finster

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.

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

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/

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/

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.

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.

edit: reuploaded from a different image host. maybe this will work now.

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.

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

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...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0EKZOJdK4Y

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/

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.

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.

http://s16.postimage.org/lpe8nftdf/diaphragmvehicle.jpg

LMAO...actually that was the initial inspiration of the idea. Try this link for the image: http://s16.postimage.org/lpe8nftdf/diaphragmvehicle.jpg btw, my thinking behind this idea is not to replace the gas car but merely build a faster bicycle (even though the vehicle in the diagram is a 4 wheeled one)...I gather the force the human body can summon in that position vs. the force the human foot can apply to a peddle would be greater in such a vehicle as depicted in my design. Of course, I would have to calculate how much greater given the pounds of force required to compress the rubber spheres and their push back force, etc... But my initial impression is we would have a green vehicle slower than an automobile but faster than maybe an electric bike, which would be a step forward and a welcome alternative for many.

What do you think?

Maybe we better plan for stops then. Perhaps swapping out ships altogether and relaunching at each point if and as supplies are needed. If supplies are not needed, which would be the plan, you could pass right by the supply depots. But they would be reassuring knowing they were there. Aha! So you admit that your plan is do or die! By your admission it is now logical to infer that if ships prior to Columbus had set up buoys filled with supplies at the mid-way point on the Atlantic Columbus's voyage might have been less than do or die! Now I've got you and Moontanman is my witness! (just kidding)

Ok. something just clicked. I see what you're doing. And having everything with you would afford the possibility for altering course. To where, I don't know. But what if we miscalculate the distance? What if something happens to the fleet that damages the supplies with us? We'll have 19,000 years to mess up along the way, breed some rogue captain with a death wish, mismanage and squander our supplies, etc, ad infinitum. Then what? What if the star explodes before we get there? At the very least, we're going to want a supply chain going back.

how can you be absolutely sure you will launch with enough supplies to make it?

My counterpoint to that is and has always been, if the supplies you have with you are still not enough, all you have are the supplies with you. My option is the supplies you have with you PLUS supplies you pick up on the way. In addition, you'd only have to wait 100 years if we spaced out the supply depots by 100 years. We could choose to space them out sooner. The point is, the supply chain is set up and ready BEFORE you venture out, which would give our star wanders a tremendous boost of confidence. I think we're grappling with an ad infinitum argument. I keep advising a supply chain and you keep grabbing the supplies for yourself even after I've said you'll be given enough supplies to make 3 round trips. You're being greedy. The fact that you keep on insisting you have all the supplies with you, tells me you're not confident. The purpose of the supply chain is to provide confidence. And in addition, the fact that a supply chain trail has been pre-established all the way to the nearest star is a virtual guarantee you will make it. They are like stepping stones across a river. If they are going all the way to the next star, if you follow them, you probably will too. Zapatos, I'm not saying you won't have that. You will. You will have all the emergency spacecraft you want 1 mile away, if that's what you like. But to be truly confident, those space craft have to make it out there with you. How much more confidence will you have if, in addition to the emergency craft you are taking with you, there are craft already positioned and in place ahead of you BEFORE you even set out on your journey? Got that figured out. Mother ships won't have to stop or adjust. As they close in on supply depots and unmanned mother and support ships, they send ahead smaller freight ships to collect supplies and drop off crew to populate the new ships. Easy peasy. Plus, again, you don't want the ships altogether. You want a line. Not all the ships have to keep up with one another. They will all have supplies with them to make it on their own. And conversely, the longer the space caravan, the more connected fleets will be to one another.

I've got a perfect illustration of this to hammer home my point: I'm sure you recall Apollo 13? They too took all the supplies they needed with them to get to the moon. But something went wrong with their spacecraft and not only did they have to abandon to moon shot but were shitting bricks for the whole return trip. Now if Nasa had pre-positioned emergency duplicate spacecraft between here and the moon, they might have been able the finish the moonshot. Instead, they had to come home and almost lost their lives. Is that what you want, Zapatos? Another Apollo 13?

Because I'm saying we employ multiple backup contingency plans and you are insisting on one. No. You're not fighting redundancy of supplies. You're fighting redundancy of options. The only thing wrong with your plan is the resistance to multiple alternate options. Why put all your eggs in one basket if you have enough eggs to put them in two?

Firstly, I will kindly point out that by postulating a fear of running out of supplies, you are unconsciously conceeding my point. Even when I've agreed you will have enough supplies on hand with you (maybe even triple the supplies needed) to make the entire journey without way-stations, you still insist, by postulating a fear of running out of supplies, as a reason to not set up way-station points. Again, way-station points are a REDUNDANCY, an insurance policy. If you asked the people going on this journey whether they'ed want BOTH enough supplies with them to make the entire journey PLUS the addition of way-stations, if they already know they will have enough supplies with them to make the journey, they are going to agree to the way-stations as an added REDUNDACY, an added assurance. If you asked the Apollo astronauts at the time if they would want to have an extra return launch vehicle set up on the moon ahead of their trip just in case the one they brought with them failed on the moon, do you think they would say no to that? if I were them I would have felt a lot more confident about the trip.