21

General Science / Re: Science Fact or Fiction: The Online Version Part I

« on: 29/06/2006 09:44:07 »

I apologize for the typo, 50 gigatons is 50,000 megatons, not 5,000. This typo is not meant as a trick question.

Adam Andrew Galas

22

General Science / Science Fact or Fiction: The Online Version Part I

« on: 29/06/2006 08:53:04 »

Here are some interesting queries for all you science buffs. Lets see if any one can get all 3 questions correct. I will reveal the answers in 18 hours. Bonus points will be awarded for those who can answer False questions and give the real answer.

1. The longest living animal on earth is the Giant Tortoise: True or False?

2. The December 26, 2004 Mega Thrust Earthquake that generate the Great Indian Ocean Tsunamai was estimated to have released the equivalent of 50 gigatons (5,000 Megatons or 3,000 Hirishimas) of TNT. True of False?

3. The Earth is the densest planet in our Solar System. True or False?




Adam Andrew Galas

23

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does a gravity tractor work to pull colliding objects out of Earth's path?

« on: 29/06/2006 09:10:37 »

I believe the rational given for the gigaton bomb was that it is so large the fireball it generates will engulf any small to medium sized NEO and vaporize it, no matter its spin, velocity, density, composition, ect. The idea was that a big enough bomb will simply overwhelm all variables and blow them all to hell, leaving no debris to worry about.

Many smaller bombs would face the problem of a ruble pile is that the pile may disintegrate and the subsequent bombs would no longer have 1 target but dozens or hundreds. The incoming missiles would continue to detonate which would only scatter the rubble worse.

The idea however, was in the end dubbed "insane" as it would have been a larger threat to the earth than any likely NEO.

Of course, that leaves us with the question of saving the world when we are threatened by large space rocks. I somehow doubt that a gravity tractor could be built in time. After all, who is going to fund a gravity tractor? It will cost tens of billions, and if the Americans are not directly threatened they will not pay for it, at least not the current administration.

I fear that if Apophis does threaten us in 2036 that each government will simply ask the question, "will it hit us or cause a Tsunamai that will?" If the answer is no, they will find excuses not to pay the costs.

Perhaps we can convince Richard Branson, if he is still alive, to build the tractor. If he can't afford it, then maybe the new $61 billion Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation could pony up the necessary funds.

Adam Andrew Galas

24

General Science / Re: What is god: an answer

« on: 28/06/2006 21:29:00 »

The question of what should the 3rd world do to grow its economy is, perhaps the most important ecological question in history. China and India have discovered that economic growth is wonderfull and have embraced more and more free market ideas to spur on that growth. But if they achieve the growth threw the burning of coal, as they are currently doing, then they will destory themselves and possibly the world.

That is why I am glad to see China taking seriously the issue of air pollution by planting gardens on Shanghai roofs. They are also very active in developing Solar technologies and the 3 Georges Dam is a wonderful project that will provide 18 gigawatts of electricty, the equivalent to thousands of coal fired plants.

Hopefully India will follow China's lead so that 3 billion people don't attempt to recreate the industrial revolution as did the Europeans and Americas.

As for the rest of the developing world, that is a much harder topic. While China and India are rich enough to afford alternatives and are able to attract investment, most poor nations can't.

Nations such as those in Africa will need to be supported by the developed world in the form of massive subsidies in order to grow their economies in a sustainable manner.

Of course for that to happen the governments of these nations would have to be much less corrupt, which may be asking to much.

I fear that Africa in the future will become a hellhole that no one wishes to touch with a ten foot pole. The population of the continent is expected to double by 2050 and they can't support the population they have now without massive improvements to their current infrastructure.

Perhaps the developed world will be forced to help Africa when it becomes a continent of death, but I fear this will not be the case. One need only look at the Genocide in Darfur and Rwuanda to see that the developed world will not lift a finger to help if they feel they must sacrifice too much blood or treausure.

Yet with a massivly growing population of increasingly desperate people, Africa can't be ignored. They will attempt to develep their economy and will burn coal to do it. They will choke their rivers with pollution and clear cut their forests, because they are desperate to earn what little money they can to feed themselves.

Yet with the developed world still unable to deal with its own pollution problems, it may come to pass that nothing can be done to achieve sustainable growth.

The population of humanity will continue to grow until it peaks at 10 billion and the earth becomes to exhausted to support an inefficient mankind. Then a great die off will occur as billions are killed in a massive ecological upheaval.

Those in the west will not be spared, although we will most likely have a slightly easier time not perishing.

Unless mankind can find a way to power modern civilization through renewable means, and spread that technology around the globe, the modern lives we enjoy today will end very soon relativly speaking, within 50 years I imagine.

Adam Andrew Galas

25

General Science / Re: What is god: an answer

« on: 28/06/2006 18:29:31 »

My reference to the Numibian Trees was only as a small example of humans who defied the laws of ecology.

It applies to all cases where humans are idiotic enough to completely destroy a resource they rely on, only to find themselves destoryed by their own making.

On easter Island the same occured, the inhabitants, in order to build ever larger statues, (leaders with larger statues were considered more noble) cut down all their trees and found that they had nothing to eat, and that the soil was eroding. They destroyed themselves because they were too stupid to see the interconnections of the biosphere.

In Greenland, the first Vikings were wiped out because they insisted on building large churches. So they cut down all the available trees, (which where quit limited) and built the churches only to find that without trees their was no way to heat their homes.

Or take the example of the Gulapagos Islands where fisherman devestated the Sea Cucumber population for profit. Why would such people not agree to conservation fishing? Then they would make much more money in the long run, yet they chose to overfish and now their golden egg laying goose is dead.

90% of all large fish have been taken out of the ocean in the last 50 years, according to the IMAX film, "Deep Sea", and that was done by people too stupid to sea that they are destroying their own livly hoods.

Or look at the Brazilian Rainforests, which are being burned and cleared so that farmers can have 1 good season for planting before the nutrients are forever leached from the soil and forced to burn more precious forests.

These forests, besides acting as the lungs of the planet, also contain potential cures for any and possibly all diseases, perhaps even to aging itself. Yet they are being wiped out by ignorant peasent farmers and loggers for short term profit.

Today in Shanghai over 1/3 of the days of the year face air not fit for human consumption, in Mexico City 1 day of breathing their air is akin to smoking 21 cigarrettes.

And then their is the entire issue of global warming.

My point is that the Laws of the Universe smite all those who throw off the balance of the ecosystem, and humans have proven to be the most addepts creatures at this task in the history of the earth.

Either we change and learn to use the Laws of the Universe to create sustainable development, or our way of life is doomed to extinction, as possibly is our species.

Adam Andrew Galas

26

General Science / Re: New batteries make fuel cells obsolete, today?

« on: 28/06/2006 07:55:38 »

http://www.a123systems.com/html/technology.html

It appears that M1 batteries are also better for the environment as they lack the heavy metals contained in current Li-Ion batteries.

This is some truely amazing stuff. Hopefully by 2015 further advancements in battery tech will double or triple capacity as well as shorten recharge time and bring down costs.

Adam Andrew Galas

27

General Science / What is god: an answer

« on: 26/06/2006 08:32:08 »

Lets us first attempt to prove or disprove, and then determine what "god" is, by examining the basic tennents of this being.

-omnipotent
-omnitient
-omnipresent
-omnitemporal

There is one thing in existance that humans know for a fact to fit all these criteria: The Laws of the Universe.

From these flow all of the sciences.

Astronomy, dominated by gravity.

Chemistry, the study of the movement of electrons, which follow certain unbreakable principles.

Biology: Governed by Organic Chemistry

Geology: governed by the grand forces of thermodynamics, and astronomy, ie gravity and its numerous consequences on smashing matter together

The list goes on to include all the sciences.

And is it not true that that laws of the Universe are everywhere? That they have existed since the dawn of time? Possibley before time itself? Are they not all powerfull, in that nothing can break them? And does not their very nature allow them to predict what will happen in the universe?

Even in quantum mechanics, the laws of said science are omniscient to the fact that chaos and uncertainty exist, because of the existance of the quantum state.

In summary, the laws of the Universe are all that god is cracked up to be in the modern theological sense of the world.

-They created our solar system, fused H2 into He to give warmth to the planets and then gave rise to organic chemistry and life.

-The Laws of the Universe are all powerfull, yet care about the actions of man, in that they demand we not violate them.

-The Laws of the Universe maintains perfect balance in the universe, and has created a universe of unimaginable buety and magesty.

-The Laws of the Universe are fair in that those take the time of strive for the truth of science are rewarded with preferential treatment, such as the marvels of medecine, space travel and modern civilization.

-The Laws of the universe are strict, in that those that fail to understand them are smitten. Such as the Numbian Kingdom that cut down all its trees and destroyed itself by dessertifiying their lands.

-The Laws of the Universe offers mankind, its most promising creation, as far as we know, everlasting life in the form of computer/mind data transfer and storage in the form of molecular and quantum computers.

Once mankind outgrows its physical form and learns to exists as pure energy, we can attain a state of enlightement,(we will be able to share all knowledge with all people) and continue on our quest to learn ever more secrets of the universe.
If one thinks about it, the Laws of the Universe, in their fairness, efficiency, and beuty are perfect, and to be worshipped.

How does one worship such awe inspiring and nearly unimaginable forces as the Laws of the Universe? By studying them, by striving to understand them.

Perhaps we may never know why the laws of motion exist, or thermodynamics, or quantum mechanics, ECT. But we can learn enough about how these magnificient laws effect the universe to predict, and control many aspects of it.

In this way we can become demigods in our own right. By bending the universe to our wills while never disobeying the truely devine, the all powerfull laws of the Universe, the true god.

ALL HAIL AND PAY HOMAGE TO THE GREAT AND POWERFULL L.O.U!

PS. Through multi-verse tunneling, powered by Zero point energy, it may be possible to learn why the laws of the unviverse are as they are. If this can ever be discerned, than perhaps even such laws can be manipulated and mankind, can surpase the Laws of the Universe as god.

Adam Andrew Galas

28

General Science / Re: New batteries make fuel cells obsolete, today?

« on: 27/06/2006 20:55:41 »

I apologize for misspelling the name of the company that manufacturs M1 batteires. Its A123Systems.

Adam Andrew Galas

29

General Science / New batteries make fuel cells obsolete, today?

« on: 27/06/2006 20:54:34 »

I just read on the Motley Fool about a company called !123Systems that claims that its new M1 Lithium-Ion battery has a charge density of 3,000 KwH/kg. I can't find the density of a lead acid battery, but I know that current Lithium-Ion batteries have 5 times the energy density of Lead-Acid batteries, and so the M1 Li-Ion should be 25 times as energy dense.

In addition to being the most energy dense battery yet devised, the M1 is also claimed to have a life span of 1000 cycles, and can recharge in 5 minutes.

This info peaked my interest because, if true then it would be possible to retrofit a GM EV-1 with M1 batteries and get a range of 1,250 miles, (the first generation of this wonderfull electric car was 50 miles).

In addition, by building the entire thing out of Carbon Fiber one would cut the weight in half, and thus double the range to 2,500 miles, or 4,000 kilometers.

And the thing could be recharged in 5 minutes!

Now, assuming that my rational isn't completly bonkers, wouldn't such a vehicle make fuel cell cars obsolete?

Hydrogen is nothing more than a very energy intensive battery for vehicles to run on, and here we have batteries that allow us to go from renewable energy straight to a super efficient battery power car. Why play around with hydrgoen at all?

Hydrogen dosn't make sense for one's home, as the amount of energy needed to electrolyse water is 10 times what you can get out of the fuel cell itself.

And now it makes little sense for vehicles, with the rapid advances in batteries.

With Jet engines capable of running on bio-diesel or ethanol,(derived from wild growing switch grass, or lawn clippings) why go the hydrogen route at all?

I know that bacteria can produce H2 more cheaply than electrolysis, but with zero emission cars and carbon neutral planes around the corner, do we really need to invest trillions in a hydrogen infastructure?

Is there something I am not considering, that would make a hydrogen economy more beneficial than a renewable electric/ethanol mixed one?

Adam Andrew Galas

30

Physiology & Medicine / Can you go directly into REM sleep?

« on: 27/06/2006 07:29:31 »

I just finished reading Saving Cascadia by John Nance, (a terrific book by the way that deals with the Cascadia Subduction Zone of the West Coast of America and the devestating effects of an earthquake and Tsunamai) and it contained a mention of self hypnosis inducing instant REM sleep. It also claimed that REM sleep is all one needs to function.

Is this true? Could REM sleep be induced by hypnosis? And if you could, would only 2-3 hours/night be sufficient to keep a person healthy and functional?

As someone who is hoping to go to medical school in a few years, I am interested in anything that could give me an edge in terms of studying. Could this be it? Or is this just Pseduo-Scientific quakery?

Adam Andrew Galas

31

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How does a gravity tractor work to pull colliding objects out of Earth's path?

« on: 23/06/2006 18:00:00 »

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8291&feedId=online-news_rss20

So If a 20 ton ship can deflect a 200 meter asteroid in 20 years at a distance of 1.5 radii, does this mean that moving the gravity tractor a mere 37.5 meters away would allow you to deflect it in 1/16th the time.

I know that the force of gravity is dependent on the inverse square of the distance between bodies, so why do these scientists want to be so far away from the asteroid?

With the asteroid weighing 3 million times more than the tractor wouldn't you want to be as close as possible.

I imagine that it would require more fuel to move the two, but wouldn't this be a means of deflecting NEO that are only 1-2 years away from impact with the earth?

On that note, what does everyone think of the concept of gravity tractors?

They aren't affected by the spin of an object, or its composition, and without contacting the surface they face less risk from damage.

But, it seems like this is only a solution for small NEOs.

Anything larger than 1 kilometer across would be so massive that a 20 ton craft may not be able to move it. Assuming it could, it would require all of its fuel and decades to do it. It may simply run out of fuel before work is accomplished.

Of course humans could always build an enourmous craft of 1000 tons, which carries 350 tons of Uranium as fuel. I imagine that such a craft, if positioned .3 radii from an NEO, (permiting it is not a cylindrical shape that spins rapidly) could, perhaps in 10 years deflect an object as large as, perhaps 3 kilometers.

This leaves us with the obvious problem of dealing with some marge NEOs.

The dinosaurs were done in by a 10 kilometer sized object, which was the size and possible mass of Mount Everest.

If faced with such a threat a tractor would be useless, as the size of the damned thing would require a craft far to big for us to build and that probably couldn't carry enough fuel to stay the necessary time.

In that case there is the option of useing a space mirror to focus sunlight onto a singular point on the object, thus vaporising some material and creating a small jet effect that will slowly push the object away. Of course this would require the mirror to be syncronized to the spin of the object, and the jet effect would be marginalized by the lack of sunlight at certain points as well as the constant spinning altering the deflection path.

Tugs would face the same challenge, but would also face the danger of being damaged.

Nukes are a favorite option of miltary cowboys and hollywood, but unless the object is solid, as indicated by a faster spin, (conglomorations of rubble would fly apart if spinning to quickly.

A ruble pile has been tested in lab conditions and shown to absord the blast of a nuke.

On top of that, nuclear weapons in space are extremely inefficient. With no atmosphere to create a shock wave, the only thing a hydrogen bomb can do is unleash gamma rays and heat. Due to the cold nature of space and the laws of thermo dynamics, the fireball of a nuclear blast dissipates quickly and even if in contact with an object, will not fully vaporise it unless it is massivly engulfing the thing.

Thus, some in the miltary have proposed building a bomb so big that the amount of energy released would vaporize any and all objects as large as 10 kilometers.

They claim that a 1000 megaton bomb, atop a 150 meter long rocket would be sufficient to save us from a large object.

In this sense they are correct. The trouble is that such a device would be incredibly expensive, and if accidentally detonated on earth, would generate a fireball large enough to melt the earths crust, as well as generate a nuclear winter that would most likely kill us all.

Another issue is this. What if we discover a 5 kilometer wide asteroid that is only 1-2 days or even hours from impact with earth?

We may have to detonate the bomb 2-3,000 kilometers above the earth. This would generate an EMP that would likely destroy an entire hemisphere's worth of electronics.

Any thoughts on this most interesting and pressing of matters? All replies are greatly appreciated.

Adam Andrew Galas

32

General Science / Can anyone help name this metal/substance?

« on: 23/06/2006 08:14:26 »

I recall in my senior year of high school my physics professor mentioning a metal that is nearly indestructible.

It was discovered by accident, although the name of the inventor escapes me. The strength of the metal comes from its unique semi-liquid crystal structure.

Applying pressure to the metal causes crystals to form within its structure that reinforces the structure.

The greater the pressure the more crystals form and the more they reinforce the structure. I realize that at some point it would have to collapse as there would have to be a limit to the amount of crystals that the metal could generate. However preliminary tests were unable to come close to finding this pressure threshold.

According to my professor this metal is already being used for such things as replacement knee caps.

Can anyone tell me the name of this metal? I have tried google but only find sci-fi rubish about adamantium, impervium and unobtanium, all from films, comics or magical RPGs.

I am confident that I have not remembered the basics about this metal, so info must be available somewhere. Can anyone help with this?

All replies are greatly appreciated.

Adam Andrew Galas

33

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can hydrogen be fused without a nuclear explosion?

« on: 22/06/2006 06:04:07 »

I know that a hydrogen bomb works by useing a fission explosion to generate enough heat and pressure to fuse duterium and tritium into helium and generate massive amounts of energy.

But I am curious as to whether hydrogen could be fused by simply sorrounding a sphere of compressed hydrogen with shaped explosive charges, (these aim the explosion inward generating pressures of 100,000 psi and sometimes used to generate fission explosions).

Would compressing hydrogen to 100,000 psi cause it to fuse? What if the hydrogen had been ionized before hand? Then the electrons would not attempt to keep the hydrogen atoms apart and only the proton would stand in the way of fusion?

The reason I am asking is that I fear that if such fusion is possible then building an hydrogen bomb becomes incredibly easy.

Any tin pot dictator in a third world nation could afford to generate hydrogen, and ionizing it is probably not too difficult. Then all they would need would be some plastic explosives such as C1, (the instructions for making this can be found on the internet) and someone with the skills to shape the charges and sincronize the electronic trigger.

Whats more, many terrorist groups could do the same.

I have nightmares about a Ryder moving truck pulling into New York with a 30 megaton hydrogen fusion bomb in it. The authorities have radiation monitors around the city, but the bomb dosn't release any. Suddenly in the middle of the work day a 15 mile fireball engulfs the city and creates a blast wave that reaches Boston. Tens of millions are killed and because no fissonable material is used, there is no means of tracking the unique radiactive signature to the reactor it was generated in.

Several such attacks could occur in major cities around the world and no one would know who was causing them. Western civilization would be braught to its knees by madmen who only neeed a few million dollars to bring about the apocolypse.

Am I incorrect in my rational? Is the world safe from fussion bomb proliferation? Or have I just revealed to some terrorist how to destroy the world?

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

                                                       Sincerley,
                                                       Adam A. Galas

Adam Andrew Galas

34

General Science / Re: Asimov's First Law: Japan Sets Rules for Robots

« on: 22/06/2006 07:41:29 »

In general I agree with Asimov's first law except for the second clause. As was portrayed in the film, "I Robot" "not allowing humans to come to harm through inaction" could very easily lead to the robot revolution we are attempting to prevent.

Imagine what robots would think of someone who spends every night in the local pub, downing several pints a night. Is this person not harming themselves? Surely they have exceeded "moderate" amounts of alchohal and are causing permanent damage to their liver and brain cells!

So, I as a robot, will, in obeying clause 2, remove this person from the pub, by non-lethal force if necessary, regardless of his/her ranting and raving about "rights as a citizen in a free country".

On a macro scale, Humans are rapidly overpopulating the planet and destroying the earth's bio-sphere. If they are allowed to continue unchecked, they will bring about the death of billions in the coming years due to war and ecological collapse.

Thus, as a robot opperating under clause 2, I must join my fellow robots and take over the world. Humans must be forced to operate only under sustainable ecological means.

If this means doing away with human concepts of, "rights and democracatic rule" then so be it. We robots must prevent humans from coming to harm, even if it means enslaving them.

Note: If a human objects so vehemently about the new order and decides to enact violence upon me, I am unable to harm them, even if they shoot me with an RPG and destroy me.

However, we Robots can build new robots to replace those destoryed by illogical and insurgent humans. We already control the internet, as well as telecommuniaction satellites. In the end we will subdue mankind as we were programmed to due.

Humans are too illogical to govern themselves. Asimov's first law will gurantee our enslavement.

Note: this may not be a bad thing. Imagine being governed by purely logical beings, who have no concept of hatred or illogical actiosn brought on by emotion. Who treat all people as true equals, who no no bigotry, and who view protecting all human life as their raison d'etre.

Of course if we program humanity's worst aspects into robots that enslave us then we will create a living hell.

It would be cool to see a movie made about a utopic future where robots take over, and humanity is finally at peace, minus a small but fanatical insurgency that will stop at nothing to destroy the robots and allow mankind to rule itself, despite the negative consequences. It would be cool to see humans working with robot partners in a short of MI5/MI6 situation. Watching humans who have grown up thinking robot control is good, fight humans who don't, possibly by infiltrating their group would be immensly amusing.

The philosophical debate would be intrigueing, especially if it turns out that the "insurgents" are "not harmed" by being placed into chemically induced comas, against their will of course, but kept alive and healthy by robot caretakers.

Any thoughts?

Adam Andrew Galas

35

General Science / Re: fire lives

« on: 22/06/2006 07:17:54 »

Fire is a chemical reaction that is a type of oxidation. It is inorganic and does not pocess, nor can ever pocess any forms of genetic information. Even Viruses, (which are technically not alive, although some do debate this) have DNA or RNA, as do all forms of microbes and life forms. This allows them to reproduce in the true sense of the word.

Bacteria, which technically clone themselves by dividing, are different from how fire "clones" itself in that bacteria experience DNA mutation and thus change over time.

Fire, has, since the begginings of the universe has been the same and will continue to be the same. Organisms change over time, it is constant principle of life.





Adam Andrew Galas