Carnifex Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 WTF? http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/25/capofdarkness.shtml And the BBC attributes it to someone else... double WTF? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3791795.stm I smell bullshit... look at the dates of the articles. EDIT: Yeah, it looks as if the Russian article is fake.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p3master Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Pretty funny shit Some people are going to believe this shit hahahahaha :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Hmm a russian patented it? If I remember right, a few years back the Japanese (maybe Chinese I forget) had the same technology. A coat that was made of specific materials to give it a transparent appearance. It wasn't quite "invisible" but it was a step in the direction. I figured they would have patented it back then o_O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Hmm a russian patented it? If I remember right' date=' a few years back the Japanese (maybe Chinese I forget) had the same technology. A coat that was made of specific materials to give it a transparent appearance. It wasn't quite "invisible" but it was a step in the direction. I figured they would have patented it back then o_O[/quote'] Don't know if they patented it, but yep..This is what you are talking about. This SHOULD have been my second link. Oops. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3720613.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetpops Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 wait a minute if it was transparent if someone was wearng it woulnt you be able to see them not through them?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDad Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 WTF? http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/25/capofdarkness.shtml And the BBC attributes it to someone else... double WTF? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3791795.stm I smell bull####... look at the dates of the articles. EDIT: Yeah, it looks as if the Russian article is fake.. Isn't this what Chekov did in every episode he was in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Isn't this what Chekov did in every episode he was in? Well, I was going to mention the saying that Russians always claim to have invented everything first... but S0V1ET may be listening. Heh. :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 The United States military came up with something like this years ago. Basicly it deals with capturing the image from one side of an object and projecting it from the other side of it. I'm pretty sure it used fiber optics, and I think it was only practical with something stationary, like a surveilance vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 OMG - dosn't seem possible.....is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quosego Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 OMG - dosn't seem possible.....is it? Wiki says: Russian Inventor Patents Invisibility Cloak On Jan 26 2006, Mosnews reported that a Russian inventor created a real Cloaking Device. It has not yet been confirmed and it is not known if this is a hoax or not. So we really do not know.. But russians are pretty smart, and well they could have doen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Yeah - from the image - it just didn't seem possible - i mean we could see through the guy - but i mean....how - to me the image looks kinda fake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Invisibility wil work by bending light around an object so if you were wearing an invisible cloak it would bend the light around you too and you wouldn't be able to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkR0 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 you could possibly get yourself a blackhole,neutron star or something other tiny but very much massive object and put it in your pocket ...... with a little neat engineering(gotta compensate for movement,different wavelenghts and background radiation) you could just bend them lightrays around you...its probably the most ridiculous idea since the gravitational force of a blackhole's is the working force here but it could also swallow you whole and all you get is spaghetti with atomized humansauce..so youll need to shield the force which would render it useless.. maybe something about that Heim' theories since according to them em-field and gravitational-fields are connected by the intermitten particle called a graviphoton which could (say a field around your body) be spacially very definit like a raincoat so to the rest of the world you ain't there you could see everything but you could ever touch it o'course(ever tried to touch a very strongly variating gravitational field?if so please tell me how....could be fun) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhug666 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 slighly dubious about all this but who knows ? could be the way foward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juhan Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 There can be no confirmation if it works or not, since we cannot tell that it is there. =p Don't reply, its a joke! I know we got other senses like touch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkR0 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 its probably not to be taken seriously...it might be somewhat efficient for snipers ...maybe in some hundred meters distance you couldnT' make it up... also the gravitational approach seems to be flawed on second thought... unless you find a way to communicate information through a severely strong 'gravitational potential difference' you wouldn't know what would be behind your spacetimebubble...allotta glitches to work out :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 its probably not to be taken seriously...it might be somewhat efficient for snipers ...maybe in some hundred meters distance you couldnT' make it up... also the gravitational approach seems to be flawed on second thought... unless you find a way to communicate information through a severely strong 'gravitational potential difference' you wouldn't know what would be behind your spacetimebubble...allotta glitches to work out :) On a BBC website.. Yes, I was meant to be taken seriously. An you wouldn't have to communicate any information THROUGH a suitable srtong gravitational force as the light itself would be bent around the anomoly...HOWEVER, walking around wearing a 'suitable gravitational force' would raise it's own problems. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I thought that "Q" from James bond invented the cloke a long time ago, using mirrors and the bending of lighte... all these other ones are fake ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkR0 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 i dont wanna be a petty know-it-all and quarrel about that....BUT if the light bends around you what do you get of it? would you be able to see it? you are using everydays logic on a freaked out state of lets say Flux, even though we don't know much at this point we certainly know that the rules of nature are freaky i once read on a BBc site something about a hindu with a hole in his mouth through which he would get his daily nutrition...meaning his own body produces the nutrition needed and he only drank water ...read it elsewhere too ...was in the papers(nahh well internet) for about a week and never heard of him since.........either MJ12 snatched him or its all afraud...now yall think about military relevant technology.... or rather what technological leap didn't coincide with the developemnent of a stronger weapon... :) since its totally my imagination and only partially explicable through todays accepted theories most of it is satiated with the dumbness of a laymens studies of a student in 13th grade so bear with me...... or not... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 i dont wanna be a petty know-it-all and quarrel about that....BUT if the light bends around you what do you get of it? would you be able to see it? you are using everydays logic on a freaked out state of lets say Flux, even though we don't know much at this point we certainly know that the rules of nature are freaky Nope...it's already been demonstrated by looking at astral bodies that suitably strong gravitional forces will bend light... and as we know, the only reason we can see ANY object is because of the light being redirected by the object and that reflection is then imprinted on to the retina, so strictly speaking what we see isn't actually the object itself but the patten it makes when interacting with a light source.......this means is that although we cannot see the physicality of light itself bend, we CAN see the shape (and position) of objects under the influence of 'bent' light, and these, through the same observations, have been demonstrated to be somewhat offset from center. What this means in terms of the (fake) article is that a cloak which has the ability to bend light will (or rather may) show not the person wearing the cloak as the light is bent around him, but what is on the other side of the cloak wearer. Because the light bypasses the object and shows (to our retinas) the vista that is in front of the object, the object would seem invisible.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now