Gas Stations, or....

Vince wrote: Does the Honorverse have flying DeLorean's in it? And if it does, do they come standard with time machines?

What's your definition of a DeLorean? Stainless steel that gets hot a hell in the sun, or gull wing doors?

Brigade XO wrote:It would appear that in the Honoroverse, you can set up an automated Hydrogen harvesting operation in a star system that will store the Hydrogen in a form usable as fuel for starships in some manner of space-based tank farm. Hydrogen is also used as a fuel in a range of things from barbecue grills to pinnacles. In COG we see the Seccie swaps out the grill tanks with seriously high pressure Hydrogen tanks to make his IED.

They also can make a micro-fusion reactor small and safe enough to power( for a while at least) a millitary missile.

I would settle for a Mr. Fusion- guess I will need at least two- to power my house and my car.
Voila --- trash recycling and a really large amount of clean energy at the same time.

A personal, portable, consumer sized fusion reactor. Perhaps Next Christmas?. Will I have to get a permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Then I just need to to be able to connect the DDC system for my trains....

-----------------

Can you say "SL-1"

-- Stewart

stewart wrote:
Can you say "SL-1"

-- Stewart

I wonder how many people will understand that reference.

Alain686 wrote:

stewart wrote:
Can you say "SL-1"

-- Stewart

I wonder how many people will understand that reference.

I do, I do, I do.

Alain686 wrote:

stewart wrote:
Can you say "SL-1"

-- Stewart

I wonder how many people will understand that reference.

Did a quick double-check to make sure it was the incident I thought it was; but yeah I got the reference.

Alain686 wrote:

stewart wrote:
Can you say "SL-1"

-- Stewart

I wonder how many people will understand that reference.

-----------------

Those who know will understand;
Others will Google Search it and learn a small part of the story.

-- Stewart (x-USN Nuc)

SWM wrote:

cthia wrote:Let's divide the universe, whatever its size, into four equal parts. Of the quarter that we're in, how much of our present observation covers it? One percent? Two percent? Five percent? 10? Okay, I'll be very very generous. Verrrrry... Let's say our observation covers half of our quarter of the universe. Do you think that is enough to base our findings on the universe as a whole? That other seventy-five percent?

Thanks for the clarification of what you meant. I still disagree with a few of the points you make, but there's not much point in belaboring them further. But in this paragraph, you have some specific questions that I think you want me to address.

In answer to how much of the universe we have observed in detail? Very little, of course. Observed in sufficient detail to learn about the molecular clouds? Even less. I'd be willing to say that the local galaxies comprise far less than one percent of the entire universe.

But in answer to the question, do I (or other scientists) think that is enough to base findings on the universe as a whole? The answer is yes. Astronomers do think that, statistically, we can determine certain characteristics of the entire universe based on observations of local galaxies. And more specifically, when we have observed a number of nearby galaxies and determined certain statistical characteristics of molecular clouds across all of those galaxies, we can be pretty sure that those same statistical characteristics apply to our own galaxy as well.

It is exactly the same way that a chemist can say he can determine the composition of a tanker full of fluid by analyzing a single drop. The statistics give you a high confidence of accuracy.

Do forgive my bold emblazoning.

SWM, I must admit that I have a real problem with this. You said yourself that the extent of our observation of the universe is significantly less than 1 %. I agree. (Personally, I'd place the opening bid at 10^(-16) of a percent.

My company has an environmental division. We clean up huge leaks from underground, or above ground, major pipelines. When a company contacts us because they fear a leak and want the damage assessed, we stake out a certain area of possible contamination. A very wide area. Within that area, we place monitoring wells at strategic locations encompassing the entire area. It has to be done that way, because the hydrocarbons could pool in a certain area. One location could read a few scant ppm contamination where another location is entirely saturated. It would be in error to assume that a few wells, less than 1 % of a target area, is a representative sample.

(In fact, I recall a major underground pipeline leak. It was an area covering roughly 1.5 square miles. We installed a total of 54 monitoring wells. It was overkill, but we wanted to be thorough (and oil companies are multi-million dollar clients.) We had two technicians responsible for obtaining water samples of the wells. Thirty-two wells came up negative. We take a sample. We test it. Several are taken a day. Then tested. It seemed it was a false alarm. I insisted the remaining wells be tested, even though so far 0 ppm. All the remaining wells showed no contamination except two. The last two. And the technicians lied that they had checked them all. They were fired. I happened to discover it JIT, by happenstance, while training a new technician (a beautiful female straight out of college, so I took it upon myself). The water table had a very steep gradient quickly moving the plume in a specific direction.)

Likewise, if an alien species examined Kuwait, Iran, and Russia's soil strata and assumed its makeup is indicative of Earth would be in grave error. And those areas combined represent a much more significant % of Earth than our present observation of the actual universe.

I simply think that is arrogant of astronomers.

Arrogant, precipitous, harum-scarum, ill-founded, conjecture, heedless, hasty, precipitant, impetuous, going off half-cocked ...

Or just plain ...

Insufficient data.

cthia wrote:

SWM wrote:Thanks for the clarification of what you meant. I still disagree with a few of the points you make, but there's not much point in belaboring them further. But in this paragraph, you have some specific questions that I think you want me to address.

In answer to how much of the universe we have observed in detail? Very little, of course. Observed in sufficient detail to learn about the molecular clouds? Even less. I'd be willing to say that the local galaxies comprise far less than one percent of the entire universe.

But in answer to the question, do I (or other scientists) think that is enough to base findings on the universe as a whole? The answer is yes. Astronomers do think that, statistically, we can determine certain characteristics of the entire universe based on observations of local galaxies. And more specifically, when we have observed a number of nearby galaxies and determined certain statistical characteristics of molecular clouds across all of those galaxies, we can be pretty sure that those same statistical characteristics apply to our own galaxy as well.

It is exactly the same way that a chemist can say he can determine the composition of a tanker full of fluid by analyzing a single drop. The statistics give you a high confidence of accuracy.

Do forgive my bold emblazoning.

SWM, I must admit that I have a real problem with this. You said yourself that the extent of our observation of the universe is significantly less than 1 %. I agree. (Personally, I'd place the opening bid at 10^(-16) of a percent.

My company has an environmental division. We clean up huge leaks from underground, or above ground, major pipelines. When a company contacts us because they fear a leak and want the damage assessed, we stake out a certain area of possible contamination. A very wide area. Within that area, we place monitoring wells at strategic locations encompassing the entire area. It has to be done that way, because the hydrocarbons could pool in a certain area. One location could read a few scant ppm contamination where another location is entirely saturated. It would be in error to assume that a few wells, less than 1 % of a target area, is a representative sample.

(In fact, I recall a major underground pipeline leak. It was an area covering roughly 1.5 square miles. We installed a total of 54 monitoring wells. It was overkill, but we wanted to be thorough (and oil companies are multi-million dollar clients.) We had two technicians responsible for obtaining water samples of the wells. Thirty-two wells came up negative. We take a sample. We test it. Several are taken a day. Then tested. It seemed it was a false alarm. I insisted the remaining wells be tested, even though so far 0 ppm. All the remaining wells showed no contamination except two. The last two. And the technicians lied that they had checked them all. They were fired. I happened to discover it JIT, by happenstance, while training a new technician (a beautiful female straight out of college, so I took it upon myself). The water table had a very steep gradient quickly moving the plume in a specific direction.)

Likewise, if an alien species examined Kuwait, Iran, and Russia's soil strata and assumed its makeup is indicative of Earth would be in grave error. And those areas combined represent a much more significant % of Earth than our present observation of the actual universe.

I simply think that is arrogant of astronomers.

Arrogant, precipitous, harum-scarum, ill-founded, conjecture, heedless, hasty, precipitant, impetuous, going off half-cocked ...

Or just plain ...

Insufficient data.

You are comparing two different things. I said that certain statistical characteristics can be determined with a small sample size.

When an astronomer uses a telescope to examine a star, he is sampling an incredibly tiny amount of the light emitted by that star at a time. Yet, with that tiny sample, he can tell you the temperature, magnetic field, rotation rate, composition, motion, and many other features of that star.

A geologist can tell you the range of densities of granite. Has he analyzed every single piece of granite on Earth? Every single piece of granite in the galaxy? No, he has analyzed only an extremely tiny portion of granite. Yet he can accurately tell you what range of densities granite can be found with.

In the same way, an astronomer can tell you the range of densities of molecular clouds.

You don't need a huge sample size. The sample size you need depends on the variability of the characteristic you are trying to determine. If you increase your sample size by, say, 10 percent, or 40 percent, or whatever, and it does not significantly change the distribution pattern of the characteristic in question, you can be confident that you have a large enough sample size.

This is completely different from your example of testing for contamination. You are talking about testing for the presence or absence of something. I am talking about measuring the distribution pattern in a single characteristic. In my case, you are measuring the characteristic in every sample case. In your case, you are getting zeros most of the time. Scientifically, that does not produce a pattern that you can predict from.

Not all characteristics can be determined from small sample sizes. But some can. As I said, it depends on the variability in the characteristic. If it were not possible to do this, then science itself is impossible. A geologist could not tell you the density of rocks. A doctor could not tell you how a disease spreads. A chemist could not predict what would happen when he mixed two chemicals. No prediction would be possible unless you observed and analyzed everything in half the universe, literally. Determining the range and variability in a characteristic without seeing the entire universe is not arrogance. It is science.

Let me put this more succinctly.

How many calories are in a glass of whole milk? What is the variability? What percentage of the milk in the world has been tested for caloric content?

What is the melting point of sulfur? What percentage of sulfur in the world has been tested for melting point?

What is the breaking point of a 3-inch steel fiber bridge cable? What percentage of steel cables in the world have been tested to the breaking point?

Almost every field of science, technology, engineering, and medicine is based on statistical analysis of sample sizes which are tiny relative to the total available samples. Statistical analysis can tell you when the sample size is sufficient.

cthia wrote:

SWM wrote:Thanks for the clarification of what you meant. I still disagree with a few of the points you make, but there's not much point in belaboring them further. But in this paragraph, you have some specific questions that I think you want me to address.

In answer to how much of the universe we have observed in detail? Very little, of course. Observed in sufficient detail to learn about the molecular clouds? Even less. I'd be willing to say that the local galaxies comprise far less than one percent of the entire universe.

But in answer to the question, do I (or other scientists) think that is enough to base findings on the universe as a whole? The answer is yes. Astronomers do think that, statistically, we can determine certain characteristics of the entire universe based on observations of local galaxies. And more specifically, when we have observed a number of nearby galaxies and determined certain statistical characteristics of molecular clouds across all of those galaxies, we can be pretty sure that those same statistical characteristics apply to our own galaxy as well.

It is exactly the same way that a chemist can say he can determine the composition of a tanker full of fluid by analyzing a single drop. The statistics give you a high confidence of accuracy.

Do forgive my bold emblazoning.

SWM, I must admit that I have a real problem with this. You said yourself that the extent of our observation of the universe is significantly less than 1 %. I agree. (Personally, I'd place the opening bid at 10^(-16) of a percent.

My company has an environmental division. We clean up huge leaks from underground, or above ground, major pipelines. When a company contacts us because they fear a leak and want the damage assessed, we stake out a certain area of possible contamination. A very wide area. Within that area, we place monitoring wells at strategic locations encompassing the entire area. It has to be done that way, because the hydrocarbons could pool in a certain area. One location could read a few scant ppm contamination where another location is entirely saturated. It would be in error to assume that a few wells, less than 1 % of a target area, is a representative sample.

(In fact, I recall a major underground pipeline leak. It was an area covering roughly 1.5 square miles. We installed a total of 54 monitoring wells. It was overkill, but we wanted to be thorough (and oil companies are multi-million dollar clients.) We had two technicians responsible for obtaining water samples of the wells. Thirty-two wells came up negative. We take a sample. We test it. Several are taken a day. Then tested. It seemed it was a false alarm. I insisted the remaining wells be tested, even though so far 0 ppm. All the remaining wells showed no contamination except two. The last two. And the technicians lied that they had checked them all. They were fired. I happened to discover it JIT, by happenstance, while training a new technician (a beautiful female straight out of college, so I took it upon myself). The water table had a very steep gradient quickly moving the plume in a specific direction.)

Likewise, if an alien species examined Kuwait, Iran, and Russia's soil strata and assumed its makeup is indicative of Earth would be in grave error. And those areas combined represent a much more significant % of Earth than our present observation of the actual universe.

I simply think that is arrogant of astronomers.

Arrogant, precipitous, harum-scarum, ill-founded, conjecture, heedless, hasty, precipitant, impetuous, going off half-cocked ...

Or just plain ...

Insufficient data.

SWM wrote:You are comparing two different things. I said that certain statistical characteristics can be determined with a small sample size.

When an astronomer uses a telescope to examine a star, he is sampling an incredibly tiny amount of the light emitted by that star at a time. Yet, with that tiny sample, he can tell you the temperature, magnetic field, rotation rate, composition, motion, and many other features of that star.

A geologist can tell you the range of densities of granite. Has he analyzed every single piece of granite on Earth? Every single piece of granite in the galaxy? No, he has analyzed only an extremely tiny portion of granite. Yet he can accurately tell you what range of densities granite can be found with.

In the same way, an astronomer can tell you the range of densities of molecular clouds.

You don't need a huge sample size. The sample size you need depends on the variability of the characteristic you are trying to determine. If you increase your sample size by, say, 10 percent, or 40 percent, or whatever, and it does not significantly change the distribution pattern of the characteristic in question, you can be confident that you have a large enough sample size.

This is completely different from your example of testing for contamination. You are talking about testing for the presence or absence of something. I am talking about measuring the distribution pattern in a single characteristic. In my case, you are measuring the characteristic in every sample case. In your case, you are getting zeros most of the time. Scientifically, that does not produce a pattern that you can predict from.

Not all characteristics can be determined from small sample sizes. But some can. As I said, it depends on the variability in the characteristic. If it were not possible to do this, then science itself is impossible. A geologist could not tell you the density of rocks. A doctor could not tell you how a disease spreads. A chemist could not predict what would happen when he mixed two chemicals. No prediction would be possible unless you observed and analyzed everything in half the universe, literally. Determining the range and variability in a characteristic without seeing the entire universe is not arrogance. It is science.

Let me not forget to say that I have the utmost respect in you Astronomers. I consider us all colleagues of a sort. Even if I don't agree with some aspects of your profession.

But that's okay. From disagreement is born resolutions. I laugh internally, because I am certain that regarding much of my work you'd think I'm a loon. And part of me is sad that I have to limit my discussions, right when they're getting good. It's a limitation posed by CERN. After certain of my research is published, or not, I'll be free to discuss.

If you recall this, one of my posts, from a previous thread...

"What happens within a black hole for instance? I am currently working on a paper, to be submitted for publication to CERN, on my theories regarding the Schwarzschild radius. Specifically t(0) -> t(7) with most of the fun happening t(1) to t(3). Sorry, subscripts and superscripts not readily handy."

I bring it up, because of something I wish I could discuss at length from this very thread. That nebulas could be hidden. Not only do I think they could be, I'm working on a theory that suggests that an entire galaxy could be hidden! I can imagine the look on your face now.

There's also a related possibility that entire galaxies could be, displaced. By the known phenomena of gravitational lensing, applied to galaxies in the beginning stages of their death throes in conjunction with other phenomena. (Super special, super massive black holes) And I'm coining my own terms here, at length, so I must keep under wraps. But, loosely, it is akin to a sort of cosmic projection. What you see, might not actually be there, on a huge scale. (Sorry, can't proceed any further.)

But, E=MC2. Mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. But energy can. That is the key to my present work. Along with the Schwarzschild solution of course.

Also, I must note. You stated that wormholes may be capable of reaching another 1000ly. I think you are selling wormholes verrry short. With the correct wormhole, a rare, traversable super massive wormhole under the correct conditions could easily encompass 3000+ LYs.

I've mentioned many times my Romanian friends. I have travelled to Romania many times. A few of those occasions was in hopes to hear talks from a very interesting scientist ...

A Reality of Only Information and Energy
One scientist ahead of his time in this area is Mihai Draganescu of Bucharest. In Dr. Draganescu’s view of the world classical concepts such as elementary particles, space, time, material substance, or isolated objects have lost their meaning. Instead he sees a universe and reality whose fabric is woven only of information and energy.

We think alike, he and I.

Theories of wormhole metrics describe the spacetime geometry of a wormhole and serve as theoretical models for time travel. An example of a (traversable) wormhole metric is the following:
ds^2=-c^2dt^2 + dl^2 + (k^2 + l^2)(dΘ^2 + sin^2 Θ dΦ^2)

One type of non-traversable wormhole metric is the Schwarzschild solution:

Ds^2=-c2(1-2GM/rc^2)dt^2+dr^2/1-2GM/rc^2+r^2(dΘ^2+sin^2 Θ dΦ^2

Again, I’ve mentioned my ongoing effort to publish through CERN my theories regarding the Schwarzchild radius. There’s loads of fun there and beyond, or within, depending on your relative viewpoint - side of the event horizon.


I'll leave you with these musings, found within the (almost 26 now) journals of my 13-yr-old niece, herself studying theoretical physics. She will scoff at my including them together, as they are found separately, scribbled on certain pages throughout her journals. Nevertheless ...

There are things to be seen in the universe, things to be imagined too.
Things will become seen if we want them seen and can only imagine them true.
There are things to be seen that remain unseen even should we see them.
There are imagininings that remain unimaginable even should we imagine them.
There are things foretold that remain untold even if we're told them.
There are things to be assumed that remains unassumed even when we assume them.
There are things to be touched that remain untouched even if we touch them.
Should we close our eyes it shall all become clear.
Should we open our hearts it shall all become dear.
— Princess Tierney Jenkins