PB666

Which means that would be a first experiment. If you assume quantum local momentum transfers and you point the back-end of the drive into a relatively empty part of the universe (i.e. not toward our galactic core), and it still produces some significant fraction of the thrust precedence, then yes I would say irrational. If not then there are issues relating to quantum space. There are two ways of looking at the problem, the one is from a physics rules POV in which this is irrational and from an empirical rules POV in which some aspect of physics is irrational. Almost all physics you know of evolved from the second point of view (recalling that earth was once the center of the Universe). Thus the word irrational is biasing and ultimately damages physics (it actually creates a straw-man argument), lets use the phrase empirical observations with weak but significant unexpained tensors. I just want to put my two cents on the design. The Cubesat should have four (eight if possible) steering engines and one main engine. The steering engines should be not be composed of miniature versions of the Cannae drive and they should be highly calibrated for dV performance. Aside from the typical stuff, the device needs a very good gyroscope and a very sensitive accelerometer. I would recommend that its course be set to pass on the far side of the moon as far from earths-moon CoG as possible to avoid the earths magnetic field (something the moon basically lacks). In this orbit the engine should be tested on the moons night side so it needs a decent battery as well as a RTG, with smallish side mounted solar panels. 1. Test 1 should be to maintain course - Increasing energy to the drive in the smallest of increments, will it produce thrust along the drives axis, and if not how much thrust needs to be applied from the smaller devices to keep it strait. To do this the device needs a very precise set of minature thrusters, capable of producing uN of thrust themselves. 2. Test 2 does the course change or performance increase depending on its orientation toward any celestial body (For example if its discontinuous thrust axis intercepts earths surface). 3. Test 3 does a performance test assuming that #1 it produces thrust along its axis and 2nd avoiding any celestial interactions, does a continuous high thrust result in a rapid decline of performance, does the axis of thrust shift either with power or time, does energy ultilization migrate from thrust production to device heating over time. end two-cents.

The more obvious confuscation is that the earth is, in its orbit within its inertial reference frame, and so the sun, other than hv, which is either indirect or direct depending whether you believe light is a particle or wave, is applying a net force on the earth. The solar wind is acting on earths magnetic field the net affect is largely negligable. The answer to the OP is here: http://www.sciencealert.com/all-of-richard-feynmans-physics-lectures-are-now-available-free-online

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanaceae its a big family of fruiting plants Tomato, eggplant, tomatillos, pepino also chili peppers

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151103100250.htm Rather poorly written article. Bottom line is a desert member of the nightshade family of plants grows fast makes lots of seed mass and little flowering mass. Problem is ......are the seeds edible and or nutritious?

Doh, i forgot the towel.

Its self limiting, the more clouds the lower the pan evaporation rate which means lower surface evaporation. Lower evaporation means dynamic equilibrium shifts toward clearing skies. The players in turnover are 1. Diuranal heat cycle 2. +/-Latitudinal cooling - lower incidence angles 3. Coreialis effect and thermal gradients of any kind, doesn't matter. 4. Surface irregularites (e.g. mountains) ..... terrain elements that either accelerate air mass or cause it tobrise quickly. The combinatio of moisture and the above drives the dynamic toward the clearance of clouds through precipitation, which then favor higher pan evaporation rates. Unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases water tends trap heat at low humidities but at saturation prevents heat from reaching trapable layers.

Again missing the point; if we use your logic the LHC never gets built. Its not about the propulsion system or whether it works or fails. The mission is about the physics, pretty much only about the physics. Just like the probe to hunt down quantum gravity. You really do't care if you have a packageless cubesat up there with infinite dV, what are you going to do with it, pick up space debris? Earth - large gravity well (subtle but means there are lots of things closeby to allow spooky momentum transfers) - rather heafty magnetic field.......one of the problems takled in the blurp. Space - no mass for spooky local momentum transfers - much lower magnetic field Situation 1. Device produce the same amount of force as on earth ... . . . . uh, oh. Time to retire alot of physics professors and get a new crew. Situation 2. Device doesn't produce the same amount of force . . . . . . . . pull those physics professors out of retirement, QFT needs a rather heafty dose of computer modeling. Those minor unknown connotations of quantum mechanics are not so minor. Notice that nowhere above have i mentioned space travel or perpetual motion machines, that is for popular science magazines.

Amazon lies under the TCZ, its known for moisture production and low end termostability, due tonits diatance to the poles. This explains why there are lots of forest in the ITZ, Trees have a profound effect on energy, particularly in wetlands. They transpire, many actually recycle water in the upper canopy. Block sunlight from hitting the ground. pan evaporations rates give testimony to the profound effect direct sunlight has on thermal conversion at the earth surface. If you take direct solar radiation off the surface youbreduce the ability of the sun to cause diurnal ground temperatue cycles. Without this the ground does not effectively heat up. Since heat rises all the air between the ground and the upper canopy stays cooler. Since the canopy soaks up water and the uses it to keep itself cool it stays cooler, and since the acces to air below, cooler wetter, it has a better convection than the grass covered surface. The almost saturated air heats up under the surface of leaves which push water into the air, the heated air picks up the vapor cooling the leaf and spreading the suns heat out as vapor of 1000s of meters of air column and there you have thermostability. Then around 2 to 4 PM the atmosphere takes a dump and releases the heat back to the air in the upper elevations where it gradually radiates back into space.

Assuming that whatever is causing it will be explained by physics, known or unknown, rational is assumed.

Nope, give them HHGTG.

Yes, but I have skepticism it will work as well in space as it does on earth. You guys have got it wrong, its not about spacing a new kind of drive, its about the experiment ........if it works well in space the there is flaw(s) in QFT. Most notably the statistical contraint that conserve momentum over superplanck lengths appears to have a tweekable hole in it. More importantly we have no idea how or why it works at a particular resonance wavelength. If that is the case it could open the door to much more powerful equipment, including much more efficient power generation. This not simply a launch, as i thought, they need to orbit the device outside of earths magnetic field.

I know of editors that won't take manuscript if the information has been published anywhere else, peer reviewwed or not. The real experimental stuff needs to be kept hush-hush until publication.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34694935

Not censorship, peer review, they probably asked for major revisions (i.e. you have to go back to the bench and do more work). The most critical referee that does not eventually reject your paper, in the long run, is your best friend. The last place you want to see a mjor error revealed is in the headline of some newspaper after yor work is published.

Technological development and education of the masses go hand in hand. Funneling a nations poor into targeted education programs which has high end goals like space exploration or development of science cities is about the best way to get information in the hands of the masses. I keep reminding everyone that the multiplier effect to the economy for science and technology almost always pays for the initial government expenditure.

The earth is covered with an average of 2 kilometers of water, we are in no short supply of water on earth. If you making the argument that water is a valuable resource for colonizing space I wouldnt waste a second on galilean moons. Given the abudance of comets/asteroids. Exploitation of space for resources that are more abundant on earth is dumb, expensive, and risky. All the methane gas in the outer solar system is of no importance here on earth, methane is not even good rocket fuel, it has the lowest density when liquified of any organic compound and is the hardest to compress. Exploitation of material resources from space makes no sense unless those resources are utilized in space. Sorry you are wrong minded on this. All those rocks on the moon, mars nothing special there. No precious metal. The water on mars would need to be heated and chemically separated from the high levels of salt, which may also be true in other parts of the solar system. Even sea water is more useful than space brine its only 3.5% w/v. If you can name one known place in our solar system wher a particular valuble molecule is found more abundant than a good reserve here on earth i will correct this. Maybe helium, but that can be harvested from the space near earth. This is the backdrop of why the Mars manned mission is premature. From basically useless rock, frozen liquids and brine the colonist will have to devise ways of extracting the resources they nedd to survive, its an occupation so expensive it would be foolish to think about exporating materials backnto earth.

You point to earthly anyplace and that place has more resources relative to the risk relative to space. The only resource space has in abundance is space, but OTOH if you ultimate goal is risk aversion then space is a resource because it is not earthly. Space also demonstrates humans have reached a certain level of social maturation. You can examine any society on earth, for the most part none are prepared to make the commitment to society to permit longterm survival in space. When indeed we are ready to colonize, the notion of conquering will not be the primary motivation.

I think the big desire comes from WWII becasuse the Germans had all this great technology and conquested so quickly, the philosophy became he who controls the heavens so controls the world. As a consequence the US was rather humiliated by sputnik, and so we man-on-the-mooned the soviets. But the reality is not to have men in space, the control issue is about knowledge. The two superpowers want to see what the other guys are doing 24/7 and they want to see it in all wavelengths and as deep underground as possible. The other stuff is to keep the public on board. Turn JWST around and put it in geo and you can tell when [public enemy #1] walks his poodle.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2015/31oct_worlds/ Im going to let NASA explain this one, though I think think the technique is kind of gee whiz. Most of our new telescopes are infrared, the science in the link represents a good reason for keeping hubble alive. JWST might find that really nice planet, but you might also want to look at its shortwave length spectrum.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/halloween-skies-to-include-dead-comet-flyby Nasa thinks that this comet is the core of a comet that burned away all its volatiles

This is a physic video that illustrates a simulation of energy fluctuations and quantum fields within quantum scalar 'empty' space. I can do without the cheesey background space music.

The angular vector of the accretion volumn that represents the greatest angular momentum will be the vector with the least 'drag' or collion related heat or friction. This is going to cause flattening. But non-collisions also matter since they can change the orbital momentum and eccentricity throwing them either into the central star, into an orbit that collides with a larger planet, like jupiter, or out of the system.

Not sure why i should respond to this, but i was debunking the myth of Star trek. Sure dreaming about stuff, but hollywood is not neceesarily menlo park. The first encryption program for a cell phone was actually invented by an actress, but that was two decades before star trek. What hollowood does is glorify itself and attributes to itself things it did not create.