Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/19/19 in all areas

  1. thethinkertank has been placed in the queue for spamming the forum with an impressive amount of nonsense.
    4 points
  2. I'll clarify for him. For the reaction mass to produce an upward force on the rocket, it has to be accelerated downward relative to the rocket. In order to return that mass to the top of the rocket, any downward velocity the mass has relative to the rocket has to be stopped and reversed. This is an acceleration just as much as the one producing the upwards force on the rocket (acceleration is either change in speed, direction or both). This action will exert a force on the rocket opposite to that caused by accelerating the fuel downward. The end result of this force will be counter any upward movement by the rocket. This ends up with the net movement of the rocket as being zero. There is no way around this. There is no "clever" way to "fool" the rocket into having net movement by recirculating the fuel/reaction mass.
    3 points
  3. ! Moderator Note As this thread appears to have descended into incoherent nonsense, it is closed.
    2 points
  4. I think it fits to a personality disorder. My first guess is narcissist personality disorder, maybe schizotypal.
    2 points
  5. There are many stunning photographs at APOD [Astronomy Picture Of the Day] some far more stunning then others...just type in APOD...a new one everyday. Here's another..... SEIS: Listening for Marsquakes Image Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech, Mars Insight Explanation: If you put your ear to Mars, what would you hear? To find out, and to explore the unknown interior of Mars, NASA's Insight Lander deployed SEIS late last year, a sensitive seismometer that can detect marsquakes. In early April, after hearing the wind and motions initiated by the lander itself, SEIS recorded an unprecedented event that matches what was expected for a marsquake. This event can be heard on this YouTube video. Although Mars is not thought to have tectonic plateslike the Earth, numerous faults are visible on the Martian surface which likely occurred as the hot interior of Mars cooled -- and continues to cool. Were strong enough marsquakes to occur, SEIS could hear their rumbles reflected from large structures internal to Mars, like a liquid core, if one exists. Pictured last week, SEIS sits quietly on the Martian surface, taking in some Sunwhile light clouds are visible over the horizon.
    2 points
  6. I would like to take the time to present an idea I have come up with. Please note that I am a layman when it comes to the field of rocketry so please keep this in mind My idea is " The usage of a ferromagnetic fluid, such as ferrofluid, as a replacement of conventional rocket fuel in order to develop a rocket engine which would have the potential of recycling its fuel continuously through the usage of motor pump technology. All the while containing both the rocket along with the fuel and other components of the engine inside of a casing so that the different fluids do not escape from there respective housings. (Here is a general image of the idea that I am proposing) (I apologize for this being done in paint, I will try and improve upon the visuals of the design at a later point in time) I would like to now take the time to explain this systems functions for how it would complete the objective described in the beginning statement. I will be highlighting each section on how they work and how they interact with one another. Section(1) Section 1 Is the large fuel tank which would hold both a ferro fluid along with the highly compressible material. The highly compressible material would generate a pressure on the surface of the ferrofluid causing it to have a tendency toward the bottom of the container. Section 1 is also where the ferrofluid is recycled into along the highly compressible material. Section 2 Section 2 is the pressure controller and the ferrofluid outlet. Ferrofluid would be ejected at a controlled rate out of this nozzle using the pressure controller. This is what would cause the rocket engine to propel itself upward, that being the rocket nozzle, in a controllable manner. Section 3 Section 3 is the ferrofluid capture environment. This is where the ejected ferrofluid would be captured by a strong magnetic field generated by electromagnetic "plates". (Please note that I am using the term plates as a placeholder for a material that would capture the ferrofluid) Each "plate" would be charged by separate electronic sources. Any non captured ferro fluid would be let out into the next section. After the ferrofluid has been captured it would then "fall off" into section 4 due to the demagnetization of the electromagnetic plates. Section 4 Section 4 is a ferrofluid collection environment where the ferrofluid will drop off into after it has been demagnetized. After this it would then be drawn into up into section 5. Section 5 Section 5 is the ferro fluid recycler. Where the ferrofluid would be recycled back into section 1. Section 6 And finally section 6 is the back and forth highly compressible material storage and compressor. It interacts with section 1 by refilling it with highly compressible material. Problems I have run into when trying to flush out this idea > The magnetic field used to collect the ferrofluid would have to be strong enough in order to overcome the high velocities of the ejected ferrofluid. > The magnetic field used to collect the ferrofluid would have to be weak enough so that it does not impede the ejection process of the ferrofluid > Constant usage of the ferrofluid may cause nanoscale damage to the ejection nozzle and the motor pumps over time due to well metal scraping metal. > The compression rate of the highly compressible material would need to match the refill rate of the ferrofluid into the section 1. > The "falling off" rate of the ferro fluid would need to be fast enough that the ejected ferro fluid is constantly being attracted to the electromagnetic plates. > probably billions more problems Thank you for taking the time to read over this.
    1 point
  7. Would it be theoretically possible to construct an algorithm that when provided with sufficient data, could predict the future with reasonable accuracy based on trends and pattern prediction? For example, if you created an algorithm that predicts where and when an earthquake is likely to happen up to a year in advance, then provided it with all the available information on earthquakes and plate tectonics and so on.
    1 point
  8. What do you think is outside of a universe?
    1 point
  9. Like I said, I researched as much as I could without leaving the country and found the movie to be pretty well based on fact and accurate on most counts. Did you see the movie? Not sure what your point was in the first place. As I said, do you really need to be there to have a reasonable picture of what happened? We can be reasonably sure that a near catastrophic accident occurred, people died and are dying, an attempted cover up of the accident by the former USSR. And that among most other things seemed to be accurately portrayed. Precisely.
    1 point
  10. Sorry but that's the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time.
    1 point
  11. Even if the idea does not work I think the presentation deserves some credit; it allowed for a proper analysis to identify issues and opened for a fruitful discussion. And also credit to @Janus for the clarifying!
    1 point
  12. Thank you for the clarification. I now understand why this would be an issues in terms of momentum conservation.
    1 point
  13. No, not that either. Protons have two up quarks and a down. Neutrons have two downs and an up. Nuclei can have many protons, and most kinds of nuclei have even more neutrons.
    1 point
  14. Without intending to minimize your experience in any way, it should be noted that your immune system likely played a rather central role.
    1 point
  15. If he raised you, he's your real dad. Real fathers do much more than provide genetic material.
    1 point
  16. I like the following answer There is also a hint of a "don't care" attitude by some. Some I know for instance are just not concerned about rising sea levels and low lying Pacific Islands....others know that the probability of real life changing effects, will not affect them in their lifetime...a "f&^% you, I'm alright Jack" attitude. Forum's such as this are venues for discussion on climate change...It's what people need to do to convince those not sure about the issue, how valid the issue really is. Othwise the real anti global warming nuts would have a field day! Listen to Brian Cox [towards the end] argue the case for global warming and climate change with a complete ignorant nut.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8 What are you personally doing about the issue, other then debating it here?
    1 point
  17. That’s not an accurate summary of evolution. Patently untrue. I would be shocked to find that this had not been studied and scientific explanations formulated. Argument from ignorance gets old very fast. Why not?
    1 point
  18. What are the benifits? If nothing else just the engineering, it's an amazing feat of engineering if you ask me, these experiments don't just push the boundaries of scientific knowledge but lots of other things too, for instance it's because of projects like this that we have the internet. also " I think" ? Wouldn't that be the point of the experiment then, so we can know instead.
    1 point
  19. Even scumbags deserve their day in court, Swansont, so they are 'alleged' victims, so far. ( and I do hope there are charges coming so the seedy underbelly of Hollywood is exposed for all to see ) Don't have a problem with A Judd, or R McGowan; they came forward and were brave. And they have the most to lose as their careers are not huge. M Streep ( and some other huge stars like N Kidman, A Jolie, etc ), who spoke out about D Trump at an awards show, remained silent for almost a week. I guess she didn't want to put her career on the line for the 'right thing to do'. But then again, I stopped considering 'Hollywood types' as normal people, a long time ago. How many of these 'stars' still support R Polansky so many years after the statutory rape ? ( maybe they think society's rules don't apply to them )
    1 point
  20. You'd get less pushback on your argument if you instead said our ability to recognize attributes and classify them into discriminate groups is innate. That is obviously true, and we do it all of the time... this is food or not food... this is ouch or not ouch... this is warm or this is cool... even this is lighter or this is darker in color. Likewise, you could equally argue that tribalism is somewhat innate and discuss how we tend naturally to classify individuals into categories like us and them. All of those positions are supportable because they're accurate. However, racism is not innate and you go too far suggesting it is. This is why people claim otherwise. Those claims should not be beyond you. We aren't born hating others based on arbitrary social categories like race, especially since race as a category is not even rooted in biology. That's taught. It's learned. We can avoid teaching it. We can help people unlearn it, but only if we identify it accurately and talk about it for what it truly is.
    0 points
  21. Look, I'm hardly a scientist. But I can think out of the box. I contrive to come up with novel solutions to existing problems, explain them to the experts and then leave them to do the technical work (designing apparatus, forumlating equations and so on.) My part is merely to be a good human being with the interests of a greener planet in mind. I therefore make a free gift of my idea on global warming to science, via CERN. The fact that whoever sees my email first is likely to emerge in the nobel prize winners list sooner or later, is no issue to me at all.
    -1 points
  22. Tell me then what part of utilizing undersea CO2 waste disposal isn't possible. Be specific as to your question. I wikll answer you. You appear to have imagined I'm talking about redirecting ATMOSPHERIC CO2 into the seabed. I am not. I am talking about a new design for factory waste disposal that emmits CO2 directly from factory fumes into the seabed. My patent (the one to be plaigarised by CERN) is as simple as ABC. The chemicals? NaCl found in seawater and CO2 (found in greenhouse gas emissions.) The mechanism. Combine the two and you get a non toxic carbonate that in fact contributes to the wellbeing of undersea life forms. How? There's a million ways possible, from installing factories near seabeds, to installing them underwater via oil rigs. Now go develop my idea for Earth's sake. I can't make the above any simpler.
    -1 points
  23. Yes I know, science as it exists today is fundementally a provable entity. You have facts and causes and observable effects etc. However this is far too rigorous for human beings. We deserve better! What science should be like, is a thing like chess. You dont need to prove chess, you just follow the rules and you either win or lose. Can you prove the Ruy Lopez is a good opening? No you cant. Cant you prove a fork or a pin? Yes. But if people only followed the forks and pins chess would be such a limited game. With no grandmasters and the level of ability would stagnate at around average. Yet people are grandmasters because they follow not only the provable but also the speculations. There were Grandmasters like mikhail Tal who literarily played the most unscientific unprovable moves and yet the won games time and again. Science is like chess only limited to forks and pins with observable causes and effects. No wonder innovation and theories have stagnated today. Because speculations dont count. I have half a dozen brilliant nobel prize winning speculations on all areas of science, (that I would have indeed won nobel prizes for had this been the relaxed science era of 1500AD) Of course I couldnt verify them but who cares, they sound good and make sense to the wholy illogical human subconcious! Isnt that what science ought to be? Oh well, you bigwigs go back to playing fork-n-pin chess, while I soar towards Grandmastery in science. You can say what you like, but I'm a scientist alright. And so are all of you, that part that you discarded of yourselves in middle school when precision begged to differ with your deeper scientific selves.
    -1 points
  24. In my view, the secret to understanding science is through variables, math and the logic that governs language. For example, if you consider the statement "The ball fell down" You get a scientific scenario, whoely provable by exact science that There was a ball existing in t1 And t2 through t3 it executed the scientific process of falling down, obeying the laws of gravity. But the statement 'Fall the ball' doesnt make sense So language and variables it incorporates makes perfect scientific sense and indeed the groundwork for further scientific research. I contend scientific laws are parallel to the variable logic inherent in language. Now this means the underlying force behind each action in the universe amounts to a series of variables. t1=the ball + point A t2=ball +point B And the concept of falling is the the natural result of the universe observing the interraction as interraction = IF t1 THEN t2 I.E if ball + point A THEN ball + point B So there you observe the connection between science, logic language math and variables.
    -1 points
  25. If you look at my face (here it is) you will notice the near perfect symmetery in my features, which surely have a evolutionary advantage to it. They fit the famous 'golden ratio' theory that states that the more symmeteric one's face is, the more superior one is as a human being in some ways. Heres the theory https://interestingengineering.com/phi-and-the-mathematics-of-beauty What say? Am I superior, if only in symmetery? P.S if you do a reverse image search on that photo google actually identifies me as 'human' which supposing you view google search as a bio technological process, (half human half robot like a android) you will be pleased to see the verdict of a unbiased android resonates with me being a typical Human. Which I find most invigourating! Besides the law of the survival of the fittest contends that the most average blokes are the ones who are the most likely to evolve.
    -1 points
  26. The issue is to mix. As opposed to allowing one man to have all of his creed as females belonging to him and separating the colonies based on designated appearance. All these problems arise when you have more than one man and mix several different types of ants, like the Xenomorph Versus the Red Hive in comics, it doesn't work out and two Queens are always at each others throats. Then on top of that you have segregation of genders in this society, instead of a bunch of Blue Lagoons you have a Navy that separates the genders into a miserable fighting force that fights harder because of their forced same-gender melancholy. God gave us genitals, and then you have Heavens Gate and the relocation of all members of the Black Panther that aren't the Emperor nor his son the Prince being mixed with whites who have their own cuck weirdness as a psychostimulant for violence stemming from Great Britain. It's all quite fucked you see, why not separate the ethnicity and to each man their own ethnic female. Black kids to black man, white kids to white man??? Problem solved, no more violence. You see with nanotech we can do these things, we can make it so that all the individuals can inhabit one vessel while have their females as a proxy. At least that's my paradise lost.
    -1 points
  27. Human beings evolved into the best they could be. Throughout history however we have observed that inter human conflict played a large part in that evolution. But something like racism seems so absurd I doubt even science has a basis for it. For example, one can believe that wars break out over food clothing and shelter, but what possible explanation is there for an abstract concept like racism? An even abstracter, illogical explanation like 'inferiority complex' won't apply here I suppose. This is neither a speculation nor a theory, but a question to you science buffs.
    -1 points
  28. You write one thing and then post the opposite. Why mix? Mixing is what causes the hate. On both sides. There can only be one. To mix is to imply either art is imperfect being its own color.
    -2 points
  29. In essence the problem is why do we care so much about a person's individual preferences?? This can be mistaken as leaving it to popular opinion but my sentiments are quite the opposite of popular opinion, I think we need to make it a more individualized world using the technology. Ah, but that's problem, ya'll don't know the science like I do. Or the existential nature of how the spacetime really operates and what we're really made of. I don't just aptly give that away without getting a taste of that which I prefer to devour.
    -2 points
  30. That's the real trick isn't it. Having all the hacks
    -2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.