The CMB frame of reference is a physical entity.
Says me, yes.Think about it carefully.When you have, get back to me.
How can magnets attract or repel each other indefinitely without expending energy?
No movement - no impulse. I mean, it is IMHO comparable to a book standing on a table. No-one would imply that the book were to 'violate' impulse conservation in any way . So, what's going on here?
I think one has to be careful when calling found physical principles 'laws'. They are not laws in the absolute sense, as in given by 'God', or being the final answer. The only thing we can say about the principles that we found and verified by peer-reviewed experiments up to any given point in time is: To the best of our current knowledge, this is what happens. A very important point to make.
"But physics can't be bypassed," you say - well who can claim omniscient knowledge of physics? There may be small exploit opportunities which can be exposed here and there.
i have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; a likely possible near term advancement.
Quote from: sghill on 08/14/2014 04:21 pmHow can magnets attract or repel each other indefinitely without expending energy?Nobody completely understands magnetism either.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 08/09/2014 06:13 ami have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; a likely possible near term advancement.Fixed that for ya.It is more likely that fission drive (Boom-boom Orion) is near term than fusion drive. My objection continues to be the careless, unsubstantiated use of the word "likely".As to VASIMR, I'm a mite confused by all of your negatives: It isn't that unlikely? This drive is real, but it has not been scaled to the extent necessary to propel, say, MCT. It is more "likely" to be a "near term advancement" than boom-boom Orion, the way I see it.
Quote from: CW on 08/09/2014 07:42 pmI think one has to be careful when calling found physical principles 'laws'. They are not laws in the absolute sense, as in given by 'God', or being the final answer. The only thing we can say about the principles that we found and verified by peer-reviewed experiments up to any given point in time is: To the best of our current knowledge, this is what happens. A very important point to make.Just want to add the observations of C.S. Peirce, who has suggested quite some time ago, that the "laws" of physics might be "habits", and that they change over time.The gravitational constant, it turns out, is not exactly constant, but appears to vary.I also want to point out that inanimate interpretations of the universe and evolution are as faith based as any other interpretations.
Just wanna add that we understand quantum mechanics "quite well" too. Nobocy claims complete knowledge of QM or magnetism.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 08/18/2014 05:46 pmJust wanna add that we understand quantum mechanics "quite well" too. Nobocy claims complete knowledge of QM or magnetism.No, we understand exactly what's going on in magnetism. We also under QM fully, too, it's just very counter-intuitive. Just because you don't understand it and just because it takes a lot of effort to understand it doesn't mean it isn't understood.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/18/2014 06:02 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 08/18/2014 05:46 pmJust wanna add that we understand quantum mechanics "quite well" too. Nobocy claims complete knowledge of QM or magnetism.No, we understand exactly what's going on in magnetism. We also under QM fully, too, it's just very counter-intuitive. Just because you don't understand it and just because it takes a lot of effort to understand it doesn't mean it isn't understood.Nit picking.We *don't* understand QM fully. It is obviously incomplete.Gravity etc.