Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
So, by the looks of the images, can we say that the "tail feathers" blew off after the initial explosion?

Actually, these pictures raise questions as to whether there was even an 'explosion' in the classical meaning of the word. Catastrophic depression of the NO2 system seems just as likely.
2
XmasX is on it's way!
Hmm sounds like something David Masten would use for a name  :-\
3
n terms of a similar mission profile, this was last achieved by Zond 8 which returned on 27 October 1970, just over 44 years ago.

I remember... I was a one month old small lump of cells back then ;)
4
So, by the looks of the images, can we say that the "tail feathers" blew off after the initial explosion?
5
I think I found it. Anyone want to head over to River Rd in Morgan City and see if they see any SpaceX vehicles around there?

It's in both Bing and Google Maps:

edit: I don't mean that this is where it's being built, but maybe it's where they took them to line them up. It could just be a storage space though.
6

plus the limitations of having to consider the weather out at sea all the time. Having to take into account the weather in one location is bad enough.

What says this is going to be used more than a couple of launches?

Using a barge for tee t purposes as your are implying is fine, but look at the context of my comment.
7
A few pages back, there was a similar discussion to this above that went on awhile and also included some posts from me. What I want to know is; how come all that was deleted and this similar thing is arising again?! I mean; I consider the current questions/discussion legitimate and all, so I would like much of this to remain, so others don't get similarly censored...

I'm not 100% sure you were referring to my comment but note I removed the part of it spreading some debate. If this is the case I encourage you and others to do the same. I will cancel this message too in an hour or so.
8
Advanced Concepts / Re: EM Drive Developments
« Last post by Mulletron on Today at 07:38 AM »
Did I mention that every time someone mentions Unruh Radiation and Emdrive in the same sentence, a cute bunny gets it? Seriously though, a kid reading this forum is going to have his/her ideas about science all jacked up because of the enduring false info that keeps being perpetuated around here because it is popular, or some PhD sponsors it. I know back when I was a little feller, I ate this space and physics stuff up as fast as I could get my hands on it. I'm lucky internet forums weren't around back then.

A photon doesn't experience Unruh Radiation. Accelerate a massive object toward C and it might experience Unruh Radiation (if it exists). A photon is simply a disturbance in the electromagnetic field that propagates at C. The photon is the force carrier of that disturbance. It doesn't accelerate to get to C. It is always at C.

Is anything I'm posting here being taken seriously? I'm not making this stuff up. I get the sense that the truths I speak here are being blackballed in favor of fantasy or popular opinion which aren't even close to science. Um, science isn't democratic and opinion doesn't matter. Just the facts matter.

We were probably on the right track with modified inertia, but a monster got created out of it. Light doesn't even have inertia. You can't modify the inertia of light. Light has momentum, but not inertia. You can modify the inertia of all the other stuff which has mass inside that copper can, but not the RF. Leave light alone and start applying MiHsC in the right direction, to the particles in the copper can which actually have inertia. It is being applied bass ackwards right now. Then lets hope that copper cans can actually modify inertia a little bit in the first place. We're already on thin ice trying to mess with inertia.

The whole reason modified inertia came into being in this forum is directly from the factual knowledge that the symmetry of space directly informs our conservation laws, and that the asymmetry of the copper cavity may very very slightly modify that symmetry of space, thus possibly allowing an inertial bias of the matter (dielectric/air) within the cavity. Not the rf. Don't believe me? Look back in time in this thread and see when I starting going on about inertia.

Later it was discovered that the asymmetry of the cavity wasn't even needed/nor was modified inertia, because of new information found regarding the behavior of chiral dielectrics.

So that whole MiHsC can of worms, which required messing with EEP right here on Earth, wasn't needed anymore. That is a good thing for the sake of the theory. MiHsC could be returned to the realm of low accelerations at galactic scales where it belonged. MiHsC is no less important. It simply isn't useful here on Earth. I'd hate to see the rest of the scientific world poo poo a perfectly good theory because it was applied too broadly and lost credibility. Especially if it is applied incorrectly to light.

Well anyway I'm not here to be popular. I'm here to look at the facts and use all available information to figure things out. All while not tricking myself or pushing I believe buttons.

If the above doesn't apply to you, please disregard.

If I got my science wrong, please correct me.

Respectfully,
Mulletron
9
XmasX is on it's way! 
10
A few pages back, there was a similar discussion to this above that went on awhile and also included some posts from me. What I want to know is; how come all that was deleted and this similar thing is arising again?! I mean; I consider the current questions/discussion legitimate and all, so I would like much of this to remain, so others don't get similarly censored...
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next