Curious layman

I was thinking about how much china will consume, but that would of course have the opposite effect wouldn't it. still think they'll never balance it though, most of what china sells to US is cheap stuff which benefits the poor mainly, they can't compete with the wages ( and government subsidies ). And most Chinese, more than the population of America I believe, are still poor, and America doesn't make that much cheap stuff anymore. Not to mention the fact that most Chinese are nationalistic and prefer there own stuff. But is that any different to Germany or even America!

It seems completely stupid to me to even think America and China can have an balanced trade deficit, china has over 1 billion people, America has over 300 million, just by its sheer size it will always have a trade deficit. i think America just has to come to terms with the fact there not going to be no1 anymore.

I thought that was the most potent thing we could use for propulsion, but thinking about it maybe a blackhole type engine, but is that even possible outside of Star Trek? maybe something more exotic would be needed. Dark energy maybe.

Just occurred to me.... the new energy source would also have antimatter! Duh.

To me engineering is the manipulation of science, the light bulb being the best example. I was reading about the graviton, apparently it's so small we won't be able to do anything with it i.e. Manufacture it for use in industry. If physics is at the stage when it's discoveries are at this point, does that mean there are certain areas of engineering where it will no longer be possible to come up with new ideas. or are there so many different variations of chemicals etc that we can continue to come up with completely original ideas indefinitely?

Are there any ideas what they could be? I thought that antimatter was the best there was?

I was thinking when the sun isnt around anymore, will be a long time but at some point we will have to leave, or am I wrong?, i was thinking about how to stop us from dying out. I know it sounds gloomy but what if we're the only intelligent (conscious) life, I think we have a responsibility to make sure we spread it out across the galaxy/ universe. I was under the impression that leaving the solar system just to go to the nearest star was virtually impossible, but not so sure now. that quotes very interesting too, never thought about it like that before, does this mean that in the future we will be able to see parts of the universe we can't see now due to us being on the other side of the galaxy?

Forward time travel definitely (time dialation), backwards I'd say impossible, but not 100% on that, I've heard arguments that say you can and you can't. in practice though I'd say both are impossible due to the amount of energy required.

Your Your right about the microbes, would be pointless come to think of it, Nice links, will check out your you tube channel also.

I was thinking about humans expanding out into the universe (we can't stay here forever can we?), it just seems impossible (travelling close light speed anyway), wouldn't it make more sense to focus on simple, basic forms of life. Using our knowledge to be responsible for life itself expanding into the galaxy, instead of ourselves. As for the microbes, I was thinking more about sending probes to planets to "kick start" life, obviously this would take billions of years. The emphasis is on how to give life the best chance to survive and continue to evolve. I disagree when you say it's not even difficult, surely the distances would make it highly improbable? What about air, you could be travelling for thousands of years between stars. I do think that there are aliens in the solar system, but not big green things though, microbes and bacteria.

Never really believed but didn't not believe either, just accepted it (god) as normal when I was I kid in U.K., started to really think about god during the famine in Ethiopia, seeing pictures of snipers killing kids in Bosnia didn't help either, not to mention the holocaust. There have been times when I've leaned towards religion in the past though.

No idea, but what a stunning photo, better than any painting.

I personally think that human intelligence/complexity is a double edged sword, it's allowed us to become advanced, but the next stage of human evolution is space, and space is the most extreme environment there is, it seems impossible to practically get humans out out the solar system, too much energy, we need stimulation, prone to disease, food, water, vitamins etc... Its this reason I think the next "branch" on the tree of life won't be a more advanced version of us but more of a devolution, just basic life forms, microbes that we send of towards planets in habitatal zones, after that I think the next branch will be new civilisations. What do you think? Do you think we're just to complex to realistically leave the solar system? I think in the future the emphasis will be to get life out in to the universe, rather than humans. This is also why I think UFO ( aliens ) is nonsense, there'd have the same problems as us, so unless they were born in the solar system it would be impossible. Not sure if this should be in speculations.

I disagree with the statement that a low iq is a plus for the military, your underestimating the stress and the equipment the military has to use today, also the decisions they have to make under fire. You don't want people with a low iq doing this. Also the iq/standard they required from doctors will probably go up or down depending on situation, I imagine they wouldn't have to picky during the First World War for example. thats a very interesting video too, seen it before, Found it very thought provoking. sorry op says military or doctor not military doctor. My bad.

True, a lot cheaper too, not to mention the benefits to wildlife. This trend towards vegetarian and vegan foods will help too.

Easier to hit the sun than a black hole!! Well that's even more interesting, but does make sense. Cheers

This is something I've thought was true for along time- that if you were travelling at 99.9% the speed of light then from your perspective it would take you about 30 years to travel across the entire universe. If this is true then does this mean that travelling at half that speed would take 60 years? Or does it only take effect at a certain speed. Because if this was true wouldn't that mean that travelling to the nearest star at just say 10% the speed of light would take about a week if you were on the ship?

Ah yeah "duh", should of made the connection, was reading about that not long ago as well!! What about the carbon from the carbon capture though, would this be a good source material for graphene? I was thinking about global warming and I think carbon capture technology would have a bigger impact than renewables.

Hi, will it be possible to make diamonds using super strength magnets? I was thinking about being able to make diamonds like thin sheets of glass instead of really small like they do now. If you could, could you make the diamond so thin it would be flexible? I was also thinking about all the applications of mass produced diamonds and maybe it would be good way to use the carbon from carbon capture programs. What do you think?

Ok good, thanx for that, I get it now, it would fly into the sun eventually, and it could orbit around a black hole, it depends on its trajectory. Those links were really great too. Zapatos really nailed it for me though.

I thought if you fired off a probe towards the sun it wouldn't just into to it, it wouldn't get anywhere near it, but if you fired a probe into a black hole obviously it would go straight into it, why the difference?

It was a thread I'll look for it, I know a black hole is inescapable but why isn't it easy to get something to the surface of the sun using the same principles as a black hole, why doesn't the sun just pull you straight in, albeit a lot slower, like a black hole does. Thanx for link. Will read.

Ok bad word, not land but use the sun as a nuclear waste dump, overcoming the gravity ( I think) would make it so difficult it would be pointless, but then why doesn't the same principle apply to a black hole, I don't actually want to throw waste into a black hole that was just an example. I thought that this meant that a rotating black hole would be like trying to dump nuclear waste into the sun but a non rotating black hole would just suck you straight in.

Sorry poor explanation, I was reading a thread which explained why it would be difficult and pointless to dump nuclear waste into the sun, basically the sun would just cause you too orbit around super fast the only way to counter this would require so much energy it would be pointless. I was wondering would a black hole have the same effect, so if you flew near one it would more likely cause you to orbit around. I know it sounds dumb but why is it hard to "land" on the sun but not a black hole, is it because it's so massive. Thanx for reply btw.

Hi I was reading about how putting nuclear waste into the sun would be pointless, due to orbital mechanics, and needing more energy than it take to leave the solar system, but what about black holes? does that mean it would actually be a lot more difficult to get into a black hole than people realise, my head says no but surely the same principle applys?, does it apply to spinning black holes only. Confused, please help.