dragonstar57

this might sound dumb for cost cuting but I was thinking that a simple submersible rc craft with a manipulator as long as it could use a welder and a drill could handle most of the construction. so it wouldn't require labor cost just the materials.

i would say a minimum of 8000 people with hopefully higher pay but equal living conditions to a small town motivation would be better pay and the coolness of living under water. the thinking is that it would allow for access to resources that are easier to get from the seabed mining resources from the sea bed farming fish and algae tourism and deep diving. and perhaps submarine rides to see schools of fish.

you guys are assuming an Atlantis dome when that might not be the case or even if it is the case it there might be dwellings not part of the main structure and would only be able to be gotten to either by a an expensive elevator or a sub and I would guess that they would be approximately equal to a sub in cost. I think the sub is a better idea because of the versatility provided it can go places that are not set up with elevators although for many things that would work. ntm that having a multitude of elevator shafts extending from the seabed might be a hazard to boats. ps. gen submarine city discussion here:http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65898-underwatter-city/

at a large range a small change in the path would compound as it traveled. if the explosion just changes the trajectory by a tenth of a degree that might be enough to turn a direct hit into a near miss and saving the earth from the impact. you seem to be thinking about it as if it would be the explosives equivalent of hitting a baseball with a bat and having it sour off into spacethe outfield . it would be more like a course correction for a satellite than a batting in a baseball game just need to accelerate it a little at a right angle to its path and it will miss to one side or the other.

I was wondering what kinds of things would be required for an underwater city such as dimensions maximum feasible depth maximum feasible height minimum size etc and what kind of general problems would need to be eliminated and possible solutions. ps. I mean this a beginning of a general discussion so if you have any ideas please share even if they don't address these specific items

that would make transportation difficult in rough surf and you wouldn't be able to go to go to undeveloped areas which would be useful sometimes

you would need some way to descend to the city and to go from city to city and surfacing traveling along the surface and then diving would be a chore that and it would allow to go to areas that have not been developed yet or construction structures that have not yet been completed

unless we intercept it at a significant distance we are doomed. haven't seen any plans that would work if it was at close range

i would place a nuclear weapon on it so would be in a crater and detonate it and hope that a significant amount of the detonation energy would be transferred into kinetic energy and be transferred into the object at a right angle to the trajectory like in stargateSG1.

as of right now there really can't be any underwater development in terms of real estate and cities such because transportation would be difficult. standard internal combustion is out for obvious reasons. nuclear is out for a publicly available transportation method for equally obvious reasons so what would be kind of propulsion would work best within the restraints that it has to travel long distances most likely aprox. 200 mi and pressure at whatever depth the destination would be located at presumably at depth no greater than 400 feet. without a recharge/refuel has to be affordable to people who are not necessarily extremely wealthy. and be able to handle waves and ocean currents and allow for comfortable breathing for extended amounts of time.

I wasn't going to reply to this at first assuming someone would give a more than satisfactory response no such luck (from context I have surmised that you believe in the whole excepting Jesus into your heart absolves you of sin kind of Christianity) here are the most obvious problems 1. this statement (which I assume is meant to be some kind of argument for the existence of a god) has the existence of as a premise. therefore this argument (if argument it is, is invalid) 2. you have a black and white moral view where people that believe what you believe are good and those who disagree are bad. I do not intend to commit ad hominem but this does not speak towards any measure of maturity on your part this argument sounds childish in the extreme. 3. the common explanation is that atheists are punished not for their atheism but for the sins that they have committed not being absolved by accepting Jesus. this makes one of 2 claims. a.the sins that are not directly harmful to another or not malicious are worthy of eternal torture albeit you can suck up to the judge and he will make it go away. or that b.the act of believing that he exists and saying you want his guidance is a significant enough action to absolve one of the worst atrocities ever committed. additionally there is a reason we have different punishments for different crimes because different crimes have differing severities [s?] and we acknowledge that the only fair thing to do is to punish fairly to the crime. no crime is capable of being deserving of eternal torture. Stalin could have learned a thing or two from your god. additionally the idea that the devil would do as he was told and torture those who do not believe in god is ridiculous. the devil was a angel who rebelled and I find the idea of him falling in line with gods plan for him to be highly unlikely. ps. i must admit I am somewhat shocked how far this has strayed from the original topic, however I assume I should have known it would drift this way eventually.

the pious remark was meant to be directed at the person you were quoting sorry about that. As for athiesm's belifes there is no unifying school of thought or dogma but that lack informs morals. ( I prefaceed this by saying it was an awful generalization) but there are no "god hates f**s" movements" in athiesm and it is not inherent as it arguably is in christianity.PS. I'm typing this on my droid phone and it is very difficult to be precise and clear in my thoughts.

the soul may or may not exist...just throwing that out there.

i would figure out their density and then compare that to the density of iron if they are close then it might be a meteorite (but could also beterrestrial hematite or magnetite) if it is not close then the ods of them being meteorites is nearly zero

i hate to say that something is impossible but there is no material that known that would make armor that could survive a direct impact from an aircraft. the energies involved would break any thing that was not thick enough to be too heavy to walk in. such a material would have to have a high melting point yet very low heat transfer good shock absorber strong and light. and all of these proprieties would have to be in a single material. (most of these things do not exist together) and why armor to survive plane impacts? who would pay millions even if such a technology could exist? not the military most troops don't have to deal with getting rammed by fighter jets.

i said that having read the article. i disagree that it is rational as it teaches blind faith and is the first experience in believing in something without proof. if that were never introduced then religion as we know it could not exist. ps. this may strain the borders of the topic slightly... but i'm op so w/e lol fyi u did sound a little pious the current western atheist moral code (generalising horribly here) does not frown at what Christians would consider promiscuity as much. christens tend to be homophobic and nationalistic which are traits largely absent from atheism sexism and racism and other outdated generally considered evil theologies are noted in a positive light in the bible both old and new testament.

how can anyone say santa is good for a skeptical mind when its the first time, where one is taught blind faith?

because different groups have slightly different moral codes. While a large portion of most moral codes is common ground there are still dif. Views

Ibelieve it was their intent too point out that actions of the christians were less indicative of their beliefs than ia's actions. him an athiest following a christan view of morality better than christians is a paradox worthy of note

scientifically it is crap, but it is quite good as a plot element in scifi kinds of stories. (I bother to say this @ all because idk the OP's reasons for asking)

I have to build a scale 6 story model tower with 4-6in per story to survive on a shake table (to simulate a earthquake) out of raw spaghetti noodles and hot melt glue. 100 gram weights will be placed on the 2nd 4th 6th floors. I need to know how to calculate the forces that the model will endure and the strength of the model. i was thinking of incorporating the following design features. cross braces (forming triangles) have the tower tapper in from the base until it reaches the 4th floor where it will stop tapering and continue at the same width. I need to know if these will help. we are also supposed to build a base isolation system idk enough about the materials that will be provided to talk about that yet.

if neutrinos moved faster than light shouldn't it be possible to detect neutrinos from Stellar events prior to the light reaching us?

sounds safe and like something a home chemist would want to handel

Too dangerous as in hydrogen production is too dangerous. and there will be parts of the reactor which will not be able to be accessed by humans because of the radiation levels therefore robotics would have to carry out maintenance within the areas with high levels of radiation