todofwar

I don't know, I still think it should have a bit more. Not double obviously, maybe 1.5x the normal tank?

So it seems odd to me that the mk2 is about as wide as two mk1s next to each other, yet has the same amount of fuel as a mk1. The mk2 cargo bay neatly fits one mk1, and almost fits two of them. Shouldn't it have way more fuel?

I think the cases that show otherwise get to a level of physics few people understand. But it would be more along the lines of A and ~A explain all observables equally well, but they start to differ at a point beyond which we can reasonably test.

I don't like it when people talk about "disproving Newton". Technically, he was right. All our equations must reach the classical limit, otherwise they fail. Newton's equations still all hold, he just missed some variables that become negligible at his scales. Back when I was actually taking modern physics my professor always made a point of having an exercise where we solved equations for the classical scale, and saw that all those intricacies of relativity or quantum fell away and we were left with good old Newton or Maxwell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fly-back_booster So, instead of having the center craft be a rocket like they had in that system, you make the center craft another spaceplane that will serve as your reusable orbiter. I do it all the time in KSP, so it must work . IRL it failed because you ended up needing so much mass in wings, wheels, and engines, all of which had to survive launch. But your system would allow these boosters to be simple lifting bodies and glide back. As for landing on the fins, wouldn't that necessitate a powered descent?

Wouldn't belly to belly be a biamese launch? Again, I'm talking about using this as a fly back booster. I guess you couldn't make the center craft symmetric in my idea anyway, so a biamese tsto or have an angle of attack such that your thrust vector is through your center of mass despite having only engines on one side a la shuttle would be the best way. More generally, what about landing this as a sea plane? Would the savings in wheels be negated by the increased structural requirements?

For symmetry mostly. I don't think you'd want to strap something to the front of a ship like that. You could have two and do a shuttle like launch I suppose.

Yeah, my thinking is basically have three of these, except the one in the middle would have a nice big cargo bay. All three are reusable lifting bodies.

But there is a possible observable, it's a matter of engineering to find out how to detect it. Maybe with a probe we launch outside the solar system to get away from the noise of the Sun, which is hard, but there is an experiment to be designed.

Higgs is a good illustration of how it should be. We have a feature of the universe, mass, but no good basis for it from first principles. Higgs proposes a solution, and scientists try to figure out how to prove it. But this all started from an observed phenomenon, mass. Another example is the graviton. We have no idea how to look for it but it is related to gravity which we do know exists. And it fits in best with the particles and forces we have observed. If something can explain gravity without a graviton, we will need to find something that breaks the symmetry of the two theories and test it. But what the original essay is getting at is theoretical physics can make predictions about phenomena we haven't observed, probably can't observe, and is giving theories that in theory would require a Dyson sphere around a supernova to get enough energy to test. Once you get that far removed from the real world I find it hard to keep calling it science. I could say the 13th dimension is the cow level from Diablo and no one can really prove me wrong.

That's the point, we need experiments or observables. What the essay is saying is that we should abandon the need for such experiments.

That is the current state of things, but what this essay says to me is he wants us to abandon the need for the dark matter detector in the first place. There is a reason we waited on the Nobel prize for Higgs until after they found his famous Boson. Not to use a terribly misunderstood phrase, but until we have proof things remain just theories.

But math alone can't be proof. There can be many different sets of equations to describe something, in the absence of an observable you're left with no way to choose between competing theories.

So, I stumbled upon this little essay https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25322 in which the author argues you don't need the ability to falsify a theory for it to be valid scientifically. I would argue that if you have no way to test a theory it doesn't belong in science, but I also can't think of a way to bring complex mathematics back into the fold of science with this harsh criterion so I am a bit torn. Any thoughts?

Mine was from the back of a Gameinformer magazine, they had a few "knockoff" video game titles, and me and a friend we're making our first AIM accounts (now I feel old) and he won CircularDotEater in a rock paper scissors match, so I got TodOfWar and I kept using it for everything.

Something to keep in mind with Cinemasins: THE BOOKS DON'T MATTER! (I think I am legally obligated to make that all caps, sorry). They state again and again in other videos and media that they are specifically critiquing movies, and if it was so important for the plot of the book it should have been part of the movie, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Any adaptation should completely stand on its own two legs. Also, they are coming at it from a completely layman perspective, so yes they will misunderstand science occasionally. They had many sins for Fury Road, but went out of their way to talk about how much they loved it. In this case, they included Neil so that they can give credit to the good job this movie did with science. I did find it a bit sad that the main gripes Neil seemed to have were the fact that the decision makers actually understand science, and that China and the US are able to work with each other.

So, things on Earth do have gravity. An interesting quirk of this is that if all the ice in Antarctica melted, the seas would rise more in the north than the south. This is because so much ice is held in Antarctica that its gravity is pulling more ocean water south. So if it melts that gravitational effect will be gone and water will swell northwards. Not much, I think an inch or two at most.

I think we might be saying the same thing? By red light, I mean the lowest energy visible light, not IR light. It's not possible to use IR light because there are no electronic transitions in the IR so you're not able to excite electrons for metabolism. Since, as you said, more of your light is coming in the IR region you need more total irradiance for the same amount of usable light energy in the visible or near IR (near IR would also probably not work, there are electronic transitions but it's hard to imagine the electron/hole pair persisting long enough to be useful). But, the IR light is still heating things up so by the time you have enough productive light you might be boiling away your oceans.

This was what I was trying to get at, there is definitely more to a pigment than absorption cross section. The other half is the ability to generate charge seperation, which chlorophyll in photosystem ii is great at. So even if it ends up reflecting high energy green light, which seems ineffective, it is able to more efficiently use the photons it does absorb. Under a red sun you may see things evolving to harness red light more effectively, but it doesn't mean they absorb the red light. Avoiding overheating and getting good charge separation efficiency will impact the ultimate color of these hypothetical plants as much as anything. But in terms of evolution, my understanding is life started off chemosynthetically, then developed photosynthesis as a way to deal with solar radiation. I think there would have to be a certain threshold of energy coming in as light for this to evolve naturally. And once you have that much light, I don't know if the planet will be at the right temperature for water to be liquid.

I was saying use this as a liquid flyback booster instead of an SSTO, I seem to have communicated that poorly.

The reason for having two is to have a symmetric craft, rather than a shuttle style system. The advantage is having a passive landing so all your fuel goes towards getting to orbit rather than saving a third for the landing. And horizontal landing seems more reliable than verticle. Assuming this design allows your ship to be the lifting body without excess wings, you don't have to sacrifice much in the way of dry mass.

So many theories of how science will end things fall down on closer inspection. One that annoys me is the idea that nanobots will consume the world because according to one article on the subject, everything at the atomic scale is basically the same so they can convert the world into more nanobots. Pretty sure there is an entire field or science that only exists because things are not the same at the atomic scale. Back to this topic, I know there isn't cause to be concerned about black holes formed in the LHC, but just how big of a collider would we need to make one that will absorb more energy then it emits?

What about strapping two of these to a slightly larger version, to make a TSTO with reusable boosters capable of gliding down instead of needing a powered descent? The center ship would be similar in that it can be a lifting body and glide back down from orbit.

Yeah, brown dwarf or red dwarf the issues are similar. I agree that any life will be limited in complexity or diversity, and thus will be very fragile.

As has been stated, you can't effectively run photosynthesis on IR light. There aren't many electronic transitions down there, I don't think there are any in fact, so no ability for charge seperation. Life would be most similar to whatever may be on Europa or Enceladus This is the basis for life in general, to dissipate energy more effectively. Vents represent a transition from an environment where H2S is favored to one where it is not. These chemical gradients are the catalyst for life formation.