Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/17/19 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    thethinkertank has been placed in the queue for spamming the forum with an impressive amount of nonsense.
  2. 4 points
    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. 3 points
    I worked in architecture for three years. The architects know everything the masons know, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the millworkers, everything. The architects also had to know what the building inspectors know. An architect respects the methodology that leads to success, and a big part of that success is knowing all the tools in the box before trying to think outside it. The biggest problem with your approach is that you're making up solutions without the necessary knowledge, so ALL your explanations make PERFECT sense to you (because you don't know any better, right?). But those who studied these things can easily see where you're wrong, they tell you, but it makes less sense to you than your PERFECT solution, so you ignore them. You remain convinced that you have solutions nobody has thought of before. Imagine you're a famous songwriter, with hundreds of hit songs to your credit, known the world over as one of the best in your profession. Now imagine that I tell you that I've never written a song before, but I have some great ideas that will be sure to shake up the musical world with their brilliance. I show you some of my ideas, and it's very obvious I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm convinced my songs are wonderful, but you know they aren't. You know, because of your knowledge and experience, that they have no appeal, they won't be accepted, and they make no sense musically. I don't use the right phrases, my timing isn't right, and because I know nothing about songwriting, my songs would take SO MUCH WORK TO FIX that it would be easier to just send me to a music teacher and insist I learn about the thing I so desperately want to change. I love your enthusiasm, but you need to study science. It's not something you can understand without a LOT of layered, nuanced analysis of multiple fields. Right now, it's like you're trying to tell a foreign country what they're doing wrong, and you don't even speak their language (math is the language of physics). Does that make sense?
  4. 3 points
    No, but you do require knowledge, ability, and the recognition of where those things are lacking. I don't want to discourage your enthusiasm but you are acting like a ten year old who thinks he is ready to start practicing medicine because he watched an episode of Doogie Howser, M.D.
  5. 3 points
    I don’t see why we can’t stay here. Even if some people do go off and explore / colonise space, most people will stay here. But apparently it might not be so difficult for civilisations to spread through the galaxy: https://www.quantamagazine.org/galaxy-simulations-offer-a-new-solution-to-the-fermi-paradox-20190307/
  6. 2 points
    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.
  7. 2 points
    I think it fits to a personality disorder. My first guess is narcissist personality disorder, maybe schizotypal.
  8. 2 points
    "Well, I emailed CERN" Try this; you might get a better response. http://www.claus.com/postoffice/tosanta.php One (among many) concerns with CO2 production from fossil fuels is the damage being done when it dissolves in sea water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification So saying " I think we as humans ought to go ahead with the idea and implement it anyway" suggests that you are an idiot or a maniac. Which is it?
  9. 2 points
  10. 2 points
    I find them pretty helpful in determining with whom I'm interacting and what their history is
  11. 2 points
    Once you give AI an objective function to maximise it will do so indiscriminately. If the agent is intelligent enough to realise that someone could try to change its objective function it will take measures to ensure that doesn't happen - as that would interfere with it's current objective. Re-programming such an agent would be difficult - and impossible for itself. This has a name in AI safety circles, but it currently escapes me*. One solution put forward is actually to allow some doubt over the objective function, so that the agent will have to seek external validation (human satisfaction for instance). Such an agent is constantly re-evaluating it's goals in light of sensory input (humans smiling or something more sensible), and might be safer. The biggest problem for AI safety is the likelihood that various states and companies will rush towards developing the technology and so neglect these sorts of safety concerns. *It comes under the banner of Instrumental convergence. Basically unconstrained AI agents might be expected to behave in similar ways, because they all help maximise objectives, regardless of the objective. Things like self-preservation and resource acquisition would help an AI achieve its goals for obvious reasons. Goal-content integrity would similarly help it achieve that goal.
  12. 2 points
    Here is a problem. You don't "get" any "area" in science without thorough study. We haven't seen any evidence that you "get" ANY areas, but it's clear you think you have a great deal to offer. Part of the reason your posts are getting negative rep is because your lack of methodology is counter to what science is trying to achieve. The steps science uses in order to trust it's explanations on various phenomena are plodding and deliberate and analytical. We make sure our footing is sound before taking the next step. What you're doing is leaping from one thing you think you understand to another thing you think you understand. You aren't taking the steps in between to build supportive evidence and reasoned conclusions that would allow anybody to see what you're doing and repeat it. If science is like trying to find the best path to cross a frozen lake, you're leaping from one unsupported chunk of ice to another. You seem to think it means you're abnormally intuitive about science, and don't need to learn about it to criticize it. I think you'd earn the same reputation at a fine arts discussion forum if you suggested flinging randomly colored paints at a canvas is all you need to make a masterpiece.
  13. 2 points
    Implicit in this response is the suggestion that you've read through every single other thread that has arisen here through the years on the topic of IQ. Given that you haven't, not only are you a troll, but you're a liar... and I know who you are... have you seen you enough times under other usernames.
  14. 2 points
    I normally don't visit other threads, but maybe I will. Its unlikely that I will start getting aggressive due to many negative points because there is nothing to be gained out of it, and it contributes nothing to my ideas to get aggressive. I am only concerned about the possibility that many negatives automatically qualify one to banhood.
  15. 2 points
    Just so you know, most people answering so far in your multiple thereads (which you all posted over a period of few hours while being on the forum for 1 day) are professional scientists - physicists, biologists, chemists, some of them have PHD’s. Why do you think its appropriate to march into a science site full of those people shouting that you have it all figured out? I have a tip for you...choose a subject and try spending a few months on this forum in a specific section of it and pursue your ideas, see where it gets you and what you can learn. You wont get far just by informing everyone that you figured out some area of science without posting your model/evidence - you’ll get bashed everytime you do that. Also, your narcissistic attitude is a big show stopper for you, even if you already were a Nobel prize winner and came here with that attitude you’d get bashed too. Change your attitude and stay to learn or keep it up and pretty quickly you’ll be gone from here ending up at some crackpot site looking for respect and justification of your baseless ideas. Most probably you will find those at one of the pseudo science sites on the internet.
  16. 2 points
    Seems someone learned a few scientific terms, and thinks that by stringing them together in a post, he's doing science. It is gibberish. Learn some science !
  17. 2 points
    Narcissism and delusion may be better descriptors. Correction: Theories are fine, but have a very specific meaning in science. They are supported by evidence and offer testable predictions. They are, in fact, more powerful and on a higher plane than laws and facts. What you have are conjectures, maybe hypotheses or speculations, but more accurately they’re wild assed guesses worthy of no self-respecting persons time. Precision matters. In math, you don’t get to substitute banana for X or Tuesday for addition. Same with scientific ideas. This is a good thing, despite your lamentations. You probably should’ve posted this in the Comments and Feedback forum: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/28-suggestions-comments-and-support/
  18. 2 points
    There is nothing "uncontrollable" about antimatter. It doesn't have any bizarre properties that you seem to imagine it has. We use antimatter in PET scans. Isotopes of some elements decay through the emission of positrons ( the antimatter counterpart to the electron). These positrons then mutually annihilate with the first electron they encounter, producing a couple of gamma ray photons. By giving a patient a small dose of a substance that contains one of these isotopes, they can use scanners to track it through the body by its positron emissions. What is difficult to do with antimatter is store it on Earth in any great quantities. When antimatter comes in contact with "normal" matter, they mutually annihilate each other. Since any antimatter we make is surrounded by regular matter, the trick is to keep the two apart. This is done by using "magnetic bottles" which hold the antimatter in a vacuum and use electric and magnetic fields to keep it from touching the material walls ( this in itself shows that antimatter is controllable with natural forces. Even then, we can't store it for too long. We can't produce a perfect vacuum, which means the antimatter is still going to encounter stray atoms over time and slowly be "eroded" away. The log term storage of antimatter is a technological issue and not one due to some "uncontrollable" nature of antimatter.
  19. 2 points
    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.
  20. 1 point
    I’m a 19 year old boy. I have green eyes and dark blonde/light brown hair and I’m 5’6. My mom also has dark blonde/light brownish hair and green eyes and she’s 5’4. My dad is 6’4 and he has brown eyes and brown hair. I just want the truth since my mom is denying it and this is the only place I can think of that will help me find out if my dad is my real, biological dad.
  21. 1 point
    Exactly. Both Na2CO3 and NaHCO3 dissolve very good in water, as does NaCl. So all ions will stay in solution in the water, however the H+-ions introduced by the CO2 solution in water will contribute to the acidification (is that English?) of the sea. So it is really a bad idea.
  22. 1 point
    Mt you tube channel is tiny and about aquariums, if you want space and technology check out Isaac Arthur's Channel...
  23. 1 point
    It is a lot easier to make a system with compartmentalized functions. For instance, the stomach needs to both produce and be able to withstand large amounts of acidic material. The beginning of the small intestine subsequently neutralizes this acid and then starts to digest specific types of nutrients (proteins, fats and sugars) in an order (I can't remember what is taken up where, but each place is specialized to take up specific groups of nutrients). This then allows for specific groups of bacteria to sit in those niches helping the body even further. Lastly the water is taken up in the large intestine, something you wouldn't want to do before that as it would make it a lot more difficult to take up nutrients. Thus even if you would make 1 organ capable of doing all of these tasks, it would still follow the sequential nature of the current digestive track. Food needs to first be made into pieces that are easily taken up. Every nutrient type should be taken up as efficiently as possible. Lastly water needs to be taken up. Hope that helps -Dagl
  24. 1 point
    Welcome! Thinking outside the box is admirable, but first one must be familiar with what is inside the box.
  25. 1 point
    Early man was essentially powerless in nature. He could hunt and forage for food, build shelter and care for a family, but he and his family were largely at the mercy of the natural elements. Having the intelligence to be dissatisfied with this situation, man began to wish for something better and to visualize beings who had power over the elements and did not have human limitations. This is the origin of Gods. Thus, early gods tended to reflect the needs of mankind: Gods of the hunt, the harvest, and of all things good in life. As mankind grew and developed into larger tribes and had territorial conflicts, the Gods of battle and war emerged-- because a warrior who could win was what mankind needed. As man recognized the limitations if death and yearned for more life, gods became immortal. When civilizations developed and mankind had a better lot in life, such as early Grecian and Roman societies, mankind yearned for pleasures that the moral standards of society tended to limit, and the immortal gods emerged that had to power to have limitless love affairs and debauchery. In simple terms, our Gods have always tended to represent the things we wish we could have in life but cannot always have due to our human limitations.