Jump to content


☆ Silver Patron ☆
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by pantheory

  1. Walter, Quotes from links below: "Venus presents a thin crescent in telescopic views as it comes around to the near side between the Earth and the Sun and presents its new phase when it is between the Earth and the Sun. The full cycle from new to full to new again takes 584 days (the time it takes Venus to overtake the Earth in its orbit)." Every 584 days Venus disappears from the naked eye at night in the cities. Like a new moon this is the phase when Venus is between the Earth and the sun so we can only see a faint ring of uniform light around Venus, observable with only a relatively small magnification such as binoculars on a clear night. This phase lasts 4-5 nights. Away from city lights maybe you can see this phase if one has good vision and knows where to look depending on your latitude. During this "new Venus" phase, Venus can pass in front of the sun from our perspective, very slightly diminishing the sun's light and heat. This doesn't happen very often, only about once every 75 times that Venus passes Earth on its inner obit. Transit events happen only twice every 121.5 years, 8 years apart. "The last transit of Venus was on the 5th and 6th of June 2012, and was the last Venus transit of the 21st century; the prior transit took place on the 8th of June 2004. The previous pair of transits were in December 1874 and December 1882. The next transits of Venus will take place on the 10th & 11th of December 2117 and the 8th of December 2125." https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk02C-tdiNpVTJHrhmRJfpUzrwzorog%3A1585190271183&ei=fxV8XuXSCuyy0PEP4pyAgAo&q=total+phases+of+venus&oq=total+phases+of+venus&gs_l=psy-ab.12..33i299l3.37612.46334..49440...1.2..0.213.2206.12j8j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..0i71j35i362i39j35i39j0i273j0i131j0i67j0j0i22i30j33i22i29i30.0irpHg-Fq9I&ved=0ahUKEwiljo_4jbfoAhVsGTQIHWIOAKAQ4dUDCAo https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03pporoAyzpa7vJERqMwwQOJwbjqA%3A1585283151800&source=hp&ei=T4B9Xt-kLpiw0PEPsPmX-Ao&q=when+did+venus+last+transit+the+sun&oq=when+did+venus+last+transit+the+sun&gs_l=psy-ab.12..33i299.1804.17695..21675...1.0..1.375.4368.13j18j3j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j0i273j0i67j0j0i131j0i20i263j0i22i30j0i333j33i22i29i30j33i160.zWEe-7IPWMA&ved=0ahUKEwifiIT557noAhUYGDQIHbD8Ba8Q4dUDCAs
  2. As of March 20th there were unbelievably 86 clinical trials of COVID-19 treatments or vaccines proposed or ongoing in the U.S. alone, with new drugs being proposed almost daily. Both types of drugs are either ongoing or recruiting participants or patients. Imagine how many other treatment drugs and vaccines are being considered and tested around the world. The drugs being tested range from flu treatment drugs developed for Ebola, SARS, MERS treatment drugs, newly developed and proposed drugs, etc., including malaria treatment drugs that were first developed decades ago. To be approved for this testing one has to present evidence concerning the efficacy of the drug concerning Covid 19. It’s no joke that in the U.S. they will have a hard time finding the people to test these treatment drugs. The reason is that many of these drugs require patients, after testing positive for Covid 19, that are very ill and have particular symptoms or medical history needed to test that particular drug. Even for testing vaccines, most people do not want to be a Ginny pig even though they will be paid to be in these trials. Take a look at the link below to see a list of these 86 presently proposed treatment drugs and vaccines for Covid 19. https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-treatments.html?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15631&utm_content=20200323_Coronavirus_Infographic+&utm_term=2875217&m_i=xugCBo%2Bir1F0ZuGuBrB%2BFsC0%2BpCOUHvB9DJGyic7shdAZeMk79Rse%2BZWgFDYcUb6O9wugUiH70Mi4%2Burr32yIL6ZBP3T_p From Penicillin in the 1940's starting the anti-bacterial plethora of drugs now available, this seems to be the beginning of a slew of anti-viral drugs that will be available in the next few and continuing years for particular viral infections all over the world. On the horizon is the universal flu vaccine, and I'm expecting to see news in the coming year or so for a combat treatment drug or vaccine against viral pneumonia, a very big killer around the world; a vaccine or better treatment drugs are also in the works. All this money being thrown at Covid 19 will help set a precedent; money spent on drug research and development yields results. And what about the common cold? The giant on-line retailer Amazon is working on such a common-cold vaccine. https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/amazon-developing-a-vaccine-against-common-cold-report
  3. Cool test question Walter. I won't spoil the test for others but will give a clue to those people answering, by asking a clue question. When is the moon at its brightest? Sorry; I thought I was the first poster, but I'm not even the second or third to answer. Others have answered the question correctly already. Oh well!
  4. Here's another one. I expect this to be on-going news for awhile. A Japanese antiviral flu drug called Favipiravir or Avigan, has shown promise in relieving symptoms of the COVID 19 coronavirus. Upon a larger scale study with a control (this drug compared with another, or an untreated group), they may be able to statistically determine if this drug is truly effective in relieving the symptoms of the disease, and/ or whether the severity of the disease itself can be mitigated by this drug. In the meantime, according to related sources, treatments in China and elsewhere using this drug, as of mid-March, seem to be going well based upon several hundred test cases. For those patients having a more severe case of the disease, it has been difficult to judge the drugs efficacy or the extent that it possibly could help once a patient is seriously ill. https://www.livescience.com/flu-drug-could-treat-coronavirus.html?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15423&utm_content=20200318_Coronavirus_Infographic+&utm_term=2875217&m_i=XWcXoB9HCmXzPJmWpVJ74xYOD6Zte6LzBnCO92slFDRcrVR3hViIoTA2gm9OInGDykZ0y7dbdduFl8cprQcyAK85I_HdrD
  5. Progress on a corona virus vaccine: The beginning of vaccine testing for the COVID 19 coronavirus began yesterday March 16, 2020. This beginning test is a safety test. They are vaccinating healthy volunteers to see if the vaccine has any undesirable side effects. Once it passes this test they will solicit healthy volunteers who continuously have exposure to the disease such as doctors, nurses, health care workers, researchers, etc., to see if the drug is effective in preventing infection. This new vaccine is unusual in that no live or weakened viruses, virus parts or related proteins are used to promote an immune system response. Instead they use a different type of protein that hopefully will block an infection based upon stopping the replication process of the virus. The fastest this new vaccine could become available for the general population would be at least one year from now if all goes well in testing between now and then. Within the coming year to 18 months there will expectedly be other COVID 19 vaccines ready for testing. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/health/coronavirus-vaccine.html For treatment of those that are already infected there are a number of already approved drugs for other purposes that are in testing for their effectiveness against the coronavirus, which can be used on corona virus patients if recommended by a doctor. Several of these drugs are AIDS related viral drugs and others have been used against SARS, EBOLA, Malaria and other related viral infections. Some may relieve symptoms for some patients and others will hopefully have the ability to reduce the extent of the infection. Testing has already begun on these drugs also. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/remdesivir-surges-ahead-against-coronavirus/ https://www.asm.org/Podcasts/MTM/Episodes/Coronavirus-Antiviral-Drug-Discovery-with-Timothy https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/here-are-some-existing-drugs-may-be-repurposed-treat-coronavirus-n1162021 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/science/coronavirus-treatment.html We also may be only a couple of years away from the testing of a universal flu vaccine. This vaccine will be much more effective and usable worldwide against influenza types A and B since a selection of stains will not have to be developed every year. To start with it is expected to be 75% effective each season, an improvement of 15-20%, and also is expected to be improved upon as time passes. This will likely save more lives in every country than will a COViD 19 coronavirus vaccine alone. The new funds approved for the coronavirus will also help in the development of such a universal flu vaccine since the coronavirus is also a type of flu. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/progress-universal-flu-vaccine
  6. The ideas of some people? Hilarious!
  7. SARS-CoV-2 is the name for the corona virus itself. It is classified with the previous SARS virus, as the second classified variation of the SARS virus. The sickness is called COVID 19 coronavirus. It is a type of flu that many humans have less immunity to than other flu viruses. For most people they will have cold-like, or flu-like symptoms. Symptoms can last as short as a few days and some people may have no symptoms at all. Some may never come down with an active case of this virus but still can be a carrier for a period of time, but an unlikely transmitter. Others can have respiratory symptoms lasting for weeks similar to other flues. But the sickness can last much longer for those having a compromised immune system, especially the aged and those with lung problems where death could be the result. Of course other strains of the flu could also kill these people, which is more likely since there are many other widespread strains of flu viruses where the yearly flu shot would not be effective against for any particular year. It is unusual that children, for the most part, do not get sick with this virus, unlike other types of flu strains. Presently it is just speculation as to why children in general are more immune to this sickness. Future studies of children all over the world with mild symptoms might help in the development or improvement of a future vaccine. It expectedly will likely take no more that 12 to 18 months, in the opinion of some virologists, to develop and approve a vaccine in the US and other countries since there will be so many countries working on one, and then such a vaccine can be improved as time progresses. To start with this vaccine will likely be separate from the normal flu vaccine, but in time it could likely be part of our yearly flu vaccine regimen of a single shot. It is normal human behavior for certain factions of the population to over-react to situations of possible peril, especially when there are so many unknowns involved. This virus scare is probably no exception. Below you will see a link discussing some myths that have developed concerning the COVID 19 coronavirus: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-myths.html
  8. I agree. I believe a gnostic atheist is also a hard position to logically defend. For this reason I say that I am an atheist, meaning for myself that I do not believe that the Abrahamic God of any religion exists. But I extend the meaning of atheist for myself by saying that I would bet my "Immortal soul" against a single beer of my choice that the God of the bible does not exist. But a god of any kind would have to be very well defined for me to require more.. Since I do not believe in heaven, hell, or an immortal soul of any kind, and more than this I believe that all such beliefs concerning an immortal soul are just a fantasy -- so it's easy for me to make such a bet. But if I really thought that I might possibly lose the bet based upon a god of some sort that created our existence, then I might require a six pack of beer against my immortal soul. But if the bet stated that if a god of this sort existed that I would have to give up two years of my life, then I might require a case of beer plus two shots of my choice for such a bet
  9. How do you define knowledge? Concerning definitions of words there should never be an argument. Some words have more than a single meaning. In such a case one should refer to which meaning you are using in a discussion or argument, for instance. As to knowledge: 1) A fact or condition of knowing related to the familiarity of a subject, gained through experience, association, and/or related study. 2) acquaintance with or understanding of the details of a science, art, or technique. 3) the fact or condition of being aware of something to a high degree of probable certainty relating to truth, fact, involving generally incontestable information. 4) the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind The word gnostic defined: One who claims a high degree of knowledge in some field such as religion or science, especially secret knowledge of some kind. Because of the vagueness of both the definitions of "knowledge" and "gnostic" I think philosophical arguments/ discussions can have little progress in such discussions using these words since each participant can carry a little different interpretation of word definitions even if both agree upon a word-for-word definition to start with. As an example, in modern physics today more that half of what is now considered knowledge will turn out to be wrong in the next few decades IMO as new discoveries and interpretations are made. In other sciences it may not be the knowledge that is wrong but how the information is integrated into the whole leading to many different conclusions concerning the different theories of tomorrow. Opinions can be expressed with little argument. The point is that knowledge in many cases is an interpretation rather than a truth or fact, and should not be argued so as not to waist one's time.
  10. WalterP, Yeah, pretty impressive alright, so many accolades at such a young age. Michelle Kunimoto is presently a Master's candidate at the University of British Colombia at Vancouver, and part of the doctorate of Astronomy program. One or more professor is probably promoting her carrier availing her with all the observation and Research data and methods necessary using the Kepler space telescope data. It's a huge effort sifting through all that data requiring years of time to confirm so many planet's transit data She is a Canadian of Japanese ancestry.
  11. This part of the reef shows blanched corals which can mean they are older corals which are lacking rejuvenation processes. The oldest reefs around the world have always had a number of such areas in outlying areas having too little or too much water circulation. Blanching occurs more often in shallower, warmer, outskirts of reefs where there are less active and sometimes less salty waters near deltas having less natural electric currents within them. Rebuilding and rejuvenation is an ongoing natural process which is part of reef maintenance and renewal processes. In the link above they discuss man assisted coral rejuvenation: “......last year (2019) included a world first IVF program during the annual coral spawn. “Operators assisted researchers from Southern Cross University and James Cook University to collect coral eggs and sperm so the coral larvae could be (germinated and grown offsite) fed and released on the Great Barrier Reef to grow new corals. "Numerous other projects involving the Cairns & Great Barrier Reef tourism industry include coral nurseries, coral resettling and using electricity to stimulate coral growth.” Many believe the Coral Sea today is still in good health as a whole and has not declined since it was first monitored in 1986, but environmental alarmists point out that it will be less vital or even become endangered upon continued global warming, blanched corals being a prime example.
  12. The cosmos is complicated as to its detail but simple concerning a valid understanding of it. The problem is that there is no guiding pretty picture printed on it like a jigsaw puzzle, as a help in fitting its pieces together. The simplicity of the whole only becomes apparent when the puzzle is generally put together correctly. Unfortunately many of the pieces have a similar form so if the puzzle is put together incorrectly a very incomprehensible Picasso-like picture begins to appear suggesting countless misguided, as well as imaginary and bizarre interpretations and misunderstandings of it and many of its parts.

  13. Trump is personally making a request to raise NASA's budget to $25.2 billion for the next fiscal year beginning October 2020. This would be an increase of 12% over the current year's funding and budget. Is this an attempt to get more votes in November? Prior to this request the Vice President publicly spoke in the president's behalf concerning NASA objectives. Nearly half of this total budget would be directed toward getting humans back to the moon and then to Mars. The budget request includes $3.3 billion for human lunar landers, part of NASA's Artemis program having the present goal of a manned lunar landing by 2024. This request also proposes to reduce the pace of several other on-going programs and instead introduces a new mission to study the ice on Mars. Of course this is only a request. Congress must approve, amend, or reject it. A congressional bill supported by some Democrats instead proposes a delay in the moon landing to 2028 and extend America's role in the international space station beyond 2024 to 2028, although there may not be enough votes to pass this bill. "This is a 21st century budget worthy of 21st century space exploration and one of the strongest NASA budgets in history," NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said during a State of NASA event unveiling the budget. "If the president's support for NASA wasn't clear before, it sure is now." Under Trump, NASA's annual budget has increased from about $19 billion during his first year to $22 billion for the fiscal year that began in October 2019, according to the Washington Post. This new proposal would be a NASA budget increase of about 30% since Trump has been in office. https://www.space.com/nasa-2021-budget-request-aims-at-moon-mars.html?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9155&utm_content=SDC_Newsletter+&utm_term=2875217&m_i=ql0PM9HcgsTXr33cJBvvlkODpFqFP2sPcVhvs7s8YjQWnwkjjiW2NZcW0svPl2tMvSB_3B9VxKv3S4NUg3kYLOsjEXZwbbvnLS2GbWYqqT
  14. Yes, many Jewish biblical scholars, and I expect some Christian biblical scholars, have stated that this is a likely possibility. The question then might be, if they had no bible at that time then why were they exiled as Jews? Maybe they looked different from other Babylonians, or maybe they were Jewish in that they had their own language and already believed in a single God that favored their nationality which made them unpopular. Or maybe, as you questioned, their being exiled was just a fable attempting to establish a history and identity like their escape from slavery in Egypt.
  15. Pretty interesting but a bit long. I wonder if the writer(s) of the Noah's Ark story in the Old Testament had a written Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian text or another text of some kind, or if some of this story came from oral-tradition? Since copies of books had to be hand written in those times, and sometimes translated into other languages, it would seem that the story would change over time to match new technologies, knowledge, and imaginative skills of later centuries and cultures.
  16. House bill presented Jan. 24, 2020. House bill proposes pushing NASA's crewed moon landing back to 2028 According to a bill supported by some house democrats, NASA should aim to put boots on the moon again by 2028, not 2024 as requested by the Trump administration. But the bill is still a long way from passing. Many House Republicans are against the bill. The Trump administration supports boots on the moon by 2024, and the first moon base by 2028. Considering only moderate additional monies to NASA, democrats supporting this bill prefer using NASA funding to have our continued use of the space station beyond 2024 to 2028. Also they say that the goal of having our first moon base by 2028 will take away funds from boots on Mars by the mid 2030’s. Those not in favor of our funds going to the international space station past 2024 say that our international partners can and will use the space station when we are not using it, and that we should not put our money into it beyond the minimum we agreed to after 2024 so that we can achieve our goal of having the first moon base by 2028 and a continued presence within a few years thereafter. They say that if for the time being we put our money into establishing a moon base we can always later also fund our continued use of the international space station. The Trump administration says that there is competition for the moons resources and at least the possibility of some return on our investment there as well as strategic defense advantages , and that the moon is a great place to built telescopes and other science research beyond what can be done at the international space station, also stating that the moon would be a better place to launch our manned missions to Mars for a great many reasons. Of course priorities would likely change with a different U.S. administration, further study, changing NASA priorities, and/or increased funding to NASA. https://www.space.com/house-bill-nasa-moon-landing-2028.html?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9155&utm_content=SDC_Newsletter+&utm_term=2875217&m_i=iJBMw8xvZCpv6DiOobDyes3%2B1H1Q1s9lbkIfB299nkbKjALu%2BUJ0YP3u8F01eV7WMkt6jdboY%2BZNxjrB0%2BLc1PgR75gxMZKxeczMLDiii7
  17. "A lot of academic scientists are treating science more like religion and less like science, for one thing." Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, like religion, if you are a scientist that disagrees with present beliefs in your science field, many will consider you an outsider. If employed they might tell you to work on another facet of that science. If self employed, it would be much more difficult for you to find grants and funding for your work. All relates to Groupthink theory. Even the opinions expressed in your opening post would be considered wrong by many because it does not admonish humanity for pollution and global warming. RE: Groupthink link: "It's just an FYI type of link that I added to my signature for people to looking into if they choose." Great FYI link
  18. If you are referring to postings and comments referring to "Searching for truth on the Coral Sea," the posting is simply a science posting, somewhat related to global warming. To listen to the original video link "Looking for Truth on the Coral Sea," click below in white. If you were referring to comments regarding Groupthink theory, these were science comments in response to a link posted at the bottom of the opening post., unrelated to the Coral Sea link. Here is the link to that https://evolutionnews.org/2011/08/when_a_consensus_-_on_science/ It now seems like the Coral Sea link has disappeared from the opening post.
  19. The Coral Sea and its islands fall under the sovereignty of Australia. The Coral Sea covers one million square kilometers; roughly four times the size of Great Britain. According to my readings the Coral Sea is unique among marine biology. Some marine biologists claim that coral reefs around the world are being destroyed many times faster than rain forests, and that coral reef marine life is disappearing at a rate of 90 percent in some areas. Although many have proposed such negative effects have been observed concerning the Coral Sea, according to Australia's chapter of the World Wildlife Federation and related studies, the Coral Sea has not fallen victim to pollution, invasive species, marine traffic, or warmer ocean waters that is believed to be destroying coral reefs in other ocean areas. Man's negative influences on the oceans in general have shown to be obvious in some areas, so any important unique part of marine biology such as the Coral Sea must be continuously monitored for such signs, especially concerning the possibility of local steps that might be taken to prevent, reduce, or possibly counteract such negative influences. _____________________________________________________ In your seemingly unrelated comments below, you are discussing the theory of "Groupthink," the contents of which I've heard of, but not by its formal name Groupthink. IMO this theory is a fact that many would disagree with, but one that has wasted countless billions of dollars and has set science back decades if not a century or more. Groupthink theory is: " One of the most influential theories in the behavioral sciences in recent decades. Developed by the psychologist Irving Janis in the early 1970s, Groupthink theory describes how a tight-knit, smart and well-informed group can suppress dissent and make disastrous decisions because of the pressure to agree." Also IMO the many faults of science related to the effects of Groupthink theory has kinship and similarity to religious pressures of conformity. These faults of theory are most obvious in modern physics, especially theory establishment of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum mechanics, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and Cosmology; all have been deeply entrenched in modern physics because of the faults of Groupthink. Although I think some of these theories in the future will likely show to have redeeming details, many or most of them will be greatly changed or replaced within a couple of decades by better theory IMO for reasons that will be obvious to many at that time. Mathematics aside, one answer is the acknowledgement that all of these theories are filled with logical fallacies and/or non-nonsensical implications, therefore for all theories that lack logic, at least some research monies should be allocated toward more logical alternatives. The public hears little of alternative models but there are dozens, if not hundreds of them for most every mainstream theory in physics. My guess is that for such alternative theory research, funding is far less than .0001, one part in ten thousand. Many mainstream theories in the past were overturned by loan-wolf researchers that received little or no funding outside their own.
  20. Maybe Trumps secret plan is to provide plenty of underground space on the moon for aliens.
  21. NASA has requested an increase in their 2020 budget of $1.6 billion in order to make another crewed mission to the Moon by 2024, supposedly followed by a sustained U.S. presence on the Moon by 2028 if it is budgeted. Trump says he supports all aspects of this project.
  22. A Proposed Star-drive propulsion system that would Enable Interstellar Travel: NASA’s Helical Engine Design that Uses Closed-Cycle Propellant. by William Brown | Nov 5, 2019 | Science News | https://resonancescience.org/nasas-helical-engine-design-that-uses-closed-cycle-propellant-a-proposed-stardrive-that-may-enable-interstellar-travel/ This experimental propulsion design belongs to a class of designs which can be called fuel-less. Such designs require power but no source of fuel which shoots out the back of the craft. This design is a type of ion drive, but one without any exhaust to it. It is a closed system where no new ions are needed or exhausted. Its proposed power source would be a nuclear reactor. The present design could not lift the craft off of the ground in the first place, but if in high orbit would enable the craft to progressively accelerate toward any planet or star at speeds only limited by the structure of the craft. The most well-known of such a hypothetical propulsion system is called EM drive. Although there have been a great many tests on proto-types of this design, the jury is still out as of Dec. 2019, whether the design really produces thrust, or if its apparent thrust is produced by heat or another factor which would negate its claim of thrust. Upon reading the above design concept it seems very interesting but many would say that such a fuel-less propulsion design violates the laws of physics and therefore could never work, just like the “impossible” EM drive they would contend. If we were ever able to build a working model of such a device its first use would likely be for planetary travel. Instead of 9-12 months traveling to mars it might take only three weeks. Once such a craft would reach maximum velocity, about half way to its destination, it would need to turn around and decelerate for the other half of the distance. For power it could use a small fission or fusion reactor, with no fuel other than the conversion of reactor power to electrical power. Of course a fission or fusion reactor could provide propulsion by itself without such a device, as long it was not too heavy for lift off by itself or by rocket power. But such devices like this, or the EM drive, are still in the planning or testing phases. Who knows when, or if, any of them will progress beyond proto-type design, but since NASA is in charge of this design it is in good hands and will progress as fast as funding would allow. Lockheed’s version of a small nuclear-fusion reactor is supposedly moving forward. If or when it ever goes into operation it could be used for both commercial, and government power generation programs. As a propulsion system such a craft could also be light enough to lift-off from Earth. It probably wouldn't need any of the devices discussed above and by itself could totally transform the Earth by clean power generation, roughly at the same costs or possibly lower than the prices we are now paying for power. But if its cost for power generation would be much higher to generate power, this would not be a problem for spacecraft where the only need for fuel would be the reactor. Maybe the biggest contribution for such a light-weight reactor will be for space travel. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29074/skunk-works-exotic-fusion-reactor-program-moves-forward-with-larger-more-powerful-design If any of these devices have the ability to lift off from Earth in the first place, they would not have to acquire great speeds like a rocket because all would provide continuous acceleration. Those that would not have such initial lift-off power could also be a hybrid type of jet going up like a conventional jet, then use their lift engines to fly into orbit and then away from the Earth's gravity. Such aircraft that could at least lift off their own weight could fly like a conventional aircraft with wings until it could no longer get lift from the atmosphere. After that it could just continue upward into space applying more power, then fly to the space station(s), space hotels and colonies, colonies or orbiting stations on the moon, mars, the asteroid belt , exploration trips, etc., as slow or as fast as they wanted to go. Once away from Earth's gravity and having momentum the craft would gain velocity by continuous acceleration using very little power. They could go faster outside the plane of the solar system, for safety’s sake, to have less contact with small matter. For landing, they would decelerate before they reached Earth or planets so they could land like an ordinary big jet on Earth, without all the atmospheric frictional heat that the shuttle had. In time such devices and craft would expectedly be far less expensive than our present space transportation systems, and more versatile whereby such craft could land easily on the moon or on mars at locations and times related to outside temperatures. A great many spacecraft would eventually be involved, government and private. Commercial passenger flights would follow as colonies would also become public from many governments. For small fusion reactors and beginning colonies, power could be generated for colonists from the spacecraft alone to start with.
  23. If it would cost the government little money for such legislation and control, then I think this could be a great idea. Even though it would involve more government regulations, such ideas would show the compassion of humanity. The idea involves sending lab animals to retirement when they are relatively old, after spending close to their entire lives as lab test animals. Many of these older lab animals have often been euthanized near the ends of their lives because they are less suitable for medical experiments. Another rare few have been adopted at the ends of their natural lives by their lab caretakers that have loved and taken care of them in the lab. A small percentage of others have been sent to private retirement homes, paid for by private labs that have owned and used them for experiments for their entire lives up to their retirement. Of course many of these experimental animals have died at relatively young ages or have infirmities resulting from these experiments. Having some government regulations concerning when such animals might qualify for retirement from being experimental lab animals could be a good idea. Of course the suggested payer of such retirement would be the labs that own them, but the regulations should not be so strict that some labs would make it difficult for such animals to retire using them for senility and Alzheimer's experiments until they die. So far only Chimps have been excluded from life-long experimentation, but this article involves monkeys in general. Government regulation might control continuous, abusive life long experiments on many types of animals. Even lab rats and mice might qualify for a peaceful couple of months ending to their lives from such legislation. But I'm a Vegan and a member of "bleeding hearts unanimous," so what do you think?
  24. If the standard model of particle physics is wrong in some respects then this observation could have a completely different meaning. IMO there are a great many theoretical problems with the Standard Model of particle physics. Why their observations should be different than what would normally be predicted is noteworthy so that they might improve the theory to enable better predictions in the future. Whenever a theory is violated by observation, the best resort is to question the theory, not first consider adding an ad hoc hypothesis to it, especially a very big one like this proposal. This seems to be a problem of science theory in general, but IMO especially a big problem with modern physics.
  25. Some marine engines would be good for hydrogen, I think, but only for big heavy boats since they could carry the required heavy fuel tanks. Portable ground generators would be good for hydrogen since weight would not be a factor, but I think gasoline generators would be more convenient and portable. You could probably convert a gas engine to hydrogen but you would have to buy a special manifold and fuel injection system that would be closed and pressurized from the tank to the engine, and hydrogen engines have a higher risk factor toward explosion. Methane is a cleaner burning fuel than gasoline or diesel, and less dangerous than a hydrogen engine to operate. They are almost as efficient as gasoline engines but are a little more dangerous. They too require very large, heavy fuel tanks but you can buy such engines, the designs of which have been time tested, unlike hydrogen engines.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.