Spacescifi

I know glass lenses are shown at times in fiction because they are what real lasers in use already use... however, I think if you want an uber laser that has a virtually imdestructable laser lens you can, and must do better than solids. Use a plasma lens. Yes plasma can be used as a lens to focus laser beams.... how I don't know. But I read online it has been done, and occasionally happens (albeit rarely) even in nature. So, for those of you that actually know, what are the advantages/disadvantages of using a plasma lens for uber laser cannons instead of glass lens? Advantages: Can increase power levels almost arbitraitly without destroying your lens, but will still need to shed the waste heat from effecting other ship systems by using reaction mass/radiation. Disadvantages: Harder to do than glass lens and more energy costly too I think, since glass is passive but plasma control is an always active based system. Edit: Actually some lasers have no lens right? But are'nt those the single use ones that blow up (bomb pumped X-ray lasers)?

Just listen to your body's reaction. Go natural, and avoid pesticides.

They have an air supply that can last about 2 hours. Not too big of a deal lol. Considering the fact that they don't need to suck in a bunch of air first to blow people literally away with their breath, I'd say they can breathe in space for a good while before suffocation sets in. That... and I doubt they spend hours chatting in space. Just a quick chat.

Yeah but if vacuum would not bother you for hours because you were kryptonian... for folks like that who want privacy where no one else can hear them, it's perfect. I really enjoyed how the writers of the period sought to include real science. They even had a comic where they used a fancy scifi telescope to view Krypton in real time since light is old, allowing Supergirl to see her younger self and family and even baby Superman barf on her beore she left the planet (combining X-ray and super telecopic vision can do that). There was also another issue where Supergirl was in space for hours chasing a spaceship, so long her eyes began to redden (no oxygen so boiling really) and she nearly lost consciousness before using a teleportation device to go back to Earth. So Superman would have put a bit of air into the device then lol.

I think the powers that be have other issues as higher up on their priority list, and pesticides is not even on it... or if it is, waaay at the bottom. Like most things fixing it would cost money (increase taxes) and Americans are easy to sway into caring about other issues anyway.

That would be a price I was willing to pay if I were the one pulling the strings. I think in general the golden rule is the fairest way to treat others, with exceptions only created out of absolute necessity.

Main Question: Would America have enough food to feed our population if we stopped using pesticides? Right away I assume prices would go up... but at least we would no longer be eating poison giving us cancer or other preventable diseases. I would like to say yeah America could feed everyone without pesticides... but only at cost, and a cost I don't think leadership is willing to make given it changes every 4 years. I would like to assume pesticide usage is the product of human greed trying to maximize profits and we could survive better without them. Or maybe it's just a subtle population control measure? The rich and powerful can afford healthy food, whereas the average man can only get it part of the time. Or perhaps it is far more simple and simply just capitalism run amuck? Profits matter above all, more than anything else, unfortunately, even human life expectancy. Then again when you are behind the wheel running things and crunch the numbers you probably see matters a wee bit different. Since the one thing anyone powerful cares about most is staying powerful, and money is power to a degree. If they see their money diminishing at all... even for the greater good as it were, they will shelve the greater good in favor of self preservation of their power. So I am sad to say it, but I can understand why pesticides and other harmful practices are tolerated even if I do not agree with it. America is a social darwinistic society. You either rise to the top at one extreme, or die at the bottom at the other, while someone else profits either way. Thoughts?

Wow. So DC comics was science accurate here?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Supergirl/comments/1e09g7h/reposted_supermansupergirls_comic_book_dynamic_i/#lightbox I thought it was really cool that DC comics of the 2005-2011 era sought to include a scifi theme to the Supergirl comics of the same era. Including real world science on occasion that effected the story in small or larger ways. The linked comic pictures portray Supergirl and Superman talking in space above Earth with the aid of headphone devices. Since there is no air in space to convey sound would such a device actually transmit any sound that a human wearing it in vacuum could actually hear? Or my headcanon can just assume Superman being the brilliant engineer he is when necessity calls for it made headphones that shoot out compressed gas into the ears as people wearing them talk in space vacuum. Perhaps THAT is how he can hear what Supergirl is saying? And let's disregard the times Superman heard stuff on Earth all the way from the moon without any hearing device lol... because we both know superhero powers can be all over the place in powerscaling from time to time.

There are many uses we could think of if hyper-diamagnetic materials were ever invented.. But does the current understanding of physics even allow for it? If such materials could be made, how would they be used in conjunction with space travel technology. Known Physics: Making uber magnets has limits, since too high a field (so far around or above 500 tesla) breaks the electromagnet. Therefore I was curious if we could bypass this limit by making special materials that are far more susceptible to magnetic influence?

Scenario: A scientist who is fed up with entropy creates a device that generates a field that either weakens it or can stop it altogether anywhere within the scope of the scifi field. Let's call it an anti-entropy field. Main Question: Has he done a good thing or a terribly insane thing? Is weakening or stopping entropy ever a bad thing? What applications would it have for spaceflight if you paired it with rocketry of any kind (modern to scifi advanced). And why does some nagging thought in the back of my head tell me that entropy exists for a reason and by changing that it's like opening pandora's box? Someone enlighten me please... lol. This probably won't end well. I can't help but envision a crazy scifi fantasy scenario where the scientist suceeds in weakening or stopping entropy in a limited space... and the universe does not like it one bit. In fact, it hates it so much it summons the great space kraken or Cthulhu who begins destroying a bunch of stuff randomly to balance the entropy being stopped or weakened. So while entropy is being stopped or weakened somewhere else in the universe, Cthulhu is running wild elsewhere and won't stop until entropy is no longer inhibited.

This. It is logical and does not require absurd thinking. For example I could drive an armed military tank on the road but I am not allowed to and for good reason. I think limiting certain kinds of crafts/engines to certain distances is reasonable if realistic energies are involved.

Wait... you are saying that if we make a way or material to reflect X-rays at ANY angle and at a high rate... THEN we could have sustained fusion reactions?

Well that's just it is'nt it? We cannot have cheap and reliable nor even compact fusion due to the sheer heat involved to generate it. Cold fusion would be perfect for scifi SSTOs if we could do it. Nonetheless I still don't think we could get away with a small launch vehicle or SSTO fighter plane using even scifi cold fusion. The reason being that the electrical energy gained from the cold fusion would still need to be converted into heat to shoot propellant out. And the only way such heat won't melt your thermal exhaust chamber is if you have a high enough mass flow of propellant to dump the heat onto. Which means big tanks and really good turbopumps to pump the fuel at an effective rate for shedding the waste heat.

Perhaps... I think Booth was just one of several who would have tried to off Lincoln if given a chance (he made a LOT of enemies). One man can effect a lot of change, especially by laws. And laws are the only thing a man can leave behind when he is dead to effect change. So assuming the next president (was it Grant?) does not simply repeal some of Lincoln's reforms under popular pressure, even then they will be under pressure not to fully enforce the reforms if at all. Especially in the former Confederate States of America. The second problem is that although Grant was praised for helping win the war, he was heavily criticized for running a corrupt government. Even my history book in high school class decades ago acknowledged this but I don't remember the reasons as to why.