Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/12/19 in all areas

  1. 4 points
  2. 1 point
    I get it now. But it wasn't Hilbert's Hotel that helped me. It was a name I gave it. I call it: "Does not exist"
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    Also, the BB wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe. The BB theory describes only the development from an earlier very hot and very dense state. It's possible the universe has always existed.
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    We are ignoring the details because there are no details to discuss. The only things we can talk about at this point are generalities. We're 10,000 years (or whatever) from making an attempt at moving outside the solar system and you're shooting down the concept because of an only partially successful test done 25 years ago. Again, we all know this. If you are waiting for me to provide a proof of concept the wait is over; it's not coming. But unless you can provide something better than "it's going to be really hard" I see no reason to assume it cannot be done.
  7. 1 point
    And there's nothing wrong with this; you're here trying to find things out, which is great. But when you're repeating things you read or heard elsewhere, you should try and indicate the source. That's non-standard technology based in wishful thinking, and there is no guarantee that it's even possible to build and operate one, so it's not a proxy for a solution based on mainstream physics. (and here's an example where knowing this up front would have made it easier to respond to the statement)
  8. 1 point
    "They" do? Do "they" do a calculation to show this? Again, is there a calculation? (This is the third recent thread on interstellar travel where people seem to be allergic to any kind of rigorous analysis) The KE of a moving object is 1/2 mv^2 if we are not in the relativistic regime. That energy needs to be dissipated at the end of the trip to come to orbit around the destination, so you will need a minimum of mv^2. No process will be 100% efficient converting to KE. The mass of the probe is not fixed, so that makes this a more complicated problem, but if the mass changes are small we can get a decent approximation. The mass of the probe is M, and you need Mv^2 of energy. If your final speed is 0.1c then you have 0.01Mc^2 of kinetic energy. That's the minimum mass energy you need to convert to get there. But since you need to eject something to make your rocket work, there's a lot of energy that needs to go into whatever is providing you your thrust. The most efficient way (energetically) of doing this is to have a mass split in half, each moving at the final speed, after some explosion. That's doubles the energy required. But doesn't let you stop, unless you did something similar at the far end. So now you've got several percent of your mass being the antimatter, at a minimum. For a system that probably accelerates way to fast to be practical. The problem gets worse if you try for a larger final speed (Not that this is simple, since it's orders of magnitude faster than we've accelerated a macroscopic object.) because now you're using up more mass, meaning the total mass has to be bigger, and you're accelerating the fuel you need for later on, which increases your fuel demand. But it's nowhere near the energy available in the whole galaxy. You're not quite to the point if requiring half the ship to be antimatter, but that isn't far off, and for a more reasonable set of assumptions might be the case. (This assumes that you aren't getting propulsion form a source that isn't on board)
  9. 1 point
    The mass is what appears missing. It was only specified as "enough anti-matter to get the US space shuttle (34 Mtr long), to the nearest star." If you know how to calculate the mass from that, then the question can be answered.
  10. 1 point
    "On April 10th 2019, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) Collaboration will present its first results in multiple simultaneous press conferences around the world, and many satellite events organized by its stakeholder and affiliated institutions. Press conferences will be held simultaneously in Brussels (in English), Lyngby (in Danish), Santiago (in Spanish), Shanghai (in Mandarin), Tokyo (in Japanese), Taipei (in Mandarin), and Washington D.C. (in English), starting at 13:00 Universal Time [...] Major press conferences will be streamed live online via the following channels: Brussels: European Comission Youtube Channel Tokyo: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan channels on Youtube and Niconico Washngton: National Science Foundation Live Stream " Simulations and expected results can be found here : https://eventhorizontelescope.org/simulations-gallery More informations : https://eventhorizontelescope.org/science What do you think/expect, are you excited ? I surely am!
  11. 1 point
    On the board of such spaceship there would have to be enough regular matter to annihilate together with antimatter. You're mentioning just antimatter or both matter and antimatter? Explosion would be in frame-of-reference of moving object, obeying inverse-square law, plus-minus some tolerance. Given this info, what would be amount of photons reaching Earth. [math]P = \frac{P_0}{4\pi r^2}[/math] where r = half distance between the Earth and the Moon.. ?
  12. 1 point
    ...OP wrote in General Philosophy section of this forum.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction#Philosophy
  13. 1 point
    A voltage is not a field, so there’s an issue with this, but saying that a faraday cage only blocks AC is wrong. The field inside a conducting sphere depends only on the charge inside the sphere. Not the outside field. IOW, it blocks DC as well. Googling on ‘field inside conductor’ should give you many options for confirmation and explanation.
  14. 1 point
    No. If I posted something like I'd still be criticised for being wrong. OK, here is some information that may be useful to people working in conductive suits on high voltage systems. Make sure that any holes in the suit are small. The exact definition of "small" depends on context. In the particular case of a hole with a wire running through it the value tends to zero. Because, in the case of a "faraday cage" with a wire leading through a hole in it, you don't have a faraday cage.
  15. 1 point
    I watched a Youtube video by NileRed earlier this week about extracting bismuth metal from Pepto Bismol. I thought this was pretty cool and would like to try it for myself. Have any of you guys tried this, and if so can you share your results?
  16. 1 point
  17. -1 points
    An amendment to the introduction/abstract of my paper of the Unified Field Theory explaining resistance is what leads to time and mass. The more resistance the more time and weight...in 3 dimensions. The field described here provides a foundation which makes for clear simple logical explanations of gravity, electromagnetism, quantum entanglement, light, matter, teleportation, radio waves, radiation with the underlying principle being that everything we perceive is essentially vibrations/energy passing through the field. The field is a flexible fabric made up of quantum balls/particles connected by quantum string which are invisible at rest becoming visible when excited by vibrations/energy. The most direct hitting vibration ie. light moves almost seamlessly exciting each quantum particle as it passes. When watched it appears as a particle moving but it is not the particle rather the vibration which is moving through the quantum particles. With more energy/vibration the field begins to experience resistance leading to a stretch in the fabric leading to mass and time, time is directly proportional to mass in three dimensions. Because time has been percieved as one dimensional, (forward moving) observations have reflected only one time dimension but as this field provides a logical and verifiable explanation for the double slit experiment (also on this website with a new variation on the double slit experiment allowing us to cross check) a more complete picture is now possible. (Amended 12/07/2019 to clarify the effect of resistance and mention the new variation of the double slit experiment)
×
×
  • 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.