| Users Online Now: 1,811 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,053,585 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,835,423 | Threads Today: 712 | Posts Today: 14,079 |
| 08:02 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,811 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,053,585 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,835,423 | Threads Today: 712 | Posts Today: 14,079 |
| 08:02 PM | ||
Propulsion in Space | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 33435073  United States08/22/2015 10:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
APT88
(OP) User ID: 70115498  Australia08/22/2015 10:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| strgzr
User ID: 23484101 United States08/22/2015 10:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| APT88
(OP) User ID: 70115498 Australia08/22/2015 10:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70121054  Russia08/22/2015 11:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, as I said... the concept of knowing anything about 'space' is something I will naver have conclusive evidence about.. other than hearsay... Quoting: APT88 I can attest to seeing certain physics and newtonian laws working in the atmosphere.. I have seen that with my own eyes... Other than that... I can't accept hearsay evidence or video's about inter galactic propulsion, or what space is made up of.. because the evidence I see, is that no human has got that far out there to bring back a 'sample' of the great 'nothingness' that is out there... I can see how theories can assume and make educated 'guesstimates', though at best, they are only as good as watching Star Wars... How can you bring back a sample of the great nothingness? Unfortunately, we have no choice other than exploring baryon matter further as what there is - is exactly that. There is no nothingness, vacuum is not nothingness. Call it a theory or an assumption, but if you reject the obvious - how will you ever find a sufficient answer? |
| APT88
(OP) User ID: 70115498 Australia08/22/2015 11:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, as I said... the concept of knowing anything about 'space' is something I will naver have conclusive evidence about.. other than hearsay... Quoting: APT88 I can attest to seeing certain physics and newtonian laws working in the atmosphere.. I have seen that with my own eyes... Other than that... I can't accept hearsay evidence or video's about inter galactic propulsion, or what space is made up of.. because the evidence I see, is that no human has got that far out there to bring back a 'sample' of the great 'nothingness' that is out there... I can see how theories can assume and make educated 'guesstimates', though at best, they are only as good as watching Star Wars... How can you bring back a sample of the great nothingness? Unfortunately, we have no choice other than exploring baryon matter further as what there is - is exactly that. There is no nothingness, vacuum is not nothingness. Call it a theory or an assumption, but if you reject the obvious - how will you ever find a sufficient answer? Well to me its not that blatantly obvious... and I will probably not find a truly sufficient answer on the evidence.. though I can align with something that sounds logically sound... or even batshit crazy.. depening on the context... maybe the obvious is the 1st rule in the rejection process.. its always there to fall back on if everything else amounts to nothing... 88@@ |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70121054 Russia08/22/2015 11:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, as I said... the concept of knowing anything about 'space' is something I will naver have conclusive evidence about.. other than hearsay... Quoting: APT88 I can attest to seeing certain physics and newtonian laws working in the atmosphere.. I have seen that with my own eyes... Other than that... I can't accept hearsay evidence or video's about inter galactic propulsion, or what space is made up of.. because the evidence I see, is that no human has got that far out there to bring back a 'sample' of the great 'nothingness' that is out there... I can see how theories can assume and make educated 'guesstimates', though at best, they are only as good as watching Star Wars... How can you bring back a sample of the great nothingness? Unfortunately, we have no choice other than exploring baryon matter further as what there is - is exactly that. There is no nothingness, vacuum is not nothingness. Call it a theory or an assumption, but if you reject the obvious - how will you ever find a sufficient answer? Well to me its not that blatantly obvious... and I will probably not find a truly sufficient answer on the evidence.. though I can align with something that sounds logically sound... or even batshit crazy.. depening on the context... maybe the obvious is the 1st rule in the rejection process.. its always there to fall back on if everything else amounts to nothing... So let's then just conclude that propulsion in outer space is more than just possible. Otherwise, humanity will be in deep shit for another, say, 1k years.  As to the process of the rejection of the obvious, etc - I would recommend you to start from this: [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] |
| APT88
(OP) User ID: 70115498 Australia08/22/2015 11:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, as I said... the concept of knowing anything about 'space' is something I will naver have conclusive evidence about.. other than hearsay... Quoting: APT88 I can attest to seeing certain physics and newtonian laws working in the atmosphere.. I have seen that with my own eyes... Other than that... I can't accept hearsay evidence or video's about inter galactic propulsion, or what space is made up of.. because the evidence I see, is that no human has got that far out there to bring back a 'sample' of the great 'nothingness' that is out there... I can see how theories can assume and make educated 'guesstimates', though at best, they are only as good as watching Star Wars... How can you bring back a sample of the great nothingness? Unfortunately, we have no choice other than exploring baryon matter further as what there is - is exactly that. There is no nothingness, vacuum is not nothingness. Call it a theory or an assumption, but if you reject the obvious - how will you ever find a sufficient answer? Well to me its not that blatantly obvious... and I will probably not find a truly sufficient answer on the evidence.. though I can align with something that sounds logically sound... or even batshit crazy.. depening on the context... maybe the obvious is the 1st rule in the rejection process.. its always there to fall back on if everything else amounts to nothing... So let's then just conclude that propulsion in outer space is more than just possible. Otherwise, humanity will be in deep shit for another, say, 1k years. As to the process of the rejection of the obvious, etc - I would recommend you to start from this: [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] Well rejection of the obvious is not rejection of something that is self evident... something that is obvious would be that the sun is up in the sky... this gives no explanation of what the sun actually is.... its self evident that it produces heat.. u can feel it... though its not exactly obvious about how it does so... I would agree that propulsion in outer space is more than likely possible... though not with the current propulsion methods they are 'using' I would be more inclined to believe in anti-gravity propulsion.. Plato and Socrates are my ancestors.. ;) 88@@ |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 68966835 Australia08/22/2015 11:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70121054 Russia08/22/2015 11:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 70121054 How can you bring back a sample of the great nothingness? Unfortunately, we have no choice other than exploring baryon matter further as what there is - is exactly that. There is no nothingness, vacuum is not nothingness. Call it a theory or an assumption, but if you reject the obvious - how will you ever find a sufficient answer? Well to me its not that blatantly obvious... and I will probably not find a truly sufficient answer on the evidence.. though I can align with something that sounds logically sound... or even batshit crazy.. depening on the context... maybe the obvious is the 1st rule in the rejection process.. its always there to fall back on if everything else amounts to nothing... So let's then just conclude that propulsion in outer space is more than just possible. Otherwise, humanity will be in deep shit for another, say, 1k years. As to the process of the rejection of the obvious, etc - I would recommend you to start from this: [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] Well rejection of the obvious is not rejection of something that is self evident... something that is obvious would be that the sun is up in the sky... this gives no explanation of what the sun actually is.... its self evident that it produces heat.. u can feel it... though its not exactly obvious about how it does so... I would agree that propulsion in outer space is more than likely possible... though not with the current propulsion methods they are 'using' I would be more inclined to believe in anti-gravity propulsion.. Plato and Socrates are my ancestors.. ;) Well I think ion thrusters are the way to go for this century. Other than that, the only way to really surf the universe is quantum teleportation - however, to attain to that level humanity should really stop being the destructive force. ;) |
Dr. Astro
Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 55240075 United States08/22/2015 11:51 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Dr. Astro
Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 55240075 United States08/22/2015 11:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| APT88
(OP) User ID: 70115498 Australia08/22/2015 11:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: APT88 Well to me its not that blatantly obvious... and I will probably not find a truly sufficient answer on the evidence.. though I can align with something that sounds logically sound... or even batshit crazy.. depening on the context... maybe the obvious is the 1st rule in the rejection process.. its always there to fall back on if everything else amounts to nothing... So let's then just conclude that propulsion in outer space is more than just possible. Otherwise, humanity will be in deep shit for another, say, 1k years. As to the process of the rejection of the obvious, etc - I would recommend you to start from this: [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] Well rejection of the obvious is not rejection of something that is self evident... something that is obvious would be that the sun is up in the sky... this gives no explanation of what the sun actually is.... its self evident that it produces heat.. u can feel it... though its not exactly obvious about how it does so... I would agree that propulsion in outer space is more than likely possible... though not with the current propulsion methods they are 'using' I would be more inclined to believe in anti-gravity propulsion.. Plato and Socrates are my ancestors.. ;) Well I think ion thrusters are the way to go for this century. Other than that, the only way to really surf the universe is quantum teleportation - however, to attain to that level humanity should really stop being the destructive force. ;) Agree'd on the humanity needing to stop being the destructive force... 88@@ |
| APT88
(OP) User ID: 70115498 Australia08/22/2015 11:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| doglikeRoRuctions
User ID: 30870397 United States08/22/2015 12:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| APT88
(OP) User ID: 70115498 Australia08/22/2015 12:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
