Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Just a quick note fusion weapons already exist. What do you think H-bombs are?
    Fusion powered weapons.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by 41b)
    With fusion powered spacecraft we could practicalise constant acceleration so that we could reach alpha centauriy in, if i recall correctly, 100 years or so.
    Constant acceleration? No. As we aproach the speed of light our mass increases thus our acceleration decreases. But maybe a constant velocity. And also due to relativity it may seem like 100 years in the craft but it'd be a lot more in 'earth time'
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by 41b)
    Fusion powered weapons.
    Thus your last point is invalid.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Constant acceleration? No. As we aproach the speed of light our mass increases thus our acceleration decreases. But maybe a constant velocity. And also due to relativity it may seem like 100 years in the craft but it'd be a lot more in 'earth time'
    You got that the wrong way around, and actually, given the still very low speeds the effect will be relatively minor, it's <0.05c you'll be looking at less than a year difference, in fact, actually, you're looking at something like a month
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    We can't afford to go back to the moon... how on earth are we going to afford mining the solar system for resources? Neo-liberalism isn't going to pay for it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    We can't afford to go back to the moon... how on earth are we going to afford mining the solar system for resources? Neo-liberalism isn't going to pay for it.
    There is a distinct difference between being unable to afford something and being unwilling to pay for something. Becuase I don't want to buy, say, an aubergine does that mean I cannot afford one? Of course not. And if you think that the private sector, globally, shows no interest in such things you're very far behind the times.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You got that the wrong way around, and actually, given the still very low speeds the effect will be relatively minor, it's <0.05c you'll be looking at less than a year difference, in fact, actually, you're looking at something like a month
    No I didn't. :erm:
    and yes it would be just under 0.05c given his 100 years and unfortunately I do not know how to calculate the time time dilation. However you are still speaking about over 200 years to go to our nearest neighbour mine and come back to earth with enough minerals. That would be a tremendous cargo and seeing as we can't realistically move the whole of the human population to our solar neighbour we are talking about multi-generational ships and they might not even return.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Killsworth)
    Can only recommend that you ready the manifesto coming out in the next couple of months rather than this column from the Telegraph.
    No, the Greens are that nuts. Quote from their leader Natalie Bennett; "To be poor in India wasn’t so bad as to be on benefits in Britain", she suggested, ‘because at least everyone else there is poor too’".

    Yup. That's the type of logic people will be voting for.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Thus your last point is invalid.
    It is? I didn't realise we had to blow up hydrogen bombs inside our spaceships to be able to mount fusion generator powered railguns on our spaceships. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Well we could only realistically get to the asteroid belt and sure we could land on the asteroid but we couldn't send anything up which is big enough to mine significant amounts of minerals and then how many rovers do you know which have come back to earth? The issue is with launching off of a body which has no air thus nothing to push up against.

    What at might they be?
    Aph, you haven't denied that it's impossible suggesting you know it's possible. Even the moon for goodness sake is somewhere we could be mining resources. Bases would have to be made most likely on the asteroids/the moon but still it is within humanity's remit to mine on other solar system bodies. Hence resources are hardly limited in the short-term / medium-term.

    Something's which I found interesting during the interview :

    The Green's financial incompetency - how they want a universal income (unfunded) even with a wealth tax which doesn't cover enough of the costs (by a large substantial amount). This would mean the Greens would have to borrow money which is dangerous if it can't be payed back in large proportions - just go look at Greece. They want open borders with the world so we could see a hell of a lot more immigrants incited to come here for the free income. Their response is : "we have a duty as a rich country" - no we don't and at the end of the day if we don't have the money you can't legislate such looney proposals. In addition, they want to scrap the tax allowance, so poor families could be poorer under the Greens. This is all of course in addition to the increases in foreign aid ,renewable energy and re-nationalisation that they want introduce.

    Then we have defence. They want to scrap Trident, scrap a large portion of the armed forces & then allow people to join Al-Qaeda and terrorist groups in the Uk legally. So not only will we have more Islamic extremists to deal with we won't have the armed forces to deal with them. It's just ludicrous and national security in this country will be a hell of a lot worse than it is currently.


    So in conclusion : the greens are worse than UKIP (or on par with). If you get them in power the average Brit will most likely be poorer under them and future generations will have to pick up the bill on the spending spree (probably worse than New Labour and the Tories). Our economy would be in ruins and our security in tatters. In principle I think all of us agree with their proposals but the mind should always overrule the heart. If you don't have the money you shouldn't be proposing such crazy things, it's just too populist and lacks sense financially. I have no doubt that in the next year or two Greece will be asking for another election to get rid of their Syriza party, who are promising things that they can't deliver.





    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    What is the solar system's purpose, if not to support life? It won't last forever; Sol will go nova soon enough. As humanity spreads across the galaxy, we will bring with us most of the Earth's biosphere, ensuring its survival.
    Wow. Some kind of 'earth supremacist' it seems wrong to me. Plus even the universe has limits. On it's resources.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Wow. Some kind of 'earth supremacist' it seems wrong to me. Plus even the universe has limits. On it's resources.
    What next? People for the Ethical Treatment of Europa's Fish?

    I wish these sense-illiterate types could be sent on the first colony ship to Alpha Centauri to try out their ideas, without any support from us vile Earth Supremacists.

    Have you heard of recycling? We are more likely to ascend into beings of pure energy than run of resources. And we probably will ascend into beings of pure energy before we run out resources. Enjoy living in the mud huts and eating each other during lean times.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Aph, you haven't denied that it's impossible suggesting you know it's possible. Even the moon for goodness sake is somewhere we could be mining resources. Bases would have to be made most likely on the asteroids/the moon but still it is within humanity's remit to mine on other solar system bodies. Hence resources are hardly limited in the short-term / medium-term.

    Something's which I found interesting during the interview :

    The Green's financial incompetency - how they want a universal income (unfunded) even with a wealth tax which doesn't cover enough of the costs (by a large substantial amount). This would mean the Greens would have to borrow money which is dangerous if it can't be payed back in large proportions - just go look at Greece. They want open borders with the world so we could see a hell of a lot more immigrants incited to come here for the free income. Their response is : "we have a duty as a rich country" - no we don't and at the end of the day if we don't have the money you can't legislate such looney proposals. In addition, they want to scrap the tax allowance, so poor families could be poorer under the Greens. This is all of course in addition to the increases in foreign aid ,renewable energy and re-nationalisation that they want introduce.

    Then we have defence. They want to scrap Trident, scrap a large portion of the armed forces & then allow people to join Al-Qaeda and terrorist groups in the Uk legally. So not only will we have more Islamic extremists to deal with we won't have the armed forces to deal with them. It's just ludicrous and national security in this country will be a hell of a lot worse than it is currently.


    So in conclusion : the greens are worse than UKIP (or on par with). If you get them in power the average Brit will most likely be poorer under them and future generations will have to pick up the bill on the spending spree (probably worse than New Labour and the Tories). Our economy would be in ruins and our security in tatters. In principle I think all of us agree with their proposals but the mind should always overrule the heart. If you don't have the money you shouldn't be proposing such crazy things, it's just too populist and lacks sense financially. I have no doubt that in the next year or two Greece will be asking for another election to get rid of their Syriza party, who are promising things that they can't deliver.





    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Make your mind up - first of all you say all the immigrants will be attracted here because of our economy under the Greens, then you say that under the Greens the economy will be ruined - wouldn't that mean less immigration??? It's one or the other.

    People are turning to left wing parties, because they've clocked on to the fact the austerity that has been imposed on us is affecting our lives whilst the elites get richer and more powerful.

    Remember it was the financial incompetence of various right wing governments around the world that got us into this mess in the first place, someone has to stick up for the masses.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    No I didn't. :erm:
    you might have, who the 100 years for was unclear, but as said, pretty much irrelevant

    [/quote]and yes it would be just under 0.05c given his 100 years and unfortunately I do not know how to calculate the time time dilation.[/quote]
    \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}} with \beta=\frac{v}{c}
    t'=\gamma t
    Run the figures and it comes out at about a month, strictly, one and a half

    However you are still speaking about over 200 years to go to our nearest neighbour mine and come back to earth with enough minerals. That would be a tremendous cargo and seeing as we can't realistically move the whole of the human population to our solar neighbour we are talking about multi-generational ships and they might not even return.
    But that's purely on tech that is possibly feasible in the near future, you need to remember that there is still this solar system to clear first which, excluding the sun, has a mass about equivalent to 500 Earths, most of which is admittedly the likes of Jupiter and Saturn, but there is still a hell of a lot of rocks out there, the main asteroid belt is estimated to have a mass of about 3x1021Kg, although, to be fair, that's only 4% of the moon, and we have a good idea what most of the asteroids are made of too.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Aph, you haven't denied that it's impossible suggesting you know it's possible. Even the moon for goodness sake is somewhere we could be mining resources. Bases would have to be made most likely on the asteroids/the moon but still it is within humanity's remit to mine on other solar system bodies. Hence resources are hardly limited in the short-term / medium-term.
    yes mining the moon is posible but can you imagine the uproar it'd create. And asteroids are much more difficult and you couldn't really use rovers to mine an asteroid with significant yield.
    The Green's financial incompetency - how they want a universal income (unfunded) even with a wealth tax which doesn't cover enough of the costs (by a large substantial amount). This would mean the Greens would have to borrow money which is dangerous if it can't be payed back in large proportions - just go look at Greece. They want open borders with the world so we could see a hell of a lot more immigrants incited to come here for the free income. Their response is : "we have a duty as a rich country" - no we don't and at the end of the day if we don't have the money you can't legislate such looney proposals. In addition, they want to scrap the tax allowance, so poor families could be poorer under the Greens. This is all of course in addition to the increases in foreign aid ,renewable energy and re-nationalisation that they want introduce.
    a universal income is a really good idea not only does it increase happiness and productivity but it also encourages people to take a wider part in society and would likely result in less petty crime.

    Then we have defence. They want to scrap Trident, scrap a large portion of the armed forces & then allow people to join Al-Qaeda and terrorist groups in the Uk legally. So not only will we have more Islamic extremists to deal with we won't have the armed forces to deal with them. It's just ludicrous and national security in this country will be a hell of a lot worse than it is currently.
    well no we won't have more Islamic extremists because these people will have held these veiws either way but we will actually know who they are which is good right?
    But I can't defend scrapping trident.

    So in conclusion : the greens are worse than UKIP (or on par with). If you get them in power the average Brit will most likely be poorer under them and future generations will have to pick up the bill on the spending spree (probably worse than New Labour and the Tories). Our economy would be in ruins and our security in tatters. In principle I think all of us agree with their proposals but the mind should always overrule the heart. If you don't have the money you shouldn't be proposing such crazy things, it's just too populist and lacks sense financially. I have no doubt that in the next year or two Greece will be asking for another election to get rid of their Syriza party, who are promising things that they can't deliver
    i don't think money is everything and I can't see why you think they are worse then UKIP. Plus I think social mobility will be better under a green government with the wealth gap reduced.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    so what ur telling me is i'm either voting for:

    - a bunch of toff sociopaths who're completely out of touch with the struggles of the working class
    - a bunch of slightly less toff sociopaths who're still completely out of touch with the struggles of the working class but believe they're a bit nicer (read: we have more women and minorities so we can't be as bad)
    - a bunch of borderline neo-nazi's who have members who believe floods were caused by homosexuals
    - a bunch of utopian idealistic vegans who's economic policy is basically to give up money and trade in blades of grass
    - a bunch of people who're completely happy to become a punching bag for the toff sociopaths and cannot be trusted to deliver anything they say ever

    excellent
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    Make your mind up - first of all you say all the immigrants will be attracted here because of our economy under the Greens, then you say that under the Greens the economy will be ruined - wouldn't that mean less immigration??? It's one or the other.

    People are turning to left wing parties, because they've clocked on to the fact the austerity that has been imposed on us is affecting our lives whilst the elites get richer and more powerful.

    Remember it was the financial incompetence of various right wing governments around the world that got us into this mess in the first place, someone has to stick up for the masses.
    No I didn't, I said immigrants would come for the free income, not the economy, please learn the difference. Also near to no border controls means most likely more people coming to the country and not being turned away.

    Austerity I'm afraid is necessary to some degree. Borrowing is not sustainable in the long-term and measures have to be taken to stop it. If you take money out it has to be paid back. And no, it wasn't right-wing governments across the world that brought us into the recession, Labour were the ones who were in power for 10+ years prior to 2008. And what do you expect? Austerity not to affect people's lives? Policies to not affect people's lives? Do you support no government or something?

    I want inequality to be tackled via giving companies their workers the living wage tax-cuts. There are measures that can be taken to reduce inequality in the country, but the blame game (blame the bankers, blame the elite) doesn't help at all. Another good reason not to vote greens this year.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    you might have, who the 100 years for was unclear, but as said, pretty much irrelevant
    \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}} with \beta=\frac{v}{c}
    t'=\gamma t
    Run the figures and it comes out at about a month, strictly, one and a half
    ok thank you I guess the time dilation isn't an issue.


    But that's purely on tech that is possibly feasible in the near future, you need to remember that there is still this solar system to clear first which, excluding the sun, has a mass about equivalent to 500 Earths, most of which is admittedly the likes of Jupiter and Saturn, but there is still a hell of a lot of rocks out there, the main asteroid belt is estimated to have a mass of about 3x1021Kg, although, to be fair, that's only 4% of the moon, and we have a good idea what most of the asteroids are made of too.
    Yes, but collecting the asteroids is a massive challenge the only way I could see to do it would be to sling shot around Jupiter but the rock would still likely burn up on re-entry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    you might have, who the 100 years for was unclear, but as said, pretty much irrelevant

    and yes it would be just under 0.05c given his 100 years and unfortunately I do not know how to calculate the time time dilation.
    \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}} with \beta=\frac{v}{c}
    t'=\gamma t
    Run the figures and it comes out at about a month, strictly, one and a half


    But that's purely on tech that is possibly feasible in the near future, you need to remember that there is still this solar system to clear first which, excluding the sun, has a mass about equivalent to 500 Earths, most of which is admittedly the likes of Jupiter and Saturn, but there is still a hell of a lot of rocks out there, the main asteroid belt is estimated to have a mass of about 3x1021Kg, although, to be fair, that's only 4% of the moon, and we have a good idea what most of the asteroids are made of too.
    Yes exactly. We could go to the furthest extent of our solar system in no time at all. This portends a great boon in intrasolarsystemic mining.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    ok thank you I guess the time dilation isn't an issue.



    Yes, but collecting the asteroids is a massive challenge the only way I could see to do it would be to sling shot around Jupiter but the rock would still likely burn up on re-entry.
    Ummm, you don't bring them back to earth, you mine them where they are, or change their orbit to a more convenient one, and then bring what you mine back. On the larger ones you literally just bring back the processed goods, or at least partly processed. In essence, you set up the whole mine and processing facility in space, or at least when done on a large scale
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.