Jump to content

The most kerbal flat-earther I have yet to see

KSK

By KSK
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

NSEP

NSEP

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, MinimalMinmus said:

Because he really wants to help evolution?

Brings me to the question: If mankind affects their own evolution, is it artificial or natural selection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KSK

KSK

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, NSEP said:

I also have to ask Mad Mike (i think thats what they call him)

Why?

Why not? Provided he's flying this contraption where nobody else is going to get hurt then I say go for it. You may as well ask, why go bungee jumping or indulge in any other extreme sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Green Baron

Green Baron

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Jaelommiss said:

He's 61 years old. How much do you think he's going to be passing on his genome in the future?

If he hasn't done so yet and launch, flight or landing take him out of the game:

http://www.darwinawards.com/ :-)

Always granted posthumous.

Edited by Green Baron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zeiss Ikon

Zeiss Ikon

Posted
Posted

He's been a daredevil for decades.  He's like Evel Knievel without the big bank account.

The Flat Earthers are just a means for him to have the money to build and fly his rocket.  And if this one doesn't kill him, the next one will, and then he'll have gone out as a daredevil, instead of a sad old man in a nursing home.

I can see it, a little.  But the way my luck runs, I'd survive the crash and wind up paralyzed, and have to live on whatever disability gives me and with whatever medical care is available on a charity basis (because disability won't even pay for health insurance, never mind uninsured health care).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YNM

YNM

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

He's been a daredevil for decades.

Now that's a good info...

I'd say he can do whatever he wants. Maybe he'll put the barrier of daredeviling into... something ? Does jumping off a weather baloon counts ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zeiss Ikon

Zeiss Ikon

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Without the WHAT?

Evel had a few years in the spotlight, but "big bank account"?

Compared to a guy who drives a limo for a living?  Evel did pretty well.  He never had to punch a clock, he only really worked a couple days a year, and could still afford to replace the bikes he destroyed.  If he'd made it over the Snake River in 1973, he'd have been richer than Elvis just from the TV appearance fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikegarrison

mikegarrison

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Compared to a guy who drives a limo for a living?  Evel did pretty well.  He never had to punch a clock, he only really worked a couple days a year, and could still afford to replace the bikes he destroyed.  If he'd made it over the Snake River in 1973, he'd have been richer than Elvis just from the TV appearance fees.

A) You have no understanding of how rich Elvis was.

B) He probably got more attention for not making it across the river than if he had made it. But it's worth pointing out that the TV networks weren't willing to pay him what he wanted for the attempt, so he tried an early version of pay-per-view and it lost a lot of money.

At the peak he was probably making a decent income off the licensing rights to the toys and such. (I had an Evel Knievel lunchbox one year.) But he lived out of an RV and at one point was bankrupt. It wasn't until late in his life that he started getting popular again due to nostalgia. Compare that to Elvis, who had owned several private jets and a mansion and whatever else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Green Baron

Green Baron

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 27.11.2017 at 5:02 PM, NSEP said:

Brings me to the question: If mankind affects their own evolution, is it artificial or natural selection?

There was a hearty discussion about this in the Fermi-Paradox thread :-)

13 minutes ago, Nightside said:

Has anyone done the math to figure out the altitude and top speed of this vehicle?

do we know the thrust or isp of the rocket?

Need temperature/exhaust velocity and mass of the propellant and vehicle ... i'm not sure if the pilot knows :-)

But it is in the toy range: below 2000ft height above ground i think i read.

Edited by Green Baron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikegarrison

mikegarrison

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/29/2017 at 8:10 AM, Nightside said:

Has anyone done the math to figure out the altitude and top speed of this vehicle?

do we know the thrust or isp of the rocket?

It's a steam rocket. That should give you an idea of the max isp -- at most somewhere around 200 but probably less.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DAL59

DAL59

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

He is waiting for a launch window...

Hes waiting for the window in the dome to turn directly above him so he doesn't hit the dome.  :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sorabh

Sorabh

Posted
Posted

Neil DeGrass Tyson once said

Quote

Flat earth is a problem only when people in charge believe it. There is no law stopping you from regressfully basking in it!

So, yeah. We really should not give that man publicity and attention, It only fuels more madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoSlash27

GoSlash27

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Sorabh said:

So, yeah. We really should not give that man publicity and attention, It only fuels more madness.

Sorabh,

 I disagree. The antidote to silly ideas isn't silencing them, it's exposing them. They fall apart under cursory scrutiny, but attempting to bury them gives them a false air of validity.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sorabh

Sorabh

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Sorabh,

 I disagree. The antidote to silly ideas isn't silencing them, it's exposing them. They fall apart under cursory scrutiny, but attempting to bury them gives them a false air of validity.

Best,
-Slashy

 

You are free to disagree, I dont control your opinion after all. But if 'exposing them' really worked, there would be no flat earthers or pseudo scientists by now. Not with the amount of bashing they receive on a regular basis. You can not 'scrutinise'  those who do not work according to logic.

A long time ago, people bashed Galileo and Copernicus the same way we are bashing flat earthers today. But both of them stuck to their guns and proved their theories with irrefutable scientific proof. And ultimately, with time, the geocentric theory faded away.

The same will happen to flat earth theory. It will fade away because of no veritable proof!  

No dont silence them, of course not! In a free society everyone has the right to independent thought! But does it really matter that a bunch of nobodies believe in an absurd theory? They. Don't. Matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nikolai

Nikolai

Posted
Posted
On 11/27/2017 at 12:02 PM, NSEP said:

If mankind affects their own evolution, is it artificial or natural selection?

Yes.

(In all seriousness, the boundary between natural and artificial selection is far from sharp.  For example, if you find an attractive female in appearance, mate with her for that reason and produce offspring, is that natural or artificial selection?  What if her appearance has been altered -- she's preened her feathers, for example, as part of a strategy to attract mates?  What if that alteration is done by a third party?  Does it matter whether that third party performed that alteration on purpose or not, or what the specific goal of that alteration was -- whether attractiveness was the intent or the by-product of some other process?  And so on.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Green Baron

Green Baron

Posted
Posted (edited)

If you only look at selection then the difference between artificial and natural is important, for example when looking for a cure for a disease. Or when artificially breeding animals like aquarium fish or silly looking dogs with coiled tails and hanging ears or cats with no snout at all because brain has shrunk to the size of their former prey. Of course, this all is only the application of the rules nature has set.

The girl painting herself because she tries to appeal or the boy spending the whole day in the gym and finally looking like those Romans from the Asterix cartoons, immense chest and arms but ... forget it :-), these examples are not selection, these are modifications during lifetime of an individual. Neither the girl's paint or even silicon insets nor the boy's muscles are traded to the next generation. The offspring might just be a couch potato.

It becomes interesting though when we actually edit the genome to favour or cancel features or abilities ... will it have a lasting effect or be canceled out ? If you want to change the genetic code of a population for whatever reason you must hit all individuals or exclude those unaltered ones from the carousel, or the change will be "repaired" as a bad mutation during procreation. And that actually makes me and others worry for the far future, because politics.

Edit: your example @Nikolai, sexual attraction, is actually signaled through posture and body chemistry between individuals signaling "Hey, i am compatible !". So that is absolutely natural selection.

Let' see if somebody calls for a proof :-)

Edited by Green Baron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...