MigL

Further to the international damage done by this Administration, here is a commentary on P Hegseth's visit to the American cemetary in Colleville-sur-Mere in Normandy, for the D-day anniversary. Those dead and buried soldiers would be severely disappointed to have given their lives so that idiots like P Hegseth, and the rest of the Administration, could dishonor them. They have no idea what those soldiers fought, and died, for.

The national mistakes made by this administration might be fixable. The international mistakes not so much; too many 'alliance bridges' have been burned, and no one will be willing to take those risks again.

Hopefully, once he leaves, or is forced out, of office, he'll be spending the rest of his life in the D J Trump Correctional Facility.

All energy is stored by reconfiguring the system creating potential ( matter-antimatter has potential equal to 2mc2 ). Chemical energy that powers rockets is 'stored' in the bound electrons of the constituent molecules. But we do know that, at one time, the universe made more matter than antimatter; we just don't know the mechanism ... yet. If we could use some excess energy from the reactor, and this mechanism ( but in reverse ) to make more antimatter than matter, and then react this excess antimatter with Hydrogen scooped up by the Bussard ramjet, we would have source of antimatter that is replenisheable in flight. The mentioned mechanism that created the universe's matter-antimatter imbalance is already an area of Physics under much scrutiny.

Current rocket technology involves two 'propellants', to not only supply the ejected mass, but also to provide the energy to the mass through a redox reaction ( LOX/LH usually ). If you provide the energy through other means, such as a nuclear reactor, you could eject rocks, waste, or parts of the ship, as you are only using it for its mass. You would think that would be more efficient, but the means to provide the energy, along with associated shielding and equipment, probably add more weight than the second propellant would. If you eliminate the requirement for ejectable mass, by 'scooping' it up as you move ( Bussard ramjet ), and energize it with the most efficient reaction possible ( matter-antimatter ), you would have the most efficient propulsion system. However, the technology is way beyond us. Maybe someday ...

Monkey steaks and cannibalism, then ...

Maybe not. There are various ways to get to a higher radius, where less energy is required to break free. The solid rocket booster with Hydrogen/Oxygen combustion has been more convenient for Earth, but other methods have been studied ( mainly to increase payload capacity ). The air breathing first stage, to get to a height of about 70000 ft, has been considered since the 70s, with the most advanced concept being the British HOTOL single stage to orbit system British Aerospace HOTOL - Wikipedia Recently Germany is examining a similar system for payload launching. Germany's POLARIS Spaceplanes Develops Hypersonic Test Vehicle for Defense and Space Research | Mahir Zeynalov posted on the topic | LinkedIn The point is, that if you can 'gather' propellant as you go, you only need one of the propellants ( Hydrogen in HOTOL's case ). Even in the case of gas giants like Jupiter, the amount of combustible methane available in its atmosphere is a resource that shouldn't be ignored ( necessitating only oxidizer, no teapots required ).

And sometimes we think we have good reason to believe principles are true because we might be missing information ...

A 'reaction' motor provides thrust by ejecting energized mass rearward, at velocity, to provide forward motion according to Newtonian mechanics ( essentially conservation of momentum ). Escape velocity is proportional to the square root of the mass you are attempting 'escape' from ( assuming a fixed radius of departure ). I don't see how your statement is valid.

I, for one, don't believe aliens are visiting Earth. If they are rational enough to have devised a means of doing so, they would realize that it isn't worth the effort ( unless they are really, really fond of anally probing southern American hicks ). However I take issue with the stated claims that 'consensus' dictates our knowledge and methods will never improve much beyond the current. I'll use one of my previously used examples ... It was previously ( 1950s ) thought CP symmetry could not be violated, but in 1964 it was observed in the weak interaction ( Nobel in 1980 ), and has recently been observed in Baryons ( 2025 @ LHC ). This may be extremely important to the problem of matter dominance in the present universe, and a better understanding of matter/antimatter asymmetry could eventually lead to methods of generating antimatter more efficiently, and the matter/antimatter reactor I previously mentioned ( 100% conversion to energy, as opposed to a couple of % for fusion ). The more we know/understand in current science, the more questions arise, and sometimes, whole new fields open up ( just ask Max Planck ).

Exactly. In other parts of the world, where you need electricity to run your A/C, this might not be the best solution, but it is certainly brilliant for small communities in Finland.

Is pretending to raise your IQ as fun as it sounds ?

I'm not a chemist, but have worked in the chemical industry for 39 years ( retired as of last month ), and so I understand Chemistry from a Physics PoV. A fractional distillation column translates temperature into height, such that products that boil at different temperatures come off at different heights of the column. Depending on the amount of heat and vacuum you are willing to supply, you can distill all of the raw material into constituent products for re-sale; it all has a value.

What we do know is that we can't do it. What we don't know is what a considerably more advanced civilization can do. To quote former SoD D Rumsfeld "There are things we do not know that we don't know"

When you look at it from that point of view, interstellar travel makes even less sense. The cost-to-benefit ratio is astronomical. It doesn't benefit a civilization at all; it benefits the travelers ( or their descendants ) and spreads their genes to neighboring stars ( vanity ? ). The only motivation that makes sense is curiosity and knowledge.

IOW, it has been done, and you admit the technology is available ? Maybe, in a few centuries we ( or a much more advanced civilization ) will be able to 'get' antimatter more efficiently and in larger quantities ( perhaps even aboard a spaceship ), and I'm sure it will be easier to 'keep' by then. We may not even need to 'keep' it, only producing it on-board as needed, once we figure out the mechanism that produces matter or antimatter in excess of the other, as in the early universe, that led to matter predominance. All speculative, of course, but it has a basis in accepted science.

Getting is fairly expensive ( at least at our technological level ), but 'keeping' seems fairly straightforward; apparently CERN ships it to other research facilities in trucks.

Nice to be able to log in again ... Simply solved by electromagnetically scooping up interstellar Hydrogen, feeding it to a ramjet that 'energizes' the expelled mass using a matter-antimatter reactor, and expelling it rearwards to accelerate, and forward to decelerate. Of course the hydrogen density in this part of the galaxy is not sufficient to provide adequate thrust, nor is the technology available for a matter-antimatter reactor, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible for a more advanced civilization in a Hydrogen dense spiral arm of the galaxy. Sure, and we also have threads on perpetual motion machines or 'free' energy, intelligent 'creation', gravity by electromagnetism, global warming 'hoaxes', and ToE explained by pictures. Nobody that proposes those is willing to tackle the Physics and Engineering either. Even when you present the Physics/Engineering issues to them , they refuse to see/acknowledge said issues.

Sometimes the patterns we notice are directly caused by a relationship; that is science. Sometimes the patterns we notice are indirectly caused by relationships; correlations can be science. Sometimes we notice patterns where there is no relationship whatsoever; that is nowhere near science, it is numerology, otherwise known as WAGs. Do I need to repeat this again ?

I see. I guess I won't be coming by for breakfast, or tea and biscuits. I like my bread very crusty ( 1/2 inch thick crust ) and very dry. It is mainly used for sopping up sauces after a good meal. It's a pain in the butt finding good bakeries that make that sort of bread.

Nice. Necessity is the mother of invention. But you can't really call it a 'battery' , as it stores heat, not multi-purpose electricity. Although you could re-purpose the heat above 100o to heat water into steam and drive generators ( with some losses ), and that last 100o of water would still have about 5 times the heat capacity of the 100o sand.

Free energy ? There is no such thing. Unless you're talking about your home fireplace, and the trees in your back yard, you are paying for the source ( oil, wind, sunlight, gas, etc ) or the means oh delivery ( wires, pipes, solar panels, windmills, etc ), but either way, you are paying.

There is causality, where a cause leads directly to the effect in question. There are correlations, where the effect in question is indirectly, or loosely associated with a particular cause. And there are WAGs, where no relationship can be established or ascertained. Depending on your definition of 'numerology', one may be able to shoehorn it into the correlation category, but according to my definition, it definitely belongs in the WAG category.

D Trump either has no shame, or is oblivious ( too dumb to catch on ) to embarrassment. As are all the idiots who voted for him, and continue to support him.

Tearing and detachments take more than a few days to heal. They require medical attention, and can take months to heal completely ( if ever ). Ligaments and joints can, however, become enflamed; and recuperation is in the order of days ( depending on age ). Usually when taking a break from heavy workouts, and going back to the gym to use the same weights as when you stopped, leads to joint inflammation. I remember my elbows swelling up such that U couldn't wash my hair in the shower. Another incident of enflamed ligaments, was shin splints when I used to run ( don't run on your toes ). But I do have a friend who tore his bicep ( never fully healed ), and my nephew had to have ligaments re-attached in his knee ( took weeks of immobilization, and months of physio ), so it is possible. My advice is to use strict controlled motions when using heavy weights ( no swinging/bouncing ).