New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society plus New Mars Image Server

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations via email. Please see Recruiting Topic for additional information. Write newmarsmember[at_symbol]gmail.com.

#451 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Chinese economy is set to implode... » 2016-12-11 08:59:28

The reality is, I am not willing to give up half of Europe to the Russians to make them happy, if they want to start a nuclear war over that, then we're all going to die, but just remember, the Russians are committing suicide too if they do that. I don't feel that we should give up our principles just to live a little longer, we need to hold the line. The Russians lost Eastern Europe, and they aren't getting it back for free. If we give it to them, they will want more just like Hitler did when we gave him Czechoslovakia. Abandoning our principles, and basically selling the Eastern Europeans into slavery is no way to sustain World peace. I have family in Poland, maybe you don't, but I'm not selling my family into slavery. If we all die because of that, fine. I'm not going to live forever anyway, I am almost 50, might as well die adhering to my principles, because even if there is no nuclear war, I'm still going to die. Also better to die free than to live as a slave. That is my final point.

#452 Re: Not So Free Chat » Election Meddling » 2016-12-10 22:47:52

China can do what it likes, Russia can do what it likes, Trump is going to be President. he Recount has been called off, if not restarted by December 13, it is over! the election is over, you don't have to like it, but it is a fact. I had the same problem when Obama got elected twice! Now its your turn I suppose. I suggest you just give Trump a chance, he may surprise you!

#453 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The EM-Drive Starship » 2016-12-10 22:42:04

So what does happen if you attach EM drives to the rim of a wheel to make it spin and then attach the wheel to an electric generator to generate an electric current that then powers the EM drives at the rim? If we can power this from space itself, we need never invent fusion, we wouldn't need solar energy, we can have as much energy as we want any place and get as close to the speed of light as we like. We can have relativistic starships that power themselves from space! Reminds me of flubber!

#454 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Chinese economy is set to implode... » 2016-12-10 21:59:46

Void wrote:

Do you grasp the notion of an ancient rivalry between the Poles and the Russians, where the Russians regard the Poles as members of the Slavic peoples who betray the Slovs by being too cozy with the so called "West"?

I have Polish members of my family, and believe me, they do not consider themselves Russians! I do not feel inclined to abandon members of my family to the Russians. My father in law was forced to work in a coal mine by the Russians because he owned too much land, in other words he was a slave.

Now then Nato denied the Western or Near Slovs to Russia.   At the same time they denied the Mediterranean eastern orthodox peoples to the Russians as well.

Greeks aren't Russians.

Crimea was a Russified part of Russia in the time of  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev.

For some reason the Russian/Soviets decided to put take Crimea out of Russia and add it to Ukraine.

Yes an irrevocable decision, just like the sale of Alaska to the US was.

Eastern Ukraine is typically eastern orthodox and has a lot of Russian identification.  Western Ukraine relates better to the Polish side of the contest.

So we split the country, the Russian annex their part, and we bribe the Western Part of Ukraine to accept this arrangement by giving them nuclear weapons, since they started out having nuclear weapons and gave them up only upon condition that the Russians respect their borders and they have not, so if Russia reneged, then we give Ukraine nuclear weapons, to guarantee that Russia doesn't try for a further land grab in the future.

Our geniuses decided to press upon the Ukraine and tip it to the west.  Actually prior agreements with the Soviets had indicated that the west would not threaten Russian by doing such things.

It was Ukraine's decision, because strangely enough, they did not want to be Russian puppets.

Crimea was absolutely indispensable to the Russian military position, and in fact mostly does identify with Russia, so the Russians did what they did.

Okay so the Western half gets nuclear weapons as a successor state to the Soviet Union, which the UN recognized as a nuclear power, they should also get a permanent seat on the Security Council just like the Russians have. This is the price the Russians should pay to keep the land they took. No one need die, there doesn't have to be a war, I want peace just as much as you. if the Russians don't pay a price, there won't be peace.

Now you can argue right and wrong as much as you want, but the Russians aren't being jerks, they have an alternate alien view of what is going on, and they are not amused.

 
Too bad, if the want the land, they are going to have to pay a price for it, that is all I ask, it cannot be a straight robbery, because then the Russians will be tempted to rob again and their won't be peace. if you like, we can bring all the Western Ukrainians to the United States and the Russians can get all their land empty of people, do you think they would like that? We would gain all the talent and skills of those Ukrainian immigrants and they can become American citizens, an Russia gets a little bigger, would that be okay?

Right and wrong is not going to cut it here.  We don't have the binding force to bring all of the Europeans under one house.

 
Most of the Europeans agree that they don't want to be invaded and occupied by Russia, the only one who disagrees with that is Russia itself. Russia is all alone in the World, it has no friends, not s long as it acts like a brute and a bully. Most Europeans would like the Russians to change their behavior, and they would be happy to trade with them. Look again at that map of Russia, it is huge! You can fit several Europes within the existing territory of Russia!
eurasia-map1.jpg
You know what Russia really needs? A lot of immigrants, there is plenty of land there, Russia could be the land of opportunity, it just needs to provide the right incentive to get people to immigrate there, just like the United States did in the 19th century. Why does Russia need to grab these little countries on its periphery, it has more land than it can use! Instead of grabbing other people's countries and forcing the people that live their to become Russians, why don't they just try to incentivize people to immigrate there and start a new life? I'm sure there are plenty of people would would choose to go if provided the opportunity?

I would have loved to see it done from Iberia to Siberia (In a decent manner, not damaging Russian or other peoples interests), but that is completely out of reach.  We can't make that lift.  We just don't have what it takes.

What would the United States do if it was the "United States of Eurasia" and it had that land instead of Russia? Do you think we would invade Ukraine? All the immigrants who would go to North America would instead come to us. We would get a lot of Chinese and Indian immigrants. What the Russians need to do is act in a peaceful manner and stop invading its neighbors! "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I believe the Russians have that in their bible. Here is the Russian translation: Делаете другим, что бы вы их делать вам.

So, knowing that Europe is to remain fractured, we have to come up with a plan that works for America, and is reasonably moral, to work with each part of the fractured Europe.

But you see Europe is part of our family, and we do not abandon our family. Do you have family members in Europe, do you want the Russians enslaving them as they did my father in law during the Cold War?

And I can tell you my calculations indicate that Scandinavians, Slovs (Near and Far), and Sino's will be in the ascendency for 512 years in general, and many others will be in decline for that time period.  Our great fortune as Americans is that we can function in all worlds.

So, it is stupid to annoy the Slovs.

We annoyed Hitler. We couldn't help it really, Hitler wanted to be master of Europe, Great Britain said no, it could have said yes, and London would have been spared the bombing it received, World War II would have been over, the Japs would not have bombed Pearl Harbor then, there would have been nothing FDR could have done, unless he wanted to start another war, and I don't think the US Congress would have supported him if he did. The Jews of Europe would have been as good as dead, there would be no rescue for them.

#455 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2016-12-10 21:51:53

I don't know if there are any Russian resorts, never heard of any. Trump likes warm places anyway. You saying only poor people like me should be president? Anyone who is likely to do a good job should be disqualified, right?

Actually poor people like me are more likely to have conflicts of interests, I'm more easy to bribe than a billionaire, the temptation would be greater for me, than for Donald Trump, who is already rich! Trump could retire right now, but he is in it for the challenge, not the money!

#456 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Chinese economy is set to implode... » 2016-12-10 18:30:36

If the "Near Slavs" come out of the Western Roman tradition, they therefore don't belong to the Russians, by protecting them, we are simply protecting our own culture. Russia is a great empire, it has a lot of land. much more land than it has people to fill it.
eurasia-map1.jpg
This is a huge country, and look at the rest of Europe sitting next to it, it looks small compared to Russia doesn't it? Why should Russia feel threatened by our protecting that? the countries we are protecting begin with Georgia and go all the way up to Norway, the whole area west of that line is in essence, Western Europe, and as you can see, Russia has the Eastern half plus a huge swath of Asia as well!

#457 Re: Not So Free Chat » NAFTA nation for lack of a better name » 2016-12-10 18:17:30

RobertDyck wrote:

What's up with your obsession over expansion?

Trump is all about expansion, throughout his career h has sought to expand his business, and as President of the United States, why shouldn't be seek to expand it as well? I think Cuba is a ripe fruit about to fall from the tree. Do you know it was a Republican Administration that was responsible for its independence from the Spanish Empire? I think Cuba is a piece of unfinished Republican business. Cuba is a sister state to Puerto Rico.
puerto_rico_flag_stencil_by_joey23ep.jpg
cuba-flag_121249202.png
Maybe we can bring these two sisters back together, what do you think? I think an even number of stars would look good on the flag of the United States, so we should add two at a time.

#458 Re: Not So Free Chat » Election Meddling » 2016-12-10 18:08:40

GW Johnson wrote:

Aw,  for crying out loud!  Putin wanted Trump because he can manipulate Trump into doing what Putin wants,  and he couldn't manipulate Clinton.

 
Who do you think is smarter, Trump or Putin? If Trump was easy to manipulate, he would have lost his family fortune to some scam artist a long time ago. Have you ever heard the expression, "A fool and his money are soon parted?" Trump is no fool!

Trump biggest investors of late are Russian.

 
Not all Russians are supporters of Putin, just like not all Germans during World War II were supporters of Hitler, that is an over simplification.

That means he is in hoc to the same Russian mafia that keeps Putin in power.

 
How many resorts does Trump own in Russia? Its very simple. In order to win an election, you need to find differences with your opponent in order to argue you and not her! Trump used the worsening relations with Russia as a wedge issue between himself and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now that he's won, Trump doesn't need to do anything for Putin, he owes few people anything, about half of the Republican Party did not support him, he got elected with some blue collar Democrats crossing the line to vote for him instead of Hillary!

We've seen this before in 1930's Chicago:  when you owe money to an armed mob,  you do what they tell you to do.  And don't think that Russian mafia isn't armed,  from their point of view,  that's the purpose in supporting Putin.

 
Donald Trump is soon to be commander in chief of the most powerful country in the World, his America First policy will not always serve Russia or Putin. There is little that the Russian mob can do to him that will not start a war with the United States, after all assassinating a head of state is considered an act of war! I don't think Russia will do that. If they supported Donald Trump, and expect to take advantage of him, then I think were mistaken.

Add to that,  Trump is a compulsive counterpuncher.  It's a psychological failing,  a weakness deriving from a fundamental insecurity somewhere.  Bait him,  and he will respond,  he cannot help but respond.  Putin knows this,  and has experience from his KGB days exploiting characteristics like this.

I don't see how Trump counter punching Russia is an advantage to Russia, its generally not a goo idea to bait a guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger! I think they will give him a wide berth!

Now,  lest Tom think I am a "liberal Clinton supporter";  consider this:  I DO NOT believe in political ideologies.  They are LIES,  and they make bad public policy.  Both the left and the right are LIARS,  as far as I am concerned.  And,  they have exaggerated this politicing to the point of treason.  I say that becase "winning" is prioritized far higher than "the good of the country".  I consider that treason,  and millions have already witnessed it.

That is an overgeneralization, some political ideologies do work and others do not, you judge them by their merits and their results. The results indicate that freedom works ad tyranny does not, the United States has outlasted Napoleon, Hitler, and the Soviet Union, these other ideologies did not stand the test of time, American freedom has! You need to be objective, the Soviet Union is no more, it has been replaced by a fascist dictator, so Russia still has some distance to travel before they get I right.

I ran a trade study some months back on Trump and Clinton. I found two salient results:  (1) both were utterly despicable candidates,  and (2) Clinton was the slightly lesser of the two evils because she would bring less chaos.  My conclusions are indeed being borne out:  observe the chaos of the transition,  and the chaos that science-deniers and otherwise-know-nothings are going to bring to the agencies they will head.

 
What chaos, the appointments Trump has made to his cabinet have proceeded apace, the Sore Loser Press has reported on chaos, or so I've heard, because I have not really read any of it! Trump received a phone call from the leader of Taiwan, congratulating him on his election, the Chinese Government was outraged, Trump doesn't really care!

Observe also that a fair fraction of Trump's advisors come from the same Goldman Sachs that was instrumental in the Wall Street-precipitated Great Recession.

 
Same people that contributed to Clinton's campaign, so? You appoint successful people if you want a successful Administration. Would you rather see me as Treasury Secretary instead? I can go to Trump Tower and see about getting myself an Administration appointment, I could use the fact that I am not a billionaire as a major selling point, I could argue that he has too many rich people and that he should appoint someone like me instead. How do you think that would work?

Trump was on Goldman Sach's do-not-loan list at the time of the crash,  because his history is abuse of the bankruptcy laws to avoid paying back creditors at all (6 such bankruptcies,  all matters of public record,  Tom!  The bankers all agree:  Trump is a promoter,  not a real businessman). 

So why would these Goldman Sachs executives serve in his cabinet?  To manipulate him the same way Putin will,  to get what they want (which is to profit massively as they finish destroying the middle class).   The other corporate giants are there to do exactly the same thing.

 
If they think that, they are fools indeed! Just because they think they can manipulate Trump doesn't mean they can! Sometimes Trump wants you to think he can be manipulated, that is how he operates, he want people to underestimate him!

This is exactly why I hated both Trump and Clinton:  they perpetuate the giant corporate welfare state,  the rule by the rich elite if you prefer that terminology.  Trump LIED to his angry left-behind supporters during the campaign.  The Carrier jobs thing is only window-dressing.  He has no intention of dismantling the giant corporate welfare state that has left them behind for 3 generations now.  He's part and parcel of it,  just like Clinton.  Which is why I hate them both.

But Trump has no record in government, Hillary Clinton has! You are making assumptions about him that cannot be proven or disproven until he has had a chance at being President, he has held no political office before!

Take the blinders off and perceive the lies that are the agendas and ideologies of both parties!

Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying?    (Answer - his lips are moving.)

GW

Don't worry, if Trump turns out to be a liar, I am sure there will be plenty of Republicans willing to challenge him in the next primary, starting with Ted Cruz!

#459 Re: Not So Free Chat » Election Meddling » 2016-12-10 17:39:35

SpaceNut wrote:

When I look at the percentage of counted I am upset that many votes have not been counted regardless of any change of out come in that it means votes do not count.....that needs to be fixed.

There are many votes that should not be counted as well, the votes of noncitizens, the votes of dead people, the votes of people who have already voted and are now voting in a different state, for example. I have received voting cards in the mail for my dead mother, and my brother who lives in Alaska! I have seen my brother's name on the voting register next to mine, even though he doesn't live with us, its not hard to imagine someone taking advantage of this and voting more than once. Not every vote should be counted, the illegitimate ones should not be! We definitely need voter ID, people who cannot prove they are US citizens should not be allowed to vote. No legitimate voter should be disenfranchised,  but illegitimate voters who's votes are counted when they should not be disenfranchise every legitimate voter who voted opposite of an illegitimate voter.

#460 Re: Not So Free Chat » NAFTA nation for lack of a better name » 2016-12-10 17:32:08

RobertDyck wrote:
Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Lets see, what happens when I suggest to RoberyDyck that Canada join the United States?
...
Most liberals in the United States don't believe that the government of a State is the right place to go to implement their policies, they always look to do that at the national level.

Ottawa can do some things. But I'm going to prove Tom wrong. Yesterday was a "First Ministers" conference. That means the Prime Minister of Canada met with the Premiers of all the provinces. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to impose a carbon tax, and is trying to coerce the provinces to do it. Months ago he threatened that if any province refused to do so, he would have the federal government impose a carbon tax on that province. He left the provinces the option of "cap and trade" instead of carbon tax, but he demands some sort of carbon pricing. The premier of Saskatchewan is adamantly opposed to any form of carbon pricing. The premier of my province, Manitoba, was just elected this fall. The out going premier of Manitoba had said he would not impose any form of carbon pricing in this province. The new premier had not agreed to carbon pricing either, but media claimed he had waffled. At the meeting of First Ministers yesterday, the new premier of Manitoba refused to impose carbon pricing on my province.
...
So there. In this case I support province rights, and another party. tongue

It is interesting how Canada, until recently because of its Conservative Government, stood to the Right politically of the United States under Obama. now with the election of Donald Trump the US and Canada have just switched places on the Political spectrum. The main difference between Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama, is that Justin Trudeau doesn't have the antipathy towards Canada that Barack Obama has towards the United States. I think it was unfortunate when he expressed his regrets at the passing of Cuba's late Dictator and longest serving President Fidel Castro. I think Puerto Rico would make a great 51st state, and its sister Cuba would make a great 52nd state, I think there maybe an opportunity for just such an occurrence coming up shortly, we'll see, he model is East Germany's reunification with the rest of Germany. Cuba will be in pretty poor shape when they finally get rid of the Communist government, Raul Castro is very old, I'm not sure how long he'll last, maybe Trump will be President when he finally kicks the bucket, I hope he takes advantage of whatever opportunity arises and makes a deal. As I said before, we need to make the United States a more attractive place to join, that means weakening the Federal Government on most things besides Defense. I say we make Cuba an offer.

#461 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The EM-Drive Starship » 2016-12-10 17:14:38

Why do you suppose the story has stuck around for so long then? Cold Fusion didn't last this long. If the story is false, it should be easy to disprove, now they are talking about sending one into space. I disagree with the test they propose, putting it into orbit and seeing if it could arrest orbital decay due to atmospheric drag. What is there is less atmospheric drag than supposed? That is not proof at all! What I would like to see would be to use such a drive to achieve a higher orbit, not one that slows down orbital decay!

#462 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Chinese economy is set to implode... » 2016-12-10 00:44:51

Void wrote:

Here are some reading materials for you Tom.
http://www.1913intel.com/2016/12/06/tru … l-futures/
Quote:

Trump, Taiwan and an Uproar | Geopolitical Futures
December 6, 2016 Matt
Trump signaled to China that he can take away what Nixon gave them. By doing what Nixon did – using volatility and unpredictability to intimidate – Trump set the stage for a negotiation that China can’t refuse.

Now look at this map, and think about what we could get if we crushed Russia (If they would not nuke us first).
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Md5f … d=3.1&rm=2

Do you see that they are between us an a lot of things we like much less?  So, their military protecting Russia, also protects North America.  And we don't have to pay a dime of shed blood for it.

And here is a video from Peter Zeihan, which is interesting.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pe … ORM=VRDGAR
As I see it we can get a lot more from China and Russia with a carrot than a stick.  They both have big issues coming.

Oh I quite agree! But I also see them supporting countries like Iran and North Korea, part of what motivates the Russians and the Chinese is their rivalry with us. In China, their rivalry with is getting in the way of their doing mutually beneficial business with us. In Russia, their wounded pride at "losing" the Cold War has gotten in the way of their having beneficial trade relationships with the rest of Europe and the United States. I say "the rest of Europe" and not Western Europe  because there is no "Western Europe" if there is no "Eastern Europe" and right now Eastern Europe doesn't exist, it is only one country called Russia! West and East are meaningless geographical distinctions in the Europe of today, geography doesn't determine their outlook. What was once Eastern Europe was the result of the way World War II ended, it ended with the Russian Army occupying more than half of Europe and holding these other Eastern European countries captive, they determined their governments and their government's foreign policies and defense postures. The people of those countries had little say in what those Russian controlled governments did, now they do, and so now there is no longer any Eastern Europe. When Russia calls a country, such as Poland, an Eastern European country, that just means it wants to conquer them. We need to convince Russia that their is more benefit in trade than in conquest. Russia has more land than it needs, what it needs to do really is convince foreigner to immigrate and become Russian citizens, and Russia's economy can grow.

If Hitler didn't exist, Russia might have started World War II, and if Russia was defeated, Russia as a defeated country would probably be better off today than it is now, much as Germany benefitted by losing World War II! Since Russia wasn't defeated in World War II, it wasn't reorganized by the victorious allies, it wasn't set on its feet by a new democratic government, it received no aid from the Marshall plan. The average Russian citizen would have been wealthier than they are now. The funny thing is, what the Russians want isn't necessarily the best thing for them.

#463 Re: Not So Free Chat » NAFTA nation for lack of a better name » 2016-12-10 00:23:59

I think European States are conflicted, on one hand they want to preserve their national identity, on the other hand they want o be strong enough to resist aggression and conquest. There is strength in numbers, all the countries of free Europe can pool their resource together and make themselves into a superpower just like the United States, problem is they risk the central government getting too strong and crushing their national identities and cultures. Now the 50 states of the United States don't have strong national identities, part of the reason is that the Federal Government got too strong, and didn't leave enough stuff for the State Governments to do, there used to be a stronger state affiliation, part of this was reflected in the Southern Rebellion of the Civil War, slavery was the spark that lit this fire, but the fuel was State Pride and resistance to the Federal Government telling them what to do, this is how the South got people who didn't own slaves to fight for the continuance of slavery. Slavery was an unfortunate cause to rally behind, but a lot of it was simply stubbornness and resistance to the Federal Government telling them what to do. The thing is, in this they had a point, the Federal Government was usurping their states rights, and although fighting slavery was a just cause, when the Federal government won, it also became more powerful in relation to the states, and it has continued to get more powerful ever since. Maybe at one point the Federal government was too weak, if it was stronger the Civil War would not have happened, but now the scaled has tipped too much towards the Federal Government and it needs to be rebalanced towards the states, not so much that they break off and become separate nations, but there is a balancing act. We need the Federal Government strong enough to keep us as one nation, but not so strong as to crush he power of the states. The Federal Government was after all created to benefit the states, not crush them. We could recruit new states if we didn't have such an overbearing and overpowerful Federal government as we do now.

Am I wrong? Lets see, what happens when I suggest to RoberyDyck that Canada join the United States? He gets mad, he calls the United States Imperialistic and overbearing, and what he is actually criticizing is the overbearing Federal Government that has crushed the independence of the 50 states, and he doesn't want the same thing happening to his country. That's understandable, but try to get him to admit that! I think he believes in the power of the Ottawa government to fix things, lots of people to the left of center politically look towards the central government as the solver of problems, not to the government of say Ontario, or Alberta for example.

Most liberals in the United States don't believe that the government of a State is the right place to go to implement their policies, they always look to do that at the national level. Liberals always go to Washington is they are Americans. If they can't get Washington to do what they want, then they go to a suitably liberal state government, but they would rather implement it at a national level if they could.

#464 Re: Not So Free Chat » Election Meddling » 2016-12-10 00:02:19

Why would Russia want to help Trump? Seriously! You would think they would want Hillary to win, because then they could have a weak President that they could take advantage of, they could invade more countries, take more land, and as they do that, they would make the US President look foolish and weak. Now if Putin tries to take advantage of Trump, he will quickly burn up Trump's good will towards Russia. You have to remember, Trump has a big ego, if Putin invades a country, an makes Trump look weak and ineffectual, Trump's popularity will go down, this will make Trump look foolish, and he is not the sort to take a gut punch and shrug it off! Trump will retaliate against Russia because of his hurt pride. Trump does not take insults sitting down! So what are the advantages to Russia in Trump being President? Nothing! There are more advantages to Russia having a weak Jimmy Carter like President, who doesn't mind the slings and arrows the Russians throw at him, so there is no reason for Russia to hack into the election and affect the voting results in Trump's favor.

#465 Interplanetary transportation » The EM-Drive Starship » 2016-12-09 23:53:04

Tom Kalbfus
Replies: 39

I was thinking about this, and if the EM-Drive actually works, we can build this sort of starship:
Lets build a starship the size of an O'Neill Cylinder, it is 4 miles wide and 20 miles long, and it rotates for gravity.
Instead of having windows to let in sunlight, we have an artificial light source powered by electricity, the power source is the EM-Drive. There are a bunch of EM-Drives applying tangential thrust to a wheel, spinning it, and the wheel turns a generator producing electricity, some of the electricity is fed back to the EM-Drives that are spinning the wheel, the surplus powers the artificial lighting that keeps the colony lit up and warm, and some goes to the main EM-Drive thrusters accelerating the starship. The starship needs no fuel, and it needs no reaction mass, it just accelerates for as long as the EM-Drives have people to maintain them. The ship accelerates slowly, but over time it draws closer to the speed of light. The ship will need thick shielding to protect against cosmic rays, you might think there is a limit to how fast this starship can go, but it can always build thicker shielding to protect itself enroute, it has a surplus of energy that its EM-Drive keeps on producing from nothing, so it can make as much matter as it needs, and it can thicken the shields up front so it can go even faster. Can you see a problem with this starship?

#466 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Impossible Propulsion Drive Is Heading to Space » 2016-12-09 11:51:07

The EM drive was brought up again on the John Bachelor Radio show, it seems this doesn't go away. You know what this reminds me of?
Flubber.
fea679d3b42efa23b54d6ad7b25e7f27.jpg
In the movie, a type of putty was invented, that when shaped into a ball and dropped would bounce and with each subsequent bounce the flubber ball would bounce higher gaining energy. The professor even developed a type of propulsion system using flubber balls bouncing around in a chamber. What would you suggest are the similarities and differences between say the flubber ball propelled flying car and the EM drive?

#467 Re: Not So Free Chat » NAFTA nation for lack of a better name » 2016-12-09 09:57:50

The only difference between the United States and the European Union, was that the EU's constitution was poorly written, you have member states that do not contribute to the Common Defense, such are Ireland, and Austria, You have a defense organization such as NATO which is separate from the EU. The EU is basically a substitute for the United States, if all the EU and NATO members joined the United States, it would make a much more effective Union, it would be able to defend itself, and it would have much more resources to do the job. One of the great barriers to new states joining the United States, is its overbearing Federal Government, while NATO and the EU government too little, the US Federal Government governs too much! The US Government steps on too many cultural toes, it has no business deciding for all 50 states what marriage is and how it should be defined. I think this Union needs to be loosed up a bit, the EU is too loose, it is too easy for a member state to secede from the Union, because the EU doesn't have a military force, NATO isn't subordinate to it The original idea behind the US Constitution was that it was a mechanism for collective security for all 13 states. The most explosive growth in the United States was before the Civil War, that was back when the US Government supported itself with tariffs, and the States did most of the governing when it didn't come to defense matters. One of the side effects of the Civil War, besides the abolition of slavery was to make the Federal Government much stronger in relation to the states. I think if we are to expand the United States, we need to make the Federal Government weaker and the state governments stronger, that way it would be more attractive for new member states to join. That is why I say we don't need a Federal EPA or Education Department, we need to get down to basics, to what the Federal Government was created for in the first place. Do you honestly think the Founding Fathers had the EPA in mind when they wrote the Constitution?

#468 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming Race: Mars vs Venus » 2016-12-07 23:37:22

Antius wrote:

The hydrogen, by far.  The Earth's oceans are kilometres deep.  The atmospheric mass is about 2 orders of magnitude less, though still enormous.

You come up with some interesting ideas, but you appear to lack engineering judgement.  You find it difficult to judge the scale of what you discuss and guage its practicality.  Yet you seem capable of doing the math.  Everything we discuss here is far out, mind you.

Exactly the point, we won't live to see any of it happen, unless we get nanotechnology and indefinite life extension. I think some underestimate the difficulty of terraforming Mars. Venus by the way would have shallower oceans than Earth, and much of the mass for its oceans would come right out of its atmosphere, after all carbon dioxide is mostly oxygen, each oxygen atom requires two hydrogen atoms to make a water molecule.

#469 Re: Not So Free Chat » NAFTA nation for lack of a better name » 2016-12-07 23:28:04

Antius wrote:
Terraformer wrote:

Eh, I think it could work. It would require adding 50 new provinces to Canada, and they'd have to get used to having the Queen on their money, how does that sound? Maybe not take all of them, but allowing the border states to join the Expanded Provinces, so there are no enclaves in the United States.

I can’t see the point of this.  We already cooperate on common projects and are all part of NATO.  Perhaps there are grounds for deeper economic and military unions, but a common nation?

Trying to maintain a nation that spans three different continents is something the UK has some experience of.  Does anyone really expect that a government thousands of miles away is going to be more effective than one close by, made up of people that actually live there?  I already feel that politicians in London are detached, ivory tower ideologues.  Are politicians in Washington really going to understand problems in Manchester or Glasgow any better than politicians in London?  Can they really deal with problems in those places any more effectively?

The answer should be obvious.  It is why the UK made Canada and Australia first dominions and then independent countries in the first place.  It was not practical to govern these regions from a capital on a different continent.  Although transportation has improved now, I still cannot see it being practical to deal with issues in Australia from a capital in the US or London.  Every time you need to meet to discuss an issue you have a 20 hour plane journey to contend with.  And teleconference, whilst a useful tool, is never as good as actually being there.  All of these countries have separate legal systems and different climatic conditions that necessitate different codes and standards.  The European Union is collapsing as we speak due to these very problems.  Bureaucrats in Brussels cannot effectively develop one size fits all solutions for entirely different economies, with separate legal systems and different cultural priorities.

The glue which would have held the British Empire together were its North American colonies. When the United States became a separate country, the bulk of the British Empire was in India, Canada was an Empty country, Australia was an empty continent, New Zealand was a couple of islands. The rest of the British Empire consisted of colonies with majority Native populations. Its hard to rule a country, when the majority do not consider you to be one of them. The Indians wanted their independence, they did not want to be ruled by a white minority from London, and the British did not want to give the native Indian population equals rights and the right to vote in parliament, because then it would become the "Indian Empire!"

If the American Revolution never happened, then World War II might no have happened, it was one thing for the Third Reich to go against the British Empire and have the United States stay neutral for the first three years, but if the United States was part of the British Empire, there would have been no neutrality, the resources of the United States added to Great Britain would have landed on Germany like a ton of bricks. Hitler's strategy relied on keeping the allies divided so they could conquer on country at a time. A United British Empire that included North America all the way down to he border of Mexico, would have been something Hilter would not have wanted to tangle with!
Putin is much the same, when he looks at a map of Europe, he sees a bunch of small countries, so he figures if he can keep them divided, he can conquer them one at a time, while giving the others reasons to remain neutral until their turn to be conquered came up. Putin can sign a peace pact with France while he invades Poland, and reassure the French that all he wants is Poland, so the French remain neutral.

#470 Re: Not So Free Chat » NAFTA nation for lack of a better name » 2016-12-07 09:11:38

Terraformer wrote:

If there was to be a North American Union, I think it would have to start with the US and Canada, since the gap between them economically and culturally isn't anywhere near as big as that between them and Mexico. Though I have my eyes on Canada for a stronger Commonwealth, instead, comprised of the anglospheric CANZUK countries. I think a CANZUK union would actually be a potential superpower...

There is one American Union already, it is the one soldiers in blue fought for against the Confederacy during the Civil War, The United States of America is a Union of states, its constitution was designed to protect states rights against a Federal Government which seeks too much power, but citizens must be active in making this happen. I don't think we need to create a whole entirely new creature out of whole cloth, we have a North American Union already, and we have a mechanism to accepting new states, although it hasn't been used much recently. Canada can join the Union as either one state or many, as one state it would have the population of California, as many states it would get more representation in Congress. No need to write a new Constitution, we can use the one that was written in 1788, it has an amendment process and has worked pretty well so far. We don't need to reinvent the Federal Republic every time we propose a larger union. We have one that works quite well right now. Now lets talk about the differences between the three North American countries, the people of Mexico are called Mexicans, the people of Canada are called Canadians, but the people of the United States are called simply Americans, America is the name of the Continent in which the United States are of, in a sense Canadians and Mexicans are also Americans because they live on that continent. We Americans didn't bother naming our nationality so we just too the name of the continent instead! Maybe that's because we were the first independent country of the Americans while the rest were colonies, every other country that got their independence afterwards needed a name to distinguish themselves from us, we didn't. So one path would be for other countries to join our Union, each addition would change us as a people, adding Mexico would add a whole lot of Hispanics, adding Canada would add another 30 million people to our population, it probably would not be noticed as much. Then there are other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the UK, put those together and we have the entire Anglosphere in one political unit, I'd invite Ireland to join as well.

#471 Re: Not So Free Chat » NAFTA nation for lack of a better name » 2016-12-07 08:55:10

GW Johnson wrote:

Tom,  you idiot,  look at the facts instead of your f**king ideology!  Pollution crosses state lines and has for a long time now.  It even crosses international boundaries and entire oceans.  Those are INDISPUTABLE facts. 

You do NOT effectively address things that widespread on a state-by-state basis.  That's the most egregiously-stupid thing you have said yet,  at least that I have observed!

We have cleaner air and water than China precisely because we have had an EPA (and the corresponding state agencies!!!) for a long time now,  and they (the Chinese) never did until recently,  if at all.  Again,  look at facts,  NOT your ideology!  Ideology is LIES,  no matter whose!

I told you already just above what is wrong with EPA,  why it has gone completely off the rails filing too many lawsuits over too many Byzantine regulations.  EPA is a mostly just pack of lawyers today.  They have few,  if any,  credible scientists anymore.  Why ELSE would the toxic chemicals list have seen no progress in at least 20 years?

Fix the lawyer problem,  and modernize the regulations to eliminate their influence,  and you will have a far more effective agency,  cleaner water and air,  and far less onerous paperwork bullshit to comply with. 

And get the f**king politics out of their work,  too!

An example:  why require asbestos removal when asbestos fiber concentrations are invariably higher after "remediation" than before?  Just repaint over it and use it in place.  But DO NOT sand,  grind,  scrape,  scratch,  or otherwise fragment it!  No matter what else,  don't do anything like those activities.  And don't use it in new things unless there is no other way.  That's the only asbestos regulation we need.  And everybody in that asbestos remediation industry already knows that,  but will not speak up because their livelihoods are fundamentally based on an over-regulated lie!  Catch-22!

Another example:  metallic mercury CANNOT hurt you until it is heated to steam temperatures.  We have known that for over two centuries.  So why is such a big deal made over spilling it?  Because methyl mercury (from paper mills) CAN hurt you (quickly and drastically),  AND those technically-ignorant lawyers cannot distinguish between the liquid metal and the organo-metallic liquid soluble in water. 

There are many more equally egregiously-stupid examples.  Need I go on?  I hope not. 

GW

I'm just saying since the states already have environmental regulatory agencies, we don't need a Federal one, just as we don't need a Federal Education department either, rather that try to fix those two agencies, why not just get rid of them and save some money. Next tie some Administration wants to use the EPA to go beat down private property rights and businesses, it won't be there! The IRS has been used as a weapon against Republicans, so I would get rid of that too, though the Trump Administration doesn't appear to be so inclined. This practice of using Federal Agencies as political weapons against classes of people has got to stop, which is why I don't trust the Federal Government to do much of anything other than the stuff that only Federal Governments can do, such as National Defense for instance. If each state had its own Defense Department, there would be 50 countries instead of 50 states, so obviously that is a Federal Responsibility, but we don't need a Federal EPA. The environment is local, let it be handled by the states! Another example would be NASA, NASA is a Federal Agency, and there are no comparable state Space Agencies, if there were, not every state would have one, their budgets would be too small to accomplish mush of anything as each state would have a different idea of what to do, and space exploration is way down the list of priorities for states to do, so therefore NASA is a Federal Agency, Education on the other hand has a high priority among states, each state has a different idea of what's important, and we don't need a Federal Education Department, because that only becomes a propaganda tool for the Federal Government to indoctrinate our children, it is also uncompetitive, states compete with each other and they can measure their educational programs against each other, but not if the Federal Government sets uniform standards for them!

#472 Re: Not So Free Chat » NAFTA nation for lack of a better name » 2016-12-06 14:03:19

The simplest course is to let the States worry about their environments and get the Federal Government out of the business of regulating the environment. I'm sure if the EPA ceased to exist, and the States would all want dirty air and dirty water, naw quite the opposite in fact, so why not trust the states t regulate their own environment? The EPA was created by the Nixon Administration after all, the United States had parks before he Nixon Administration. The Federal Government is concerned with the whole country, but individual states are concerned with themselves. The Federal government does no care if some backwater state suffers because few people live their, but the government of that same state does! Its time we got back to being a Federal Republic, and stop the Federal Government from subsuming all the functions of state government, and allow those states to develop.

#473 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming Race: Mars vs Venus » 2016-12-06 13:56:02

Venus gets closest however, a terraformed Venus will have 91% Earth gravity, a 24-hour day, 365 day year with seasons (with artificial lighting), it has active geology, a full nitrogen atmosphere. Mars may have to import nitrogen or have a thin atmosphere with a higher percentage of oxygen. It all depends on what your willing to do with it. Brute force techniques include changing its orbit, spin, and axial tilt, for a price, you can have another Earth in this Solar System. One can instead cloak Venus from the Sun, and introduce artificial lighting to produce those day and seasonal effects as well as generate an artificial magnetic field if desired. Venus needs to import a lot of hydrogen to make oceans with its oxygen. Mars needs to import a lot of nitrogen to bulk up its atmosphere, now which weighs more? the hydrogen to make the Venusian oceans or the Nitrogen to bulk up the Martian atmosphere?

#474 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming Race: Mars vs Venus » 2016-12-06 11:37:05

Antius wrote:

Feeling bored Tom? 

I think Terraformer has already said it all.  Humans could live on Mars without substantial modification to the environment.  Any changes we do introduce would make life easier, though it is unlikely we would ever reach Earth analogue conditions.

Venus on the other hand would require a lot of planetary engineering before anyone could set foot on its surface.  Even after temperatures and pressures have declined, the prospects don’t look good.  The planet is drier than the moon and has substantial gravity which complicates imports and exports.  The weaker Martian gravity works in its favour for most human activities.  If you ever want to leave or export something valuable, it is relatively easy.  There are business models that work for Mars, it is difficult to see Venus as anything other than a prison.  Mercury is a more promising prospect than Venus.  There are literally hundreds of worlds in our solar system that would appear to be more attractive prospects.

But the gravity makes it more earthlike, all other factors can be adjusted including the amount of light it receives, but gravity can't be changed. You can make Mars as Earthlike as its gravity will allow, but even if you adjust all other conditions, just taking a few steps will tell you that you are not on Earth!

#475 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming Race: Mars vs Venus » 2016-12-06 09:09:25

I was thinking maybe thickening the clouds would do the trick. If less light reaches the surface of the planet, then less will be absorbed and reradiated as heat, and less heat will be trapped by the atmosphere. So thickening the clouds reflects more back into space, and as the planet cools, some of the clouds precipitate out and produce holes in the cloud deck, so we have to patch those holes. So my idea is to have evenly spaced towers that create more clouds where they are needed to fill in those holes in the cloud layer. We will need more water, and to keep injecting it into the atmosphere until the saturation point is reached and clouds form. And we just keep on doing this, so the planet stays covered with clouds even as he temperature drops down below.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB