We need to convince Kimmy J that the islamic caliphate is hell bent on overthrowing his regime. He'll use a nuke, which will solve a part of the islamic problem, and will also prompt a response from the rest of the world who will hopefully not stand idly by while Kimmy J nukes human lives.
THEN we swoop in and complete George W's oil crusade and conquer OPEC! Isn't that what the left believes was the reason for invading Iraq and Afghanistan? Energy crisis solved.
There have been many ideas for faster than light travel, based on the locality problem in quantum mechanics.
Warping space time, bending reality, pretty special effects in movies, on and on with tech we don't yet have and may not be possible. ( but if we SAW FTL work, that's half the battle )
Science Fiction writers spend a lot of time thinking about FTL as a matter of plot development.
After all, Star Trek style FTL, where you fairly easily use a big computer to do the math, and jump to hyperspace pretty much anywhere ( unless the plot demands otherwise, like close pass to a star for time travel ) and can come out of warp right next to a planet, has horrifying implications. An Enemy fleet, or ship, can just appear over your capitol and reduce it to plasma before any alarms have rung.
So often you have to be a certain distance from a gravity field ( the Webber "Honor Harrington" 'verse ) so that space battles can take place out there to protect the planet, and everyone's relatives.
Or you need lengthy calculations while setting up a jump that is a one way can't stop once the button is pushed. A tiny mistake can have you appear inside a star, or 4 galaxies away. So people would be conservative about such jumps.. ( except maybe the hero, in desperation to save the Princess )
My favorite, though is from Larry Niven, who, while seeking a plot point, also wants the science to make sense. So the Thrint/Tnuctip drive uses the careful calculation can't change mid jump limitations, but also requires the ships to be travelling a substantial percentage of the speed of light, before pushing the button works, at all. Because the theory behind it assumes a heavier universe than really exists...... so they cheat by using special relativity. By making the ship very fast it gets very "heavy" and since...relativity, the universe gets really heavy. But just for that ship. "Zap!"
This fictional drive allows space warfare, but limits it. It allows colonization and commerce, but limits it too. It has the odd side effect that going a few light years doesn't really take a lot less time than going hundreds, and no voyage can happen in under a certain time, since you have to take the time to get up a running start.
In the end, in real life, My bet is that FTL is going to cheat, by making the universe different than we expected, if it isn't already.
I prefer the physics behind the heart of gold improbably drive. Yes, the same principle can be used to instantaneously move the hostís undergarments 1 foot to the right, but it doesnít matter, because I donít get invited to those kinds of parties.
I'm willing to bet things are weirder than believed by current "orthodox" science.
But I admit that's a sure bet.
Today at least 4 "absolute" theories are hotly contested and each could go either way. ( even if I have opinions )
In no particular order.
1. Locality/causality. This one's too complicated for me to compress to cartoon levels, but common sense is opposed to quantum physics. Egg/omelette?
2. "Aether" of classical Greek philosophy seems to have been disproved years ago. But recently it is thought by some that the experiment may be masked by local conditions. That the Earth and Sun may drag the "fabric of space" along, fooling the test for moving Aether. Also, the math works out if you postulate Aether, or 12 dimensional space time. And you get different "not allowed" results that haven't been tested, yet. This one has a lot of near religious fury going since it violates or explains Einstein's theories depending on your camp.
C. The EM drive. If it works it violates hard held laws like perpetual motion machines. Maybe. We seem to have an observed phenomenon that we don't have a theory for that doesn't break a bunch of other theories.
This could just be temporary until some genius points out the stunningly obvious we don't see today. Or we got a bunch of old theories to reconsider.
4. Neutrinos. Do they have mass? One currently orthodox theory says yes. Observations might disagree. Politics is involved here for reasons I don't understand except it seems to be tied into Climate Con segments of science funding. So expect death threats about particles nigh impossible to measure.
Let us translate that. "Slavery, not so bad after all"
This is presented as science. No kidding.
I'd believe a study that oppressive parents have rebellious kids that go off the deep end with sex. It's obvious that Islamic men are raised to oppress women, It's in the Book. It's public knowledge that a raped woman is likely to be murdered to ease the shame of her family in such cultures. ( where mine leans toward burning the rapist alive and feuding with his clan if need be until there are none left to take vengeance. I didn't claim to be civilized. )
The New York Times. All the propaganda that fits.
They don't care if they lie. In fact it's brownie points to paradise.
Posted on Thursday, September 28, 2017 - 12:32 pm:
I stumbled across this YouTube video that references a few graphs that I think have been posted here in the past. There was the 18 years graph as one example and then some graphs that present some information about historical trends but may be missing some information - see video.
This YouTube video goes a long way to tie together how some of this data was a bit manipulated by a guy who does PR named Patrick Moore and others. He promotes "No significant warming in the 21st century" but his arguments are weak when examined.
Posted on Thursday, September 28, 2017 - 02:14 pm:
"What a balmy Fall it has been."
As the warmists are fond of saying, (when it suits them) "Weather is not climate". They usually say this during unseasonably cold weather. And yet, they're quick to point out a balmy Fall day as final and clinching proof of global warming.
Of course the warming looks scary if you only look at the last 100 years.
Antipodal rocket travel is far older than I am, as a well thought out concept. Heinlein had 45 minutes to anywhere travel. WW2 had serious work on atmospheric skip bombers. The idea goes back to long before liquid fueled rockets existed. Goddard didn't write the first papers on the subject.
That said most believe that the technical details are not a problem and we could build these Heinleiners any time since 1960's. The reason no one has is they believe few passengers will tolerate the discomfort. Even the most gentle systems promise 2 Gs with a zero G coast phase.
I'd take that to turn a 13 hour trip to Sydney into a sub hour thrill ride. Would you?
That's two. And I'm sure many more. But not grandma and others. You think that screaming baby on the 737 is annoying? Wait until entire rows of families puke together. ( and I never blame the baby. MY ears sometimes don't like the pressure changes. I Know what's happening. Babies are just in pain. )
It's possible that limited Concorde style antipodal rocket travel will happen. It would be soooooooo cool! But the Greenies will spasm. The Coast Guard would have to intercept and sink greenie terrorists/protesting boats. Have to. Once launched, the rocket has no choice as to where and when it lands. Protesters standing on the landing pad will be burned alive and probably crash the rocket killing all aboard.
Imagine a greenie protest linking arms across the runway at JFK. ( if your thoughts go to bulldozers you are not alone )
The phrase "They wouldn't dare" is very dark humour at best and murderous idiocy at worst.
The Prager University stuff is interesting as well - University??
Zoom out and there lies the connection between the carbon levels and global temperature. Carbon is not the ONLY mover of climate temperature but it is one of the primary ones.
There are periods where carbon in the atmosphere is not elevated and yet the temperature is higher. But that is associated with other temperature movers. When all the larger players are included then the patterns and connections come into focus.
Carbon is a prime player and in the last 60 years there has been a significant increase in carbon in the atmosphere.
Science is best when it is a vigorous argument but it is generally most accurate when there is a narrowing consensus on key topics. This what we have with regards to the effects of elevated carbon in the atmosphere.
And balmy Fall days are not a clinching proof of anything of course. Just a statement of fact just as it is a cool Fall day today.
But balmy Fall days are not meaningless. My orchard requires a certain number of cool hours to do well so paying attention to individual days is a very real part of growing food. This Spring and Summer have been good for fruit but this Fall has not cooled off very fast so farmers are attentive to patterns particularly when planting today for what will be hoped to do well in 10 years.
Plant apples, well maybe but they do best with longer cooler winters. Farmers are often realists. Peaches may be a better choice. But about 40% of my honey bee hives have already died this year. It is always something.
Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2017 - 01:24 pm:
Actually if you look you see carbon dioxide goes up after it warms up. Cause and effect. The oceans store CO2. Warm water can't hold as much as cold. So when it warms up the oceans release CO2.
See soda in bottles. Take a room temperature bottle and one cooled in the fridge. Put a balloon over the mouth of each bottle and open them. Which outgasses more/ has bigger balloon? ( condoms work well in this experiment. ... you can call them balloons for young kids or make population jokes for older )
There's no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There's also no doubt that warming causes CO2. It's just blasphemy to point it out.
Consensus has nothing to do with facts. Power, yes. Facts, no.
Remember when rocks falling from the sky was an absurd fantasy? That was the consensus. Today the argument is where the rock that fell from the sky that ended the dinosaur times hit. ( I favor Iceland )
Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2017 - 04:25 pm:
Thank you Pat...saved my having to post a lead/lag primer. CO2 is a trace gas. Even with all we emit, itís still a trace gas. The oceans absorb it (spare me, we couldnít turn the oceans into acid if we made it our mission in life) and little organisms lock it up forever in their shells and create limestone when they die. Itís as if mother nature was storing all that carbon so that we could come along and release some of it just in time to save the plants from starvation. The world wonít end in fire or ice. It will end when thereís no more CO2. Plants die, we die.
Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2017 - 05:43 pm:
Thereís evidence of at least three ďplanet killerĒ impacts. The impact didnít kill all of them, nor did the darkened sky and particulates in the atmosphere. They continued on for about another 100,000 years. But the impact, it is thought, initiated the climate change that wiped them out. Not all failed to adapt, some eventually evolved into birds, but the rock falling from the sky was the beginning of the end for most of them.
Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2017 - 06:34 pm:
Asteroids are natural. Also catastrophe but so are volcanoes.
The asteroid killed the dinosaur theories are probably good guesses. There is evidence that other mass extinctions are bolide related.
The real big one was when those darn green plants started flooding the atmosphere with deadly, corrosive, burning oxygen. Killed darn near everything. Turned lovely iron sculptures to rust. May have wiped out a thriving civilization and burned the evidence away.
We assume the impact event that left us the Moon took place during a lifeless magma era, but there is literally nothing left of Earth's surface from then. Getting side swiped by a Mars sized planet will do that.
You could write a science fiction story set in the pre-chlorophyll days and have nearly Anything. An ecologically sound planetary society in harmony with nature and masters of high technology. A horrifying mutation in the oceans killing all who approach. ( maybe a bio science lab escapee ) Weapons thrown against the spreading infection that burst into flames as it nears the poisonous region. Remnants of a mighty civilization hiding in air tight shelters watching as the lands themselves and the shelter towers begin to burn. ... impossible open flames!
Excuse me. We were talking about how plant food was being used to take our wealth and freedom?
Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2017 - 09:38 pm:
Neat. I saw a documentary on Earth Two (the one we live on now, not the one that replaced the one the Vogons destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass) a few years ago. If there was a civilization before the impact that resulted on our moon, there would be no trace of it. The entire planet was liquefied by the energy released by the impact.