Myuncle

It's not just the water but it's very difficult to work when there are incredibly hot temperatures. Even camels now refuse long walks in the desert because of the increasing heat, they have to replace camels with trucks in certain places now. Who's going to maintain the giant space mirrors? I am not an expert but I suppose if all the satellites in orbit don't have any problems with maintainance or debris I suppose the same should be for space mirrors. If nobody complains about satellites why should we complain about space mirrors?

Exactly, if all the nations want to make the effort they could do it easily, each nation has got to agree and collaborate to the project. It's like wearing sunglasses in the sunshine to protect yourself, you can survive even without sunglasses but you just feel more comfortable if you wear them. We can survive without space mirrors but why not to try them? And if something goes wrong they would be easy to remove anyway.

But how can you give them education? You need schools, good teachers etc. You can't just give them an iPad and allow them to self-educate without water. I know water it's nothing without education and democracy, but it's the first step anyway.

Water is the basis for any economy. Water means agriculture, agricultere means food, food means wealth, wealth means education. How can you get an education without water? Which one of them come first?

Why in USA and Europe people can afford an education? Because they are wealthy countries. And why are they wealthy? Because of cool weather and water (and democracy....ok... In Russia they had water and cool weather for a long time but Communism was the problem...). So I agree with you that you need education to break poverty, but how can you can get an education if there is poverty? Space mirrors would bring water, cool weather and wealth, wealth will bring education at the same time. Imagine the Sahara desert disappearing and becoming a green grass to welcome all the people from overcrowded nations, that would be amazing.

I don't think teaching suicide it's necessarily positive, but what I find disgusting is that since we are born they teach us that we have to live at any cost, even if we don't like it.

So what happened to this thread and poverty?

I believe in the future stem cells will cure everything and stop the aging process, and I also think that any mammal travelling at high speed would be affected by failing organs and a weaker immune system (just my opinion). So, two people of the same age are on Earth. They are identical twins, twin A and twin B, they are 20 years old. Twin A boards a spaceship and begins to travel near the speed of light, Twin B remains on earth. 40 years later Twin B, still on earth is now 60 years old but thanks to stem cells he looks and functions still like a 20 years old. Twin A has just returned to Earth and (unless he died in the first few hours) he looks much older than Twin A because he didn't take any stem cells. Any thought on this? Thanks.

Now after this thread you will be under the illusion that GR makes sense, but 10 years later you will understand that you were just fooling yourself...

great posting!

They were planning them to fight global warming, I think space mirrors are much closer then we think.

that would be a good idea.

I leave the job to the experts, but I don't see any side effects coming up with giant mirrors, only positive effects. I know there are other ways to make poverty history (good politics, free condoms like free newspapers). But in the long term harsh weather conditions will always be a pain in the neck, so the quickest way to make poverty history I think it's in these space mirrors.

That's very simple. I am not looking for any recognition or patent. The poor countries are those affected by too hot weather. Too hot weather means too harsh conditions and no water. Harsh conditions and lack of water means poverty. So the solution is to cool down the hot areas with giant space mirrors. This will bring to them the same amount of water and richness you see in the western world. Yes, giant space mirrors is the solution, what are they waiting for??

After the discovery of radioactivity in 1897 it was well known that the total energy due to radioactive processes is about one million times greater than that involved in any known molecular change. The existence of a huge amount of latent energy, stored within matter, was proposed by Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy in 1903. Rutherford also suggested that this internal energy is stored within normal matter as well.

Thanks Paul, I tried already with these kind of examples, they make you go like " Oh yes, now I understand it !", but they just give me the illusion that it makes sense, I prefer to be more realistic and think that I am not clever enough rather than pretending to understand.

Thanks Serena, but you see, I find it difficult to understand for example the twin paradox, and to understand what Einstein said that others didn't before him, here is my rant... Travelling clocks: the quality of the original results has been criticized in 1996 by A. G. Kelly, and Louis Essen (the inventor of the atomic clock) in 1988 in which he discussed the inadequate accuracy of the previous experiments. Also one thing is a clock, another thing is human travelling near speed of light, all the opposite could happen: wrinkled skin, failing organs, weaker immune system, etc. Mercury's orbit: why don't we go back and give more credit to Le Verrier? In 1859, Le Verrier was the first to report that the slow precession of Mercury’s orbit around the Sun could not be completely explained by Newtonian mechanics and perturbations by the known planets. He suggested, among possible explanations, that another planet (or perhaps, instead, a series of smaller 'corpuscules') might exist in an orbit even closer to the Sun than that of Mercury, to account for this perturbation. Lasers: why don't we talk about Townes and Schawlow? In 1954 Charles Townes and Arthur Schawlow invented the maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation), using ammonia gas and microwave radiation - the maser was invented before the (optical) laser. The technology is very close but does not use a visible light. Gravitational lensing: Orest Chwolson is credited as being the first to discuss the effect in print in 1924, the effect is more commonly associated with Einstein (wonder why...), who published a more famous article on the subject in 1936. The speed of light: is constant, fair enough, but Ole Rømer first demonstrated that it travelled at a finite speed in the 17th century, I find it much more fascinating than Einstein, that's all I need to know, all the other examples about the twin or two astronauts in space make no sense to my limited intelligence. Things change of course when travelling near speed of light, but no man has ever travelled at that speed, not even ants. It looks like Einstein has been pumped up by the media, he has been accredited for things he didn't do at all. Sometimes I think that kids are much better scientists, you can't fool them, they have less prejudices than adults, if something doesn't make sense to them they don't hesitate to show it to you. If you try explaining the relativity to 10 years old kids they probably are going to suggest that this makes no sense, you can keep talking about examples of the twins, and they will tell you that it doesn't make sense to them. But if you explain Darwin, Edison or Newton the kids understand it pretty well and feel even excited about it. Just my modest view, not because I hate Einstein, but just because I am interested in the truth and nothing but the truth, and sorry for the rant

Speed of light is constant, ok, what does the Relativity has to add to that? I find it hard to believe that after so many years there are so many people (including me..) that don't understand this theory, I mean are we all so stupid and just a few genius can afford to understand it? And yet if I read a simplyfied explanation I always find it doesn't make sense...

Has anyone thought or tried an experiment with ants (or much smaller creatures) travelling at very high speed? Are they going to age slower or faster? Is it feasible? Would this be enough to prove Einstein right or wrong?

Sometimes I think that kids are much better scientists, you can't fool them, they have less prejudices than adults, if something doesn't make sense to them they don't hesitate to show it to you. If you try explaining the relativity to 10 years old kids they probably are going to suggest that this makes no sense, you can keep talking about examples of the twins, or the astronauts in space and they will tell you that it doesn't make sense to them. But if you explain Darwin, Edison or Newton the kids understand it pretty well and feel even excited about it. Ok, I rest my case, I will keep studying Relativity but for now I am quite disappointed. All I said might be pure rubbish of course, I am not sure of anything I said, but for the moment that's I what I felt like writing, that was my reaction when reading Einstein.

Why do you say that? If Einstein wasn't so pumped up by the media you wouldn't say that.

Thanks for your replies. Are we sure lasers are a result of Einstein work? In 1954 Charles Townes and Arthur Schawlow invented the maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation), using ammonia gas and microwave radiation - the maser was invented before the (optical) laser. The technology is very close but does not use a visible light. I suppose they did it without Einstein need, the same way someone did the atom bomb without his help. Am I right? Regarding math, I think that its function is to make this world simpler and more comfortable rather than more complicated, that's how math was born, and even animals use math, if they want 3 bananas and you give them 2 they will use math to support their theories. Unfortunately many scientists use math to intimidate you and support their useless books. The same can be said for the spoken language, its function is to communicate, and many politicians and philosophers use it for different purpose. Both Math and spoken language shouldn't be used as a weapon.

Why anytime I ask explanations about it I hear always the same excuses "if I don't understand it's because it's too complicated...blah blah". Why nobody can explain Einstein easily or simply? There is nothing difficult in this world if someone explain it properly. This theory sounds like useless bombast. I haven't seen any fact yet, not a single acceptable proof. There is nothing to understand because there is no substance, just castles in the air. Nothing of what he said has been clearly proven. All we got now it's not because of Einstein: computers, rockets, fridges, televisions, robots, electricity, cars, radio. Why everybody understand Darwin, Marconi, Newton? Because they said clever things with substance. In Einstein I see no substance. Did we go to the moon thanks to Einstein?