Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/30/20 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    IIRC an O'Neill cylinder actually consists of 2 counter-rotating ( once about every 2 min ) cylinders, about 5 mi in diameter, and 20 mi in length. Each cylinder is divided lengthwise into 6 alternating transparent and habitable areas,, for a total habitable area of almost 1900 mi^2. Since these cylinders rely on sunlight just as the Earth does, any travel away from the Sun would need not only propulsive power, but also a replacement for sunlight. You mentioned nuclear power ( fission ), but that would involve carrying all of the fuel for the long journey with you, as well as the shielding. Your original idea of fusion ( from a Bussard ramjet type of propulsion/power source ) seems more practical, other than the fact that it doesn't exist yet ( fusion in a hi-speed flow ), and may never exist; and you would still need an alternate means of propulsion ( chemical or fission ) to get up to sufficient speed for the 'scoops' to be efficient, and establish orbit at your destination. Then you would need landing craft, and fuel to make all the landings ( and take-offs ) to transfer the ( by then ) large colony of the two cylinders. Once you actually start considering the scale and logistics of such a project, you realize how immense an endeavor it actually is. But it does seem simple enough to say " You take an O'Neill cylinder, slap a fusion reactor on one end, and you have your slow boat."
  2. 2 points
    It's a joke! But the Pentagon has this week declassified these films and admitted publicly they have no idea what they were but just between you and me the Pentagon would lie if their agenda required it. I can say for a fact the incident showed on the radar of an advanced system destroyer, Arleigh Burke class I think. As for the aircraft radar, I'll try to dig it up if you are really interested. Come on swansonT, you can do better than that, physics in no way prevents star travel... https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/27/politics/pentagon-ufo-videos/index.html https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2020/04/27/pentagon-releases-videos-of-encounters-between-ufos-and-navy-pilots/ https://www.wired.com/story/does-it-matter-that-the-dod-released-those-ufo-videos/ Different view points, guys I didn't post Caspers video to prove alien spacecraft are visiting but to show they were not bugs on the lens. Personally I think this smells a lot like a weird military exercise that was exposed and the pentagon is more than willing to let people's imaginations run wild about the Tic tac...
  3. 2 points
    Let's put this into perspective. You want someone to do the math for you. Ok so would you understand the statement. The first property in the definition of a Calabi-Yau manifold. X is compact if every collection of sets [math]V_j\in\tau[/math] which covers X ie [math] X=U_jV_j[/math] which has a finite subcover. If the index j runs over finitely many sets then this condition is met. If j runs over infinitely many sets. This would require that there exists a finite subcollection of sets... This is an example of compactification for the topological spaces used in Calabi-Yau manifolds. Source being String Theory on Calabi-Yau manifolds by Brian R Green. Can possibly understand that statement without understanding differential geometry and holonomies of topological spaces ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_space https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_space https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter_space https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_space_(mathematics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space The following links above all involved in the example I gave.
  4. 1 point
    Indeed. How could a UAV out-maneuver an F 18? Further, Commander Favor described seeing a vehicle with no exhaust (which would have shown up on the FLIR), no stabilizer fins of any kind, or no other discernible means of propulsion. He described a capsule like object - hence the "tic-tac" moniker. It simply moved at will where it wanted to go in such a way that the Black Aces squadron could not keep up with it.
  5. 1 point
    What I am saying is that once we establish a manufacturing base in space that uses in situ materials the economics of space flight will change. Right now everything has to be dragged out of the Earth's gravity well, the economics of that is truly staggering but building a brobdingnagian object in space using materials already there will cut costs considerably. Perhaps I dumbed down the concept a bit, I am trying to avoid as much typing as possible since I almost sliced off my thumb a few days ago. Yet trying to type fast to avoid the boss, my wife my wife hits me in the head with a ball bat, plastic thank god, when she catches me... Actually, if you on a slow boat fuel requirements are smaller and a solar sail could be used to slow down at the end. I am honestly unaware of where I made any claims about speed, please let me where and I'll either defend to admit i was wrong. See above... An actual dyson sphere consisting of a solid sphere covering the sun violates all known and hypothetical physics... https://www.space.com/38031-how-to-build-a-dyson-swarm.html Sending small objects in orbit to build larger structures is currently being done, the international space station is an example. ???? I was answering the idea that physics prevent star travel when in fact it does not.We currently have two space craft on the way to doing it. Time and energy are what it's all about, which do you have the most of? "To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel.... If you did not say these things were impossible I apologize Please show me were I am tap dancing around anything? Building things in microgravity redefine scale... I cannot find where I claimed much of the stuff you are asking about,sadly there appears to no way to tell what number post I said these things, I feel overwhelmed swansonT but I will say,and please take note of this I am hear to learn not to convince people of things not true but answering this post makes me feel like you have mistaken I said either out of context or attributed to me something someone else said. I need help here, please show where I claimed these things. I have labeled them with question marks for your benifit...
  6. 1 point
    We cannot have one without the other. Test should not be random either. In the perfect scenario, everyone gets tested and has follow ups. If that is not possible one should prioritize likely cases as it is done in most areas, but it has to ramp up to capture those that may be unknown spreaders. Without that knowledge, containment plans have to be overkill to work, as you do not have a clear view of the spread if your test happens to be biased towards known cases. In turn that means that we need the ability to ramp up testing capacity as needed (the situation in the US is quite ridiculous, where states are competing with each other in a dystopian bidding war), have a centralized knowledge gathering and distribution system as well as means to conduct contact tracing. There are also specifics to this outbreak that need tweaks in methodology. For example, the worry about asymptomatic spread might need to be addressed via supplementary immunoassays, if direct testing for viral particles cannot be ramped up. Again, COVID-19 is one of many outbreak test runs we already had (in this century alone) and the common lesson is that a) we need to improve our response and b) periods of no outbreaks cannot allows us to reduce preparedness. Epidemics and pandemics will keep occurring, it is just a matter of when and where.
  7. 1 point
    We will never have complete information. We need to strive for as much as we can (and can afford), and tailor our restrictions to our circumstances, to get the balance right. The risk/reward for this is very asymmetric. We gain very little but time to plan and prepare while holding new cases near zero, but pay dearly if things get out of hand...and we don't really know at what point that can happen. So we have to err on the side of caution...then pay our money, take our chances, and hope for the best. Re-opening won't be one size fits all.
  8. 1 point
    Wasn't my claim... First I am going to assume you mean a dyson swarm and not an actual sphere which is beyond any known materials physical strength, actual or theoretical. A dyson swarm is just physical application of known materials and physics. Orbital insertion requires technology much the same way a dyson swarm does as does a O'Neil cylinder. To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel.... An O'neill cylinder is well within the boundaries of current technologies much the same as sending something into earth orbit is, just on a larger scale...
  9. 1 point
    Yet they can exist unlike ftl star ships? Who says astronauts have to be involved? The cost of setting up a place to manufacture them is costly, once you have that infrastructure the cost falls off. Can you think of how costly building a modern car would have been in the 19th century? Why is it too expensive and too slow? I have not suggested any impossible technology and only fusion has yet to be invented and you could do it with nuclear power, it would just be more difficult... So if something hasn't been invented yet it's impossible? Tell that to Einstein... The economics will be a problem but not forever. I honestly don't know how to answer this, it's like you are asking me to prove physics doesn't prevent space flight... I'm not sure what you mean Other than fusion, which I admitted wasn't a thing yet, I think you need to elaborate about what you mean by "science that is not currently confirmed" and "conjecture"... Until you do something it's conjecture but as long as the conjecture isn't impossible I think you are incorrect. I can conjecture from a knowledge of physics that orbital insertion of a satellite is possible without doing it...
  10. 1 point
    They can move subjectively fast with lights on in the dark.
  11. 1 point
    I'm not sure it does, but if we assume this is true then almost certainly it's because the lotion or petroleum jelly do a better job of holding on to the volatile scent compounds and molecules than bare skin does. They evaporate off the bare skin more rapidly than the lotion or vaseline where they're more likely to remain "caught."
  12. 1 point
    @MigLHere is another plausible form of technology that could have been used: CODE (Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment) CODE 1: https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-01-21 CODE: 2https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-06-03 Except from the article: DARPA’s Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE) program seeks to help the U.S. military’s unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) conduct dynamic, long-distance engagements of highly mobile ground and maritime targets in denied or contested electromagnetic airspace, all while reducing required communication bandwidth and cognitive burden on human supervisors. "CODE’s modular open software architecture on board the UASs would enable multiple CODE-equipped unmanned aircraft to navigate to their destinations and find, track, identify, and engage targets under established rules of engagement." "During Phase 2, DARPA plans to implement an initial subset of the behaviors within each of the two open architectures and use those architectures to conduct live flight tests with one or two live UASs augmented with several virtual aircraft. If those tests are successful, DARPA could move to Phase 3, in which one team would test the capabilities using up to six live vehicles cooperating among themselves and with additional simulated vehicles. These UAVs look very similar to what Fravor described. Very similar indeed.
  13. 1 point
    I can see an electromagnetic disturbance, such as lightning. And while a weather radar would certainly pick it up, I'm not sure an I band pulse doppler radar would. Diagnostics only look for 'known' glitches. Say there was excessive solar flare activity, which might affect a wide band radar, would that show up on the diagnostics the next day, if the solar activity had subsided ? I don't think I'd be jumping to extra-terrestrial conclusions as my first choice; just sayin'.
  14. 1 point
    I take it that’s a “no” The incident showed up on radar of the aircraft? Irrelevant in regard to my question. Yes, well...physics.
  15. 1 point
    I am not talking about whether China might or might not have been forthright or who is more or less honest. That is not terribly productive in itself, and I am mostly concerned about facts we know or which are missing. What I am saying is that if there was a cover-up, it does not appear to had any functional consequences. Therefore there was no reason to not to heed the warnings. Or conversely, stating that folks were taken by surprise due to China hiding the infection is ridiculous, given the massive lockdown on the 23rd of January and the inaction of e.g. the US between then and March. If they hid something, and the something does not change our knowledge on the infection, why would it matter? It would then all be a discussion about who is bad and who is not, and not about whether the information is reliable and useful. And that is a very dangerous stance, because you are essentially saying we should throw out all the data from China as they are all wrong. Luckily (or sadly) by now we also have data in other countries that a very similar picture, pretty much invalidating that assumption. And here is the other thing, we are science oriented forum, so data is king. If we look at that dispassionately we (so far) do not find strong evidence of any meaningful manipulation (aside the points I mentioned before, which are not really hidden). So I am asking, what is the benefit of just assuming things with evidence, other than becoming more vulnerable to manipulation and spin? There is already the narrative that the one pushing the responsibility to WHO and China rather than acknowledging failures in own responses. Because from the latter we can learn and improve, but the former will keep us in blissful ignorance (until the next outbreak hits). Let me be clear, there are two major narratives, mostly pushed by the US at this point. One is that the inability of China (or willingness) to report on the original clusters of pneumonia up to the end of December has cost the world time to react. The issue with that is even after that only few countries started to implement measures whereas the US and others have done little until March. And there are emerging reports that intelligence services have notified folks of these clusters of infections almost as soon as the Chinese CDC, and drew their own conclusions (but apparently not resulting in any reactions from the administration) And even in March before the lockdown, folks were not asked at airports regarding their travels. So that does not line up. Associated with that is that folks could have closed borders earlier. The issue with that one, is I believe that either in the US or Canada more infections were coming from Europe than from China.Which is why the big world-wide waves started actually way later than anticipated (as China was shutting down). The second is that China is hiding some big secret, which, for some reasons, does not change epidemiological data in any relevant way. So not only it is not clear what is missing, it also fails to show any impact (at least on the scientific side of things). But again, it does not impact folks to learn about the virus, nor to implement meaningful measures, as you insinuated earlier (how can it if it does not change the meaning or interpretation of the published data?). If one does not take responsibility to ones own failures (in China's case free distribution and discussion of information, in the US' case acting on actually available information and in many other countries learning from timely and effective responses in other countries), these issues will crop up again. And there is not guarantee that the next one will not have an origin in, say, North America.
  16. 1 point
    That is nonsense. Plenty of folks took it seriously, their pandemic responses teams activated early January. China shut down whole provinces and tanking their economy and risking unrest. That alone was a strong signal (and WHO raised their warning levels at the same time). I mean seriously, what would have been a warning sign if not that? Obviously China (as well as other countries hit by SARS) took it seriously at the latest toward the end of January (again, there was an unprecedented shutdown). Other countries, including US and Europe did not react until late February to March. Folks such as the RKI in Germany have acknowledged that they should have done more contact tracing, for example. In addition it is a weird cover up that managed to create perfectly predictive data. So far transmission rates, lethality, effects of age and comorbidity all seem to line up with data all over the world so either they new the correct numbers and fudged it to much or they covered up something that had no impact on our undersanding. In that case if something was covered up, what would it even theoretically be? Everything that happened in China is now happening elsewhere with the same intensity (or worse, depending on the response). So what is being covered up that so well matches all observations so far? I do not expect the Chinese government to be forthright, but it is silly to assume that this causing in poor responses elsewhere as, again everything that came out of China so far was shown to be fairly predictive. In addition to all that, there was also data coming out from countries that started early testing, so by February we also had range of strategies on display, including total lockdown (China), enhanced contact tracing eventually followed by testing (e.g. Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, South Korea). Well, or nothing.
  17. -1 points
    “physics in no way prevents star travel” Were any claims made based on measurements? As with Alex’s comment earlier, how about not relying on unproven technology or science that is not currently confirmed. Conjecture is not evidence
  18. -1 points
    You asked “How about the speed claims?” I want details. You don’t get to back out by saying they weren’t yours. You brought it up. You need to defend it. No, assume I meant what I said. My point. Have your claims been tested to a degree that would allow one to see if there is a similar violation? Or are they flights of fancy with similar disregard? And yet one of these actually exist (using technology from ~60 years ago) and the others do not. Don’t be moving the goalposts. I did not claim anything was impossible, especially in the context of physics laws being violated. My first response was to the claim about people who “think it likely that extra terrestrials may have visited Earth” You talked about physics preventing it. (I noted that you don’t have any analysis to support that.) And now we’re at “impossible” Nope. Not letting you get away with that, especially on top of you backing out of other claims. Every time you are asked to support claims, you start tap-dancing. Scale is often a problem
  • 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.