Technical Ben

That is dreamy!

On a rag tag collection of craft all docked together with spares, on it's way to rendezvous with a return from Jool craft for the 20 something Kerbals I have around Laythe. Why? The game is bugged and I need to return all the Kerbals to redo my save (seems 0.90 hates old saves... and new saves and any save with a living/flying Kerbal in it).

I may mod it back in just for my older saves, and just "turn off torque" for when playing "vanilla" style 0.90 and above.

AFAIK, it's not a requirement, but a preference that no data is ever destroyed. However we do seem to have an edge case with black holes, as we can argue that to certain perspectives nothing ever reaches the black hole (it takes "infinite time"). However from other reference frames it does reach the black hole event horizon. So it's still a little undecided if and what information enters or exists black holes. PS, I must look up how furry black holes are again.

So Squad looked out the window... saw the clouds passing by, and said "we are leaving the atmosphere, we are about to get into space!" and then pulled up their sleeves and got ready to leave BETA and enter release 1.0. So all good!

Ok, so how would 2d beings (say those on a computer program) detect the third dimension? Are they required to be able to detect this? Say if we produce a mechanical robot that operates in 2 dimensions only? Would it detect extra dimensions? As said, being able to say "we can confidently say nothing exists past X" is an interesting statement to make. Any observation on it is important data to know. Good example. Yep, I know of it. But is that always the case? Is it a requirement that any dimension be detectable that way? If it is, then we can confidently state we are able to detect all that can possibly exist? (That there can never be a region just outside of our observation?) I also cannot see any solution to the "beginning of time" question. We only have 2 possibilities on that one, and only observe one fact on the matter.

If the Raptor cannot be throttled, it does not land. But as a single use rocket, yes your idea is great. Failure rates do not work that way for recovery averages. Less items/objects means less overall failures. More items/objects means longer continuous use. Thus, for a mission/profile that allows for small failures, you can have many (see 9 engines per cluster, with up to 2 or so failures and still a "success"). But only 3 or less individual stages for recovery, with preferably 1-2 as the less rockets to land, the less "crash" when a mistake happens. For an example of this, Google have some good numbers on failure rates of HDDs. Too many and you end up with more failures than your providing backups to. Too few and you get more failures and loose data/up time. I would assume it's the same for the rockets. Too many (3 or more stages) and things get complicated, too few (one big single stage) and you loose a lot in a failure. Though I may be wrong, as some design ideas are going up to like 6 boosters!

Did this in KSP with Multiple Mechjebs. Never get tired of it (not sure if current build allows it, as Mechjeb may default to active craft only to save cpu use). PS, someone plays WAY too much KSP for these rocket designs. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/spacex-advances-drive-mars-rocket-raptor-power/ Will they ever add landing only engines/fuel/systems for these if the main engines cannot be throttled that much?

The third dimension is not topologically relevant to the people living in a 2d universe. In fact, AFAIK (or understand) it's impossible to observe OR detect it's existence. It could only be theorised and, assuming it exists, any interactions from the 3d dimension into the 2d universe would present themselves as 2d interactions that break "possibility/laws of physics". However, both systems would be valid, and would exist. No need for philosophical talk or arguments about science, we daily observe systems in isolation. Likewise, if out universe is part of anything "bigger" then we need not be able to detect it, nor should it be required to be detectable to exist. Just as a 2d universe could not detect the 3rd dimension, even though it does exist. Or would it be required for a 2d universe to be able to detect the 3rd dimension? Would the scientists in the 2d universe argue "the third dimension posses no practical applications so does not exist"? PS, talking about gravity being the things we use as a calculation to predict it's effect, is like saying Jam is made out of sticky substances attracted to clothing. It's effect and it's construction and it's form are all different things.

No one talked about vision or personality. Just a juxtaposition on comments and actions. If those planned features are up in code in the pre-releases, then yes, this game is ready for 1.0. If it's just promises (Ahem, Elite:dangerous and a few other games out there) then it may be a problem.

Funniest thing I ever saw. Not a lone person making a mistake due to lack of education and/or mental disposition, no. The fact a big company is either stupid enough to make the same mistake, or corrupt enough to run with it anyhow for the add revenue.

The power to stop dreaming I have super powers.

There is a button bug on the 64bit release. It prevents buttons from being pressed.

The Moon landings were faked, on the moon! They took an entire film set up there with pretend landers, astronauts the works! If you want proof, look at the landing sites with a telescope, you can still see the fake landers and where the actors put their footprints!

Just add a sprinkling of time and wait...

That is entirely new to me. I've not heard anyone claim that before. In fact I was under the impression such "embedded systems" are exactly what some are looking for to use in calculations. (It matters not to me either way which is true or false, as long as it matches observation. But as said, I've not heard of such observations being made before.) As a final example, how can "Well, an interesting result in GR is that a general solution to Einstein's Field Equations cannot be embedded" be true, if we can write down those equations. Is that not also a definition of "embedding" them.. just in this case on paper? "Point me to some line that you have to cross to be outside." This is where you loose me. A 2d universe cannot by definition point to the 3d universe as "a direction". It can though presume/theorise on one, though never truly "detect" it (it can comprehend, but all interpretation would have to be assumed true, it could not "prove" it one way or the other AFAIK). Likewise, what stops there being additional dimensions we have not <i>yet</i> detected? While the definition of "universe" means everything, we constantly learn of new things to add to it!

It's not a problem to the Fermi Paradox. Even a fly could be communicating with us in the time it's had. There is a chance we are the first/only life there is. Why only consider the chance we are the middle of many, the last, and not also consider we are the first?

Love the transfer/launch stage there. Very sleek and nice use of basic parts in an elegant way!

Think I'm going to have to wait for the next update, as getting new saves/games bugging out too frequently now. (mod fix does not seem to be working for me) I'll roll back to .25 for now. Thanks for the hard work though (all other fixes seem fine! ).

That is a new one to me. Care to elaborate or give some examples? What do we mean by "embedded manifold"? That there can be no other layers down from GR or that our universe is not "simulated" so to speak, or something else entirely? It will be really interesting to see what sort of data we have on how space is made up.

The probability is zero. As by definition if there was an exact copy, then there would be no defining feature for the universe (let alone us) to distinguish the difference. So there has to be one of every unique "thing" in the universe, and no recurrence. There can be 2 things similar, but they must have a defining feature (and I would assume a flat universe has no preferential frame so you cannot say there is a separation of space between original you and clone you). PS, there can be a "before" of the visible universe. But considering what is before it, is considering what is unobservable, so kind of beyond scientific questions. In a similar sense you can ask "what came before the start of the book", within the book there is no "before" the start, but outside that system, there can be any number of pre-existing/pre-dating systems and books.

I can say without any doubt in confidence, that while space may be infinite, the amount of "things" in it is finite. That is, there are countable things in the universe, and not uncountable things in it.

I get a similar bug in my 0.90 install sometimes, and seem to have found a possible workaround. If I leave a craft near the space centre, but do not retrieve it, I can click it to "fly" and get out of the locked menu. As when I then return to the space centre, everything is working again. This is no good if I get a full "freeze" of the game, but is ok when I can move the camera but cannot select any buildings. Anyone else able to use this as a work around? PS, thought I do have Claw's "fix" mode installed, so no idea if this effects it, will have to test later...

This is how I observe it to be so too. The same description, but from looking in the opposite direction (forwards), is that space expands in front of us (I guess, no idea how accurate a statement that is ). Or as you say, it is limited to within our light cone for the past events that effect us (at 13 or so billion light years across).

"if you wonder is it really slow, the Sun over it's lifetime (until now) has just revolved like 20 or 21 times. Very slow because a galaxy is simply enormous." That is still mind blowing though!