JoeSchmuckatelli

So if CERN created a particle that decays in a nanosecond, you are saying that at the moment of it's creation it came into existence as itself and its decayed state? The act of decay isn't an act of creation, then? So... Is U-238 also Lead-206... And every particle in between in superposition with one another, but merely awaiting the amplitude change? If so, that has some interesting implications.

If you flung the pages off a cliff, would you have a cascade of entropy?

Quick question (as I formulate my response); Is it fair to say that a particle has three states: Undecayed (which gives no information about when it will decay) Decaying (which gives information about the rate and progress), and Decayed (which gives no information about when it decayed? (Or am I fully exposing ignorance by even asking the question???) Can't seem to edit these correctly; Your response, quoted above, suggests the answer to my question is 'no'. I just want to be sure.

Heh - I've tried, here, to phrase the question to avoid delving into how or whether free will relates to the question. In the other, we got to Allah and 'magic' in about two steps. I still feel like there is room to quibble with what you write above. Certainly, if you start with knowing what's going on at Spacetime Point A and follow sequentially through each step between it and Point W, you would say that the system had to develop the way it did... Because that is how it developed. But I think @Terwinbrings up an interesting point - something like decay where there is no guarantee of the particle decaying at the second averaged by its fellows, how can we say that knowing Point A is deterministic rather than probabilistic? If the answer is that 'perfect knowledge' of what's going on at Point A incorporates knowledge of exactly when the particle will decay... I might argue that 'perfect knowledge' in that case would require Allah to comprehend (because you would also, then, have to know not only when that particle would decay, but also the instant of decay of particles not yet in existence)

@K^2 Does knowledge of a deterministic structure in the quanta necessarily translate into a finding that the macro universe must be deterministic as well? (This asked in relation to the concept that hugely complex systems can evolve from simple rules: I fail to see a connection between knowing the position of the elements of the system at Point A in time and space allows you the certainty of how the system will evolve way down the line... You reference imperfect understanding... But would perfect understanding of such a system not merely give you a range of probability for what will develop at Point W?)

Well, I'm out. Tanks are bigger than space ships, it seems Yeah - the fish scale tiles I referenced earlier look like an elegant solution - one that preserves a non-linear aspect

A bit of esoterica for this 200th page: are physicists (or you, dear reader) more likely to believe in hard determinism or randomness in the processes that result in the universe we see today? Disclosure - this arises from a discussion relating to this article ( https://www.sciencealert.com/a-physicist-has-worked-out-the-math-that-makes-paradox-free-time-travel-plausible) about paradox - free time travel being possible. One guy argued: A chain of cause and effect reach back to the origin of time, space, mass, and reality itself. This enforces hard determinism. ... It can be seen that all proper causes have a proper effect, within chemistry and physics, as well as in life. Even ideas like quantum observer concepts can likely be traced to mundane cause and effect at its lowest level. The only way to defy determinism is to have improper causes or improper effects occur. This is generally called, "magic." To which I countered: 'Research showing that exceptionally complex systems can arise from a few very simple rules allows for randomness - and this explanation is more likely than the existence of some over-arching complex equation that describes what was, is and ever will be. Thoughts?

I've often wondered - is that soot from the landing burn, or to do with the reentry heating?

With several space-faring nations and companies now regularly throwing rocks into LEO and other parts of the surrounding area... is there any agency deconflicting orbits between and among all the actors? Also, how does this work when say 'Sekret Grup' from Country Zed wants to throw its intel gathering spycraft into orbit? I know that we, and others routinely try to track and plot their launches... but is there any prior deconflicting? (Or is it an extension of the 'big sky, little bullet' philosophy?)

Another resource: How to Cover a Monolithic Dome with Tile or Rock | Monolithic Dome Institute and this 'fish scale' design is cool: Dome Tile | MCA Tile (mca-tile.com)

So - don't try to use the hexes for the cone. Instead - use strips: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.atlasroofing.com/download.php%3Fuid%3D1505%23:~:text%3DCones%20with%20three%20to%20eight,up%20evenly%20to%20a%20point.&ved=2ahUKEwi3mdmBzdXuAhVLGs0KHaX4DQUQFjABegQIEBAF&usg=AOvVaw3YfbJijR8HMKDfnAo3V7rM Another idea : https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Conical_roof_slating

If they were able to get a blimp into the atmosphere and just let it fly around for a while - the science could be astounding. And why bother with a lander / rover. Just drop a weighted bucket on a cable and scrape up the top layer. On board equipment in the gondola does the work and then it's dumped. If you felt like you need to try to drill, then you can drop off another unit on a cable, fill the sample bucket and recover or abandon the drill unit as necessary

I don't believe Rocket Martins are native to South Texas. Although I have heard of an influx of non-native unladen African Swallows...

In this image of 10, the cone shows a different color band of metal... Does that indicate a different type of steel?

Automated system on the ship should be able to get 'lever arm' measurements and then rate each for priority, from most to least. I presume the system can also tell whether each rocket has had good relight or not. So if all 3 relight* appropriately, it just does an if-then process to shut down the one with the least lever arm. *If 2 relight, it quits feeding the 3d for safety and lands with the 2 good regardless of the lever arm measures

You know - it had to be a decision at some level. You have to assume that they at least discussed the merit of the plan... Which almost worked for Sn8. So I don't think it was oversight, or 'dumb' out of hand - but one of those things that in retrospect you decide was dumb - even though at the time it seemed like a reasonable course of action. I forgot which tweet it was - but I think that lighting 3 has it's own potential downside... So I hope Sn10 is illuminating, if not quite as bright as Sn9 was there for a moment

The key difference is who's money is being spent. With SpaceX - we get to enjoy the spectacle... Sadly with NASA every other 'interest' in receiving tax dollars would howl and scream, refusing to understand the process. It sucks when you are not allowed to make mistakes.

I've been trying this method with lottery tickets and it's still not working

Which is why we are speculating as to the decision to only light two vs three. I guess the question is whether it's easier to turn off a raptor you don't need, or to turn one on. Have to presume they thought about it and had a reason to go with only two... Unless it was for the insurance money

Starship is supposed to be able to use the flaps to be able to help the ship get more accurately to the landing area - but yeah, not like shuttle to fly and land, 'as a plane'. However - there will be a real element of 'falling with style' to what they can achieve via the flaps.... even if it does fall short of 'flight'.

I gotta ask this: given that Sn8 did not land. And Sn9 was another real 'let's toss this up and see what happens' launch (such is the fate of prototypes)... Why put Sn10 anywhere near where Sn9 might FOD the heck out of it?

@tater That's some hinkey - jinky work there. Someone should have wrapped it up in gold foil for the more professional space look

Interesting - I did not know that they did faring recovery. I wonder how that works. ... On another note: why do they not light up all three engines for the landing? Presumably they could shut one down if they did not need it easier than trying to light the third if the second failed, as happened.

If the frame timing is the same - 9 was falling a whole lot faster than 8 was before the flip maneuver

The way that they seem to float up and away makes me think it's something like foil or insulation that has a lot of surface area for the weight. Landing legs should have dropped like a rock (or with the craft)