Moontanman

If no testable predictions are possible what use is metaphysics beyond blind speculation?

No I meant "can" not 'can't" and if you could support your ideas with Empirically verifiable evidence my guess is that you already would have.... I would like to see some support for anything other than matter and energy... I'm honestly not sure what you are asserting here. Can you support this assertion? Can you show some support for that idea? Blind speculation? Again, is there is evidence of these assertions? What part of us is non material? The universe has a mind? and this is relevant to reality in what way? Of course... Interesting takes but do any of them have evidence? The mind is defined by the brain, traumatic brain injury pretty much shows this to be true, injury to the brain can change you into a completely different person.. They "decide" ? I see no reason to assume this is evidence that sponges have a mind. This makes no sense with out some enormous presuppositions. Might exist? Lots of things might exist, invisible unicorns might exist....

It did list several ways the reaction could be contained but you must have missed the risk mitigation chapter.... I am beginning to believe this little hobby horse idea isn't even good enough for science fiction. For some reason I was under the impression that radiative transfer of the energy from the reactor would be absorbed particularly well by hydrogen. I was under the impression that the silica wall was transparent to UV and that the hydrogen would absorb it. helium can be added to make the plasma more electrically conductive, the fused silica would have to stay if the hydrogen would be a problem but the magnetic field could hold the plasma away from the walls and floor under acceleration... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_core_reactor_rocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fission_reactor

All I can do is direct you to the articles, my contention is that this new idea of dark matter atoms is similar to the idea of mirror matter, both ideas have been suggested as at least part of what is known collectively as dark matter. Both ideas propose dark stars, dark planets, even dark asteroids. It has also been proposed that some planets that don't seem to be orbiting stars, rouge planets, might be normal matter planets orbiting dark stars... lots of ideas not much evidence...

No... you did that all by your self...

I'm not sure what you are asking.

I think you should see a doctor....

It read to me like this new idea for part of what is called dark matter sounds more than a bit like a warmed over version of mirror matter, in fact mirror matter is expected to form planets stars and other bodies in the same way regular matter does. If the interaction is strong enough it would be possible to use mirror matter to enclose anti-matter since the two would not react with each other. Sadly the interaction would appear to have to be very weak since we don't see much interaction that cannot be explained by normal matter and anti matter. Yes it has been suggested that mirror matter might make up a percentage of the mass in the universe.

I congratulate you for holding your temper. You made this positive assertion You are obligated to back up positive assertions with evidence, please read the forum rules... You brought that up in your post, I responded... I disagree, I suggest you report me to a moderator. Since I was answering your questions I suggest you read the rules and or report me... BTW my views are not limited to "my christian fundamentalist understanding" of religion, that was 50 years ago and i do pay a modicum of attention to what is happening in the world, you asked questions, I answered them.... you made a positive assertion i asked for evidence...

I'm not sure you can depending on the definition of IQ that you use but study study study would seem to be the only possible way.

Well according to the article hydrogen absorbs radiation at this frequency quite strongly. In the article it suggests a fuses silica wall cooled by the hydrogen propellant. My idea is to use a magnetic field to contain the fuel plasma.

You already use 100% of your brain, different parts do different things so using 100% of it at the same time is unlikely.

Well since we can't make a fusion reactor it's difficult to say. We can make a gaseous core fission reactor. Please see the link for safety measures. http://members.shaw.ca/bru_b/Liberty_ship_pg10.html

Heat exchange with the propellant is via radiative exchange. BTW swansonT I am not talking about controlling neutrons via a magnetic field...

First of all much of what you say is just apologetics, either cherry picking the parts you agree with over the parts you do not like or explaining away behaviors that are immoral. Most modern mono theistic religions especially the fundamentalist ones rely heavily on the threat of hell to control their "flock" Religion can, if you truly believe, cause you eternal pain and torment for not doing what ever you are commanded to do. For some of us in this day and age this is a difficult concept, but the New Testament clearly states that non believers will burn in hell. So if you are a true believer then you have to do what ever you are told and all sorts of atrocities were committed by just regular people due to this effect. In the US these fundamentalist groups are taking over mainstream religion or at the very least are driving it from the fringes. In my state the constitution was changed so that homosexuals could be denied their constitutional rights, this is happening all over the country. A few hundred years ago religion was used as an excuse to commit horrific atrocities in the names of god, and the threat of hell fire is why it worked so well. Even in modren times religion is being used this way and the threat of eternal punishment is how it is done. By the way, Lots daughters got preggers by date raping their dad, how can this be dismissed as good? Stop using apologetics to justify the atrocities in the bible, stop defining what it says and read what it really says, when you do this and realize currently a majority of the people are actually promoting this as absolute truth and objective morality it becomes far more problematic. Feel free to point out that wisdom in the bible... Another thing to think of is that lot offered his daughters to a crowd of men to be gang raped to protect angels that were visiting him... really....

Here is the design I am talking about, isp of 3000 seconds, our best chemical rockets are about 450 seconds. http://members.shaw.ca/bru_b/Liberty_ship_pg10.html Now admittedly this style engine has some problems, the biggest of which would be helped greatly if not completely by a magnetic field supporting and confining the plasma. We have made some pretty good strides in magnets just in my lifetime, permanent type magnets to be sure are quite a bit smaller and more powerful than they were capable of 50 years ago, but things like super conductors, and static charge force fields are also up and coming technologies. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/24jun_electrostatics/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7487740/Star-Trek-style-force-field-armour-being-developed-by-military-scientists.html Now I know that neutrons are not affected by these fields but in a space craft the entire engine doesn't have to be shielded just enough to make a neutron shadow that protects the crew. Right now the weight of the individual nucleons prohibit them being contained in a magnetic field but what i want to know are we dealing with technology that can conceivably be built or are magnetic fields of that magnitude prohibited by physics.

How do you know this to be true? Can you give some evidence of this assertion?

Why can't the universe be eternal?

I know this, solid core reactors use the neutrons to heat water but the gaseous core reactor does not. Did you bother to read my link? In this case most of the energy is released as hard UV. I am suggesting a magnetic field to contain the uranium hexifloride plasma, at 25,000 degrees the gas would be a plasma. Possibly static electricity fields could help as well. Yes, the hard UV is converted directly to electricity much like solar panels do visible light. Please elaborate... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fission_reactor My inspiration comes from this article, I have been told it makes some unwarranted assumptions but is relatively accurate in it's broad outlines. http://members.shaw.ca/bru_b/Liberty_ship_menupg.html

How is the underlined assertion determined? Since the length of calendar months varies by as much as 3 days doesn't this present a problem for any realistic calculations based on months?

At the temps of a nuclear light bulb the ions are all charged and most of the energy is emitted as hard UV, neutrons are not used to heat water like a solid core reactor, but the ions are too heavy to be contained by any magnetic field we can currently produce... Hard UV is either absorbed by hydrogen which is expelled to produce thrust or in a stationary reactor the hard UV is used to produce electricity directly (my take at least) through something similar to photovoltaics...

The human race is doomed... http://www.theonion.com/video/new-wearable-computer-also-sucks-your-dick,33017/

I'm not sure how this relates to us generating a magnetic field strong enough to confine a fission reaction. studiot I am thinking of a fission reaction not fusion..

And all this time I thought I was Aquarius... http://www.astrology.com/aquarius-sun-sign-zodiac-signs/2-d-d-66917