The only way I see it is that time must be an illussion. That might mean all time is the here and now. For some reason we are locked into the time illussion and will never be able to side step into reality. Myself, I like it this way.
BTW, We fly through the Van Allen Belt at typically 25 000 miles per hour if en route to the moon. It's not a place to hang around in. If you did you would not have a happy time. To say passing it at all would be fatal is not true. What you could say is it is strange no one was killed on the Moon with no real protection. I was told they took a risk and got very very lucky. I was also told that's why they never went back as they realised it was loaded dice and someone would be killed. I recomended a cryogenic shield as I called it. I was told that would be part of a Mars mission. A super conducting magnet. Even the water tank on the space station gives some protection.
Solaris (1972 film - Wikipedia)
BTW, We fly through the Van Allen Belt at typically 25 000 miles per hour if en route to the moon. It's not a place to hang around in. If you did you would not have a happy time. To say passing it at all would be fatal is not true. What you could say is it is strange no one was killed on the Moon with no real protection. I was told they took a risk and got very very lucky. I was also told that's why they never went back as they realised it was loaded dice and someone would be killed. I recomended a cryogenic shield as I called it. I was told that would be part of a Mars mission. A super conducting magnet. Even the water tank on the space station gives some protection.
Solaris (1972 film - Wikipedia)
Last edited:
Indeed. Water is a very good protector of most kinds of radiation.
I forsee massive ships at least a hundred km's in length which are crafted with the matter from asteroids travelling towards distant stars. That isn't even impossible with regular rocket technology or the use of nuclear weapons as a method of propulsion.
There are varying degrees of primitive propulsion which can be utilized to travel towards distant solar systems.
But I say that primarily because the propulsion part isn't the real issue, as you've stated protection from outside sources of radiation and even micrometeoroids is a massive issue.
A pretty combustible scenario would be a micrometeoroid attack on a spacecraft, you either need to design it with safe cells from the ground up in a modular fashion which can be jettisoned or turned into scrap metal for recycling or provide a shield outside of it AND to provide self-repairing systems which work independently of any input from the pilots and work quickly to repair problems.
Nanobots would be the ideal solution to this and I forsee a massive interstellar spacecraft to have both large and small robots doing repair jobs round the clock. With nanobots you wouldn't need to jettison damaged portions of the vehicle and instead repair the broken modules in place.
A reflective metallic surface could reflect most if not all visible and invisible non-ionizing radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum back out into space, that is the easy part, the not so easy part is shielding against ionizing radiation.
Nanobots will provide a massive boom to self repair work done in outer space even for microscopic fractures and micrometeoroid impacts into solid metal. The hard part then is dealing with the ionizing radiation damage done to the outer hull of a spacecraft.
As what happens in nuclear reactors, contamination and induced-radiation is a thing and will need to be dealt with.
Induced radioactivity - Wikipedia
The only way that this could be dealt with in an efficient and timely manner is on the molecular level, so nanobots are definitely coming with us.
I forsee massive ships at least a hundred km's in length which are crafted with the matter from asteroids travelling towards distant stars. That isn't even impossible with regular rocket technology or the use of nuclear weapons as a method of propulsion.
There are varying degrees of primitive propulsion which can be utilized to travel towards distant solar systems.
But I say that primarily because the propulsion part isn't the real issue, as you've stated protection from outside sources of radiation and even micrometeoroids is a massive issue.
A pretty combustible scenario would be a micrometeoroid attack on a spacecraft, you either need to design it with safe cells from the ground up in a modular fashion which can be jettisoned or turned into scrap metal for recycling or provide a shield outside of it AND to provide self-repairing systems which work independently of any input from the pilots and work quickly to repair problems.
Nanobots would be the ideal solution to this and I forsee a massive interstellar spacecraft to have both large and small robots doing repair jobs round the clock. With nanobots you wouldn't need to jettison damaged portions of the vehicle and instead repair the broken modules in place.
A reflective metallic surface could reflect most if not all visible and invisible non-ionizing radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum back out into space, that is the easy part, the not so easy part is shielding against ionizing radiation.
Nanobots will provide a massive boom to self repair work done in outer space even for microscopic fractures and micrometeoroid impacts into solid metal. The hard part then is dealing with the ionizing radiation damage done to the outer hull of a spacecraft.
As what happens in nuclear reactors, contamination and induced-radiation is a thing and will need to be dealt with.
Induced radioactivity - Wikipedia
The only way that this could be dealt with in an efficient and timely manner is on the molecular level, so nanobots are definitely coming with us.
Last edited:
Don't know about you but I'm never leaving the solar system at least not for the next 10,000 years. There's no place like home you know?
I might work as a trader on the solar system commodities market dealing in raw materials and trading for various pieces of rare metals. Collecting vintage spacecraft.
I might work as a trader on the solar system commodities market dealing in raw materials and trading for various pieces of rare metals. Collecting vintage spacecraft.
Last edited:
I think phosphorus might be something we need to mine off Earth. I was told a guy is making a fortune from public toilets to collect things like that and also legal drugs we expell. He is looking to the pig industry next. The expression taking the p--- was in fact the making of phosphorus from public house toilets. People who did it made good money and often made out to be wine merchants. The big wood barrel to take the p---. An urban myth that seems to be true.
Could American households soon be recycling their URINE? How depleting nutrient used in toothpaste and fertilizer can be extracted from our toilets | Daily Mail Online
Could American households soon be recycling their URINE? How depleting nutrient used in toothpaste and fertilizer can be extracted from our toilets | Daily Mail Online
Phosphorus might be what we need to think about. If we could limit people to two children the world could reduce it's problems. We could make the tax system help them make the choices. I don't think this is too much to ask to ask us to stop at two. Itally ironically is doing this by it's own choice ( whilst Rome advocates bigger famillies ). To work we the rich must help poor countries. We must offer basic support to say that they don't need children to be their pensions. We also win if they don't do that. I saw a local government guy saying how wonderful Wateraid was building toilets in Africa. I wrote to Wateraid and said this guy needs a kick. He sits in his office and does nothing. It's only cheap bricks and not rocket science. He would rather spend his budget on himself I suspect.
If the alien had visited you, he would have left thinking we had no sense of humour.
If the alien had visited you, he would have left thinking we had no sense of humour.
And since when is a lack of emotions a bad thing to have?
Wars are built upon the foundations of emotions.
It will eventuallly come down to licensing - globally - making it progressively more cost prohibitive and having extreme penalties for violations. I'm not sure I want to live in that world, flat or otherwise.
Go to Kansas which is without hills or mountains and use a water level (an instrument that uses water to indicate the horizontal.) and a laser level on a 5 mile stretch of highway and measure the difference between the distance between the laser spot on a white board and the water level. It should be somewhere around 3 ft as I remember. Repeat from the other direction.
Last edited:
As I have the brains of the world here would anyone like to say why gold has higher resistance than silver or even copper? Mostly is seems the further from the atom centre a free electron is the better the conductor. To me this isn't the story. Silver's electron is vastly further out than copper. This yields about 106% conduction and could be said to be less if OFC rather than ETPC. Then there is gold which is less good when trends say it should be better. My conjecture is conductivity is still related to the lower shells, gold has 32+18+1 the others do not have the 32. Common thinking being the lower shells shield the outer electron, clearly not so when gold. Then related questions. Sodium looks to be up with these metals, yet isn't ( it's thermal conductivity is good ). Again is it the lower shells? Mercury is the big question. This metal has one extra electron over gold. I can sort of see how having a little friend in outer orbit spoils the party. From memory the resistance is 43 times more than gold. It seems the liquid state is the high price it pays as the metals to the right of silver or copper are nothing like as bad. It must be the 32+18+2 electrons that make it liquid, 32 mostly.
I thought this a really interesting similar world of half truths as Flat Earthers say of this world. A few >PHD's spend a whole lifetime on these thoughts and get paid plenty.
Some say the real reason nuclear power exists is to turn mercury into gold (Warning it's the NASA and the Moon bunch again ). It is almost a workable idea and is mostly bonkers. However it begs a question which had long ago come to my mind. Why is mercury more common than gold? Some say because we value gold more!!? Others say gold is harder to get at. This is something like the Flat Earth stories. None of that is good science. One very reasonable idea is mercury having two outer electrons is what matter in formation would prefer. That wouldn't account for copper. My son tells me Super Nova only can produce iron. At the energy level that makes iron it causes the star to explode, he seldom is wrong so I go with that. I always thought exploding black holes were the way to get heavy elements. There are big and little black holes that seem to say it could be so, the big ones make gold and the nasty things. My son says a lack of gold is like most things we meet. They seldom have simple logic. He did medical research into silver. His subject is medical chemistry. Nice that we can have very different roads to the same metal.
Mathamaticians often suffer from ideas that ruin their lives. Infinity is the one that will do it best. The many types of infinity is the best paradox. The real answer is infinity is a useful tool. Like zero it has no reality. Hence mathamatical proofs that are both true and not true and that are correct exist. The number i is real and useful. It works in modern application so whilst called imaginary it is totally real, more real than zero I feel, not sure about infinity. To my mind zero and infinity are real enough, which is not the same as real. The Flat Earther's should take on maths I would say. Number i should keep them buzy.
I thought this a really interesting similar world of half truths as Flat Earthers say of this world. A few >PHD's spend a whole lifetime on these thoughts and get paid plenty.
Some say the real reason nuclear power exists is to turn mercury into gold (Warning it's the NASA and the Moon bunch again ). It is almost a workable idea and is mostly bonkers. However it begs a question which had long ago come to my mind. Why is mercury more common than gold? Some say because we value gold more!!? Others say gold is harder to get at. This is something like the Flat Earth stories. None of that is good science. One very reasonable idea is mercury having two outer electrons is what matter in formation would prefer. That wouldn't account for copper. My son tells me Super Nova only can produce iron. At the energy level that makes iron it causes the star to explode, he seldom is wrong so I go with that. I always thought exploding black holes were the way to get heavy elements. There are big and little black holes that seem to say it could be so, the big ones make gold and the nasty things. My son says a lack of gold is like most things we meet. They seldom have simple logic. He did medical research into silver. His subject is medical chemistry. Nice that we can have very different roads to the same metal.
Mathamaticians often suffer from ideas that ruin their lives. Infinity is the one that will do it best. The many types of infinity is the best paradox. The real answer is infinity is a useful tool. Like zero it has no reality. Hence mathamatical proofs that are both true and not true and that are correct exist. The number i is real and useful. It works in modern application so whilst called imaginary it is totally real, more real than zero I feel, not sure about infinity. To my mind zero and infinity are real enough, which is not the same as real. The Flat Earther's should take on maths I would say. Number i should keep them buzy.
Nigel,
Electrical conduction is more complicated than the model you suggest. Don't know why you would speculate when explanations can readily be found online. One example here: Electrical resistivity and conductivity - Wikipedia
If you would like more in-depth information, here is an article about gold: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4508.pdf
Regarding turning other metals into gold, it has been done. For example, lead has been turned into gold. Only in extremely small amounts though. It takes a high energy particle accelerator to do it. Unfortunately, the cost of making gold that way a far, far more than the gold is worth. It's so expensive as to be totally impractical.
Regarding infinity, no one knows if anything is physically infinite. It's looking more and more like infinity is, as you say, not more than a mathematical abstraction. But, that is based on very limited information. We don't know what goes on at Planck scale or below (if there is a below), and for infinitely large, we don't know if there is some kind of multi-verse that is unbounded.
Electrical conduction is more complicated than the model you suggest. Don't know why you would speculate when explanations can readily be found online. One example here: Electrical resistivity and conductivity - Wikipedia
If you would like more in-depth information, here is an article about gold: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4508.pdf
Regarding turning other metals into gold, it has been done. For example, lead has been turned into gold. Only in extremely small amounts though. It takes a high energy particle accelerator to do it. Unfortunately, the cost of making gold that way a far, far more than the gold is worth. It's so expensive as to be totally impractical.
Regarding infinity, no one knows if anything is physically infinite. It's looking more and more like infinity is, as you say, not more than a mathematical abstraction. But, that is based on very limited information. We don't know what goes on at Planck scale or below (if there is a below), and for infinitely large, we don't know if there is some kind of multi-verse that is unbounded.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.