Darnok

For all people saying two kerbals won't fit 1.25m... They can be placed closer. I suck bulding fairings, but IMO they would fit in it.

Those are wrong and not fair... - I think you confused cause and result in here, but yes lions can survive even if bigger and stronger predator take their place - how deep is plankton? - there is lots of birds that doesn't fly, so my guess most of birds would survive ... Could any animal survive on random planet from our solar system? Those examples are like that

Too many movies from Hollywood Look at worlds economy, every democratic country has debt, poor people accepted their "fate", rich doesn't care about future of the world, people allow to rule and create law to incompetent "liders"... and now out of nowhere they would learn how to create society that would survive hunger, lack of resources and hard labor? If now our intelligence is failing right now... because we can't create society model that would work on our current civilization level... then maybe we are "made" for labor work only or we developed our society standards in wrong way.

You can leave intelligence, just get rid of all our technology and most people would be useless, very angry, very hungry and very useless. Most of human population would die without: - electricity - from cold or hunger, lack of communication and access to knowledge TV and internet, no water in cities - cars - no food in large cities, no warm houses far away from cities - markets - when food in markets ran out people in towns are dead - internet - without access to ultimate knowledge base people would have no idea how to make fries - medicines - we forgot almost all methods that doesn't require large corporations and patents - vaccines - no natural immunity... epidemics - clothes - who today knows how to make warm clothes without using electricity and factories? So we probably wouldn't be able to survive, because those useless people would start to kill and steal things from those who knows how to survive. Take away intelligence and leave technology and we die as well... from weapons of mass destruction. Take away both technology and intelligence and we also die, because our bodies are not prepared for wild live... no medicines, no claws or furs, we would become free food for most of large predators. We wouldn't be able even to eat raw meat, so we would have to be herbivorous and spend most of our day time on gathering and eating, also no hunting means no furs from herbivorous animals, most people would die after first winter.

Devs add this in 1.1 please

If you had radiators connected with probe core it might be source of your problem. When you put radiator they explode on some parts try to remove them and see if that helps.

But if you considering existence of aether you can't use experiments that assumed it doesn't exist to explain its properties. Aether denies existence of mass, because aether would explain "gravity" without mass, so using it to explain any movement would imply that all particles are massless. Like I said in one post, instead of thinking that two bodies are pulling each other we should think that they are pushed towards each other by aether (space pressure). If aether is particle it shouldn't be moved easily. It would be more or less locked to its position, like in quantum locking experiment, each particle should move a little but entire "grid of aether particles" can't move and "grid should be elastic", so you can change distance between aether particles using different forces, but if that forces are gone particles will go back on its previous location. Aether particles should generate unipolar field on its own and repel each other and some particles like electrons. Because accelerators are measuring energies from collisions and particles we know doesn't collide with aether? What do you mean by "sticking"? Now imagine that water particles can't be moved (since we can't move space-time, a different name for aether), but your device can repel from them EDIT: Also if aether exists you can put in trash entire quantum physics, because particle behavior wouldn't be random every move or change in movement direction or "speed" would be caused by different density/pressure of aether. When you consider this experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment and add aether into... You will receive interesting results like particles that are used to measure "time" are vibrating in different way on ground level, where aehter has different density, than on high altitude during flight. And flight or any movement itself changes the frequency of vibration of atoms, because around these atoms flows aether.

I thought we are talking about low-tech capsule for early game... so having cons you mentioned is fine for me.

Guys I meant make Capsule in size of Mk1 landing can, because it is larger than 1.25m parts And with proper seats placement, you should be able to fir there two kerbals

What?

I would like all of them We have "Mk1 Lander Can" that is larger than 1.25m with 1.25m nodes, how about making almost spherical capsule of same size and with 1.25m nodes?

http://www.gizmag.com/firefly-alpha-aerospike-launch-vehicle/32892/

First tests of "exploration unit"

I don't believe in gravity and more I look at "how things work" in space I am more convinced I am right.

Surface tension and air pressure. This is interesting how tension and pressure can form perfect sphere, now if they would only put some micro drone inside and try to trigger rotation...

You are mixing here few things. There is no us or we, Earth is shared by many countries and cultures and I doubt it everyone will get same conclusions and try to solve issue in same way. It would be very stupid and unnatural if they would be forced to do same thing. We have AI today... it is basically common person with smartphone. It is in some way artificial intelligence... they are using intelligent apps more than their own brains and I am not scared by them in any way Yet another thing why we shouldn't improve our IQ by DNA modifications... people are making selfies instead of solving real issues. We have billions of people using facebook and twitter and they prefer to share photos of their face from different angles... instead of write something smart, share observations or studies, educate each other or share views to improve things and advance as entire species Why would anyone want to give them higher IQ?

Only if you assume each collision is going to melt both cores. But if two planets collide and core of larger is intact after collision, it would create crust of heavy elements made from smaller planet core, mixed with old crust of larger planet?

But that question suggests that each planet was formed only from gases and leftovers from that star I was writing about (and possible also from part of planets of that old solar system) and that's it... while some hypothesis say that planets collide with each other, destroying and passing part of their matter between each other. So basically those heavy elements, we can mine easily, are from "alien planets", not from original Earth

Our entire solar system is "made" from elements left after the explosion of large star. From what I read, all heavy elements where created in that large star core. Some scientists estimated that if Sun explodes heaviest element we get from it should be iron, because Sun is relatively small star.

True, but greed comes from trade directly, look at animals pack of lions is also creating "tribe", yet they don't gather more than they need to eat today. For us problem is that we want some spare gold/silver/printed paper/virtual numbers on account in case when things go bad. And that is also main cause why we gather and exploit environment, we want to have more and more for future needs. You see you are now using words that have meaning for you only, because "highest standards" for me means justice and freedom (do not confuse with anarchy) not lies about what is free and what is not. Also in those countries common citizen have to pay taxes for criminals put in jails, so those criminals would have something to eat, clean sheets and health care. For me that is simply not right. You're trying to twist some things. If someone offers me "free" bar of chocolate, but I had to pay taxes for it it is not free it doesn't matter if you call it "free at point of use" those are just pretty words or common lie, depends how you look at it. If we would live in society that offers you "free food" it would be problem, because you can be honorable and you will take only 1 bar of chocolate, but that doesn't mean every citizen is honorable. For every criminal that would took more than single bar we would have one starving person. There is another problem with that system, what if I don't want bar of chocolate today? Why someone is forcing me to take things I don't want and don't need today? If I would be able to spend my money on my own I would get popcorn not bar of chocolate I like freedom and that kind of system reminds me of slavery, because slaves also had "free meals", but first they had to pay taxes... I mean work for them. All those social system works just like slavery system, with only one difference you get paid, but that is illusion because later you are forced to give away part of your money on things you don't need. Your parents are paying larger taxes per year than president of Oracle, because his payment is 1$ per year You should check definition of wealth. Wealth is not your monthly payment, things that you own makes you wealth. House, land, car, private plane, corporation, from old time village or town if you own any of those things you can say you have some wealth, but today we doesn't pay taxes for things we own, we pay taxes for how much we earn per month! If you were looking main cause of disproportion in society this is it, taxes are paid by people that are poor, but are hard working to accumulate enough saving they can buy and own real wealth. Current tax burden in social democracy falls on largest part of society and largest part are people on middle, you, me and your parents. If you are 20 years old poor guy who went to work to earn money for your own education you are paying taxes to fund FREE studies for children of corporation owners, not fair I would say. And artificial increase of IQ won't help to solve it, we have to solve it before we start to make people smarter, because imagine guy with 200 IQ taking your garbage, how would he feel like? You didn't said how those paid bonuses work, there can be huge flaw in that mechanic. Look how corporations are working if they employ common office worker he get $ as payment, but if shareholders employ new chairman he is becoming shareholder. Not only to trick tax system, but also to motivate him for better work. Maybe your parents are honorable and hard working people, but that doesn't mean every teacher is like that. We need to be sure education is working as good as possible, because without it your IQ gene tweak is worthless. This is just common manipulation exploiting statistics, you can't compare 24 people to 1100000 people. That kind of manipulations we should avoid in high IQ society? What you measure in that chart is deaths per mile, not car safety. To measure car safety we would need number of cars in 1920 and 2015 and we would need number of road traffic participants and number of deaths. That should allow us to calculate car safety in 1920 and today. Right because people that have different views are wrong I can agree with second sentence, but still insulting people just because they disagree with you looks childish. This is another good example how our civilization is going in wrong direction. In my country I have to make car checks every year because companies are not sure how long car will be able to work as intended. There is a LAW that forces me to do this. You are saying that clinical trials are enough to be sure that medicine is safe and is working as it should without checks? But what with the changes caused by the environment, what with mutations, or with evolution, each of us is different? We care more about things than about our bodies and our lives. I am advocating to give each person in society equal chance to become smarter and wealthier. While making artificial laws forbids them to do so. If you are trying to make every one equal it is wrong, just look how nature works... one lion have longer claws other doesn't. Would it be fair to disallow using claws during fights? Then those with shorter claws would have same evolutionary chance to win, but that would be not fair. If one person is smarter than other, this is his evolutionary advantage and now if laws and societies are going to force him to do not use this advantage or are going to artificially increase IQ of those that had less luck and got lower IQ, it doesn't make things fair. It is harmful. But if people are against something and this "bad idea" is getting pushed anyway, so who is making decision about what is good for us and what is bad? But this is how life and evolution works and we have proof it works great, because we are here using internet and communicating without cave drawings. While DNA modifications can be harmful, imagine what would child inherit if both parents would have exact same code in part of DNA responsible for IQ? Maybe your generation could be equally smart, thanks to DNA modifications, but next generation would be equally dumb and totally dependent on artificial methods of increasing IQ. Necessary for what? Did we hit wall where none of us can solve harder puzzle? We can't advance without it? Then North Korea would have very smart, very poor and very uneducated people. Changing IQ doesn't make you smarter it only gives you ability to become smarter, but you still need to improve process of education. It is like with computers, you can have lots of RAM memory, but that doesn't mean your software is going to run any faster if it is not designed to do so.

Or you can trap light in anything by slowing it down http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_388852_en.html maybe someday we will be able to stop it. Btw Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was created to show how stupid quantum physics concepts are, not to explain how it works

It's here... now I want car using same technology, but first we have to build roads with permanent magnets :/

0.625m jet engines would be nice too.

4. Many massless particles with weak unipolar magnetic field.

Can you please explain this... another field/another kind of field... Does that means if you would found another source of electromagnetic field, that would be good enough to claim Higgs boson and gravitational fields are unnecessary? Or it means it HAS TO BE DIFFERENT kind of field (it can't be electromagnetic) and there is no other way? Source of that field shouldn't add any mass to observed particle, or I misunderstood that part of your post? EDIT: Really you know what he would say? If you can read minds of the dead I can try read minds of the living And you never thought that he could made that "mistake" deliberately, because that way he don't have to explain this groundbreaking and negating the most popular theories experiment? I am pretty sure that if he would try to use some of his own hypothesis, that would explain how this device works and would go against accepted branches of physics then... NASA would never touch this device and we could only read about EmDrive on some crazy sites about electromagnetism and perpetual motion magnets