Leaderboard

I don’t think any humans live there, and mining on Jupiter and Saturn for use elsewhere would be moot since you couldn’t get a rocket out of their gravity well with our current technology. Rockets leaving earth are mostly fuel, with a little payload. Bump the escape velocity up a little, and it’s no-go.

It is uv light which is not gmo free and organically harvested.

I believe that the delivery of metals from asteroids to Earth will never be profitable, the only exception may be Uranium 235. But this does not exclude the use of metals from asteroids in the future. It will be possible to fly there with equipment and build spaceships on the spot.

Here's a catalogue of over half a million asteroids with financial estimates. They are approximate not only because of technological limitations and uncertainties, but also economic (as the Spanish found when they plundered all that gold and silver from the Americas, flooding European markets). I don't think much is known of Psyche's magnetic properties. SpaceX will be launching a NASA craft there next year, should rendezvous 2026, and will carry a magnetometer.

Let us know if you make any progress on any of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

Could be. The thing to keep in mind is that if anti matter had survived over normal matter, we would be calling anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter. 😉

IIRC, the gas giants are metal-poor, anyway. The rocky planets, and asteroids, are better sources of metal. Asteroids are ideal, with plenty of metal, and low-impulse required for hoisting out of their microgravity. For a beginner to the topic, I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson has an intro to asteroid mining somewhere in his blogs that's clearly written.

I'll look at the other responses and maybe learn something or add something, after I toss in my spontaneous one. That seems to me typical of an inquisitive mind and active imagination. Thoughts are hard to discipline; even after you find the right method that works for you, it takes years of practice to apply consistently. It's also possible that your mode of ideation is not primarily verbal, so you have to keep translating into grammatical format, and when your mind gets bored with that, it just kind of slides off the words; they become difficult to grasp and put into place. (That's a bit fanciful, but if it applies, you'll recognize it.) In its extreme form, I suppose ADHD comes closest. But I don't think you have the other symptoms. Almost certainly. But I can't say which would work for you - I'd have to know you very much better even to recommend one. I sometimes find it useful to make lists and notes, before a fleeting notion gets away, or i forget a figure. My desk is littered with pages from a notebook with gibberish scribbled all over them: url's, words i dislike, blog ideas, names, poem fragments, slogans, passwords, calculations. They're useless after a week or so, but in the moment, I find them helpful to draw a series of thoughts into some coherence. BTW, are you synesthetic?

Thank you for that link. +1 It is worth mentioning that the full programme is about 3 1/2 hours long but interesting nevertheless. The first 20 minutes offer a great companion summary to the emergence of early kingdoms in England in the timeslot (250 years) indicated but for more detail. I looked for the mid 6th century cold snap but couldn't find anything as dramatic as suggested in the video. http://www.longrangeweather.com/600bc.htm The programme also discusses events much further afield, covering Europe and into Asia. Here is a good compact verified souce written by a reliable historian and published just before Brexit in 2019. Unlike the dry list of dates and events (they are included but not prominent) so often found in formal history books, there is much sound analysis of causes and results, including many maps of disposition at different times. Approximately the last 2000 years is covered. Ireland is also included as are the rest of the British Isles.

I have been investigating a hypothesis, but in my opinion one can be mislead by ones own thinking. I am not an academic so colleagues are rare. I have a model in desmos and would like to hear what functioning of "i" might represent. I am not looking for conformation or rejection of my hypothesis, and the model is just a small part of the whole. I will gladly accept critique. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0evw4mw05u So, what is "i"?

Your 'i' is not a tensor; it's a (Euclidean) scalar (inverse spatial distance squared).

a,b,c are all gravitationally coupled, the model however focuses just on the relationship of the pair ab and the gravitational influence it has on c. Good question, how can a single point have gravitation... why is light speed c? Some things just are. a and b are not particles, they do interact, the interaction produces other properties, dimension, polarity etc. In my graviton universe, everything is gravitons all with tensor relationships to all others. All would be seeking a quiescent rest state, and that rest state constantly being disturbed by interactions between them. Mass the result of the summing of those relationships.

spin 2 Everything I have found indicates that the spin of a graviton must be spin 2 or spin 0, it is assumed to be spin 2 since a particle must have spin... my graviton is not a particle. I am not deciding that the oscillation of "i" is a photon, I am proposing it as an avenue of investigation. I may be wrong about the whole thing... but perhaps I am right? I think the hypothesis is valid enough for investigation. I ask questions here because as I have stated, isolation of thought can lead one to deceive ones self. All I have put into the model is point sources of gravitation. If by some miracle I am correct about the nature of the graviton, the rest of the universe remains to be investigated from here... a rather big job for just me. Please, if you want me to explore in a particular direction (some behavior of a photon?) direct me! This hypothesis begins at one end(the micro end) rather than from the middle looking to the micro and the macro from our station of observation. If you see any validity in this hypothesis and have the inclination, do some thought exploration. If you see no validity here, fine also. My gravitons are massless, the system of "ab" has dimension not the gravitons. "The currently accepted one" is a correct statement. Yes, an alternative as far as the graviton is concerned, and an alternative path to investigation. This is covered in my blog, I'm me if you would like a link.

As Swansont said: Gravitons move at speed c (they have no rest frame). Gravitons have spin 2. Gravitons are massless, so they cant have any characteristic length (radius of rotation). I see other problems (not completely unrelated): \( i \) seems to be an inverse length squared. But no 'internal' parameter describing a graviton can have length dimensions. Gravitons are not sources of gravitation, but the 'messenger particles' that carry it. Gravitons must have 'wave function' (field amplitudes) if we want them to obey quantum mechanics. Seems like you're trying to formulate an alternative physics, rather than modelling the known one.

spin 2 That’s not what I suggested. But you can’t decide that some element of the model is a photon, just because. Photons have known behaviors. You either put that in the model, or the model produces that behavior. Spin 1, massless, travels at c, etc. Not to me. See above. How can they not be particles themselves, if they interact? Same objection as before. Where does the model show that these are spin 1/2 leptons? Which family of neutrino?

What is the spin of a graviton? I did not corrupt my model by producing just what I wanted, this model is an investigation, not a proof. "I " is the measure of a tensor property. Photons have properties, and those properties are evident in this model. "a" "b" and "c" are points, they have no dimension, they have one property, gravitation. They are not particles. The interacting pair is a particle, although at this point I cannot say what particle, perhaps a neutrino?

Okay, suppose the graviton is not a quanta, it has no spin, no wave function, no dimension etc. it is simply a point source of gravitation. If "a,b,c" represent gravitons and "i" is the tensor between the center of gravity of the pair "ab" and "c" then an oscillation in "i" must represent a photon. I deduce this because the scale of this system is among the smallest possible, thus the orbital period of "ab" would be very short, hence the frequency of the gravitational wave in the tensor would have a very high frequency. Once the phase difference of 180 degrees between "a" and "b" has been disturbed they would tend to return to a quiescent state of 180 degrees out of phase. The produced photon would have a wave nature and a particle nature since the wave medium is a spacial single dimension entity. Because "ab" return to a quiescent state the photon would be a packet. I could elaborate on the return to a quiescent state, but my hope is that it is obvious to you. What obviously is missing here is mass, however I do explain this in my blog. If you would like a link, pm me. P.S. The pair "ab" is a particle, it has dimension, spin, polarity etc. Many other ideas are arising for me out of this first model, for example: The pair "ab" demonstrates polarity, but what about charge? Could it be that a phase shift produces charge? There are so many ideas springing from this model, I hope some of you take an interest, I am just one old man.

It’s defined near the bottom of the left column. It’s your model. You tell us what it represents. You’ve not explained anything about the model.

I am not going to commit suicide. This is not a plea for help. Please stay on topic for the question I am asking. I already know life is meaningless, and when I was younger I used to suffer from "dark" depressions where the thought of living was unbearable. I got older, learned a lot about Buddhism, and Stoicism, and they helped give me a lot of perspective. It took me a long time to come to accept how inherently bad the world is, and not want to just fall apart under the thought. Now, I can deal with the thought of getting up every single day without anything in my life improving (which is saying a lot because I have literally nothing I care about), and still get up everyday without it bothering me. But this has brought in a new thought. Why should I? Not, whats the point, I know there isn't one. I am not living for anyone else, no one would care at all if I died, but that isn't what I am talking about either. Instead of it being this "unbearable" thought, of how empty and meaningless everything is. Now I just have this long mental sigh. I bought the ticket and got on the ride, I am not going to jump off half way, mostly because I committed myself to never taking that way out when I was younger. My commitment will hold true but I don't know why I should besides that? I have seen what life has to offer and I am not impressed or interested. In anything. Does anyone else feel this way and what do you do to cope with the boredom? I legitimately wake up everyday and hope something will happen to either kill me, or at least make life more interesting. I don't even care if it was a terrorist attack. I have lived through pain, and fear, and uncertainty of whether or not I would live, and I can honestly say all of them are preferable to boredom.

You want easy to understand advice? Get over yourself. Grow up. Stop being a dick.