Leaderboard

Roughly 90% of stocks are either purchased in passive funds like indexed funds, or by actively managed funds. Individuals make up the other 10%. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/passive-investing-now-controls-nearly-half-the-us-stock-market.html That means the price of 90% of the stocks is set by what stock analysts are willing to pay. Weak stock pickers don't keep their job very long.

It's another case of the law of unintended consequences. I'm sure the people who invented the plastic bottle never thought it was gonna grow to the scale it has. That's why I think we must change technologies from time to time. My rule of thumb is: Never do the same thing for 200'000 years. Neanderthals could afford it. We can't.

Not that I agree with, or like, IDNeon's posting style. Nor do I agree with many of his assertions. We most certainly will go to the Moon, and ( not anytime soon ) Mars. But the 50s and 60s were different times, after the 70s, beancounters made the decisions, and still do to this day. But some I do agree with. Last year was the first year Tesla ever made a profit, yet it is one of the most valuable companies in the world. SpaceX has no new technology, but NASA didn't have to pony-up development money for a new launcher ( to low Earth orbit ). I would not be surprised if SpaceX/E Musk is losing money with every launch. But hey, E Musk gets to make outlandish claims and gets publicity. And similarly to a 'cult', people lap it up. Does the CEO of GM, or the head of NASA, go on Saturday Night Live ? Do they make an announcement about having bought their strangely named kid a variety of bitcoin, which jumps in value several hundred percent in the next couple of days, due to their millions of Instagram followers ? Do they use their launching system to put a car into space ???? Of course not ! These are all E Musk publicity stunts. He's developing his cult of personalty. And of course he'll succeed, because we, as a socety, place popularity above all else. It's the same reason we buy a $1200 iPhones, and replace them yearly when the new model comes out, or buy a $2000 Macbook when a $600 Lenovo or Dell will do the same job, making Apple the most valuable company in the world.

I agree it is a very bad start, but the bad start is yours. Here are principle problems with your opening post: You have taken no time to familiarise yourself with the forum style. Had you done so you would have recognised the suspicion with which videos are provisionally regarded. Science is best presented in refereed papers, not videos. I think there is even a forum rule about posting videos without a clear summary of contents. You failed to post such a summary. You failed to indicate what exactly you wished to discuss. You have failed to make it clear what your position on Flat Earth thinking is. You OP is ambiguous in this regard. With that in mind, why don't you give it another go, since you may very well have something well worth discussing. I'd be interested to learn what that is, without first having to invest time in watching a video sans summary.

No one is denying that there will be many problems to overcome Ken, and no one is denying that new technology will be needed to achieve a manned landing. We all have told you that. What this current debacle is about is someone with an agenda as obvious as dog balls, spraying all the unsupported venom and trolling he can muster at someone [Musk and Space-X] who is at least trying something, achieving much success and with a vision. Time at this stage for a famous quote

Soooo Are you saying theis class doesn't have any problems, contrary to reported news? Are you saying they do, but so do the Americans, even though we're not talking about US ships ? Are you saying they had problems, didn't finish the 5th ship, and two are mothballed ( leaving 2 out of what was supposed to be 5 ), because the Soviet Union broke up 30 years ago ? And why are you using their break-up as an excuse ? Why did the Soviet Union break up ? Oh yeah ! They broke up because the 'arms race' required them to spend too much on weapons like the Kirov class, instead of feeding the people. Jesus, it's almost like you weren't alive when the Soviet Union collapsed !

I can’t help but laugh at your continued obsession with Musk. You come across a bit like he sexually assaulted your mother and you’re his bastard child. Even if true, SFN isn’t the place nor is your ranting and raving in this thread the proper method to work through your trauma. Professional therapy would be better if this accurately describes your situation and motivation.

AFAIK you tube videos are not citations, your mileage may vary.

That one's easy. The opposite of Spain is Switzerland! I'm with @MigL on this one too. I would think that the opposite of having superposition is not having superposition.

This is a science site. A majority of the active members have scientific educations, or an extensive interest in science. As such I should be greatly surprised if many of them, perhaps not any of them, failed to accept evolutionary theory, as developed from the original Darwin-Wallace concept, as being the best explanation of the diversity of life on the planet. So evolution is a given, on this forum and in this thread. What this thread is actually about is substantive evidence for an important stage in the evolution of more complex organisms. Empty prattles about personal incredulity have no relevance. Edit: Cross posted with @swansont's mod comment.

Hello! I have not yet analysed all details but initially this looks like a variant of reactionless drive. It is not possible to recycle the fuel. Slowing down the exhaust to recycle fuel will halt the rocket.

Nothing rhetorical about reality. Since no known propulsion system solves dV for large payloads. Mars might as well be a galaxy away. Who says it will happen? We don't have a realistic solution to the propulsion problem. Not even a theoretical one. So what makes you so certain it will EVER be solved and economically? Why credit Musk with anything. Haven't I already demonstrated that all his claims are propaganda? He's done nothing new. He's not the first. He's not the best. His rockets are just beefed up North Korean Rockets. That's not even a joke. It's 1960s tech masquerading as modern. He's still using RP1 FOR F*** Sake.

It's so sad you think Musk will accomplish anything while China quite literally is building a space station in a year.

Look if you think I'm some naysayer you got me wrong. I want to see a huge increase in space travel. But we have MAJOR PROBLEMS. 1) space is worthless. 2) Musk makes dead-end promises. And he's suckered you all into believing it. We NEED a paradigm shift. We NEED to change status quo of propulsion. Musk isn't doing that. We need an ORBITER type space craft. Not more capsules. We need to replace the ISS and China is jumping on the opportunity there. Don't you see what's happening? If China already has a space station when we retire the ISS then how does America justify the building of another one? China is seizing the initiative while Musk is literally a THIEF. I have shown how he is a thief. We even are losing Liquid H2 technology because of Musk. He's using PR1 while China is using H2-LOX. DO YOU REALIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT?

China isn't going for gimmicks. They are going for the Gold. They are using Hydrogen while Musk is pushing for Methane begging to cut costs anywhere he can to look profitable which he isn't. China doesn't care about profit. China's Long March 5B out performs anything SpaceX has. I can give a rat's butt if the rocket can land on a dime. Can it do the job? Right now China's LM5B does the job more than SpaceX's Falcon Heavy. This also is a bunch of lies. The Orbiter was more powerful than Falcon Heavy. The Orbiter had 6.78million pounds of thrust sea level. Falcon Heavy has only 3.4million pounds of thrust sea level. Seriously. Why are you a liar?

You should be concerned if you don't want them to win the next space race. Wtf? Your articles are flat out LYING. Is 6.78million bigger than 3.4million? If their rockets are more powerful than SpaceX's then yes it does mean precisely that. Sounds very naive of you. Like you have no understanding of geopolitics and why things matter.

Yes sure, here is a link to a PDF with all the DATA, but this is something you may wanna see with your eyes to understand it better. https://pdf.ac/6FFHm Very bad start. I thought this was a science forum. It doesn't look like it.