Mordred

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    6501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Mordred last won the day on July 5

Mordred had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1133 Glorious Leader

4 Followers

About Mordred

  • Rank
    Resident Expert

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.Cosmology101.wikidot.com

Profile Information

  • College Major/Degree
    University of the Caribou
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology and particle physics

Recent Profile Visitors

26084 profile views
  1. All forms of redshift are additive. It is plausible to counter cosmological redshift by gravitational or Dobbler shifts. They may have different causes however the effects upon frequency is the same. It's simply a matter of finding the right combination.
  2. Of course one must consider that distances will vary with solar sails due to having to tack. Just like a sail boat if you are approaching the sun then the route will be longer There is advantages in a propellant craft in this regard. Though it is quite advantageous to have a combination to save on fuel payload where viable
  3. I've never been more convinced this thread serves zero purpose than letting someone posting a personal complaint about his lack of any understanding of science
  4. Really you know all of physics. Then perhaps you can provide me the CKM mixing angles for right hand neutrinos. If you can't answer that then you Don't know all of physics. Or is that too scientific for you as it involves a number ?
  5. Well one fairly easy to predict probability function would be the spin of an electron. As there is only two spin states you would have a 50% chance of getting it right. Not sure how to answer the last considering macro processes can also involve a certain degree of randomness. However I would surmise that once you can define an event by strictly Newtonian mechanics with discrete values you have left the realm of dealing with quantum states. For example you would be 100 percent certain of the position without influence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
  6. Let's take for example the annihilation creation operators under QFT. One can statistically predict the average number density of particles. Though one will never be exact. Nor will you ever be exact on when a measurable particle will pop into existence at a specific coordinate. We can however estimate within an error margin these processes. The better the predictions is reduction in systematic errors the less random the process becomes. A true random process will have zero predictability.
  7. Considering we can develop a probability function for any known quantum process it's not fully random. The likely hood of occuring can be statistically accounted for. I for one cannot think of any formula or process quantum or otherwise that would count as true random.
  8. Here is a far more practical design to give you some better ideas and some useful factors to consider. Including formulas. M2P2 solar magneto sphere spacecraft. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/14f7/2f939b203de184adc83d6473541ce629741a.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiDipKm7b_jAhV1MH0KHUV9BvoQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2X_EaixugX6lDoOPTRZYsP 35 kg of harvested propellant is minor. Some of the speeds attainable with this design is significant Far better details on this link https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/space/M2P2/m2p2.PDF&ved=2ahUKEwj118Sh77_jAhUKip4KHS5dCakQFjABegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw39j3Uq8yNC1ZieSw31VHUg Considering that (according to this paper ) it's viable to reach speeds up to 50 to 75 km/s it's a far better alternative than chemical thrusters. (Assuming the papers accuracy) Even if this design doesn't agree with the OP some of the data within the article will be handy example being the data with regards to the solar winds which maintain significant speeds up to 80 AU You still require significant acceleration to combat solar winds and gravity. Think of paddling against a strong river current in a canoe... As a simple analogy. Not to mention the sheer size of our solar system. You don't want to be slower than Voyager 1 but ideally faster.
  9. You are aware the solar wind is of the order 10^-9 Newtons/ m^2 at 1au right ?
  10. Finally numbers that makes more sense lol. I just had to look it up the average person can blow 2 PSI roughly 13,789 Newtons per square metre
  11. There is when other forces are present. Ie gravity solar winds etc.You may as well have the astronaut blow through a tube it would probably generate more force.
  12. Perhaps more And you wish to counter a combination of the solar wind and Earth's gravity with this ? Please note Strange,'d comment
  13. Positive. Look up the definition of the unit Newton. "the SI unit of force. It is equal to the force that would give a mass of one kilogram an acceleration of one meter per second per second, and is equivalent to 100,000 dynes." I seem to recall an earlier post comparing wind blowing on a rock lol. Even in space you would require the correct amount of force to move your mass.
  14. I'm still not sure on your opposite law context for example let's take an opposite law of applying a force. The vector direction the object would move would be opposite. Perhaps you should start with The ramifications of the opposite of the three laws of inertia .
  15. Correct the existence of blackholes is another example. These were predicted decades before any observational evidence.