Sillychris

How awesome would that be!

It's this weird place outside the Kerbal system where you have limited resources to build spacecraft with.

This is just a little bit beyond the next step, but I think we seriously need to establish a space elevator on the moon. I also think KSP needs to have a space elevator expansion.

Ok, robot ill tempered sea bass vs meat based shark of equal mass. Who wins?

I'm still waiting for my deterministic prediction of observed behaviour. So there is a theory that tells us the whole screen lit up and the superposition is then transferred to the sensors. I accept that idea, it's neat. But like you said, we can only measure one photon for one electron... well, in this universe anyway. Problem is, I'm stuck in this universe and I can only observe effects here. I'd like to limit the discussion to predicitions in our own universe. I am open and hopeful for multiverses, but how my own universe unfolds is what I am most interested in. Let's Gedanken. I have a classic electron double slit setup with a phosphorescent screen. Only one electron passed through, and the results recorded in a standard way. I am using this as what I view as a truly random method to flip a coin. If the light is recorded as emitting from the left side of the screen, I go to grad school. If the light is recorded as emitting from the right side of the screen, I go to Nepal If the light is near enough the center that it is hard to say which side, I send another electron through and try again. The effects of this one electron have immense effects on my life, and potentially on human civilization. What is it? Does sillychris go to Grad School or Nepal? I also have another question for you, K^2. Do you believe the universe is deterministic? I'm not looking to unhinge the discussion, I'm just curious.

Propane backup.

Yes, I am familiar with eigenstates simultaneously existing. I am also familiar with the notion that a wave/particle will collapse to one specific eigenstate when you decide to observe it. What we can't predict is which eigenstate it will collapse to, only the probabilities. So you're telling me that if I send one electron through the double slit experiment into a phosphorescent screen it will light up the entire diffraction pattern at once? Sadly, this is not the case. Low flux double slit experiments show an initial distribution pattern that is seemingly random. Only after a large number pass through does the distribution become apparent. You can predict fairly accurately the probability amplitudes of where the electron may end up and you can predict extremely accurately what the distribution of N electrons looks like. Predicting the precise fate of 1 electron is unfortunately impossible. Here's a picture. Part a in that picture is what I'd like you to predict determinantly. http://skullsinthestars.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/tonomuradoubleslit.jpg Now let's talk about nuclei. How can you predict deteriminantly when a particular U235 atom will decay? And while you're at it, it would be nice if you can predict exactly what that atom will decay to. I'm not talking about N-atoms, I'm talking about 1 atom in 1 box. ie Schroedinger's cat. What if we send two protons at eachother with insufficient energy to overcome coulomb repulsion? Can you predict whether fusion will occur or not? What if we send two protons at eachother with way more than sufficient energy to overcome coulomb repulsion? Can you predict which particles will be created from the extra energy? How about a hydrogen atom in an excited state? Can you predict determinantly which photon it will emit? I can only give you probabilities... How about one excited nuclei in a metastable state? Can you predict determinantly when it will emit a photon? Can you predict determinantly whether this photon will be magnetic or electric in nature? The list goes on. It's a long one. Probabilities and uncertainty are core to quantum mechanics. Einstein wouldn't accept QM because he believed so strongly in strictly deductive reasoning. "God does not play dice" he is supposed to have said to Bohr. It is true that for very large N quantum mechanics becomes predictable. We take advantage of this a hell of a lot. I'm talking about n=1. Totally indeterminate.

You could hang it below the balloon such that it would only be shadowed when the sun is directly overhead.

A robot army is still reliant on manpower... you have to build the robots, maintain them, accumulate resources to build and maintain them. You have to transport them and tell them where to go. They presumably use ammunition and that takes manpower to produce. They use fuel of some sort and that takes manpower to produce. The list goes on. A modern military's fighting force is in the miniority of its support force, and this trend seems to be continuing. There would be no exception for automated soldiers. The trend for automation of support forces should continue to a degree, but this ultimately just redirects where the manpower is coming from. Of course, when all our industry is entirely automated and self replicating, the specific requirement of manpower can be eliminated... but in this case, you still need resources, energy, and robotpower. There are always limiting factors that are linked to the size of your economy. The only way to stand against superior numbers and economies is to have better technology and tactics. This is a big part of the reason Germany was able to expand so quickly during WW2.

Does your time travel technology preclude bringing objects back from the future? If it doesn't, then being able to predict when a lightsaber will be invented vs having a lightsaber in present day would be fundamentally different.

Oops... I take it back

You've got it right, buddy. A derivative describes how quickly the y changes with respect to variations in x. Example: How fast does your position change wrt time? This is velocity. (dx/dt=v) How fast does your velocity change wrt time? This is acceleration. (dv/dt=a)

EXCELLENT idea! I'm sold.

Place all the 9's after the decimal point you like, you still can't exceed c. 0.999999...999c is still strictly less than c.

Could the angry sharks have frikkin laserbeams on their heads?

The quickest an object can approach you is just shy of c, which places a limit on blueshift that could actually occur. Assume c for your emitter's velocity and throw that into the relativistic doppler shift formula. I don't think it will be less than the planck length.

Ok, here's why I think that the Kerbal universe isn't relativistic: There are many claims of people exceeding the speed of light in KSP using infinite fuel. I am also aware that the physics engine is strictly Newtonian, so your mass doesn't increase with Kinetic energy. I have messed with infinite fuel a bit and gotten to relativistic speeds and I have noticed no lorentz contractions. Satisfied?

The only problem with a black balloon is you can't control your buoyancy... Kinda hard to get down

parameciumkid, I have never heard of the natural selection idea you just introduced. I like it.

Oh man, that's a burn. I could see myself making that same mistake.

Could a well functioning solar powered hot air balloon be built with today's technology? I am picturing a fan, heating element, and a whole lot of solar panels. Photoelectric balloon fabric would be the best choice, but I don't think that exists yet? What do you guys think?

Well, there's lots of stability in between the dramatic events. In a nutshell, the dramatic events occur because they lead to a lower energy state, ie less free energy.

Time is always in flux. It's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff.

What would you equip your mech with for giant moth fighting? I think I'd use a flamethrower fueled by bugspray.

I know this isn't entirely on topic, but isn't the Kerbal universe entirely non-relativistic?