an all out flame war.

 

Gonna bust out the special "this is actually interesting" popcorn for once. (FYI, it's lighter than air popcorn :) )

Edited January 30, 2014 by Wiegraf

[Ced23Ric]

Simple, alloys are usually made (synthetic) not mined.

 

Please stop claiming things as true that are wrong and easily proven to be so. Electrum (silver/gold) is an alloy that appears in nature, same as kamacite and taenite (both iron/nickel alloys). In fact, the majority of metals does not appear "pure" in nature, but in alloys, which are seperated through smelting. That is also why humanity had access to iron and copper way before the iron and copper age. It was just in such low amounts, as iron and copper rarely appear in pure form, that it did not see widespread use.

 

Smelting came 7000 to 6000 BC, if I recall correctly.

[Celseus]

Please stop claiming things as true that are wrong and easily proven to be so. Electrum (silver/gold) is an alloy that appears in nature, same as kamacite and taenite (both iron/nickel alloys). In fact, the majority of metals does not appear "pure" in nature, but in alloys, which are seperated through smelting. That is also why humanity had access to iron and copper way before the iron and copper age. It was just in such low amounts, as iron and copper rarely appear in pure form, that it did not see widespread use.

 

Smelting came 7000 to 6000 BC, if I recall correctly.

 

 

Well, then you could start by starting to read properly. ;)

 

The word 'usually' is there in my post. If you manage to find it, tell us!

 

By the way, at least my reasoning that this is a synthetic alloy also explains why Tenno are picking the alloy off ospreys instead of slugging away with pickaxes at rocks (in this event). If you start wailing to DE, with your argument in tow, that we should have a mining mini-game that supports your argument. Be my guest! I'll even sign the petition for it! I'd very much like such a feature.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Celseus

[Ced23Ric]

The word 'usually' is in there. If you manage to find it, tell us!

The word usually implies a commonality not given. Metals usually exist in alloys and are mined as alloys, and rarely come in pure deposits. Hence I pointed out where you were wrong, as in, stating that metals are usually not mind as alloys. Which they usually, actually, are.

 

Regardless of the above, why does forceful desctruction (Tenno kills drone) render lootable Oxium and forceful destruction (Drone suicides wen threatened) does not? What is the reason for or the application of that mysterious alloy?

 

If an element in a story creates more questions than it answers, it is either not a good element, or needs more expansion. I have a feeling the latter will not come. It will simply exist and mock suspension of disbelief.

[PrincessWhite]

Why doesn't corpus build everything out of the same material as their helmets?

[Celseus]

The word usually implies a commonality not given. Metals usually exist in alloys and are mined as alloys, and rarely come in pure deposits. Hence I pointed out where you were wrong, as in, stating that metals are usually not mind as alloys. Which they usually, actually, are.

 

Regardless of the above, why does forceful desctruction (Tenno kills drone) render lootable Oxium and forceful destruction (Drone suicides wen threatened) does not? What is the reason for or the application of that mysterious alloy?

 

If an element in a story creates more questions than it answers, it is either not a good element, or needs more expansion. I have a feeling the latter will not come. It will simply exist and mock suspension of disbelief.

 

 

Actually, no. You're wrong again. Why? We don't mine metals as alloys then put it straight to use. It goes through, I have to repeat, TREATMENT before usage. Smelting, deoxidisation, what have you. Very, VERY few instances exist where metal is just dug up and used straight away in electronic appliances. Hence I included the word 'usually'.

 

That makes it, I repeat, synthetic. This alloy is synthetic. This is not being used as a native metal.

 

Also, you need to read my post again as to why Tenno aren't currently swinging pickaxes instead of weapons. And why we are collecting them from ospreys instead of smacking the rocks on Eris.

 

Also, you need to read the official description for this event. Everything hints at this alloy being researched, aka, synthetic that allows it to be used.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Blatantfool

[Celseus]

Why doesn't corpus build everything out of the same material as their helmets?

 

LOL, yeah those damn shoeboxes turn sniper crits into 100 damage tickles. :/

[REDACTED]

Why doesn't corpus build everything out of the same material as their helmets?

 

[Celseus]

Regardless of the above, why does forceful desctruction (Tenno kills drone) render lootable Oxium and forceful destruction (Drone suicides wen threatened) does not? What is the reason for or the application of that mysterious alloy?

 

 

Regardless of the above, why does forceful desctruction (Tenno kills drone) render lootable Oxium and forceful destruction (Drone suicides wen threatened) does not? What is the reason for or the application of that mysterious alloy?

 

If an element in a story creates more questions than it answers, it is either not a good element, or needs more expansion. I have a feeling the latter will not come. It will simply exist and mock suspension of disbelief.

 

 

Application of that mysterious alloy being the reason you can't loot it from every, single, damn corpse? Simple. Game mechanics. It has nothing to do with 'the application of this mysterious alloy' and should really, REALLY not be used in your arguments about the proposed scientific explanations regarding it.

 

It's also the same reason why players can't loot functioning corpus deras from every corpus. I could argue that they installed a security mechanism that deactivates the osprey's material via introduction of a specific substance. But I won't. Because game mechanics, dear child.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Celseus

[Earthworm_Jim]

Well, since you have retracted your opinion that this new alloy would simply shear itself into particles after I explained to why why that wouldn't happen since gravitons are not the basis for the state of matter. Now you want to change your reason to how this alloy was even mined?, to the basis of your argument?

 

Simple, alloys are usually made (synthetic) not mined.

 

They are combined from other mined materials, which I pressume, prior to treatment will not have this graviton redirecting property yet.

 

Also, even if IT IS MINED, do you think gravity repelling materials are going to stop the Corpus from making use of it? Throw a net, put a bucket over the mineshaft, 1 million ways to catch it.

 

Even if this material were to redirect that force just as you say and not shear itself apart in the process, that means it would simply accelerate 9.8 m/s^2 in a different direction. Meaning the moment it was mined out of Eris, it would have flung itself straight into space.

Even if this material were to redirect that force just as you say and not shear itself apart in the process...

Even if...

 

I apologise if english is not your first language, but the phrase 'Even if' does not mean someone is conceding their point. It is a phrase to facilitate giving a counterpoint to a person's statement by taking a hypothetical situation where that statement is true and pointing out a logical flaw.

 

I thought we agreed to stop making base, overgeneralized assumptions about each other.

 

Moving on, you still have not stated why redirecting gravitons will not cause the material to shear apart. You simply said that it wouldn't. In fact, let me quote you.

 

-_- Note that: All things that aren't shearing themselves at this moment in time, HAVE molecular "bonds" (There are several more subcategories you have to go through, than simply calling them 'bonds') that are stronger than gravity already. The fact that rockets aren't disintegrating into thin air just by leaving the atmosphere is proof enough.

 

So what you're saying is, in simple terms, "This metal better be made of matter or it's not going to exist! And that is why it cannot be metal!" Which doesn't make a darn bit of sense.

 

Thus, despite your attempt to confuse the readers. My justification still stands VERY FIRMLY. An alloy can be lighter than air if it has the properties to redirect gravitons in a opposite direction.

 

Things in their natural state right now that aren't shearing apart from gravity are able to maintain cohesion because they are merely acted upon by gravity and go with it without trying to alter it. What you are suggesting is something that takes that force of gravity and alters it. These are two very different things. Redirected gravitons would literally invert space-time curvature, because gravitation comes from the stress-energy tenser. The thing that causes space-time curvature. Gravitons are theoretical messenger particles that are exchanged between larger atomic particles to create that stress-energy tenser. The act of making this alloy, as it had to be made at one time, would cause space-time curvature to invert. This would also not be an instantaneous occurence. All things require time, no matter how short a length of time this. Can you honestly imagine a material that could survive the flux of space-time curvature inverting on itself? How much energy do you think this would take? How much energy do you think it would take to keep it from reverting back to its normal flow?

 

Keep in mind that gravitons are messenger particles exchanged with other particles in order to generate the stress-energy tenser. Can a material with inverted gravitons even exchange them with the gravitons of a substance with normal gravitons?

Edited January 30, 2014 by Earthworm_Jim

[pwismal]

I can't believe people still can't get why oxium floats.. Unless you didn't study science.

Edited January 30, 2014 by ShotlockingKey

[Ced23Ric]

Dear child,

 

I do not recall giving you any permission or consent to treat me in such a condescending manner. While I understand the hypocrisy on calling me out on attempting to discredit you, yet applying the very same tactics by attempting to ridicule me, you are personally insulting me, and I do not appreciate it. Please keep this discussion, which has been fairly levelheaded up until now civil - otherwise, I would not be able to help myself other than as regarding your position of exchange to be one of unchangeable superiority, assuming to be absolutely correct without option for fault. In that case, any discussion would be moot.

 

I mean, not only have you been challenged multiple times in this thread (and resorted to generalized retorts not replying to the challenge in question, but making assumptions to mock those discussing with you), but you are also quite demeaning in your choice of words. What makes you so hostile and unamicable? Please look at yourself as you judge others. What you might find may be illuminating. I'll cease communication with you at this point. It seems clear that you want to be "right", regardless of the truth, and will do anything to defend that position. Have a good day, enjoy playing.

______________

 

 

Back on topic, rewinding a bit: In general, a substance lighter than air makes sense. Such substances exist already and aren't a big deal, really. Density is subject to temperature, and warm air rises over cool air, which causes wind, and so on. A warm, denser substance could easily expand beyond air's level and become temporarily lighter than air, too. Weight is always based on the force of gravity exerted on mass, and mass is matter and energy inside of volume resisting gravitational pull.

 

Thusly, an alloy lighter than air needs to have less mass inside a given volume, which can be achieved by reducing the density of matter (less gravitational pull exterted to the sum of available matter) and energy increase (more resistance to gravitational pull). A simple example is soap and foam. Soap is dense and falls down easily. Foam is widespread and falls down slowly (including due to friction with air). Cold foam floats down faster than warm foam. Soap foam is also a horrible insulator, because it contains water.

 

So we have a metal alloy (akin to aerogels [which are, actually, "foamed" up gels sans liquid]) that has all these properties. That in itself is not objectionable, because we have many substances already lighter than air - like I said above, hydrogen, helium, etc. - the issue is that a supposedly metal+X substance is both lighter than air, yet finds military application in a suicide drone.

[Celseus]

Again, no. I know you wikipedia-ed this and saw the terms "stress-energy-tensors" on the same page as "time-space curvature" but that does not mean that matter exists in states SOLELY because of the influence of gravitons.

 

In no way, was it ever implied that way. Not by the scientific field, and certainly not by me. What you are saying is simple, and complete tosh.

 

Now; in order to spare everyone another bout of confusion. I managed to find an article that disproves you and your falsities entirely.

 

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78820/is-it-true-to-say-space-time-curvature-leftrightarrow-matter

 

Gravity is not part of the standard model, gravitons were included to make it part of the model; the status is still being debated. DO NOT add your own properties to it if you haven't published a scientific journal about it. LOL. Post one with your name in credit about this new property you made - up, maybe I'll believe you then.

 

Now, before you try to act smart again by jamming nouns and verbs together that would drive any physicist into a berserk state. I'll let you know I mentioned that we should take this to PM before you get out of hand. 

 

P.S: English IS my first language and I've been better at it than you so far. At the very least, I've been trying to logically explain to you that your crapshoot attempts at confusing readers is wrong. 

[CephalonShy]

Because all major successfull games had stories. All of them.

 

Especially tetris! What a story!