The main difference between cotton (which I was talking about) and oranges (which seems to be your favourite subject, is that oranges are >90% water, cotton barely 15%.
Hats off for your detailed cost break-down though.
I think we should agree that the transportation costs/value-ratio is highly product-dependent.
I learned by chance that on the Philippines, rice farming has a margin of more than 100%, so maybe some farmers should consider to relocate?:)
It's origin 'of course'. That's the point of zero speed. If there weren't a point of reference, over-unity wouldn't be a problem, as we wouldn't know where to measure the speed, and kinetic energy, against.
Hmm, sounds shaky. Let me counter myself here:
Suppose a planet far far away with established zero speed relative to earth (mars at a certain point of time?), the EM Drive would crash into that planet with a higher kinetic energy than has ever been supplied by its power source...
So hmm, perpetual motion indeed if we would be able to capture and store that energy, put it in another, bigger, EM Drive and send that one back to earth and then capture that energy.
We would have free energy forever.:)
Well, ok, and then there's solar, so we don't even need it...
How is that a fundamental upper value of the thrust-to-power ratio?
(You didn't say that cruncing the maths right would lead to this value.)
What I'm aiming at is that if the efficiency of the photon drive can be increased enough, the over-unity 'problem' could possibly return.
If it's a fundamental limit, then I guess there also must be a theoretical relationship to the law of no-over-unity-allowed (CoE? c?).
It isn't. It's partly owned by CIA, partly by Goldman Sachs, and partly by a Russian mining moloch.
And then there's Zuckerberg and some smaller private investors of course.
Word goes that one day Xi Jinping belittled Obama about the state of democracy in the US:
"Hah! Evely 4 yeals and you call that democlacy? WE have best democlacy, election evely molning!"
I think one could better state: "Tests haven't falsified the claim, yet."
Not to say that I think it won't work, I have no idea.
But the tests were just not conclusive enough, yet, to really confirm that it works.
And why would the 'torch engine' not become an over-unity device?
Constant power, constant thrust, constant acceleration, time-linear speed increase (in the non-relativistic region), quadratically increasing kinetic energy.
Just like the 'EM-drive'.
I must have missed something that nobody came up with this yet.:)
Currently, I've heard, for the amount of cotton needed for one shirt, the Indian farmer gets $0.5, the middleman $5 and the seller of the shirt $15-$20.
Here the middleman clearly increases the price with a factor 10, not 1.1.
Trade makes products available and that's beneficial.
But this comes at a price increase. Americans pay a multiple for the cotton from India compared to when it were produced locally, because of middlemen, traders and transportation. So here trade isn't beneficial because America can produce the cotton itself.
The same goes for Apple products. Almost. The difference being that it would cost a bit more due to higher American taxes, but those taxes will be returned to the workers' wages through the purchase of weapons used to utterly destroy other nation states because... 'defend the homeland' and 'terrorissum'.
That's not for safety, silly, that's because every municipality has some Philips people in their Council directing the town to install as many traffic lights as physically possible, and then some more.
Unless you imagine that the research community had access to time-travel, their findings could only be judged by the information available at the time.
One would expect though that this kind of geniuses would suffer from a trait called 'memory', from which they could recall that sometimes people who present shocking data unjustly get burned by their own community, and so they could have decided to do the right thing: not to destroy them.
But no, the whole scientific community got in a frenzy and did it anyway. That shouldn't have happened.
Then now that it seems they indeed were up to something there wouldn't have been any problem to look back to.
Slashdot Mirror
The main difference between cotton (which I was talking about) and oranges (which seems to be your favourite subject, is that oranges are >90% water, cotton barely 15%. :)
Hats off for your detailed cost break-down though.
I think we should agree that the transportation costs/value-ratio is highly product-dependent.
I learned by chance that on the Philippines, rice farming has a margin of more than 100%, so maybe some farmers should consider to relocate?
1/10c relative to what?
It's origin 'of course'. That's the point of zero speed. If there weren't a point of reference, over-unity wouldn't be a problem, as we wouldn't know where to measure the speed, and kinetic energy, against.
:)
Hmm, sounds shaky. Let me counter myself here:
Suppose a planet far far away with established zero speed relative to earth (mars at a certain point of time?), the EM Drive would crash into that planet with a higher kinetic energy than has ever been supplied by its power source...
So hmm, perpetual motion indeed if we would be able to capture and store that energy, put it in another, bigger, EM Drive and send that one back to earth and then capture that energy.
We would have free energy forever.
Well, ok, and then there's solar, so we don't even need it...
Loss doesn't seem to be a fundamental theoretical concept that has to be taken into consideration here.
How is that a fundamental upper value of the thrust-to-power ratio?
(You didn't say that cruncing the maths right would lead to this value.)
What I'm aiming at is that if the efficiency of the photon drive can be increased enough, the over-unity 'problem' could possibly return.
If it's a fundamental limit, then I guess there also must be a theoretical relationship to the law of no-over-unity-allowed (CoE? c?).
Yes, but, but... there's no harm done.
It isn't. It's partly owned by CIA, partly by Goldman Sachs, and partly by a Russian mining moloch.
And then there's Zuckerberg and some smaller private investors of course.
If this idea originates from you then I'd seriously consider publishing it somewhere. :)
Oh, you just did.
Word goes that one day Xi Jinping belittled Obama about the state of democracy in the US:
"Hah! Evely 4 yeals and you call that democlacy? WE have best democlacy, election evely molning!"
I think one could better state: "Tests haven't falsified the claim, yet."
Not to say that I think it won't work, I have no idea.
But the tests were just not conclusive enough, yet, to really confirm that it works.
And why would the 'torch engine' not become an over-unity device?
:)
Constant power, constant thrust, constant acceleration, time-linear speed increase (in the non-relativistic region), quadratically increasing kinetic energy.
Just like the 'EM-drive'.
I must have missed something that nobody came up with this yet.
Currently, I've heard, for the amount of cotton needed for one shirt, the Indian farmer gets $0.5, the middleman $5 and the seller of the shirt $15-$20.
Here the middleman clearly increases the price with a factor 10, not 1.1.
Ok, you convinced me about the transportation costs.
You left out the middlemen and traders though.
I guess I just missed the exit...
The latter is caused by the former and wouldn't have occurred if I had caught the joke.
:)
I'm so sorry now...
Ok, point taken, over & out.
I do hope so.
Trade makes products available and that's beneficial.
But this comes at a price increase. Americans pay a multiple for the cotton from India compared to when it were produced locally, because of middlemen, traders and transportation. So here trade isn't beneficial because America can produce the cotton itself.
The same goes for Apple products. Almost. The difference being that it would cost a bit more due to higher American taxes, but those taxes will be returned to the workers' wages through the purchase of weapons used to utterly destroy other nation states because... 'defend the homeland' and 'terrorissum'.
As in: Signal didn't see this coming and wasn't prepared?
Thanks, that's a big fuck-up indeed.
Wrong. This is just about proper human behavior, but I'm prepared to say you are right and I am wrong, just for the sake of stopping this exchange. :)
Well, guess what? Uber cars are programmed by car drivers, no cyclists.
That's not for safety, silly, that's because every municipality has some Philips people in their Council directing the town to install as many traffic lights as physically possible, and then some more.
Unless you imagine that the research community had access to time-travel, their findings could only be judged by the information available at the time.
One would expect though that this kind of geniuses would suffer from a trait called 'memory', from which they could recall that sometimes people who present shocking data unjustly get burned by their own community, and so they could have decided to do the right thing: not to destroy them.
But no, the whole scientific community got in a frenzy and did it anyway. That shouldn't have happened.
Then now that it seems they indeed were up to something there wouldn't have been any problem to look back to.
LMAO!
Great comment! :)
They're all stuck in their own Lorentz attractors.