Moontanman

This whole gun thing is crazy, When I go to get gas the local gasoline seller, the gas "service station" died a long time ago, they have around 12 pumps and it's not unusual for there to be 6 or more cars fueling up. I filled up last week and out of 7 people fueling their vehicles 3 had pistols openly on their hips. One had a god damned 50 cal. Desert Eagle! I guess he wanted to make sure he could defend himself from any stray Bradley Fighting Vehicles that might attack while he was pumping gas. I live in a well known liberal university town! This shit is out of control! I think the path forward is clear, far from the general population needing the same guns as the military guns need to be confined... at the very least! Confined to your home and restricted to pump shotguns with #5 shot shells, 410 gauge at most! Personally I think we should be able to open carry knives not guns, but show up in public with a bowie knife on your belt and spend a few days in jail and be fined big bucks but carry a gun and you get special treatment. Yes I think crazy pretty much says it all about gun culture in the US.

Yes, very large meteors manage to land via stripping off speed via burning off much of their material due to "friction" most objects simply burn up before they hit the ground. Spacecraft get by with using the atmosphere to slow down by not plunging uncontrolled into the atmosphere and by taking a path that allows the frictional heat to be bleed off slowly via a shallow angle not by an immediate steep plunge into the atmosphere. Cooling systems? A cooling system that can handle 100s of gs? Yes the heat shielding will have to be quite special I am sure. Yes, I am sure it could be done, but at what cost? Yes very good cooling systems, if there any chance you could elaborate on these special/good systems you keep mentioning? You do realize the gun's breach would still be at ground level and the barrel would still be full of air that the projectile would have to move out of the way, think friction, you would get no benefit from raising the muzzle above the thickest part of the air since this would not change the problem of the package having to fight through the air in the barrel. in fact the rail guns I have seen illustrations of didn't even have barrels, do they have barrels/muzzles? Magic would do the trick as well I am sure. How high would the gun have to be to take advantage of this lower escape velocity? How much difference in escape velocity would you get by launching from an altitude of five miles? So you would just have to lug a rail gun to high altitude and all the fuel it takes to lug the rail gun up to high altitude?

Very cool, I've learned something new.

Hmmm, I wonder just how much acceleration a human can tolerate while being supported by water.

Not true, conventional spacecraft start out slow and by the time they reach orbital speed they are in very thin air to no air and little to no friction. Starting out at faster than orbital speed at ground level means you get lit up by friction immediately. Much like a meteor hitting the atmosphere at 25,000 mph, the gs aren't the worst of it. Being heated to beyond the melting point of nearly every material almost instantly would be a big hurdle to get past. Reality what a concept. I was simply stating that this would work much better from an airless body like the moon than the deep gravity well and atmosphere of the Earth. Very true but just how many gs and how fast would a rail gun package have to accelerate to before leaving the gun, the muzzle velocity of this gun would have to be outrageous! Would that acceleration interfere with the electronic and mechanical parts of the package? The rail gun thing is very cool but can you really accelerate a reasonable sized package to orbit, remember you would have to start out quite a bit faster than orbital velocity to get to orbit from the Earth's surface due to friction.

Pemmican? I've seen proposals for doing this and the g forces and the friction would be "difficult" to engineer a solution to these problems from the surface of the Earth. Maybe not impossible but once you compare it to a meteor entering the Earth's atmosphere it makes the problem look insurmountable... of course you could use it to turn mixed vegetables into chunky salsa. I may have overstated this a bit, in my mind i was thinking of the spin launch vehicle, https://www.spinlaunch.com/ not an electromagnetic launch but the g forces would be very similar and the friction equally enormous.

IMHO the main problem of using rail guns to send objects to space would be the enormous friction with the earth's atmosphere. Any object so accelerated would become white hot and evaporate much like a meteor does when it enters the Earth's atmosphere. Then you would have to include engines to allow the object or package to maneuver to the space station. This would be much easier to do if you were launching package from an airless body like the moon.

Check this out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azW33jxaHPs

Is it? How can you tell?

I got a flash of the little critter in the ZZ Top video TV Dinners reaching up and closing the box when they open it!

Thanks, wiring is a trip, I've done a little bit of it when doing my own home improvements too. I found an interview of one of the scientists, Stockholm U. astronomer Villarroel, who wrote the paper you referred to in a recent post about 1952 Palomar photographic plates. If you want to see it let me know.

Ok, this is a sighting from 1957, this observation occurred during a training flight of an electronic warfare aircraft over the USA. This report is from a speech from Dr James E. McDonald Professor of Atmospheric Sciences University of Arizona Tucson. I would provide some quotes but for some reason it wont let me copy/paste this article. The aircraft was followed by the UFO over a couple hundred miles or so and the full extent of the electronic warfare equipment was brought to bear on the UFO as it followed the US Air Force YB47 jet. There were nine men on board the aircraft. http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_fsr_16_3_2_70.pdf This is about as well documented as they come and yes I understand this falls short of the rigor required by science and is illustrative of why IMHO we will never be able to get scientifically rigorous data from this subject unless it is real and they let us have that info. There is a reasonably accurate video that describes this case if you prefer watching a video to reading a pdf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdhQaqmFaY This who Dr. James E. McDonald was.

Just a guess but cut them down in the fall seems to be logical. A few years ago, during a hurricane, a tree was blown down in my yard. I cut it down below the soil level but in a few weeks the entire yard erupted in several dozen young trees of that species (an elm of some sort), very fast growing, they were up tp a meter tall in just a month or so. I had to cut them down several times before they stopped popping up.

🤣

It is kind of odd!

OIC, we are looking for a way to make killing a helpless person palatable to the general population? To me it's a lot like trying to make a shit sandwich tasty enough to sell at a fast food place. Killing another human being is always bad... sometimes it's just better than the alternative. I come down solidly on the side of if you're going to do it do it fast and get it over with. Dragging it out, no matter the motivation, will always result in a worse outcome for the person to be killed. What should really be in question is do we kill people, once we get past that obstacle all we can do is make it as quick and practical as possible. Can you imagine the man who was suffocated via nitrogen gas telling us how grateful he is we didn't just inject him with a hot shot of fentanyl but allowed him to suffocate in agony so we could feel good about it? Now that is funny!

Revenge? I thought we were talking about punishment? Maybe my moral character is flawed but we are talking about killing another human being for punishment right?

Why bother? Just give them a hot shot of fentanyl, why bother cutting their throat?

Exactly... while killing someone is repulsive to me, I think if you are going to do it you kill them as fast and as surely as possible. Nothing is faster or more sure than a double tap to the back of the head. I still have to ask what is the point of this "soft" killing, if I was being killed I'd struggle to the end, bite, scratch, twist, turn, spit and be as obnoxious as possible as i faded away. Why on Earth are we trying to gently kill someone? I agree and I would sow considerable doubt on the very idea of calmly/gently killing someone. I could see the value in doing it quickly, and if you want it to be a deterrent, publically even but gently... painlessly? Seems a bit oxymoronic doesn't it?

My specialty! Not fats, just sweets, for some reason unsweetened tea is awful to me but sweet coffee is awful as well! I like iced coffee and iced tea but only coffee unsweetened! My own personal diet for type 2 diabetes includes fats, protein, and fiber but excludes as much carbs as possible. No seed oils, the only vegetable oils I use are olive and coconut oils. I mostly cook with lard and or beef tallow and all my blood parameters have gone back to nominal! My doc is amazed and I feel much better after losing 50 lbs! YES! I actually tried Earl Grey Tea due to Captain Picard! I loved the taste, I even preferred it in iced tea! Iced sweet tea is the house wine of the south! I do miss it, along with bread, pasta, potatoes, and rice...😭

I've tried this with coffee but never tea... I prefer my Earl Grey hot with a pinch of butter and a teaspoon of honey!

What does a giant sandwich have to do with the bigbang? Actually the sandwich was the first return from google and the pions that mesotron originally referred to are down the list quite a bit but even then I can't find any references to anything having to do with the bigbang.

Sounds like they just need to buy a 22 short revolver, double tap to the back of the head Mafia style is quick, easy, cheap, and as painless as dying could be.