Jump to content

D H

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    3622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by D H

  1. That is his point. Nonsense. There is no point other than scientific curiosity in going to Mercury. There is no point at all in sending humans there, at least not in our lifetime. Getting to Mars is cheap. The delta V requirements for a one-way mission to Mars is less than a third, and maybe less than a quarter, of that for a one-way mission to Mercury. A round-trip mission to the surface Mars and back to Earth, while costly, is cheaper yet compared to a round-trip mission to the surface of Mercury and back to Earth. To make matters worse, that factor of 3 or 4 or more in delta V
  2. Actually, we don't see any 'serious proposals' to go to Mercury for the sort of operations you are proposing. The space settlement advocacy is the quintessential source of non-serious proposals of all sort. Space settlement on an extremely small scale, on close-by objects *might* happen in the next few decades. Space settlement on the scale advocated by those advocacy groups: It ain't gonna happen, not in my lifetime, probably not in yours. You have predicated your Mercury proposal on a large number of technologies that we don't know how to do from an economic or engineering perspective.
  3. The universe itself. It might have happened when the universe was very young. The tuning wouldn't take all that much because information content (entropy) was very low.The mechanism? Who knows? Saying that it had to be some god is a god of the gaps argument. Or it might be that the universe is infinite and those magic numbers aren't the same across the entire universe. We happen to live in a pocket universe that is amenable to life. The places that aren't? There aren't any beings there to ask this silly question about fine tuning. Or it might be that the universe is but one of a hu
  4. This is extremely disingenuous quote mining. Susskind advocates for an infinitely large universe in which inflation made for drastically different conditions in different parts of this vast universe. Even if the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life, there are bound to be a huge (potentially infinite) number of pocket universes that are conducive to life. Rees is an advocate for the concept of a multiverse, Smolin advocates for an extreme form of this concept. If something isn't out-and-out impossible, it will happen somewhere in one of those infinite, potentially uncounta
  5. This thread sure has been diverted off-topic. Note to krash: Antimatter is not unstable in and of itself. The problem is that antimatter and ordinary matter are markedly unstable when the two meet. It's time to go back to the original topic. The other way around, Moontanman. Physicists know that antimatter has the same inertial mass, including sign, as does ordinary matter. This means that if (and this is a big if) antimatter has negative gravitational mass, it would fall up, not down, due to Earth gravity. The equivalence principle says that inertial mass and gravitational ma
  6. Nonsense. I do understand where this nonsense comes from, but that doesn't stop it from being nonsense. A lot of schools now teach that the slug is the US customary unit of mass, and that pounds are a unit of force. This is nonsense. The slug is a non-standard unit used by some (but not all) engineers in the US. Other engineers are quite happy using the pound as a unit of mass and the pounds-force as a unit of force. The pound (Avoirdupois pound) is defined as 0.45359237 kilograms, exactly. The pound-force is defined as 4.4482216152605 newtons, exactly. Weight is legally and colloquially a
  7. That would have quite the feat of precognition on Newton's part. Linear algebra didn't exist in Newton's time. While Leibniz (but not Newton) did use determinants, it wasn't really linear algebra that he was using. Linear algebra got it's start with Vandermonde in the late 18th century. The vectors we use now in physics weren't invented until the late 19th century. The rather abstract extensions such as Hilbert spaces -- those are 20th century developments.
  8. Yes, it is, swansont. You apparently are thinking of the pound-force, swansont. The pound is a unit of mass. You don't. What you need to do is to be careful with units, particularly when working with English units. The lb in your 0.075 lb/ft^3 is the pound Avoirdupois, a unit of mass. The lb in your 109.165 lb/ft^2 is incorrect. That should be 109.165 pounds-force per square foot, or 109.165 lbf/ft^2. The pound (lb or lbm) is a unit of mass, the pound-force (lbf) is a unit of force. In the metric system, one uses F=ma. That doesn't work with force expressed in pounds-for
  9. I guess you're talking about the Voyager satellites. They didn't have atomic clocks. As far as I know, the only satellites outfitted with atomic clocks are the GPS satellites. Suppose some spacecraft outfitted with atomic clocks goes to the far reaches of the solar system and then returned. On return, the spacecraft clock would probably show a different time than Earth clocks. The spacecraft goes far from any gravitational sources, so general relativistic time dilation would make their clocks tick faster. However, it also went away from the Earth at significant speed (at least initially),
  10. That's an ornithopter, not a helicopter, and it flew a couple of years ago. Here's the helicopter that won the Sikorsky prize:
  11. Because they don't. Richard Feynman: "You don't like it, go somewhere else! To another universe! Where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy."
  12. I was going to stay out of this thread, but then I saw that someone downvoted md65536. Here's a +1 to counteract that -1, md65536!
  13. Correct. Remember, though, that those masses are in a sealed container. You can't see them. All you can see is the container. If your oscillating masses are balanced, you won't see anything happen. If they aren't, you'll see the container move around a bit but it's mean (average) motion will still be zero. There is no difference between the empty space scenario and the freefall scenario. They are one and the same per the equivalence principle. No, there isn't. You can keep deluding yourself all you want. There's nothing here, and with that, I am done with this thread.
  14. The answer to your question is no. Forget about gravity for a bit. Imagine putting your device in a sealed container and in deep space, far from any gravitational source. Now power it up. What do you think will happen? Keep in mind the law of conservation of momentum. Now let's put it in orbit about the Earth. Power it up. Nothing happens, same as in deep space. I smell something a bit more foul.
  15. Mike, you are starting with a false assumption, that velocity motion due to rotational motion has an effect on gravitation. It doesn't, at least not a realm where Newtonian mechanics is valid. The outer edge of your rotating ring in post #38 (20 meter diameter ring at 1 million RPM) has a velocity of 0.0035 c. That's barely relativistic. Newton's laws are pretty much valid even in this extreme case. Moreover, this rotating ring is physically impossible. That ring would have to be made of unobtainium. A 20 diameter ring made of any normal substance (and that includes carbon nanofibers) would te
  16. Nobody sane uses quantum mechanics to describe everyday events at a macroscopic scale. Too many interactions, for one thing, and for another, quantum mechanics doesn't describe gravitation. QM is not used to describe the weather. The quantum world is very different from what we see at larger scales. Gravity is what keeps the atmosphere bound to the Earth. The Earth's orbit does have an effect on the seasons, but it's very tiny. No, no, and no. I don't know where you got this idea that there is no gravity at the Earth's poles. On the Earth's surfa
  17. Per the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, Schrödinger's cat is simultaneously alive and dead until the wavefunction collapses. Per the multiple worlds interpretation, the alive cat persists in some alternate reality after the observer sees the cat is dead. Either way, classical logic goes bye-bye. There's nothing saying those laws are sacrosant. Fuzzy logic, for example, essentially is a rejection of the law of the excluded middle.
  18. What oscillating masses? What do you mean by "partial arc"? What rotating ring? You are not defining your terms, and your cartoons do not communicate. The only valid scientific response to this is "Huh?" If you are talking about that gyroscopic lifter nonsense, that's exactly what it is: Nonsense. You talked about using springs. A spring that is more than a thousand kilometer long is exactly what would be needed to accelerate a vehicle to orbital speed without destroying the contents of that vehicle. You talked about using radio waves to somehow boost a vehicle t
  19. What device? The one Mike first started mentioning in post #16? I ignored that for three reasons: He didn't mention it until post #16. As far as I'm concerned, Mike is hijacking his own thread. His explanations are rather vague. I am waiting to address this when he has something beyond cartoons. The best I can tell, it's that crackpot gyroscopic lifter nonsense. It's nonsense. Because of point number one, post #16 and most of the posts that follow should be moved into a separate thread.
  20. This thread was bad enough before this latest bout of gyroscopic lifter nonsense. What's next? A magic pixie dust space drive? Mike, there is no way to go 7.9 kilometers per second at 100 meters above sea level. None. The fastest jet ever made, the X-43, attained a velocity of about 2.95 km/s, but it did this at an altitude of over 13 km. Bringing this 2.93 km/s up to 7.9 km isn't just a 2.67 times harder problem. It's at least 2.672 times harder, just based on energy considerations. In fact, it's much harder than that. Drag is a huge problem. It grows quadratically with speed. Heating is
  21. No, it isn't. It contradicts your theory. The Moon is receding from the Earth primarily because of tidal interactions. The Earth is receding from the Sun primarily because the Sun is losing mass. Neither of those apply to stars orbiting the galaxy. The gravity gradient of galactic gravitation across the span of the entire solar system is negligibly small. Across the diameter of a star? It essential doesn't exist. With respect to mass, the exact opposite applies. The galaxy is gaining mass, particularly so the part near the galactic center. The stars should be moving inwards, not outwards, but
  22. This is getting a bit obnoxious. My user name is D H, not D M. I destroyed your argument and your response is "great news"? I don't get it. No, it's the other way around. It's your "theory" that is pure fantasy. That it's inflow, not outflow: That is an observed phenomenon. Your "theory" is falsified by these observations.
  23. Electron orbitals are not anything like orbits, Mike. You are ignoring momentum. Sorry to be blunt, but this is so wrong that I can't even find a good starting place to start a criticism.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.