EdEarl

Elon Musk described his mass transit idea as “cross between a Concorde, a railgun and an air hockey table.” That seems to me to be a jet powered vehicle, smaller than a train, that rides on a cushion of air. Perhaps it is something like a hovercraft that rides on an asphalt roadbed that is closed to weather. The jet engines would give it high speed about 1000mph (1600kmh), but the vehicle would need to be protected from the environment and things around it protected from the vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hovercraft-MVPP10.jpg http://au.businessinsider.com/what-is-elon-musks-hyperloop-2013-5

Sorry for not replying sooner, I missed it. Hi Ed, you can look at this in a different way. If the U.S. had been for the last 150 years importing all of its iron ore from foreign sources, it would have seemed to us that we were getting screwed every time they had a "shortage" or wanted to jack the price up. But the price would have been based on demand and our industries would have had a difficult time dealing with the unstable supply and our economy would have suffered for it. We would have found domestic sources, and done things like going to Alaska to find it. America could not have prospered like it has without its abundant and low cost domestic iron ore supply. Our oil for a long time was cheaper to buy abroad than to produce at home, but now that has changed. How would everyone feel about oil if none was burned for fuel, not converted to CO2, just used like we use steel to make products. We take our domestic oil and make components for alternative energy systems and other products with it. Well, I think that will happen but not quickly. We are going continue to develop our reserves and transition as technology allows. The point I want to make regarding your post above is that the figure is high but has to be to bring domestic production on line. It costs much more per barrel to produce here than most places. The important thing is these commodities like iron ore and oil are raw materials, and the real value is what all that iron ore is made into. Its worth as finished products is so much greater than the raw material its made from. Everything we built with the steel made from that cheap iron ore is what created our world leading economy during the 20th century. And the same go's for the oil, as we pay more for oil more will be produce domestically and more wealth will be created in Texas, OK, Kan, Col, NM, SD, Alaska, Canada and every where else in North America and even Mexico that has oil. Its the creation of finished products from raw materials that creates the wealth in our economy. Using oil and coal for plastics and other non-fuel things is OK and not-OK. It basically boils down to whether the thing will be recycled or not. As a child, I remember gasoline at $0.15 in the Permian Basin around Midland, Texas. At that time the US was booming (1950s). Now we ship our wealth overseas to buy oil form countries, from which terrorists have come to bomb us. That US citizens are not outraged and activated by this fact blows me away. Instead of working to abandon oil in favor of renewable energy sources that create jobs in the US, they fester about illegal immigration (and other issues). If there were a way to seal the borders, which I believe is fundamentally impossible, the immigration issue might make sense. Although, I am not convinced it is a bad thing, because I cannot figure out whether illegal immigration is good or bad economically. On the other hand, paying for over $400,000 M in oil to foreigners is clearly a drain on our economy. Back to the OP topic. Elon Musk has bet that solar PV will become the main source of electric power in the US in fewer than twenty years. That seems to be a prediction from the 1970s, which obviously has not occurred. Yet, Mr. Musk has been phenomenally successful, whom I tend to believe. He also believes electric vehicles will dominate transportation, except for rockets, in the future. I am really curious about his hyperloop transportation idea. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

A photon is energy that electrons can absorb; thus, increasing the mass-energy of the electron. Later, that electron may loose mass-energy when it emits a photon. Photons are sometimes emitted by particle decay, for example a neutron is radioactive when isolated from an atom, and may emit an electron and proton. Photons are particle-waves that have no mass (i.e., only energy). I am not an expert, but this is pretty close to accurate.

No one has responded to your post in several hours. I am unsure whether I can help, but will try. Are you asking how to get a square root symbol displayed by HTML?

Among others, this series tells the story of Thomas Midgley, Jr., one of the most unlucky scientists, who invented CFCs, leaded gasoline, and a harness to help himself, a polio victim, get out of bed. Unfortunately, his device strangled him to death.

"If 10 kW of power is produced, the rejected heat rate is nearest" ... is an incomplete sentence. Nearest to what?

In every population are survivors and douchebags. In general, which do females choose and which do not they not? (rhetorical)

OP said, " Premises: 1. We don’t see in three-dimensions, we see intwo-dimensional surface area. We canonly see the OUT sides of objects." We have two front facing eyes that give us stereoscopic vision, which means we see 3D images of the world. In addition, we remember time sequences. Thus, we remember things in 4D. I see no reason to read any further into the first post in this thread. Incorrect premises lead to incorrect conclusions.

Search youtube for anatomy and you will find several videos, The link below is a Berkely lecture, and there are many more videos, all free.

No one can predict what unknown consequences will occur. You can put your hand in a black hole under some rocks in the desert and find nothing, a gold coin, be bitten by a rattlesnake, or something else.

I have no idea what a GEV may be able to do, because I have not done any serious research on the topic and have not casually discovered it either. I only know there are GEV, and vaguely what keeps them above the ground. If you are not interested, that's fine; I have nothing to gain or loose. You started a thread and I replied because it interested me. It is up to you to decide what if anything I posted can help you.

I don't know how to measure disagreement. I'd say the ad homonym wars on this forum are similar in passion, although the scientific arguments on both sides of the climate change issue have been carefully considered and difficult to challenge. The discussion has been on-going since the mid 70s and continues today.

Riders fly off bikes that crash at speeds much lower, even a bicycle rider can fly off their bike. A friend of mine flew over the handle bars of his bicycle and got a really bad head injury that put him in a coma. He never fully recovered.

The video links below are interesting from three perspectives. First, they show how much scientists disagree with each other. Second, they show how scientists eventually come to a partial consensus. Third, they show the ups and downs of the climate change debate. I have followed the debate since its beginnings in the 70s, but I learned things from watching this series. Both sides of the climate change debate have been wrong and had to swallow their pride from time to time, which makes a good story. Unfortunately, it has also confused people and made scientists appear foolish. But, the important thing is to learn from mistakes, and improve our knowledge. It is our best chance to help our progeny live long and prosper. No matter what you believe about climate change, I think you find these videos interesting and will learn from them. Each one is about an hour viewing time.

Wow, nanotech is here at an affordable price, well affordable is a matter of opinion. http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/mEH6tDLKcVU/mqdefault.jpg

Please explain.

Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect and, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_unintended_consequences and the See also sections of those pages. I think your idea is dangerous, because of unintended consequences. Your reasoning is short sighted because it is impossible to predict consequences. I know the immediate effects of your idea are good. I do not question your motives, you want to be kind and prevent suffering. I believe that such laws will ultimately cause more grief than anyone can imagine. Even some necessary laws, such as abolition of slavery in the US that caused the civil war and 600,000 deaths, can have very bad untended consequences.

No. Energy opposes gravity, for example a rocket engine. In fact, gravity sometimes occurs in physics equations as negative energy. However, magnetic forces can be used to oppose energy, but that must be done similar to mag-lev In other words, some magnetic material or magnet needs to be under the thing being levitated, which must also be a magnet or magnetic material. Electrostatics can be used, but that force is very weak, which limits the size/area of the thing being levitated. Both magnetic and electrostatic forces can be dangerous. Strong magnets can rip things away from us, such as a watch, and could injure someone with a metal implant. Electrostatics strong enough to lift something use very high voltages that might electrocute. Blasts of air from propellers and jet engines can also be dangerous. Hovercraft (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovercraft) are relatively safe, but have difficulty with hills much less mountains. Your best bet for a realistic hovercraft is a low flying short winged, ground effect vehicle. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle

"#X means the cardinality of the set X." "For example, #{4, 6, 8} = 3" from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_symbol Then use arithmetic.

TROPHY is not a force field according to Wikipedia, "is a military active protection system (APS) for vehicles. It intercepts and destroys incoming missiles and rockets with a shotgun-like blast." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_%28countermeasure%29 Magnetic protection from ion streams is not only possible, the Earth has been doing it for eons. But, ions are not missiles, brick walls, or another hovercraft.

Apparently you need to use GLM to use OpenGL and C++.

pankajkumar, Do you know English? It is odd you do not respond to questions, or acknowledge anyone who replies to your posts. And, you continue to post nearly the same few things again and again. Again, this appears to be a homework problem, and if it is should be posted in the Homework Forum. So far, no one has done your homework, but if you continue to post, someone may think they are helping you by doing one of your problems. If this is not homework, you will get a better response if you communicate with people on this and other threads, instead of always posting a new thread.

Hi, welcome to SFN I noticed you posted twice, once in inorganic and once in organic. It is not necessary. We may use "View new content" from SFN home to view all new posts. Sorry, but I am unable to help you, but someone here may. Good luck.

From relativity: E = mc2 and, QM: E = h \nu\ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History

The human race has been here over 100,000 years, genetic counseling is recent. Moreover, genetic diversity has existed for billions of years, and we are the product of the entire history of life on Earth. Genetic counseling is very very recent. You must be very young to make such an urgent plea. IMO science improvements will be faster than any effort people might make to enact laws, because you will find much opposition to your proposal. I would actively oppose you, and have not in 68 years been an activist before. IMO your proposal is exceptionally bad. I know your proposal seems to be good. But, so does a butterfly floating in the air on the coast of Africa. But, a waft of air from a butterfly wing might result in a hurricane that destroys New Orleans, and your proposal might result in worldwide suffering. “PATIENCE YOU MUST HAVE my young padawan”... Yoda