Jump to content

Inspector Gadget

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Inspector Gadget

  1. Just because that's not what they meant it's still wrong. "atom fri" directly translated is still "atom free". If they wanted to say "Free of nuclear power" they should've said "atomkraft fri". If you want to make it shorthand they should've made a shortened version of "atom" and "kraft" so it doesn't lose meaning. Taking away a whole word change the meaning of the sentence.
  2. When you take all of the electrons and photons that make up the internet has a mass of about 50 grams. The internet weighs ca. 50g
  3. I've always had an interest in space. I knew about a stars full lifespan in 8th grade. Always had lots of books and I always loved sci-fi. But my interest in spaceflight came when I played KSP. Further development in my interesest in spaceflight came when I found project rho and watched 2001.
  4. I'm replying to this only so I can find this again. This is awesome!!!
  5. You should seriously play this. http://en.spaceengine.org/ If you want some information on it Scott Manley made a video: Any space lover should try this
  6. We've all seen water out in to a vacuum chamber and seen it begin boil. People therefor have got the idea that the same happens when you throw it out in space. But I don't believe that's the case. It's true that any liquid's evaporation point lowers with the surrounding pressure. But in order for a liquid to vaporize it needs energy from somewhere. When there's no air the water can't get any energy from the surroundings (We say that there's no radiation directed at it). But it has to vaporize and the only source of energy it has is it self. Therefor it pulls energy from itself which will cause it to freeze, while it vaporize. So we have a situation where the water will vaporize and freeze at the same time. But I can't figure out what the water would look like afterwards. My current theory is that it would be something like snow but I'm not sure.
  7. Oh... didn't know it was on the "do not suggest" list. Sorry about that
  8. When we're in career mode I imagine we will have a lot colonizing and minning elements and I have a suggestion to how it works. Colonizing: If you want to establish a colony you need to send some storage modules with the proper materials. When you have enough materials in an area you can build a base. Now you can place the center building in the vicinity as long as it's flat enough. After that it works like a building sim. You can build VABs, launch pads, runways, mine stations, habitats etc. Many have made a similar suggestion for KSC. The difference from KSC is that you have to bring materials to the base to build things. Minning: The different celestial bodies have some unique minerals. They're more concentrated in some areas so colony placement is also important (And can add a challenge). Some parts need specific materials which can only be produced on those planets, which means you have to ship them back to KSC to use them. What do you think of my idea?
  9. Since I didn't read the last comments I didn't realise we were discussing the definition of a theory and not evolution now back to the discussion The way I see it is: A fact is a phenomenon that has been repeatedly observed and can be considered proven. ex. gravity is a fact. A theory is a more or less plausible explanation for this phenomenon. ex. the theory of relativity.
  10. I think a major problem with the development of humans is that evolution is VERY VERY SLOW. And if you look at the technological and cultural advancements we experience as a race were evolving at light speed. This means that our physical and mental traits are trying to adapt to this development but it's simply going to slow. The way we think and behave is very much dictated by our instincts, and before some emotional poetry nut crack make their case, every emotion like anger, love, happines etc. those are all traits that are a natural part of our genom which we got from the monkeys (I know it's actually apes but that makes it sound like we aren't apes anymore). I believe that many of these emotions are standing in our way as they haven't adapted to the modern society. And at our current progression rate evolution won't catch up anytime soon (unless gen manipulation becomes a normal practise).
  11. I'm thinking that there could've been a civilization on earth before but that would require that it was several million years ago (before 65 million years ago). Even plastic can't be presserved for that long and simple stone tools couldn't have lasted that long. Even our alloys now days would properbly have sunken in the ground by now and became chorused. Structures like Mt. Rushmore and the Giza Pyramids would've decayed so much that we wouldn't recognise them as made by intelligent life. So I'm fairly convinced that a civilisation could have existed. They can't have evolved to our stage yet though fore more reasons: 1. If they were as advanced as we are they would've been using up oil reserves at very fast past like us. That means that if there were any other civilisation there would most likely be less oil reserves left now. This can be explained though. There could've been A LOT more oil before and they used up a big part of it, leaving what is left today. They could also have developed another way to power their machinery. 2. If they had developed space flight they most likely would've left traces on other planets and moons. Our appolo program have left a lot of traces on the moon and since there's now air out there and they have been build by some of our least corrosive materials. Just think of all the satellites there would be orbiting around our planet still if there had been any before. This could be explained by a disaster that would've wiped out, not just the earths population, but also the satellites in orbit. They could've been destroyed or flinged out of the earths sphere of influence so that we would no longer detect them. If they had left any traces on other planets like mars or venus, they would've properbly been destroyed by sandstorms, volcanic eruptions etc. I can't think of a disaster so devastating though. 3. We would need a VERY severe disaster in order to wipe out an entire civilisation like that. By that time they would proeprbly build bunkers or other safety measures that would protect them somehow, and those would most likely not decay for millions of years. The only thing I can think that could do this so quickly and devastating that they couldn't respond in time would either be a nuclear war, biological weapons or other WMDs. I'm not sure if that would actually leave any traces we would find. If didn't... it could be the cause of the last mass extinction If anyone could please verify that or prove me wrong please? Another option would be that our planet was being engineered by a hyper advanced civilisation to sooth there needs. It would properbly change the structure of our planet so much that we might consider it a fundamental part of our planet. They could've engineered long ago to specifically make the planet habitable exactly for them and caused life on earth to evolve as it did. They could've introduced greenhouses gasses, tectonic plating... Now I'm just coming up with wild theories
  12. The metal objects would need to be EXTREMELY magnetised before they would have a greater magnetic pull then the gravitational pull.
  13. Why is every one so fond of the alcubierre drive? It's to far out of our current technology and it's on a VERY theoretical level. I think we should invest more time in wormholes. We've already proven micro-wormholes to exist. They're not bigger then nanometers and lasts for nanoseconds but they exist. So I think our next step in FLT travel is wormhole. We just need is to either capture a wormhole and keep it stable or create our own (I know I'm saying "just" here but I think it's easier then building an alcubierre drive). Only disadvantage is that we can't be completely sure were in space (and time) we will be in the other end, or how to connect two points in space.
  14. Also, the moon wouldn't work. Earth has already been hit by a planet like object before and earth is still here. The planet like object was also the object that ended up becoming our moon.
  15. Antimatter astroid. An astroid mad out of pure antimatter when it comes in contact with the earth would explode and completely obliterate everything.
  16. I have heard many discussions to what conditions would be equal for every lifeform and which would differ and I've come to a few conclusions: All lifeforms will be carbon based. Life forms can have many substitutes for water (f.x. liquid methan) But I was thinking, what kind of atmosphere could different lifeforms breath? I know that earth animals needs oxygen in their respiratory system. Plants use photosynthesis and needs carbondioxide which takes more energy so they stay still, which caused them to develop into what they are. Some bacteria breath nitrogen. But is there any environments were this proces could be chanched so that f.x. animals breathed nitrogen, plants breathed oxygen and bacteria breath carbondioxide. Or maybe breath something completily different? Please leave a reply explaining this and maybe come with some good links. Also: What other alternatives is there for water? (I've been looking around but I can't find a complet list)
  17. As stated by others, the ship doesn't technically move faster than light by the space around them does (I'm not going to explain it since everyone else has) Also I see very few people considering wormholes. We already have discovered micro-wormholes that appear on an atomic level. While they only exist for micro seconds they have been proven to develop naturally and the alcubier drive is still at a theoretical level. I think people are to hyped about the warp field idea and we should invest more time in making stable artificial wormholes.
  18. It could work but it would have to have a very big parent planet. It this point it would properbly be a gas giant and a very dense one. It would properbly be so dense that it would almost be a brown dwarf or at least right on the border. The two moons would also have to be very close to each other. And for that they'd have to be small. But I guess you already figured this out. I will try and find some numbers on it.
  19. If photons are sent out and someone responds by sending an FTL capable ship there wouldn't be a problem. What you're describing is a ship that is capable of traveling BACK through time wich leads to these paradoxes (Btw. There are many theories as well that explain these paradoxes f.x. fixed timelines, dynamic timelines, multiverses etc.) But here we're talking about ships that move faster then light, but that doesn't mean that the ship is effectively moving backwards through time so to. So if a signal is sent from A to B and B responds by sending an FTL ship to A but the FTL ship is still sent away after B sent the signal. Since the ship can't move back through time it won't arrive before the signal is sent and there's no paradox. Many believe that the technology to move faster then light will come at the same time we develop time travel but I digress on that point. Also, There's no stealth in space. This link will explain why: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--There_Ain't_No_Stealth_In_Space
  20. Tidal forces and heating i think has already been explained in the previous comments (I'm going with the heated Europe solution), so the problem remaining is the radiation. For this I see two possible solutions: 1. The atmosphere contains a greenhouse gas or element that can absorb the radiation. 2. Living at deep sea where the radiation isn't as high.
  21. Which I don't deny. But we only have the theoretical weather systems in place. The point were you have to calculate, there are so many factors just on earth you have to take into consideration. When calculating local conditions over a few days you usually get it right, but here we talk about a global system over millions of years on a planet with different physical conditions. Even our most advanced computers have a hard time predicting what weather conditions are like on earth in a few centuries.
  22. True but that is compared to the atmospheric conditions on earth. On other planets there are many factors that come into play f.x. what the atmosphere is made of, the atmospheric pressure, the gravity and even the wavelength emited from its parent star. In that regard we only have limited knowledge to how water behaves under these conditions (We can't even assume that water is the main liquid on the planet).
  23. Also it's a story. You don't have to make everything completely correct. There's a reason it's called science "fiction"
  • Create New...