That's OK. It gave me a reason to do the math on the actual Vietnam inflation, which is even worse. And the actual Iraq debt, which puts it over $1T.
In fact, the actual numbers of each wars are certainly higher. The reports on which they're based are purposely smaller, and there is lots of covert budget not reported.
For kicks, imagine what the US could have done with either of those budgets if we'd invested them constructively. For example, there were about 25M Iraqis when we invaded (we've killed hundreds of thousands, and driven off millions now). If we'd given each and every Iraqi $25,000 (including children and old people, in every family), we'd have spent as much, and certainly gotten more. Hell, we could have gotten practically all of them to do whatever we wanted for $5000 per person, and look to everyone like the best friends in the world. They'd have let American oil corps have whatever deal we want.
Imagine if we just left Iraq alone, and invested that $1T in Americans. That's about $10K per family. If we'd invested it in just tech workers, that's probably $100K per. In scientists, probably a quarter-million each. Squandering it in Iraq was about the stupidest way we could have possibly spent it. No wonder the Pentagon is hiding so much.
The rest of our destroyed economy will be borrowing inflated money at ridiculous rates entirely from foreigners, once we can't even pretend we're rich anymore.
Of course I read your post. Just parroting that back at me isn't a valid criticism. Your arguments didn't even recognize the points I made, that I just made again. My arguments addressed your points specifically.
And so it looks like you've once again failed to read my post. Here's another free clue:
For one, I didn't say that Java is the native iPhone environment. I said that it's native to those other devices I mentioned, DVB/ATSC/BDP/phones.
For another, there is certainly a market for apps on those devices, but their developer community is small and top-down from the device vendors (making them effectively closed). Java on iPhone changes that, especially if there's Java in the iPhone Apps Store. Those changes make the market accessible by both consumers and developers, which is the magic stroke.
At least in the end you start arguing something from the very beginning of my first post, the viability of network mobile objects. You don't even seem to realize that the native iPhone apps will all have the same network limits you're talking about. Or that the network mobile objects can be very small. In fact, once again proving you're not reading my posts, you don't notice the remote device UI use case I mentioned, which is of course just one possible application.
That's it. No more free clues. You're annoying to discuss this with. You get the most basic stuff wrong. You don't have any good ideas, even when they're given to you over and over. iPhone Java is coming, bringing along the platform for network mobile objects (and other Java techniques) and a developer community that can reach the combined multiplatform of all those devices. You can stand outside in 2001 and watch the rest of us prove you wrong. Just don't pretend that you're qualified to talk anyone out of it.
You know, it's like you didn't read my post. It's like all you saw was "Java", and kicked on some standard Java rant. The only thing missing is "Java is slow", which you implied with your general "perform at the same level as native apps".
If you read my post, you'd see that lots has changed. For one, Java is now the "native platform" on these other small multimedia devices like DVB/ATSC/BDP. You'd see that I proposed mobile objects with precisely the purpose of delivering native UIs from remote devices. Let's see native iPhone apps do that - without rewriting Java, that is.
You also don't know how Java works now, which means porting it to the iPhone will let Java apps present the same "high standards" UI that native apps present.
You also missed the essential point that until now, the developer community for Java has been a small niche inside the device maker industry, but the iPhone will change that. Especially since Java applets will likely not require the iPhone App Store (or whatever they call it) for distribution, without sacrificing safety, the iPhone represents the first big opportunity for those applets to reach a big audience without hassle (even though you vastly underestimate the number of Java apps running on other mobile phones already). New apps in a hot marketed platform that can integrated with those other devices across the network represent a new basis for demand for those apps, and therefore for its programmers. Presto: an ecosystem.
I think the only part of my post you got right was when you tagged your response with "circa 2001". Just because you don't understand Java, or the power of the same code running on all those ubiquitous devices, doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there.
How I wish Atari had got that guy to teach everyone how to program the Atari 800 and 400. I had to teach myself from the most cryptic, sparse and often contadictory documentation. There was an "Internet" in the early 1980s, but practically no one had access (I did), so we depended on the few published books, occasional insights in magazines like COMPUTE!, Creative Computing and Byte.
It wasn't enough. Programming wasn't just hard because it required assembly code skills (or forth, hah!), but because it was completely hidden territory. There was no real way to get source code from the programs that some people managed to write and distribute, and certainly no obligtion for anyone to release it (except the occasional superficial magazine article).
The competing Apple ][+, IBM-PC and TRS-80, all had BBSes full of downloadable code (often including source). Their corporate vendors each published detailed programming guides. The TRS-80 was doomed because of the direction of its corporate parent (which should have stayed in the PC business, porting its OS on Intel HW when they all upgraded from 8 to 16 bits). But IBM and Apple survived, even thrived (as we all know), because it was easy to get in the programming game.
By the time Atari finally published its "De Re Atari", which was a good start (the source code to the OS), the small developer "community" had already chosen either Apple or PC. If Atari had taught us all how to program from the beginning, its superior hardware and attractive game platform would probably have left it a strong competitor to the PC, much as the Mac has. But we were all on our own, and our platformed disappeared.
The same dynamic is still true on new platforms. Make it easy to develop for it, and it will survive, even thrive.
One reason the dollar is trash compared to the Euro is that Europe hasn't wasted as nearly much on military operations as the US. That trashes a currency, when the government printing it looks so reckless, and creates so much debt in the effort.
A look at Canada is even more instructive. The Canadian dollar is now worth more than the US dollar. I can't remember any time that's happened in my entire life. All those years scoffing at Canadian pennies mistakenly included in my change, throwing them away, is now coming back to haunt me.
Well, metamaterials are now available. And aperture is now greatly expanded in by "virtual" apertures, like scattered "subaperatures" sparsely filling a larger effective aperture area.
And as I said, orbital telescopes can get larger parallax, including solar orbits. Several different elliptical Solar orbits could give both large parallax and larger virtual apertures.
The orbit can contain two different telescopes. And I was too constrained in saying "geosynchronous". In fact, there's no reason we can't launch two telescopes into a large orbit around the Sun, and take simultaneous images with larger parallax. But even a few hundred thousand miles around the Earth would be OK, with precision optics.
As for holographic telescopy (or whatever we call it), there are ways for non-coherent light to interfere with coherent light. The lasers don't need to reach the distant objects. It would take a lot of new engineering, but it could be worth it.
Java ME is already part of the default platform for DVB/ATSC (European / N American cableTV clients), most mobile phones, and Blu-Ray (so all HD videodiscs). When it's on the iPhone, JME will get high visibility as a development platform (DVB/ATSC/BD-J and even most mobile phone development is nearly all done by a small niche of developers).
The same JME applets will run on any of those devices. In fact, the Java classloader lets any running Java program load a class from any other Java device connected by the network, load it and run it (safely) locally.
I wonder whether having lots of developers targeting a very featureful terminal that can be used as a "universal remote" for all these personal devices will finally offer some good applications for Java's ability to transmit the same objects around all the devices. Like the GUI objects installed in each device being available on any other device, to control the "home" device in familiar terms. Or any other of these.
And if that "mobile objects" platform does indeed come of age, will even Sun's "JavaSpaces" finally have a use for its far-out platform?
Will all of Sun's "useless" Java platforms from the past decade+ eventually be recognized as "visionary"?
Stereographic imagery is certainly possible. A few hundred thousand miles (opposite points on a geosynchronous orbit) is enough parallax. Even a few centimeters would be enough parallax if the optics were good enough, which nanoscale optics will evenually offer. Our radio (high frequency light) instruments already capture fairly precise and accurate light from 13.72B light years away (and years ago). That is just a matter of technology, not basic science. It can be done.
Since you can't figure out stereoscopic telescopics I'm not sure you're ready to tackle holographic telescopics.
The Vietnam cost of $600B is in 2005 dollars. Using your calculator, that's already over $653B.
Iraq alone has already cost more than that, well over $700B.
And if you're interested in using a calculator, look into the fact that at least 80% of Iraq's cost is borrowed money, which (at typical 30 year Treasury bond rates) costs 155%. So that's already going to cost well over $1 TRILLION. And that's just Iraq, which has made us a lot more threatened.
We're paying the Pentagon and the spy agencies over $500 BILLION a year. That's well over $3 TRILLION spent "protecting" us since the 9/11/2001 "wakeup call" that should have told us national security isn't merely a big army. The Vietnam War cost "only" about $600B, during the height of the Cold War.
The right of the people to privacy in their personal information shall not be abridged. Personal information shall not be transmitted outside the transaction into which it was expressly transmitted by any person, nor retained longer than the duration of that transaction, except when expressly and previously authorized outside or after that transaction by the person. In the case of exceptions for the purposes of national security, those exceptions shall be obtained only under law, after due process, upon lawful warrants issued by an authorized court, overseen by the legislature. Reports of such exceptional activity shall be transmitted to the person whose personal information is at issue in a timely manner not to exceed the time required to undertake appeal of that exception before the exception must take place. Exceptions to such reporting shall be obtained only under authorization by an authorized court as empowered and overseen by the same legislative control as the underlying transmission exceptions. In every case the legislature shall have access to the records of such exceptional transmissions, and the power to stop them. The courts shall have the power to remedy any violations of these rules.
Isn't there a way to make a "holographic sensor" into which light from a telescope could be directed, which would give the same increase in visual completeness that holograms give over stereographic imagery?
The speed of light is about 3E8 meters per second. Meters is a measure of space. If space expands, not the matter in it, the number of meters between points stays the same. So if light takes longer to traverse it, then the speed of light relative to the space it traverses is less.
If the light is self-perpetuating in space, but its rate of perpetuation (units distance per unit time) changes, then it seems that its speed is based on its perpetuation not in space, but in something else that's constant relative to changing space.
What does relativity say is the reason that light travels at the same speed while the scale of space through which it travels changes? What's the mechanism?
So in fact the constant speed of light is not relative even to expandable space. Light takes longer to travel across "all of space" than it did, say 13.70 billion years ago. It's not traveling each meter, taking a constant amount of time. As the meters get larger over time, light takes longer to traverse each one. Which is intriguing, because I thought light travels as a self-perpetuating disturbance in space itself, but really it looks like space can change around whatever is "waving" that we detect as light.
That kind of constancy does imply there's something more fundamental than space out of which the universe is made, which light does traverse as a constant speed. Has anyone dusted off the "ether" yet, since more exotic models have made the old disproofs less simply clear?
But if its space itself that's expanding, not the distance in space, then how come it looks like it's getting stretched in space? Shouldn't the distance it's coming from be the same, because each meter of space it has to travel is larger (relative to the old meters before expansion), but the same number of meters is travelled (just larger meters)?
The Universe itself expanded outward from a single point -- actually, it's space itself that expands, not the objects in it -- and like any expanding gas it cooled
So the Big Bang didn't happen at a "center point", with all the matter in it flying away from the center towards some outer reaches. Instead, every infinitesimal point of space itself is expanding into larger subspace domains since the Big Bang, like dots marked on the surface of an inflating balloon. The Big Bang itself didn't send matter flying through space at & away from other matter, but rather just expanded all the space, including the space between the matter (and even the space inside the matter), which is what separates the matter. Correct?
I expect that the various trajectories of matter around space now, and matter that's travelled to different distributions throughout space, and matter that's collided with other matter within space, has all been moved around by gravitational attraction, and then collisions between them as they pulled around, and then chemical reactions as they touched, and physical mechanics as matter has compressed until implosion sent it back outwards from that object's center, or radiation has pushed material around.
If space is all expanding, how can we even tell? How can we see that the universe is bigger than it was, if our rulers are also expanding in space along with what they're measuring?
No. The "method" is the implementation. It's a term that's used to describe the invention. The paperclip, for example, described in the patent, is "a method to fasten pages of paper together".
And the idea that copyright can protect the little metal clip from copying is one of the worst perversions of the patent system I've heard.
Moreover, you can't copyright the patent claims, diagrams and descriptions. The basic point of the patent registration is that the contents of the patent are available to the public, so other inventors can't infringe, and potential licensees can see what they can get from the inventor.
But I guess there's no monopoly on answering patent questions wrong without citation.
I didn't say anything about "making the Sahara bloom again". I just pointed out that the Sahara was in bloom and then it crashed, turned into a desert. Demonstrating just how unstable the climate can be. And how its changes wipe out civilizations.
There's no serious effort to "terraform" the Earth and maintain specific temp ranges etc like you describe. There are only efforts to stop human industrial processes from forcing climate parameters, which is what is threatening the natural systems we depend on.
Your "blooming Sahara" is not only a straw man, it's science fiction. If in fact there is some harebrained scheme to "bloom the Sahara", it just shows that "the environmentalists" aren't the monolithic boogeyman you fear. You seem to like straw man arguments: I never mentioned any spelling mistake.
But I will of course deride your foolish points, like "climate change" != "climate instability", or "Sahara" != "worthless". Or "let's make people afraid of some negligible aberration while ignoring the real threat we have only a short time to rectify". Or the basic attitude of stoking fear in some nonthreat in space to build a space industry, when what you're really getting is a boondoggle Star Wars "missile defense" system that just distracts from everything, incluiding space research.
You haven't added anything constructive to the conversation. You've added straw man arguments, a treacherous fear motivation strategy to get deeper into space, some typical know-nothing chatter denying Climate Change, and some passive-aggressive complaints when I treat your arguments as the quality they present.
You matter, or I wouldn't reply to you. You matter as a demonstration of a dwindling, but still clinging minority who thinks we can play games like you're trying. So I'm willing to counter your arguments and your attitudes. If not for you to change, then for others to read and see just what is real and what is a derivative of a 1950s "space invasion" movie used as Space Age propaganda.
The Martians aren't coming to steal Earth. We, instead, are turning Earth closer to Mars.
If you don't think "Sahara" = "worthless", I'm not interested in ever seeing any of your "programs" come to pass.
If you don't think going from "bloom" to "desert" is "unstable", but just "changes", then I'm not interested in hearing why you're pretending I didn't say you're really "libertarian".
It's guys like me that are saving fools like you from your obviously suicidal commitment to ignorance. Guys like you don't contribute anything to space research, you just thrive on something fake to fear while you ignore the real threats. You can't even echo my "belief" in the dictionary back at me.
Slashdot Mirror
That's OK. It gave me a reason to do the math on the actual Vietnam inflation, which is even worse. And the actual Iraq debt, which puts it over $1T.
In fact, the actual numbers of each wars are certainly higher. The reports on which they're based are purposely smaller, and there is lots of covert budget not reported.
For kicks, imagine what the US could have done with either of those budgets if we'd invested them constructively. For example, there were about 25M Iraqis when we invaded (we've killed hundreds of thousands, and driven off millions now). If we'd given each and every Iraqi $25,000 (including children and old people, in every family), we'd have spent as much, and certainly gotten more. Hell, we could have gotten practically all of them to do whatever we wanted for $5000 per person, and look to everyone like the best friends in the world. They'd have let American oil corps have whatever deal we want.
Imagine if we just left Iraq alone, and invested that $1T in Americans. That's about $10K per family. If we'd invested it in just tech workers, that's probably $100K per. In scientists, probably a quarter-million each. Squandering it in Iraq was about the stupidest way we could have possibly spent it. No wonder the Pentagon is hiding so much.
The rest of our destroyed economy will be borrowing inflated money at ridiculous rates entirely from foreigners, once we can't even pretend we're rich anymore.
Of course I read your post. Just parroting that back at me isn't a valid criticism. Your arguments didn't even recognize the points I made, that I just made again. My arguments addressed your points specifically.
And so it looks like you've once again failed to read my post. Here's another free clue:
For one, I didn't say that Java is the native iPhone environment. I said that it's native to those other devices I mentioned, DVB/ATSC/BDP/phones.
For another, there is certainly a market for apps on those devices, but their developer community is small and top-down from the device vendors (making them effectively closed). Java on iPhone changes that, especially if there's Java in the iPhone Apps Store. Those changes make the market accessible by both consumers and developers, which is the magic stroke.
At least in the end you start arguing something from the very beginning of my first post, the viability of network mobile objects. You don't even seem to realize that the native iPhone apps will all have the same network limits you're talking about. Or that the network mobile objects can be very small. In fact, once again proving you're not reading my posts, you don't notice the remote device UI use case I mentioned, which is of course just one possible application.
That's it. No more free clues. You're annoying to discuss this with. You get the most basic stuff wrong. You don't have any good ideas, even when they're given to you over and over. iPhone Java is coming, bringing along the platform for network mobile objects (and other Java techniques) and a developer community that can reach the combined multiplatform of all those devices. You can stand outside in 2001 and watch the rest of us prove you wrong. Just don't pretend that you're qualified to talk anyone out of it.
Is anyone out there still thinking that this White House operates at all near the level of minimum performance required from people in its job?
Anyone still think all this incompetence that always protects Bush and his team is some kind of accident?
You know, it's like you didn't read my post. It's like all you saw was "Java", and kicked on some standard Java rant. The only thing missing is "Java is slow", which you implied with your general "perform at the same level as native apps".
If you read my post, you'd see that lots has changed. For one, Java is now the "native platform" on these other small multimedia devices like DVB/ATSC/BDP. You'd see that I proposed mobile objects with precisely the purpose of delivering native UIs from remote devices. Let's see native iPhone apps do that - without rewriting Java, that is.
You also don't know how Java works now, which means porting it to the iPhone will let Java apps present the same "high standards" UI that native apps present.
You also missed the essential point that until now, the developer community for Java has been a small niche inside the device maker industry, but the iPhone will change that. Especially since Java applets will likely not require the iPhone App Store (or whatever they call it) for distribution, without sacrificing safety, the iPhone represents the first big opportunity for those applets to reach a big audience without hassle (even though you vastly underestimate the number of Java apps running on other mobile phones already). New apps in a hot marketed platform that can integrated with those other devices across the network represent a new basis for demand for those apps, and therefore for its programmers. Presto: an ecosystem.
I think the only part of my post you got right was when you tagged your response with "circa 2001". Just because you don't understand Java, or the power of the same code running on all those ubiquitous devices, doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there.
How I wish Atari had got that guy to teach everyone how to program the Atari 800 and 400. I had to teach myself from the most cryptic, sparse and often contadictory documentation. There was an "Internet" in the early 1980s, but practically no one had access (I did), so we depended on the few published books, occasional insights in magazines like COMPUTE!, Creative Computing and Byte.
It wasn't enough. Programming wasn't just hard because it required assembly code skills (or forth, hah!), but because it was completely hidden territory. There was no real way to get source code from the programs that some people managed to write and distribute, and certainly no obligtion for anyone to release it (except the occasional superficial magazine article).
The competing Apple ][+, IBM-PC and TRS-80, all had BBSes full of downloadable code (often including source). Their corporate vendors each published detailed programming guides. The TRS-80 was doomed because of the direction of its corporate parent (which should have stayed in the PC business, porting its OS on Intel HW when they all upgraded from 8 to 16 bits). But IBM and Apple survived, even thrived (as we all know), because it was easy to get in the programming game.
By the time Atari finally published its "De Re Atari", which was a good start (the source code to the OS), the small developer "community" had already chosen either Apple or PC. If Atari had taught us all how to program from the beginning, its superior hardware and attractive game platform would probably have left it a strong competitor to the PC, much as the Mac has. But we were all on our own, and our platformed disappeared.
The same dynamic is still true on new platforms. Make it easy to develop for it, and it will survive, even thrive.
Moderation +2
80% Insightful
20% Troll
TrollMods must be getting checks cut from all that wasted money.
But they still don't have any reason to feel safer. In fact, they all look like they're scared out of their wits all the time.
:)
One reason the dollar is trash compared to the Euro is that Europe hasn't wasted as nearly much on military operations as the US. That trashes a currency, when the government printing it looks so reckless, and creates so much debt in the effort.
A look at Canada is even more instructive. The Canadian dollar is now worth more than the US dollar. I can't remember any time that's happened in my entire life. All those years scoffing at Canadian pennies mistakenly included in my change, throwing them away, is now coming back to haunt me.
Well, metamaterials are now available. And aperture is now greatly expanded in by "virtual" apertures, like scattered "subaperatures" sparsely filling a larger effective aperture area.
And as I said, orbital telescopes can get larger parallax, including solar orbits. Several different elliptical Solar orbits could give both large parallax and larger virtual apertures.
The orbit can contain two different telescopes. And I was too constrained in saying "geosynchronous". In fact, there's no reason we can't launch two telescopes into a large orbit around the Sun, and take simultaneous images with larger parallax. But even a few hundred thousand miles around the Earth would be OK, with precision optics.
As for holographic telescopy (or whatever we call it), there are ways for non-coherent light to interfere with coherent light. The lasers don't need to reach the distant objects. It would take a lot of new engineering, but it could be worth it.
Java ME is already part of the default platform for DVB/ATSC (European / N American cableTV clients), most mobile phones, and Blu-Ray (so all HD videodiscs). When it's on the iPhone, JME will get high visibility as a development platform (DVB/ATSC/BD-J and even most mobile phone development is nearly all done by a small niche of developers).
The same JME applets will run on any of those devices. In fact, the Java classloader lets any running Java program load a class from any other Java device connected by the network, load it and run it (safely) locally.
I wonder whether having lots of developers targeting a very featureful terminal that can be used as a "universal remote" for all these personal devices will finally offer some good applications for Java's ability to transmit the same objects around all the devices. Like the GUI objects installed in each device being available on any other device, to control the "home" device in familiar terms. Or any other of these.
And if that "mobile objects" platform does indeed come of age, will even Sun's "JavaSpaces" finally have a use for its far-out platform?
Will all of Sun's "useless" Java platforms from the past decade+ eventually be recognized as "visionary"?
This email breach didn't cost more than Vietnam, Anonymous doubletalker Coward.
Stereographic imagery is certainly possible. A few hundred thousand miles (opposite points on a geosynchronous orbit) is enough parallax. Even a few centimeters would be enough parallax if the optics were good enough, which nanoscale optics will evenually offer. Our radio (high frequency light) instruments already capture fairly precise and accurate light from 13.72B light years away (and years ago). That is just a matter of technology, not basic science. It can be done.
Since you can't figure out stereoscopic telescopics I'm not sure you're ready to tackle holographic telescopics.
No, you're wrong.
The Vietnam cost of $600B is in 2005 dollars. Using your calculator, that's already over $653B.
Iraq alone has already cost more than that, well over $700B.
And if you're interested in using a calculator, look into the fact that at least 80% of Iraq's cost is borrowed money, which (at typical 30 year Treasury bond rates) costs 155%. So that's already going to cost well over $1 TRILLION. And that's just Iraq, which has made us a lot more threatened.
Feel safer?
We're paying the Pentagon and the spy agencies over $500 BILLION a year. That's well over $3 TRILLION spent "protecting" us since the 9/11/2001 "wakeup call" that should have told us national security isn't merely a big army. The Vietnam War cost "only" about $600B, during the height of the Cold War.
Feel safer?
How about:
The right of the people to privacy in their personal information shall not be abridged. Personal information shall not be transmitted outside the transaction into which it was expressly transmitted by any person, nor retained longer than the duration of that transaction, except when expressly and previously authorized outside or after that transaction by the person. In the case of exceptions for the purposes of national security, those exceptions shall be obtained only under law, after due process, upon lawful warrants issued by an authorized court, overseen by the legislature. Reports of such exceptional activity shall be transmitted to the person whose personal information is at issue in a timely manner not to exceed the time required to undertake appeal of that exception before the exception must take place. Exceptions to such reporting shall be obtained only under authorization by an authorized court as empowered and overseen by the same legislative control as the underlying transmission exceptions. In every case the legislature shall have access to the records of such exceptional transmissions, and the power to stop them. The courts shall have the power to remedy any violations of these rules.
Isn't there a way to make a "holographic sensor" into which light from a telescope could be directed, which would give the same increase in visual completeness that holograms give over stereographic imagery?
The speed of light is about 3E8 meters per second. Meters is a measure of space. If space expands, not the matter in it, the number of meters between points stays the same. So if light takes longer to traverse it, then the speed of light relative to the space it traverses is less.
If the light is self-perpetuating in space, but its rate of perpetuation (units distance per unit time) changes, then it seems that its speed is based on its perpetuation not in space, but in something else that's constant relative to changing space.
What does relativity say is the reason that light travels at the same speed while the scale of space through which it travels changes? What's the mechanism?
So in fact the constant speed of light is not relative even to expandable space. Light takes longer to travel across "all of space" than it did, say 13.70 billion years ago. It's not traveling each meter, taking a constant amount of time. As the meters get larger over time, light takes longer to traverse each one. Which is intriguing, because I thought light travels as a self-perpetuating disturbance in space itself, but really it looks like space can change around whatever is "waving" that we detect as light.
That kind of constancy does imply there's something more fundamental than space out of which the universe is made, which light does traverse as a constant speed. Has anyone dusted off the "ether" yet, since more exotic models have made the old disproofs less simply clear?
But if its space itself that's expanding, not the distance in space, then how come it looks like it's getting stretched in space? Shouldn't the distance it's coming from be the same, because each meter of space it has to travel is larger (relative to the old meters before expansion), but the same number of meters is travelled (just larger meters)?
So the Big Bang didn't happen at a "center point", with all the matter in it flying away from the center towards some outer reaches. Instead, every infinitesimal point of space itself is expanding into larger subspace domains since the Big Bang, like dots marked on the surface of an inflating balloon. The Big Bang itself didn't send matter flying through space at & away from other matter, but rather just expanded all the space, including the space between the matter (and even the space inside the matter), which is what separates the matter. Correct?
I expect that the various trajectories of matter around space now, and matter that's travelled to different distributions throughout space, and matter that's collided with other matter within space, has all been moved around by gravitational attraction, and then collisions between them as they pulled around, and then chemical reactions as they touched, and physical mechanics as matter has compressed until implosion sent it back outwards from that object's center, or radiation has pushed material around.
If space is all expanding, how can we even tell? How can we see that the universe is bigger than it was, if our rulers are also expanding in space along with what they're measuring?
Is there a picture somewhere of what the Universe looks like at its largest scale?
Preferably a zoomable model, though "zooming" across the scales of 13.73Bly would take quite a while, if you're actually watching the scenery pass.
FWIW, Celestia (and Google Earth) don't include scales anywhere near the largest one.
No. The "method" is the implementation. It's a term that's used to describe the invention. The paperclip, for example, described in the patent, is "a method to fasten pages of paper together".
And the idea that copyright can protect the little metal clip from copying is one of the worst perversions of the patent system I've heard.
Moreover, you can't copyright the patent claims, diagrams and descriptions. The basic point of the patent registration is that the contents of the patent are available to the public, so other inventors can't infringe, and potential licensees can see what they can get from the inventor.
But I guess there's no monopoly on answering patent questions wrong without citation.
I didn't say anything about "making the Sahara bloom again". I just pointed out that the Sahara was in bloom and then it crashed, turned into a desert. Demonstrating just how unstable the climate can be. And how its changes wipe out civilizations.
There's no serious effort to "terraform" the Earth and maintain specific temp ranges etc like you describe. There are only efforts to stop human industrial processes from forcing climate parameters, which is what is threatening the natural systems we depend on.
Your "blooming Sahara" is not only a straw man, it's science fiction. If in fact there is some harebrained scheme to "bloom the Sahara", it just shows that "the environmentalists" aren't the monolithic boogeyman you fear. You seem to like straw man arguments: I never mentioned any spelling mistake.
But I will of course deride your foolish points, like "climate change" != "climate instability", or "Sahara" != "worthless". Or "let's make people afraid of some negligible aberration while ignoring the real threat we have only a short time to rectify". Or the basic attitude of stoking fear in some nonthreat in space to build a space industry, when what you're really getting is a boondoggle Star Wars "missile defense" system that just distracts from everything, incluiding space research.
You haven't added anything constructive to the conversation. You've added straw man arguments, a treacherous fear motivation strategy to get deeper into space, some typical know-nothing chatter denying Climate Change, and some passive-aggressive complaints when I treat your arguments as the quality they present.
You matter, or I wouldn't reply to you. You matter as a demonstration of a dwindling, but still clinging minority who thinks we can play games like you're trying. So I'm willing to counter your arguments and your attitudes. If not for you to change, then for others to read and see just what is real and what is a derivative of a 1950s "space invasion" movie used as Space Age propaganda.
The Martians aren't coming to steal Earth. We, instead, are turning Earth closer to Mars.
If you don't think "Sahara" = "worthless", I'm not interested in ever seeing any of your "programs" come to pass.
If you don't think going from "bloom" to "desert" is "unstable", but just "changes", then I'm not interested in hearing why you're pretending I didn't say you're really "libertarian".
It's guys like me that are saving fools like you from your obviously suicidal commitment to ignorance. Guys like you don't contribute anything to space research, you just thrive on something fake to fear while you ignore the real threats. You can't even echo my "belief" in the dictionary back at me.