LN400

Perhaps I'm blind but I really can't see any arrow button. I hovered over the entire toolbar area but nothing popped up. This image shows my entire toolbar.

Smaller for sure. Still a monstrosity though (source: http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/k-7.html )

I figured since this is more a general question, I'd rather ask here than in the Toolbar (Blizzy78) thread. At least until I have something to ask him about specifically. Anyway, I have a "small" collection of mods installed, including Blizzy78's Toolbar. Now some stock icons in the mission environment (like credits/science/reputation) are permanently hidden, as well as some mod icons (like Infernal Robotics). I gathered which icons can be shown in Toolbar depends on the individual mod maker but there is one thing I haven't figured out: How can I remove mod icons from the stock toolbar and have them show up in Blizzy78's version instead (provided they support this)? I figured that freeing up slots in the stock toolbar would get the now hidden ones back. Complete mod list (latest folder names + actual mod if relevant): If there are alternatives to Blizzy's Toolbar that lets me have all the stock icons while also have all the mod icons available in some form, please chime in. If there is a fix for the original question, even better.

First, I'm sorry if this has been answered but I haven't found that so: Been away from KOS for a while now. Has anything changed recently? I am no longer able to load the code into the KOS units (none of them) in VAB. I distinctly remember a slider in VAB where one could pre-load the code before launch. That slider is no longer available to me. Only slider is hdd size. Just in case it matters, here is my mod list UPDATE: Re-downloaded KOS and the slider is back so it appeared to have been a corrupt download.

Minor technicalities like travel time as well as safe return etc (as in the OP) aside: Way out to see what this Oort cloud is like and map it, if it is indeed there at all. As of now, it is still only a theory. To find it, describe it and map it would perhaps be the greatest challenge in the exploration of our solar system.

Whatever gametime I have goes to, apart from KSP, FSX. At least until I have crossed Canada. By then I fully expect to be very tired of all things sim, at least for a while.

Sorry for any derailment of this thread

Just curious: How many recorded files do you have?

I don't consider myself to be the one to come up with anything groundbreaking in maths. I never did. Anyone thinking I did have not understood any of what I've been saying. My point was, and still is, the way we humans see maths is, neccessarily so, limited by the way our brains have evolved, how the brain is wired. Our brain is in no way something that evolution will always strive to evolve elsewhere That kind of idea is pure anthropocentricity, or if you like, our tendency towards species narcissism. We have our maths and that's fine but to rule out that maths can exist that is beyond human understanding is, to put it mildly, extremely pompous and pretentious.

Thanks for finding that info! Interesting but not unexpected.

This whole topic got me thinking, so I did a little reading around the internet. Although this is not a planet, it shows that some objects can have an absolutely ridiculous spin so what I found was PSR J1748-2446ad, a pulsar that has a calculated equatorial rotational speed of around 70,000,000 m/s. Now, being a pulsar it has a gravitational pull far greater than Earth and I have absolutely no idea what the orbital velocity would be at 0 m altitude but it shows that rotational speeds for large objects can be pretty insane. So, feel free to calculate the orbital speed neccessary for that bad boy.

If I understand the post correcly: The first question (highlighted) can not be answered, or even asked. It's like talking about a 60 Joules lightbulb. So I assume you're asking if a planet can have a surface velocity less than or equal to the planet's orbital velocity at 0m altitude. Less than, absolutely. Earth is such a planet. Surface speed at Earth's equator is something like 460 m/s which is less than orbital velocity at 0m altitude at some 7900 m/s. Equal to, now that is different. Like Tex_NL said, such a planet would tear itself to pieces if it was formed in the first place. Only way such a planet could have existed would have been if it started out with a lesser surface velocity, then somehow some forces sped up the surface velocity and then it would tear itself up.

If Gagarin wasn't the first, then who was? I am aware of the Lost Cosmonauts theory but to my knowledge, no conclusive evidence has ever been found to support this theory. Is there a source you could link up here?

Just occured to me this. If you want multiple engines, perhaps talk to a tractor pull guy. Some of them have made some pretty insane tractors like

As for steering, the specs requirements from the customer included 3 steering wheels. That would make for some interesting driving. I love whacked out ideas like that, and the fact that BMW's designers took up the challenge to design it, is pretty darn cool. As for building it, I have VERY limited knowledge of cars but actual production? I just don't see how that is technologically plausible, if only for the 3 drivers thing alone. As a model? Oh hell yes!

It is, isn't it! It's near impossible now to imagine how much of an impact that movie had on buddying film makers back then and even much, much later it kept inspiring, not to mention how future physicists and cosmologists may have been inspired by it when they saw it on the big screen when they were kids in 1902-1903. One can only guess. Another flick from the same director, I had no idea existed until just now and just wait and see where they are going this time. Mad and marvelous, so enjoy:

Here is perhaps the oldest sci-fi movie ever made: A Trip To The Moon (Le Voyage Dans La Lune) from 1902!! One can laugh at how they depict the moon but as someone else correctly stated: This movie is closer in time to the French revolution than to 2016! 67 years would pass until Eagle landed on the moon in 1969. As for the colours, believe it or not but the colours were added back then, believed to be lost, found and restored so enjoy. Now as for the purpose of this thread. If you have some oddity of a document related to the dream of space travel, the more obscure the better, the odder the better, then please share. Perhaps this could be a collection of documents on how we have dreamt on space travel for a very long time and how we still dream of it.

But now you are applying our understanding of it to all kinds of maths, you even say "defined as". Defined for sure but defined by us, the humans. Rings, fields, the unit, they are all human inventions or a result of the human understanding to bring order in our understanding of our maths. My point is, we can not assume that our inventions are applicable to all maths. As for the matrices, you just highlighted my point. We are limited in how much we can imagine. That goes for each and every one of us from dumbo to Hawking. We have different limits but that's irrelevant. We all have our limits. We can not imagine what's beyond our limit. As for that vid, and 1 + 1 = 0, one thing they do mention is modular arithmetics (NOT binary as you presented it as) where 1 + 1 = 0 is as valid and as significant as 1 + 1 = 2. The same operation, the same value (1) and 2 distinctly different results. That was one of the points I was talkng about. Now if we can have 1 + 1 = 0 or 2 depending on the rules, then it's false to say that 1 + 1 is always 2. If that is false then who are we to say there aren't other ways to add those 1's to get even more different answers, IF we change the rules. EDIT: As for the lack of board. Mathematics isn't only about scribbling down symbols, numbers, equations and so on. Our mathematics has roots going firmly into philosophy, logic and reasoning. Take philosophy and reasoning out of it and you won't have any maths as we know it. For that, you won't need a blackboard.

Here's a talk that raises some interesting points on maths including how 1+1 does not neccessarily equal 2. It's a long vid but the first half hour is interesting enough. EDIT: Hary R is right in that we just can't make any educated guess, only wild guesses, until the day we would meet these aliens, if that ever happens. I'll be wildely guessing here so, consider this: We put a lot of emphasis on the Unit, 1 if you will but what exactly is a unit? I don't think many would disagree that by 1 we mean a single object of some kind be it a physical object or a non-physical one but is that really all "1" can be and does it even have to be just one 1, or could there be different 1s that are not the same but still share this quality of oneness? We use 1, the unit, to build up other numbers as collection of units and/or parts of a unit. The value 1 has it's own set of properties. Some or all properties in that set may be shared by other numbers but no other number have the same, full set of properties. With these numbers we can play around and construct other objects, like matrices, or a grid of values arranged to represent something. What if some other species elsewhere in the universe don't think in terms of units as we do but instead think of numbers as matrices of properties so that to them, the idea of a single digit value say 1, is just plain unthinkable. One can try to imagine a system of matrices where each element in one such matrix has their own set of properties, like our matrices but to these aliens, it's the matrix itself that is the number and they can have multiple matrices we have no other way of translating other than to 1. yet they are all different, and they build a consistent numeral system just as powerful as ours, or even more powerful allowing for operations we can't even imagine.

Just as a brain teaser: Imagine the concept of integration using Roman numerals. Can it even be done? How do you treat limits using Roman numerals? Can you use any additive system, like the Roman numerals, at all for calculus or is a positional system required? How much did the introduction of zero mean to our mathematics today? How much did the invention of the positional systems mean? Imaginary numbers? As for base 12 over base 10, or using base 2 or any other such base, it doesn't matter as far as expressing values are concerned. You will always have those values you can't express as a fraction. The values may not be the same for every base but for any base there will be irrational and transcendental numbers. As for the basic operations you can perform, they are the same for each of these bases. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and powers. Sqrt(110012) = 1012 just as sqrt(25) = 5. Another brain teaser: How would Euclid cope with the idea that parallell lines may cross each other? It's hard to imagine by many even today, long after the introduction of geometry that allows that. Not all accept the idea at all. There are people who still insist all numbers are rational, that imaginary numbers are not even used by anyone serious about maths. And still we haven't left planet Earth. As for maths being One Universal Truth, that is not really the case. What you perhaps could rather say is any maths out of a vast space of possible maths is universally true. Problem occurs when we say, meet some extraterrestrial using maths we are not aware of exists and they are unaware of the existence of our maths. What would such an alien's idea of a number be? We can not say that our understanding of numbers is universal. Our understanding and our numbers are results of how our brains evolved as our sensory organs evolved. There is no reason to believe a brain evolved on another planet would work the same way as our own. We can't be so anthropocentric as to think evolution strives to produce "humans" elsewhere. We are quite unique and so is, possibly, our maths. EDIT: As a side note: A Japanese mathematician of some caliber, Shinichi Mochizuki has possibly proved the abc conjecture. Problem is, no other mathematician is capable of telling whether or not the proof is valid. Workshops where the experts in the relevant fields came together were organised. Not to see if the proof was valid, but simply to understand what on god's green earth the possible proof was saying. They still haven't succeeded. The human understanding can not be pushed beyond all limits.

1 was once concidered a prime and now, well, you can choose, apparently, whether to include 1 or not.

That is a real good question. With 1 we think of well, one this or one that, a single unit of something and with 3 we think of a single unit together with a single unit together with yet another single unit for a collection of well, 3 units. That works well with base [any integer] system but it doesn't necessarily work well if the base in the new system is an irrational number or worse, a transcendental number. If the base is an irrational number then we would need a system that is consistent and non-self contradictory, a system that allows some kind of operation according to a set of rules. It is in that sense not strictly necessary to have the numbers evenly spaced. Think about logarithms and how spacing is non-even. I do not know how one can do it but one thing to ponder, consider complex numbers. Even if we stick with the familiar digits, the real number 1 in the complex plane would be 1 + 0i. This isn't just 2 values added together, it IS the "symbol" for 1, in cartesian form that is. Writing it as 1 is more of a shortcut not writing down what we have none of (the imaginary part). Perhaps it would be needed to give the values in a say, base pi system a whole different breed of symbols than we are familiar with. Then again, I'm no great matematician so what do I know

The problem I see here is, you are not really counting in base pi here. It is a pure base 4 in symbols but not in value. The problem arises from what values should the symbols represent, and it is here you jump back and forth between base pi and base 4, thus getting weird results. Same was with peadar's post, pointing at a base pi system while keeping the base 10 values for the symbols.

Have a look at these entries. Turns out non-integer bases have been contemplated and sometimes even used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrowski_numeration We need to draw a sharp line between the symbols themselves and what values they represent, which in turn gives them their properties. EDIT: Here is one interesting read http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/third-base/2

Applied mathemathics and pure mathematics have their equally important places and I would say one would be rather empty without the other. Applied mathematics without pure mathematics is doable but would be less rich while at the same time, pure mathematics without applied mathematics would be a bit like a being incapable of interacting with the suroundings, Would be a dreadfully dull dinner guest that. Then there are people trained in pure mathematics who came up with mathematical algorithms that had very real and very much wanted applications. Clifford Cooks is one. From a background in number theory he invented his RSA algorithm before anyone else did.