Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

finster's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. You really think my hypotheses reduces down to that? Okay, that hurt, Alan. I'd admit my hypotheses is a little out there but to equate it with pseudo-science. That's not fair. Alan. I think it deserves a little more examination, if only to ultimately refute it.
  2. From an airship website: "Reality - Small non-rigid airships may have long-range difficulty in severe weather, but there are several recorded instances of large airships encountering severe squalls and passing through intact. The success of German zeppelins in severe weather came down to both great piloting skill as well as structural engineering. British and American rigid airships succumbed to bad weather in large part due to avoidable piloting errors and structural flaws.Today there are two major developments that further diminish bad weather as a problem for airships. Advances in weather tracking technology and the development of more powerful vectoring propulsion systems combine to help airships avoid inclement weather altogether or be able to ride out the storm. Advances in flight instrumentation, structural design techniques and material strengths could also serve to further enhance the durability of any modern rigid airships. Bad weather poses the greatest risk not to airships in flight, but to airships taking off and landing. Take off and landing procedures could be further developed with technology. In the event of poor weather conditions airships may delay a take-off or landing just as airplanes do." More airship myths debunked at link: http://airshiphangar.com/misconceptions.html
  3. For a possible answer to the origin of the big bang as a phenomenon of consciousness, see my thread here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69397-why-the-existence-of-the-universe-does-not-need-to-be-solved-a-series-of-diagrams-on-the-relativity-of-existence/
  4. I like your if and then statement. btw, I posted my full set of diagrams attempting to explain the universe here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69397-why-the-existence-of-the-universe-does-not-need-to-be-solved-a-series-of-diagrams-on-the-relativity-of-existence/
  5. I'll give you a very simple example of it. Certain birds and insects can see certain ultraviolet colors that humans can't see. If they were able to compare notes their descriptions would not be the same. That's a very basic example. But, as explained in my diagrams, since the true universe encompasses all possibilities, all contingencies are possible. When I say something that actually happened "didn't happen" for some other entity, that doesn't mean I'm saying "it didn't happen". I'm saying "it might as well have not happened" for an entity OUTSIDE that occurrences span of existence while I am simultaneously saying, ultimately, "nothing happens" in a universe where an entity is fully conscious of everything because there is no "everything"...it's all nothing. It's very contradictory but there is consistency in the contradiction. It all depends on your level of consciousness.
  6. Exactly -- that fits my point. Furthermore, it is your conscious-centric perception that concludes "an event either happens or it doesn't'...it may happen for you not only because you can see it but because your specific entity characteristics allow you to interact with that occurrence. Take a neutrino...a particle that we suspect interacts with little in our span of existence. So if it's not interacting with most of the elements and entities in our universe, does most of our span exist for a neutrino? And if most of our span does not exist for a neutrino, don't most of the things that occur in it not happen for it? But the consistency is maintained once you understand that we live in a cornucopia of existence where things can happen and both not happen relative to what you are. Entities within the same span of existence can expect to observe and interact with relatively the same forces and materials. Entities existing outside each others span of existence, should not expect their realities to match and so both can be correct when diverging on the reality of a particular occurrence provided they are not taking into account other spans of existence. The point of my hypothesis is to finally take into account other spans of existence. Note: At maybe one or two points in the above images I use the description "spectrum of existence" when I meant to use "span of existence". Both actually refer to two different things: "Spectrum of Existence" refers to the entire Universe, both seen and unseen, and includes all the multiple "spans of existence" that comprise a whole universe. "Span of existence" refers to the segment or frequency spectrum a particular entity exists within, observe and can interact with and it is much smaller than the true and complete Spectrum of Existence.
  7. Some of you will recognize one of these diagrams from a thread on nothingness in the speculations forum. Here are the rest of the diagrams in the series for the forum's review and discussion (in no particular order). Let's have fun.
  8. I have thought about this ....a lot. Both "something" and "nothing" is relative to what is doing the observing (interacting.) Here is a diagram (from a series of diagrams) I have made explaining why the Universe appears to "exist" to us (when, in actuality, nothing exists): http://s12.postimage.org/7g1in5b57/nothingness.jpg
  9. no city on land is entirely self-sufficient either. total self sufficiency is not a requirement for this to work, afaic. at the most basic level, cities are a collection of homes (or at least evolve out of a collection of homes.) if one home can be made to suspend itself in the sky, you can have many more. eventually, they can be connected to form a small "town". you can take it from there...
  10. Since a modified blimp is basically what we are talking about, I beg to differ. Here is one small scale design. http://www.yankodesign.com/2012/03/29/flying-home-of-tomorro/
  11. On Point 1: The farms would obviously have to be positioned to get optimal sunlight, possibly even on a platform above or well below the balloons. If the farm platforms are hanging well below the supporting balloons, sunlight should be able to hit them. On Point 2: Even though I used the word "balloons" I was referring to blimp shaped balloons which, as you know, are maneuverable because of propellers. On Point 3: Of course, a nation will assert their airspace boundaries but that would only be a problem if you renounced your citizenship to your country. I'm assuming if you did, you would have resources already set up for yourself outside that country. On Point 4: The size of the balloons would be, of course, dependent on the weight and size of your platform. As for helium, my suggestion was to use solar balloons with hot air emergency balloon supplements. With solar balloons you would have to be wary of cloud cover and make sure you were either above the clouds or out of cloud cover.
  12. This is probably easier for us to do than you think, though it would be no way near the size of a modern city. We're talking small fry populations at first but all we need to do is strap some solar (and fuel fired, just in case) balloons to a large platform. And on the platform, we add everything we will need to survive in the clouds: small farms for food, solar panels for electricity, water catchment system for water harvesting, some light structures for lodging and protection from the elements. What else? A radio to keep an eye on the weather so you're not caught in dangerous skies. Maybe the ability to lower small motor boats while close to the ocean surface so they can stock up on emergency supplies at the nearest shore town, if required. This is totally doable with current technology, especially on a small one person scale. Think of it: First you could fly it above low clouds just in case they are blocking the sunlight to your solar balloons and panels. You could also fly away from approaching bad weather. No property taxes because, well, you'll have no property. You could even fly out to international waters, renounce your citizenship and proclaim yourself and free state and no one could stop you.
  13. http://s16.postimage.org/lpe8nftdf/diaphragmvehicle.jpg
  • 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.