TheGatesofLogic

So the most extensively tested theory in all of history that has yet to incur any evidence against it is nonsense because? You can't argue something if you don't have an arguement. Please tell me.

Wrong, I was not saying that this reasoning is the proof, but rather that it is a valid method of experimentally gathering data to support it as proof. Your logical deduction is flawed. When the test was performed, and it HAS been performed MANY times, the data corresponded exactly to the function of relativity as described. If it was not relativity that caused this then it was something with indistinguishable properties from relativity, which may have additional properties but does not infringe upon the original, in which case it is the same as relativity but MIGHT have extra things attached, regardless relativity is then regarded to be true in this respect. What relativity does, above all other things, is state that the laws of physics are EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of your reference frame, and NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN THIS WRONG, meanwhile the effects of relativity have been proven correct.

you don't need an absolute clock to test relativity, because you know, it's RELATIVE. For instance, suppose two arbitrary particles are moving towards one another at a constant velocity. Which particle is moving faster? You can't give an absolute answer because the observer would base its observation on its own velocity relative to the system of the two particles, thusly there can only ever be non- absolute measurements unless you choose to observe one of the particles as if it were stationary. the same applies here with time, where we treat one of the clocks as absolute and measure the change with respect to a second clock.

Again, your economics is flawed, though in a slightly less foolish way. What companies will suddenly begin to afford diamonds for industrial use? Industrial grade diamonds are the largest fraction of all diamond use and 90% OF THESE ARE SYNTHETIC. The industrial diamond industry boasts annual products of over 114T of production annually, thus the your magic "prices fall, but now they rise because industrial use will be greater" is flawed, as it will hardly make a dent in that industry's product. While you might make a massive impact in the jewelry industry, it will not be profitable, and if you somehow believe people will enter into a falling market that's an issue of stupidity. Overall the issue is moot, diamonds are worthless as a purpose for Venal Terra-formation or colonization.

first off angellestat, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the relationship between supply and demand curves which is honestly the simplest concept in economics as far as i know. Flooding a market with a material REGARDLESS OF WHeTHER IT IS RARE OR NOT always leads to deflation of the material's value, so no matter how much of whatever material you are mining on Venus is brought back to earth you will approach a limit of profit, which, when compared to all modern calculations of the price of the project, would never even begin to break even with respect to diamonds or ANY OTHER material you might mine on Venus.

yes, but in energy generating scenarios using fission triggers is a big no no since the only method of triggering fusion that way is super-critical detonation, which is a long way from being controlled. This is remarkable in the sense that the fusion reaction was both totally contained and also released enough energy to power another reaction if all was collected and then all of it was returned to another pellet at 100% efficiency. This might not seem like much, but it's a BIG step forward.

Yes, venus or mars is definitely not worth mining for return value, but whoever said that asteroid mining or lunar mining is not worth it is sorely mistaken. asteroid estimates with modern rocket costs is approximately breakeven due to inflation, buf lunar mining ought go be extremely profitable. The veins of heavy metals we find on earth are mostly from asteroid impacts post-molten crust period (save for a small minority that results from the upwelling of convection currents in the outer mantle). The mooN, unlike the earth, scatters almost none of this material and actively shows us where the material is, much better than prospecting for years like on earth.

it's not necessarily true to say that a supernova can not produce plutonium, rather that the amount produced by a supernova decays so quickly it does not last very long in a geological timeframe.

Where are the spherical tanks people seem to be using, Their is a folder for them in the parts directory but all that is included is config files and no models or other important details, can anyone clarify?

Oops, meant the MX/Peacekeeper-class missiles not the Minuteman. They were typically loaded with up to 10 of the W-87 SoB's but the original design kept enough room to hold 12 IIRC. Also, my whole statement was, just like the name of the missiles, intended to portray a sense of irony not many people seem to have caught on to. Of course I'm aware the moon isn't made of cheese and of course I'm aware we don't have the firepower to do any such thing, even if the moon WERE just a giant ball of provolone. the idea is the ridiculousness of the goal. If any of the world superpowers nowadays (America prides itself being the only one when it knows it has issues that strip them of only the sole rank in that regard, particularly psychologically if you understand me) had the clarity of purpose to attempt defensive (another ironic term) supremacy they would certainly not attempt a moon weaponization or any such type of foolish endeavor, and with that I have a wonderful idea for a new topic

How so? We all know the moon is made of cheese and if we launched a single Minuteman-III class ICBM with considerable extra stage propulsion for lunar injection with a full armament of 12 fully upgraded W87-class thermonuclear warheads each individually boasting payloads of approximately 475 kilotons of TNT (a total payload of 5.7 Megatons of TNT) I'm PRETTY SURE we'll be able to melt the damn thing....

Pale Blue Dot and Cosmos, both by Carl Sagan nut said

the funny thing is that the new color would literally be incomprehensible to humans, it would mean absolutely nothing. a FAR better example of this occurs with the mantis shrimp, it has two separately mobile eyes which can sense a wavelength band almost three times as long as the human visual spectrum as well as being able to differentiate light based on polarity, which would be to humans like looking at something and being able to tell that it has two distinct forms of brightness, something literally impossible to visualize since it would require two separate images in the human visual system, and still there's more! Each of these two mobile eyes has three hemispheres and is trinocular and has depth and gauge perception orders of magnitudes more advanced than the human single-hemisphere binocular vision. They are damn impressive animals.

It seems to check out from a cursory glance but i wouldn't bet money on it. It's just another quasi-reactionless propulsion mechanism of which there are a decent handful, many of which have survived similar if not more rigorous theoretical analysis and testing. The EmDrive, which i have been reviewing on the side for quite some time (mostly at the behest of a friend, but i have plenty of unused time) has equal value in this regard and is, from a theoretical standpoint, not entirely implausible. Though i hold my own doubts with regards to these, since any portion of the energy-momentum 4-vector must be maintained separately, and these seem to imply that this does not hold for these devices.

no one replies because your ramblings are simply pulled out of your rear

just to add to clarification i would like to point out that a nuclear reactor must necessarily have a critical mass of uranium to be able to work, however while this critical mass can cause meltdown if the k factor of the reactor core is permitted to remain above 1 for extended periods of time, a detonation reaction requires deliberate mating into a critical mass of a subcritical mass of fissionable material in a strong enough tamper to allow for a highly energetic reaction in a sufficiently short period of time, which is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE in a nuclear reactor powered power generation facility.

The argument here is irrelevant in the sense that you are describing it. IF gravity is propogated by a spin-2 massless particle like the graviton then it would propogate at exactly c in vacuum, and would reduce to general relativity and conform to newtonian gravitation. the issue here is that a "particle" attributed to gravity would only be an arbitrary interpretation of a both wave-like AND particle-like state (the difference being the situation in which it is percieved) similar to the way photons are arbitrary in the sense that light propogates in a wavelike pattern AND a particle-like pattern as well. (the same thing happens to mass but on a far less noticeable scale). So what this means is that when we interpret gravity as a wave, as we must when considering such a situation as the escape of gravitation from a blackhole, we CANNOT simultaneously consider it to be acting as particles of propogation at the same time and as such interpret an interference between the two states because the two states cannot be percieved to exist simultaneously.

on the contrary, their substituent natures are intertwined, however this does not mean that they are the same thing always, certainly north and up convey this exact piece of information, though in a less meaningful way. They are in essence composed of the same conceptual manifestation, but their corresponding effects on our perception of passage are totally different. on the basis that any difference indicates a separation between concepts it is irrefutable. though certainly they are exactly the same in many ways. it really depends on exactly where and how you are looking at it. in this case what i truly meant is that from any real person's point of view north is not necessarily up on a fixed coordinate plane and as such time is not necessarily space, though the difference is only really arbitrary and they do align. I could go into detail about how we can't actually say something like that without admitting that we consider ourselves inhuman and thus incorrect, but this isn't a philosophy thread. like i said, the difference is between juxtaposition and superposition. also, i hate the english language

they most definitely are not the same thing, even speaking relatively. Yes they are intertwined, but that does not make them the same thing. time and space can be considered to be one thing, but in that case it is more of a juxtaposition rather than a superposition and so it is still incorrect.

In all honesty, star-trek was wrong, space is most certainly not the final frontier. In reality, it is time that is the ultimate boundary.

yeah, i actually made the mistake of posting at 2 am and didn't even notice that there were more pages to the thread so i posted arbitrary numbers and broken reference times without bothering to check, so i never saw that what i said was really a repetition of the same thing other people had said and yes, i know all of the nice bits under the asterisk, and the difference in relativistic speeds is certainly important, but not necessarily relevant from a conceptual standpoint once the IDEA is explained sufficiently to incentivize the statement of argument which was more along the point i was making

Umm, relativity isn't exactly a two way street the way your describing it man. If i travel .99999c i will certainly only experience a weeks worth of time crossing the galaxy (let's not think about the fact that I would be exposed to more cosmic radiation than would be needed to kill the planet 6 times over due to blueshift) but from the earth's point of view I will not "slow down" OR "speed up" I'll just be observed to be moving at .99999c. and so i would cross a 100,000 lightyear wide galaxy in 99,999 according to what people from earth will see, though these are totally arbitrary and uncalculated numbers.

your statements are logically sound if your talking about plopping down a planet, setting it to spin, THEN adding placing "stationary" atmosphere around it, but in reality the air does not move because it IS connected to the planet and upward movement of molecules over time give die to a system that maintains very similar speeds to the ground. there is a noticeable effect in this regard and it is commonly known as the Coriolis Effect which spins wind and cloud patterns away from the poles

eh, i have always hated the common nomenclature of "black-hole" You know back in the day we called those *******s collapsars, which was more of a conjunction of collapsed and star than anything and it both sounds more correct, being more than just a juxtapositional phrase (that was a lame joke,) and actually describes the nature of of the entity as well.

I have a better idea, collapsar star-flight is dangerous for many reasons even without considering the dangers inherent in creating such objects (strangelets have NOT been proven to be non-existent and it is NOT clear whether they would be observable using traditional methods regardless, and this is only one of the most outlandish of possible issues in creating collapsars) without proper and ABSOLUTELY PRECISE quantum gravitational models the dangers are innumerable. There is, however, an engine that exploits relativity of light in such a way that it produces thrust directly from electricity neglecting any and all reaction mass. The EMdrive, a device that creates thrust from group velocity differences of microwave light in a precisely tapered waveguide with powerful supermagnetic resonation values, creates specific thrusts of over 30,000 N/kW much more than necessary for any small mission at reasonable distances, and with the development of microwave-based energy transfer the possibility of sustaining any device from earth-orbit energy banks becomes absolutely trivial.