Green Baron

Ah, oh. It is actually more complicated but i stick to flight levels (dear pilots around, sorry for simplifying and not telling about air spaces, ifr, vfr, transition altitude, qnh and qfe :-)). That is because they measure the altitude with the most precise of all methods: by measuring the air pressure. But as they all would measure different altitudes depending on their start altitude and local air pressure (weather) they all agreed on a single base altitude to switch their instruments to. And that is the standard atmosphere's sea level pressure of 1013,x hPa (or 27.weird inches of mercury). Which means, that if 2 planes are assigned the same flight level (as measured by an instrument set to 1013,2 hPa) they actually do fly on the same altitude. They just sway up and down when flying through high and low pressure areas. On the other hand, if one of them is assigned FL200 and the other FL210 they actually are a thousand feet (edit +/- local weather adjustments) apart vertically.

Real world aircraft follow air pressure levels (aka flight levels), kerbal planes, when sas is engaged, just keep their orientation in space. They fly straight while Kerbin, being a rather small ball, bends away. Is that what you're looking for ?

I am sorry, i personally have difficulties pretending science could explain a fantastic scenario. For all i know about stellar and biological evolution (which in the first case isn't more than anybody else here, for the latter, as i once studied palaeontology maybe a tiny bit more), may brain refuses to try so without me keeping my selfconfidence intact. Or, in other word, i would feel uncomfortable doing so. But, of course, if you find a solution, i will happily read it :-)

Absolutely idiotic. If it wasn't that sad they could almost apply for the Darwin award ... Edit: read the comments to the 2017 winner so-far "503 Server Overload". Be prepared for tears of laughter :-))

A video of a private (!) test of a road barrier against terrorist attacks. It worked. The driver was badly wounded, they do not mention what exactly. The (german) comments are what they sound like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=DVRo2S60eIg Now we know why crash test cars are drawn by a cable. How can one be so thoughtless empty headed ?

But it is not how science works. A model is very rarely complete, as insight advances many are overthrown or reworked. It can only be good for given situation, and every scientific model comes with an description what it is made for, from and by whom. I never stated that. But the collection of tools known to (many, not all) humans is good enough to master most situations quite well. Absolutism is not science, it is the realm of belief. But this touches metaphysics and i have spent enough time here.

Am totally blowing the same horn :-) No. The model v=s/t is for every day use in a car the right one. It is not the right one for running a clock in a satellite that needs exact time. He can blame only himself for not knowing about the right choice or knowing it but ignoring it. Edit: post 1000 ! Yay ! So much wasted time

No Lisa comes home and asks dad (a physicist) why he is doing such complicated things while life is so easy, the teacher has demonstrated. What should dad say ? Sir, i know that :-)

He cannot blame the model for being incorrect. It is the wrong one for the situation. Like using a soft-wood saw for corundum steel.

Why ? Need more info to follow your thought, because v=s/t works quite well here. Am ready to throw it overboard if offered something better :-) A no-go is to set rules as one likes, ignore, switch or bend them or apply the wrong to a given situation (like v=s/t to relativistic speeds to stay with the example). Switching off physics to construct a situation and then on again in an area while leaving it off in an adjacent and then demanding a solution from physics for the "on-area" simply does not work. I wish that basic insight would become more common :-)

Some models are better (in terms of approximating nature) than others. A model that computes a negative body temperature of a life creature should be overworked or discarded :-)

Off topic, just a sidenote: Orbiter does so. It calculates mass distribution of a vessel to determine different levers that force a vessel in a bound rotation and so on. Orbiter also takes account of perturbations in earths gravitational field. The resource specification is lower than that of ksp, Orbiter uses quite sophisticated algorithms and is programmed in c++. The math orbiter uses is described in several pdfs that come with it.

I kindly ask to revisit stellar evolution. Stars are made from hydrogen. Red dwarfs slowly fuse their hydrogen if i remember correctly. Is carbon fusion involved at all ? I'd rather attribute it to red giants ? Fusion is a very fragile process. Needs stability over millions of years and the right mixture, pressure and temperature. Carbon fuses (if it fuses during stellar evolution) in a hull that slowly moves through a stars atmosphere. [Not citable] All the water in the pigeon bodies will moderate the process i don't think any fusion can start at all. Also the explosion like emergence of pigeons will not guaranty the stability needed. Furthermore i'd expect the pigeons not to have enough density to collapse into something supermassive. So the ball will probably just grow superluminal for eternity. Since the premise ignores physics and keeps doing so during the whole process we can safely keep ignoring it and accept superluminal expansion [/not citable]. :-)

Got up early today and had a nice view on the galactic center shining bright in the south. I am 28° north. Next month there'll be enough time for something photographic / wide field.

Afaik not. The inflationary phase is the interesting time frame. Don't ask me details, but when i last read about it it all made sense somehow :-) Search for false vacuum, higgs field, these kind of things. Ignore that singularity thing. They may commence. :-)

I certainly do agree. A mass out of nothing, growing exponentially for an infinite time will form an infinite mass in infinite time. We ignore physics here at least for the initial impetus (the first few pigeons so to say) because, were physics valid, the process would never come into being. A mass (better: energy) doesn't come out from nothing. At what time exactly shall we switch on physics again and how much of it ?

But then are wherever we were before with this type of discussion: what happens to physics if i ignore physics or switch it on and off as i like it ? If pigeons appear endlessly out of nothing then everything can happen. You can have an endless ball of space cats or hawks chasing around the pigeons. Or anti pigeons. Irl pigeons do not fuse, form red stars or break dimensions. They don't destroy reality or planes of existence (what's that anyway ?), do not rip the space-time for whatever that means. A mass doesn't self destruct and destroy the universe. It may collapse into a singularity but it is still there. I can discuss the principles i know of (see above), but it is hard to discuss an infinite mass destroying the universe.

Oops, did i step on someone's foot ? It wasn't meant to be. It was what i thought when i re-read that they talked about exponential rows in algebra in school. No paradox here, op said to ignore physics an science. I tried that in my first two posts but was requested to forget about physics and science. Oh, come on :-) Pigeons emerge magically, don't need resources, multiply in space, fuse like hydrogen, destroy dimensions and are sucked through wormholes ? Physic's laws must have changed fundamentally since i last watched ... My excuse: i was explicitly invited to do so ! And i offered a solution to get rid of the pigeon plague without destroying the universe. Isn't that an admirable step ? :-) Feel better now ? :-)

Sorry, my bad. You probably didn't have that in algebra yet. You can count the natural numbers in infinite time, but not for example the rational real numbers (not sure about the rational numbers !). Every gap between two rational numbers, as small as it may be, opens up a gap for an infinite number. Rational real numbers, in contrast to the natural ones, are uncountable infinite. If you like to find out more: cardinal numbers is the search expression, here infinite cardinals. If that's not enough then carry on with the aleph numbers. But they go over my head. Edit: though i need many more pigeons than you in your example (edit: at least infinite as well ...), they all fit into a small interval (e.g. all rational pigeons between 0 and 1). The universe gets a second chance ;-) 2 edit: rational number are countable, real numbers not. Phew.

@ProtoJeb21: I have another one that involves many more pigeons than the just infinite ones of the exponential growth (handwave): Start with two pigeons. Put one in between. Ignore space. Now put two pigeons between the three pigeons. Carry on putting a pigeon between any two pigeons. Ignore complaints about narrow space. See ? :-))

Well, unlimited exponential growth is countable infinite. But (besides the evolutionary things above) it has no connection to science because pigeons don't appear magically. You can of course calculate the expansion rate of your pigeon ball, it'll probably be faster than light after minutes, violate evolution, relativity, thermodynamics and disney productions, but what for ? I can think of stranger things :-) Edit: mathematics is not a natural science in itself. It is a tool like a language, used by natural science as well as by philosophy. Just sayin' ...

Sorry, please attribute this question to my not being a native english speaker: "to science the crud out of everything", does it mean that in the post you simply didn't care about science and just put forward something, as silly as it might be ?

Well, in principle i got that :-) Sorry if i didn't hit the right tone ... My intention was only to grab the opportunity and strengthen science. A bit.

But it is also a nice example of information sharing these days. I am trying to dissect the thought and mean no offence, ProtoJeb ! Use of a lurid title to gain attention Post a basic principle out of context, applied to a subject it was not made for Ignore natural principles, side effects and controlling factors Draw premature conclusions while neglecting the scientific background The lurid title claim goes without proof. The basic principle of exponential growth is a mathematical model. It can be used (and often is so in party talk) to describe the multiplication of living organisms but it was not made for that subject. In a certain stage, when adaptation of an organism meets the requirements of the environment it will multiply but only until it reaches the limits, provided by the resources in the environment. This is where it will stop, spoiling the environment with it's excretions and thus narrowing its own niche. And/or, if it meets competition, will try to displace or be displaced. In any case, the natural processes meet limiting factors. A phase of exponential growth, if it exists at all, can only last for a very limited time. That is the easy version :-) Whatever mechanism is at work, it is never the only determinant in describing a complex system. There are always interdependencies, like food chains, resource availability, cycles of matter, metabolisms. Some are obvious, others need deeper investigation. And that is where science comes back into the game. It is meant to explore these complexities ! Have a nice day everyone, and again, no offence, beat me up as a party spoiler :-)

Nice idea :-)) I start. I hope this isn't moved to science & spaceflight soon *devilkerbal* :-)