ZetaX

You need to define "god" first. If it is defined by god-like powers indistinguishable from magic (by me), then yeah, it can probably prove that to me. If there is an explicit supernatural requirement that is completely unobservable, then by the very definition I can not observe it and would require "mind-tampering" (micht include worldly ways) to be convinced of that.

If you go for circular, then apart from the centrifugal forces by the circle, you will also get relevant coriolis forces unless you build the full circle parallel to the equator.

@KASASpace: I got these numbers similiar to what dharak1 said; you only need minor amounts of fuel if you already already shoot them into similiar orbits. This is a forum on KSP, did you ever play the game and change inclinations¿ Also, if you are so convinced that this is in any way worth it, show us a sketchy calculation of costs (ideally including the orbit changes, too); just make some guesses on the costs you don't know or depend on future technology (but post them here to let us check plausibility). The aluminium you mention is by the way also one of the cheaper materials, only being a bit more expensive due to the electricity needed. And your carrier-argument is a non-sequitur. @your newst post: as I said, you will need several stations, way more than just two, as there are other orbits. I don't know a good way to find the actual number, though.

That makes more sense (assuming space travel gets cheap enough), but you would still need several such stations (about 10-100 I would guess) to keep that dv low enough to be reasonable. The worst-case dv between two LEO orbits is probably around 15km/s, and its about 6km/s for geostationary orbits, way too much be be reasonable for your average satellite to achieve. That, or satelites are now many times more expensive, plus the higher amount of debris created if something goes wrong by its necessary larger size.

So you send up tons of fuel, rocket motors (you need one for every deorbiting) and whatever you need to land it safely. All that to deorbit some iron and silicon, i.e. the material the earth is mostly made of, instead of mining it. If that isn't already ridiculous enough for you, add in the already mentioned fact that almost no orbit will be close enough to that station, and most others need ridiculous amounts of fuel to get to.

Not wanting to spoil your plan on countering the evils of vile terranian trash, but why exactly do you think that burning stuff up be sending it up first is in any way preferable to simply burning it where it is: on earth¿ Also, I don't get why some are discussing deorbiting the crap for reusage on earth. It is quite obvious that the marginal amount of rubbish we have orbiting earth is not worth the effort, even if we can do the deorbiting almost for free. Any reuse would either be in space (also doubting viability here, except very special cases, but at least it should be considered) or to avoid Kessler syndrome/other threats.

This only works with very very similiar orbits for station and debris, i.e. almost never.

It changes "anything", but the changes are rather minor (assuming you stop them either in regard to their barycenter or in regard to the sun). And there is nothing like "relative to the universe".

It is going out of hand because somebody told you that it is a difficult task and wants to know if you are up for it¿ Seriously, his post was neither agressive nor wrong, but just an elaboration on "science/research can be harder and more tedious than you think". Get yourself together please and don't feel offended everytime anyone does not only praise you...

As explained in the other thread: stoping (note: you will need to stop both in this case) one is the same as making its orbit an ellipse of very very high excentrity. This is thus just a special case of orbital dynamics and can easily be calculated with Kepler's laws.

Kepler's/Newton's laws hold for two bodies as well, with the center being the barycenter. In other words, they will orbit in ellipses around it and follow the "usual" rules in regard to that, with the central mass being the sum of both. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_two-body_problem for more details. Especially, they can't spiral because that would violate conservation of energy.

Do not call something "exponential" that isn't. Never. Apart from that, Keplers laws are perfectly valid if taking the barycenter as focal point of the eclipse. And as you said, this barycenter is inside the earth , thus the moon reaching it or earth is actually less of a difference than the one already allowed above by ignoring the radiuses of both.

Adding onto what |Velocity| said: you also seem to mistake flux density, which is measured in Tesla, with total energy density. In layman's terms and inaccurately, the former is how strong the magnet is and the latter how far it reaches (with a given strength). That's also why flux density is often given "at the surface" as it decreases rappidly outward (for your usual dipole magnet it is falling with the cube of the distance if I remember correctly). Thus even if I could create a small 100T unobtainium permanent magnet in my house, it would not be much of a concern for anyone else. I am pretty sure you will have serious problems detecting a neodymium magnet weighing about 1g from several meters distance by compass. For the same reason, magnetation of objects, even only with distance some tenths of a meter, is completely neglegible. And the above is not only from a theoretical perspective, but as owner of several kilogramms of neodymium magnets I can testify for all of that, too.

You really believe that climate change has already reached a point where, and I quote, "the average temperature would keep going higher until it reaches unhabitable temperatures"¿ It is very doubtful if such a state will ever be possible unless our descendants decide to artificially heat up earth by fusion powered heaters or whatever, for the sake of it or whatever weird reasong. Earth had higher amounts of CO2 in earlier eras without it going haywire and it might even be doubtful if any amount of greenhous gases will suffice for that at this distance to the sun.

K^2: This is not an effect of trig functions but of exponential ones (as sin, cos etc. are expressible by them). The usual example is e^(-1/x^2) for similiar effects. This should not have much to do with special properties of SO(IR^n), and the weirdness vanishes completely if you change to complex calculus.

An r-fold radius means r³ times radiation on a r² surface, thus to get the same radiation dampening you will need shielding proportional to log® in thickness, or proportional to r²·log® in mass. This ignores radiation absorbed within the reactor, which would only give some lower constant factor in the result anyway. Thus a bigger one is more efficient as the fraction of mass by the shielding is proportional to log®/r, tending to 0.

I think you didn't get my post at all.

It is. The problem is that there are several persons in this forum, and even more I know otherwise, that say such things without having more clue themselves. It feels like countering misinformation with another one, and this is very wrong from a scientific point of view.

The responses that seem to think that bananas are more dangerous than laptops due to higher (i.e. any) ionizing radiation are in no way better than that radiation scare itself: as much to the point as claiming that an elephant is lighter than a duck due to having all the same stuff except the addition of feathers. I offer you to choose between 1 GJ of non-ionizing microwave radiation or a single alpha particle hitting you. Hint: one of them kills you despite not being ionizing. Furthermore, even at the same energy levels, some radiations are more dangerous than others. Please use science and factss, not ridiculing by being in no way more informed.

You have a very narrow understanding of science if you think our lack of detail on some computation-heavy stuff is in any way comparable to the dark age's understanding of science. We can easily get claims of impossibility (with the usual almost-certainty science can give) by formal deductions from very well verified statements; those are obviously not absolute, but they are of an entirely different kind of understanding than the one you mentioned.

Please read my post again and/or check the numbers: I was never and nowhere talking about complexity and I don't care about it there; claim was that QM makes it impossible, and my counterclaim is that this is wrong. Other reasons are irrelevant for that (but the complexity one is also possibly wrong, but for more subtle reasons). The exactness allowed by QM is completely inside the exactness needed to recreate proteins. It has to be even without checking numbers as otherwise proteins would magically break the uncertainty principle to require more exactness than we can ever hope to measure.

Those that claim that the uncertainty principle forbids any such thing would need to give a lot more of reason to go. For one thing, it is not necessary to have perfect precission and generally, the allowed one is easily sufficient (your body doesn't place the position at subatomic exactness levels, so why would a replicator need to do¿). For another, the catch about the uncertainty principle is not just that you can't measure both properties with very high exactness at the same time, but that nothing "knows" them; this means that copying up to Planck exactness is as good as reality goes there. You still get such problems (look up some stuff about quantum information), but again those inadequacies are easily below any relevant scale. So please argue this one fully if you think it is a hindrance (I think it isn't).

On the materialism, you seem to not get the difference between hard evidence (which you seemingly claim to have) against a, somewhat reasonable founded, oppinion like those you mentioned have. But I will just assume that you want to say that it follows from another property (that "fallacy"'s rebutal), which you do not have evidence for (it is an oppinion, instead), and can then live with that. Bu those quotes are _not_ quote-mining¿! Apart from them not being any scientific evidence (see my previous post what is), they are not in favor of your claim. For example, the one by Hubble just mentiones that as one of many reasons to base it on as a short and simplified explaination, the actual data and facts are something entirely different. Even if that would be what those intended (it isn't), that would just be an argument from authority without data. And by the way, as you also see in that thread I asked you more questions, which, like this time, you chose to ignore. Says probably all. And by the way, the only personal part is that you are claiming to be right while ignoring arguments, evidence and even giving lies, and I can't stand such arrogance. And on M-M: I essentially ignored that one reponse back then as it was not on topic: why is vacuum suddenly relevant¿ The light itself is in vacuum inside e.g. a tube. That air is outside of it is irrelevant, or if it would be, just put a fan beside a standing M-M experiment to check.

You said that it is easy that materialism is wrong. I don't know of any serious philosopher who would say that with such certainty, and even less I see the "world" accepting that. So my claim stands. Ok, you claim to have answered every question¿ I will repeat one you didn't: how should aether explain that a moving M-M-experiment (e.g. on a car) gives the same results as a standing one¿ You mentioning _names_ and doing some quote-mining on non-quantified sentences (I remember them: they were really just that and philosophical at best, which for a scientifc question is worthless) is not a source; a source is a paper containing details and experiments. You are again invited to give any on those geocentrism-equivalence-claims. And if you call me a liar, then I invite everyone to look up the first thread (probably a month ago) were you started this.I am not dishonest here, I spoke the truth when I said that Right's version was much more understandable to me.

Claiming a world of philosophers (and scientists) just being to dumb to resolve the problem while you consider it easy says a lot about you. It says another that in the past you claimed to have knowledge about things (e.g. relativity, and your resulting claim that the earth is in the center of the universe), but when errors were pointed out you either ignored them or claimed that this is not your own theory but someone else's, yet not giving any sources even after being asked several times. And still you expect me to believe you on those things I can't judge myself, while for all those I can I see how wrong you are¿ Anf thanks@Right, unless lodestar's gyour posts are clear and understandable while only taking a third of the words. Now I at least got what he wants to say.