Invisibility/cloaking?

[slipstrike0159]

Of course everyone has thought at one point about the possibility of being able to turn invisible. From movies to games to all kinds of media there have been camera tricks and the likes to make some things seem to be invisible. However, most people would think that this would be more of a theory than anything practical. Military technology has brought about technology to hide audio sounds from airplanes, infrared technology, and various other things to get as close to invisibility as possible. Although, they have not yet been able to tackle visible light to make their machines and soldiers invisible to the naked eye.

Upon thinking about this (and some searching), i found this article from quite a few years ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3791795.stm .

As technology is progressing we are coming up with numerous possibilities but as such, we come across responsibility problems. If this type of cloaking technology could be perfected, would it even be ethical to invent it? History has told us that the invention of new technology can also be a major blessing but also a curse of unimaginable anguish. Even if it was used in the most top secret of military epsionage missions, what would happen if we were LITERALLY fighting invisible wars? And for that matter, if the finished product EVER made its way into the public it could have untold reprocussions in every kinds of crime. So i ask again, even if it would benefit military operations and casualties, would it be ethical to even make such a device?

[Teh caged Animal]

Well thought out my good man, but I have to say something that hi tech would never make its way to the public if it were there most definitely would be a 100% rise of crime. It is indeed ethical that it could be made and used for military but aside from that. Invisible wars couldn't be real. You cant see your opponent

[crosscris]

I think it's more about developing better detection technology of any kind. Whether it's ethical or not means very little as we don't have a choice. The technological curve has risen exponentially. Even if we wanted to stop research and production of invisibility enabling devices, there's always someone motivated to create such things. And even if it was created and kept hidden, well....time always wins in a game of hide and seek.

Although if things turn out bad, such as invisible streakers or phantom prostitutes lol, I guess it's time to figure out better ways to detect people.

[Ruritsu]

Wouldn't be that difficult to see somebody whose invisible. Thermal detection would pretty much ruin this technology. However, for a short while, there would be a serious amount of invisible criminals running about. Would be kinda cool.

[iluswirl]

Originally Posted by crosscris

invisible streakers

I lol'd.

Also, I think it could be useful in some cases, but we can't have the technology until it's already too late and big brother is among all of us, watching our every move. That would be the only way to know who commit a crime when while they were invisible, and even then, they would have some trouble.

So no, it's not an ethical choice because once we develop the technology, basically all our current freedoms would be taken away.

[MrRubix]

Too bad that if we were invisible, our eyes wouldn't work.

[devonin]

That would rather depend on what mechanism allowed us to be invisible in the first place yes?

[kommisar[os]]

probably assuming you would be invisible as believed by what media has taught us, where you can see everyone but nobody can see you.


it's a technology best not invented perfectly.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Too bad that if we were invisible, our eyes wouldn't work.

That sounds like a pretty bold statement with no logic backing or explaining that.

[ScaryArrows..]

Hmm..i've avoided this section of the forums thinking I wouldn't really have much to say but this thread struck my attention. I don't know if any of you have heard of the "Philadelphia Project" Or project Rainbow, but it consisted of cloaking and invisibility. I grabbed some info so you guys could read, as well as throw down some input: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60003/pg1

[SgtFish]

New technology is always expensive. So if invisibility were to be perfected, kudos to the country who now owns the tech. (<- future-tense, I know it's not done yet... I hope)

And being that new technology is really expensive, it's highly unlikely it will be available to the public. So given through time, that once the production of the method becomes feasible to purchase by the public, different technology should have already been brought up to counteract whatever malicious effects it may cause (especially considering how invisibility would be getting released to the friggin' general masses).

Like previously mentioned, thermal vision would negate the effect of the invisibility, so it'd be pointless to equip every soldier with whatever device, seeing as how every other soldier would also be equipped with the full Metal Gear Solid, Snake-Eye setup.

Originally Posted by iluswirl

So no, it's not an ethical choice because once we develop the technology, basically all our current freedoms would be taken away.

Lol, seriously?
Oh noes, there might be an invisible guy, we no longer have the right of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Whatever shall happen to our right to speedy trials?!

[devonin]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

That sounds like a pretty bold statement with no logic backing or explaining that.

One of the ways that you could try to render a person invisible would be to equip them with some sort of apparatus that basically caused all incoming light to move around the body. Since you see by light hitting something, bouncing off of it and then hitting your eye, if you could misidirect light from actually bouncing off you, people would not be able to see you, but with no light actually hitting you, your own eyes couldn't function that way, rendering you blind as well.

Like previously mentioned, thermal vision would negate the effect of the invisibility, so it'd be pointless to equip every soldier with whatever device, seeing as how every other soldier would also be equipped with the full Metal Gear Solid, Snake-Eye setup.

Going to go ahead and make the, to me, perfectly reasonable assumption that if someone could actually develop a mass-producable "invisibility" device, that they could also develop a similar device that blocked the ability to be detected in other spectra. Whether it be some sort of heat sinking technology that read the ambient temperature around you and dispersed your body heat in such a way as to match it, or any other mechanism, such a technology is at -least- as possible as one that rendered you invisible to the naked eye.

So no, it's not an ethical choice because once we develop the technology, basically all our current freedoms would be taken away.

Any crime currently committed by someone with no witnesses around is -exactly- the same as one committed by someone who was perfectly invisible with witnessess around. And we've managed to do fairly well.

[CosmicRain]

Originally Posted by devonin

Going to go ahead and make the, to me, perfectly reasonable assumption that if someone could actually develop a mass-producable "invisibility" device, that they could also develop a similar device that blocked the ability to be detected in other spectra. Whether it be some sort of heat sinking technology that read the ambient temperature around you and dispersed your body heat in such a way as to match it, or any other mechanism, such a technology is at -least- as possible as one that rendered you invisible to the naked eye.

So far they have actually been able to create a device that makes objects invisible. The catch though is that it only makes things invisible to the microwave spectrum (which we cannot see anyway unless a device is used), and from what I remember it is not something you equip but more of a generator about the size of an office desk (so not really practical). That is, from what I know, how far they have gotten in cloaking technology.

Originally Posted by devonin

Any crime currently committed by someone with no witnesses around is -exactly- the same as one committed by someone who was perfectly invisible with witnessess around. And we've managed to do fairly well.

This is a very true statement. The fact is that a crime done invisibly is nearly exactly the same as a crime done visibly. The only difference is that witnesses are rendered invalid, and the victim (if any) cannot describe the attacker. If it is a robbery, cameras will not detect you (unless of course, they are really advanced cameras that can detect in other spectra). Other than that, it is the same thing, because just because you are invisible does not mean you cannot leave any evidence behind. They can still find you using forensics, like fingerprints, footprints, and hair (this can actually vary, depending on the qualities of the cloaking device, since even if hair leaves your body, it can remain invisible or gain visibility upon falling). So despite invisiblity, you still leave evidence that can eventually be linked to you. Bottom line, there is no such thing as the perfect crime, even if you are invisible.