Darnok
-
Posts
1,266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Darnok
-
-
If there is an aether used by EMDrive as a reaction mass, I would expect a very similar behavior. There are, however, some caveats here that make it unlikely. First, aether cannot have sufficient EM cross section for EMDrive to grab onto it directly. Such aether would be very obvious in other experiments. We would have found it two hundred years ago, at least. Especially, since people have been actively looking.
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).
This still leaves an outside margin of probability that EMDrive does have some sort of a Q Thruster type of interaction with some exotic virtual particle, which in turn passes momentum to aether.
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.
This still raises a lot of questions, however. First, why haven't we seen this in particle accelerators, where we use far more powerful resonant chambers to accelerate particles? This ought to have been detected.
Because accelerators are measuring energies from collisions and particles we know doesn't collide with aether?
Second, if this aether is weakly interacting, it can't possibly be "sticking" to Earth's surface. So we ought to be able to detect thrust variations depending on a) Orientation of the EMDrive,
Orientation of Earth (time of day), and potentially c) Time of year.What do you mean by "sticking"?
Using water waves in a resonant chamber to simulate the EM Drive.Would be nice if he flipped it and ran it the other way. Oh well. I assume you have a bathtub.
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.
-
Does action groups are considered as part of UI?
If yes, please take a look at my old suggestion
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63189-What-I-want-from-Santa-%28and-Devs%29-in-2014
- improved action groups, now when we have tweakables it shouldn't be hard to do it like:First selected "command part" (from first tab in building editor) then set action groups that will be triggered ONLY if that command part is active.
What that means to all of us... if you dock to space station and activate command part from SSTO for example and press 7 you should trigger only actions assigned to that craft, NOT to entire station or other crafts docked into it. Or other way activate space station command part and trigger only actions you made for that station.
-
The reason for the conical shape of the capsules, is due to the aerodynamic forces stabilizing the capsule in a blunt-face-down "heatshield-first" position. Having even an unpowered capsule enter the atmosphere in any orientation(and spin rate) able to right itself passively from aerodynamic forces is quite beneficial.
How are you going to pop the chutes in a sphere that is spinning anyhow? What if you have no power & pilots are medically unable to control the craft? You get one shot+redundancies for something that is solved by the innate aerodynamic nature of a conical capsule.
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
-
Two words" reentry heating"
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?
-
-
First tests of "exploration unit"
Javascript is disabled. View full album
-
Do not forget gravity itself, however minute
I don't believe in gravity
and more I look at "how things work" in space I am more convinced I am right. -
Incredible I was assuming it will explode under internal pressure of CO2, spraying froth everywhere. I would never guess surface tension will be sufficient to keep this glob of froth in a neat ball
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...
-
I think the argument for genetic engineering will become a lot easier to get behind once artificial intelligence begins to overtake us in the workforce, sports, politics, philosophy and engineering. We'll have the simple choice of letting AI take the helm, or, advancing ourselves to stay competitive.
I imagine it to be analogous to an arms race; and personally I wish I could still be alive to watch it unfold.
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?
-
To be honest, I do not see how that question would suggest that. Besides, any impact large enough to merge planets will heat things up enough to case massive amounts of planetary differentiation, so you end up with exactly the same problem, just with an extra step in between. Then, finally, the planet would replace the crust, eliminating all heavy elements, as the tectonic plates sink into the mantle below.
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?
-
That does not answer the question. The question was why not all heavy elements ended up in the core
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.
-
We evolved in small family and tribal groups of a few hundred members maximum. Our evolution has done very little to prepare us for living in a modern nation state with several tens of millions of people. Tens of thousands of years of natural selection have conditioned us to care primarily for a very small circle around us.
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.
I'm looking, and I'm seeing Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand... All of the countries with the highest standards of living are social democracies.
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.
It is free at the point of use. If somebody offers you a free bar of chocolate, do you complain that the chocolate bar is not free, because somebody had to grow the cocoa, farm the cows to make the milk, transport the ingredients to a factory, etc. etc.?
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.
The majority of the tax burden in a functioning social democracy falls on the wealthier members of society, and there is a generous tax free allowance.
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.
This is the first time I've ever seen someone arguing that free education subsidises the rich at the expense of the poor.
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?
Funnily enough, both of my parents are teachers. They get paid for each hour they work, and if they are good, they get paid bonuses. You're presenting a false dichotomy here, people can be incentivised to work both hard and work smart.
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.
It's the number of road deaths per 100 million vehicle miles travelled. In 1921, for every 100 million miles people collectively drove, 24.1 people died. In 2011, for every 100 million miles people drive, 1.1 million people died.
In real terms, it means that if you hop in your car and drive 10 miles, you are 24 times less likely to die in 2011 as you would have been had you done it in 1921.
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.
I'm sticking by my guns on this one. Anti-vaxxers are idiots. Not that all other people aren't idiots, but anti-vaxxers definitely are.
I never mentioned forcing somebody to do anything, people are free to be idiots if they want.
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.
I don't think anybody is advocating rolling out large-scale genetic modification without a rigorous standard of testing.
Control groups are for clinical trials. If something passes clinical trials successfully, it no longer needs a control group.
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.
So you're advocating keeping a socially and genetically disadvantaged underclass that exists solely to do the dirty work of their genetic Ubermensch? And you are implying that I am some sort of a ....!
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.
People make the same sort of argument every time some new innovation comes around, whether it's computers, assembly lines, or the steam engine. Society adapts.
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?
The argument of "but you are messing with human evolution!" is foolish. We have been messing with our evolution for thousands of years. Healthcare, dietary changes, altered habitats, etc.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.
Tweaking genes may not just be the right move, it might be the necessary move.
Necessary for what? Did we hit wall where none of us can solve harder puzzle?
We can't advance without it?
If all of a sudden North Korea proved that it had created a gene therapy to increase human IQ, all of a sudden you are going to see (or rather, you won't) rich people swinging by with their kids.
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.
-
We are specifically discussing scenarios where you are not pushing off anything.
If you are pushing from something, there is momentum flux wherever the force is applied. This is precisely what I expect to be happening. The question is, what is it pushing from?
1) Something massless: Efficiency will be equal to that of a photon drive, which contradicts measurements.
2) Something massive and remote: This requires a massless mediator boson, which we ought to have discovered by now.
3) Something massive and proximate: There will be a detectable exhaust.
4. Many massless particles with weak unipolar magnetic field.
-
Because of gauge symmetries and what they have told us about electroweak bosons. Without another field, some kind of another field, there just had to be four kinds of photons, all massless. Instead, we observed photons, and three kinds of very massive bosons. The standard model said that the only way this can happen is if another field is involved. So people kept looking. People kept building larger and larger particle accelerators, until they finally found it.
This wasn't the only explanation. There were others, involving different fields with different mechanisms. Some of these predicting that we will not find the guilty boson. Some predicting that it will be a different set of bosons with different properties. But we were able to focus on several likely explanations, and invest heavily into investigating these.
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:
And interestingly enough, he was absolutely right. It's a shame that he didn't live a few years longer. He would have been very happy with the way Quantum Field Theory turned out.
Really you know what he would say? If you can read minds of the dead I can try read minds of the living
Then I would have expected his explanation not to be total nonsense, which has now been universally accepted as being the case.
We still don't have a definitive explanation for why thrust has been measured in several independent experiments, some of which had pretty decent control. But we know a lot of explanations that simply do not work, because they make bad predictions in cases that are easy to test and disprove. Original concept for EMDrive is one of these. It came from very bad understanding of ordinary, undergraduate level electrodynamics. He did, however, happen to be one of these extremely rare misguided inventors that managed to build something which does something interesting entirely by accident.
When people figure out exactly what's going on with EMDrive, I think the invention will live on. Potentially, as just a toy. So he has made a useful contribution, unlike all these crazy dudes on Youtube with their perpetual motion magnets that, "Look, it's almost working." This one is genuinely interesting.
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
-
Science is specifically designed to filter out dumb hypotheses. To replace beliefs and prejudices with precise models with concrete support. This is one thing science is specifically designed to handle.
So I was not misunderstood... I am fully agree with what you wrote, I think science should work like you said, but from my observations it does not work in that way.
That is why you can see from me, so many negative comments to some of the methods and ways of thinking.
How patent office worker is more qualified in science than actual inventors and scientists from his time?
beliefs - How Higgs boson was found?
prejudices - some people in here got problems with that, just because I write things that disagree with them and their beliefs
When scientists tell you that something is so improbable that it's simply not worth considering, and you think otherwise, I can guarantee that you are the one in the wrong.
Einstein - Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.I would like science to be consistent in first place, then all other rules you accept can be added.
I like how EmDrive is going, because first someone made observation and invention, then he is trying to use science to explain that.
I dislike how some people are trying to make science in opposite direction... they first write something on paper and then trying to convince others they are right, without single evidence!
Also is there any summary about all hypothesis about EmDrive? I wouldn't want to read all 80+ pages to find few links
EDIT:
Overwhelming majority of scientists are far above average, however, which is the important part.
True, but what if EmDrive inventor is that above average smart guy and those who are saying "it is not working" are only those average smart scientists?
Not every experiment, observation and hypothesis is studied by super intelligent beings and I am sure that those super smart people is much fewer than those average, so if you have to convince majority of scientific community to push your claims from hypothesis to theory... then we are not going into good direction
-
So when you say that scientists aren't smarter than anyone else, I have bad news for you.
I know my English is bad, but...
every other "regular" person isn't same as "anyone else"?
If it is then I am sorry I mistranslated that one. My point was that some non-scientists, "regular" people, are as smart of even smarter than some (doesn't mean all) scientists.
-
So you're saying that you're smarter than every scientist that has worked on those measurements?
My answer was for hypothetical measurement of Earth.
If scientist is narrow minded it doesn't really matter how many equations and books he memorized, he is as smart as average person.
Also I dislike your way of thinking, scientists are not some elite class super smart humans that are never wrong, they are not even smarter than every other "regular" person. Scientists are also humans like you and me... just spending lots of time on their studies and checking measurements and observations with work of other people (also called scientists).
-
We have hundreds of years worth of observations.
Hundreds of years of interpretations based on previous interpretations, don't forget that... and now what if someone in that chain made wrong interpretation?
It has happen few times
Laws and theories based on fundamentally wrong interpretation and equations are going to be also fundamentally wrong.If you are looking in very narrow way then of course science is going in good direction and everything is working, but if you change perspective and take a wider look you will notice how many theories should be still called hypothesis because they are working only in very very narrow range.
We have the most precise measurements ever performed testing models based on gauge symmetries. If we were mapping Earth with resolution that we have on these measurements, we'd have it down to the size of a grain of sand. So think about it like that, say we've measured Earth down to a grain of sand, and we've reported that Earth is a spheroid. And your argument is, "Well, maybe you missed something." Not likely.
And you missed something huge... the Moon and tides... your super precise measurements are incorrect!
That is my point we are going into small, tiny things and people rave about the precision while their narrow minded way of looking at things is leading them to very wrong interpretations.
Yet scientists are forcing others to continue their work in that direction, because it would be waste of resources, from my perspective it is more likely it would destroy their authority.
What if small change in interpretation can make things simpler and save lots of resources, why people are so afraid to change their mind set and take a little wider picture?
Are you afraid of loosing authority?
Orientation of Earth (time of day), and potentially c) Time of year.
and more I look at "how things work" in space I am more convinced I am right.
Bug encountered: broken solar panels.
in KSP1 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
Posted
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.