Just because you don't understand doesn't mean other don't. And no there has never been a " oh shit we must have just got all this data wrong for 200 years" moment in science. The data and results remain. New theory are not new. They tweak. And we have a lot of data that supports 2 things. FTL of things or information is time travel. Entanglement does not transmit information.
I meant that factoring is has not been shown to be in NP and that solving factoring faster is not evidence that quantum computers can solve NP problems faster than NP. I am being sloppy with terms here of course.
It has been speculated that no quantum computer can solve NP-complete/hard problems "faster" (ie in P). But then we also have a *very* small set of quantum algorithms to do anything at all. It just so happens that on of them is factoring. With large constants and a heavy burden on total number of operations needed and a fairly heavy classical computing burden as well. But it is still doable in P time.
TWR of air breathers is on the order of 10 compared to rocket engines in the 50-200 range. So sure you have less max thrust requirements, but your engines+intakes are heaver than the equivalent rocket anyway. Not to mention the very very difficult problem of getting a supersonic craft with a miraculous flight envelope to work without totally shit performance. It cost a fortune for a optimized point design for both the concord and the blackbird. And they are really slow compared to what this needs.
No it really isn't that expensive. It is about 1% or less of launch costs. Fuel tanks are cheap and the weight is not that expensive to deal with. This is not an aircraft. Cost don't scale like aircraft, unless you insist on using aircraft for space ships. Cost don't scale with GLOW, they scale with Dry weight.
I would expect there to be rules to follow for such a truck. What they i couldn't say. But i doubt burning man would be compliant. Also LOX without something to burn is not as much fun as you my think.
You have confused speed with kinetic energy. All terms for this scale with v^2 not v. Lift, drag, skin heating, and orbital "lift" are all to v^2. So yea it is the Newtonian physics. 1000m/s is a really really long way from 7800.
Getting efficient lift at below march 1 is easy. From march 2 to higher than 6 not so much. And even at mach 6 your still only 6% of the way there. And to "save" that you have exchanged cheap fuel tanks and fuel for a very expensive and very difficult to develop supersonic craft. Air intakes along for those speeds are extremely difficult to design without very high drag.
It has passed a test on the ground. At 0 speed. This is a far cry from getting it to work from march 2-6+ with respectable air intake drag. In fact i doubt 100M will be enough to even build just that part and not close to fly it. See both the concord and the SR Blackbird. And they had if far easier than Skylon. And were as expensive as shit to develop.
Wings have terrible LD coefficient at high speed (Subsonic you get 20 or even higher, at March 2 it is about 7 and goes down very fast from there to less than 1 at hypersonic speeds). And getting to orbit is about speed. 7800m/s of speed. Everything scales with v^2. Lift, drag, skin heating, kinetic energy and of course "orbital lift". The fastest aircraft ever was exceptionally expensive, the SR blackbird. It got a mere 1000m/s approximately. Or about 3% of orbital kinetic energy.
Now even worse is you can't point design things like the SR blackbird, which was designed to sit at a optimal speed and altitude. Getting the intakes to work for that was really really hard. Getting something that need to work over an even larger range of speed in air is even harder. Drag coefficents of intakes can be massive in off design point conditions.
Space ships are not aircraft. They don't solve the same problem. Beating the space plane dead horse will not get us to space cheaper.
This is why you need the forcing term. A small increases in temperature increase the water content, which is a far better greenhouse gas. This small increases in water heats it up a little more, that increase water content even more. Etc.
there are of course negative feedbacks as well. But we don't mention those. And lets just pretend our cloud and precipitation models are all good.
I am a scientist. I work with some of these scientists. That is a very bad assumption to make. There are plenty of idiots in science that are scientists.
Well we don't use radio waves either. We create machines, tools if you will, that convert things we do communicate in into and from radio waves. An intelligent alien presumably is smart enough to make equivalent tools. It is not like the laws of physics are different everywhere. You want wireless communications, you go EM waves.
You are wrong. We understand entanglement very well. It was Einstein that just didn't' really like it. But we have done real experiments many times. No information transfer, no FTL, hell we even suspect that it won't even make NP complete problems easier to solve either. Well at least a lot of us do.
Lossless? there is no such thing. Even in fiber you need signal boosters. Anything propagating in space is attenuated with the inverse square law, it is conservation of energy.
Main sequence stars die in different ways depending on start mass. Near the end of its life the star, like our sun will expand to huge sizes. The outer layers are sheded and eventually the fusion process stops. What is left collapses. Our sun is not big enough to become a neutron star, so it eventually becomes a white dwarf. Electron degenrate matter basically.
Windows can in fact bundle binary blobs if it so wishes. As long as the source is also available as well. And no the binary blob does not need to have the source with it, it just has to be available, like on a separate DVD like many linux distros do. Or even on a website where it can be downloaded from.
Where is it close? Local sunshine hour numbers are relevant for any such calculation. Bullshit metrics like cost per watt tell you nothing about how much electricity you get and when you get it.
I have eaten raw potatoes plenty. Never had any poisoning or anything. It is the green that kills, and the potato is not green unless you left it in the sun.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean other don't. And no there has never been a " oh shit we must have just got all this data wrong for 200 years" moment in science. The data and results remain. New theory are not new. They tweak. And we have a lot of data that supports 2 things. FTL of things or information is time travel. Entanglement does not transmit information.
I meant that factoring is has not been shown to be in NP and that solving factoring faster is not evidence that quantum computers can solve NP problems faster than NP. I am being sloppy with terms here of course.
It has been speculated that no quantum computer can solve NP-complete/hard problems "faster" (ie in P). But then we also have a *very* small set of quantum algorithms to do anything at all. It just so happens that on of them is factoring. With large constants and a heavy burden on total number of operations needed and a fairly heavy classical computing burden as well. But it is still doable in P time.
Yea a little late to the party.
They haven't worked out costs. They have guessed costs. And on the very very optimistic side i may add.
Nothing has been demonstrated at march 5. It was all at sea level zero velocity.
TWR of air breathers is on the order of 10 compared to rocket engines in the 50-200 range. So sure you have less max thrust requirements, but your engines+intakes are heaver than the equivalent rocket anyway. Not to mention the very very difficult problem of getting a supersonic craft with a miraculous flight envelope to work without totally shit performance. It cost a fortune for a optimized point design for both the concord and the blackbird. And they are really slow compared to what this needs.
No it really isn't that expensive. It is about 1% or less of launch costs. Fuel tanks are cheap and the weight is not that expensive to deal with. This is not an aircraft. Cost don't scale like aircraft, unless you insist on using aircraft for space ships. Cost don't scale with GLOW, they scale with Dry weight.
I would expect there to be rules to follow for such a truck. What they i couldn't say. But i doubt burning man would be compliant. Also LOX without something to burn is not as much fun as you my think.
You have confused speed with kinetic energy. All terms for this scale with v^2 not v. Lift, drag, skin heating, and orbital "lift" are all to v^2. So yea it is the Newtonian physics. 1000m/s is a really really long way from 7800.
Getting efficient lift at below march 1 is easy. From march 2 to higher than 6 not so much. And even at mach 6 your still only 6% of the way there. And to "save" that you have exchanged cheap fuel tanks and fuel for a very expensive and very difficult to develop supersonic craft. Air intakes along for those speeds are extremely difficult to design without very high drag.
It has passed a test on the ground. At 0 speed. This is a far cry from getting it to work from march 2-6+ with respectable air intake drag. In fact i doubt 100M will be enough to even build just that part and not close to fly it. See both the concord and the SR Blackbird. And they had if far easier than Skylon. And were as expensive as shit to develop.
Wings have terrible LD coefficient at high speed (Subsonic you get 20 or even higher, at March 2 it is about 7 and goes down very fast from there to less than 1 at hypersonic speeds). And getting to orbit is about speed. 7800m/s of speed. Everything scales with v^2. Lift, drag, skin heating, kinetic energy and of course "orbital lift". The fastest aircraft ever was exceptionally expensive, the SR blackbird. It got a mere 1000m/s approximately. Or about 3% of orbital kinetic energy.
Now even worse is you can't point design things like the SR blackbird, which was designed to sit at a optimal speed and altitude. Getting the intakes to work for that was really really hard. Getting something that need to work over an even larger range of speed in air is even harder. Drag coefficents of intakes can be massive in off design point conditions.
Space ships are not aircraft. They don't solve the same problem. Beating the space plane dead horse will not get us to space cheaper.
This is why you need the forcing term. A small increases in temperature increase the water content, which is a far better greenhouse gas. This small increases in water heats it up a little more, that increase water content even more. Etc.
there are of course negative feedbacks as well. But we don't mention those. And lets just pretend our cloud and precipitation models are all good.
I am a scientist. I work with some of these scientists. That is a very bad assumption to make. There are plenty of idiots in science that are scientists.
And they don't use Fertilizer. they don't use a drop. Or pesticides and herbicides.... Yep carbon neutral they are. It all the cows fault.
Clearly he/she is all 3. Why pick just one?
Well we don't use radio waves either. We create machines, tools if you will, that convert things we do communicate in into and from radio waves. An intelligent alien presumably is smart enough to make equivalent tools. It is not like the laws of physics are different everywhere. You want wireless communications, you go EM waves.
You are wrong. We understand entanglement very well. It was Einstein that just didn't' really like it. But we have done real experiments many times. No information transfer, no FTL, hell we even suspect that it won't even make NP complete problems easier to solve either. Well at least a lot of us do.
Lossless? there is no such thing. Even in fiber you need signal boosters. Anything propagating in space is attenuated with the inverse square law, it is conservation of energy.
Main sequence stars die in different ways depending on start mass. Near the end of its life the star, like our sun will expand to huge sizes. The outer layers are sheded and eventually the fusion process stops. What is left collapses. Our sun is not big enough to become a neutron star, so it eventually becomes a white dwarf. Electron degenrate matter basically.
Windows can in fact bundle binary blobs if it so wishes. As long as the source is also available as well. And no the binary blob does not need to have the source with it, it just has to be available, like on a separate DVD like many linux distros do. Or even on a website where it can be downloaded from.
Your not going to get 800W per m2 in the winter. In fact there a lot of places you don't even get that at noon in the summer.
Where is it close? Local sunshine hour numbers are relevant for any such calculation. Bullshit metrics like cost per watt tell you nothing about how much electricity you get and when you get it.
Fuck the human. Make it autonomous. Superior in every way.
I have eaten raw potatoes plenty. Never had any poisoning or anything. It is the green that kills, and the potato is not green unless you left it in the sun.
Citation required. they have done sweet fuck all in 10 years. Real scientist lose their jobs with that kind of publication record.