Darnok

In format that will be impossible to read within next 30 years... just like most of old closed source file formats today for example DOC from 1983 Btw any schema for how they did it, how it works? This image on site looks like golden ratio spiral

Try to write using right hand and then left, but mirrored letters it does change your way of thinking. We are taught of using mainly single "hemisphere" consciously, other one is used by our body for basic tasks. As long as you are allowed to shape your thoughts on way you prefer, without need of satisfying views of majority, you are individual entity. Thinking in way that other people wants you to think doesn't make you individual. And you are free man if you are aware that the only laws limiting you, are those you agreed to obey

I was thinking about two sections. First would be spinning habitat with supplies and life support. Second section is for tanks and engines that would undock after burn is complete and move away at safe distance from habitat. Both sections would dock before entering destination orbit. Of course habitat while docked with engine section wouldn't be able to spin.

So spinning and "artificial gravity" is impossible in spherical objects? How this is working? If we could use sphere and make it spin in more than one axis we could have very practical spaceship?

Redundancy and backups won't give you self-sufficiency, it will only delay "the end" in this case. There is one more point... we need ability to replicate broken humans And as far as I know we have no idea if that is possible outside of Earth (on Venus that shouldn't be problem... unless we need magnetic field on some level of our life, but that is topic for different thread). Well I see no chance to make such colony on Mars for next 50+ years

Sure, but when you want to send astronauts to mine... it gets bit funny Also if it is all about solar power then you need to have lots of space on ground for them (Mars is further than Earth). And you also need ability to replicate broken solar panels... which means you need ability to replicate advanced machinery that can produce solar panels... which means you need many mines with different kinds of metal... which means you need ground vehicles and logistics... which means you need many bases and ability to replicate broken bases (repairing stations for vehicles for example) and broken vehicles... which means you need more advanced machines to produce pressurized base segments and pressurized electrical vehicles And we didn't even started to talk about how you are going to grow plants on Mars... in amounts large enough you can feed all hard working miners. Or about how to get enough air (its not pure oxygen) to re-pressurize bases and vehicles, not to mention that people needs to breathe and some of your production lanes are going to burn oxygen and we are talking about self-sufficient base.

How much energy we need to mine enough resources to get 1 ton of steel on Mars? How much energy (and oxygen) do we need to get 1 ton of steel on Mars? How much food we need to feed people, while they are mining and making this 1 ton of steel? How much space and other resources (energy, water etc etc) we need to grown that amount of food on Mars?

4. Not purely on geometric parameters, but also on energy it can store. Even using your way and measuring inertia you should have case where inertia of large structure + low energy = inertia of small structure + large energy. So mass wouldn't be needed, instead of we would have something like capacity for energy + geometric structure.

1. So I can say that 1000 atoms of gold is going to create exact same force no matter in what shape I will forge them... but that doesn't prove existence of mass as source of that force. You can say it does, but I can say it proves that space is interacting with those atoms. 2. As I said I can measure object size using even simple rope (accuracy of such measurement is not important it is only example, you can use rope made of single layer of atoms if you wish). How you measured that rope changes its size? 3. So what is Newton? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units wiki says it is "Derived units", so please do not use it. If you want to prove that mass exists, because to use Newton you need mass first. 4. Depends on "liquid", it was example like with apples.

I know how it looks, but you can't deny existence of one physical property like mass and say that you won't have change any equation that has constant speed of light or time in it. 4. But they have different properties... because matter is structure+energy. 5. Then your answer for calculating amount of apples would be sqrt(16)=4? You are 100% correct, but somehow even 10 year old child would say you are wrong 6. Where I said anything about velocity?

Quantum physics doesn't exist, so any discovery made using it doesn't exists... or it is mislabeled misinterpretation that confuses real properties of matter and energy with behaviour of matter, energy and structures made by both.

1. You used 1kg (mass) as input to experiment that had to show mass exists... that is why I can say you are relying on mass-model and without it you can't measure mass. 2. It would work just fine. Also bold part is yet another concept that you can't prove, how you measured that rope has different length? 3. I am asking you guys to show me equations that in input will have: - force - object with given size and made out of given matter (and all real properties you can measure out of it) and as result I want evidence for existence of mass... but if you are using mass (or density which is calculated from mass and volume) as input it makes no sense. Saying mass exists because you can calculate it using as input makes no sense, I can say invisible unicorns exists because I can calculate their shape, mass or whatever using them as input. It makes everything different 4. Then it is function of geometry... but not object only its atoms, since atoms of gold and iron are different. 5. Nope, that didn't proved existence of mass only existence of force between balls. It is like... you have two apples and you bought two more. How many apples do you have now? 2+2, 2*2, sqrt(16), 22 all equations gives you same correct result. But only one of those methods is correct way to calculate it. All others methods are numerology or misinterpretation 6. Ok, but if you would be able to build container, where you can disable all forces, and make same experiment with object in liquid... it would give you same results. So how do you know you are measuring mass and not behaviour of studying object in "liquid" (made from particles we haven't discovered yet)?

Not necessarily, it might be property of space that is slowing down motion of object/matter, something like liquid is slowing down moving object. It is affecting matter, because object made from matter has structure and size (3 dimensions). This is not only about name, it is about what really is property of studying object and what is only our invention (misinterpretation). If we know real properties of matter we should be able to simplify most of our equations and some equations we will be able to throw into garbage. @peadar1987 Cavendish experiment only proved that while you neutralize largest force (the one between objects and Earth) you can observe and measure smaller forces like the one between balls. @sevenperforce ok, I was wrong about volume it is calculated from dimensions... but I can measure each dimension directly. Even without ruler, all I need is rope and it doesn't matter how long it will be, because I can always say that length I measured is 1.3 length of my rope. My unit of length will be 1 rope As for acceleration or any other term you guys said... I have feeling you are using terms that require mass as input, so can we play a game? Lets say we have two cubes or spheres (pick whatever will be easier) of exact same size (pick some reasonable size for calculations). One object is made out of pure gold and other is pure iron. Each case we study in separate laboratory, so there is no interactions between objects, no air and no friction. Pick value of force you are going to use to push those objects, but in all cases use exact same value. First case - laboratory on Earth. Use force on gold object and then repeat experiment and use same amount of force on iron object. Second case - almost empty universe... only thing that is inside that universe is our object. We are making two separate experiments on golden and iron object, so there is no interactions between them.

I think OP misunderstood my words in other thread... Mass is only our interpretation of force that occurs between object and Earth. I said that mass is only a name, invented by humans, for law of nature and that law of nature exists, but mass as name and as property of objects may be misinterpret and may not exist. We still have no idea what is source of mass or I missed something? Wrong... therefore between chair and Earth exists force that slows down acceleration. As far as I know science... people that wants to add something new to science must bring evidence of their claims. Newton didn't done that, he just described model of universe with mass, but without any evidence of what is source of mass or how to measure it directly. He invented mass as property without any evidence and his followers invented some numbers that fits observed behaviour of few objects... but those numbers fail in larger range for example on Mercury. @Bill Phil volume exists because you can measure it directly, but you can't measure mass directly. You are measuring force or many forces that works on measured object to calculate mass. Just because we can calculate mass doesn't mean it exists as direct property of object, of course you can say that mass is abstract way to make calculations simpler for now.

Titus-bode law is for bodies orbiting stars, while for moons we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermott's_law 2. If you have any spare observatory it may help to speed things up 4. you have +1 for bold part.

I can say same thing about speed of light... you have sample size of one (we measured speed of light in vacuum only on Earth) and yet you are applying this for entire universe

2. This is exact reason why I am criticizing most of scientific work... just because this works for billions of different cases you didn't made "experiment" in this case, you are standing on shoulders of giant... and you estimated that my equation is wrong... well it isn't wrong because phi isn't common number it is mathematical constant and it has unique properties: phi2 = phi + 1 1/phi = phi - 1 4. I would like to see some studies on this topic (Ceres) as much as results of same studies performed in exact same way on Moon. Because I suspect that if you study Moon with exact same rule, that you used on Ceres, it will tell you that Moon shouldn't form on Earth's orbit.

1. I don't know yet... 2. I am defending it as hypothesis, while I got feeling some in here say it is very wrong to even start thinking about that kind of hypothesis. 3. It all depends how you interpret data. There are tons of different experiments done and you can make different interpretation of "what was studied" and "what results means". 4. Can you live on Mars without using any technology?

1. ok 2. And what is wrong with that? 3. ok 4. According to NASA(link) Mean density Moon/Earth is 0.606, so if Ceres/Moon density is 0.626... I am on the right track 1b Sure it does, but that is because we estimate mass of Jupiter using calculated mass of known volume of hydrogen and helium. Then it is impossible it wouldn't work. 2b Just like mass wasn't backed up by anything in Newton times or relativity while Einstein was alive. They just made up things, made some math to prove their models and others agreed with this.

1. Where I used that equation? I hope you read my other posts more carefully. 2. Yes, source of forces. Just to be clear... I said that mass-model is just our current interpretation of things that we can observe, not that there is no interactions between objects in universe. Look even @peadar1987 finally wrote "If you can find a flaw in it and come up with a better explanation that does not involve the concept of mass, be my guest" this is all I am talking about a different concept (hopefully simpler and more accurate). 3. Sure, single data point is enough for making hypothesis as quoted by you definition says "limited evidence as a starting point" 4. Ok, maybe you are right. 5. goto 3 6. Real science is based on evidence, so I can say for 100% sure I am right, that is why I am waiting for more samples. Trust estab... what? Progress from science comes from different ways of thinking and different interpretations of nature, not from single established, forced and most popular way of thinking.

1. Show me how you calculated acceleration without using mass. There is no point in discussion with you if you say that mass has to exist because only equation you know to calculate forces between bodies have to use mass. 2. What error? Where? How large? As far as I know we measured speed of light on only one planet (sample with single case) and we assumed it works same way on every spot of universe? So sample of size one is enough for scientific theory, if author name is Albert, but it is not good enough to even start considering hypothesis of unknown author? 3. I was talking about something else... read my last post again. My hypothesis is: tidal forces created by Moon "feed" Earth core with additional radioactive material by changing shape of core and at same time melting more rocks around it. What adds more fuel for core, so it can burn longer. 4. My version comes from hypothesis that Neptune's current orbit isn't its original orbit, during billions of years Neptunes orbit could change, but this is topic for different thread. What fits in here is that same event that pushed Neptune to new orbit could push Ceres out of Earth's orbit. But that can be easily proved by gathering samples from Moon and Ceres (maybe not right from the surface... but little drilling should be enough for this). If both Moon and Ceres formed on near by orbits they should have common composition? 1b. Proportional to estimated mass, because we only estimate mass of planets and stars. Sure give me some time... Newton didn't came up with his equation within single weekend 2b That is why I call it hypothesis and I am searching (waiting until some observatory finds such planet and moon for me) for more samples. http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/2015/07/jupiters-twin-planet/ 3b. Nope, I don't want to change that one, I just wonder does this process can be "fed" by melting more material that surrounds Earth's core... if yes then tides caused by Moon can extend "life" of our magnetic field.

1. And what values do you need to calculate "resistance of an object to acceleration"? 2. What? I showed you math in one post of this thread. 3. I didn't said "it is main source of heat" did I? I doubt you can explain anything since you are using model with mass to prove mass exists 4. Give me link to post. 1. If you push something you are using force, but between object you are pushing and Earth exists another force, so you are using force vs force to move object, but that doesn't prove existence of mass. You can not measure source of that force between object and Earth, you only assume it is mass using model created by Newton. 2. Sure, do you know where are habitable planets? so I could increase it 3. Depends, without tides core would have exact same size all the time, that means it would have same amount of radioactive material. But with tides core shape is changed a bit and this change can melt and add rocks and more radioactive materials to the core. Also I don't know how radioactive materials decay works with matter that is in constant move, with tidal forces from Moon it does move all the time.

Evidence please...

I can observe that apple does fall from tree, but that doesn't mean it is property of apple and Earth that creates force between them Of course that is model that fits 10-based system and with change of numerical system we should/could also change this model. Because maybe there is different source of that force... attraction (it is wrong word it assumes that force is created because of properties of apple and Earth). For imperial units I would change lots of equations, so it would be more practical. Let me put it this way... but does apple falls down on Earth's orbit or outside of Sun SOI? Just because you measured something happens ON Earth doesn't mean it happens on entire universe in same way... that is why force that causes apple to fall on Earth has different value on Pluto and same thing maybe with speed of light, because speed is just value Short version: just because apple falls in same speed on every spot on Earth doesn't mean it will fall with exact same speed on Mercury or on Pluto... so how insane were people who assumed that light will travel in same speed on other planets just because they measured it has exact same speed on few spots on Earth?

Still no evidence, just hypothesis with sample of size one (near Earth only measurements). How that even became popular hypothesis after geocentric model fallen? Because this is exact same thing that was wrong with geocentric model... we calculate things locally and assume that entire universe works like that! Sure, but those are not evidences that come from observations... while that kind of evidence is basic for science. Then this is not science... it is more like belief based on things you like and accept.