EdEarl

What probability of uranium hexafluoride escaping into the environment in the event of a crash? Is not a fusion rocket safer?

It is our innate ability to reason that allows us to postulate formal rules of logic, to hypothesize, to prove, and to communicate. When faced with a task, reason allows us to select a tool that helps, and to realize when a tool does not help. Clearly, QM challenges our ability to understand, because it is not intuitive. Perhaps I am too ignorant to understand your question, because I do not know how to answer it.

Yes, it is a good one.

Suppose you had been around and Ben Franklin had asked you, "Do you think I can learn anything if I fly a kite in a thunderstorm?" Based on knowledge of the times, you know nothing about electricity, and you know lightening sometimes strikes and burns down buildings. What answer would you give? 1) You will revolutionize science. 2) I don't know.

Even if some of the energy from a gyroscope as demonstrated by Laithewaite were used to get into orbit, you do not get something for nothing. The gyroscope will slow down. And, the additional mass of the gyroscope must be lifted into orbit, too. Which means the total energy used is more using a gyroscope than without.

Why are there about 30 space ports around the world that all launch satellites into space using rockets and none use Professor Laithewaite technology? Some like Iran and North Korea would use any better technology to beat the USA.

not true at all. Do you mean it is the terror of speculation.

Prefessor Laithwaite demonstrates gyroscopic action, If he dropped the end he was holding, the axle and spinning weights would fall to the ground. I've done that experiment with a toy gyroscope I got for Christmas when I was about 10 years old, like this one: http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/product/toy-gyroscopes-57079.aspx?src=T13WFSHP2&gclid=CNblgLK9m7gCFe3m7AodHGYA8A.

We are limited practically by materials strength, available power, and money to spend, any one of which prevents us from making a magnet as strong as a magnetar.

A seed contains enough nutrients for a seedling to grow, given some water. But, it cannot continue to grow for long. Try it. Put a seed in a sealed bottle, suck the air out, if you can, and add a few drops of water.

Magnetars have magnetic fields stronger than any on earth.

Perhaps these marine microbes are not recycling plastic. It is possible they merely decimate it, leaving microscopic bits of plastic in the ocean, and elsewhere. On the other hand, life must eat to survive and evolution will favor organisms that find food of any kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/boy-discovers-microbe-that-eats-plastic# http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329075919.htm

David, tyvm for learning to quote. There's more.

The TED Talks videos (on youtube or http://www.ted.com/) are often superb. Many times after watching one I have thought, "This one is the best of all time," yet later find another as good or better.

Today, man is pathetically poor at recycling compared to Nature, who recycles everything she needs. Roots dig into the ground everywhere to recover everything she needs from a highly disorganized system, the ground. They efficiently transport raw materials to trillions of factories, cells, that rebuild Nature day in and day out. Nature is so incredible, she is even recycling the plastisphere. There are many reasons to recycle using the technology we have today, among them the opportunity to improve our recycling technology. However, we must become adept at using nanotechnology before we have the opportunity to rival Nature. The 4D printing era has barely begun. Consider a house constructed by nanotechnology using roots to pull materials from the ground. The plans for the house are on our computer, which commands a 4D nanoprinter to build, maintain, and modify our home. Nanotech mycelium can process trash and waste from our home, and carry it into our garden or use it to maintain the house. Recycling today is important to avoid making a total mess of the planet, and it is practice to better ourselves with Nature our role model.

I think black holes collect more an more mass, with some leaking away as Hawking Radiation. Small black holes are supposed to leak Hawking Radiation faster than larger ones, and the smallest are supposed to evaporate very quickly. AFAIK the closest black hole to be "observed" is the one at the center of the Milky Way. Several locations in Andromeda are suspected to be black holes. With observation difficult, little has been confirmed. http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q7.html http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/06/nasa-finds-unprecedented-black-hole-cluster-near-andromedas-central-bulge/ http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jun/06/monster-gas-cloud-could-unveil-milky-way-s-black-hole-hub

Make a model. Use a spring from a ballpoint and two pieces of small diameter copper pipe, which you can get from a hardware store. Stretch the spring and let go, it will fall, make sure nothing breakable is below your device.

I am not an expert, so cannot answer your questions. In addition to ceramic materials, you may want to consider carbon carbon. Here are a few links from wiki, in case you have not found them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_glaze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_materials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-carbon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_engineering#The_sintering_process http://www.ceramicfiber.net/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_%28ceramics%29 From: http://www.gereports.com/rocket-science/ Also, search youtube for "jet engine ceramic," for example:

I cannot answer your questions, but will give some additional links to similar information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model There are many links from the wiki page on the standard model, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics And, many references and links from all the wiki pages. Also, on youtube presented by Leonard Susskind of Standford University is a lecture series, the first in that series is the following: Search youtube for "leondard susskind lecture standard model"

I think the word incompatible is misleading. QM describes very small scale things, and GR and SR describe very large scale things. They do not describe the same things differently. Thus, they are not incompatible.

I'd be a lousy rancher. I become attached to all the animals I keep, even if they live in a tank.

It may lead to small scale ranching. Just bag the grass clippings and store them in the garage. Toss some of the grass clippings into the mmmeat vat and harvest a bit of beef every day.

I invite everyone to post quotes about communication in this thread, or make one up.