1

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Do magma pressure studies contradict model of earth's convection currents?

« on: 15/03/2022 10:14:16 »

For some reason , NSF won't let me make the necessary links to expert planetary geologists .

2

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Do magma pressure studies contradict model of earth's convection currents?

« on: 14/03/2022 23:31:18 »

Gentlemen ,
What might be especially interesting here would be a comparison of the cores of Earth and Venus , in light of the above analyses .

3

New Theories / Re: Can an Impulse Engine be made?

« on: 11/10/2021 14:49:59 »

The point of my analysis is to show the incredible efficiency of fusion-rockets . Even if the combustion-chamber ran an average temperature comparable to that of a chemical-rocket , it would still be ~ 20k. times more efficient than that engine .
 An example of this scenario would be an ICF engine ; one powered by an auxiliary energy-source , in order to avoid impeding the exhaust-stream , and reducing the specific-impulse . 
--------------------------------
*Ref.:www.projectrho.com/public_html /rocket/realdesignsfusion.php
"Realistic Fusion Designs"   
*Ref.: www.sciencedirect.com/  topics/physics-and-astronomy/ inertial-confinement-fusion   
Author : Garry McCracken
Title : Fusion Power Plants   
Article Year : 2013 

4

New Theories / Re: Can an Impulse Engine be made?

« on: 10/10/2021 22:53:12 »

It's just the nomenclature .
As far as technical details go , the above is only a theoretical analysis of a future possible design pathway . 😐

5

New Theories / Re: Can an Impulse Engine be made?

« on: 10/10/2021 21:25:01 »

Alrighty then !
If we consider that exhaust-velocities from a fusion-rocket could well exceed 30km.sec. , we definitely must consider the exiting gases to be a "hot" plasma .
Deuterium-Tritium fusion liberates ~ 20-million times as much energy per pound as kerolox .
This equates to ~ 1400 times the thrust/acceleration of the chemical-rocket , with identical fuel-burn , excepting ; that the fusion exhaust products have a much lesser molecular mass . This means those molecules will exit at a much higher speed than the heavy molecules of the chem-rocket , multiplying the ISP to as much as 6-million for fusion .

6

New Theories / Re: Is it possible to have a space drive using reflecting light?

« on: 06/09/2021 23:32:59 »

As it is laid out above , the proposition contains a crippling flaw . Although the reflected light would be significantly red-shifted and lower-energy , it would have a longer wavelength , and would still contain the same number of photons as what was emitted/reflected in the first place . This means that the recoil and reflective forces within the container would balance equally , just as they do when a mirror-box is standing still .
What would be required would be a way to affect the reflectance-interaction , such that more of the light's energy was translated upon reflection into kinetic-energy (push) of the reflecting surface .
The present .936.lbs.force per gigawatt represents only an infinitesimal translation of the beam's light-energy to kinetic-energy , whereas an efficient translation could yield over a million pounds of thrust .
A layman's interpretation of this would be that a field/force needs to be engaged which parasitizes photon-energy , and uses it to create a higher-energy "bounce" or impact/recoil . This "explosion" would disbalance the system , thus creating the desired R-D propulsion-system .
*.Ref.: imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/
toolbox/emspectrum1.html     
*And :
www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae99.cfm

Future technology may well be able to apply enormously powerful fields-of-force , or affect space and matter in ways that allow for the abovementioned efficient energy-translation . As mentioned in the below thread , the Photonic-Rocket proves beyond any doubt that a reactionless-drive can , and already does , exist . Amplification of this existing effect should be a goal of present-day physics , as success there will fundamentally alter our transport capabilities , and our relationship to the universe around us .

*.For comparison , examine my posited "Compton-Drive" , outlined in my NSF Thread : Reactionless-drives possible ? .
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75294.new;topicseen#new 

**Addendum : IF access to an external energy-source , such as "zero-point-energy" becomes possible , then this energy could be used to create baryonic matter . This could then be ejected at extreme velocity , producing in effect , a reactionless-drive . This being "effective" because the rocket would carry no propellant .
*.To examine this subject in greater detail , read my Post at :
^ "Hypothetically , could the particle-pairs produced in vacuum polarization be accelerated before they disappear in order to be used as propellant for space-travel ?"
》Post located in Quora .
Ref.: quora.com/Is-a-reactionless-drive-possible/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are black holes really holes?

« on: 03/08/2021 14:20:25 »

Using what exactly , magnetic-field lines of force ? .🤓

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are black holes really holes?

« on: 30/07/2021 15:56:16 »

I think he means that "singularity" is the face that black-holes put on , when they get up in the morning ! .😄

9

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 22/07/2021 13:03:25 »

Second-Ice-Cube ,
I meant the serious version .
Even Mr.Neil there is laughing up his sleeve ! .😂

10

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 22/07/2021 02:31:08 »

Yes , but...
By "fake" they mean that there is no real "matter" , only energy in various forms .
In this paradigm , apparently solid objects , from particles to mountains , are composed of "looped" waves of energy . These can become locked together through interactions with various natural forces , thus giving the illusion of solid matter . .

*.To examine this more closely , search up "Photon Pair-Production"
--------------------------------------
Now then , Second-Moon...
IF the Universe is , in a sense , plummeting through higher dimensions at ever-increasing speed , does that not engender the possibility that it might eventually hit bottom ?
In otherwords , is it not possible that the Universe smashes into a giant pile of dead universes , and explodes like an M-80 dropped into an outhouse pit ?
*.Every dynamic system/body in existence produces waste , so doesn't it follow that whoever or whatever made the Universe , did so as a natural function ? .

11

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 21/07/2021 21:13:48 »

To yor-on ,
I am full agreement with your view ; w/o a global "reality" , no common frame-of-reference is possible . Also , no two things would be able to relate to each other .
-----------------------
To Europa ,
Consider that as things gain velocity , they contract . Now suppose that the universe as a whole has gained a very high velocity , in a 4-dimensional sense , being drawn or pushed into the future ever faster . This could cause a type of Lorentz-Contraction , making everything inside of this universe get smaller , relative to the universe itself . If Lorentz-Contraction and Time-Dilation became more pronounced as "velocity" increased ,then time would pass ever slower for the affected contents , leading to the perception that the Universe's expansion was happening ever faster .
*.Badda-boom-badda-bang !
In a wild & crazy yuniverse , it could happen ! .🤯

12

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 21/07/2021 16:58:52 »

To yor-on ,
So... spacetime is contiguous AND differential , ergo it varies in both a qualitative and quantitative manner .
That speed-limit 'c' is fascinating , seeing as how powerfully integral space-time must be , in order to enforce such a law !
Also , Einstein himself described gravity-waves as "disturbances in the fabric of the Universe" . This of course , directly implies that space-time is a something , not a nothing .
Incidentally , this also explains how e-m radiation can be generated from nothing.

*There must be a joining element or constituent fundamental here , perhaps involving the quantum-universe ..🙂

13

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 21/07/2021 15:58:22 »

Mr. E-S and Yor-On ,
The application of numerical values to specific interrelations within space-time is a matter of quantification .
As an informed layman , I address these subjects primarily from a qualitative perspective , that is... cause-and-effect/structure/interelations/ characteristics/etc .
Now then , Yor-On made an excellent point above ; "we" really do not know exactly what space-time is made of . We can only be sure that it is not nothing , as that would not allow for any continuity/or contiguous traits/or interdependent relations/or consistent values/or even the enforcement of the Laws-Of-Physics !
Space-time obviously embodies an extremely strong form of universal connectedness , something which allows it to function as a consistent and contiguous entity .
If space-time were nothing , then no energy/mass/interrelation would be able to manifest or interact . In otherwords , the Universe absolutely could not exist !

*Measure it any way you want , my fundamental proposal is logical .

14

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 20/07/2021 21:54:53 »

In response to Bill S. ;
There is an argument to be made that the expansion of space is directly and proportionately related to the contraction and compression of most of the universe's mass . This concentration apparently includes a significant amount of the "field" or "substrate" that constitutes space-time itself ; the best analogy being that of a party-balloon being crushed in the middle , and then expanding at the ends .
The above is obviously mass-related and not volume-related , as different epochs of universal evolution have had widely differing rates of material agglomeration and mass-accumulation .
The possibility of significant regional variation definitely exists , and could possibly explain some notable large-scale anomalies , such as "dark-flow" , "great-attractors" , etc .
*Another hidden-balance it is ! .
------------------------------------------
*Read my Post #5 at :
^ quora.com/When-a-photon-is-cosmologically-redshifted-where-does-its-energy-go/ 

15

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 17/07/2021 04:08:57 »

Except for fossil-oxygen from dissociated water-vapor , such as that which saturated the Martian atmosphere early in it's history .

16

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 06/07/2021 16:02:37 »

Agreed , mahn !
It's just a seductive image , is all .
You really might enjoy my Post at the address in my last Reply ..😎

17

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 05/07/2021 16:02:55 »

Mr. Beardnard ,
You are so right that it's ridickulous ! .
There's no way that humanity will ever really colonize Venus , by floating above that furnace , while soaking in acid-rain . Such would be absurdly expensive , economically unproductive , and an obscene flouting of the sanctity of human life .
The only real answer there is to fully geoengineer the planet itself ; in otherwords... shade planet Venus .
If self-guiding solar-shades were kept librating in Lagrange Point L-1 , then over a period of several hundred years , the planet's atmosphere/surface would cool down to reasonable levels . This would cause the CO2 to condense , and rain out onto the venusian surface . That badly cracked , granulated , and extremely desiccated crust would soak the liquid carbon-dioxide up like a baked sponge . The CO2 would then combine with the abundant alkali-metals therein , and form carbonate compounds , thus naturally sequestering the 1-km. high (equivalent) column of liquid CO2 .
When only two atmospheres worth of CO2 were left , carbon-dioxide snow would replace the rain . The shading would be reduced at this point , the precipitation would stop , and man and his machines would descend . These would begin long-term atmospheric processing , and mechanical deep-sequestration .
Eventually , a mostly nitrogen , partly O2 atmosphere would be produced , and artificially maintained . The sulfuric-acid clouds would yield water for human use , the planet would become a desert resembling 'Arrakis', and the solarshades would be removed . The thick N2 shell would protect the population from all space-based radiation , thus allowing for dispersed paraterraformed environments to cover Venus' lands .
**To examine this subject in greater detail read my Post #21at :
quora.com/Which-one-would-be-easier-to-terraform-Venus-or-Mars/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch

18

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 28/06/2021 13:21:27 »

To : Origin Ov ,
You make good points mahn , but consider... there are a variety of possible human activities which Mars might be optimal for .
Martian ecotourism, low-gravity sports venues, low-g entertainment complexes, low-g medical treatment facilities, low-g hospice housing , low-g retirement communities , artist and alternative-lifestyle communities , mining operations with company housing , and scientific bases/complexes , to name a few .
The decider with this is the creation of both fast , and affordable , means of interplanetary transportation . If the mousetrap is good enough , the mice assuredly will come running ! .

**For a light-hearted examination of Martian settlement , read my post :
quora.com/Guys-give-it-to-me-straight-we-ain-t-going-to-Mars-Are-we/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch

19

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 28/06/2021 11:21:26 »

That poses a philosophical question...
Would you rather have thousands of beautiful eggs , or the occasional Robin that hatches out of a few of them ? .🤔

20

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 27/06/2021 13:04:59 »

Alrighty then !
Let's up our game step-by-step , by starting with near-Earth asteroids , then distant ones , then Phobos/Deimos, then the surface of Mars .😎