That's one version, complied by random people on the Net. Here's another compiled by people that are accountable: http://truemajority.org/csba/priorities.php
I was taken into a police station with recorder running. When I got the tape back, it had a version of "Nowhere to run to" playing on it instead of the abusive language the officers were using. At least they didn't hammer the tape player.
Agreed. The US is insane when it comes to overkill. Half of all taxes go to the military, and our forces dwarf Russia, China, and the "axis of evil" combined.
What a waste. No wonder there's no money to fix our infrastructure.
The pistol shrimp has an excellent weapon that reaches the temperature of the sun. We could use bio-mimicry to create a nice weapon against missiles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc
Re:Why can't engineers think of these things???
on
NASA Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
BTW Ms. Moderator, what's your idea/s for improving launch capabilities? Or don't you have any?
Re:Why can't engineers think of these things???
on
NASA Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
Thank you so much for the Troll rating.
Considering the intellect of some of the moderators of these posts, I consider it to be a great honor.
Are you trying to be funny or just snide?
on
NASA Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
So you have a reason these ideas won't work on a large scale?
I'd love to hear it. Because I've already made working models, and the height obtained with a rocket model is much higher using these techniques.
One of my friends had a doctorate of physics and used to work for NASA. He says the ideas are sound, but because of NASA entrenched box thinking, they won't adapt any of them. Of course, this doesn't preclude private concerns like Virgin Galactic from incorporating them.
Why can't engineers think of these things???
on
NASA Turns 50
·
· Score: -1, Troll
A lot of the initial thrust is wasted on air that gets pushed out of the way, creating an ineffective surface to push against.
IDEA #1
Why not dig a hole about 1000 meters deep (arbitrary for sake of illustration).
Lower the launch vehicle into this hole.
Instead of just allowing the vehicle to push itself out of the hole (much like a cannonball with a controlled burn), augment the launch by attaching a cord to the top of the vehicle to pull it by.
This scenario should greatly decrease the size needed for the primary launch vehicle, and allow cost effective launches.
A parallel hole build next to this one, in which a large container the same weight of the launch vehicle is allowed to cancel the weight of the launch vehicle.
IDEA #2
We've all heard of the proposed tunnel across the Atlantic that will be a vacuum tube, allowing the tube train to travel at extremely high speeds.
Clue: make a vacuum tube in the ground. Pressurize the bottom, making the launch vehicle to rapidly accelerate. Once the vehicle reaches the end of the tunnel, blow the top, and fire the rockets. Viola.
IDEA #3
Create air scoops on the side of the primary launch vehicle, which would force air below the rocket circumferentially , creating a firmer 'platform' upon which to rise. Thus counteracting the loss of thrust to the side.
The business class will always charge as much as people can pay in order to soak up any excess that isn't spent on essentials such as rent, food, and utilities, keeping the working class working, and buying.
In addition, retailers here have a more 'captive market'... there is no such thing a Walmart. On a recent trip to America, my wife purchased many pieces of clothing at Ross, Walmart, etc., which would have cost many time more in Eastern Europe for cheaper quality.
The kilogram is the only remaining standard of measurement tied to a single physical object: a 120-year-old lump of platinum and iridium that sits in a vault outside of Paris, France. But the mass of this chunk of metal is slowly changing relative to the 40-odd copies kept by other countries, and no one knows why or by how much.
So you see, there is something going on that we don't understand in physics. Not some new physics, but something we don't yet understand. In as short a time period of only 120 years, this change has occurred.
Thank you for your intriguing reply. It certainly gives me new subject matter to think about in this putative hypothesis.
Agreed. All I am saying, is that if there is a mechanism in atoms that causes them to either shrink or degrade into the next lowest element over time, then we have to rethink our theory to account for that. The 40 different calibrated masses that represented the kilogram are all different masses now. What happened? Something is happening, and we need to find out what.
I submitted my ideas to one of my professors, and he critiqued it. I know how contrary it is to what most people believe.
I got the highest grade in all of my astronomy classes. What part of the science are you referring to?
As the galaxies shrink relative to one another, the space between them increases, and thus it takes light longer to travel the distance between galaxies. Red shift. The farther away they are, the more space accumulates between them. Space in effect expands as matter shrinks.
There is one possible experiment, which we have found quite by accident. About 40 globes exist in the world to represent the mass of one kilogram. When made, each globe was precise. Now each one has a slightly different weight. This may indicate that atoms do change size/weight over time. I think it's worth looking into.
The red shift is easily explained by the big collapse, easier than the big bang explanation. Big bang states that things are moving away from us faster as they get farther away from us. So are we at the center of the big bang? I hardly think so. In the big collapse, red shift is created by cumulative shrinkage of galaxies relative to each other. The farther away they are, the more cumulative shrinkage that has occurred between galaxies. This is a better explanation, as the big bang leads us to surmise that eventually galaxies will move faster than the speed of light away from us, which is not possible.
Speed of light is constant. With the big bang theory, galaxies are moving faster as they recede away from us. How could this happen with an explosion such as the big bang. Galaxies farther away from the center would appear to be going slower in a big bang scenario.
The apparent movement of galaxies moving away from each other is what gives rise to the notion of the big bang. What if this is just an optical illusion? If matter in the universe is gradually shrinking in size (there is plenty of room for a lot of shrinkage in each atom) by a means we are not yet familiar with (forty standard kilogram weights around the world are mysteriously different weights now), then the universe started off in a superheated cloud and gradually cooled off in our local area. As galaxies shrink, the space between them increases, giving rise to the illusion that they are flying apart (faster and faster), when they could just be staying in relatively the same areas they originally formed in. This explanation, which I call the big collapse, doesn't need the iffy explanation of 'everything coming from a singularity'. It doesn't require the awkward expansion period. It doesn't even require different physics at the time of the creation of our universe, which happened over time, not in a relative instant. The big bang is likely a ludicrous explanation that's helping to lead us down a gigantic blind alley in the advancement of science.
Slashdot Mirror
http://truemajority.org/csba/priorities.php
Take a look at the chart, and then let's talk.
That's one version, complied by random people on the Net. Here's another compiled by people that are accountable: http://truemajority.org/csba/priorities.php
I stand with what I said originally. Nice try.
WWII was a war worth fighting, and everyone knew it.
What's it like being an anonymous coward that would never speak like that to my face?
No, I don't think bridges collapsing and killing people are bad at all...
No doubt cavenne8.
I was taken into a police station with recorder running. When I got the tape back, it had a version of "Nowhere to run to" playing on it instead of the abusive language the officers were using. At least they didn't hammer the tape player.
Agreed. The US is insane when it comes to overkill. Half of all taxes go to the military, and our forces dwarf Russia, China, and the "axis of evil" combined.
What a waste. No wonder there's no money to fix our infrastructure.
The pistol shrimp has an excellent weapon that reaches the temperature of the sun. We could use bio-mimicry to create a nice weapon against missiles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc
BTW Ms. Moderator, what's your idea/s for improving launch capabilities? Or don't you have any?
Thank you so much for the Troll rating.
Considering the intellect of some of the moderators of these posts, I consider it to be a great honor.
So you have a reason these ideas won't work on a large scale?
I'd love to hear it. Because I've already made working models, and the height obtained with a rocket model is much higher using these techniques.
One of my friends had a doctorate of physics and used to work for NASA. He says the ideas are sound, but because of NASA entrenched box thinking, they won't adapt any of them. Of course, this doesn't preclude private concerns like Virgin Galactic from incorporating them.
A lot of the initial thrust is wasted on air that gets pushed out of the way, creating an ineffective surface to push against.
IDEA #1
Why not dig a hole about 1000 meters deep (arbitrary for sake of illustration).
Lower the launch vehicle into this hole.
Instead of just allowing the vehicle to push itself out of the hole (much like a cannonball with a controlled burn), augment the launch by attaching a cord to the top of the vehicle to pull it by.
This scenario should greatly decrease the size needed for the primary launch vehicle, and allow cost effective launches.
A parallel hole build next to this one, in which a large container the same weight of the launch vehicle is allowed to cancel the weight of the launch vehicle.
IDEA #2
We've all heard of the proposed tunnel across the Atlantic that will be a vacuum tube, allowing the tube train to travel at extremely high speeds.
Clue: make a vacuum tube in the ground. Pressurize the bottom, making the launch vehicle to rapidly accelerate. Once the vehicle reaches the end of the tunnel, blow the top, and fire the rockets. Viola.
IDEA #3
Create air scoops on the side of the primary launch vehicle, which would force air below the rocket circumferentially , creating a firmer 'platform' upon which to rise. Thus counteracting the loss of thrust to the side.
I should have been an engineer.
I have to agree.
The business class will always charge as much as people can pay in order to soak up any excess that isn't spent on essentials such as rent, food, and utilities, keeping the working class working, and buying.
http://www.eartheasy.com/article_consumer_culture.htm
In addition, retailers here have a more 'captive market'... there is no such thing a Walmart. On a recent trip to America, my wife purchased many pieces of clothing at Ross, Walmart, etc., which would have cost many time more in Eastern Europe for cheaper quality.
Google has been around for years.
Cuil has only just opened. Already, it is pretty decent.
I for one would love to have options to Google.
The kilogram is the only remaining standard of measurement tied to a single physical object: a 120-year-old lump of platinum and iridium that sits in a vault outside of Paris, France. But the mass of this chunk of metal is slowly changing relative to the 40-odd copies kept by other countries, and no one knows why or by how much.
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn14229-roundest-objects-in-the-world-created.html
So you see, there is something going on that we don't understand in physics. Not some new physics, but something we don't yet understand. In as short a time period of only 120 years, this change has occurred.
Thank you for your intriguing reply. It certainly gives me new subject matter to think about in this putative hypothesis.
Agreed. All I am saying, is that if there is a mechanism in atoms that causes them to either shrink or degrade into the next lowest element over time, then we have to rethink our theory to account for that. The 40 different calibrated masses that represented the kilogram are all different masses now. What happened? Something is happening, and we need to find out what.
I submitted my ideas to one of my professors, and he critiqued it. I know how contrary it is to what most people believe. I got the highest grade in all of my astronomy classes. What part of the science are you referring to?
I've posted a possible experiment elsewhere in this post.
As the galaxies shrink relative to one another, the space between them increases, and thus it takes light longer to travel the distance between galaxies. Red shift. The farther away they are, the more space accumulates between them. Space in effect expands as matter shrinks.
There is one possible experiment, which we have found quite by accident. About 40 globes exist in the world to represent the mass of one kilogram. When made, each globe was precise. Now each one has a slightly different weight. This may indicate that atoms do change size/weight over time. I think it's worth looking into.
I'm not interested in being published. I'm only concerned that we may be barking up the wrong tree in our scientific understanding.
This is what big bang theory and observations of red shift seem to imply. I don't agree with it myself.
The red shift is easily explained by the big collapse, easier than the big bang explanation. Big bang states that things are moving away from us faster as they get farther away from us. So are we at the center of the big bang? I hardly think so. In the big collapse, red shift is created by cumulative shrinkage of galaxies relative to each other. The farther away they are, the more cumulative shrinkage that has occurred between galaxies. This is a better explanation, as the big bang leads us to surmise that eventually galaxies will move faster than the speed of light away from us, which is not possible.
Speed of light is constant. With the big bang theory, galaxies are moving faster as they recede away from us. How could this happen with an explosion such as the big bang. Galaxies farther away from the center would appear to be going slower in a big bang scenario.
The apparent movement of galaxies moving away from each other is what gives rise to the notion of the big bang. What if this is just an optical illusion? If matter in the universe is gradually shrinking in size (there is plenty of room for a lot of shrinkage in each atom) by a means we are not yet familiar with (forty standard kilogram weights around the world are mysteriously different weights now), then the universe started off in a superheated cloud and gradually cooled off in our local area. As galaxies shrink, the space between them increases, giving rise to the illusion that they are flying apart (faster and faster), when they could just be staying in relatively the same areas they originally formed in. This explanation, which I call the big collapse, doesn't need the iffy explanation of 'everything coming from a singularity'. It doesn't require the awkward expansion period. It doesn't even require different physics at the time of the creation of our universe, which happened over time, not in a relative instant. The big bang is likely a ludicrous explanation that's helping to lead us down a gigantic blind alley in the advancement of science.