Geode

B5. ST:TNG, ST:TOS, and -DS9 all close seconds. B5 had an environment ultimately more realistic than that of the Star Trek series'. It also had more genuine conflict, and more interesting aliens with more intricate independent agendas. Geode

B5. ST:TNG, ST:TOS, and -DS9 all close seconds. B5 had an environment ultimately more realistic than that of the Star Trek series'. It also had more genuine conflict, and more interesting aliens with more intricate independent agendas. Geode

It will destroy society, violently. Any such therapeutic process that would allow the body to be perpetuated through replacement of organs and tissues would also be massively expensive. The rich and/or privileged would be the ones who could afford it. The remain 99.99% or so of humanity could not and would probably revolt violently at being effectively put to death by the wealthy/privileged. Already in the US and elsewhere, health care designed only to keep the person going is dramatically expensive. When health care embraces options for extending life through organ and tissue replacement (growing a few cells from one's body into a complete organ or tissue-set, for example) that cost will increase beyond what most anyone can afford. Geode

It will destroy society, violently. Any such therapeutic process that would allow the body to be perpetuated through replacement of organs and tissues would also be massively expensive. The rich and/or privileged would be the ones who could afford it. The remain 99.99% or so of humanity could not and would probably revolt violently at being effectively put to death by the wealthy/privileged. Already in the US and elsewhere, health care designed only to keep the person going is dramatically expensive. When health care embraces options for extending life through organ and tissue replacement (growing a few cells from one's body into a complete organ or tissue-set, for example) that cost will increase beyond what most anyone can afford. Geode

Indeed, what of the moral imperative? Should the unnecessary suffering of millions be allowed to continue because millions of others don't approve whole-heartedly of a process few of them understand to begin with? The argument that this is 'baby killing' is specious at best. A baby is someone who can live independently if removed from the womb, if the one still requires a lot of support. A fetus (where the cells would be coming from) cannot. Feti are aborted daily in this country, anyway. It's legal. It's therefore not 'murder' by reason of legal definition. Geode

Indeed, what of the moral imperative? Should the unnecessary suffering of millions be allowed to continue because millions of others don't approve whole-heartedly of a process few of them understand to begin with? The argument that this is 'baby killing' is specious at best. A baby is someone who can live independently if removed from the womb, if the one still requires a lot of support. A fetus (where the cells would be coming from) cannot. Feti are aborted daily in this country, anyway. It's legal. It's therefore not 'murder' by reason of legal definition. Geode

Whether a star goes nova or supernova is a function of the star's mass, but that's only part of the picture. A star goes nova because it's fusing 'ash' (helium, et al) and is doing so largely as a consequence of gravitational collapse. The rate of collapse is determined by the star's mass, which is why larger stars go nova and smaller ones don't, typically. I'm grossly simplifying, but those are the basics. To induce a star to nova, therefore, one would have to either provoke collapse or provoke rate of fusing. Preferably one should be accomplished in some synchronicity with the other. To do this efficiently, or at all, one would have to: Be able to affect the gravitational constant The same, for the strong nuclear force Have proven the aforementioned to be consequences of a unified field theory and possess the engineering necessary to manipulate space-time according to said theory A species that powerful would probably find it unnecessary to blow up stars, unless they were also a species of malfeasant teenagers. Geode

Whether a star goes nova or supernova is a function of the star's mass, but that's only part of the picture. A star goes nova because it's fusing 'ash' (helium, et al) and is doing so largely as a consequence of gravitational collapse. The rate of collapse is determined by the star's mass, which is why larger stars go nova and smaller ones don't, typically. I'm grossly simplifying, but those are the basics. To induce a star to nova, therefore, one would have to either provoke collapse or provoke rate of fusing. Preferably one should be accomplished in some synchronicity with the other. To do this efficiently, or at all, one would have to: Be able to affect the gravitational constant The same, for the strong nuclear force Have proven the aforementioned to be consequences of a unified field theory and possess the engineering necessary to manipulate space-time according to said theory A species that powerful would probably find it unnecessary to blow up stars, unless they were also a species of malfeasant teenagers. Geode

Interesting. Can you point me toward some links? I don't dispute what you're saying, I want to read the stuff for my own edification. Didn't know about the 90-plus percent of mass that didn't eventually become the Moon, for example. Geode

Experimentally, as noted. Empirically, as well. Certain particles with an established decay rate coming from the sun (if memory serves) are detectable by sensors on the ground, when they should have decayed before reaching the ground. Geode

Clarification; newtons= kilogram*meters/seconds Geode

Force is generally given as either a function of mass for a given velocity or mass for a given acceleration, usually expressed as: F=mv or F=ma Given the parameters of your question, the former equation would be chosen, F=mv (force=mass times velocity). Using the values, F= 80 tons * 236.9312m/s. The result is expressed in terms of newtons (kilograms/meters/sec). Geode

Data processing? I haven't seen anything about this, but if the brain takes care of most of the days' inputs while asleep, and doesn't get enough, it'll start doing the heavy-duty processing while awake. I'd hazard a guess that this would lead to hallucinations. If dreams can be thought of as a form of hallucination, it can be reasoned therefrom that not getting enough sleep might cause the brain to 'dream' while awake. Speaking for myself; when I've had a busy day, when I've engaged myself in learning something new, when I've been doing a lot of writing and/or story-building, when I've used my brain a lot, I sleep longer and harder than when I haven't. I surmise that the brain uses sleep to do the majority of what data-shuffling it needs to do, and when it doesn't get enough it tries to do it when awake. I admit to more or less abject conjecture, I've seen nothing from the pros suggesting this. Maybe I need to get some sleep. Geode

Not nearly enough. For some reason. Geode

Never heard of that one. The design specs for the ISS originally (or eventually) incorporated a lifting-body escape boat that would more or less auto-nav its way to a soft landing, the terminal stage of this descent mediated by a parachute. Geode