Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The program was cut when the government decided to switch resources to developing the Shuttle (this is the same reason they cut funding of development of NERVA style nuclear rockets.) They felt having a "space truck" was more useful.If the US Apollo moon-landings were faked
They weren't.
If they weren't, why aren't they happening anymore? The manned Apollo landings took place in the 1960/70's. Half a century has passed since then.
And in all that time, not a single manned spacecraft has gone there again. I mean, doesn't that look a bit suspicious.
Our sun is a second or third generation star, a massive star that exploded many billions of years ago created the elements that make up our solar system.Only a fraction of the heavy elements produced by that earlier star. Those elements were spread out into the galaxy to mix with the hydrogen already in the dust and gas cloud from which the Solar system. The shock wave which delivered those heavy elements, also precipitated the collapse of that cloud into the solar system.
It must have been many times the size of our sun in order to create the heavy elements such as Gold, Lead, Uranium.
According to the theories it went supernova after it had exhausted its supplies of hydrogen and helium resulting in an implosion that created the heavy elements then exploded outwards and the remants of that explosion created our solar system.
But if all the hydrogen was consumed then where did the hydrogen that makes up our sun come from?
If objects travel with velocities relative to each other then what is light traveling relative to? The photon is a particle and it is traveling. Relative to ...Relative to the frame it is being measured from. Photons don't have a valid inertial frame, so it meaningless to talk about what they measure themselves moving relative to.
What kind of hybrid rocket are you talking about? There are hybrid chemical rockets which combine solid fuel with liquid oxygen( Solid fuels typically contain their own oxidizer). Nuclear-electric hybrids which use a nuclear reaction to power something like an ION engine and on the more hypothetical side, Fusion-fission hydbrids, and anitmatter-Fusion hybrids.Surely, nuclear fusion would be the ideal method of propulsion (especially if it could scoop up fuel and reaction mass from the solar wind).I found an artcle about a month ago that tells about ``hybrid`` rocket. This kind of propulsion is not so advanced and used for small space journeys
- But we can't get controlled fusion to work on Earth
- Let alone a motor small enough and light enough to fit on a spacecraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_rocketQuote from: syhprumA few are working with nuclear power generation and ionized gas propulsion but they are very rareDawn spacecraft to the asteroid belt uses ion propulsion, but it gets the power from the Sun (there is still a fair amount of Sunlight at the asteroid belt).
- Spacecraft powered by nuclear energy tend to use thermo-electric generators (TEG), which are not very efficient (but they have no moving parts, which is a bonus in space)
- TEG can't generate the 10 kiloWatts or so required for an ion drive
- For those power levels, you would need a "critical" nuclear reactor, which is a lot more complex.
The Perseverance rover on Mars has a large TEG, which generates just 0.1 kiloWatts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_(rover)#Design
Perseverance was launched to Mars by an Atlas V-541 rocket. This is a two-stage rocket with boosters attached to the first stage.Surely, nuclear fusion would be the ideal method of propulsion (especially if it could scoop up fuel and reaction mass from the solar wind).As we can see nuclear power is the most useful for long space joyrneys. As far as I know Perseverance used such propulsion system to get to the Mars.
- But we can't get controlled fusion to work on Earth
- Let alone a motor small enough and light enough to fit on a spacecraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_rocketQuote from: syhprumA few are working with nuclear power generation and ionized gas propulsion but they are very rareDawn spacecraft to the asteroid belt uses ion propulsion, but it gets the power from the Sun (there is still a fair amount of Sunlight at the asteroid belt).
- Spacecraft powered by nuclear energy tend to use thermo-electric generators (TEG), which are not very efficient (but they have no moving parts, which is a bonus in space)
- TEG can't generate the 10 kiloWatts or so required for an ion drive
- For those power levels, you would need a "critical" nuclear reactor, which is a lot more complex.
The Perseverance rover on Mars has a large TEG, which generates just 0.1 kiloWatts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_(rover)#Design
🙄Simple algebra.
YippeYzzz!
👻
@Janus
Hi!
🙂
Yes indeed, it is a good approach as it makes the concept graspable & much easier to understand... especially when one is not well versed with technical jargons.
👍
(which are a must nowadays to understand the complex nature of the universe)
Besides, as the far as the concept of Gravity is concerned, hypothetical theories are well defined but Space Time Curvature is Something which still isn't carved or set in stone.
✌️
Most do Not still get how Gravity works, hence just a lil bit of freedom should be allowed for a layman to absord it in.
JANUS... I've observed you making certain remarkably extraordinary calculations at times in certain OPs.
👌
If one wishes to evolve or grow into the field of Mathematics, what would you suggest should one work on or study after the basic +-*/ functions are learned.
Like what comes next?
🤔
Far from it. It is just that when I have a question, I tend to try and look things up for myself. I often find that, while looking for the answer to my question, I end up learning other things as well or at the very least find out where I can find the answers to other questions.
& Another rather absurd question if i may...i have Rarely ever seen You create an OP or ask questions...may i know why is that so?
(Do u really know everything bout everything)
😊
Anyways as always...Appreciate your inputs, they are illuminating!
👍
P.S. - Thank You!
🙏
Why should an object slow down, when it gets further away from a central "attracting" body.No, because it has to give up kinetic energy in exchange for the gravitational potential energy it gains climbing away from the central body. This decrease of KE is exhibited by a loss of speed.
Shouldn't the object go increasingly faster, as it escapes from the "attraction" of the central body?
As a kid, it was my favourite time to watch a rainbow come up and wait until it disappears.Rainbows are caused by the fact that light has it's path bent when passing through water droplets. Sunlight is a mixture of light in all the visible colors. These different colors of light bend by slightly different amounts when passing through the droplet. This breaks the Sunlight up into it constituent color. This causes you to see all these colors separately as a rainbow.
But I never understood how they were made.
And if there is really a treasure at the bottom...
Hey guys,Because "down" is defined by gravity and the Earth's gravity acts toward the center of the Earth. Water tends to, if it can, flow "down hill", and "downhill" means closer to the Earth's center. (Of course, it can't flow all the way to the center because the bulk of the Earth gets in the way.)
it's an old topic and a am really not a flatearther.
But it's indeed a good question how the water stays on the round earth.
It should just fload down from the planet, right?
Gravity.Which is also why the atmosphere clings to the Earth, and why we aren't flung into space by its rotation.
A couple of points. Einstein tended to approach things a bit differently that other theorists. While they would start from the experimental evidence and work back to a theory to explain it, he tended to start from basic concepts and assumptions, follow them to their logical conclusion and see if it matched the evidence. Pretty much the opposite of "fudging".
I don't think the mathematical model was "lucky" or "fudged" - it just followed the evidence
- The part where Einstein did find out he had fudged the result was in picking a value for the cosmological constant to fit in with the common view at the time (stretching all the way back to Newton, and probably to Greek philosophers) that the universe as a whole (outside the Earth & Planets) was static and unchanging.
What would happen if all of humanity vanishes in one second? Like just vanish and leaf all of our buildings and so on, but not our decaying bodies. Would that stop the climate change in an instant, or are we too far along by now? Would the rainforest slowly grow back, or is it lost forever? Can almost extinct species come back and repopulate areas where humans used to live instantly?Look up a book called: "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman
No. Refraction is caused by light passing form crossing through a surface that defines two regions with different light propagation speeds ( like when passes from air to glass and back to air again.Explanations of this as due to refractive effects in the Earth's atmosphere, don't seem entirely convincing.I wasn't aware anyone would have tried. The blood moon effect is due to scattering.
Isn't "scattering" another word for "refraction"?
scatter.png (345.97 kB . 940x529 - viewed 512 times)How many "quarks" are there.6 Up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom ( top and bottom were, for a while, called truth and Beauty, but soberer heads prevailed)
Will there be "anti-quarks" discovered? Which are mirror-images of standard quarks. But with some incomprehensible difference.Anti-quarks already are part of the family, They are what make up antiprotons and antineutrons. Their properties are just the opposite of their counterparts (opposite charge, for example.)
The total estimated amount of dark matter contained within the Solar system is the equivalent to the mass of a single small asteroid.How to apply the red-shifting-of-light explanation of the darkness of the sky to the space between the Earth and the Moon: we see this area dark though the Sun's light travels through it?
Could it be due to "Dark Matter". Current theory suggests that most of the Universe consists of this "Dark Matter".
If that is true, the Solar System must be full of DM. Mightn't its presence account for some anomalies in our observations of the Moon?
For example, why the Moon sometimes has a reddish colour during a lunar eclipse, instead of disappearing from view entirely.
Explanations of this as due to refractive effects in the Earth's atmosphere, don't seem entirely convincing.
Suppose instead, there are varying amounts of DM between the Earth and Moon. One might expect such variations, and they might cause colour changes in transmitted light between the two bodies.
Although this group confess to intentionally changing laws like act 77 in Pennsylvania which was changed the year before the election happened, to allow mail in ballots, to remove requirements for signature verification, and for ballots to be accepted days after the election had happened.
Pennsylvania officials tried to have these law changes over turned as they were unconstitutional, yet were stuck down on technicalities not on merits.Those "technicalities" were that they had waited until over a year and 2 elections had passed. ( Oh, and by the way, one of those elections was were they picked up a couple of seats in the state legislature. You didn't hear them complaining that those results should be overturned).