Another possibility is that the inertia changes due to Unruh radiation that is modified by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect, proposed by McCulloch, and that at increasing speed the acceleration decreases, preventing over-unity operation of the drive.
I'm afraid it's too simple to attribute it to only luck and placebo.
Can you point me to a scientific paper, published after peer review, that proves 'chiropractics' is 'a scam'?
I think I've experienced it in real life.
If one dares to vent his opinion on a controversial matter and contrary to the majority opinion, one risks getting a lot of down votes and karma reduction based on this (political) 'peer review', as they call it.
If you'd look at the whole transformation from local small scale mostly-organic production to large scale post-green-revolution industrially pesticide-laden food production, I think you'd find your first order effect causing so many of our 'modern life style' diseases. Dunkin' Donuts only contributes a small part in this process.
I can only repeat what I said and you seem to ignore. I won't.
And those from 10-15 years ago have successfully predicted the increase observed over the last decade. Not only that but they also predicted the warming in individual locations, the increased weather extremes, etc.
That's very heart warming, but not proof of the success in predicting even more extreme outcomes. Before I jump on the panic and tax band wagon I'd like to see some real proof, not expectations.
Every model is an approximation of the real world with some degree of accuracy. These ones are useful and give insight into the most important physical mechanisms at work.
Everyday climate 'scientists' are saying that 'the science is in' and the results 'accurate', and then the next day there appear messages in the news that some new yet unknown climatic effect has been discovered that change the outcome of the expectations of those same scientists.
If you look at the real physics, those messages seldom appear.
If you eat plenty of green leafy vegetables you'll get your K1. As for K2, fermentation of that plant matter in your guy transforms some of that K1 into K2, and Bob's your uncle.
The K2 you get via this route is a small fraction of your real daily requirement.
As for the anti-AGW argument, grass-fed beef as a smaller CO2 footprint than feedlot fattened beef, so your argument that the "AGW zealots" are trying to ruin your health.
I can only advice you to learn to properly quote people.
Grass fed beef is more expensive per pound of course, but another plus is more of the money goes to the farmer.
Right.
Adding a macroalgae to cattle feed is an interesting proposition from a carbon standpoint. Macroalgae are often quite easy to cultivate; it's done in aquaculture to provide feed in shellfish hatcheries.
From a carbon standpoint--ignoring all other aspects--maybe yes.
I've seen it done, you basically need the culture, water, and fiberglass tanks. It's something that could conceivably be done by small scale farmers, or on an industrial scale and used in feedlots, if the numbers can be made to work out. From a AGW standpoint replacing Methane with CO2 is a very good thing.
Before using it in feedlots I really would advice to first thoroughly investigate how this affects all metabolic aspects.
And you don't even need to replace the methane with CO2. You can feed the CO2 straight through the water in which the algae are grown, as food for the algae.
Totally untrue and a gross false equivalence fallacy.
Climate models are numerically imprecise and approximative computer models with parameters that have been tweaked with data sets from the past, representing a limited region in the multidimensional state space in which the climate variables can reside.
The predictions by those models are based on approximations, guesses--no matter how expertly estimated--and extrapolations by mathematical approximative functions.
I hope I don't need to explain what is the difference between that kind of models and real physical models, it's huge.
Maybe because they eat natto (yuck) for the high vit K2 content?
Or sauerkraut. If you're lucky and it has been fermented with the right strains of bacteria then it also gives you more than enough K2.
The same goes for kimchi.
Also hard gouda cheese and french brie contain relatively high amounts K2, but not enough for your daily requirements of about 200 mg and up (if I got that number right).
You mean there's nothing we can do?
There is so much we can do. The minute we refuse en masse to buy the products of big business big business will go bankrupt.
And guess what? Models keep improving, and they are becoming quite accurate:
That is exactly totally beside the point.
Models are calibrated in a subset of their variable space, i.e. a subset of weather, oops, my bad, climate conditions from the past.
Stating that they are 'improving' inside that subspace is in no way any indication of their accuracy in a totally different part of the variable space, namely some apparently dramatically different subspace where the state of the system is supposed to reside in the future, including the dynamics with which the state of the system arrives in that region of the variables space.
So, for me, there is no scientific basis to believe the predictions of the IPCC et. al.
However, I do agree that it is better if we, humanity, clean up the mess that we create, i.e. the waste and other by-products from our oxidative processes.
Am I going to pay a bunch of money for fancy seaweed and force my cows to eat it, or will I continue to let them graze my land that costs me nothing?
Frankly you will have no choice. This whole story has been spinned by a big, secret PR-company paid by a large big-ag company that has developed a cheap way of making cow food out of ocean and you are going to pay dearly for that.
Not me, I wasn't looking for a neocon Victoria Nuland as secretary of foreign affairs, a neocon Samantha Powers as secretary of defense and a Lybia-killing neocon Hillary Clinton as president.
They are not democrats, they are warmongering neocons and WWIII would quickly ensue with those monsters at the helm.
Yeah, another of those 'great scientific achievements'.
We eat cows. Cows are supposed to eat grass in order to produce the amounts of vitamin K2 that their calves and we need to deposit the calcium that's in our bodies into our bones, and not in our arteries and brains.
Thanks to the fact that cows and chickens are fed factory food on a large scale has already reduced our vitamin K2 intake by an order of a magnitude, which makes us effectively vitamin K2 deficient on a large scale.
Now let's feed them seaweed, so the vitamin K2 we get will reduce even further.
This will only increase the rate of cardiovascular and cognitive diseases even more.
Climate models that are calibrated to accurately 'predict' weather conditions in the past are not proven to be as accurate in predicting conditions for which they haven't been calibrated, so knowing very well that this will attract a lot of flak from the usual AGW-zealots, and acknowledging that my karma will be reduced based on their disagreeing with me--which means that slashdot effectively already does have the 'fake news' filter that facebook is only still talking about--I will not be compelled to hold back my opinion.
So there you have it: I'm not prepared to give up even more of my health in order to prevent some minuscule production of CO2.
Now can we please put those cows and chickens back on the pasture and yard? Thanks.
Relatively to the test stand, on earth, earth indeed.
The earth is flying through space, rotating, going around the sun which itself is going around th galaxy which itself is moving.
Please, let's not change coordinate frames. It's already complicated enough. So I regard this with respect to where the spacecraft takes off: earth.
Your constant-thrust assumption can be what is wrong here
That means that space isn't translationally invariant.
It's not space that is supposed to be invariant, it's the laws of physics that are.
Ok, I must admit that this is merely a cheap escape, and so I will concede that I don't really know the answer to that, apart from that then apparently the term 'kinetic energy' also loses its universal meaning, as this property will also depend on the coordinate frame within which it occurs.
For example: A spaceship that is launched from earth in order to chase a comet, would have a huge kinetic energy build-up with respect to earth's coordinate system, but would lose its kinetic energy that it had with respect to the comet's coordinate system. Yet it's consuming fuel in order to do that.
Interesting point and far above my level of knowledge of physics, or maybe merely an indication that this is not the proper way to look at it.:)
The only fuel-less engine that exists is the photon drive. To go over unity, you'd have to exceed the speed of light. Since you can't do that, you can't use it to go over unity.
Ok, unity with respect to which coordinate system? I mean, the speed with respect to it's own coordinate system will always be zero, so there will be no increase in 'speed'?
Oh my god, how the heck am I supposed to understand this...:)
I think that the assumption that you will be able to maintain the same thrust at higher speeds while the power input is also constant, is wrong.
You achieve 'unity' when all power is converted in increase of kinetic energy and this assumes that the efficiency at that operating point is 100%.
I think that above the speed where this is supposed to occur (it won't) there simply isn't enough power to maintain the thrust.
The power needed to maintain constant thrust, i.e. constant acceleration (until relativistic effects start playing up) is
P = f . v alright, so P = (m.a) . (a . t) = m a^2 t
Hence power consumption would increase linearly in time ad infinitum.
This proves 'ad absurdum' that the assumption must be wrong.
Or there is 'new physics' going on.
Not likely...
Slashdot Mirror
That's still not proof that they will correctly predict the 'following' future.
Sorry, that is complete bogus as the future isn't here yet to prove that they did.
Another possibility is that the inertia changes due to Unruh radiation that is modified by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect, proposed by McCulloch, and that at increasing speed the acceleration decreases, preventing over-unity operation of the drive.
I'm afraid it's too simple to attribute it to only luck and placebo.
Can you point me to a scientific paper, published after peer review, that proves 'chiropractics' is 'a scam'?
If that wasn't the quackery part, then what do they do that you call quackery?
I think you've smoked a bit too much seaweed.
I think I've experienced it in real life.
If one dares to vent his opinion on a controversial matter and contrary to the majority opinion, one risks getting a lot of down votes and karma reduction based on this (political) 'peer review', as they call it.
FWIW, eating Kelp / Dulce is a thing on the east coast of North America, probably elsewhere, too.
Yes, and a good thing to do, unless you do it on the west coast (Fukushima).
If you'd look at the whole transformation from local small scale mostly-organic production to large scale post-green-revolution industrially pesticide-laden food production, I think you'd find your first order effect causing so many of our 'modern life style' diseases. Dunkin' Donuts only contributes a small part in this process.
"infinite velocity increase", I mean.
Can I suppose that you're not sure about the assumptions regarding:
constant thrust
constant power
infinite increase (logarithmically approaching c)?
Climate models contain plenty of physics.
I can only repeat what I said and you seem to ignore. I won't.
And those from 10-15 years ago have successfully predicted the increase observed over the last decade. Not only that but they also predicted the warming in individual locations, the increased weather extremes, etc.
That's very heart warming, but not proof of the success in predicting even more extreme outcomes. Before I jump on the panic and tax band wagon I'd like to see some real proof, not expectations.
Every model is an approximation of the real world with some degree of accuracy. These ones are useful and give insight into the most important physical mechanisms at work.
Everyday climate 'scientists' are saying that 'the science is in' and the results 'accurate', and then the next day there appear messages in the news that some new yet unknown climatic effect has been discovered that change the outcome of the expectations of those same scientists.
If you look at the real physics, those messages seldom appear.
If you eat plenty of green leafy vegetables you'll get your K1. As for K2, fermentation of that plant matter in your guy transforms some of that K1 into K2, and Bob's your uncle.
The K2 you get via this route is a small fraction of your real daily requirement.
As for the anti-AGW argument, grass-fed beef as a smaller CO2 footprint than feedlot fattened beef, so your argument that the "AGW zealots" are trying to ruin your health.
I can only advice you to learn to properly quote people.
Grass fed beef is more expensive per pound of course, but another plus is more of the money goes to the farmer.
Right.
Adding a macroalgae to cattle feed is an interesting proposition from a carbon standpoint. Macroalgae are often quite easy to cultivate; it's done in aquaculture to provide feed in shellfish hatcheries.
From a carbon standpoint--ignoring all other aspects--maybe yes.
I've seen it done, you basically need the culture, water, and fiberglass tanks. It's something that could conceivably be done by small scale farmers, or on an industrial scale and used in feedlots, if the numbers can be made to work out. From a AGW standpoint replacing Methane with CO2 is a very good thing.
Before using it in feedlots I really would advice to first thoroughly investigate how this affects all metabolic aspects.
And you don't even need to replace the methane with CO2. You can feed the CO2 straight through the water in which the algae are grown, as food for the algae.
Totally untrue and a gross false equivalence fallacy.
Climate models are numerically imprecise and approximative computer models with parameters that have been tweaked with data sets from the past, representing a limited region in the multidimensional state space in which the climate variables can reside.
The predictions by those models are based on approximations, guesses--no matter how expertly estimated--and extrapolations by mathematical approximative functions.
I hope I don't need to explain what is the difference between that kind of models and real physical models, it's huge.
Maybe because they eat natto (yuck) for the high vit K2 content?
Or sauerkraut. If you're lucky and it has been fermented with the right strains of bacteria then it also gives you more than enough K2.
The same goes for kimchi.
Also hard gouda cheese and french brie contain relatively high amounts K2, but not enough for your daily requirements of about 200 mg and up (if I got that number right).
Good scientific questions that should have been answered and have the answers compared before stating that seaweed is a solution for cow feeds.
Get over it already.
You mean there's nothing we can do?
There is so much we can do. The minute we refuse en masse to buy the products of big business big business will go bankrupt.
And guess what? Models keep improving, and they are becoming quite accurate:
That is exactly totally beside the point.
Models are calibrated in a subset of their variable space, i.e. a subset of weather, oops, my bad, climate conditions from the past.
Stating that they are 'improving' inside that subspace is in no way any indication of their accuracy in a totally different part of the variable space, namely some apparently dramatically different subspace where the state of the system is supposed to reside in the future, including the dynamics with which the state of the system arrives in that region of the variables space.
So, for me, there is no scientific basis to believe the predictions of the IPCC et. al.
However, I do agree that it is better if we, humanity, clean up the mess that we create, i.e. the waste and other by-products from our oxidative processes.
Can't we turn the problem around and just grow sea cows?
Am I going to pay a bunch of money for fancy seaweed and force my cows to eat it, or will I continue to let them graze my land that costs me nothing?
Frankly you will have no choice. This whole story has been spinned by a big, secret PR-company paid by a large big-ag company that has developed a cheap way of making cow food out of ocean and you are going to pay dearly for that.
The only way to solve man-made climate change is to tax average people an exorbitant amount.
And give it to the already exorbitantly rich, because that's the whole scheme behind this AGW-hype.
The world was counting on you.
Not me, I wasn't looking for a neocon Victoria Nuland as secretary of foreign affairs, a neocon Samantha Powers as secretary of defense and a Lybia-killing neocon Hillary Clinton as president.
They are not democrats, they are warmongering neocons and WWIII would quickly ensue with those monsters at the helm.
Yeah, another of those 'great scientific achievements'.
We eat cows. Cows are supposed to eat grass in order to produce the amounts of vitamin K2 that their calves and we need to deposit the calcium that's in our bodies into our bones, and not in our arteries and brains.
Thanks to the fact that cows and chickens are fed factory food on a large scale has already reduced our vitamin K2 intake by an order of a magnitude, which makes us effectively vitamin K2 deficient on a large scale.
Now let's feed them seaweed, so the vitamin K2 we get will reduce even further.
This will only increase the rate of cardiovascular and cognitive diseases even more.
Climate models that are calibrated to accurately 'predict' weather conditions in the past are not proven to be as accurate in predicting conditions for which they haven't been calibrated, so knowing very well that this will attract a lot of flak from the usual AGW-zealots, and acknowledging that my karma will be reduced based on their disagreeing with me--which means that slashdot effectively already does have the 'fake news' filter that facebook is only still talking about--I will not be compelled to hold back my opinion.
So there you have it: I'm not prepared to give up even more of my health in order to prevent some minuscule production of CO2.
Now can we please put those cows and chickens back on the pasture and yard? Thanks.
Stationary? Relative to *what*?
Relatively to the test stand, on earth, earth indeed.
The earth is flying through space, rotating, going around the sun which itself is going around th galaxy which itself is moving.
Please, let's not change coordinate frames. It's already complicated enough. So I regard this with respect to where the spacecraft takes off: earth.
Your constant-thrust assumption can be what is wrong here
That means that space isn't translationally invariant.
It's not space that is supposed to be invariant, it's the laws of physics that are. :)
Ok, I must admit that this is merely a cheap escape, and so I will concede that I don't really know the answer to that, apart from that then apparently the term 'kinetic energy' also loses its universal meaning, as this property will also depend on the coordinate frame within which it occurs.
For example: A spaceship that is launched from earth in order to chase a comet, would have a huge kinetic energy build-up with respect to earth's coordinate system, but would lose its kinetic energy that it had with respect to the comet's coordinate system. Yet it's consuming fuel in order to do that.
Interesting point and far above my level of knowledge of physics, or maybe merely an indication that this is not the proper way to look at it.
The only fuel-less engine that exists is the photon drive. To go over unity, you'd have to exceed the speed of light. Since you can't do that, you can't use it to go over unity.
Ok, unity with respect to which coordinate system? I mean, the speed with respect to it's own coordinate system will always be zero, so there will be no increase in 'speed'? :)
Oh my god, how the heck am I supposed to understand this...
I think that the assumption that you will be able to maintain the same thrust at higher speeds while the power input is also constant, is wrong. .a) . (a . t) = m a^2 t
You achieve 'unity' when all power is converted in increase of kinetic energy and this assumes that the efficiency at that operating point is 100%.
I think that above the speed where this is supposed to occur (it won't) there simply isn't enough power to maintain the thrust.
The power needed to maintain constant thrust, i.e. constant acceleration (until relativistic effects start playing up) is
P = f . v alright, so P = (m
Hence power consumption would increase linearly in time ad infinitum.
This proves 'ad absurdum' that the assumption must be wrong.
Or there is 'new physics' going on.
Not likely...
Care to explain why?