Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


zapatos last won the day on July 1

zapatos had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1375 Glorious Leader

1 Follower

About zapatos

  • Rank
  • Birthday October 11

Profile Information

  • Location
    St. Louis
  • College Major/Degree
    BS, MBA
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation
    Scientific and Medical Publishing

Recent Profile Visitors

36926 profile views
  1. I'm a novice too, but if a theory makes a testable prediction the theory is falsifiable. SR predicts time dilation (among others) and this is shown to be correct every time you use Google Maps to find your way home.
  2. Per your usual, you have created a word problem that cannot be solved due to its ambiguity, and would accomplish nothing if it could be solved.
  3. We are ignoring the details because there are no details to discuss. The only things we can talk about at this point are generalities. We're 10,000 years (or whatever) from making an attempt at moving outside the solar system and you're shooting down the concept because of an only partially successful test done 25 years ago. Again, we all know this. If you are waiting for me to provide a proof of concept the wait is over; it's not coming. But unless you can provide something better than "it's going to be really hard" I see no reason to assume it cannot be done.
  4. Yes, we all know that we have not yet created a self sufficient system. That is why it's being discussed here. So food, warmth, energy sources and reaction mass require a magic wand? We made it to the moon. Do you think a trip to Mars is out of the question? How about the moons of Jupiter? At what point do we have to abandon physics, technology and engineering, and resort to the magic wand? All you are suggesting is that since we don't know the answers now, it will be impossible without magic.
  5. Yes, it was only an analogy. The point was that self sufficient systems exist in nature and so should not be dismissed out of hand. And I was hoping for more than a hand-waving dismissal of the possibility. Simply saying 'we've never been able to do it before' is hardly a damning rebuke. What constraints do we face that are likely to never be overcome? Does slow expansion violate any laws of physics? Is building a self-sustaining system unlikely to ever be achieved due to some demonstrated constraint?
  6. What is the endpoint of our trip on Earth? We are effectively on a spaceship right now going nowhere. People on islands are moving across the ocean at much less than 1 km per year. While creating a self-sufficient spacecraft is not something we will achieve anytime soon, it hardly seems out of the question.
  7. There is a simple solution for that. Time. Really? We haven't gone back to the moon because it is too far away? Well thought out and presented argument. Circular logic. I agree, it is probably pointless to discuss this with you.
  8. We already have a spacecraft that has left the solar system. No need to wait for the distant future, we could have already sent dead people on their way to another star. Please be specific with some issue preventing us from traveling to another star that we will never overcome. Wow. Not even sure how to respond to this one.
  9. I suspect that if our star was going to no longer be an energy source for us in the relatively near future that we would begin work on an inter-stellar ship for people. I don't see current physics stopping us.
  10. Your continued misuse of the English language is another factor making it difficult to have meaningful discussions with you.
  11. You asserted... You don't really need to prove "that volume of an object equals the volume of space it is occupying." I don't see how 'the volume of an object' is relevant to your assertion
  12. You are speaking of "nothing" as if it were "something". i.e. ""nothing" occupies five feet of space". "Nothing" does not 'occupy'. You can no more assign a size to "nothing" then you can assign a color to it. Saying there is "nothing" in a particular five cubic feet of space is not the same as saying there is a "nothing" over there with a size of five cubic feet.
  13. Can you fill in a few more details please? I'm not sure how you got from one to the other.
  14. Science at its best!