Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Posts

    11733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by Moontanman

  1. Uhh.. didn't you just quote it in your previous post, as adding credibility to your claim?

     

     

     

    So.. you treated it as credible when it suited your claim, but now it's "making stupid claims" when you disagree with the suggestions in it?

     

    It's either credible or it isn't.. which is it? :rolleyes:

     

    I didn't quote blue book to make anything look credible, It was said the sighting was made up by Ufologists. I pointed this particular sighting was not made up in this manner. Blue book is widely know for simply wanting to debunk and cover up. No effort was given to really investigating anything. the scientist hired by blue book to investigate eventually became critical of Blue Book due to Blue Books actions. Don't put words in my mouth, I am not a "true believer" but I do call a spade a spade, Blue Book was a farce, used to only try to down play all reports, even the ones that were inexplicable. This pattern became worse as the project went on. The sighting I mentioned was explained away in a manner that was insulting to everyone involved, it may very well have nothing but a shared hallucination of military ground personnel, air traffic controllers, military pilots and civilian pilots. I have no idea what it was but it could not have been what the "official " explanation was. This pattern of obfuscation was wide spread in Operation Blue Book and only served to put an air of suspicion on all explanations even the ones that were obvious.

     

    http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc296.htm

     

    An earlier investigation came to an unusual conclusion.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Sign

  2. Which parts of your description were part of project blue book? You said they concluded it was Venus. I'm guessing they didn't also say it was a "gigantic structured craft." So where did that part of it come from? Have you read the report itself?

     

    Yes I have read the report and it was reported as a gigantic object but the people at blue book assumed the B-52 pilots and the commercial airline pilots were mistaken, also Venus was not visible at the time of the sighting. Blue book is famous for making stupid claims like the object was a comet, that made less sense than the sighing it's self.

  3. When and where?

     

    While there is much in the way of theoretical reasons to expect antimatter to be attracted by gravity and to matter I was wrong, no actual experiment has been done with neutral antimatter as yet to show it's reaction to matter. I apologize and with drawl my post. Having said that, if antimatter could somehow warp space in a way that would repel matter it would violate several laws we now hold dear but this shouldn't reason to assume anything. again I apologize for making an assumption based on assumptions.

  4. The trouble with these sorts of sightings is that there's no way to tell what people actually saw, what they thought they saw, what their minds pieced together, etc. All the time you hear these accounts, with demands to explain them. Well, I can't explain them, because I didn't see them, and I'm certainly not going to trust the account of someone who's already decided they're ETs or something, since they're going to make the observation fit the hypothesis. As far as I'm concerned, the stories put together by "ufologists" might as well be completely made up.

     

    The report i told about is not a report made up by a ufologist, it was part of project blue book.

     

    Everyone needs to understand that yes most UFOs are indeed misidentified normal objects and made up BS but some, a very small core group, are not only quite detailed but not made up or in some way suspected of being a hoax, they are truly inexplicable with an embarrassment of information. If only one is true, even if the one has has promoted and or has been covered up by hoaxes and misidentifieds, this one is of profound significance. Focusing on the ones we know are false and rehashing them over and over again to prove the rest are false as well is not good science.

  5. Ok, I'm going to be the devils advocate here. First I would like to say that it totally disingenuous to say that all UFO reports are from wild eyed crazies or that all UFOs are just lights in the sky. One of my favorite sightings was seem close to the ground, in the air, seen on radar, ground and airborne, the air radar was from a nuclear armed B-52 that was diverted from it's flight plan by ground radar operators to investigating the sighting. Radar returns were not only seen from the B-52 but a gigantic structured craft was also seen from both the B-52 and a commercial craft. the UFO was first seen over a nuclear missile complex by ground observers. This was very complex sighting by many well qualified people some of which were qualified to carry nuclear weapons. the UFO was observed for many minutes and never explained except that blue book concluded it was the planet Venus. At one point early in the sighting it was seen hovering close to the ground and then took off at a high rate of speed not to mention seen on radar and by the eyes of pilots as a structured craft, Venus seems to be a little less than credible. Ok, this is just one of many such sightings. I am very skeptical but that doesn't mean I take the track of most skeptics and only discuss easily dismissed sightings. One of my favorite explanations often given by skeptics is the comet explanation. The observer sees a bright light in the sky that moves slowly over head and then disappears. it's in sight for several minutes and is close enough to be seen as a ball and not a point source of light. the explanation is a comet or meteor. Does anyone else see the problem with this knee jerk reaction?

    Bob Lazar who may or may not be a total BS artist, said that not only did he see saucer shaped alien craft at area 51 he also read a description of the aliens that said they had bred us back the beginning of our humanity from more primitive but human shaped hominids to be workers for the aliens who later set us free to take over the planet. BS probably but it's another bizarre story that might give us some perspective on the possibilities or at least the BS.

     

    I would like to add that i agree, photos are a catch 22, good photos are automatically fake and bad ones are just not evidence. In this day and age of photo shop all photos and films are suspect. there was a film going around on the Internet a year or so ago that looked so real you would expect to see alien troops landing at any time but of course it was a total fake.

  6. Pioneer, what is your point? Can you really claim any of these things you list as unique properties of water are things absolutely required by life? I don't think so, I think you simply want to win this argument and water is your God. I see absolutely no reason to lay claim to water as the unique basis for all life or even most life. Lots of fluids could work even better, hydrocarbons, ammonia, HF, the list is large and the universe is larger.

  7. Pioneer, how do you know that only water can do the amazing things you say? You are still only working from one data point. For all we know hydrocarbons might be the fluid of choice in 99.999999999999% of all life in the universe and we are just an anomaly. Our life has managed to use water in amazing ways for sure but we have no data to support water as being either an absolute necessity for life or even the preferred fluid for life.

  8. You're misapplying the term "3-" and "2-D".

     

    Besides that, it's overwhelmingly obvious that this is entirely pulled out of your posterior.

     

    :D Sorry HB but that was really funny, I laughed my posterior off :doh: Pioneer (HB) are you thinking of a three legged animal using each leg in turn? Did you see the latest War of the Worlds with Tom Cat? The aliens had three legs, they walked like a tripod, two then one, two then one, not one two three, this gait looked entirely natural. To walk One two three your legs would have to be in a row wouldn't they?

  9. Sisyphus and bombus, yes I have heard of insects, I've never seen an insect as large as a man or capable of making tools or technology. Haven't you ever heard of centaurs? While I doubt a being would likely have hooves and hands a six legged being with four legs and two arms makes much sense especially in a high gravity situation. A vertebrate with six limbs would be better at crawling around in higher gravity than a four or two legged being. If evolution selected for tool use going to four legs and two arms might be as natural as animals going from four legs to two in our case.

  10. Moonman - While I appreciate the sentiment, and agree that Knupfers posting behavior here is not aligned with a desire to have an accurate understanding of the universe (more aligned with a desire to lie and misrepresent), but I must point out... we ARE apes and so were Neanderthals. ;)

     

    Inow we both know humans are apes but not in the context that knupfer was using, yes we are apes, hominids to be exact but in knupfers mind there is only room for us and them and them is chimps and gorillas although I'm betting he doesn't know the difference between monkeys and apes either.

  11. Life as we know it requires C, which can form 4 bonds. It also requires a medium, water. Alternate life might need a variation on this theme. Si is often chosen because it is below C on the periodic table and can also form 4 stable covalent bonds. Other atoms can be made to form 4 bonds, such as NH4, but N doesn't form long chains. Boron is trivalent or will form three covalent bonds, which although can still form extended structures has a limitation relative to C or Si. The chemistry gets too complicated.

     

    Using current life, as a model, we know silicones are stable and don't break down easily with enzymes based on C. This means the enzymes needed for Si will need to be more aggressive. But the paradox created is Silicone polymers are more stable than C analogs such that Si polymers needed for silicone enzymes begin with less built in energy. We might still be able to compensate for this with higher temperature environments or a more aggressive continuous phase.

     

    Now we need an energy source to run the life machine. Life on earth uses CO2 and its continuous phase solvent phase H2O, as the feed stock for photosynthesis. The CO2 is a gas at room temperature. The Si equivalent is SiO2 which will form a solid at room temperature as sand and glass. The question is what solvent do we need that can play the role of continuous phase, also be part of photosynthesis or some other means of food generation and dissolve rocks? This place a limit on solvents since glassware is not affected by most solvents. One simple exception is HF. Maybe that is part of our solvent package so we can make SiO2 based food out of rocks. Again we may be stuck using water as part of an acid medium. But runs into surface tension problems.

     

    Maybe we need another energy source and can't use photosynthesis. Maybe we need to begin with silicone hydrides. But this is not likely if there is too much oxygen competing for H and Si. But without O you don't get big polymers. Also if we get rid of the O what becomes the terminal electron acceptor? Maybe F can do it all, but F is not conducive to polymers if we leave out the O.

     

    At very cold temps, around the temps we find on Titan Si could form chains and rings like carbon without the help of oxygen. Such molecules could also sport methane radicals attached to the Si chains. This would allow even more complex molecules to form that would still be unstable enough at these low temps to react in the way hydrocarbons do on Earth. It also just so happens that liquid hydrocarbons are pretty good at dissolving these Si chains. Since water would be rock at these temps it would be able to react with these Si chains and they would be stable. Just another possibility. Lots of hydrogen, Si and C sloping around there, anything could happen!

  12. I just saw a documentary on the History channel entitled "Clash of the cavemen." No, it wasn't produced by Steven Spielberg, it was considered a "factual" account of "pre-history". It was the story of a neanderthal woman who was abducted. :eek: Now how anyone knew she was abducted is anybody's guess, but since the imagination is considered evidence in the scientific world, then of course, that would include all fairy tales.

     

    In this 'documentary, the statement was also made that there is no evidence of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. Now that fact is obvious to anyone with common sense and a basic understanding of the birds and the bees. But not to scientists because they seem to be the last group of people who are not capable of understanding why ape, or any animal DNA, especially the DNA of fictitious animals can't get into the DNA of humans.:rolleyes:

     

    Nevertheless, since again, the imagination is considered evidence in the scientific world, the scientists on that documentary kept insisting that apes or some form of ape bred with some form of modern day human (which is actually bestiality) so that humans could claim our ancestors were apes, or some form of ape. :eek:

     

    So even though the facts don't verify the theory of evolution, do scientists care? Not in the least because they know they can use the letters after their names to dupe the public. And that they can. ;)

     

    Knupfer, so you think Neanderthals were apes? They were stronger than us, had bigger brains, talked, made the same tools, and buried their dead. Not to mention they were enough like us that if a Neanderthal was dressed in modern clothes he could walk down the street and no one would give him a second glance. You are the worst kind of troll Knupfer, a ignorant close minded troll.

  13. That's pretty convenient. In order to claim that fictitious animals once lived, all anyone has to say is that they became extinct. :eyebrow: By that reasoning, one can say that aliens once lived on the planet and have now become extinct.:eyebrow: You guys are so funny. But you're really good at making up fairy tales. ;) So again, all you prove is that one of the biggest creiateria for "scientific" theories is that NO ONE IN THE PAST OR PRESENT HAS WITNESSED THEIR ASSERTIONS. That fits the definition of a fairy tale perfectly. :eyebrow:

     

    No Knupfer, there is no evidence of aliens on the Earth all life on the Earth is far to similar to have originated on another planet. Fossils of long dead animals is evidence of their existence, religion is a fairy tale with no evidence what so ever of the BS claimed by any religion. No one alive has ever seen any of the stuff in the biggest book of fairy tales called the bible. Just because someone wrote about things that happened in the past doesn't make them true. There is evidence of past life, none for the fairy tales in the bible.

  14. So what you're saying is that evolution does not maintain that humans are the descendants of apes or lower primates. Is that correct? If so, I agree with you 100%. ;)Humans have always come only from humans. So since you claim I'm wrong about what evolution maintains, then you've just denied your whole theory. Sorry. ;)

     

    Never wrestle with a troll, you both get dirty and the troll likes it.

  15. Evolution is a delusion and a perverse one at that. Apes can't breed human descendants whether in millions of years or 9 months. I just saw a documentary on the history channel where scientists were dismayed to find that not one ounce of neanderthal DNA is found in humans. Surprise, surprise. But unfortunately, scientists are the last group of people to understand why animal DNA, particularly the DNA from fictitious animals isn't found in human DNA. :rolleyes: And those who are afraid to question anyone with letters after their names are as much in the dark about it as scientists are. ;)

     

     

    Knupfer, you are a troll and an ignorant troll at that. If I thought for one moment you were actually looking for knowledge instead of trolling for the creationist cause I would give you information to show just how wrong you are but I am sure that no matter what argument I used you would continue to believe your religious fundamentalist BS and take no heed what so ever of any facts presented that disagree with your narrow stupidity worshiping world view.

  16. Again, science dabbles in the imagination, not reality. So people can imagine all sorts of scenarios about our future except the obvious; we will all be destroyed. That's because of the propensity for human beings to destroy ourselves and of course the fact that the earth is limited in size and cannot tolerate unlimited amount of humans on earth and of course our man-made contraptions that litter the earth. So it's only a matter of time before all mankind will be a thing of the past. :-(

     

    Knupfer, are trying to troll or just being obtuse. Science is all about reality, some times imagination is what changes our perception of reality and the limits of that reality. Don't denigrate what you are incapable of understanding.

  17. I still think the issue is being reduced to unrealistic levels. To launch a nuclear payload in the form of ship, how big would that be, I think such would depend a bit on the ship and the gravity or planet right? SO would this mean we would trying to land possibly to giant cluster bomb of nukes, or fly that in space?

     

    No one is talking about riding a nuclear bomb into space e or even orbit, no nuclear explosion is possible with this rocket design. The payload is not nuclear, in fact the payload of the suggested space craft is as much as 2,000,000 pounds from a space craft massing the same as a Saturn five moon rocket. For the record the Saturn Five didn't have a payload of even close to 2,000,000 pounds.

     

     

    This in regards to nuclear technology powering space travels is a serious issue? I don't think chemical rockets always proved to be safe in the first place, but in regards to impact whats worse?

     

    Chemical rockets are simply not powerful enough to support any real space effort, safety protocols on these rockets along with remote landing take off sites would mitigate any real risk. We are not talking about tons of radioactive fuel, just a few pounds, Each and every atmospheric nuclear test released many times as much as the absolute worst case scenario of a nuclear light bulb rocket failure. there were many of these nuclear tests, the world didn't come to an end. We are not talking about crashed space craft falling everywhere several times a year. Even one crash would be a highly unusual event and wouldn't release enough radio-nucleotides to be the "end of civilization or even noticed in the grand scheme of things

     

    I honestly think space stations orbiting planets or just in space themselves is probably a better answer. Other technology I think would not only prove safer in terms of how much a threat in how many ways that would still make space travel a reality, I mean we dont even know I think really what we could do until we get past the current stage which barely has a space station capable of supporting life without aid yet by any means, its a big of a jump to say it has to be nuclear for anything more of a future to exist for such.

     

    Can you suggest a technology that can lift the payloads nesesarry to build a real space station? a tecnology to make space travel both safe and economical? If you can i await the info with baited breath.

     

     

    I would like to close with this question. Lets say you want to make a ship that will carry 1000 people with correct life support for say some year long journey then land with such system intact on a earth sized planet, would or how could nuclear technology be made safe really for just that process? What if you change the numbers to ten thousand on some decade long journey? Do we have to have tons of little space shuttle like spaceships, I think that means lots of nukes flying around though.

     

    first of all we are not talking about carrying 1000 people, we are talking about launching payloads into space. payloads to build space stations, build interplanetary space craft, satellites, Moon bases, habitats. these things cannot be done in any realistic way by chemical rockets. A 2,000,000 lb payload would be capable of doing things we only dream of at this time. No other technology promises so much for so little risk.

     

    The issue about exposure has merit, any place on earth in which nuclear reactors have had issues its been nothing but harmful to people. There is bacteria under the site in handford washington for instance that via mutation has actually come to be able to survive in soil pretty much laden with toxic by products and waste. These are the real issues because the ships themselves would become life support and nuclear accidents truly represent that much more of a threat giving the situation such as using it to travel in space or even land such equipment.

     

    The nuclear reactors we have now are old technology, comparing what we have now to 21st century technology is like assessing the safety of air travel by looking at WW1 bi planes. having said that it wouldn't be fair not to point out that most of the current reactors have been completely safe, doom sayers of the death of the earth from nuclear reactors have proved false. Radiation is a part of life, there have even been natural nuclear reactors in places on the earth. For our civilization to go forward we have to use nuclear power, no other technology can take us to the future.

  18. yes, coal fired plants release more radioactivity as they do not have safe guards in place like nuclear plants do. HOWEVER, a serious nuclear accident, say chernobyl, will release more radioactivity than if you burned all the coal ever mined and even that still down there.

     

    Not true, Chernobyl released just a few pounds of radionuclide's, it was just released all at once in a completely uncontrolled manner mixed with tons of other debris.

     

    no it is not, the radioactivity released is a few orders of magnitude different, sort of like comparing a bucket of water to a lake of water, but hey, its both water so its a completely fair comparison right?

     

    You are appealing to emotion, there is no comparison to the immense amount of radio-nucleotides released by a coal fired power plant and the tiny amount released by Chernobyl

     

     

    oh yes they will, they'll burn up travelling several kilometers per second and this is where the radiation release is likely to happen(i say they'll burn up as we are discussing a major failure and it isn't a controlled decent) and if travelling faster for interplanetary travel then they may still be intact and travelling several kilometers per second upon imapct with the ground. one way or another, its going to crack open the reactor.

     

    Storage for the radioactive fuel can be easily built to with stand impact. Cracking open an empty reactor is no big deal.

     

    the thing is, the speeds are not reasonable. a few hundred miles an hour and i'd say 'yes, it is feasible to suitably engineer the reactor to survive the impact' for a few thousand miles an hour the answer becomes, either A. the vessel is so massive it will never get off the ground and will be a strictly space based vessel

    or

    B. not a chance in hell, the thing is going to release radiation on impact.

     

    Again you are being emotional, it would be easy to protect the fuel from impact by storing it in a small armored space. this fuel can be swept out of the reaction chamber immediately. There is no comparison to a nuclear power plants with many tons of core material and shielding. You really need to do some research about gaseous fission nuclear reactors. On top of that risk mitigation means lessening the risk, nothing will ever be absolutely safe, I think in the article they used Bhopal India as an example of risk mitigation. Just because of that accident chemical plants weren't shut down everywhere. No that plant didn't do a good job of risk mitigation just like Chernobyl, Chernobyl shouldn't have been built much less run by incapable people. Chernobyl melted down due to bad design and human error. If a space craft was seen as going to impact the earth the radioactive fuel would be removed from the reactor immediately, if a high speed impact as inevitable it would be steered toward an uninhabited site or a site of less inhabitation. You have to plan ahead for problems, plan for the worst possible scenario after you have mitigated the risk from the worst possible scenario then you do everything you can to avoid that scenario to begin with. You seem to think this would be done by simply launching a nuclear light bulb rocket and see what happens. That's not the way safety works. I used to be employed by the DuPont corporation in the safety department. Somethings are inherantly unsafe, but nothing cannot be made safer and even the worst possible disaster can be planned for.

  19. The "coal power plants release radiation" is a roundabout appeal to emotion. It won't convince people here, as it is off topic.

     

    Look at a nuclear power plant sometime. That is how much overbuilding is needed for people to trust nuclear power, even though that is an application that doesn't go anywhere. Without lots and lots of testing to conclusively prove that it is as safe as a nuclear power plant, the public will not trust it.

     

    Also, consider asteroids. Solid balls of rock that are completely obliterated when they hit the ground. That should give you some idea of the level of overbuilding needed.

     

    Coal fired power plants do indeed release many times the radiation of any and all nuclear power plants it is not an appeal to emotion it is the truth. If the truth is an appeal to emotion then I am guilty. Comparing the possible worst case scenario of a nuclear light build rocket release to a common radioactive release is not emotion it is a completely fair comparison. No space craft launched from the earth is going to impact the earth at any speed even remotely approaching the impact speed of an asteroid. Solid balls of rock are not particularly strong or survivable. Nickle/iron asteroids survive impact at many times the speed a space craft launched from the earth could reach if it failed trying to reach orbit. It would be relatively easy to protect the contents of the engine from impact at any reasonable speeds.

  20. The article mentioned 3 scram modes. In all of the scram modes, the radionuclides are still on the spacecraft. If the entire space craft runs itself into the ground, then what? Unless the craft is so obscenely overbuilt that it couldn't get off of the ground, you will have a radionuclide release. And I can virtually guarantee you that a mess like that would kill all public support for both nuclear powered space travel, as well as terrestrial use of nuclear power. Is that really what you want?

     

    And, just to pass on some advice, appeals to emotion won't convince anyone here.

     

    If you had read the article you would have seen that one of the really good things about having a nuclear motor is being able to over build the space craft but building a compartment to hold ten pounds of radio-nucleotides should be that difficult.

     

    Appeals to emotion? What are you talking about? I appeal to reality, emotion has nothing to do with this.

  21. I am not trying to break down your idea. I am merely setting up a risk assessment. Determining the risk is something you must do anyway... so I feel that I am helping here. I feel that your last post is less objective than mine, and that the public opinion is not likely changed by your words, true or not.

     

    On topic again:

    A rocket is meant to go into orbit, and after further acceleration perhaps into the final frontier and beyond. But it's a fact that it will orbit a couple of times, if only to reduce the acceleration so that the astronauts survive.

     

    Therefore, it will come over urban areas.

     

    Therefore, it is possible that it comes down in an urban area.

     

    I have read about safety in the engine. I do believe that nuclear power is safe on the ground. I don't think we'll have another Chernobyl soon in a stationary nuclear facility. I have not yet found a piece of text that described what happens if the Lightbulb Rocket goes from 6000 meters/second to zero in less than 1 second. Does the reactor survive such an impact? I might have overlooked the text describing this. I'd appreciate if you can point out where it is written. Thanks.

     

    Exactly how would this rocket, with out any warning what so ever, go from 6000 MS to zero in less than one second? Crashing? If was going to crash the safety protocols would remove the radio-nucleotides from the reactor in one of the three ways proposed before the crash. No space craft dies with out any warning what so ever, even the space shuttle had enough time for some of the protocols for the nuclear rocket to have kicked in and removed the radio-nucleotides from the reactor into storage that would have held them and prevented any spread. No one seems to mind a near by coal fired power plant releasing tons of radio-nucleotides on nearby cities, why would a small amount protected from any possible dispersal be a problem?

  22. First of all you are ignoring the built in safety protocols, the release of 10 pounds of radionuclide's would only happen if you had both a catastrophic failure of the space craft and total failure of three different safety protocols on the space craft. On top of that the space craft would be lunched from an area where no people lived. Nuclear power has been the but of fear mongering extreme exaggeration and out right lies for many years. Decades of b horror movies where radiation spawns a monster that kills the world not to mention all the fear mongering and out right lies from every nuclear crazy looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Coal fired power houses release 800 tons of radioactive materials into the atmosphere every year. this is far more than nuclear power plants produce and the radio-nucleotides produced by nuclear power plants are not released into the atmosphere. The publics wildly distorted view of nuclear power has little or not basis in reality. Compare the release of 800 tons of radioactive debris into the atmosphere to 10 pounds in the absolute worst case scenario. Yes the entire anti nuclear stance is based on bullshit. Just because the public has been scared into a anti nuclear stance doesn't mean it's true nor does it negate the real worth of nuclear power or nuclear engines on space craft.

  23. This was a very cool article.

     

    I think the technology will need decades of ground testing before it will be accepted however. An accident/explosion on the way up (or down) would be absolutely unacceptable.

     

    Either you didn't read the article or you didn't pay attention to to what the article said. I'm betting you just skimmed it and made your own conclusions.

×
×
  • 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.